MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES
CONTENTS
Tuesday 6 February 1996
Ministry of Education and Training
Hon John Snobelen, Minister
Richard Dicerni, deputy minister
Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister, open learning and training
Ministry of Community and Social Services
Hon David S. Tsubouchi, Minister
Sandra Lang, deputy minister
Sue Herbert, assistant deputy minister, program management
Kevin Costante, assistant deputy minister, social assistance
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)
*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Brown, Jim (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)
*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC)
*Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)
*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Rollins, E.J. Douglas (Quinte PC)
*Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)
Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND) for Mr Bisson
Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND) for Mr Bisson
Preston, Peter (Brant-Haldimand PC) for Mr Jim Brown
Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre L) for Mr Michael A. Brown
Baird, John (Nepean PC) for Mr Clement
Boushy, Dave (Sarnia PC) for Mr Rollins
Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC) for Mr Sheehan
Gilchrist, Steve (Scarborough East / -Est) for Mr Wettlaufer
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Ecker, Janet, parliamentary assistant to Minister of Community and Social Services
Clerk pro tem / Greffièr par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel: Poelking, Steve, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0905 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): We resume the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training. We left off yesterday where the Liberals had concluded their 30 minutes. Now we're at the NDP and Mr Wildman.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I would like to proceed very briefly with regard to the issues relating to class size and preparation time. The issues we were discussing before raise a number of concerns. I don't know whether the minister recalls a letter to him from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, Ms Cansfield, dated January 9, the same date as the infamous document, which I'll be referring to in a moment.
Before I go to that, I'd like to deal specifically with a letter addressed to Mr Mike Benson, executive director of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, dated December 15, 1995, from B.H. Stewart, QC, of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie, barristers and solicitors. The subject of the letter is increasing teacher productivity. It's quite a long, lengthy legal opinion and I won't go through the whole thing, but on page 3 of this letter, Mr Stewart says:
"While there appears to be ample scope for the government prescribing the changes required with respect to preparation time, there is no power to interfere with the staffing provisions of collective agreements without the passage of legislation, unless it is done indirectly through grant regulations. In other words, it is possible to reduce preparation time during the instructional program by regulation, but to achieve savings it will be necessary to reduce the number of teachers a board is required to employ.
"Moreover, if the regulatory power is utilized, it can be expected there will be a legal challenge initiated by the affiliates or the Ontario Teachers' Federation.
"This is not the sort of change that is going to sneak by in a regulation. Indeed, the better course would appear to be to present the matter openly in the Legislature and to justify changes there."
He goes on to talk about the length of the teacher day, the length of the teacher year, but specifically, he also deals with the need to deal with collective agreements, as preparation time until now, as he points out, has been dealt with through free collective bargaining. While he does admit, as I indicated in my quote, that that could be changed through a regulatory approach, it doesn't save any money because you still have the same number of teachers; the board just has to figure out what to do with them.
In order to save money, since we are now involved in a taxpayer-centred education system, rather than a student-centred education system, as Mr Stewart says, legislation is probably the best and most honest and open route. He talks specifically about the various sections and pieces of legislation and regulation that would have to be changed, in Bill 100 and so on, that would make it possible for the government to require boards essentially to lay off teachers and to change any provisions in collective agreements that have been negotiated by teachers' federations and boards up to now to protect teachers from such layoffs. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us when and if he intends to move forward on the legislative route.
Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): First, as the honourable members knows, I've been involved in the service of government for a very short period of time, but in that time I've found it interesting to note the scope and variety of profound opinions that come from eminent persons learned in the law, and I continue to be amazed at the scope and variety of such opinions.
As we have said previously, and I'd like to restate, there have been submissions made to the ministry with regard to a variety of methods of reducing the cost, particularly the out-of-classroom cost, of education across the province, and we are considering all of those options and all of those things that have been suggested to us, including the number of hours per day that teachers spend in the classroom in contact with young people.
I am troubled by one of the member's statements, and I'd like a little clarification. Are you suggesting, sir, that taxpayers shouldn't be an element of or a consideration in any way in the publicly funded system, that they should have no voice, no say, no consideration? Is that your suggestion?
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, I was under the impression that we asked the questions and the minister answered, but I'm quite happy to answer a question.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Please.
Mr Wildman: As I said in my opening remarks, obviously taxpayers are a central part of the education system, as they pay for it --
Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you. That clarifies the point.
Mr Wildman: -- but we should be striving for a student-centred education system. The taxpayers would be a central part in paying for such a system, and up until now, under John Robarts, Bill Davis, Tom Wells, among others, we have striven for a student-centred education system, and it is now that we are moving from that central question to a taxpayer-centred education system in which I guess the students are clients.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Just for the record, I wouldn't concur with that observation.
Mr Wildman: Everything you are doing is based on cuts to save the taxpayers' money, which is important. I'm striving to determine how we ensure that the quality of education is also protected in your taxpayer-centred education system.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I would argue, sir, that everything I am doing and that our government is doing, everything our caucus is behind, is about creating a better Ontario for the young people of Ontario, a place where there's more opportunity and more possibility and a more vital economy for those people to have careers and raise families. That is the ultimate goal of all our efforts.
Mr Wildman: I would think that's the ultimate goal of everyone, as is motherhood.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Motherhood's never been one of my goals.
Mr Wildman: I won't get into your personal life.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you.
Mr Wildman: The question is, are you going to move with legislation or not?
Hon Mr Snobelen: As I've said, we are considering the submissions made by people in the education community. One of those is suggestions about what may or may not be done in order to have teachers spend more time with students --
Mr Wildman: Are you prepared to open collective agreements through legislation?
Hon Mr Snobelen: -- and we have not ruled out any of those suggestions. We're considering them now.
Mr Wildman: In other words, it is one possibility that you will open collective agreements to ensure that teachers are laid off. That's what you're considering.
Hon Mr Snobelen: You can come to any conclusion you'd like in the hypotheses. We are considering all the suggestions that have been made. We'll give them good, due consideration and take what actions we believe will have us have a more affordable, more accountable and higher-quality system.
Mr Wildman: Yesterday I raised the issue that the $400-million savings required from September 1996 to December 1996 would on an annualized basis be $1 billion in cuts and asked if you could confirm that. At that point you indicated that we were looking at somewhere around $800 million.
I have a letter dated January 9, 1996, to you from Donna Cansfield of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, in which she says:
"Dear Minister:
"The Ontario Public School Boards' Association is concerned with the impact of the $400-million reduction to the general legislative grant program and its impact on the public school boards across Ontario. The association would like to provide the following advice on some policy and related issues related to the 1996 grant formula.
"OPSBA recommends that there not be major grant policy changes in 1996, pending the results of the education finance reform work group. As 1996 will be the first year of the extension of sharing of corporate assessment on a per-pupil basis, public boards of education will need time and the means to compensate for additional losses in local revenues on top of the $400-million grant reduction."
Then, further:
"The $400-million reduction must be spread over the 1996-97 provincial fiscal year to allow time for school boards to make local adjustments. Due to the timing of collective agreements regarding the movement of staff and notices to employees, school boards will find it difficult to downsize in the first half of their fiscal year. There must be flexibility to enable school boards to absorb grant reductions by March 1997, the provincial fiscal year-end, rather than the school board December 31, 1996, year-end. To accomplish this the ministry could consider using the provincial school board grant payment schedule to cushion the impact on school board employees while maintaining the provincial government's fiscal year targets."
I won't read the rest of the letter, but essentially in this letter Ms Cansfield is confirming what I said yesterday, that if they have to make the $400-million cut between September and December, it's a lot more than $400 million, more than twice that on an annualized basis, and it will make it very difficult for boards to do it. She admits that we are talking about significant downsizing, and she doesn't think, because of the notice and so on that's required, that is possible to be achieved in that period of time and believes, if you're going to do it, that it should be spread over the 1996-97 fiscal year. This letter was written January 9. Can you give us some kind of response? I'm sure you've responded already to Ms Cansfield.
Hon Mr Snobelen: By the way, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association has attempted to and been successful in honouring its commitment to the parents and taxpayers and young people of Ontario. They have submitted to us suggestions about reductions in the cost of our school system that total over $1 billion, and I think they are willing to engage the question of, how do we have a more affordable, more accountable and higher-quality system?
I'd like to quote from something that Donna Cansfield also said.
Mr Wildman: I think you quoted from her in your opening remarks. I'm interested in how you responded to this letter.
Hon Mr Snobelen: "We have an obligation to our children to ensure the best quality of education, but to also work responsibly with the provincial government to ensure they do not inherit an overwhelming debt. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association will continue to work in partnership with its partners and the government to find cost-saving measures." I salute their efforts in that regard.
0920
We obviously will take into consideration all the submissions, all of the suggestions of our partners in education, including all of the submissions and all of the suggestions from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, and we will give all of those due consideration. I do want, though, to point to the context of your question --
Interjection.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes. There is always -- I expect there is always some pull to putting off difficult decisions, to postponing difficult decisions --
Mr Wildman: I don't think that's what she said.
Hon Mr Snobelen: -- to postpone cost reductions.
Mr Wildman: I'm sure that's not what she said.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I think this is something that's true in the public sector and the private sector. If you look at the history of the variety of public services in Ontario, there has been a history of putting off difficult decisions. This government has accepted the challenge and the responsibility of not putting off decisions, of accepting that we have to make those difficult decisions, make them in a timely fashion -- and I will refer again to the $1 million an hour that we indebt our children every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. I believe that requires --
Interjection.
Hon Mr Snobelen: You may, sir, find that amusing, or you may think that violins should play, but I'll tell you that there are children in our system --
Mr Wildman: It's not amusing, it's tragic.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe it's very tragic so that we must --
Mr Wildman: We're talking here about a letter from a very important and responsible individual who represents the education system. I've asked for a response, and the minister doesn't want to give a response.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I ask the minister not to be so arrogant.
The Chair: Order. Let the minister complete his response.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I would find it hard to believe that you would find those comments arrogant.
Mr Martin: They are arrogant.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I think we are talking about a tragic circumstance.
Mr Martin: You are arrogant, particularly when you repeat it over and over again.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Well, until the message hits home I suspect we have to repeat it. We have to continue to repeat that over and over again until people understand it.
Mr Martin: You don't.
Mr Wildman: I won't get into this, Mr Chair. It's almost like a chant, and we all can chant it. What we're interested in is a specific answer to this letter.
Hon Mr Snobelen: No, sir. It's a horrible and tragic set of circumstances that we're about to visit on the children in the province of Ontario.
Mr Wildman: What I'm saying is, the minister is characterizing Ms Cansfield's letter as trying to postpone difficult decisions. That's not what it's about at all.
The Chair: Order. Could we just -- I know sometimes the response may not be suitable for the --
Mr Martin: It's arrogant. It's not unsuitable, it's arrogant.
The Chair: Could we allow the minister to respond and --
Mr Wildman: I would like him to respond, but he wasn't responding.
Hon Mr Snobelen: It's unfortunate that the honourable member doesn't like the response, but I'll say again that we are considering all of the submissions that have been made by everyone in the education system, including the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and its president, and that we will take all of those suggestions into account when we deliberate what action this government might take. We have not yet completed those deliberations. We are considering all of the things that have been suggested, including the submission that you have just read and also the submissions from the same organization that asked us to reduce the expenditures out of classroom by $1 billion.
Mr Wildman: Do you agree with Ms Cansfield's specific question-concern and assertion that the $400-million reduction on an annualized basis is much greater than $400 million? Yesterday I suggested $1 billion.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Yesterday, I believe, when you asked that question, I said we are cognizant of the fact that the province runs on a different annual timetable than does the school board system and we're aware of the difference between the two, and we're also aware of the input points that the school boards have in making reductions. When we have a look at the total available reductions to school boards, we'll make sure that those balance.
Mr Wildman: So you're not going to require more than $400 million that has been announced at this stage to be cut?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's be clear about what's been announced. The Minister of Finance has announced that we will reduce our grants in the next fiscal year for the province by $400 million. We'll make sure that those impacts are absorbable by the school boards.
Mr Wildman: Will you respond to Ms Cansfield's request that the grant cut of $400 million -- she is not saying it shouldn't be done or postponed, she's just saying it should be spread over the fiscal years in such a way that it is in fact a $400-million cut for the boards, not a much greater cut in order for the $400 million to be taken out in four months.
Hon Mr Snobelen: As I've said, we'll consider the submission you just read, we'll consider all the other submissions from the various associations across the province, and we'll be mindful of the timing and the time constraints that exist for these people to reduce their expenditures.
Mr Wildman: So if it were required to be taken out in four months, you're agreeing that it would be a lot greater than $400 million for the boards, that a grant cut of $400 million would result in significantly higher cuts by boards, perhaps in the magnitude of $1 billion.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Depending on how reductions in out-of-classroom expenditures are made, there may be more significant savings than $400 million available to boards. I would certainly concur with that. I do acknowledge and recognize that we are in different calendars.
Mr Wildman: The Ontario Public School Boards' Association also requested you, the government, to consider that the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act be amended to provide for boards to lock out teachers and to modify terms of employment in collective agreements. Have you determined what your response is to that request?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We have not yet completed our deliberations on all of the suggestions that have been made. I might point out -- and I'm sure you remember but I'll perhaps remind you -- that your government overrode collective agreements across this province, so this is not an unprecedented suggestion by others. Perhaps it is that precedent they're looking at when they make the suggestion.
Mr Wildman: We also provided for a negotiation of the terms of the situation, but that's another matter.
One other question before I get to colleges: In terms of the two so-called negative grant boards, Toronto and Ottawa, the deputy yesterday referred to the discussions he has had with them to try to ensure that they will be contributing to the savings, and not just the boards that are less assessment-rich, if you want to use that term, that receive grants. Has there been consideration by the ministry, if they don't get an agreement from those two boards, of requiring boards to take over the employer share, the employer cost of teachers' superannuation?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll allow the deputy to respond. He responded to this question yesterday in, I believe, a fulsome manner, but I'll allow him to respond today. Perhaps that would be appropriate. I want to point out before the deputy makes his comments that the so-called negative grant boards -- their status changes annually vis-à-vis their assessments. There may be some changes in status for these boards in the very near future as assessment changes around the province. This is not a static, it's a dynamic and one that has to be addressed each and every year.
Mr Richard Dicerni: In terms of Metro Toronto and Ottawa, I guess I would say that I remain quite optimistic, given the discussions we have had with Metro Toronto, that an agreement which recognizes the interests of all parties, all students, can be achieved. I believe some interesting work was done with the previous administration, the previous government, in terms of when the previous government was faced with similar challenges in debating the social contract contribution, and I think everyone is quite aware of that.
0930
Mr Wildman: Okay, I'll leave that. Just one other short question: In terms of the document I gave the Chair yesterday, which has been the subject of some discussion, and user fees, there's a proposal for a $2.50 charge for lunch room supervision per week. I know you've said everything's on the table and you haven't made decisions. If this were to be instituted, or something similar to that, considering the cuts to social assistance that families have faced, do you think it would be appropriate to charge an extra $10 per month for lunch room supervision, and how does that square with the government's commitment to a student nutrition program?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Is this in reference to an item that's in the document?
Mr Wildman: Yes.
Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding is the document is a compiling of requests made of the ministry. I think we made that clear yesterday. So the question is how we'll respond to that, is that accurate?
Mr Wildman: I'm just saying, if you were to do that, do you think that would be in line with your commitment to a student nutrition program?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I have said about the document, as you said, everything is on the table, we're not going to dismiss out of hand suggestions made to us by our education partners. We think they need due consideration and we'll give them that. I have also said that the point of this particular effort is to reduce the out-of-classroom expenditures in the education system. I am on record as saying that user fees do not achieve that goal.
If I can help to clarify the question, on page 15 of the document, where this comes up it says, "Charge fees for lunch room supervision. Boards have suggested that a charge of $2.50 per week would cover their cost." I just want to underline that this is a suggestion we've received from the boards, this is not a suggestion that was generated by this government.
Mr Wildman: My question was just, is it in line with your commitment to a nutrition program, or not? If it's not, then obviously you'll reject it.
Hon Mr Snobelen: As I've said, user fees are not consistent with the point of our discussions on this.
The Chair: Is that it, Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: I would like to deal with colleges and universities and apprenticeship programs in the next go-round.
The Chair: That's fine. The Conservatives have 30 minutes too.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last week or the week before, I can't remember now, in a continuing dialogue with McMaster University, which is in my riding -- we meet on a regular basis so it's interesting that people say we're not consulting; we are consulting on a continuing basis.
When we met with Dr George, the issue was raised about the fact that in a program, if there were more people interested in taking a program than there was funding for those programs -- take Australia as an example. Lawyers, for example: If there are too many people enrolled in a program at the subsidized rate they allow them to come on and pay the full rate. Is there any discussion going on for Canada or Ontario to adopt that type of program here? I think universities would be quite agreeable to something like that if it would happen.
Hon Mr Snobelen: There have been ongoing talks. I met with Dr George as well on a couple of occasions. It's interesting to me that those who would suggest we have not consulted are not able to say who it is we have not consulted with. Our school system involves something over 5,000 schools, two million young people and over 120,000 teachers, so I guess it's accurate to say we haven't consulted with each and every one. However, I think we have consulted with the major groups, both with our caucus committees and our caucus members, and as much as is possible by the parliamentary assistants who are responsible, the minister, the deputy minister and other staff. So there's been a wide range of consulting done, and talking, in the industry.
One of the questions that has been raised by Dr George and others is how to work with enrolments and how to have flexibility in fees. This is part of what we hope to get to in a discussion paper, one of the things we want to talk about in that discussion paper, because it does need a very fulsome conversation.
There is a dilemma, of course, and that is that the Ontario student assistance program is available to many people when tuition fees are allowed to rise to market value, if you will. The public and the province of Ontario continue to offer student assistance, often in the form of grants, and so in some cases it may have the effect of shifting a grant formula from a university into the OSAP grant that comes above a certain ceiling, and in that case the public is still involved in the funding of the education.
Funding of universities is a very complex issue. There are a lot of objectives to meet, particularly research objectives, which also cloud the funding formula. The province has a responsibility to have the access to post-secondary be equitable. So while we recognize and understand the point that Dr George and others have made, we also have to make sure that we're looking at the whole pie, the whole context of funding of post-secondary.
We continue to have those conversations and I look forward to the discussion paper and look forward to the results of that discussion paper and the suggestions that we'll get.
Mrs Ross: I'd like to ask another question. In that discussion with Dr George, we also talked a bit about a nuclear reactor that is located at McMaster University. It was scheduled to shut down, I believe in March, because there's no funding for it. But I'm told that it is now staying open for another two months because there's a partner in the private sector who'd like to take it over and the business plan is currently being reviewed. I'd like to ask if your ministry is encouraging that kind of partnership and if in this instance, in my riding, at this nuclear reactor, there's anything that we can do to help facilitate that switch from public to private partnership.
Hon Mr Snobelen: There is a variety of initiatives now with our universities, and there has been. There is a history of partnership with the private sector and universities working cooperatively to make sure that universities have access to the latest in research equipment. It benefits both the private sector, obviously, and the universities, so those models of cooperation continue. As the distinction between basic or fundamental research and applied research becomes even more fuzzy, the line between those two, there has been a trend line to having more and more private sector involvement with universities, both in Ontario and other provinces of Canada and in the United States. This is a global trend.
Mrs Ross: I'll just make one comment and then I'll pass it over to someone else who wants to ask questions. With respect to that nuclear reactor, they're quite confident that the private partner's going to come on board and take it over. They would like to invite you when that happens so that you can come and view the reactor yourself.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've spoken to Dr George on that subject and others, and if that possibility comes up, then I'd be more than happy to be there.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Mr Chairman, if we have unanimous consent of the other two parties, what we'd like to do is, recognizing the minister's schedule and the fact that the committee was scheduled to break at noon, propose to forgo the balance of our questioning time.
The Chair: Are you now forgoing your time?
Mr Gilchrist: Yes, all of our next two passes, so that the committee can rise at noon.
The Chair: That's fine, so you forgo yours.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, on that point: I appreciate Mr Gilchrist's proposal. Frankly, if I'd known yesterday that this was a problem, I would have raised yesterday the questions on the colleges and universities that I intend to raise, but unfortunately, we weren't told until right at the end, when I'd already not raised those issues. If we'd known yesterday, I would have been happy to accommodate the minister.
0940
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Chairman, is it appropriate to seek consent of the other two parties that we forgo our next hour and 15 minutes?
The Chair: I think you can forgo yours; I don't think we can ask them.
Mr Gilchrist: No, just forgoing the next two PC go-rounds.
The Chair: You can do that if you want, on your own, but seeking unanimous consent may involve a lot of debate here, and I don't want to --
Mr Wildman: No, we're very happy to agree.
The Chair: If you want to forgo yours, that's fine. Do you want unanimous consent to forgo yours?
Mr Wildman: I won't object.
The Chair: They have no objection to your forgoing your time. Fine. So you're forgoing that time. I will ask the Liberals now.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): How many rounds would this give us? Two more?
Mr Wildman: No, we get our regular rounds.
The Chair: You get your regular rounds. You'll have your 30 minutes.
Mr Patten: So we can get an hour, we can get two. Okay.
The Chair: It's all up to you. It's all yours now.
Mr Patten: I have a series of items that I've been collecting that I think would be fairly quick to deal with. I'd like to try to come at the $400-million cut for 1995. I'm sure you've visualized this and I'm sure the deputy has visualized this and I know your officials have more than visualized this, but when a system, in a third of its time, has to literally show that it's cut back $400 million, it's no secret that you have two questions to ask, and one is: If I cut this back within this budget year, what does it mean for the next budget year? Presumably, that $400 million is gone forever. But if I cut back on four months and that's stretched over a year, then it's three times that, potentially, or double that anyway. So it's somewhere between $800 million and $1.2 billion that we're talking about, if you annualize that amount.
There are few questions more frequently asked of me, and I'm sure letters to you and letters to anyone in the ministry and the critics of all the parties, other than, "What does this mean?" If it means it is annualized, then we're talking about very dramatic cuts -- cutbacks obviously to staff, reduction of staff in any case, regardless of the ways in which that may be achieved, and there are ways in which I know it can be achieved. But the fact remains that you have a system with less money.
When you look at budget year 1997, let me ask you this question, Minister: If there were no requests other than the $400 million for the boards to cut back for 1996, what would that mean for the boards for 1997, that it would be a total for 12 months -- regardless of whose 12 months, regardless of whose budget year, but let's say the board's 12 months for 1997. What would you feel that they would be facing, that they would then in 1997 be taking that $400 million and spreading it over 12 months or that they would have to multiply the $400 million by two or by three?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I recognize the difficulties that are inherent when you have two different fiscal years. Also, the education system, not unlike some other systems, has basically a nine-month year from the point of view of expenditures, so if you're going to reduce costs, you have to reduce costs over a nine-month period, not over a 12-month period. It's difficult for our school system to save considerable operating costs in the months of July and August and over the break periods in December and March. We basically have nine months in which expenditures are incurred by the system, so school boards and the provincial government have to keep in mind that if you're reducing costs, you're going to reduce costs in those time frames primarily.
I want to emphasize something I said yesterday: What has been announced is a $400-million reduction in grants next year, in the province's year. We are now obviously examining what can be done to reduce costs by that much in that same time period by boards across the province. It has been suggested that some of the methodologies that would be used would result in a decrease in costs significantly more than $400 million. We are, again, still working on those submissions.
I said yesterday, and I believe in this, that we need a more affordable, more accountable, higher-quality system, and in all of those areas -- affordability, accountability and quality -- we must be looking for continuous improvement. As it relates to expenditures, that means I would expect in 1997, in 1998, in 1999, in the year 2000, we will continue to review, with the people in the education system, our spending, particularly our out-of-classroom spending, and make sure we have the most affordable system possible.
If it is possible to reduce costs by more than $400 million, I think we should do so, particularly as that relates to out-of-classroom expenditures, expenditures that do not have an impact on students. We need to reduce, obviously, our administrative costs and other costs as much as we possibly can and as quickly as we possibly can. I think that's what's in the best interests of the future of students.
Mr Patten: You would, I would imagine, appreciate that if you were an administrator in a board, you would need to know whether that $400 million is annualized or not, for the very simple reason that if it's not, it will guide the nature of your cuts. In other words, if you say to me, "Listen, director of education for X school board, this $400 million is $400 million for the year, and unfortunately, because we have to move quickly, we're asking you to make the first cut within a shorter period of time," the nature of the cuts would be different than if you said, "By the way, we want you to know that this $400 million that we're asking you to cut for four months, multiply that by two or by three for next year" -- the knowledge of whether it's one way or another is highly significant and will affect the nature of the cuts for that board. Would you not agree?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've had a chance to talk to CODE -- the Commission on Declining School Enrolment -- and I've talked to individual board administrators and business administrators in a variety of boards in a variety of different circumstances across the province, and I can tell you that they have very clearly given me two messages.
One of those messages is that they, as soon as possible, need to know what mechanisms might be available to them to reduce their costs as quickly as they possibly can. The other message is that a reduction in costs, in particular costs outside of the classroom, is doable, that given the right methodology, given cooperation with the provincial government, the board administrators, the business administrators, the directors of education across this province, or the professional people in our system, can effectively reduce the costs out of classroom and make this system more affordable.
Mr Patten: Thank you for your clear answer.
Mr Wildman: And they would like to have more say over the $400 million.
Mr Patten: I would assume --
Hon Mr Snobelen: Would you like to direct your question directly to my interpreter or would you still continue to me, to go through this process?
Mr Patten: All I can say to the school boards is that I suppose they will hear in short order what they're facing.
I would like to come back to a question we discussed yesterday. It had to do with adult education programs. As we explored it and as we got deeper into the significance of what may occur -- and I have had a chance to personally discuss this with a number of school boards -- I find it interesting to discover that in the cuts announced so far for adult education programs, we begin to see that the Peterborough board, I'm led to believe, has four adult programs cut, with 211 students affected and 11.5 teachers cut. The Kapuskasing board has cut -- I'm not sure whether this is in total or in part -- its adult education. Niagara Falls is considering cuts to its programs. Minister, we're beginning to see the need to cut and which programs are more vulnerable.
0950
I would place adult education as being in a vulnerable position, a similar position to junior kindergarten, in that because they have been recategorized in their funding essentially what it means is there's less support and, "Good luck to you, school boards, and we wish you all the best." Both of these programs have high significance.
You say you're not going to touch the classroom. I find that astounding. What's going to happen, I know, is that you're going to redefine the system so you'll be able to say: "See? We did not touch the classroom." But that won't fly for anybody who has any understanding of the educational system, who knows about it, works in it or has an interest in it. It will be an embarrassment. It must be very difficult to put out, I would think, that you have not touched the classroom.
These are people doing exactly what your CSR suggested, that is, "We are going to help those who want to take initiative to get out of the situation they find themselves in and get extra training and go to college or be better prepared for employment." And the value of early childhood education is indisputable. I know you know it's important, but given the mandate you have -- here it is; it's starting now. What's your reaction to that, Mr Minister?
Hon Mr Snobelen: The question runs the gambit from junior kindergarten to adult education, and I'll address the adult education. We talked about this at some length yesterday. As I said, I have had conversations with a variety of school boards across the province, obviously not all of them at this point in time, about adult education.
There is a very clear distinction, and I'm sure you would agree with me, between the needs of adolescents and the needs of adults, between the education programs appropriate for adolescents and the education products and methods appropriate for adults. I'd suggest there's a different need between adolescents and adults. That is probably very obvious to anyone who has observed this system of education in even a passing way; they'd recognize there is a difference and a distinction between those two kinds of needs.
Our proposal to the grant formula, which we discussed yesterday, will leave boards with the option of delivering and the flexibility to deliver adult education in a different format, with a different cost base, for adults than for adolescents. It would seem to me to be fairly obvious that a different system is appropriate for those two very distinct sets of needs and two very distinct sets of responsibilities.
As to your suggestion that some who have an interest in adult education may not like this change, I'd submit there may be some truth to that. There may be those who are affected directly in terms of delivery of adult education who would like to have it continue at the same rate of grant as that for adolescents. That may be true, but it's very obvious that adults have a different set of needs, that there's a different cost base for this delivery and that we should recognize that in terms of the provincial government's contribution on behalf of the people of Ontario.
Mr Patten: I would say this morning, "Every school board, there's your message." If your basis for looking at a new arrangement for funding adult education is based upon the differential of needs of adults -- let's reflect for a moment. We're talking primarily here of young people. We're not talking about 65-year-olds; we're talking about young people, usually in their early 20s, who are seeking to complete their secondary school education, a diploma, and they will go full-time to complete it. The average is about nine months. There is recognition for equivalent credits. Someone is going full-time.
What needs would be different, from an educational point of view, of a student attending classes full-time to complete secondary school, between, let's say, a 17- or 18-year-old and a 21-year-old on welfare who's trying to get off and is a single mom?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I think it would disingenuous to suggest that the profile of an average, if that word can even be applied here, person involved in adult education -- to suggest that demographically that person would be a 21-year-old would not be accurate. In fact, the people who use adult education services in the province do so from a variety of different demographic groups, in the range of people who are 21 to people who are nearing retirement. They use adult education for a variety of different reasons, some to get an accreditation necessary to go on in other educational programs or training programs, some because they believe accreditation will help them in the job market or to get into the job market, some because of personal interest and the desire to continue their own education. There is a whole variety of needs and a whole variety of demographics of the people who use adult education.
I can say that there is considerable difference in the responsibility of the education system for adults. Surely we have a different responsibility as a system, in terms of custody, for people who have reached the age of majority in Ontario than we do for those who have not. Obviously, there's a different level of supervision involved. Obviously, we believe that people who are adults have a different set of responsibilities, and we obviously have a different set of responsibilities for them as a province.
The options available in adult education include different class sizes which are appropriate for adults. Adolescents require perhaps more individual attention; perhaps we put less responsibility on them. I think most people in the province would find that to be a fair statement. Also, we allow the staffing for adult eduction to be quite different than it is for adolescent education, in fact at quite a reduced cost. I'm told there are adult programs offered at significantly reduced cost. If you want to look at the operating cost per hour, sometimes these costs differ by as much as $25 or $30 per hour in classroom delivery costs. That is significant, and that's reflected in the funding formula.
Mr Patten: We alluded yesterday to this issue of the general education diploma. I don't know if the pilot has been completed yet, and the ministry is expected to decide by spring, I'm told, according to a Globe and Mail article, I think it was. Two questions on this: (1) whether this is one of the ways to replace some of the existing adult education programs, as you see it; and (2) whether the ministry has yet had a chance to assess the pilot project that was being handled by the federal government.
1000
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll ask Joan Andrew, if Joan can come forward. Perhaps she can tell us the status of the pilot project and when those decisions will be made.
I can tell you, though, that the equivalency program is not intended to replace, in all cases, adult education. It will, however, be able to meet the needs of those people who believe they require a high school accreditation to get on with either entry into the job market or into other training or education services; it'll allow those people who have, because of their prior learning experiences, reached a level of proficiency that would allow them to be tested to earn the accreditation. This works very well for those people who believe they have, because of their life experiences, reached that stage and would like to get the accreditation and acknowledgement for that.
Ms Joan Andrew: The pilot project will be ongoing through till the end of March. We have been doing ongoing monitoring of the people taking the test and what their results are, and we're participating with OISE in a longer-term research study of the graduates. But the initial results are that the people who have taken the test, who've been prepared in the pilot training centre, exceed the national average in terms of people taking the GED; it's about a 74% success rate for those who've taken the test so far.
Mr Patten: Could you share with me what's the basis of your evaluation?
Ms Andrew: The OISE evaluation?
Mr Patten: Yes.
Ms Andrew: I don't have it in front of me. Sorry. I can --
Mr Patten: In other words -- this is hypothetical -- a poor test in which lots of people do well doesn't necessarily tell you much unless you have some criteria: What are you testing and how does that relate to what the test is designed to do? Theoretically, I would imagine it's designed to help provide an open door to either college or university or employment or further advanced training.
Ms Andrew: The GED is a test that's used in all 50 states in the United States and nine of the 10 Canadian provinces. It's a fairly widely recognized test, so we administer the standardized test. It's not an individual test that we're administering, and I think the results are national. What we're trying to do in the research is do longer-term follow-up to see what people's results are. Most of the people taking the test want to take it for employment reasons; as employers use high school accreditation as a screening tool, they want that accreditation. If you want to apply to a college in Ontario, you don't need a high school diploma because of the PLA system.
I can provide details on the methodology of the OISE research. I just don't have them with me.
Mr Patten: While you're still there, maybe I could ask you this, if you don't mind, Minister.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Go ahead.
Mr Patten: It's just seeking information. You will recall my interest before Christmas on the Bridges program. We had at that time explored where it was, and Ms Andrew was kind enough to provide some information at that time. "The Bridges program will be part of pilots we're testing as we implement secondary school reform." When I asked when this might be available, you said, "It should be made available shortly and any announcements will be" -- I shouldn't have cut you off, but I see in Hansard that I did, and I apologize for that. "Next week?" was my question. Where is that at the moment, and when might we see some surface of that program?
Ms Andrew: The minister has written to some boards. If you're going to ask me specifically where, I would have to go and get the information, but the minister has now written to boards that have been successful in the pilot projects.
Mr Patten: This was with pilots with, I think, 25 different situations, was it not?
Ms Andrew: I'd have to go and check, I'm sorry.
Mr Patten: Could you get me the information on and that let me know?
Ms Andrew: Yes.
Mr Patten: All right, moving right along. Minister, as to the legislation you've introduced in Bill 31, as you know, there's a fair amount of concern with many of the teacher federations and the teachers. I know they've expressed their views to you in clear and no uncertain terms. When that legislation is introduced, are you prepared to see that go to committee to provide teachers or federations or interested parties with a chance to make their views known?
Hon Mr Snobelen: As I'm sure you're aware, the course of the bill as it's deliberated by the whole of this House will be determined by the House leaders. I believe it's our intention to make sure that this bill has the opportunity to have a fulsome debate. There are some contentious parts of the legislation. It's a response to recommendations in the royal commission and it's a continuing of an initiative that was started by my predecessor in the previous government.
I believe the bill has addressed, in its current form, many of the concerns people might have. However, I believe our House leaders of all three parties will sit together and design a process for this bill that's useful and works properly for public discussion.
Mr Patten: Would you be prepared to recommend that it does go to committee hearings?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I have not discussed this with our House leader at this point in time. I will do so in the near future and I'm sure the House leader for our party will be in discussion with the other two House leaders to make sure the process is appropriate.
Mr Patten: I assure you, Minister, and perhaps the critic from the NDP might agree, that I will certainly work hard at making sure that our House leader will encourage your House leader that it would be advisable to listen to the teachers' federations. Frankly, I believe there are some miscommunications on this issue.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes.
1010
Mr Patten: I know there's a fair amount of fear. I talk to teachers individually. There are different perceptions about what this contains in the intent. As you know, our party supported the concept of the College of Teachers, but in my opinion the core of the concern is really the representational aspect, relatively minor but perceived to be highly significant. If that aspect were examined and there was some flexibility shown in the number of certified public teachers participating on the council, as I think is demonstrated in the BC model that is used as an example, I have reason to believe that the receptivity and the feeling of having encouraged a professional body of teachers controlled by teachers would be supported.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I share your observation. I believe that the more knowledge teachers have about what the bill contains will add to their comfort with the bill and with the college. I believe the more knowledge people have, the more comfortable people will be with the model that's been suggested.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of what in my view is misinformation that has circulated about the college, about its intent, about its format and about the amount of participation that members of college will have and the clear majority that they'll have, not only on the governing body but also on each and every committee of the college. I agree with you that the more people know, the more comfortable they'll be, particularly classroom teachers.
I note that the House leader of the third party made mention when we introduced the bill that perhaps we should go right to third reading. I think he was being somewhat facetious, but I think we can work between the House leaders to make sure this has the kind of attention it deserves.
The Chair: In rotation, I'll go to the NDP and Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: I'm sorry I didn't hear that exchange. I was being asked a question by one of the clerks.
Hon Mr Snobelen: You can trust that it was a perhaps feeble attempt at humour.
Mr Wildman: I'm sure it was recorded. I'll read it in Hansard.
Mr Patten: You guys wanted to go to third reading right away.
Mr Wildman: Oh, I don't think I would suggest that. I think I said at the time the legislation was introduced that we would hope it would go to committee so that we could hear presentations from all the interested parties.
I said that I wanted to deal with colleges and universities and apprenticeship. We've got, on transfers to colleges for 1996-97, $689 million, a reduction of $120 million, on top of the $6.8-million reduction in the summer. We've heard media reports and received correspondence on decisions that are being made by colleges across the province as a result of the announced reductions, which are quite alarming.
I notice the February 1 edition of the Hamilton Spectator has a front-page story on Mohawk College headlined, "Mohawk Takes a Hammering." It states, "Reeling from federal" -- I admit there are federal cuts in training that are affecting the colleges substantially, and I've dealt with that. I've had correspondence with the minister about that as well.
"Reeling from federal and provincial funding cuts, Mohawk College is poised to slash 415 jobs, cut 680 student places and shut down programs and campuses.
"The board of governors last night endorsed a plan to trim more than $15 million from the college's $104-million budget.... `Suddenly we're called upon to reduce and shrink'" the system, "said President Keith McIntyre.
"`It's too bad there has to be a knee-jerk reaction (from the Progressive Conservative government) to solve (long-standing budget problems) in two or three years.'"
Basically, we've got Ontario's college system, now in its 30th year, in turmoil as it sheds teachers, administrative and support staff, cuts programs and shuts down campuses. The system could lose 1,000 or more jobs out of the total of about 7,500 full-time teachers, librarians and counsellors.
The Council of Presidents produced a document called Learning-Centred Education in October, and basically what it talks about is the teacherless classroom. I know the minister has talked abut the virtual classroom in the past, but what we're discussing here is the teacherless classroom, a system where students would be operating on their own with CD-ROM courses and computer tutorials to deliver their education, and support staff rather than teachers would often monitor the progress of students, who would work at their own pace.
This I think is quite alarming. Not that I'm opposed to the use of CD-ROM and computers -- we've had distance education that has been successful in the past and we have those programs in place now -- but surely this ignores the crucial contact and interchange between teacher and students and among students.
We've seen announcements that have been coming in ever-increasing numbers: Sheridan College has announced job cuts and enrolment cuts which will mean that the enrolment will be down 5% to 7% across the province; Fanshawe just announced -- it was in the press and on the radio this morning --
Failure of sound system.
Mr Wildman: -- in teaching staff as the first wave of cuts at that London institution; Algonquin College in Ottawa is cutting its budget by $7.5 million, layoffs, cancelling programs, shutting down satellite campuses at Hawkesbury, Perth, Renfrew, Smiths Falls, Carleton Place and Pembroke; Humber in Toronto, substantial layoffs and program cuts; Sault College in my area has to find $5.9 million this year and has announced cuts of 60-some teaching staff and program cancellations -- they are currently working on that with their staff. These are just some examples and they could go across the total of the 25 colleges.
What I'm worried about sincerely is that we are in a situation where we are supposedly trying to encourage people to get the skills that will make it possible for them to compete in the workplace going into the 21st century, that we don't want people to find themselves dependent on social assistance, and at the very time we're encouraging that, we're cutting programs, the very programs that would give them the skills and the qualifications for the jobs they aspire to and that they want to be able to have to be productive and to provide for themselves and their families. It does seem counterproductive to be making these cuts at the very time we're encouraging people to provide for themselves and to contribute to society.
Do you have any overall picture of the number of programs and the kinds of programs that are being discontinued in the college system as a result of the announcements, first the small one in July and then the major one in November?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps I can begin by sharing with you some comments made from Mohawk College to the Council of Presidents, dated February 1, 1996. This is a fairly comprehensive memorandum. I will take a couple of very short quotes from it and then I will give this to you. I think you'll find it informative.
This memorandum from Mohawk College begins as follows: "Media reports of Mohawk's 1996/97 budget deficit reduction plans amounting to $15.4 million have been distorted and inaccurately reported, particularly by CBC Radio and the Hamilton Spectator newspaper." Is that the Hamilton Spectator you quoted from?
Mr Wildman: A well-respected journal.
Hon Mr Snobelen: The note from the president of Mohawk says that these plans have been "distorted and inaccurately reported," and he mentions that respected journal specifically.
I'll leave you with just one more quote from here, although this memorandum does go on quite extensively.
Mr Wildman: Does that mean then there will not be program cuts at Mohawk?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps this will be clarifying. Again, we don't want to have distortions, particularly not in a public discussion.
1020
Mr Wildman: I'd like to find the facts. What program cuts will take place?
Hon Mr Snobelen: If I can continue, I will give this entire memorandum to you. I think you'll find it edifying. But allow me just to put this one other quote from the memorandum:
"One media headline correctly states that Mohawk College is being hammered on both the post-secondary" --
Mr Wildman: "Hammered."
Hon Mr Snobelen: -- "and apprenticeship/skills training sides harder than what was stated in Treasurer Eves' economic statement of last fall that the 15% provincial grant reduction would translate into half that amount on a college's total budget. This is clearly not so in Mohawk College's case."
Perhaps you will find this -- and I will give this to you -- very edifying.
Let me talk for a moment about, there have been some rationalizations. Part of our discussion paper is to formally have a conversation about the rationalization of university and college programs with a view to making sure that what's offered in the system is what's needed and wanted by the people, particularly people who access post-secondary education in Ontario.
You've mentioned Sheridan. I believe the president of Sheridan made a comment when they discontinued their nursing program that perhaps five nursing programs across the greater Toronto area were sufficient, particularly when one looks at the demand for nurses in the foreseeable future.
Mr Wildman: Ms Hofstetter also says enrolment across the system will be down 5% to 7%.
Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding is that Sheridan, and I've talked to the president --
Mr Wildman: Not just in the nursing programs. This is across the board.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've talked to the president on a number of occasions and she has suggested that it's a responsibility of the community colleges to look at two things: first, what services are available to people who are entering; and second, whether they can in fact accomplish the goals of those people who are entering those programs. I think that's a fair and objective way of looking at these.
Mr Wildman: I agree. Can you assure us that there will not be a drop of 5% to 7% in enrolment?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Obviously, no one in this room can predict enrolments in community colleges or universities.
Mr Wildman: Do you anticipate they will go down or up?
Hon Mr Snobelen: There is a variety of factors. If you look at the enrolment --
Mr Wildman: But surely you would want them to go up, because you want people to gain the skills, as I do, that they need in order to compete in the workplace.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps you might want to examine the enrolment data over the past couple of decades in our post-secondary institutions. You will find that they run countercyclical to the economic activities in the province. When the province is doing well economically, people tend to enrol less frequently in post-secondary programs and they tend to enrol in them for shorter durations because, I suppose, there are more options available to people. That perhaps would argue against your statement.
Mr Wildman: It's not mine; it's Ms Hofstetter's.
Hon Mr Snobelen: The statement you've just made, sir.
Mr Wildman: She said a 5% to 7% drop in enrolment.
Hon Mr Snobelen: As I've said, if you look at the history of enrolment in post-secondary institutions, there are a number of factors that affect those, and if you look at over the past 20 years, I think you'll see that the patterns that emerge have a variety of factors. One of those is what the economic condition of the province is. I have had a chance to talk to the former Education minister, Mr Davis, about colleges. He is a very good source on this subject.
Mr Wildman: Sure is.
Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding is that the colleges were designed to be extremely flexible to respond to the training needs in the province of Ontario. In doing so, I would anticipate that they would adjust the programs they offer, that they would drop redundant programs and they would add a variety of new programs to meet the changing training needs across the province.
Mr Wildman: I agree with that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: As a matter of fact, sir, if you check with the college presidents, you'll find that they've been adding programs on a regular basis and continue to do so to meet the needs of both their community and the people who enrol in them.
Mr Wildman: But now they're cutting them.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I think it would be counterproductive for colleges not to entertain reducing programs that have become redundant for whatever reason and adding programs that are significant and have a demand by the people who are enrolling and, by the way, by the businesses that employ people who are graduates of these institutions.
Mr Wildman: I certainly agree with that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've talked to a number of students across the province and I think what we are looking for and the reason for our discussion paper is so that we can add to the flexibility that colleges have so we make sure they're delivering the programs that young people need across this province. We think that's important for the future of the province and that's why we're including it in a public discussion.
Mr Wildman: Ms Hofstetter is making her comments directly related, though, to funding, and she's saying that if there are further cuts from the Ontario government and the federal government for retraining programs -- and yesterday we had a short discussion about OTAB and the future of OTAB -- the situation will be even worse and that enrolments will decline even greater.
It is true, what you've just said, that the 25 colleges are attempting to cooperate and ensure they're not duplicating and having redundant programs. I've heard you make the comment, and I know that administrators have made the comment, that one college is trying to ensure it's not providing a program that is available at another nearby college, and I think that's a good thing.
What about in the north, where there aren't any nearby colleges? If programs are cut at Confederation College in Thunder Bay, there's no nearby college. The closest college is in Timmins or in Sault Ste Marie. The distance from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste Marie is the same distance as Sault Ste Marie to Toronto. What happens to students in the north? In southern Ontario we're basically saying if there's a cut at Sheridan, maybe you can find a similar program at Humber, or something like that, and you will have to travel a bit farther but it can be done. What happens in those parts of the province where distances just preclude somebody being able to go a "nearby college"?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I know the deputy's had a number of consultations and discussions with people in the sector, and he probably has some observations that would be useful here. Let me, though, say that I've been to Confederation College very recently and talked to the president and other people on staff there. They seek to provide a service in that community that matches the needs of the community.
Mr Wildman: Good.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I think they continue to do so. They are also I think ensuring and taking all the steps they can to ensure that the programs they offer are of world-renowned quality, and they have several programs that would fit into that description. They have programs that are in demand internationally.
Mr Wildman: And they won't be cut?
Hon Mr Snobelen: They have programs that are in demand internationally that they are having some difficulty in supplying the demand for. So the college presidents I've talked to --
Mr Wildman: Do you see expansion at Confederation rather than --
Hon Mr Snobelen: I can't speak to what the intention of the president is, but I can tell you this, that probably they will discontinue some programs and expand other programs to meet the needs of the community. The college presidents and the university presidents are aware of the fact that they work in a very global economy and that they meet local needs, but in a global context. That's part of the purpose of our discussion paper.
Mr Wildman: I can tell you that all of the colleges attempt to do what you've just said Confederation does, some with great success, some with lesser, but they all strive for that. They all strive to help their students and to meet the needs of the community, and when I say "the community," I mean the local community and the community at large. But I'm telling you that I don't anticipate a significant expansion in the college system, particularly the colleges in northern Ontario, when you've cut their funding by $120 million.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I think the deputy has some information that might be useful here.
Mr Dicerni: And I will ask Joan Andrew, who is quite close to community colleges and so forth, to add to the remarks I will offer.
A few points: One, the funding formula that we have in place for community colleges does recognize the special circumstances of students and colleges in the north.
Mr Wildman: Yes, that's true.
Mr Dicerni: Secondly, we do have a number of initiatives going on, and some of them you're probably familiar with, in terms of Project North.
Thirdly, colleges and universities, I believe, in the north are increasingly working in a cooperative manner. I received a proposal not too long ago from Laurentian, Cambrian and Collège boréal to offer some programming at reduced costs, ie, improving the efficiency of the delivery of public good in terms of post-secondary education. This I believe also applies in terms of Lakehead and Confederation, that there's an increased recognition in terms of post-secondary institutions of the need to work jointly together to provide better service for the students.
Joan, would you like to add anything to those initiatives which are going on in the north?
Mr Wildman: I'm sorry. I think in the interest of time -- I've only got seven minutes -- I'd better raise some questions on universities.
The Chair: You want to pass on that, then.
1030
Mr Wildman: Perhaps I can get the answer privately from Ms Andrew. I'd also be interested in her comments about DeVry and what solutions have been produced at DeVry to ensure that the hundred or so students who haven't been able to get their OSAP will be able to. I'm sure she can give me that answer also privately after.
In New Directions, the document that the Conservative Party put out in 1992 that the minister said yesterday was important at the time, but that circumstances had changed substantially since it was printed, says that college sector fees should remain lower because the number of Ontarians who are returning to college after long periods of employment -- the fee structure should encourage individuals to acquire new skills. Yet after significant increases in fees under our government, we now have the announcement of an additional increase of 15% tuition.
I'll just raise that and then I'll also raise another question with regard to the comments that were made both with regard to the fee increases at colleges and at universities yesterday, about the income-contingent program and the work that's being done with the federal government to try and come forward. Isn't it logical to expect that any income-contingent program that is brought forward will not be in effect in 1996 and will not likely be in effect at least until 1997 if we're successful at getting an agreement?
My question, then, really put on the table, is what happens to those students who will face the tuition increases in September 1996 who will not have any income-contingent program available to them for that school year? Wouldn't it be sensible to hold off on the tuition increase until you've got your agreement on that income-contingent program in place, if that is one of the reasons you're saying you can proceed with a tuition increase, because that will offset some of the difficulties that students will face, since it won't offset it until it is actually in place?
It appears that because of the changes at the college system, we're facing a significant collapse of apprenticeship programs. I've got a representative here from Algoma Steel Corp, Mr Woolley, who is involved in the apprenticeship programs at that corporation, and he has expressed dismay at what he sees happening in the trades, not just at Algoma Steel but throughout the corporate sector. I've been told by him and also by representatives of the college system that because of the cuts in funding, the apprenticeship program is likely headed to oblivion. It should be expanding. It's not good enough now. We aren't producing enough tradespeople now and yet we're going to face significant additional cuts, again at a time when we are saying, all of us, that what we need is to train to people so that they can find places in the workforce and be productive.
I'd like to move very quickly, since I'm running out of time, and I appreciate the accommodation that has been made by the committee, to universities. We have a situation now where we are facing at the university level a $280-million reduction, with transfers to be $1.5 billion. That is somewhat offset by the tuition increase of 10% and the possibility of an additional 10%, but again that raises a question of what happens in the meantime. Before an income-contingent program is in place, what does this mean for accessibility?
The total reduction in provincial funding for secondary education will be $400 million in 1996-97. While we've talked about and the minister has mentioned the need to be more efficient and to avoid duplication and to ensure that courses are appropriate for students and for the community, and we all agree on that, it doesn't seem likely that we're going to see significant increases and expansion of programs to meet the needs of the community at a time when we're seeing such severe spending cuts, which are not completely offset by the tuition increases obviously and the tuition increases themselves would affect accessibility.
I guess what I'm really asking overall is the specific question on the income-contingent program. What are we doing to assist people to get the post-secondary skills, training and education they need at a time we want them to be doing this? What are we doing in terms of the college and university system to ensure this happens and what are we doing to ensure that apprenticeship programs are expanded rather than finding them in danger of collapse? I'll leave it at that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: That's a very simple and focused question. We talked about the apprenticeship programs yesterday and I believe, if I can just recap, that we have suggested that we are looking now at the delivery of apprenticeship and other training programs across the province.
I think there were some comments made yesterday that suggested we should encourage the business community to make significant investments in the training of people who are employed by them, and I believe that to be the case and I think I expressed a confidence that the business community was willing to do that.
We are looking at restructuring the training system and particularly the apprenticeship programs that are available. As I expressed yesterday, I have some empathy and some understanding of the apprenticeship program in the province. It certainly directly affects the people I've worked with most of my life and so I have, I think, a personal understanding of it.
As far as the funding and tuition are concerned, I'll ask the deputy to speak to the supports that are available for students next year. We are proceeding as quickly as possible with income-contingent loans. I hope you won't consider this to be a partisan shot when I say that I think one of the decisions made by the former government that may not perhaps have been wise in the fullness of time is to abandon the cooperation with the federal government in searching for an income-contingent loans package because I believe it is critical for access to students in the province. We are moving as quickly as we can. We've increased supports for students next year and I'll ask the deputy to speak to that.
If you look at the tuition fees that are charged in Canada for colleges and for universities, you will find that our tuition fees next year will be in about the middle of the range of tuition fees that are charged by institutions, I believe, that are superior and I think that the post-secondary education system in Ontario still represents an enormous bargain and a real value for the undergrad and graduate students who are enrolled in them. I think they're extraordinary institutions and they represent a real value to those people.
I'll ask the deputy to comment on the supports that are available.
Mr Dicerni: The ministry is looking very closely as to how the institutions will adapt and develop the requirement that the ministry has put to them in terms of reinvesting part of the new tuition money. I think this is a very interesting new policy avenue that needs to be fully explored. We have put this at 10% to see how the mentality actually works and this is an area that I know the federation of students is extremely interested in. I met with them last week and we discussed this at some length in terms of how this program could work, both in the short term, as well as in the longer term.
Secondly, I would also mention that in the November 29 statement there were two areas where the government increased its funding. One was firefighting in terms of forests and the other one was the OSAP program, which I believe received a $35-million increase which speaks, I think, to the importance and commitment that the government places on student assistance.
The Chair: Could we just at this stage take a five-minute recess, being that your time has elapsed, and be back here in five minutes.
Mr Wildman: Sure. During the five minutes perhaps I can get the answers from Ms Andrew.
The committee recessed from 1039 to 1048
The Chair: Could we resume, please? We ended off with the New Democratic Party finishing their session and we'll have the Liberals resume.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): One of the big issues in eastern Ontario is the Cité collégiale post-secondary courses and that's the Cornwall campus; 163 full-time students, 600 part-time students, and from what I gathered it's all "...aimed at cutting 28% from the college's estimated $40-million budget," said Michel Lyman, principal of the Cornwall campus.
"The move means the Cornwall and Hawkesbury campuses will offer only part-time programs for adults returning to school. Those include the provincially funded Futures program, the Ontario skills and development course, apprenticeship programs and other forms of continuing education." The president of the local campus says that "the Cornwall site will never be the same." I should offer too that that's a brand-new facility just built.
Many of the students who are there part-time will have to now get accommodation in other cities and many have no transportation. That is a big issue. We talked about that yesterday, the retraining, so it's kind of a conflict here of what the government is saying.
The other thing that's a big issue in our part of Ontario is that school boards tell me they're still in the dark about government funding cuts.
Hon Mr Snobelen: We've obviously spent some time yesterday and again today on the changes and the flexibility and options available to community colleges. Obviously the funding of community colleges depends on the provincial government, the federal government, training funds and tuition. There's much to be explored and discussed in the discussion paper that we're putting forward, particularly as that relates to accessibility, which is I believe the concern you're raising.
In terms of the school boards, we're cognizant of the timing they have in order to make decisions to reduce out-of-classroom expenditures next year, and we're meeting those requirements. The statement by the Minister of Finance on November 29 was, I believe, very clear and so was our clear commitment to consulting with boards and other people involved in education to make sure we worked in cooperation with boards to ensure the people of Ontario that we have an affordable system, and that we make the reductions in expenditure in out-of-classroom expenditures.
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a couple of questions. Minister, how many of your staff in the ministry will be handed pink slips by the time of our next budget?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't know.
Mr Cordiano: No idea?
Hon Mr Snobelen: No.
Mr Cordiano: So if the Minister of Finance discusses this with you, it really comes from his department as to how many staff will be eliminated, and you would have no say in the matter.
Hon Mr Snobelen: This is an administrative decision that will be made in concert, obviously, with the deputy minister and perhaps the deputy minister would like to address the question.
Mr Dicerni: In terms of the budgetary cycle, all ministries around this time of the year will start preparing their estimates which will be reviewed by Management Board in the context of the government's fiscal exigencies and requirements. Once decisions are made in terms of the ministry's budget for next year, we will be in a position to provide you with more specific answers in terms of the impact this will have on the people who are serving within the ministry.
Mr Cordiano: So you have no idea what the ideal number, or adequate number, would be for ministry operations. You haven't really assessed that. It's going to be subject to what the requirements are for deficit reduction.
Mr Dicerni: As you know, the ministry performs a number of different functions. We run, for example, provincial schools which are quite distinct from providing policy advice. The administration of the student aid program is quite distinct from some of the other activities at the regional offices. Obviously, every ministry must adjust in terms of re-engineering, in terms of changing some of its deliveries, in terms of improving its efficiencies on an ongoing basis.
Mr Cordiano: We keep hearing that, except we don't get a sense of what is a priority and what isn't a priority. That's what I'm attempting to establish, but we don't have the time to do that in the time that remains.
Let me ask another question with respect to within your ministry. Does there exist a department for privatization and a department for working with the private sector on privatization?
Mr Dicerni: There is no division, branch, team, working on privatization of the ministry or Americanization --
Mr Wildman: You don't need any help.
Mr Cordiano: You don't need any more help in that department, is that what you're saying?
Mr Dicerni: I was seeking to respond to two questions at once.
Mr Cordiano: So there is no such thinking going on in the ministry as there is in other ministries, such as Comsoc or Health.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Although this may make you aware of yet perhaps another failing of this minister, I, perhaps unlike my predecessors, am unable to tell you what thinking is going on on behalf of the many people who provide public service to the Ministry of Education and Training in the province of Ontario, I can only tell you what my thinking is.
Mr Cordiano: So you have no knowledge of any efforts on the part of Management Board or the Ministry of Finance. Something may be going on in your ministry that you're not aware of is what you're telling me.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry, to do what?
Mr Cordiano: Looking at privatization efforts within the government.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Privatization of government?
Mr Cordiano: There are services which are being considered to be privatized within various ministries.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I think this government's been very clear about the fact that it wants to make sure we centre on the core services that the public sector should be providing to the people of Ontario on behalf of the taxpayers and other people in Ontario. Your question, though, is about the Ministry of Education and Training or about the overall government?
Mr Cordiano: I'm talking about your ministry and what, if any, plans there are for any services to be privatized.
Hon Mr Snobelen: We've said publicly on many occasions -- I'll continue to say it, and I think there are people in all three parties who would agree -- that we need to continue to work with the private sector to make sure that there is private sector involvement in meeting the educational and training needs of the people of Ontario. I don't think there's any question about that, though I don't understand what initiatives would be privatized and where that question would -- the context of the question. The deputy is about to say something.
Mr Dicerni: There are certain aspects presently, as you know, in the educational system, for example, the private and vocational schools, which one could deem to be a certain form of privatization of the education sector. The nature of the endeavours that we are involved in in terms of education, teaching and training fundamentally is a public good. At its core, it is a public good that is delivered through public offices.
I was reading recently they made an attempt, I think in Baltimore, where they turned over the management of schools to a private sector undertaking, and it proved to be not terribly helpful. After three or four years, I think, Baltimore pulled the plug on this. I don't know if that's what you're trying to get at.
Mr Cordiano: That's sort of what I'm getting at. It makes it clear then that you have no intention to conduct any of those experiments, shall we say.
Mr Dicerni: In terms of the core, I think the minister was clear on that. In terms of some of the delivery, let me say, of technology --
Mr Cordiano: My next question is about computerizing the classroom.
Mr Dicerni: That's not what I was talking about, in terms of not actually computerizing, but we provide some technology support to a number of school boards where we help them in terms of designing computer programs to help them with their personnel, their payroll and so forth. If you ask me would that be a core function of the Ministry of Education, I'd have to think about that, but as compared to some of the other stuff that we do which is much more directly related to delivering the core service, I would say that the minister's answer is quite clear.
Mr Cordiano: One last question to the minister: He talked in almost idealistic terms some time ago about putting a computer for every child in every classroom across the province. That would be something that he would like to see come to pass some time in the future. Do you still hold that view and what are you doing to make that possible?
Hon Mr Snobelen: What I've said publicly on many occasions -- and I believe you'll find a number of educators who would concur with this. I've been in classrooms with young people, and sometimes very young people, using information technology -- computers are one form of information technology. It's very clear when you watch young people how these information tools can help young people in terms of their creativity and their engagement. It's obvious to myself and to other observers that information technology represents an enormous tool that will help people move at their own rate, their own progression. It's an important tool that we need to make an investment in and to investigate how we might do that.
1100
Mr Cordiano: Are you doing anything along those lines?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm concerned about the gap that exists between those young people currently who have access to information technology, at home or in other places, and those who do not, particularly where the information technology is not available to them in school. If you go across individual boards, you will find a very inconsistent approach to the use of information technology between schools.
We have continued along the course of pilot projects that will investigate the potential use of information technology. I've suggested publicly that we need to discuss this with the private sector, with the people in education and come up with some ways of making the investment that we need to make in Ontario.
One of the things I have been doing personally is visiting a variety of schools and having a look at what information technology systems are being used currently and how young people relate with those services and what might be in the best interests of the future of the education system in Ontario.
Mr Patten: I don't want to dwell too much, because we have talked about the preparation time, which is a consideration, because everything on the table is up for grabs and I'm sure you've received the representations that I have on the concern of the teachers. But I would like to further and advance a perspective on this time that is quite serious, and it's this: I'm not sure if the minister would agree, but I believe that the historical development of preparation time in good part has really been a negotiated arrangement that is acknowledging that much of the preparation work, much of the extra work, extracurricular activities, attention with students, in a very real sense is really a symbolic acknowledgment of the work that is done outside the classroom for teachers to be effective and to be responsible educators and responsible teachers in relation to their students.
I suggest, Minister, that opening up this issue of course then opens up the whole issue of all the extra time that teachers take. I recognize the government is looking for every possible avenue of cutting, and there is a window of cutting there that could be used, but I suggest to you that the ramifications of that would be, number one, we would probably lose somewhere in the neighbourhood of perhaps 7,000 teaching positions in Ontario.
I recognize there's a difference between secondary and elementary. When you're talking about time, you've cut that in half for the elementary school level, talking about acknowledging 20 minutes of time, which is a slap in the face to a lot of teachers. Actually at both levels, this would cause a reaction by the teachers, as being interpreted as an insult.
I would implore the minister and the government to consider other possibilities and that this particular avenue, while on the surface it may appear to be a fair one, is part of negotiated arrangements and indeed varies from board to board because, first of all, half of what is being done out of the so-called free periods -- in most situations I believe teachers are on call, teachers are filling in and supplying for other teachers during that particular time, so it's not a purely free period as sometimes characterized when one wants to find ways in which to cut. I don't know if the minister has a short comment on that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I won't use up your time restating what we've talked about already. I think that obviously we will respond to the suggestions that are made to us by the boards of education and other people in the education community, and this is one of the inputs from those persons. As we talked about yesterday, I think we recognize -- certainly most people would recognize -- the fact that teaching is a time-intensive profession. There are lots of elements required of teachers, and this is over a relatively short duration compared to perhaps other professions. So it's unique, there are very unique circumstances, and we hope to take all the circumstances into account when we prepare the recommendations that we're preparing.
However, I want to point out that the province generally seeks to legislate or regulate minimum standards in education across the province, as this government's required to do, and that we recognize the fact that there are different circumstances in different parts of the province. That's why the board structure that currently exists, to recognize those differences.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Just to make the minister perhaps a little more acquainted with an issue that's important in my constituency -- we're talking about the restructuring report that I believe was issued last fall and we're talking about my particular constituency along the northern shore of Lake Huron -- as we look at that, you would recognize that there are four boards, I believe, that will be amalgamated. They stretch a distance that is from -- to put it in some perspective, it would be somewhat like going from here to Windsor in terms of school boards. They're all rather small school boards in terms of student size but very huge in terms of geography.
I have two questions relating to that. The first one is, how in the world could this ever work so that both students and ratepayers have some sense that it's not only efficient but that they receive a better education and the public has more input? The second question -- I'll ask the first one first and then see what you might respond to that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe you'll be looking at the interim report of the Sweeney commission.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes.
Hon Mr Snobelen: It is obviously an interim report. We expect the final report very soon. The interim report was designed to submit to the people of Ontario the preliminary findings of the commission. In doing so, I believe that the people serving on the commission sought to engage in a discussion. My understanding is that there have been thousands of submissions to the commission from the time of that interim report till now and that they will be responding to that in the final report.
The number of boards is only one of the considerations of the commission, and sometimes I think that's missing in the reporting on what the commission has talked about. They're also looking at the duties of the trustees, which is something that the royal commission recommended, and they're looking at some of the cost factors in education. I'm looking forward to the full report. I believe all of those items are of interest.
I also want to point out that this is obviously a commission that was initiated as a result of the royal commission and by the previous government. When we assumed the responsibilities of governing, I want to say again publicly, we did not discontinue all the programs and initiatives of the previous government. We sought to use those to answer the questions that were being addressed by the previous government, and I think it's been a responsible move.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm bringing this up more just for your personal information. I realize the final report will be coming out.
The second question that relates to that almost quite directly when we talk about governance of school boards is that my constituency and the next one, because it actually includes a good section of Mr Wildman's constituency also, have a very large first nations community. Particularly if you look at the area of one school board, the Manitoulin school board, the native population would be somewhere between a third and 50% of the students going. As you know, their tuition is paid to the school board by the various first nations, being money supplied from the federal government.
On the issue of governance when you get into a huge area, as we're talking about, in terms of how first nations are represented on boards, there's always an ongoing concern that there are either too many or too few, depending on what side of the fence you happen to be on, and how that can be addressed when you're representing such a sizeable population of students who need real representation at the school board table.
1110
Hon Mr Snobelen: There is obviously a variety of issues that surround aboriginal governance, and particularly the relationship of aboriginal governance to education, which, as you pointed out, involves ultimately some federal supports. I concur with you that these are difficult decisions that face local communities.
We are now facing, both federally and provincially, responses to aboriginal governance issues that involve both education and all of the other services that are provided. I know that there are very unique services required by the aboriginal community in relation to training and post-secondary education as well. I've had a chance to meet with some of the leaders from those communities and to address these with them, and that's an ongoing dialogue.
Mr Michael Brown: Just a quick comment: Perhaps before the final report of the commission's in, I would invite you to come and visit those various boards in the area so that you have some sense, because quite frankly this is quite different than Toronto. As my good friend the member for Algoma said to me, they're all poor boards. They're boards that have worked very hard with cooperative ventures to find ways of lowering administrative costs. I don't think if you compared those across Ontario, you would find a level of administration that any of us here would deem unacceptable.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've spent about 25% of my time in schools from September till now and I've attempted to get into a variety of different circumstances around the province. I am working now on a plan to get into some of the isolated boards. I concur with your observation that boards serve a completely different function in different parts of the province. They clearly have different problems in different parts of the province.
In the GTA we have accommodation problems in some. In more mature parts of the GTA we don't have accommodation problems. We have ESL problems or challenges in parts of it. In my home riding, Mississauga North, we have the Peel board and the Dufferin-Peel board. In the south of those boards they have very mature communities and no capital problems. In the north of that same area they have wildly growing communities and so they have completely different problems inside one jurisdiction.
What I can say is that I will continue to be in schools. I will continue to try to be in the boards that have different problems. We acknowledge, I think everyone in this room would agree, that there is a difference in the kind of challenges that face each and every board in Ontario.
Mr Michael Brown: I was just inviting you to come and see our particular boards.
Mr Patten: Minister, what is your definition of "compulsory education"? This was used of course by the Premier to say, "We will be supporting what is compulsory."
Hon Mr Snobelen: The Education Act makes very specific requirements of the education program in the province of Ontario. There are non-compulsory subjects, non-compulsory fields of study --
Mr Patten: And that's another field, not in what would be compulsory for --
Hon Mr Snobelen: Those are defined in law, my understanding is. Do we have representation here that could tell you that?
Mr Patten: Let me come at it this way: What's the difference between core programs -- these are all terms that we're hearing being thrown out, obviously, when you're searching for resources or when you're looking for ways to cut. You have made a statement that, "We will not touch the classroom." There's a core program, there's a core curriculum, there are definitions here of "core." I'm trying to get a handle on that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I think this is something that previous administrations and previous governments in the province have struggled with, which is one of the reasons why the Working Group on Education Finance Reform was initiated, to examine that subject, examine core cost subjects. I'm looking for their report. I think it'll bring some clarity to the whole subject.
Mr Patten: You say that you would not touch funding in the classroom. When you say "classroom," do you mean literally the physical environs of a four-walled physical space or do you mean the experience of a student that obviously involves being outside the classroom from time to time?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We're going to rely on, I believe, Mr Sweeney's report, which will have something to say on this subject; we're going to look for the education finance working group to report, because I think they'll have something interesting to say on this subject. These definitions are something that previous administrations have struggled with. We believe those will be informative. I can say this, that if you ask the question in its opposite, what is not a classroom expense, perhaps there are some rather obvious items that are available. We'll be instructed by those two committees that are reporting shortly, but that doesn't preclude us from looking at things that are obviously not directly classroom related. Those would be administrative functions and some of the supports to administration that are involved in education.
Mr Patten: Of course, the problem with economics driving education is that the definitions become driven by economics, not necessarily by the best pedagogical suppositions of education, which is to say that when you try to cut the realities of the money you're looking for, then you're going to try to manipulate the situation to be able to say, "There, you see, I've left classroom education intact."
I suggest to you that there will be redefinitions in the province about what that means, and it'll be different from what it was before. I would offer you the potential worry of many people in this province who say that they are worried about accessibility; that if, as a good educational experience, I believe as you well know, it's acknowledged that there is a great deal of learning that does not happen within the physical classroom situation, that there are field trips, that there are seminars, that there are visits to other places with teachers, with groups, that are part of the educational experience and the growth and development of our young people, many people worry that this concept of education will have shrunk and been driven by economic requirements and the imposed requirements from the Treasurer of what you're asked to find in education.
I hope it will not be a sad day, but I tell you that people are extremely worried, which is not to say that one should not find resources and continue to look for being as efficient and as effective as possible in education. The question is, with those resources, what do you do?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We're looking forward to those reports that will help us with these definitions, but I think that if you take even the most extreme estimates of what might be available initially in reducing out-of-classroom expenditures, you're looking at something less than 10% of the total system cost. I think most people across the province, in their own homes, in their experience in their work environment over the last decade, would find a 10% efficiency gain, if you will, to be not extraordinary, to be very ordinary. In fact, families across the province have certainly experienced those kinds of changes in their economic conditions and have treated them as quite a normal event over the past decade.
I think that people, when they look in their own experiences, their experiences professionally and their experiences personally, would not think it untoward to be looking for an increase in efficiency, particularly out of the classroom, that represents something less than 10% by anyone's calculation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Minister. We'll move to the NDP, and my understanding is that this would be the last encounter with the minister in questions.
Mr Wildman: I hope it's not our last encounter.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Chairman, is that forever or for today?
The Chair: No, that's for today in the estimates, and then we will move to the voting afterwards.
1120
Mr Wildman: I just want to express my thanks to Ms Andrew and her colleagues for giving me some responses to the DeVry situation during the break we had and to indicate to the minister that I understand the problems the ministry has been experiencing in that regard and the effects it's had on students and their OSAP and so on. I look forward to this matter being resolved by next week so that the February students' intake will not be affected the way the October students' was. We'll leave it at that.
There are two matters I'd like to deal with in the last portion of time we have. I'd like to follow through with the comments on apprenticeship that we alluded to before, and just before I do that I want to put something on the table with regard to university funding. I have a letter that I received from the Council of Ontario Universities, Bonnie Patterson, the president. I just want to refer to a couple of things that Ms Patterson says in her letter.
"Before further cuts are even made" -- this was in October, of course, before the November announcement -- "it should be recognized that universities are receiving less money for each student enrolled than they were in the 1970s, in constant dollars, about 12% less than they received in 1977-78. This erosion took place at the same time as funding for programs in other publicly funded sectors increased substantially." That's of course under three different governments.
"Universities in Ontario directly contribute over $4 billion to the economy each year. For every one dollar in government funding we receive, we return four dollars to the economy." Further, she refers to a study done by economist Dr Atif Kubursi, who's at McMaster University. "The Kubursi study shows that a 20% cut in total grants would represent a loss of $376 million in operating budgets. This would impose massive dislocations and high adjustment costs that would translate into a loss in salary and benefit expenditures of more than $300 million. The ability of Ontario's universities to contribute to local economies will be greatly diminished" -- and she emphasizes that statement.
"The spinoff effects for business would be an estimated $1 billion loss in sales. The employment losses, however, would be even more staggering. The equivalent of over 14,550 jobs will be lost." Further, "Total tax losses are estimated to be over $317 million to all three levels of government combined. This includes losses of property and business taxes to municipal governments which would further constrict the local economy....
"Regionally, the impacts are significant. In the Metropolitan Toronto area, the economic loss resulting for the expenditure reductions represents almost $390 million. Those institutions in the north face a collective loss of $54 million. Institutions in the eastern region face losses of $232 million, over four times greater than the northern region. In southwestern Ontario, the loss of $386 million is almost equivalent of that in Metropolitan Toronto. This is a collective economic loss of over $1 billion."
I'd just like to ask in regard to this, is the minister or his staff familiar with Dr Kubursi's work in terms of the economic impacts of cuts in the university sector and how they affect the greater community, and also how they affect revenue to government in relation to losses in purchases by the institutions and to the spinoff impacts of job losses and salary and benefit losses?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Universities take up and are active in a wide number of areas that affect life in Ontario and they're also involved in a very dynamic part of the world. Post-secondary education is very dynamic. I won't argue with the numbers. I know the deputy has something to contribute to this conversation and I'll allow him to do so.
However, I often find some of the numbers that are presented by people in various sectors to be interesting. I expect if there's a $4 return for every $1 invested, the conclusion one could reach is that the economic woes of the province would be over if it simply took all of its huge deficit, doubled it and invested it. I don't think that would be a logical conclusion or one that would be supported by very many people who study the economy. So I think that the conclusions that can be reached by some of the numbers that have been presented by people might be erroneous. I'll allow the deputy to make a comment here.
Mr Dicerni: One, I think there's a recognition on the part of the ministry that the challenge that is faced by universities, executive heads and so forth, is quite significant. There is also recognition that Ontario universities, if one refers to the common view as well as indicators such as Maclean's, are some of the best universities in the country, and it is something that the government is keen on sustaining.
Secondly, in terms of jobs, we have been working quite closely to the degree that we can with all executive heads and been monitoring the actions that have been taken since the November 29 announcements and have met with a number of individual institutions. Most of them, I think, have taken a very intelligent and as rational an approach as possible. For example, in Waterloo, as you may know, they have put together a retirement package, perhaps similar to the one that was developed for Hydro, in order to have a gradual easing --
Mr Wildman: That's helpful, but I think Dr Kubursi's argument is what the spinoff effect in the community will be. I understand the minister's response, but my question really relates to, has the government, in conjunction with the universities or on their own, looked at the spinoff results and related that to the government's commitment to create jobs in the province? If the spinoff from these cuts means actual job losses, not just in the universities but in the community, in the businesses that supply the university, that provide services for the university, provide materials for the university, how does that then relate to a commitment to create jobs when in fact what you're doing is having the opposite effect?
Hon Mr Snobelen: There are two parts to that observation. We've had inputs from a number of people, from economists and people who study these subjects, that would not draw the same conclusions as those that you have presented today, and I won't argue the merits of either. I think there is obviously a lot of opinion on this subject.
I think there is little doubt that there is an effect on the future of Ontario, that there's a reason to maintain and to cause to be maintained post-secondary institutions that are excellent, that have high-quality programs. There are the direct daily operating effects on local economies by universities. I don't need to remind you that those direct daily operating expenditures are a dynamic and have changed over time and will change inside of communities. However, I do certainly concur with the fact that we need excellent universities. No one's arguing that point.
We do though need a very fulsome conversation on the distinctions between public research and private research. That's something we have been engaged with now with different institutions, and I believe that's an evolving and emerging relationship between the private sector, the universities and the taxpayers of different constituencies. We need to have that conversation, it seems to me, to develop a research program that works for Ontario.
Mr Wildman: I wanted to raise that, but I don't have time to go into the question of research.
I would like to move to the other matter I mentioned that I would close off with. Obviously, what I've just said in terms of Dr Kubursi's work could be applied to the cuts at the college sector, to the cuts at the boards of education level as well, and the spinoff effects and what that means in the community, and I think we should keep that in mind whenever we're making these decisions.
Turning now to apprenticeship, I noticed in your New Directions document that was produced in 1992, to which I referred earlier, it says on page 29: "There is no need for more studies and reports -- the problems are obvious and serious. What is needed is the political will to face the entrenched interests.... " Further, it says, "...we must recognize that apprenticeship training will lead to lucrative and fulfilling careers, and represents important career options for young people."
1130
I'll use one example of what I said earlier about the possibility of apprenticeship programs collapsing. At Sault College in Sault Ste Marie, the heavy equipment mechanics program is slated to be discontinued and perhaps transferred to Sudbury; at least the students, if they want to take it, will have to go to Sudbury. As I mentioned earlier, Mr Woolley from Algoma Steel is here with us, and he has expressed considerable concern about this. The heavy equipment mechanics at Algoma Steel -- the workforce average age is 45, and it's obvious that we're going to need new tradespeople very soon. Algoma will retire 195 tradespeople by August 1996; 400 more people will retire from other trades areas by the year 2000.
Algoma currently has four -- just four -- apprentices attending the Sault College program, and five will attend when they return to work; in other words, there are five on layoff and when they get rehired by Algoma Steel, they will attend the program. Algoma's maintenance program employs 1,500 people and consists of 27 trades; 60 mechanics have all attended Sault College at one time or another with ongoing night courses and so on. These people will be forced to go out of town if the programs aren't available. This will deter potential apprentices who have families and who have financial requirements to meet, and the training facilities are not available for high school graduates.
There's another question in terms of this particular question: What does it mean for safety, if we aren't training the people we need? "The majority of mechanics possess a class A licence. This licence is compulsory and coincides with the heavy equipment licence. Many local garages in the Sault employ mechanics who repair and maintain thousands of trucks, trailers and buses. These mechanics do government inspections for safety regulations that keep our highways safe," and we all know the issues around trucks and truck safety that we've seen across the province. How are we going to train these people if the programs aren't available?
The federal government, as mentioned earlier, is also cutting its apprenticeship funding. Algoma Steel has experienced this over the last few years, so what have corporations like Algoma Steel done? They've essentially raided each other, and more often than not, they've gone to Europe to get the tradespeople they require. They go to Germany or Britain and import them on five-year contracts -- Algoma Steel has done this a number of times -- when we have young people who are looking for work and looking to make a contribution.
Why are we cutting back on apprenticeship programs now? The cuts that are being imposed, for whatever reasons -- which could argued about, but I'm talking specifically about the apprenticeship programs. Why would we be doing that when we need to have these people and we need to have the programs available for them so they can get the training they need? We need to be addressing the concerns of young people, the unemployed workforce, and what we're doing now is going to mean that in the very near future corporations like Algoma Steel are not going to be able to get the tradespeople they require locally and will have to do what they've done in the past -- go elsewhere -- when there are lots of young people who need employment locally.
We also run the risk that perhaps we won't be able to meet the requirements of regulation 611 of the Highway Traffic Act in terms of safety inspections in our area in local garages because they won't have the trained heavy equipment mechanics available. It just doesn't make sense to me, even in terms of the government's own stated commitments, that we would be cutting back on these kinds of programs.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to ask Joan Andrew to address some of these issues, because she is very learned in this area. I would like to make a couple of observations first, though.
One is that we are committed to reviewing the training programs available in Ontario and will be making that report, as we've said earlier, later on this spring. As you've mentioned, there has been a federal withdrawal of funding from apprenticeship programs, and that concerns me. I have and I know you have attempted to keep in mind that there is one taxpayer. The federal government certainly faces some difficulties in this regard, and I try to not participate, as I know you do, in what's sometimes described as fed-bashing.
Mr Wildman: No, I haven't engaged in that, I don't think.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've attempted not to. That said, I think there are some disturbing trends in this regard. The employers and employees of Ontario who bear the brunt of what is basically -- the unemployment insurance program in Ontario, for instance, transfers about $4 billion out of this province to employers and employees in other jurisdictions, and that's difficult to maintain on an annual basis. I think it does a disservice, in some cases, to employees here in the province and to their opportunities. I believe there are some perhaps injustices in that regard.
I have encouraged the former federal minister to have a look at that; I hope the new federal minister will do so. I hope the revisions planned for unemployment insurance, what's now called employment insurance, will address the very serious drain from employers and employees in this province. I think it's something we can't sustain at this time.
Mr Wildman: I guess the question is whether we at the provincial level are going to take up the void if there is one.
Hon Mr Snobelen: We're looking now at restructuring, and I'll ask Ms Andrew to talk to that directly. However, I want to make one more point. There's another problem regarding apprenticeships that you haven't raised, and I think it's a significant one.
I have been very directly involved in apprenticeship programs in the province in my previous career. I operated a trucking company in the greater Toronto area, and I have some understanding of the need for mechanics. Although the services are available from an apprenticeship and training point of view in this area, perhaps more available than in other areas of the province, we still have a problem in attracting people to the profession.
One of the significant things involved in the restructuring of our secondary school program is to make sure that young people have an appreciation of and access to co-op education and other programs that'll allow them to regard the trades as a desirable career path for many people. We have problems right now in this area, where there is training available, in attracting people to those trades. I hope we can reverse that by having a revised secondary school program that really enforces the benefit of being involved in a trade. I know that was very clear when I was a young person growing up, and I hope to make it clear for the next generation.
Joan, do you have comments?
Ms Andrew: We are right now in negotiations with the federal government, because under the federal-provincial agreements on training, in-classroom costs for apprenticeship have generally been borne by them. They did cut that by $20 million about a year ago now, and the government at the time decided it couldn't afford to take up the slack, so we have been dealing over the past academic year with a $20-million reduction in the in-classroom costs of apprenticeship. We've been working with OTAB and the college system on different ways of delivering apprenticeships, some through distance education in northern sites, and some through multimedia approaches.
Mr Wildman: You need hands-on experience sometimes, though.
Ms Andrew: What we're talking about in the apprenticeship cutbacks right now is the classroom side of it. About 80% of any apprentice's time is in the workplace. I think the talk right now is about the 20%.
We're also working with the college system to look at what are known as day-release programs as opposed to block-release programs, because those are easier for employers and workers and in the end are less expensive, where people go more often but for shorter periods of time to the colleges.
There is a variety of things we're trying to do within the existing apprenticeship system to make the classroom side of it more efficient, cost us less. The federal government has committed to withdraw from this area, but we're trying to negotiate the timing and pacing of that.
1140
Mr Wildman: I appreciate that. I would like to hear more at some point about what's happening with those negotiations and what the contribution of the private sector might be in the whole process.
I would like to pursue another thing in this regard: the specific heavy equipment program as it relates to Sault College and whether it is going to end up at Sudbury, and what that means for businesses and for young people and for apprentices in Sault Ste Marie and Algoma district. I'd like to get some specifics on that, and I don't expect you'll be able to give it to me offhand.
The experience of 45 years of age as an average among the tradespeople at Algoma Steel is not that unusual in our economy. It's very alarming, because what it means is that we are not training people. Instead of having a cross-section of some in their 20s, some in their 30s and some older, we've got a very high percentage of tradespeople who came from Europe a long time ago, and we haven't trained people all along.
That's partly because there hasn't been the commitment by the private sector, as well as the public sector, and there haven't been people hired. But it also means, now at least, that we are facing an opportunity in a few years. These people are going to be leaving the workforce in a few years and we're going to have to train people to replace them. We should be looking at how we do that.
Ms Andrew: Just to repeat a little of what the minister said, we are looking, as part of secondary school reform, at how to make better bridges for students who don't go on to post-secondary education to go into further training in the workplace. One of the statistics that has been a little nervous-making for those of us involved in apprenticeship is that in the last 15 years the average age of entry into apprenticeship has gone up by 10 years; now the average age of people coming into apprenticeship is considerably older, so it's a choice people are making later in life. We need to help that choice be made earlier, directly out of school. That's our societal value of valuing trades education.
Mr Wildman: Exactly. It's also related to how secondary schools prepare students, and I know the minister made a comment on that.
Ms Andrew: Yes, and we are working on that as part of secondary school reform.
Mr Wildman: I'd just like to thank you for that and to close off my contribution to the debate by saying that I appreciate the comments and responses from the minister's staff and the exchange I've had with the minister. I do have a significant difference of opinion, which is a sincerely held one, with the minister in terms of how we should design a quality education system to meet the needs of our society as we go into the 21st century and the need to be cost-effective in doing that.
It's more than a question of emphasis but a significant difference of view that, I'll admit, may not relate just to my different political position but also my own background, as opposed to the background of the minister and his colleagues. I must express some bias, having been an educator myself and being married to one.
I do think that in striving to produce a system that meets the needs of society and meets the needs of students, we must also value the contribution made by educators and recognize that they provide a significant service to their students certainly, but to society as a whole, and occupy a position of trust which is one that should be valued perhaps as greatly as those who are entrusted with our physical and mental health and the physical and mental health of our children.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wildman. We shall move to the next phase, asking for the vote to be taken.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Just prior to voting, Mr Chairman, I'd like to take one moment to thank the people who have been involved in this process; on behalf of my colleagues to thank the ministry staff for their contribution and to thank all the people who have been involved in this process.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I also would like to thank the ministry staff for being here and making their contribution.
Now we shall move to the votes. We have three different votes to take. Shall votes 1101, 1102 and 1103 carry? All in favour? Carried.
Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training carry?
Mr Wildman: These numbers are not particularly relevant to what's happening, but we should pass them.
The Chair: Carried.
We'll adjourn until 1:30, and we'll start Community and Social Services estimates at that time.
The committee recessed from 1147 to 1334.
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES
The Chair: May we begin, please. I'd like to commence estimates on the Ministry of Community and Social Services. There will be an allocation of 15 hours. I understand, Minister, you have an opening statement. Welcome to the committee, and we welcome your staff also to this committee. You may begin, sir.
Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr Chairman and members of the committee, this is the first time a Minister of Community and Social Services representing a Progressive Conservative government has appeared before the committee over the last decade. I hope to be able to answer some of your questions with my remarks in opening.
For almost a year preceding the June election, our party was clearly on record with its agenda for fundamental reform. We called that agenda the Common Sense Revolution. It outlined the approach we would take to bring jobs, hope and prosperity back to Ontario. On June 8 the people of this province agreed with that plan. They agreed with us that government was not working any more and that the system that had been in place for the last 10 years was broken.
The time has come for government to make the same types of changes that most Ontario citizens have had to make in their own families and in their own jobs. If we are to fix the problems in this province, then government must be prepared to make some tough decisions.
I'm not talking about tinkering, about incremental changes or even about short-term solutions that previous governments had tried. What I'm talking about is taking a completely fresh look at this ministry and to fundamentally reform the way it works for people, to make it work for people, and the time for this is now.
To support significant change in the service system, the ministry's own business will have to change. The economic and social environment requires the ministry to re-examine its role in service delivery and the number and nature of the services it funds.
My ministry has adopted a clear vision for the changes which we have already started to make. That vision is an effective and affordable service system which supports and invests in families and communities to be responsible and accountable, where adults are as independent as possible, a society where children are safe and where support is provided to people most in need.
As I have said, we've already started working to make that vision a reality. Later, I will be describing some of the steps we have already taken. But we also know we have much more work to do. With our vision as a touchstone, our work will be guided by some fundamental principles.
The first is shared responsibility. We believe that individuals, families and communities have a primary responsibility to provide for themselves. Social services should promote self-reliance. They should supplement, not displace traditional supports in the family and the community.
The second principle is accountability. The ministry will set clear expectations for the results. We will target resources to programs and services which have proven their effectiveness.
The third principle that will guide our work is efficiency and rationalization. The existing system is costly, inefficient and full of duplication. We have to deliver the greatest possible benefit with available resources. Our funding will be focused on service to people and not on organizations. Resources will be allocated to discourage duplication, and services will be based on community needs and managed as part of an integrated system.
Finally, perhaps the most easily understood of our guiding principles is fairness. Social services will be provided to people in need across Ontario with fairness and sensitivity, respecting the diversity of our people and the varied needs of the province's regions.
Our vision and guiding principles will help us create a system that's quite different from the system we inherited. We will become a ministry that concentrates its resources on the wellbeing of the individual in need, a ministry that manages an effective and affordable social service system, and it will be a ministry that manages a system, including social assistance and child care, that is based on incentives for economic independence.
"Affordable" is a key word, as my colleague Ernie Eves said in his November 29 economic statement. Every hour this province is spending $1 million more than it takes in. To allow that to continue would be to rob our children of their futures.
We are not alone when it comes to recognizing the need for change. Throughout Canada and worldwide, governments and taxpayers have finally come to realize that the debts they are carrying will soon cripple their economies, throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work and place their citizens at risk.
At the national level, the federal government has served notice on the provinces that transfer payments will diminish substantially over the coming years. This means that on April 1, 1996, Ontario will start facing further reductions in transfer payments under the Canada health and social transfer system.
It is estimated that the reduction of cash transfers for our health, post-secondary education and social services will amount to $2.2 billion in 1996-97 and 1997-98, depending on the formula used.
Obviously, with our debt load and the reduction in federal transfer payments, we cannot continue to spend our way out of problems. If money solved the issues for social services, we would be experiencing an unprecedented level of wellbeing in Ontario. Over the last five years we have seen a growth in this ministry's spending like never before in its history. What has happened is that we no longer have an affordable system of social services in Ontario.
1340
An example of this is our welfare program. In the last 10 years, the NDP and Liberals have spent about $40 billion on social assistance, which is about 40% of the current provincial debt load. During that decade, through good economic times and bad, the number of people on welfare kept rising.
In 1985, for example, about 476,000 people relied on welfare in this province. When I became minister last June, that number had risen to around 1.3 million. Put another way, taxpayers were supporting one in 10 people in Ontario with a welfare cheque.
In dollar terms, the numbers are truly staggering. In 1985 we spent $1.4 billion on welfare. By the end of the 1994-95 fiscal year, that total had risen to $6.6 billion, which is nearly $3 billion more than the ministry's entire operating budget for 1988-89. What did the taxpayers of this province get for that $6.6 billion? What they got was a system that encouraged dependency. What did people on welfare get? They got a welfare trap that is extremely difficult to escape.
We want to change that. We want adults to be as independent as possible. We want communities and families to be responsible. Our welfare reforms have mirrored our vision and have begun to break that cycle of dependency. We are providing an avenue of escape for those trapped on welfare and we are promoting opportunities to give people a renewed sense of personal responsibility in their lives through work. It is an enormous task but it is not going to be accomplished easily. But if we do nothing, the human consequences will be greater.
That is why this government has taken the following major steps to totally refocus the welfare system in this province so that it serves only those truly in need and serves them in accordance with the fiscal responsibility that the taxpayers of this province demand.
In his economic statement last July, the Minister of Finance announced that social assistance base rates would be cut by 21.6%, effective October 1. Up until that time, we had social assistance benefits that were 30% higher than the average of the other nine provinces, something we could not possibly afford any longer.
Today those welfare benefits are a more realistic 10% higher than the average of the other nine provinces.
Benefits for seniors and people with disabilities on FBA were not reduced. We are presently creating a new guaranteed support program that will move seniors and people with disabilities out of welfare, where they should never have been in the first place.
Welfare is a transitional program, whereas seniors and people with disabilities need long-term support. The guaranteed support program will give recipients a more secure future. We will make sure that those members of our society continue to have their income supports protected. This is in keeping with our vision to provide support to people most in need.
Although we reduced the amount of the welfare cheques, we gave people the opportunity to earn back the difference between the old and new rates. Many of these clients can earn back that difference by working only about six hours a week.
We think that being able to make up the difference is an important first step for people to get off welfare and back into the workforce. After all, any job is a good job. Even a part-time job to earn back the difference might help welfare recipients eventually achieve full-time work and free them from the cycle of welfare dependency. It gives them the opportunity to take more responsibility for themselves and their families.
Last August, after only two months in office, I announced a number of measures to tighten the rules surrounding welfare eligibility and measures to combat fraud in the system.
We believe that every penny that is paid to the wrong person is money that cannot be given to the truly needy. Our aim is to ensure that our welfare system will always be there when people need it. People elected us to restore this kind of faith in the welfare system and we are doing so with the following measures:
Sixteen- and 17-year-olds who decide to leave home cannot get welfare any more unless they undergo family assessments, live under adult supervision and regularly attend school or training.
A person living with a spouse, as defined by the regulations, cannot receive welfare as a single parent or a single person. Families with two adults living as spouses can apply for general welfare assistance and will be eligible based on a review of their needs.
Employable people who quit their jobs or who are fired with cause now have to wait three months instead of one before they can apply for welfare.
Random home visits by case workers are now a condition for receiving welfare, and the visits will be used to verify eligibility.
As a government, we believe we have to protect the social assistance system for those who truly need support. That belief lies at the heart of our efforts to address the issue of welfare fraud.
In order to minimize fraud in the welfare system as much as possible, I announced that:
We are setting up a special team to combat fraud province-wide. Their duties include investigating organized fraud, providing information to investigators in the field and keeping in touch with police and courts.
A 1-800 anti-fraud hotline -- 1-800-394-STOP -- was also placed on stream throughout the province so people could report suspected cases of fraud.
We are accelerating improvements to our automated information-sharing with other provinces, the federal government and other Ontario ministries and municipalities. This will help eliminate the practice by many people of double-dipping into the Canadian welfare system.
I have been encouraged by the public response we have received from our 1-800 anti-fraud line; 63% of all allegations it received up to January 31 were of such a nature that they were referred to field offices for further investigation.
We expect that the eligibility measures I have just outlined will save Ontarians around $100 million annually.
Already our welfare reforms are having some impact. Over the last seven months, we have seen a steady decrease in the number of people on welfare. On February 2, I announced that there were 5,933 fewer individuals, or about 2,061 fewer households, relying on social assistance in January 1996. This is the first time in over 20 years that the welfare caseload has gone down in the month of January. Since June, when we assumed office, over 119,000 people have stopped relying on social assistance. I am very encouraged to see this seven-month decline in caseloads and social assistance costs.
Our policies have proven to be equally encouraging in relation to 16- and 17-year-olds. Since the end of September we have gone from 6,295 16- and 17-year-old welfare recipients to 5,107 at the end of December. That is a drop of almost 19%.
It is news like this that makes us confident to continue our efforts to reform the overall welfare system so we can help so many good people throughout the province get back to work. If we do not, then we would not be able to afford a welfare system.
But far too many people, far too many families remain trapped in the welfare system. This makes me more committed than ever to the mandatory work-for-welfare program that we promised the electorate leading up to the June 8 election. It is a program that supports our vision of investing in families and communities so they can become more responsible and accountable while giving individuals the independence they need.
Later this year, this work-for-welfare program will become mandatory for able-bodied people still on benefits. It will be called Ontario Works and it will demand responsible behaviour and individual initiative from people on welfare. For many on welfare, this will be the first time they have had any obligation to work or even look for work. Under the old rules, social assistance became a way of life for many people. Later this year, if able-bodied welfare recipients do not take an offer of an Ontario Works job or employment program, they will lose their entitlement to their welfare cheque.
Ontario Works will not be a government make-work program. It will be a program in which recipients will perform community service or other worthwhile activity, or enter a program designed to get them back to work, in exchange for their benefits. Our welfare offices will refocus their efforts to match recipients with available community service or training opportunities that will link them to a job. Ontario Works will not displace people in paid jobs.
We want to work with the public and volunteer sectors. We want them to join us to make Ontario Works a success. We will be asking municipalities, service groups and other non-profit organizations to be our partners and sponsor community placement opportunities for people on welfare.
In such a reformed welfare system, matching people with opportunity will be the key to success, just as it is in business. This will give recipients the chance to use their skills and to develop new ones by providing services for, or through, sponsors. We believe this kind of program can be meaningful, not just for the individuals involved, but for communities all over the province. The people who will now be working, perhaps for the first time in their lives, will be able to take the first step towards independence. You and I both know that there are hundreds of thousands of good, honest people in this province who are just waiting for an opportunity such as this.
We are on track to get Ontario Works up and running. As we continue our implementation planning, we'll be listening very carefully to what the experts and the public have to say about our plans. The greater the involvement of the community, the greater will be our success in creating meaningful and useful work experiences for people on welfare.
There is no question that the best program for welfare recipients is a job. Under the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, this government has established a clear agenda and climate that will encourage economic growth and job creation, and that means current welfare recipients will soon be well on their way to productive lives back in the full-time workforce.
1350
I hope I have left this committee with a strong sense of commitment to fundamental welfare reform based on this ministry's vision and principles. This government was elected, in large part, because people in the province believed we were serious about fixing a badly broken welfare system. We're serious and we'll keep that commitment.
I would like to turn now to my ministry's relationships with its transfer partners and also working relationships with Indian bands and municipalities.
The current array of social services has built up over time without a comprehensive vision to guide it and in the absence of any incentives to rationalize it. There is too much being spent on agency and municipal infrastructure and administration at the cost and expense of providing direct service to the clients.
Our vision of an effective and affordable service system that supports the individual in need places an emphasis on shared responsibility among individuals, families and communities. Its primary purpose is to promote self-reliance. We have to move away from the interest group input and investment in the public sector towards input from taxpayers and public-private partnerships.
The reasons are obvious. At present there are administrative inefficiencies, there is duplication and people in need have trouble connecting with the services they need. They are often frustrated by the number of times they are assessed before they actually get service.
In London, for example, a community task force has reviewed the delivery of services in their community and has proposed creative ways to address such issues as confusion about mandates of the various service delivery agents; the resulting difficulty that people have finding out what is available and where to get it; and the direction of too many resources toward multiple -- often unnecessary -- assessments rather than front-line service delivery. These issues are not unique to London; they are pervasive in the delivery of social services across Ontario.
It is clear to many of us that we can no longer justify and afford the duplication and the territorial approach that has historically characterized the social service sector in this province; nor can we continue to support and fund the proliferation of agencies and service bureaucracies. The resources we have must be focused on direct service to those in need.
This government is committed to improving accountability, efficiency and services, living within its means, and being accountable to taxpayers for ensuring that when we spend their tax dollars we are getting the best value for money. We expect, and we are committed to achieving, services that work better for people who need our support.
That means working in an efficient and productive way that focuses on real benefits to people in need, looking for ways to help people achieve independence and finding ways to ensure that those who can do the best job of providing effective value-for-money services do so. It also means that government has to stop trying to be all things to all people. I believe we have stifled the capacity of individuals and communities to take responsibility for themselves.
Over the years, there have been many efforts made by planning groups to streamline and integrate the service system, but we continue to experience a strong reluctance on the part of the system to change itself and restructure. I know we can make things better. In order to do so, we will be clear about what our core services are and we will define our expectations for those services, not in terms of process, but in terms of results. We will need to tap into some of the truly innovative and creative thinking in communities about how we can redesign Ontario's social service system to be better, more effective and focused on those most in need.
I do not think there are many people who would say, "If we were starting from scratch to build a social services system in Ontario, we would build it exactly as it is today." There are a great many things that need to be done differently, and a great number of things that can be done better. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us all to find ways to eliminate duplication among agencies. We have to rationalize services between and among all levels of government, including those within our own government. Reducing overhead and infrastructure in order to direct precious public funds towards the essential front-line services will improve services by ensuring people in need get the maximum benefit from those services.
With our communities providing leadership through innovative restructuring and cooperation, we can structure core services which are more focused on client-based services supplemented by communities and volunteer services.
Last July 21, I wrote to our service partners advising them that the ministry would be reducing their payments by 2.5% effective October 1, which would be annualized to 5% in 1996-97. This gave the agencies time to start putting their implementation strategies in place to reflect local priorities and to minimize the impact on individuals in need.
What we are doing is to make sure we spend the taxpayers' dollars on the individual and not necessarily on the agency that supports the individual. To make that system better and to ensure the system will be there for those who need it, we must define our core services and focus our resources on them. As we move towards a complete restructuring of the social service system, we have to concentrate on those services that are needed the most. The end result will be to focus on outcomes for clients and to limit, as much as possible, the need for high-cost substitute care for children and vulnerable adults.
Obviously, some tough measures and decisions have been made, but I hasten to remind the committee that we will still provide $2 billion annually to transfer payment agencies which serve around 300,000 throughout Ontario. We still have to find the most effective ways to provide support for people truly in need. I have urged our transfer payment partners to work closely with our area offices to identify opportunities and expenditure reductions that can be found through restructuring at the agency and community levels. At the provincial level, I have invited groups, such as the Ontario Association for Community Living and the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, to name just two, to sit on advisory committees to provide their advice and input on how best to restructure our services.
We visualize an integrated social service system that is focused on helping the client. We see a system delivering better core services within community-based systems that invite our volunteers, our churches, our businesses and our non-profit enterprises in to help. This is the key to our principle of shared responsibility. Historically, Ontario's social service system was born out of the efforts of volunteers and church groups across the province. We will encourage that community spirit which has been so much a part of the province over the decades, a spirit that has characterized the very nature of Ontarians.
The third area I would like to address is the general area of our services to support children. As I stated at the outset, we must have an effective and affordable service system which supports and invests in families and communities to be responsible and accountable; adults to be as independent as possible; in which children are safe; and support is provided to people most in need.
In the Common Sense Revolution our party put itself clearly on record. We said government has an obligation to our children, whether that support is in the classroom or making sure that underprivileged children do not suffer because of poor nutrition. We also made it very clear that we would end the previous government's efforts to convert commercial child care operators to non-profit status. We promised that we would improve child care options for parents so they could choose the kind of care they wanted for their children, and to do this by making better use of taxpayers' dollars. Within weeks of taking office, we began to deliver on those promises.
We had inherited a system that had committed $75 million to convert private child care spaces to non-profit. The NDP had spent $52 million by the June 8 election and had not created one single new child care space. The first thing we did was to stop that kind of wasteful public spending. Then we lifted the ban on subsidies to private child care to start levelling the playing field.
With high-quality care and parental choice in mind, we have invited the private sector back into the child care fold in Ontario. We have levelled the playing field and put an end to the discrimination against private enterprise. We will continue to encourage the private sector to invest in our child care system. Such investment can only help Ontario's child care system by increasing the number of spaces without additional cost to the taxpayer. We are giving parents a choice for their children, a choice that includes the private sector.
We will not allow something as important as child care to be sacrificed on the altar of ideology, nor will we succumb to the notion that suggests that only non-profit child care works best for children. We are committed to developing a child care system that offers parents and taxpayers quality, affordable child care options. That is why we are reviewing the overall child care system in this province. My parliamentary assistant, Janet Ecker, has set up a working group to review the system. Ms Ecker's emphasis is on parental choice and quality of service. I look forward to receiving her report.
As we move forward with our funding and policy decisions, we will want to work with the municipalities and other key players in the child care field so we can develop a better system of child care services despite the very difficult financial times. Notwithstanding this fiscal climate, we will be spending up to $549.5 million on child care this year. This is a significant amount of money. This includes our continuing to make available funding for up to 14,000 Jobs Ontario Training child care fee subsidies, even though we will be funding the program differently from the previous government. We are reverting back to the standard 80-20 cost-sharing formula with the municipalities.
We will continue to encourage locally elected officials to do what is best for their communities and support social assistance recipients in meeting their child care needs while they work and train. Municipalities will be able to use the savings from the social assistance rate reductions that I spoke about earlier to fund their 20%.
Parents who do not use the formal child care system in the province, and that is a significant majority of all parents with children under the age of 13, are being helped by friends and neighbours and family. We cannot underestimate the value of this informal system as a responsible way to address child care needs.
1400
We are also very aware of the financial pressures that afflict our low-income families. That is why we are setting aside 71% of the child care operating budget, or $389.2 million, to help low-income parents so they can continue to work and avoid reliance on social assistance.
In addition to this, we are examining the federal child care proposal that was announced by then Human Resources Minister Lloyd Axworthy on December 13. The recent federal cabinet shuffle has created some uncertainty on this issue. We are continuing to ask Ottawa for details. We do not know if the new Human Resources minister, Doug Young, intends to keep his predecessor's commitment.
Clearly, governments have to work together to support children. But local communities must also be a part of that effort. Our government will set the province on a course that allows everyone -- parents, communities, the private sector and the non-profit and volunteer sectors -- to join forces in helping children.
For our part, the government's commitment to children is clear. That commitment was spelled out in the Common Sense Revolution and supported by the voters throughout Ontario last June.
We said we will support nutrition programs for school-age children. In keeping with our principles, it will be a program driven by volunteer, community and corporate partnerships, rather than taxpayers' dollars, and the program will benefit from the efforts of Julia Munro, the MPP for Durham-York, who is now leading the government initiative aimed at promoting and encouraging volunteerism in Ontario.
We recognize that many children and families have complex needs that transcend the boundaries and mandates of any one ministry or service sector. That is why we are working collaboratively with other ministries and with the service sectors to promote an integrated children's services system.
For example, three ministries are investing in effective prevention programs for high-risk children. We have protected the funds for the Better Beginnings, Better Futures sites. This is a much-praised program that provides supports to children at risk so they can avoid some of the damaging and costly problems that could emerge in later years.
In concert with the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ministry of Health, this Better Beginnings initiative is serving over 4,000 families in 12 disadvantaged neighbourhoods throughout Ontario, providing family support and education at a time when it is needed most. Many of the children taking part in the Better Beginnings projects were at risk for future physical and mental health problems as well as poor school performance. The government is funding important research and evaluation of this model so we can learn about how an early investment in children will help communities in using taxpayers' dollars more wisely to prevent expensive treatment services later in life.
Both inside and outside Better Beginnings, this government wants to ensure that our children, wherever they might live and despite their social environment, have access to an effective, integrated and cost-efficient system of support services.
The ministry is accelerating its work with our social service partners so we can deliver services to children, youth and their families in a more effective and affordable way. Through directions established in the Children's Services Policy Framework, we want to improve access to local services and consolidate services among social service agencies to provide a more effective and flexible approach that will improve existing supports for children, youth and their families.
To give a quick illustration of that last point, in Kent county, service providers are working towards consolidating children's services into one agency. In London, service providers are developing plans for a comprehensive restructuring of services to provide simpler access to services and to ensure that those services go directly to those who need them the most.
Overall, we are working hard to make sure the children's services we continue to fund are well managed and that Ontarians are getting the best value for their money from those services. In concert with our service providers, we are developing ways to make more efficient use of our funding of residential services. We are also setting provincial funding guidelines to identify reasonable costs for children who require different levels of care. This makes sure the taxpayers' investment in children is well protected and that the ministry and its service providers can identify the most effective ways of providing high-quality services.
Moreover, my ministry is in partnership with the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ministry of Health so that together we can coordinate our efforts to children in such a way that eliminates duplication of effort and allows government to deliver better services to children and families. Together, the three ministries are developing an integrated vision for services to children and youth. We are presently planning our future services in the context of preserving essential core services. We are working hand in hand to develop and harmonize the work that has too often been done in isolation in the past. This efficiency and rationalization of cross-ministry services is in keeping with our principle of delivering the greatest possible benefit with available resources.
One of the major concerns we have regarding children is their continued safety. Abuse and neglect have no place in our society.
In Ontario, there are 55 children's aid societies, with total budgets of $363 million, that are legally responsible for child protection. As a ministry, we have set out our expectations for how the CASs will deal with the protection of our children from neglect and abuse. Those expectations are clear and are designed to ensure a quick response to a child in need of protection.
When a report of abuse comes to the attention of a CAS worker, that worker must see the child within 12 hours. If it appears that the child has been injured, there must be a medical examination within 24 hours, and that exam can be ordered without parental consent. All serious incidences of child abuse must be reported to the ministry within 24 hours. The standards include a clear direction on all the steps that must be followed during the investigation, including strict guidelines for documentation and supervisory involvement.
The Chair: Minister, we have run out of the 30 minutes allocated to you for your opening remarks. I don't know if the members want to extend the time, or they can read the rest if they so wish.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think that will give you a clear vision, Mr Chairman, in terms of some of the questions that may arise later in questioning.
The Chair: But your time has run out, and that was the direction we were --
Mrs Ross: Would it be in order to put forward a motion that we allow him to finish?
The Chair: It was arranged before that the minister's statement would be 30 minutes. A motion now, we're going to run into -- I don't want to say "wasting" time, but we're going to get involved in that.
Mr Michael Brown: Mr Chair, I'd suggest that perhaps the minister would like to finish but that the time be taken from the government party's overall time.
The Chair: Do you want to do that?
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): We'd give agreement that the minister could take some time from ours.
The Chair: Is that okay with everyone?
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Well, Mr Chair, if that's what people want to do, but the minister and his staff and political staff know the rules around this place. If the minister wanted to get through all the points, he might have done what ministers normally do in their opening statements, and that is to play less politics in his opening statement. I'd just as soon get into the routine of --
The Chair: So we don't have unanimous consent. We'll just start the 30-minute rotation with the official opposition.
Mr Cordiano: I will say from the outset that I will try to be kind to the minister, and that's the best I can possibly do. It's quite clear from this document and from what I've heard so far that what the minister has explained to us in his remarks today and the vision of the ministry that he brings forward today is much like pabulum -- it reads like that, it sounds like that. There isn't a whole lot to be hopeful for.
Frankly, I think you're engaged in the continuing ideological feeding frenzy that has been going on with this government since you took office. You, Minister, above all ministers, have to be the conscience of the cabinet. You have the greatest responsibility, in my opinion, for human beings in the government, and ultimately, what you're engaged in oftentimes can mean the difference between life and death.
I was never a minister in the government, but I can recall that when I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I spent almost a year doing that, there wasn't a day that went by when I left my office and went home that I didn't take all the problems with me. And this was during 1987, when things were booming quite nicely. I can't imagine -- and I hope you would answer this for me -- that you're not going home at night and not thinking about the actions and the consequences you leave behind with respect to the measures you have or haven't taken.
Today we've heard in your remarks, this document before us, very little that's comforting by way of a vision that sets out to renew, to rehabilitate and to restore hope for people. It doesn't do that for me and I can't imagine that it would do that for anyone else out there who might be affected by what you're involved with in your ministry.
Sometimes I wonder if you're not running a barbershop, because it seems all you're doing is cutting all day long. You're not running a ministry. I think you have to take an entirely different approach to what you're doing, because what I've heard from you isn't too different from what I heard from the Minister of Education, who was here this morning and at this committee yesterday. The language seems to be similar; the buzzwords are all there. I heard you say: "We're going to make this more effective and affordable. Ultimately it's good for people. That they should become independent is good for people. That they should aspire to more in life is good for individuals."
1410
No one would disagree with that. No one would disagree with achieving greater efficiencies. No one would disagree with making the system more accountable. No one would disagree with making the system more affordable. The question is, at what expense, and to whom? That is the real question.
Today I see on the front page of the Globe and Mail -- I bought this in case you hadn't seen it -- "Jobs Cut Despite Hefty Profits." These are blue-chip companies laying people off. We heard just some time ago that AT&T was about to lay 40,000 people off worldwide. AT&T is a company in a leading-edge industry. Supposedly those are the new jobs that are going to be created -- supposedly. What do we have before us in Ontario and across the country? We have more large corporations shedding jobs and shedding workers.
Your entire program and the entire premise of what you've engaged in, particularly with welfare, is that there are jobs and opportunities out there for people but that they're not willing to take advantage of them. This is what you perpetrated in the last election campaign. I got it at every single door and I got it from just about every corner of my riding and anywhere I went in the last campaign: "There are jobs out there. People are not interested in working."
I have yet to meet a person who would not take a decent job if it were granted to them, if they were able-bodied and could meet the qualifications and the requirements, and I fail to understand how you can continue to perpetrate this myth, this fabrication, that there are jobs and that people can become truly independent without some form of assistance, some form of additional help.
I look back on my own life, and I'm sure you can describe this for all of us as well. At what point in your life did you succeed without somebody having been there to give you that opportunity to succeed, without someone at least allowing you to go down that path and giving you some help? I would ask anybody in this room that question, because I think each of us would answer in the same way. There must have been somebody along the way who helped us. I can say that for myself very clearly.
That's the reality of what you're facing in your ministry. The reality is that there are very few opportunities out there. There are some jobs; I don't doubt it. But most of the people looking for those jobs and most of the people on social assistance have been swept away by the technological changes we've witnessed over the last 10 years. That is a fact.
I do not see anything in your document that would suggest you're going to prepare people in any meaningful way for that reality. You talk about training. You talk about getting these organizations out there in the community -- what did you say here, Ontario Works program? You referred to that, and that somehow people would be engaged in meaningful activity during the day which would better prepare them for the workplace. That's simply not true, Minister, and you know that. It's simply not true.
What we need are meaningful training programs, and let's face up to the reality that they're expensive. Let's begin to talk about what that would actually mean to the taxpayers of Ontario. Let's not pretend, as you have -- and you've engaged in this kind of debate over the last eight months, since the campaign and during the campaign and before that, in your Common Sense Revolution document, where you simply suggest that if people want to work, there is work for them. We now know that's not the case.
We know that for years this country has had to go overseas when there were shortages of skilled and qualified people, and perhaps in certain types of industry we know that we lack those kinds of skilled tradespeople, those kinds of people in particular industries where companies have gone overseas to get those workers over here to meet their needs. But we're failing miserably in terms of training people.
People at the lowest end, the least skilled, those are the people, perhaps, who are on social assistance for the most part. I'm not saying there aren't others and I'm not saying there aren't people on social assistance who would return to work and go back into the workforce and continue to make meaningful progress. I'm telling you, however, that the bulk of people on social assistance today need the kind of assistance that you're failing to provide if you want to get them back into a meaningful, contributing society where they have a chance to survive, where they have a chance to succeed because their skills have been upgraded, because they're engaged in meaningful work. I don't see that anywhere in your document which would suggest to me that you have that kind of a program.
What you intend to do is bring about the workfare program, which would simply sweep people under the rug or would make examples of them. I can't see where simply being involved in volunteer efforts will help people prepare for the technological world that we live in. That's useful, perhaps, to keep people busy, but I don't see how that's going to help them prepare for even more advances that are bound to be the case in the coming years, advances that technologically will leave a whole lot of people behind.
Minister, we want to talk, in the hours that remain, about what you're actually doing with the welfare fraud and snitch line. How much did it cost to set up? How much does the line cost to operate? How many legitimate cases have been investigated? How much have you saved to date in fraud reduction? How much welfare fraud exists today? These are the kinds of questions we're going to get into in more detail further on.
I want to ask you questions about the STEP program. You promised to allow anybody on welfare to earn back the difference between the current rate and the new lower rate without penalty or losing their eligibility. We know you made several mistakes, and what I've just described wasn't the case until December 1995, several months after you had a reduction in the welfare rate.
We want to talk about the numbers. You pointed to a reduction in the numbers and you want to take credit for that. Minister, I say to you that there are questions about those numbers. The veracity of those numbers has to be questioned. How many people have moved off welfare because their eligibility was cancelled? That's a good question to ask in light of the numbers having been reduced. How many of these cases, individuals who have been moved off welfare, have gotten jobs in that period of time? If they didn't get jobs, where did those people go? Did they simply disappear or did they move away?
We want to know if you've been tracking this. If what you say is actually true, that the numbers have decreased, what's the logical answer to that? It would be that people have changed their circumstances: They got a job; they moved away. Those are the legitimate questions that need to be asked.
1420
On workfare, you were not very detailed in describing that. We want to know how this program is going to work. What are the procedures? If I were on workfare, would I receive a telephone call in the morning telling me that Mrs Smith down the road needs her lawn mowed and I'd better get over there? How many people will workfare employ to administer the program? What kind of training will these people receive? As I said earlier, if mowing the lawn is a precursor to what we can expect in this program, then I think it's an abysmal failure or will be an abysmal failure.
The LEAP program, learning, earning and parenting, what's the status of this program? Can you give us a definite time frame on it?
The homeless: Obviously the tragedies we've seen in Toronto over the last week or so, the three people who were frozen to death, I hope are not an omen of worse to come over the years in the future. You are responsible, Minister, for ensuring that would not happen in the future. I know you cannot control the lives of individuals on the streets of this city or of any other city in Ontario, but ultimately the government has to take a role in ensuring that there are patrols out there. There are volunteers out there who are doing a fine job now, but is there something more that we could do to ensure that there aren't people dying in the streets because they've frozen to death?
Seniors and the disabled: I understand you will take them out of the social assistance system. We want to know when the program that's called the guaranteed support plan will be up and running, the time frames associated with that.
Then we come to child care. I understand you're planning to make changes to the Day Nurseries Act. Are you going to change the child to child care provider ratio, the food inspection requirements that exist under the Day Nurseries Act at the present time? Why do you want to change the Day Nurseries Act in any case? What are your reasons?
Furthermore, you say that you want to go to the 80-20 rule in terms of funding, and then you talked about making the system more affordable. Affordable for whom? Is it more affordable for the Ontario government? Is it more affordable for municipal governments? I know that everybody I've talked to in the government would say, "Well, there's one taxpayer." Does that mean that this service will be more affordable to the taxpayers of Ontario? Show us how that's going to be the case and at what expense. Are you going to eliminate further the number of jobs in the entire field?
You've suggested that you're going to allow for more of the private sector involvement that was missing in the past. To what extent will you allow that and at whose expense? Is it in the public sector domain that you will eliminate jobs and squeeze the funding? Those are the concerns we have.
At a time when you're talking about additional requirements for people on social assistance, for single parents to seek employment -- literally forcing them to go back to work -- you're eliminating child care spaces. There are a lot of questions with respect to that. All of these seemingly intractable differences and contradictory statements that you've made I think ultimately have to be answered by you.
We're concerned about children's mental health, what you're going to do. I understand you were going to make some comments at the end. We'll get to this in more questioning. I will wrap up by saying that we will be asking very specific questions about some of those areas and other areas. My colleagues will have additional questions, I'm sure.
Minister, at the end of the day we will hold you responsible, and I go back to some of the comments you made earlier, if the system is not more effective, and there are not fewer people, who have been taken off the system as a result of having moved to a job or improving their circumstances, because you cannot prove that here today. I hope you will, that in fact the numbers of people on social assistance has gone down because those people have improved their situation, not worsened it, or haven't simply moved away.
What you're implying is that at the end of the day, if there are not any more jobs being created and if the employment picture does not improve and yet we have a great number of people still on social assistance, we have to begin to ascertain where those people have gone to, where the gap is. How do we explain that? If there isn't an improving job climate out there, then what's happening to those people? What are the consequences of your actions?
We hold you responsible and will continue to do so for the most vulnerable people in our province, and that is your responsibility as minister.
The Chair: You have about eight or nine more minutes. If there are any more comments, I will entertain them.
Mr Michael Brown: I think one of the primary roles as the Minister of Community and Social Services would be to look at the kind of society that we're in, as Mr Cordiano mentioned. This is the ministry that has the most direct involvement, and I think many of us, certainly thoughtful people across the province, are asking what kind of Ontario are we going to have? Much of this is, frankly, beyond your control or beyond even Ontario's control. There are things happening out there in the economy of the world that are impacting on people everywhere in a difficult fashion.
We know, for example, that the lower-income category in this province is increasing. It's getting larger. We also know that there are more people in high-income groups than ever before, but that the middle class, the middle income, which has been the bread and butter of Ontario society for the last century or more, is diminishing.
As I listened to you read this statement I had this kind of surreal feeling that although we're saying all the right words and there are all the right messages, there's no vision here about how we stop what's going on.
We know, for example, that over the last 10 years or probably longer than that, 15 years, people in middle-income categories, people who have maintained that, are just barely maintaining their standard of living. We know that people in the lower-income groups in our society in Canada are maintaining, but just barely, their standard of living, but they're doing it almost entirely by virtue of various government programs, whether they be federal or provincial or whatever. So those in the lower-income categories are becoming more and more dependent on government money because the wage structure that will support them is no longer there.
I am really quite surprised that a minister would come to talk about what Ontario society should be like, and how we're going to get there, and not talk about any of those factors and how we're going to address them. The idea of this government is simply that a rising tide will lift all ships. I don't think we can say that. We've been through good times, and somehow there are certain boats that don't go up.
I don't know how that happens and I don't know what the answers are, but I think fundamentally your government should be looking at those very issues. Certainly we have to look at the income support systems. Your view is, I think, a little bit silly in the way you're approaching it, but that's your view. I don't see how it's going to possibly achieve the goals that you intend.
Your Minister of Finance is saying: "We're not going to create any new jobs. Forget it. It's not going to happen. Maybe a couple of years from now, once the 30% tax cut gets into maturity and things really start to roll, things'll happen, but there will be no more new jobs in Ontario." That's what Mr Eves is saying next door. Somebody's going to end up on social assistance. It's going to happen. They're already there.
1430
We're trying to understand where this government is coming from in its policies. I sit here and listen to you talk about your income support portions of the document and I scratch my head and say, "Gee, I wonder how many of those will benefit from a 30% tax cut?" I bet none of them. I know none of them. None of them pay any taxes anyway. I know who will benefit from a $5-billion tax cut, which will benefit mostly -- "disproportionately," I guess is the way to say it -- the upper-income groups in this province. Yet the people at the bottom we know have been -- not just in Ontario, not just in Canada, but across the western world -- maintaining their standard of living just because government has provided programs that supplement their incomes.
I'm just amazed. I'm looking over here for some kind of solution. As a matter of fact, I kind of like your workfare program. I shouldn't say that, I don't particularly like the program, but I like the idea. For a Progressive Conservative to come and say, "I will guarantee, absolutely guarantee, full employment in the province of Ontario to anyone who is willing to work; regardless of whether there's any job or not, everybody will have the opportunity to work," is something I couldn't even expect from my socialist friends over there. The promise of full employment -- I would think we're listening to Marx -- and that's what you're doing. I'm so astounded by this stuff philosophically I get a little shaken once in a while.
Mr Cooke: Confused, Mike, confused.
Mr Michael Brown: You've known me to be that way, I guess, David.
This is going to cost some money. This has got all the right words, all the right rhetoric, and when we get into some more detailed questions on how it actually operates, I think we should be, if not totally outraged, at least amused.
The Chair: No further comments?
Mr Cleary: How much more time have we got?
The Chair: About four minutes.
Mr Cleary: I'd just like to talk about Youth Job Co-op. What's the status of the project? How much will it cost? How many people will be eligible and how would the community be involved in that, what will be expected of them?
The other thing is, I was just wondering about the province-wide strike we're expecting, that may happen or may not happen; hopefully it won't happen. Can the minister tell us what services under his ministry are essential services and also what services they will provide if that happens?
In the provincial budget, we understand that you're talking about laying off a number of civil servants. We hear a lot of numbers. We've heard 10,000, we hear 14,000, we hear 20,000, depending on where you go. No one seems to be able to answer that. We haven't had much luck in the previous questioning of another minister. How many employees in Community and Social Services will be affected by the layoffs? Will the layoffs be a result of outright cancellation of programs? How will the downsizing affect the delivery of services?
I guess you have been to budget deliberations and I'd just like to know what programs you are defending most vigorously with the Finance minister for the 1997 budget. I'd like to also know how many times you've met with him on the provincial budget. We would like to know what programs the Ministry of Community and Social Services recommended be scrapped or downsized and also what programs you think will be there after the budget.
I know that most of us have met in our ridings with different groups and organizations, service clubs and volunteer groups, and I would just like to know if you could table a list of the local agencies that will be forced to close their doors as a result of your funding cuts in your previous statement and then again in the budget.
The Chair: The New Democratic Party, 30 minutes. After your 30 minutes we'll take a five-minute break.
Mr Cooke: I'm probably not going to take the 30 minutes, because I'd like to take some time this afternoon to go through part of the statement with the minister and get a better understanding of what he means and where we're going. But I do have just a few opening comments I'd like to make.
I'd like to pick up on one of the things that one of the Liberal members said. That is that when you talked throughout your statement about jobs and a social assistance policy and direction and changes, I think it would be somewhat more refreshing if you'd come before the committee and simply say the only policy you've put in place at this point is the 22% cut.
There's nothing you've done in terms of offering opportunities for people; there's no incentives you've put in place; there's no explanation that you or your ministry can even give to the people of this province about why there has been a reduction in the number of people on social assistance. There are lots of theories out there, but it has nothing to do with simply saying that, "We've got a magic wand and we've lowered the rates by 22%," and that's a grand scheme and a new policy and, all of a sudden, has resulted in people moving off social assistance.
I would have thought that you might come here today and at least say to us, "We don't have all of the answers in terms of why the numbers are decreasing, but here's the type of study that we're going to carry out to find out what is happening to the caseload," instead of just coming here and telling us that this is all a result of a lowering of the rates by 22%.
In fact there are fewer opportunities now available for people on social assistance. The training programs have been cut back, colleges have been cut back, universities have been cut back, school boards have been cut back, so that for folks who do need to get back into the education system or the training system, there are now fewer opportunities available to them.
The Jobs Ontario Training program was eliminated, the JobLink program has been scrapped. Some of the programs that were put in place, whether you agree with them or not, at least were support systems to help people get back into the workforce. You've eliminated them. You've not replaced them with anything. If you don't agree with them, at least you could have replaced them with something that helps and gives people, as your leader likes to say, this hand up. What you did was you gave people a hand up and then you let them go in midair, and we don't know what's happening.
You're the Minister of Community and Social Services and you come here today and you don't even mention that three people have died in this city this winter, have frozen to death. Instead you come here and you talk about your grand plan and the fact that the last 10 years and the $40 billion that has been spent on social assistance has all been a waste.
How do you know it's been a waste? How can you make that statement about our social assistance system? It may not have achieved all of its goals of integrating everybody back into the workforce, but it helped people, it helped kids, it prevented some kids from starving. Part of its objectives was to allow people to live with some dignity.
1440
Don't come here from your Markham home and your lawyer background and start telling people who have gone through hell in this province, through the worst recession since the Great Depression, that social assistance did nothing; of course it did something. It helped those people survive in a way that they didn't have years and years ago.
It needs to be improved, it needs to be updated, and some of that was happening. Other provinces have done some reform of their social assistance system. But don't paint it as black and white and say it didn't work, it was a $40-billion disaster, when you know that's just politics and it's being fundamentally unfair to the people who live on social assistance in this province, have survived and get up in the morning and try to raise their families in the best way they can.
The way you have played games with whether people want to work or not is an absolute shame for a Minister of Community and Social Services. Come to my riding and look at the 3,000 people who lined up to get jobs at a grocery store, most of the jobs at minimum wage: 150 jobs, and 3,000 people lined up a week or two ago.
Don't give me this line that may have won you some votes in an election campaign that basically says -- it's all code language -- that everybody on social assistance is lazy and doesn't want to work and that the Conservative Party has a solution, and that is to starve them into submission. That's what you're saying when you use the kind of language you use.
It may be what Jan Dymond and others are telling you to use, because for a while after you became minister you did some interviews where you began to show some understanding of the variety of situations that people in this province live in. Then you obviously got told by the Premier and by others that the fundamental way to explain the policies you're implementing is to be tough, to show the public that people on social assistance are rotten people and that they abuse the system and that all of our problems are a result of those people and that the middle-class, middle-income people are paying high taxes because of people on social assistance: the old divide and conquer.
It's fundamentally dishonest and it's totally unfair to a million-plus citizens of this province who are equally important as you or as me. I really feel disgusted with the game you have played both today in your statement and as minister in the last several months.
Again I'd say to you I find it unbelievable that you as minister would come to this committee today and use the kind of language and approach that you've used in this community where three people this winter alone have frozen to death, homeless people have frozen to death, and your only solution is to say: "We've done it. We've cut rates by 22%."
Why didn't you come before us today and explain to us what workfare means? "Workfare" is a great word. As one of the Liberals said, of course everybody -- as the 3,000 people that applied for these minimum-wage jobs in my riding will tell you -- wants to work. Where the hell are the jobs? We've got fewer people working today than when you took office.
The economic statement from the Minister of Finance has indicated that there will not be a lowering of the unemployment rate over the next three years. When you talk about laying off 13,000 to -- what is it? -- 27,000 public servants; when you look at the education policy that Mr Snobelen is going to announce in the next couple of weeks, the so-called tools for school boards, which we predict will result in the layoff of teachers -- between grade 13, junior kindergarten and the elimination of preparation time and some of the other things that they're looking at there -- over 20,000 teaching jobs; in just those two areas alone, we're looking at close to 50,000 jobs to be lost in the province.
We've already got an unemployment rate of around 8%-plus, and you're talking to us and saying that the people who have the most difficult circumstances in the province, who need to be upgraded, need to develop some more skills, don't have the work skills that are necessary, that by some magic wand they're going to have jobs? Let's get real. That's all politics. It has nothing to do with the real world. It's fundamentally dishonest. It's saying that people are going to have opportunities that you know are not going to exist. You know they're not going to exist, yet you have the gall to come here and make your statements across the province, all in the name of getting votes at the expense of the poorest people of the province.
One of the Liberal members said, "You must think about this when you're at home." You know, I'm going to say to you in all honesty, I hope you've lost some sleep over this, because the way people are being treated in this province is unconscionable, and you as Minister of Community and Social Services of all should understand that, should advocate for people. Since you haven't and in fact you have beat up on the people you're supposed to be serving, I hope you've at least felt a bit of guilt, because it's a shame what you're doing to people in the province.
Go out and work with people on social assistance and talk to people on social assistance. But today we get the same stuff that you've been giving us. No explanation of how workfare's going to work at all. We read in the paper that public service organizations like the Kiwanis Club and others don't want to have anything to do with your workfare program and they haven't even been consulted.
You say on one hand in your statement that all these workfare jobs will be created not at the expense of other jobs that already exist, but then you say in your statement that some of these workfare jobs are going to be at municipalities. If they're at municipalities, then who are they going to displace? If they're not going to displace anybody but they're going to be carrying out useful work for municipalities, then I would say to you, Minister, if those jobs are worth carrying out for a municipality and need to be done in a community, then pay them a decent wage and create the job, but don't tell people that they're going to be carrying out work that's necessary to carry out and their wage is going to be social assistance, because that's a slave wage, and you know it. It's making people work for something below minimum wage. If it's a job worth doing, then pay a decent wage for it. If it's not, then provide people with that real hand up, provide them with the training programs, provide them with the opportunity to learn literacy skills that are necessary to get back into the workforce.
I want to touch on another area that I think you've been a dismal failure on and you do not even mention, acknowledge. I've met with people in the children's services community. You have too. You've met with the children's aid societies. You know exactly what they're telling you, because they've told me they've told you. They're not able to meet their legislative requirements. Kids that need protection from physical and sexual abuse in this province are not being protected. You know that's the case.
This garbage in your statement about a 2.5% cut, which is a 5% cut, and that somehow you've given agencies the proper notice to be able to restructure. Children's aid societies cannot meet their legal obligations. You didn't give them any notice; you cut them back 2.5%. They were already having difficulties because, quite frankly, of the budget constraints we put on them. You put more on them, and they're not able now to meet their legislative requirements.
The first time there's a tragedy in this province -- and there was one out in Scarborough where a child was killed. The mother has been charged. The Roman Catholic children's aid -- I believe it was in Scarborough -- was involved with the case. It was in the Toronto papers. If that happened in the 1970s, there would be a coroner's inquest. There might even be a public inquiry. There were some of those cases that resulted in recommendations being made to change the Child and Family Services Act. It used to be called the Child Welfare Act. Some of the changes that were put in there were to emphasize to a much greater degree preventive services.
What are you doing now? You're bringing in this new term of "core services." What does "core services" mean? Minimal services. The preventive services that are necessary to prevent families from falling apart, prevent kids from getting into difficult family situations, you're going to pull those services. So we've got children's aid societies now that can't meet their legal obligations and are no longer going to be providing any of the preventive services.
1450
If you don't believe me, don't just talk about the mantra that you've been using as a Conservative Party. Read some of the public inquiries that were done in the 1970s; read some of the results of the coroners' inquests; read about the kid that was killed in Sarnia and a long public inquiry that was held that made some of the recommendations that now form a huge portion of our Child and Family Services Act that you're going to dismantle. That was the whole focus in the 1970s: Move away from simple protection of kids to prevention. Now it's as if the 1970s never even happened and we didn't learn anything at all. It's an absolute shame.
I'll make one other reference to your statement and then the Conservatives, I guess, will respond and then we'll get into questions, but I think it reinforces the fundamental dishonesty of your approach and what you did in the election campaign.
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I thought we were dealing with estimates and budgets. Now we hear the scam language and garbage. I don't think that's appropriate.
The Chair: Perhaps the member could just respond to the minister's statement.
Mr Michael Brown: He's just getting warmed up.
Mr Cooke: If you want to talk about abuse and abusive language, listen to this: "Our policies have proved to be equally encouraging in relation to 16- and 17-year-olds." I'd like to get a breakdown. You spent a lot of time in here talking about fraud and how that saved money, and then you get to the honest part and you talk about how the real way that most of the $100 million has been saved has been through restriction of eligibility. It didn't have to do with fraud. When you made your announcement on fraud a few months ago, even then you admitted to the media and to the press that you had no idea how much money would be saved through tightening up, through anti-fraud steps. It had nothing to do with that. It had to do with tightening up eligibility. But here with the 16- and 17-year-olds, "Since the end of September we have gone from 6,295 16- and 17-year-old welfare recipients to 5,107."
First of all, I'd like you at some point to explain to us how you're supervising the placements that 16- and 17-year-olds now have to have with adults. But more important than that, when Mike Harris went around the province and talked about the number of young people on welfare, he gave people the impression that there were tens and tens of thousands of young people, 16- and 17-year-olds. He made that very clear. He said that in the Legislature when we were in government, and when he went around the province he gave people the impression that any 16- and 17-year-old who didn't like what their parents were saying to them at home could run out of their home and go on welfare and that they did that.
Here are the numbers: There were nearly 6,300 16- and 17-year-olds and now there are 5,100. Hardly an epidemic. I just say that, to me, demonstrates more clearly than anything the lack of honesty with the approach you've taken. The facts do not back up the rhetoric. If you want to be a successful Minister of Community and Social Services, you can't just be ideological and political. You've got to look at human services and the needs of the people of this province. That's what will work; not tearing down a system just because you've been given the orders, but looking at how to build it up for the people who need help in this province.
Mr Chair, I look forward to some of the questions, but as I think you can tell, I am very distressed at the approach that's been taken by this minister and this government. When I hear the predictions that because of the deficit we're going to be paying for many, many years, I fear that because of the actions that have been taken by this minister and this ministry in particular, we're going to be paying big time. We're going to have victims, children in particular, which means we will be paying for a long time. It'll be human pain, it'll be human tragedy, and it may not be quite as easy to define as the million dollars an hour that the minister talks about, but what we're doing is we're causing victims today out of these policies, all for a tax cut that is primarily going to go to the well-off, and I think it's a shame for this minister to be advocating and implementing these policies.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cooke. We'll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 1456 to 1507.
The Chair: The rotation, the 30-minute comments in response to the minister's statement in estimates, is now with the Conservatives, or the minister, I understand.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Chairman, if I don't take up my full complement, are the caucus members allowed to take up the rest in response to my --
The Chair: No, just you.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Just me? Okay.
The Chair: All, of course, answerable to the estimates.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If I have half an hour, would it be possible for me to finish my speech?
The Chair: You can do anything you want. You have 30 minutes. You can finish your speech if you want.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I appreciate the indulgence here. I've got half an hour. Perhaps I could just finish my speech, because it does give the context for today. Then, at the end of that there are a number of points which some of the members have raised which perhaps I can give a little bit of context to as well. I appreciate that. If I could take over, I'll commence again at page 35.
My ministry is in partnership with the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ministry of Health, so that together we can coordinate our services to children in a way that eliminates duplication of effort and allows the government to deliver better services to children and families.
We go on to talk about the vision, and the abuse areas. Sorry, I wasn't on page 35.
The other area of responsibility is the young offender, and the responsibility is shared, based on the age of the child, with our colleagues in the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.
In the government's A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario document, that we released before the June election, we outlined our concerns about the system of justice in Ontario, a system that includes the young offender. In that document we said that adults and young people are neither rehabilitated nor deterred by the system that is in place at the present. We also stated that changes have to be made in the present system that will markedly increase public safety and security.
My parliamentary assistant, Janet Ecker, is the co-chair of the government's Task Force on Strict Discipline Programs. This committee will make recommendations on how a program of strict discipline should be developed for Ontario, taking into consideration the effective custody, management and treatment of young offenders.
Before I leave the subject of our services to children, I want to make two points very clear. First, we intend to support funding for and improve children's core services, and we will continue to invest in early intervention and prevention. Secondly, youngsters will have no future in a province that's bankrupt, and that is why the government is determined to improve Ontario's social safety net by stimulating job creation, getting people back to work and cutting taxes. Only then will we have a province that is stable and financially responsible. Inspired with this vision, we will have the kind of climate that will instil into our children a reassurance that their futures are well planned for.
The last ministry program area I want to address is our service to people with disabilities and they are a priority to this government. That is why the money we allocated to people with disabilities remains one of the single largest budgets in the ministry. For the fiscal year 1995-96 the ministry has allocated a total of $859.5 million to help about 50,000 very vulnerable people and their families cope with the challenges posed by living with serious disabilities.
One of the ways the ministry reaches out to these Ontarians and their families is through special services at home. We did not apply the June constraint to this $37-million program because the funding is provided directly to parents so they can get the services they need to take care of their children. This is consistent with our view that money should be directed towards front-line services as much as possible.
It allows those families to buy services in two broad areas: personal development and growth, and parental relief and support, where these needs cannot be met by other means or through other supports in the community.
People with severe disabilities are among the most vulnerable people in our society and many are truly in need every day of their lives. I make no hesitation in ensuring this committee that this government will support them. That is why we are now in the process of removing people with disabilities who are unable to work from the welfare system where they should never have been in the first place. This is why we are giving them a separate income supplement program.
We will not take these actions in isolation or without input from those who will be affected by these changes. We have asked community groups, the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Ontario Association for Community Living, to name two, to advise us on how best to implement these changes.
In closing my remarks today, I want to address my ministry's efforts to streamline and improve its operations through reorganization and internal restructuring.
Throughout the course of my time with you so far I have gone to some length to describe for you our vision and principles and steps we are taking to improve our social services by making them more accountable, more fiscally responsible and more focused on those among us who are most in need. We cannot expect our social service partners to undergo restructuring that is desperately needed to avoid waste and duplication in the system without the practical leadership of the ministry in these areas.
In his Fiscal and Economic Statement in November, the Minister of Finance announced the government is aiming to reduce the cost of internal government administration by 33% by the end of fiscal year 1997-98. This will save the Ontario taxpayers about $300 million annually.
The Ministry of Community and Social Services will join other ministries in realizing these reductions. Already, we have been part of the Ontario government's action in cutting $23 million from internal spending this year, and we've directed these cuts to head office and field administration functions so that we protect the front-line services as much as possible.
This means that we will be serving the people of Ontario with a leaner and more efficient internal administration. It means these services can be consolidated more efficiently within government and will be integrated and strengthened. By reducing the ministry's internal administration staff costs, we will ensure that tax dollars go where they do the most good and give the most value to the public, and that is to providing important front-line services.
We are now in the process of determining what core services the ministry should be providing. We are actively exploring ways to collaborate with other ministries in dealing effectively with the government's overall administrative services, and we are identifying those core services that are essential for the wellbeing of people genuinely in need.
As we do this, our vision of an improved, more affordable, effective and efficient social service system begins to take shape and substance. We will be planning for more effective results from these services and more accountable delivery models. We will also be promoting individual self-reliance and ensuring that the government supplements, rather than displaces, traditional support, such as the church and the community.
These are the challenges that have to be met. Consequently, the government's role will change to become part of a collective partnership to reshape the way we do business and deliver social services throughout Ontario in the future.
That business will redefine the so-called traditional roles that we have been become all too comfortable with. It will mean, for example, a move away from demand-driven service delivery to affordable delivery of better services. It will mean a move away from a community development approach to the services developed by government to an approach that emphasizes community responsibility. This means we will not take the largess of the taxpayer for granted any more.
Taxpayers will no longer support governments that spend their way out of problems. Our solution is to control government spending and improve social services in Ontario by creating a system that's sustainable and more focused on client services.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks today, I am not talking about tinkering, about incremental changes or even short-term solutions. It is time for us to take a fresh look at the ministry and to fundamentally reform and improve the way it works for people of this province, for the people who need our services and for the people who pay for those services. We are laying plans today for a better and more sustainable system in the future.
The future of this ministry is solidly based on a vision and principles that will improve our services through shared responsibility, accountability, fiscal responsibility, rationalization, efficiency and fairness.
To quote Premier Harris: "None of our decisions are easy or taken lightly. But working together and drawing on the strengths of this province, Ontario can and will live up to its potential -- can and will build a better and brighter future."
The Chair: You have about 25 minutes.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Okay, great. There are a few matters that were raised by some of the other members that perhaps I should give some context to. Certainly we are under a fiscal constraint. Certainly we did inherit -- I'm sure you've heard this before, and I fear you don't want to hear it again from me -- but the $100-billion debt we have and the $9-million interest on the debt. But what that does is show you there's an envelope.
We do have a fiscal constraint, yes, and you're quite right, we do have to set out what our priorities are going to be. You've made a lot of good points, frankly, and what we're trying to say is that we have to make the system better somehow. It's not like 1987 -- it certainly isn't -- when there was a lot of money available. The opposite is certainly true today.
But I think there are ways that we can improve -- and just look at the social service area. That particular area, by making it better somehow, by addressing our costs and directing the costs in a different manner, because a lot of the costs before were directed towards -- well, maybe not a lot, but I think that Mr Cooke would agree that most of the money in social services should be directed to direct services to people, as opposed to administrative and overhead costs, and to find a reasonable amount of money to put in those areas.
One of the things we have to look at is working with the various communities to come up with what they think is important for them as opposed to what we, just sitting here at Queen's Park, may think is important for them.
In connection with that, I mentioned briefly that we had been working with many of the community groups and organizations in order to come up with this so-called vision. You're quite right that we can't do this alone and somehow we have to come up with a better system. How can we best do that other than to talk to the groups that actually are the providers in the area, to work with them to somehow come up with our core services or restructuring, give them some input at the table and listen? I think that's very important. It's unusual for provincial government to do that. You might see that more frequently at the municipal level when there's a lot of consensus-building with people and working with them and coming to the table with them.
Some of the groups we sit with in the development services area are such groups as Christian Horizons, L'Arche Ontario, MARC from Metro. There are a number of them that sit at the table with us and we've had a very good response from them because we've indicated we want to work with them to come up with solutions and to find community solutions.
Yes, there are lot of good suggestions you're saying. Part of the problem is we have to know where we're going. What are we going to end up with? We want to end up with a better system and the way we're going to find a better system for this government, especially in light of the fact that we do have constraints. This is a bad time fiscally for all of us. We recognize that, but we're going to work with those particular communities to come up with solutions; that's how we're going to make the system better.
1520
Dealing with workfare for a second, I think you said the training programs were expensive and that's what the problem was, and you're 100% right with that. What our challenge is going to be is twofold, certainly. As I said in my speech, the best solution for welfare is a job. Yes, you've given me quite a challenge here: How are you going to do all this? How are you going to provide for all this? Well, I'll tell you something: There are two important parts to our program coming up, Ontario Works. One of the important prongs is of course the employment programs. I call them employment programs, not training programs, because you're right, in the past there have been many programs that have been very expensive. I agree with you when you say that, and what you have to look at is something that's results-oriented as well.
To train somebody for the sake of training them, with no connection with a job, the person's a lot worse off than they were when they started. Frankly, what do you have at the end? You have a better-trained unemployed person, or you have a person who has now lost their optimism before they started in the program, when at the end of a training program they've got nowhere to go.
We are going to be looking at employment programs that are linked to results -- I call it fee for performance -- which means that you as an organization will get paid the bulk of your money when that person's in a job for three to six months. That means it's going to be tied to performance, and I think it's possible to do that. I'll tell you something: Everything that the prior government did is not bad. All governments don't do everything badly.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, there are programs out there that do work and part of the challenge has been to find the programs that do work and how they're going to work into the program. I've talked to a number of organizations already which have shown a huge success in placements of people -- from different types of categories of people, I might add. We were just out in the St Catharines area and saw a pellet company which was working with people who had been working within the penal system and they're placing them into jobs. An organization like the John Howard Society in St Catharines has had a very high success rate in placing people from various backgrounds into jobs. The YMCA. There are a number of organizations which have said: "There are programs here that work. Let's work together to find the right solution." I agree.
We have to find a made-in-Ontario solution for what we're doing. We're not Alberta. We're not the United States. We're Ontario, and we have a certain way we look at things, a certain mindset. So we have to provide the opportunities and we want to work with the communities to do that. That's one prong.
The other huge criticism I heard was the business about the work for welfare. I'll you something: That will result in giving people an opportunity to work within their communities which may lead to a job, may give some training. There are a number of areas I've talked to as well. When I was in Fort Erie, for example, and talked to the economic development fellow there, he indicated there are people who are working with him, and as a result of working on some community projects like -- I think it's called the Festival of Lights in Fort Erie -- people have actually been placed with jobs because of the people they worked with in the corporate sector. So the community work has resulted in something there.
There are a number of things you have said and a lot of good points you've made. A lot of things were taken into consideration. We want to approach this with a program that will work. Believe me, I'm willing to listen to all MPPs in terms of suggestions on our employment programs, not just my own caucus. I think that just because we're of different parties doesn't mean to say we don't want to help people get off welfare. That's really what we're trying to do right now, trying to get out of that cycle that I don't think worked before in the past.
I guess during the election the program came out. That's what we were saying we were going to do. But it's not widely -- certainly the Liberal Party came up with programs as well, the mandatory opportunity program, which really had the same sort of idea in mind: Get people off welfare and get them to work. So I don't think that the thinking is hugely divergent, at least with the results we're trying to get to. I think the methodology perhaps is different in ways but certainly we're looking to try to improve people.
I didn't refer to anybody in my speech by any type of categories other than saying -- with respect to Mr Cooke's remarks about what I may have said in my speech: I said there are hundreds of thousands of good, honest people in this province who are waiting for an opportunity such as this, getting back to work. I didn't mention anything else. Once again, we want to continue our efforts to reform the overall welfare system so we can help so many good people throughout the province get back to work. People want to work. We want to help them. That's really what the mandate of our government is. We want to improve Ontario. That's what we want to do. I don't think we are any different than anybody else. You might disagree with our programs, but I think by and large we want to make Ontario better for people to live in. That's what our aim is here.
That's really the response I have in terms of some of the matters and the contexts that some of the members have brought up. Our aim here, certainly as a ministry, certainly as a government, is to make things better for people. That's what our vision is. We have to work within some restrictions, but still our aim is to make things better for people in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We will start the rotation time now, with 30 minutes for each party, questions or comments if you want to make them. We start with the Liberals.
Mr Cordiano: Minister, I don't know you that well, but obviously from what you've said today and what you've just said, one would tend to believe that you are genuinely interested in helping people. I don't doubt that; I don't doubt that of any member in this Legislature. However, the approach taken would also tend one to believe that in essence it's up to the individual to fend for himself, and that by doing so an individual is strengthened, because they lack the survival skills. That's what the government essentially is saying to people: Go forth, young man or young woman, and find your way, and fend for yourself, because that's the only way to survive.
You haven't displayed anything else to people by way of initiative. You've not shown that. Even your tax cut, for God's sake, which is supposed to stimulate the economy, is now being put off well into the future. I don't agree with what you're doing, but those people who bought into your program, who voted for you because they thought there would be a stimulus to the economy, they believed you and your government and your party when you said you were going to create jobs as a result of the tax cut.
You have the most difficult job, because I think you're put in an untenable situation, one which ultimately makes you an individual who cannot live up to the promises that you make, who cannot live up to the expectations that exist. You're just trying to put your fingers in the holes in the dam; it's leaking all over the place.
You can't tell me, as you sit here today, that there will be jobs created, because nothing is happening. Your government hasn't done anything. The economy continues to shed workers. I just showed you, and I'll show you again, the Globe and Mail, job cuts everywhere. Where are people going to find jobs over the next 12 months if, as I heard correctly the Finance minister say, even the tax cut will not take hold until January 1, 1997? That's at least 11 months away. Beyond that -- it was even in the Common Sense Revolution -- there's a lag effect; to the time that the tax cut takes effect from the time it was introduced, there's a lag of at least 12 months to 18 months. Any economist will tell you that. So we're talking -- what? -- 24 months before any real impact on the economy, even if you believe that the tax cut will lead to the kind of stimulus in the economy which would create jobs.
In effect, your government has abdicated any responsibility for job creation and any responsibility to those people who you're saying have to go out and fend for themselves. That's the trouble I have. I want to believe you, and I think people want to believe you out there. They want to believe that you're going to do the right things, that you're going to improve their fate. But in the meantime, there's a lot of suffering going on, a heck of a lot more than you bargained for when you took office, I believe, a heck of a lot more than anybody anticipated, and it's going to get a whole lot more desperate as a result of Bill 26. There's no question about that.
1530
We can sit here and argue all day long but everyone knows, everyone feels it, everyone can see it. Even if the numbers don't show it today, everyone knows there's a lot more desperation out there for people. So I have difficulty when you say you want to improve the fate, the lot, of people out there and improve their chances of succeeding in our society. It's just not going to happen when things are getting a lot more desolate.
People will sit here and accuse me of trying to make the situation even worse because we're in opposition. All I say to you is what I'm hearing from people out there in my constituency and across the province that I've spoken to. Things are not that great. There are definite signs that point to the deteriorating economy. As a result of that, I ask you, what are you going to do? What are the time lines with respect to bringing workfare or whatever you want to call it into existence? Let's start off with that. What is your time line for that? Even that I disagree with, but at the end of the day, there is something for people to do.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Just to put it in context again, I believe that the lead for the finances lies with the Minister of Finance, but certainly you've heard this before, that for us to really encourage job creation, we have had to make an atmosphere that is conducive to job creation and it's done through a number of measures already taken, including Bill 7.
I must tell you that I've had some contact with some of the Japanese business community, the Japanese ambassador. By the way, Japan's our second-largest trading partner. Not that this is my area of expertise, but they've indicated a large interest in working with Ontario. They really seem to perceive that we're ready to do business. Given that context, I just want you to know as well that we are working on our Ontario Works program, that we are doing a lot of consultation with it.
The one thing I want to say right now to the member is that the government is fully committed to producing the mandatory workfare and certainly we're right on time as well. You'll know that it does require the able-bodied people to go to work, but we're looking for, once again, options for made-in-Ontario solutions. I think you can appreciate that we have to look and see what does work in Ontario.
What I've said before in the past is that there's quite a difference in Ontario. We're quite a diverse province. I'm trying to give you some explanation in terms of why, but you will appreciate there's a difference between different regions and certainly between urban and rural areas, between the inner city and suburbia. We have to find the right solutions that will work.
We are working right now with a committee of MPPs who are helping me shape the structuring of the workfare program. They're helping me as well to find the programs that work in Ontario now, and I must tell you that I've not just relied on my MPPs and my caucus, but other members as well. One of the members of your caucus as well has certainly assisted me and directed me to a program in his area, and I appreciate that because we need to find the right solutions.
Yes, we're still formulating the policy. We're right on time; we're very close, but I'm unable to give you the time frame on that, just as I have not been able to give it to the press. But I think it's important for us to provide a program that will work. You've already set out some of the challenges that we have. There are a lot of realistic challenges there to make sure this program works. We're going to provide the people of Ontario with an excellent opportunity to get back to work and that's what the idea is behind it. Yes, we're on track, but in terms of a specific time frame, I can't give you that, I'm sorry. We're still developing it.
Mr Cordiano: How about child care? How many more spaces will be available to make it possible for single mothers to be part of this program?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's another good point you're asking me again, and you're quite aware, of course, that we're undergoing a child care review right now under the leadership of my parliamentary assistant, Janet Ecker. Part of the challenge is going to be to find not just how child care is going to fit within the context of workfare but within the context of how we are going to provide affordable spaces to the people of Ontario. This is what the challenge is going to be to Janet right now, and she's doing a lot of consultation as well. Her particular committee is meeting and doing consultations as we -- well, not as we speak, because Ms Ecker's here.
Part of the background with all this is that one of the things we set out to do -- and you're aware of this as well -- is restoring the balance between non-profit and the private sector in child care. We've already done that by eliminating the conversion program, which was costly and didn't create one new child care space. By allowing the private sector to come in, I think you increase the accessibility, increase the choice.
With respect to the child care committee, once again, we're doing consultations. I don't think anyone could criticize us for doing that after what we've just gone through. How it's going to fit into workfare is one piece of the puzzle that the child care review is going to have to provide us with some input on. That's the very practical result of it.
Mr Cordiano: During the election campaign you had all the answers. Mike Harris had all the answers. This was going to work, it was going to be implemented very early on in the government's mandate. It would happen almost overnight. When people talked to me at the doorstep during the election campaign, they pointed to Mike Harris saying, "We've got the answer for this." "Why can't you come up with these answers? He's got it all figured out. He's going to have child care, he's going to have workfare, he's going to have an opportunity for people, they're going to get jobs, there are jobs out there" -- easy answers. Complex problems, I thought at the time, but there were easy answers.
Now you come here today -- and this is what's so frustrating, honestly -- and say, "We haven't got anything worked out." You haven't even got the beginnings of a model that you can talk to us about. Perhaps you don't want to talk about it all, but you don't sound to me as though you're going down a road which has any answers whatsoever. You're formulating it, you're discussing, you're still consulting.
There's not a whole lot here that you can tell us today which would give us any kind of confidence, that would lead me to believe that people on social assistance will have opportunities within the next six or 12 months, because that's going to be the desperate time. You know it and I know it and everybody in your government knows it. It's going to get a whole lot more difficult for people out there, yet you can't reassure us today that there's something that will be done over that period of time. I find that incredible.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I could reassure the member that we will have workfare working this year.
Mr Cordiano: Ah, ha. Now we're getting some answers.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's not a new answer. I've been saying that for some time.
Mr Cordiano: When this year?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Well, that's the crux of it. I don't think the member can disagree with me in terms of my saying, whether it's the child care review, whether it's the workfare model or whether it's the development services model, that we're undergoing a lot of consultation with the community to find out what their needs are and how they feel they should be part of this puzzle. That's what we're doing right now. We are on track. We have some basic structures in place, but we need to speak to the community, and that's what we're doing right now. I've talked to a number of organizations and we have been working together with them.
Mr Cordiano: That's fine, but you didn't consult anyone when you moved with lightning speed to cut social assistance by 21.6%.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If that's a question, that's something we clearly said we were going to do. But I might add that the benefit rate in Ontario is still 10% above the rate average of the other provinces. We didn't go to the average of the other provinces; we're still 10% above. Second, we provided people with the opportunity to earn back the difference between the old and new base rates.
Mr Cordiano: There were a lot of complications with that. You know your own office made mistakes.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: None the less, that was something we provided them with.
Mr Cordiano: All I'm saying to you is that in the meantime, there's nothing for people to turn to in the alternative while you dither and try to figure it out. Again I say, you've been granted the impossible job of trying to figure this out as you go along, making up the rules as you go along. You really don't have it all figured out.
It's not just a question of consulting people to see how best to implement it. You haven't even outlined what it would do. You can't answer these questions I've asked today: How is it going to work? How many people will be employed, more or less? I don't expect right down to the last detail, but you can't give us the general outlines of how this is going to work.
1540
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I might comment that we are doing the 1995-96 estimates and not the 1996-97 estimates. Second, we are criticized when we do move with brevity and we're criticized when we move with consultation. Perhaps we can find out what might be the middle ground for this. I believe, strongly, that this is a very important program. That's why we are consulting with people. That's why I have my colleagues working with me on the program. You're quite right, it's a complicated program. But I think you'll find the results will work and you'll be pleased with the results, if that's what your ultimate aim is.
Mr Michael Brown: Pursuing the same issue, as we probably all know, Wisconsin's one of the leading jurisdictions in North America in following some sort of "workfare" program. The Governor of Wisconsin, who is a darling of the Republican right-wing over there, clearly says: "If you're doing this to save any money, folks, forget it. This is not about saving money. This will cost you money, but it is worth doing for all the right reasons" -- opportunity, personal growth, all that kind of stuff. He very well could be right on that basis.
People who have had experience with these programs come to us and say: "There's no money to be saved. If you do this and you do this right, it is going to cost you money. You cannot conceivably save money doing this unless you're dressing up a cost-cutting exercise with some nice words." Are you prepared, in order to do your "workfare" program correctly, to spend more money if that's what it takes to make it work?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You raise a very good question in terms of why we are doing this, and I think you're right. To quote for a second from -- surprise and lo and behold, I have the Common Sense Revolution here. It says, "There are no short-term cost savings in this, but we believe that for every life we get back on track we are avoiding further costly programs down the road." That's exactly the point you're making, and that's why it's important for us.
You're looking at Wisconsin as a possible model, but I'll tell you something. That's the United States. We're not the United States. I've seen a lot of the programs they've written out, whether it's Wisconsin or Michigan or California, but the end result, and what we've decided, is that we want made-in-Ontario solutions here. That's what we have to do.
Mr Michael Brown: I agree with you. The reason for mentioning that particular one is because I was trying to understand whether this is just about cost-cutting or about an effective program. That Governor is saying, "This costs more, not less."
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But it could be both. The other point that was made just a bit earlier was that the old training programs didn't work and were very costly. You have to look at how you work within your resources right now; provide ultimately what you're talking about, which is an aim to make things better for people, but within the context of utilizing better the resources you have. I think your point's well made. But once again I have to say, and it's the point Mr Cordiano was making as well, that a lot of existing programs weren't cost-efficient, and that's what we have to eliminate.
Mr Michael Brown: We live in a society that is ever-evolving and what worked yesterday may not work tomorrow. We all understand that.
Unfortunately, I probably have more experience with job creation programs than anybody in this room. I represent a community where we've lost virtually all the industry jobs, that being Elliot Lake. Through that experience -- and make no mistake, it's a very painful experience -- one of the concerns that gets raised, and you mentioned it in your statement, is job displacement. With all the right intentions, there were myriad programs, whether they be provincial or federal, that were aimed at providing some kind of work for people in transition, lots of retraining programs, whatever.
One of the more common complaints to constituency members was: "I can't get work because there are no jobs left. Every job in this place that I could qualify for or used to get is now being taken by somebody on a works program." Employers were subsidized, unemployment topped up, all kinds of programs which helped those people. Fine. But say I was a carpenter. I can no longer do carpentry work because all the projects and whatever are being done by subsidized people.
I look at, say, the municipal sector in Ontario today. There's quite considerable downsizing in parks and rec services, for example, where people used to be out doing the maintenance of the parks and what not. Would it be your vision that perhaps some of these people in Ontario Works would be out there doing that work?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: One of the principles I stated in the speech was that any work-for-welfare job is not to take a job away from someone who is actually being paid for doing it. That's part of how we have to piece this together, obviously. If someone is doing work and is being paid for it, you don't want to replace that by someone who's not getting paid for doing it.
Mr Michael Brown: The difficulty is that it's easier said than done.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You're quite right, and that's why we're speaking to a lot of the organizations out there, which are coming to us with ideas on how they can fulfil this community work. That's where we're getting our best suggestions, from the communities themselves. I've seen a number of them in different communities who have come up with ideas and how to make their communities better at the same time. It's not just a simple matter of make-work projects. That's not the idea. The idea is that you're going to have to work for your welfare cheque, but you also have an opportunity to improve your community at the same time, and that's where these people are coming forward with ideas.
Mr Michael Brown: I understand exactly the theory but I have some difficulty, just knowing the reality and having gone through some of the better-intentioned programs that were provided in the province in terms of jobs. I think you're going to find that there will be real job displacement regardless of how carefully you craft this. In my example, the community was directly involved in all these programs. It wasn't as if nobody talked to them and somebody came in and dropped them on them. For some of it, the community even had the money itself and was allocating it for these jobs, yet people who had never missed a day's work in their life were now not working. That should be of concern to all of us.
One example when we talk of that, of which government pays for something, was there was one program where the intent of the program, if you can believe this, the first priority of the program was to have people work for 16 weeks. At the end of that time they were terminated and someone else would get on and do that job. The intent of the program was essentially to move them on to unemployment insurance, because in that community at 16 weeks you then requalified for another year. They also paid wages in the neighbourhood of $15 or $16 for those jobs so they would qualify for the maximum in unemployment insurance dollars. It's easy to say in the abstract that we're terribly opposed to this, but when you have huge layoff situations, that's what people decided to do.
What I'm saying to you is that you look at this and it all sounds really good. The rhetoric is fine. But when the rubber hits the road, I'm suggesting that it's going to cost you some money, maybe more than you think, and that there will be displacement. There will be people who are no longer paying taxes to the province of Ontario who will be displaced. When you do this, do this very carefully. But you'd better be doing it in a hurry, because I really believe the people of Ontario want opportunity and want jobs.
1550
Having said all that, there is a limited number of jobs in this economy unless your Finance minister is going to change what he's thinking. It's not me saying that the unemployment level is not going to decrease; it's not any member of the Liberal Party saying it, it's your own guys. They're not seeing any growth in the economy of Ontario in terms of jobs. If we get these folks jobs, who else is going to be, then, on social assistance? Somebody else, if there's no growth in employment. It's not rocket science: unless there's growth in the economy. I'm having a really hard time with this and I wish you'd help me a little bit. If there's a limited number of jobs and it's not expanding, somebody is going to be on welfare. I wish they weren't, but this sounds to me like what's going to happen.
Mr Cordiano: Just before you answer, it would help to know what the category of jobs is that you're planning in workfare, what exactly we mean when we say we're going to create a job, the jobs that my colleague is referring to. I used the example of someone being called up to mow the lawn, shovel the snow. This is what we heard during the election campaign. Is that what we're talking about, or could it be any kind of job, where someone is actually learning something that might be helpful in the future to gain a permanent job? Can you answer that, at least?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's one of the areas, Mr Cordiano, where we're looking for input from the community. The community is coming up with some very good ideas, whether it's from the YMCA or whether it's from other organizations.
Mr Cordiano: Such as? Shed some light on that for us. Like what?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'll give you an example. The Economic Development Corp of Fort Erie has people working with them on their Festival of Lights. They appreciated that. In fact, what happened with some of those people is that they actually got jobs as a result of their working on the community project, real jobs, because the project was, of course, sponsored by private business. That's an example of one.
There are a number of things, and that's the challenge right now. If I start giving out all kinds of various examples, of course that'll be the focus of what we're doing and might detract from the actual program. What I might say to the member, all members, is that you don't have to be a Conservative to come up with a program that's good. If your community comes up with programs, we're willing to listen to it.
The Chair: Five more minutes for the Liberals.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I welcome input from all members.
Mr Cleary: I just want to know, who else are you consulting with? In our part of Ontario there don't seem to be any consultations. Anybody I run into says there's no consultation with the government on anything.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Actually, first of all I have a core group of some of my caucus members who have been working with me from all over Ontario and giving me input from their areas. I've visited a number of other areas too to see programs, including Sudbury, I might add. We don't have a member there. So if you have people who want to meet with us, we're more than willing to listen through yourself or even to them. I think it's very important for us to get input from all MPPs on this. It's a very important program.
Mr Cleary: When do you think this program will be up and running?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Well, it will be this year.
Mr Cleary: I understand that you've already lost an employee because it wasn't happening fast enough.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Sometimes unrelated subjects get related somehow. All I can tell you, and certainly with the support of my colleagues of my caucus committee, is that we're right on track. I think any of them would tell you that.
Mr Cleary: What's the time frame? "On track," what do you mean by that?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This year.
Mr Cleary: This year. Okay. If this committee doesn't get the answers we want from you this year, I think you'll be back in the same spot next year.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think for sure we'll be in the same spot next year.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, getting questions from the members.
Mr Cleary: We tried, with a group of people from all over Ontario, to get an adopt-a-highway program going for a number of years. That was involving a group of residents. They tried to get the communities and the service clubs involved and we made no headway on that whatsoever in the past. I would like your thoughts on that. I'm talking about provincial highways, mostly.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I've spoken to a number of groups, including a number of chambers of commerce. I was out speaking to the Rotary Club in St Catharines the other day. My staff have met with a number of organizations as well and we've received some very positive feedback from them in terms of participation in assisting us.
You see, the whole object with this, of course, is that yes, we want to provide some work experience through the community work, but an opportunity to improve these communities as well. That's the aspect I think that has people looking at it very positively. We're not looking just for someone to dig a hole and fill it in. That doesn't make any sense.
Mr Cleary: I know many residents in my community have sent out résumés and have travelled every day, door to door. I find it very hard to accept that you say there are jobs out there, because they've tried everything and they come back with zero.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cleary. We've exhausted that 30 minutes.
Mr Cooke: Minister, when you were responding, you said you really didn't mean that you had any particular view or attitude that lacked understanding towards welfare recipients or social assistance recipients.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, those are your words, not mine.
Mr Cooke: "Lacked understanding" -- I don't mean that you didn't understand. I mean that you empathized, that you had concern and so forth.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No.
Mr Cooke: Well, then go ahead. Use your own words.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Cooke, all I did was tell you what I said in my speech. I think what you actually said and what I had actually said were quite different. All I said here was that there are hundreds of thousands of good, honest people in this province who are waiting for an opportunity."
Mr Cooke: Right, okay. That's fine.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's all I said.
Mr Cooke: If that's the approach you take -- I said in my opening statement that one of my concerns is the approach, the kind of language and the way your party and your leader used social assistance recipients and how you continue to do that. I just want to give you an example of what I mean in your statement, on page 7: "In 1985, for example, about 476,000 people relied on welfare in this province. When I became minister last June, that number had risen to 1.3 million. Put another way, taxpayers were supporting one in 10 people in Ontario with a welfare cheque." That is code for saying that people who are on social assistance are basically milking the taxpayers.
If you don't mean that, why wouldn't you simply say that there are 1.3 million people? Of course you know that the majority, a huge portion of that 1.3 million -- when it's spelled out this way it gives people the impression that you've got 1.3 million adults. Is it 500,000 or 600,000 of that 1.3 million who are actually kids? Why would you put it in a way that gives people the impression that your view is that social assistance recipients are basically milking the taxpayers?
The fact is, if I understand what you really believe, that you understand that the 1.3 million people, including 600,000 kids, don't want to be there, that it's the economic situation. In fact, if you were totally fair, you would say that one of the reasons the numbers went up so dramatically in the beginning of the 1990s was because of the recession -- a terrible recession. So if you understand all of that, why do you constantly use code language that really is politically popular but just describes social assistance recipients as folks who don't want to work and are just relying on social assistance?
1600
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm not denying the recession didn't have an effect on things; I don't think any of us are so silly as to deny that. But I also would say to you that over the last 10 years it's been very evident that the welfare system has become uncoupled from the economic realities out there in the real world. Over the last 10 years, whether or not the economy went up or down, the welfare rolls continued to rise steadily. So yes, I do recognize the fact that --
Mr Cooke: Has it just been in the last 10 years?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's the last 10 years I looked at. It was pretty steady if you target --
Mr Cooke: You might want to take a look at the numbers and see that it actually was happening even in good old Davis's Ontario.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It was quite a remarkable increase over the last 10 years. But what I'm saying is that yes, the recession did have a part in all this, but certainly you have to look in terms of why it continued to rise even through the good times. I think that's the key.
Mr Cooke: But the point is that when you use this kind of language --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let me address that for you, because you did ask me specifically about the language.
I certainly read my speech beforehand and I certainly didn't read it and interpret it the same way you did. I interpreted it in a factual manner, that one out of 10 people in Ontario were getting welfare. I don't read codes into things as much as you do, unfortunately.
Mr Cooke: Put another way, taxpayers were supporting one in 10 people in Ontario.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes, that's a factual statement.
Mr Cooke: Another way of putting it would be that one in 10 people in Ontario has been displaced by the economy and we need to help those folks. The way you put it, you play to the middle-income people and you diminish and put down everyone who's on social assistance.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Maybe you and I should visit the art gallery together some time and see how we interpret art.
Mr Cooke: I actually believe that you don't see it that way and I think that's part of the problem. I think that's a real, serious problem.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It really was a factual statement, that's all. It's a factual statement that one out of 10 people is on the welfare system. That's it. There's no code intended, no interpretation.
Mr Martin: You didn't quite say it that way. One out of 10 people is being supported by the taxpayer; that's what you said.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But that's true too.
Mr Martin: But it's different. It's a different political spin. Come on, be honest.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Unfortunately, I guess your interpretation of reading codes is quite different than mine. Certainly, it's intended as a factual statement.
Mr Cooke: As I said, I think that's honestly what you believe, but that's unfortunate, because you really miss the point. I think your leader and some of his political advisers understand the point very well and that's why they use this kind of language, because they're playing to that kind of dislike, the kinds of divisions that are built up in economically challenging times and how people who are working and are paying taxes blame the victims during economic recessions.
I think Mike Harris understands that very well; I think David Lindsay and the other people in his office understand it very well. I think the ads that were run during the election campaign played to that, and this kind of language just reinforces that.
What I really want to talk to you about in this segment is your workfare program, because I think your Premier goes around the province now saying, and says in the Legislature, that the Common Sense Revolution was pulled together over a few years of consultation, that you had a specific plan when you came to government and that now what you're basically saying to us is that you don't know really what the workfare plan's all about. It was, again, a good code for getting votes in an election, but you're here today, more than six months after being elected, more than six months after being sworn into office, and you can't give us a better definition of where you're going in terms of the workfare program.
I would like at least to get some idea of what kind of budgeting we're looking at. The $500 million that you talked about, is that still the dollars you're talking about? Over how many years is that, and where is the $500 million going to be spent with respect to the workfare program? What's the purpose of it? What's it going to be targeted at?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Chair, because both Mr Cooke and Mr Cordiano were very interested in some of the elements of workfare, perhaps I can take a couple of minutes and give them a little more insight in terms of workfare.
Mr Cooke: Before you do that, can I ask you to answer my question about the $500 million and where that money will be targeted, what the purpose of that is, how many years it will be over? That's a very specific program. I'd like to get an answer to that $500 million.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Certainly that's all part of the context in which we're actually fine-tuning the workfare program right now. You can appreciate the fact that that's not something I can really talk about right now. We've made a commitment, certainly.
Mr Cordiano: You haven't talked about anything as far as --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm going to give some detail in a second.
Mr Cooke: Minister, you talked about the $500-million program in the Common Sense Revolution.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Correct.
Mr Cooke: You've confirmed that the $500 million is in fact still the plan. You must have some idea of what the $500 million is going for. Is it going for retraining? Is it going to be directed to the community college system in part? How many people will the $500 million accommodate each year? I think we're entitled. This is estimates.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But it's estimates for 1995-96.
Mr Cooke: Come on. You've announced that you're going ahead with the workfare program. If that's the attitude, then --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I might say to the member that once the program has been fully developed, we certainly will share the aspects of the funding with you as well.
Mr Cooke: So you're here today and you can't tell me. Even though the $500 million was part of the Common Sense Revolution document and you consulted over two years, you can't say anything about what the $500 million is going to. You can't even tell me how many years it's going to be over.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would better characterize that as saying we're not prepared to do that right now because we haven't fully developed the program. I think you can appreciate that, having been in charge of other programs before in the past.
Mr Cooke: I can appreciate that you can't give me all of the specifics about the workfare program. I can understand that. But I can't understand that you can't even give me an indication of what the $500 million is going for, since it's already been announced and it was part of your election campaign.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, it's part of the context of the workfare program, and as I said, we'll certainly be happy to share the details with you once it's been developed.
Mr Cooke: Have you got any studies that you're looking at modelling your workfare program after?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Actually, as I stated earlier on, we've looked at a number of different jurisdictions and a number of different programs, and the one thing we had decided as a result of that is to find a made-in-Ontario solution. That's why we're working very closely with communities and with my committee of MPPs to properly formulate what workfare is going to be.
If I have an opportunity now, if you wanted some context in terms of workfare --
Mr Cooke: No, I don't want general language. If you're not prepared to talk about the workfare program and some of the specifics -- you've made that very clear -- I do have a couple of others that you can either answer or refuse to answer.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Actually, if you're lucky, I can actually answer the question.
Mr Cooke: Have you put out any kind of requests for proposals on workfare, or is it all being developed in-house? Are you using any private consulting companies to help you develop the workfare program?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The concept of workfare is being developed in connection, as I said before, Mr Cooke, with my committee of MPPs. They're my primary source right now. They are people on the front line who provide me with information on this.
Mr Cooke: Hopeless. I understand that you're using your caucus to develop some ideas. I'm asking you whether there's been any use of private sector consultants to help you design this program, and have there been any requests for proposals put out to the private sector with respect to workfare?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The actual development of the program?
Mr Cooke: Yes.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: My primary source, once again, is the committee of MPPs.
Mr Cooke: So the answer is yes or no?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: In terms of developing the program, the answer is I'm working with my MPPs. That's my source, Mr Cooke.
Mr Cooke: I understand that. Have you put out a request for proposal to private sector consultants for the development?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No.
Mr Cooke: Just answer the questions, if you can. With all of the service clubs that you've talked about involving, have you had specific responses from the service clubs?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Well, it depends what you mean by response, Mr Cooke. Do you mean indications of interest or --
Mr Cooke: My understanding was that you've had significant correspondence with a number of service groups where you asked about potential interest from service groups, and I just want to know what kind of feedback you've gotten at this point from service groups, since the feedback I've gotten is that there's not a lot of interest from groups like the Rotary Club and the Kiwanis Club and so forth. I'm trying to get an idea from you, since you've been quoted in the papers as saying they might be one of the main sources of placement for the workfare program, of what kind of response you've got and what kind of evidence you can present to the committee of interest.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I might indicate first of all that when this whole business about service clubs came out, it was, I think, something that one of the papers came out with and it wasn't myself. But that's not to say we haven't discussed things with service clubs. My staff have talked to some service clubs already and some of the MPPs have as well. I spoke to the St Catharines Rotary Club the other day. The indications are that many of them are looking favourably upon the program. But I think the important part is that people need to know what the program is about, and that's where we really get a lot of help from the MPPs, explaining what the program is.
1610
Mr Cooke: How can we explain what the program is when you can't even answer a basic question here before the committee today of how many years the $500 million is going to be spent over and what it's going to be spent for?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You have to look at things in terms of context in the actual program. If people know exactly what the expectations are in terms of general concept -- and you know, I've got some information here but you don't want to hear it.
Mr Cordiano: Well, you didn't give me any information, so I'd like to hear it. Answer my questions.
Mr Cooke: I want to get a better understanding of the program, but I think pretty fundamental to how the program's going to work are questions like the $500 million. Can you tell me whether you expect to be using the community college system for any training?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Part of what we're looking at is how in fact we're going to be working with MET on all this as well. Part of what certainly your government was doing was looking at basic training skills. We're piecing that together as well. I'm sure it's not just your government; the prior Liberal government as well. We're promoting the fact that some basic skills are required, and that's where we're putting this together in the espousal of workfare.
Mr Cooke: I understand all of that, but can you tell me whether you envision using the community college system?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: For what?
Mr Cooke: For training, retraining, so that people can get back into the workforce.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I said, we're looking at many different aspects, and that's why we're working with the Ministry of Education to try to see where this all fits together.
Mr Cooke: So you can't tell me whether the college system is going to be used.
This is a complete joke. The most important program this minister has talked about, a 22% cut in social assistance rates, all focused on and being told that this is moving to a workfare program, one of the centrepieces of the election platform for his party, and the minister comes here and tells us today he can't talk about it. He can't even tell us how the $500 million is going to be spent. What an absolute disgrace.
My colleague has some questions on a different issue, but this is a complete waste of time.
Mr Martin: I want to focus as well for a few minutes on a central theme, or at least an important piece of what I saw as the promise that was made during the election campaign of last year that once you were elected I thought for certain you would honour, and it turns out to be not so. It concerns me deeply because people are going to be hurt. As well, for me, it begins to put a human face on the eventual outcome of some of the cost-cutting that you, as part of the Ontario Harris government, are involved in.
I went home last weekend to Sault Ste Marie and did a couple of things. One was to pick up some back copies of the Toronto Star, the business section. In it, to my surprise -- because to listen to the government, you'd think the economy was simply falling apart, that we were in some kind of crisis. The premise upon which a lot of the cuts are being made is that the economy needs to be jump-started again so that jobs can be created and we can get on with life.
Well, according to the newspaper on Wednesday, the headline is "The Profit Parade Continues." It talks about Barrick Gold's 10th straight year of record profits. It talks about the Bank of Nova Scotia making $876 million and its record earnings. It talks about GM topping them all, making $1.3 billion and setting a profit record.
Then I picked up the paper on Thursday and I read where Brascan, which owns in my own community Great Lakes Power, and a lot of other business enterprises in Ontario, in 1995 recorded a $312-million profit, which is the best in its 96-year history.
Then I picked up the paper on Friday, and it continues. Inside it talks about Petro-Canada making a profit of $196 million for 1995, and this coming despite charges that it had to put out for major layoffs that they incurred. So they're laying people off at the same time as they're declaring this record profit. On the front page of that section it talks about the stock market and how it has all of a sudden begun to roar. I guess it's a term they use there. I'm not that familiar with the stock market. I sometimes wish I was, but I'm not.
In asking the question why that is, in an economy that's supposedly, according to some people, in crisis, this is what's here anyway: "While we live in the present, stock markets live in the future, usually about a year ahead. What they see is a set of extremely promising conditions."
I read that and then I read the local newspaper and I had a few phone calls from some people, and then on Friday went to some meetings, to find out that a local organization called the community living association -- your deputy will be familiar with that. There's been a lot of activity over the last three or four years -- I'm sorry, the last actually 10 or 12 years in our area -- to try to amalgamate five or six organizations that were delivering various parts of the service to developmentally challenged folks in our area.
They're at a point now in having to deal with cutbacks to their organization, approximately $1.25 million, where they're going to have to close down a group home, a group home that supports the most fundamentally challenged of the handicapped who are in our community, sick children, children who need all kinds of medical attention around the clock. There are about 12 or 13 kids living in this group home. It's a wonderful group home. It was set up about 10 or 15 years ago in the community through great effort. Group homes are never something that all of a sudden appears. There's always tremendous community activity around that, lots of fears that have to be dealt with and everything. But that group home was set up and is working very effectively to support these children and their families as they try to live a dignified, quality life.
At the same time, they're also going to close down an integrated day care centre that has been really effective in taking some kids out of their homes and helping them socialize in a way that makes them then able to participate more fully in some of the other programs in the community, like school and the YMCA and all that kind of thing.
Two just invaluable programs, and this association, because of the cuts that it is going to have to incur -- and these are cuts to programs for handicapped people. You said in your program and you've said since then that you weren't going to cut programs for the handicapped, you weren't going to hurt the handicapped in our province. In this instance we have the most fundamentally challenged of people out there being directly affected by the cuts of your government.
I want to know how you reconcile, on one hand, a corporate sector that is just making money like money's never been made before, generating profits that hopefully will be reinvested to create jobs in this province -- and I'm excited about that -- but at the same time making cuts to programs that are affecting directly the very most vulnerable of people, people who just cannot look after themselves in my community. I find it -- and the words I've used are -- morally reprehensible, irresponsible. I just can't understand it.
I was wondering if maybe you or your deputy might have some answer for me today, because I would like to be able to tell the people of Sault Ste Marie that you care, that handicapped people are not going to be hurt, and that somehow we're going to resolve this one.
1620
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, I just want to say I do have a concern here, particularly if it's in the disabled community and certainly with children as well. I understand this so-called, in parenthesis or italics, closure of this children's home is part of their contingency plan only and hasn't been approved by their board. I have a concern about that too. I quite agree in a lot of ways. Maybe I can ask the deputy to give us some detail on this.
Ms Sandra Lang: I will actually ask the ADM to come up and give you specifics on this, but as you know, Mr Martin, this is part of a long-standing issue that we've had in Sault Ste Marie. There have been about eight or 10 years of work going on with that community to look at restructuring services for the developmentally handicapped. Over those years we've had ongoing chats with them about how they will work within the context of the fiscal framework they have, within the finances that government is able to provide them. The board has worked very hard, in my experience, to try to find solutions, and they have now submitted to us a plan that outlines how they will live within the context of the fiscal framework they have.
We are confident that the details of that plan will, hopefully, allow us to continue to provide services to those individuals, because we, like you, are very concerned that they continue to get care and support within that community. I've asked Sue Herbert if she'll come up, because she has the specific program management responsibility with that community and with our area office.
Ms Sue Herbert: I'm Sue Herbert, and I'm the assistant deputy minister for program management division. You're quite right, this agency has about a $1.4-million base problem. That's been accumulated in a number of ways, partly out of the amalgamation that you referenced -- that was about $600,000, $650,000 -- and partly out of a series of constraint announcements: 1%, which was constrained across all programs by the previous government, and this year, 2.5%, which was across all of our agencies and which was part of the government's announcements earlier this summer. That leaves them with a total deficit of about $1.4 million.
The board has worked very hard. It has known for some time it has had this large deficit problem, and we have assisted it with some fiscal dollars to give it time to put a plan together. My understanding of the plan is that they can meet about $650,000 through their own restructuring. They are and have given layoff notices to middle-management ranks and altered some programs, so they feel very confident that they can manage the $650,000 level without affecting client service.
Their plan is to ask the union for a 5% wage rollback when they open up their collective bargaining process, which I believe starts right away. They have also developed a contingency plan, which includes the issues that you put on the table around the children's home and the child care centre.
Our understanding is that the board has not made that decision to close that home. In fact their first position is to talk to their staff and to their union about a wage rollback. That's the position they've taken as their focus for trying to get their base issues under control.
Mr Martin: They know, and I think you know, that even the 5%, if the union was agreeable to that, is not going to give them what they need to keep all the programs that they offer open and operating. It just isn't enough, plus the constraint that they're trying to build in is not just 2.5%; it's a 5% constraint, because they're expecting another 2.5% somewhere down the line.
Ms Herbert: For this year. That's right.
Mr Martin: They're also being told now, the ministry is hearing up in our area that we're looking at further reductions, not far down the road either, in the amount of money they're going to get to run these programs. It's forcing this association that, as you say, has worked very hard to try to accommodate, because they've also had some crisis management to do.
They've had a couple of cases of people coming home from institutions who were difficult to manage, plus they had a sexual assault situation they had to deal with and the recommendation of the report on that. Now they find themselves -- and I've talked to the association. I talked to the executive director and everybody on Friday, Bud Wildman and I did, and they're beside themselves too.
They don't want to do this, and what they're telling me is that eventually what they're going to have to do is trade off one program versus another. That's what's happening at this point in time. You have the union, which I think would be happy to live with what they have. They're being asked to give up and they're looking at that. They don't want to. Nobody wants to do that, and really, from an economic sense, it's money out of our community that we need at this particular point in time to keep ourselves around and all the rest of it.
We think your commitment to not hurting the disadvantaged and the handicapped in this instance should be honoured and that these people should get what they were promised they would get when they amalgamated. All the way through the amalgamation they were told, "If you come together, if you amalgamate" -- and I was at the meetings. They were backing the downsizing of personnel, there would not be a diminishing of program, and the government would be willing to come forward with the resources necessary to make sure that they could continue to deliver the services that over the years have been built up as we brought people home from places like Orillia and Smiths Falls so they could live within Sault Ste Marie and Algoma.
We're finding at this particular point in time -- and it's a big issue out there; it's all over the papers -- that this organization is just not able to -- as my colleague said here, the children's aid society has mandated things that they need to do. So does this organization. It needs to look after these people because they can't do it themselves.
You know the consequences of moving these folks out. If you close down that group home -- and I read into your statement that maybe there are other ways of looking after these folks in the community. Well, there aren't any other ways that are as cost-effective or as supportive in terms of quality of life and dignity of the people.
They need the money. As simple as that. They need the money to be able to continue to provide that service, and they have a moral responsibility to do that. Otherwise, some of these kids -- and I hate to say this -- are going to die and some of these families are going to have such pressure applied if they have to take them home and look after them there. We had one single mother in one of the homes I was in and talking to who said she just could not conceive of having to take her son home full-time any more.
The Chair: You have about 10 seconds.
Mr Martin: She just couldn't handle that.
Anyway, I'm hoping that we'll get some kind of positive response out of this government to say that this association is going to be able to provide the kind of service we've all come to expect of them over the last few years and that it will honour the commitments that were made as the amalgamation happened.
The Chair: Time for the Conservatives now for 30 minutes.
Mrs Ross: Minister, first of all I'd like to make a few comments. I don't think any of the parties would disagree that government spending has really gone out of control and that we have to cut back government spending. I don't think that's a problem here.
A lot of the talk we're hearing concerns the welfare rolls and what's happening with those welfare rolls. I know in my community the rolls have dropped dramatically and Mike Schuster of the regional social services department feels that a lot of them are because people have found jobs. A lot of them are young people who, when they find that new eligibility requirements are placed on them, would rather go back to school, back to their home, so they've dropped out of the welfare rolls as well. How much money has been saved by the drop in welfare rates?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you for your question. I think some of the other members might disagree in terms of the welfare decline, but certainly there's a strong indication that I hope things have changed and changed for the better in the province right now.
To really give you the context on this in terms of the numbers a little bit more, in December 1995 nearly 4,560 fewer households or about 10,680 individuals relied on social assistance than in November 1995, and that's a drop of 0.7% in the number of cases from the previous month. We're encouraged by the decline, of course, which was the sixth consecutive decline, and since then we've heard about January, which was a further decline.
Up to January of this year we have now had a reduction of about 59,000 cases, which represent about 199,000 people throughout the province who have left the system, and our goal is to get Ontario working year-round and to preserve the social assistance for people who are most in need. In terms of the actual costs, I think that up to date around $100 million has been saved as a result of the caseload decline.
Once again, our aim here is to try to improve people's situations, and certainly the decline in the caseloads indicates that. I can only say things anecdotally, as you can right now, in terms of what has happened. But I've heard a lot of response back from the communities out there that, yes, the government's working very closely and is to be commended for the work it has done.
1630
Mrs Ross: I'd like to address the issue of consultation. We hear a lot of words from the opposition stating that they'd like to know what type of consultation is taking place. Every member, at least on this side of the Legislature I know, meets on a continuing basis with people in the community. I myself have met with all kinds of social service agencies, and to be quite honest with you, I'm amazed at how many there are out there, how many groups are out there offering assistance for numerous things. There's a lot of duplication going on out there. I see that happening.
When we talk about service clubs, I was approached by a member of the Kiwanis Club who offered their services to try to help in training for workfare. So to say that they're not coming forward is wrong because they have come forward, and I believe that this gentleman has even met with your staff to discuss what they can do to help.
I have met with people at GHTEC, the Greater Hamilton Technology Enterprise Centre, which I think you're very familiar with. I'm very proud of Hamilton-Wentworth being a leader in this type of thing where they have incubator programs for small businesses. The business advisory centre provides a whole year of advice and help to people on unemployment. It's funded federally, but it's a good program and something we're looking at.
They fund them for a year, they help them with their business plan and they keep monitoring month by month to make sure they're on the right track and they're not falling through the cracks. They continue that after the year, every six months to see how they're doing. In that particular program, 202 businesses were started and have created 510 jobs, so I think it's a good program, something we're looking at, and we've met and talked about that.
I was at St Charles Adult Education Centre last Friday and talked with them. I haven't told you this yet, but they have a great program there. They have several as a matter of fact. They have one program where they help adults to finish their grade 12 education. They also have a program which is a cooperative education program, and they have employers waiting for people to come out of that program.
They have another program at the GHTEC centre called Helping Hands, which I think you've heard about as well. Helping Hands is a program where people on welfare offer their services to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. It's a unique program because what they do is basically -- I don't know what you call it -- maybe a handyman-type thing. They can go in for seniors. Where seniors need help perhaps in cleaning their house, they might help do that, or they might help them with their outside gardening and that sort of thing. It's proven to be highly successful, because these people really want to do something for the money they're getting paid. They really want to work is what they want, and this is one way of them starting into that.
I was at Amity Goodwill last week and the Marty Karl Centre as well. Both those groups have programs working with employers, getting people back to work. It was quite a moving experience at Amity, where people who are handicapped in various ways, two of them received full-time employment after working for two months with certain employers.
So there are lots of good things happening out there and it's sad that we don't get a little bit more positive messages as opposed to all the negative coming. These people really want to work and we really want to help them work.
One of the things that's happening in Hamilton-Wentworth -- you talk about adopt-a-highway and that sort of thing. We have a mayor who started a program of planting flowers at the intersections of our streets. Of course, because of all the cutbacks, this was one project they were going to cut or were looking at cutting. It cost $800,000 to the region -- or to the city; it's a city project. The private sector has come on board. Lots of nurseries are phoning in offering and adopting corners.
I was thinking about that the other day, that wouldn't that be a unique opportunity for someone to learn about horticulture through that type of effort? There are lots of opportunities out there. I sit on the Ontario Works committee with Minister Tsubouchi. I haven't presented this adopt-a-corner to him, yet he's hearing some things because I've been meeting with these people over the last couple of weeks.
Mr Cooke made the point that workfare is the most important program coming out of this ministry. I agree. It is, and that's why it's taking some time to develop. There are lots of good ideas. The thing is, you can't put forward a program and then find out it doesn't work. That's why we're working towards Ontario-made opportunities for people. I'm proud of the work being done, and I know it's going to come forward once we continue looking at some of these other projects.
I want to address a couple of points made by Mr Cooke when he said three people have frozen to death, almost as though he was blaming you for that. I want to refer to a couple of articles in the paper, one that said, "Hostel beds empty while three men died." The fact that these homeless people didn't want to go to shelters is not your fault. I just wanted to mention that to you. I think that's wrong, to misguide people. By the way, at the same time as I heard that on the radio the other day, I heard that 311 people, I think it was, had died across the United States because of the cold weather. It does happen, and it's unfortunate that it does happen.
In the Ministry of Consumer and Social Services, in light of the government's spending cutbacks we're trying to put forward in restructuring ministries, can you tell me what steps you've taken with respect to restructuring?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Just before I answer the question, I want to comment a bit on what you said and the value of having the MPPs, who have their finger on the pulse of their respective communities. I hold that out to not only our people but other MPPs in their areas. If you have programs that you think are workable and cost-effective and will help people back to work, please tell us. We have to address all areas of this province, not just areas in which we have MPPs. That's very important.
Just a comment on the incubator program you have in Hamilton: It was a very exciting program that I saw when we were there. It's a program in which people on social assistance are encouraged and helped to create their own businesses. The people I saw were I guess the next generation of the program; their businesses had been in operation for a year or two, were successful, and in fact they had started hiring people from social assistance to work for them. It's a very good program, I thought. It's not a concept in Hamilton alone, but I've seen some other areas where that has been as well.
Mrs Ross: But ours was best, I'm sure.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I can't compare it here.
The other thing, in terms of programs for the developmentally handicapped, is that the developmentally handicapped do not have to participate in our workfare program. However, it's important for us to assist them in any way we can if they want to work, and I think many do. That's why we have to look at programs to assist them -- outside the context of workfare, of course, but in the context of development services, because that's very important to assist them back to work.
I saw a really good program in Kitchener, at University Heights school, where they had been working very closely with the business community, with such groups as Kuntz Electroplating and Wal-Mart, who were hiring developmentally disadvantaged people from the program to work in full-time jobs. I'll tell you, the excitement of people from these communities at being able to work was the best reward any of these people could have gotten.
One other comment before I get into your answer: Another program I saw was an organization called New Leaf, an interesting program again in the developmentally disadvantaged area, where they work on a farm and the products they make there make them self-sufficient. It's quite a good program.
1640
Many of these programs weren't started by our government, obviously, because we haven't been in long enough. What I'm trying to give you is a sense that there are a lot of good programs out there in different areas. We are depending on government representatives, the MPPs, to assist us to find the best solutions for all this.
Having said that, a lot of what we're looking towards in terms of our restructuring efforts -- first of all, the core message is that we're trying to manage an affordable, better, more effective system of social services, one that's based on incentives for economic independence and assisting and providing essential supports to those most in need. Based on that basic mandate, we're doing a lot of consultation, as you well know.
I think our government's in the right direction, to work with organizations. There's a challenge out there, I know, and most of the organizations are very cognizant of the fact that there are fiscal limitations. What's important for us to say to them is, "We will work with you and we will let you work with us and help us formulate what's important" -- not just lip-service, not just rubber-stamping. What's the point? "Here you go. It's done. Rubber-stamp it." That's not, to me, consultation. They really need to have some direct and very important consultation.
The first time I met Noel Churchman, who is with Christian Horizons, an organization in the DS area, the first thing he said was, "I realize that some fiscal constraints apply, but we want to have flexibility, we want to be able to have some say in terms of how that money is going to be well spent for our community's organizations." That's not an unreasonable request to make, and that's why it's important for us to have some real consultation and use these models within the community itself.
We're criticized sometimes for moving too quickly, but when areas are so important to us, we have to work with communities to find the solutions. The ultimate aim in all this is to make it a better system. That's what the key is: a better system. Yes, we have to be more efficient, but better is our ultimate aim for all this.
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question also relates to welfare rates. We know that they previously were 30% higher than in the other provinces in the Dominion. Benefits have been lowered, to a level that's still 10% above the average for other provinces. Incidentally, and I really am not clear on the relationship, my riding has also seen an 11% decline in the welfare caseload.
However, I feel that new programs being developed to get people off welfare are still being hampered in the sense that no program can compete with the allure of free cheques in the mail sent to otherwise normal, healthy people. This may sound old-fashioned, but we truly must replace our failed welfare system with more compassionate solutions rather than strings of cheques -- solutions that encourage work, as we've heard today, family reliance and marriage, for that matter. Probably the most discriminated against in our society are fatherless children, and a very large percentage of these people have ended up on our welfare caseload. We need solutions other than a life of dependency on government cheques.
What better system or culture can we be developing to get people off welfare that can compete with this money that has so easily flowed in the past and continues to flow, perhaps to a lesser extent, but the cheques continue to come in? How can we change this culture, in certain groups, of dependency on this regular receipt of cheques?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What you're alluding to, and what we're all working very furiously on, is our workfare program, which is really intended to change the basic thinking and try to help people out of the cycle of dependency -- once again, $40 billion over the last 10 years without really having a lot of results.
I recall that my predecessor, Tony Silipo, indicated that his solution for dealing with the welfare problem was to increase benefits by 18.5%, I believe the figure was. Obviously, that approach did not work. What we need to do right now is get into programs that will promote self-sufficiency, will promote people taking more responsibility for themselves and their families again. Clearly, this is going to be the direction we take with Ontario Works.
I might take the opportunity now to mention some of the background. Mr Cooke asked me the question and I didn't get a chance to really answer it; perhaps I can do that now to give some context. I'm really sorry I didn't have an opportunity to do that before, but I will do it now.
First of all, Ontario Works is going to be mandatory. That means that all able-bodied recipients are required to participate in the mandatory workfare program and those who refuse will receive no benefits. The welfare centres will become Ontario centres where workers help recipients find opportunities. The current delivery system will be streamlined by integrating it to remove confusion and overlap.
Ontario Works and the private sector -- the larger corporate sector and the small business community -- will be asked to join the fight to reform welfare by sponsoring placement opportunities. The private sector will play a key role in bringing back hope to people trapped on social assistance.
Ontario Works and the public volunteer sector, municipalities, volunteer organizations, service groups, trade unions and other non-profit organizations, will also identify potential placements, matching people with opportunities and skills. Recipients will be matched with local placements, to use skills while providing services for sponsors or to attend literacy training, job preparation courses, education or training, much like our colleague has indicated.
Developing the opportunity network will assist in coordinating Ontario Works through a central registry on all recipients and a province-wide placement opportunity database. To break down barriers to work, child care will be essential to the success of welfare reform. As I said before, that's part of the puzzle Janet Ecker is working on right now in the child care review. Of course, we'll draw on the experiences of other jurisdictions and work with front-line workers to develop innovative programs.
That's really what we're doing right now. We're going to be providing opportunities, and you're quite right. I still recall what a gentleman said to me at the YMCA in St Catharines. His name was Richard; I'm sorry I don't recall his last name. This gentleman had been on social assistance. He had gone through this particular YMCA's program. He was working for them, incidentally.
It was very moving when he was speaking about his own experience, because it's a personal experience you're talking about and it's very difficult to share these things. He basic problem, as he said himself, was that he had the welfare state of mind, which meant he believed that somehow there was an entitlement. He was trapped. He said this himself. He was in the welfare trap, and what he needed to have was someone to work with him to give him the skills -- exactly your point -- to get back in the workplace, but also working, he said, on a spiritual level so he realized that he could do it. That's where some of the life skills programs that will be necessary for these people will come into effect as well.
Be summed it up greatly. He said: "Now I'm working. My wife used to be on the system as well. She is working now too. A lot of it was that I needed to know I could do it." He said that now that he has done it, he spoke very highly of the YMCA's program in St Catharines, and it was a good program.
1650
Mr Barrett: With respect to workfare, in my riding there's certainly a common body of opinion that nobody ever got rich on welfare, and I think anyone who is lulled into that way of thinking is really doing themselves a disservice. I agree that work and not the failed welfare schemes -- truly destroying many people whom we would classify as poor, and those who are paying their taxes; as Conservatives, we are concerned about the group in society that is footing the bill as well.
We must replace welfare with work and we cannot afford merely to toy with reform. Oftentimes I've been asked, should we force people to work? Of course not. Those who voluntarily wish to remain in that category of poor, for example, in my opinion can be our guest; merely, the flow of welfare cheques will not continue to them. It's their choice. We are not forcing people to work. It's their decision. That's my only comment on that.
Mr Peter Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I have a number of comments. Some members have been questioning you, Minister, about the details of Ontario Works. It would do nothing but serve their purpose to have a jerry-made plan fired out there and have it fail so they could jump up and down with glee and say, "Look what you did."
Mr Michael Brown: Same with Bill 26. It worked well for us.
Mr Preston: There are a couple of questions you may not have wanted to answer but there are a couple I'm going to answer. The question was, has private enterprise shown any interest? I'm one of those people who is submitting a program to your committee, and yes, private enterprise and the private sector, to be divided from private enterprise, which means the conservation groups, the service clubs, have shown a great deal of interest. So there is a lot of interest in Ontario Works from all factions of the society out there.
There was a comment made regarding teenagers coming off welfare. If we can prevent a teen from leaving home because he doesn't want to cut the lawn or doesn't want to do the dishes or doesn't want to live up to a curfew by cutting off his welfare, then I think it should be done; not to take away from the child who has been abused, who has been emotionally abused, who should collect, who should be housed somewhere else. I'm talking about the ones who leave home just because they don't like living under rules.
I have an awful lot of experience in the CAS situation. When it comes time for CAS cuts, 99% of the time they are dropped straight down to the caregiver. On the question about CAS cuts, the transfer payment recipients in the past, and I won't give you a number of years, have been told in January and February, "You have $30,000 to spend; you'd better do it or you'll lose it." Should that not be addressed? Should the cuts not take care of that type of thing? I know of a secure facility that spent the $30,000 on mountain bikes and canoes. Put those two things together: "secure facility." They're not allowed to leave the building and they spent the residual of their financial year on mountain bikes and canoes.
Laughter.
Mr Preston: Somebody's laughing awfully hard over there; probably knows the facility.
Should that not be addressed as not a cut but a way to save money? There are savings to be made. Let's call them savings rather than cuts. Let's look after the people who absolutely need it. Let's call a spade a spade and say yes, one in 10 is being paid by the private citizen out there. What magic box would you get your money out of if it didn't come from the individual who's paying the taxes? It has to be the taxpayer who is paying for the one in 10 on welfare. Fact. End of story. Thank you very much. No question for you to answer either.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Could I respond to Mr Preston?
The Chair: Go right ahead.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I just want to give some clarification in one of the areas, in dealing with the 16- and 17-year-old eligibility, the area you spoke about. I want to give members the criteria just to put it on the record.
The Chair: About a minute now to do all that.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There are three criteria, basically: that the family assessment take place and shall take place within a specified time and that it be demonstrated that the youth maintains a contact with a responsible adult; that the youth attend either school or approved training; and that assistance is cancelled for any unjustified absences. There's also indication of adult supervision.
Those are the criteria under which the 16- and 17-year-olds can receive assistance, and if there are people who fit into that category who truly need it, they will get it. That's what that's indicating.
The Chair: You had a quick question, a quick point. You have a minute you can do that in. I know you had to wait all this hour to come round.
Mr Baird: I couldn't make this point in a minute, nor could I get the answer in a minute either.
The Chair: Okay. Save it up for tomorrow.
Mr Baird: It's a good one for tomorrow. I'll sharpen it up over the evening.
The Chair: The Liberals have 30 minutes now.
Mr Michael Brown: I continue to be interested in your workfare program; and in a helpful sort of way, I've heard some of the suggestions and the good programs that your side has been chatting about, and obviously they were not just invented in the last six months or a year or five years or 10 years. A lot of the ideas have been around for quite a while. One of the things I think is a fear on this side, if you're really concerned about efficiency and affordability and achieving your goals -- I think the member for Hamilton West spoke to it.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Ms Ross.
Mr Michael Brown: Ms Ross mentioned the federal program on incubating businesses. My fear, and it's a fear that comes from just a plain old constituency politician, is that the province then will say, "Gee, that's a good idea; let's go set up an office and let's go do it for our social assistance people," where to me it would make far more sense to go to the federal government and say: "Gee, you've got a good program that's working for UI recipients. Why don't we do this with them, because the last time I looked they had a physical problem that makes yours look pretty simple?"
Why don't you, instead of going out and duplicating a service already working, happening in a community, approach the federal government and see if we can work out some accommodation that works well for the taxpayer, not just the provincial government?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You're dead right on the money. I want to say a few things with respect to this. First of all we're looking for made-in-Ontario solutions, and the other thing I say is, don't try to reinvent the wheel here. Number two, you're quite right about the federal government. As you know, there's been a bit of a change there with Mr Axworthy going and Mr Young coming in.
Mr Michael Brown: I noticed that.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It kind of stuck us in limbo in a number of areas.
The Chair: I know the feeling.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We're trying to address a number of issues with Mr Young. Certainly, child care is one of the areas that is important to us, but also the training programs and how that's going to fit in the context of what we're doing.
You're quite right that once again we come to this one-taxpayer thing. It's one taxpayer, whether it's federal money, provincial money or municipal money. Let's try to do things efficiently. That's one of the things I'd like to discuss with Mr Young. You're quite right. One of the things that is happening in a number of areas is that there are some joint offices they have in which they're trying to combine the unemployment facility along with the various social assistance areas. That's another area that we should look at in terms of, why duplicate the functions out in the communities if we can work cooperatively with another form of government? I know that in Alberta they're doing something like that.
1700
Mr Michael Brown: Just to follow up, because I think we're speaking the same language here -- I think it's critically important that even though we're in opposition and that's our job, when we see constructive things they could maybe happen -- on that same topic, I think you'd be surprised to know that with the JobLink program operated by your ministry, for example, I know of at least two instances where essentially what it did was subsidize the federal government's program. In other words, you went into the same office, provided them with $60,000 to do exactly what they were already doing or very similar. I know of at least one employment or manpower, whatever they call themselves, operation that was very happy to get the extra $60,000. He himself questioned whether there would be any added value in that service.
I am, however, coming back to the question of displacement of the workforce. I've seen this happen too often. You have to be there in the constituency to know. You mentioned reinventing the wheel. This very same discussion was happening in Great Britain in the middle of the last century, kind of differentiating the worthy poor from those who weren't any good and all that kind of good stuff. So there's nothing new under the sun. I don't think that we need to belabour the partisan aspects of this, but we do need to make sure that what you do is effective at the end of the day.
My concern is -- and I guess you might want to speak to this -- define "work" for me. What is real work? Most people believe real work to be something that somebody would pay them for. You all do volunteer work and things like that but we assume that no one will pay you for that. That's why you do it; you're doing something for your community. Is that sort of your definition, that it adds real value, real value being defined by the willingness of an employer to pay you to do it? If an employer isn't willing to pay you to do it or you cannot, as a private businessperson, make some money doing it, is that work in the true sense of the word?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think there are various types of work that have value, not necessarily all of them connected with a monetary amount. If you do work to improve your community somehow, that has value. I certainly don't think I would eliminate from any of our thinking that what you define as work for community work or whatever it is doesn't have any value; I think it does.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, in your definition of "work," is it something that someone would have to be willing to pay you for before you decide that it's work in the labour sense of the market? I'm not diminishing volunteerism. I understand it perfectly. Like all of us, I've done a heck of my share.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm sure you have to get to where you are. I think that, once again, there are the two prongs of this program. You've got the employment programs, which are intended to get you into work that will pay you an actual dollar figure, and then you've got the work, if for whatever reason you remain on the welfare rolls, to earn your welfare cheque. That type of work is work that's intended to improve your community. I don't think you can define that as work that you would necessarily get paid for, but it might fill some sort of niche someplace.
I know that up in my own area, for example, the Optimist Club was working on bicycle paths just around the river. It was never intended for anyone else to do it, just something they decided to do as a project, except they just didn't have the manpower to really finish it. But what they were doing as they were working on it certainly had value to the community.
Mr Michael Brown: I guess what I was trying to establish here is that it doesn't need to be work that the market would consider work in the sense of, "It's worth $7 an hour or $8 an hour and this is what I'm going to pay."
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think as long as it has value to the community, that would be considered work.
Mr Michael Brown: Then I guess the point I'm trying to get to is, if we look at this, most of this would then be pseudo-volunteer work. It has value but nobody's willing to pay.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There's a niche there someplace where volunteers aren't taking care of a certain area either, and once again I think there are many things that are coming up as suggestions from the actual communities right now as to these areas they can fill.
Mr Michael Brown: Well, my point being, and again this is --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Job displacement.
Mr Michael Brown: There is some job displacement, and I think also -- it shouldn't happen this way but in my experience it sometimes does -- people who are volunteering often have some difficulty working alongside someone who's being paying paid to volunteer. We see this often in ambulance services, in fire departments. It's kind of human nature. "Why should I be doing it for free? John here is doing it for money." Is that not a concern, and will you not have to structure your programs so you don't build in those kinds of disincentives?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think first of all we're certainly aware that we don't want a work-for-welfare plan to displace someone who's actually getting paid for doing something. I think that's one of our givens.
But secondly, in terms of your concern about whether or not someone who's being paid can work with someone who I suppose is getting paid, because they are getting their welfare cheque for it, working alongside of volunteers, there are a number of programs I've seen where co-op students, who are summer students, are being paid yet work with volunteers, and there's not really a resentment about that. But I think it's in the context in which it's seen, perhaps.
Mr Michael Brown: I think by and large you're right, but there are certain situations where, personally, it doesn't work very well. I'm just suggesting you build into the criteria a message that you don't actually discourage a volunteer in an organization from participating, because I think there's --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You're right.
Mr Michael Brown: This is not going to be easy to be structured, is what I'm --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You're right about volunteerism, and that certainly has a very important place in the province still. I know I've had some discussions with Julia Munro, who is in charge of the volunteer perspective for the province, in terms of how this is going to work together. Once again, that is a consideration; you're quite right.
Mr Michael Brown: I want to just come back to community living. I have some very deep concerns about what's going on in that sector. We've seen some programs cancelled under another government, for example, in the community living situation. I think probably in the province broadly it was a good idea. Specifically, it was a bad idea. I talk about sheltered workshops, for example.
The idea is to put the people out into the community and involve them. Great idea, I think, except that in certain situations it just is not a possibility. I think of a couple of community living groups in my area where the critical mass just isn't there. It costs the government far more to actually have a few people working rather than to have many people working in a setting they quite enjoyed and where they were still involved in the community. I wonder if you're going to be as dogmatic as the previous government in terms of those sheltered workshop and farm operations.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Actually, one of the examples that I did see was the New Leaf program, and that was a farm operation. But I suggest if you ever want to see a program that works well and works well at really having people -- you know, when you get into the developmentally disadvantaged area, you want to see people have some improvement in their life somehow. This particular program had taken some very difficult situations, and through this program -- I'll tell you, these people were doubly handicapped in this program, both developmentally and physically as well. It's been a very successful program.
But I take your point that you can't get square pegs in round holes, that you have to look at the programs and there's a variety of needs out there. That's why it's important for us to work with the developmental services area to find out what solutions they do need. You can't slam, bam, put something in a program that doesn't work for them. You have to have various solutions out there. It's no different, our thinking in this, than yours. We all want to do some good for the developmentally handicapped area; it's important to all of us. But that's one of the reasons why an organization like the Ontario Association for Community Living is at the table with us right now in terms of helping us to form our structure, so they have some direct input into what we're doing.
1710
You're quite right, but you see, you should -- I was going to say, "You should be there." But some of the discussions we have are very interesting because of the variety of the different organizations that are involved. Let me just give you an idea quickly; this won't take me long to just say this:
Christian Horizons; Federation of Ontario Facility Liaison Groups; Great Lakes Society for Development Services of Ontario; Metropolitan Agencies Representatives' Council -- that's MARC; Ontario Association for Community Living; People First; Provincial Coalition on Special Services At Home; Special Services At Home Family Alliance. These are all the people who are at the table right now and involved in discussions with us to find these solutions.
You're right, because you're evidencing some concern about the types of programs that we're going to provide in these areas. That's why these people are involved with this, because they can have some direct input into what they need. So we can hear directly from them as well. I think one of the failings sometimes when you're sitting in the minister's office is not being able to really hear what people in the front lines are saying to you, because of the various procedures you have to go through. Not that they're not good people who are working for me; they are, but sometimes because of the time involved with it, it's a bit of a lag. This way, we sit down, we have some direct discussions with these various communities.
I'll tell you, they're very pleased with the process. You can see by the variety of programs, and some of them quite different in terms of their ideologies -- if you look at the facilities group and you look at community living, that's two divergent points of view. Yet somehow they've been able to overcome a lot of these philosophical differences, to sit down at a table to try and find out the right solution for their community. So I take your point; your point's well taken.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm going to go back and tell the Espanola and District Association for Community Living and the Manitoulin District Association for Community Living that you think they could move back towards sheltered workshops and you're going to permit the flexibility within their budgets to reallocate from some other programs to do that.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Don't take me too far. What I am saying, though, is --
Mr Michael Brown: Darn.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: -- we want to work with them for some solutions. What you might want to say to them is this: Have them speak to the umbrella group, the Ontario Association for Community Living, and have them indicate their point of view there.
Mr Michael Brown: That's one of the problems, and it's a problem all governments have: Sometimes, in the scheme of things, organizations from my part of the world, which are unfortunately on the geographic fringe of the major organization, don't get their views through to their own organization very effectively. I don't know what you do about that --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I try to meet with a lot of them.
Mr Michael Brown: -- but sometimes it is just not possible for some groups to have the same kind of impact, and you get a message that you would understand from the major group which doesn't reflect some of the other organizations within it.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let me just indicate that I think it's very important for communities to make some decisions too. I think that's an important decision for you community-wise. Then I think they should at least convey this to you. If you want to sit down and talk with me, I'm more than happy to do that.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you.
Mr Cleary: I am going to get a copy of Hansard here and pass that along to my community living people too, because they have great concerns. In fact, I've just had some of them in the office recently where some of the people whom they tried to look after the best they could have been transferred out a long way from their home. The parents and the families are very concerned about that.
I've got a number of things here, so if I stray a little bit -- I'll do my best not to. I think we're in a mess here, and I think we all have to work together and I would hope we can do that, but it's mighty hard for the opposition members -- and I get into that weekly in my constituency office meetings -- all these changes with no guidelines. I've never been used to working that way and I find it very frustrating, especially since this government took over. Not only municipalities are frustrated over some restructuring; other groups are too, so your consultation hasn't been hitting all parts of Ontario the way it should be.
The other thing I wanted to ask you here is on the workfare issue. You would work with the federal government on a project on that?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think one of the things that's on the table for us to discuss with Mr Young is how the federal government can work with the province. Certainly there are a number of points where we have to talk; the talking points are the training dollars that he has. I don't know where we are right now with it, because Mr Axworthy had a certain direction. I don't know if Mr Young is going to continue that. I know Mr Young has indicated that he does want to meet with me, and we're going to get together. But you're right. I think we have to find out how we can efficiently work together, because once again, there's only one taxpayer here. Let's make the most efficient use of the dollars.
Mr Cleary: I know a couple of incidents that I've been involved in for a number of years now since it happened, where there is going to be federal money available, it could be available for a project, but they're looking for partners.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think "could be" is the answer. "Could be" is the part of that statement we're trying to really fix.
Mr Cleary: They're looking for assistance. It happens to be owned by the province of Ontario too. I would hope that something could be worked out.
Now that Mr Preston is back, I just want to say that I totally agree with him on the mountain bikes and the canoes, but there are other things that I don't agree with that you're doing.
Interjection: Say it's not so.
Mr Cleary: That has been a sore spot with me for many years. At the end of a year, if you don't spend your money, you lose it. And it's all three parties. One party is just as guilty as the other.
Mr Preston: I didn't put a time frame on it.
Mr Cleary: No. It goes back a lot of years.
Interjection: At least 10 years.
Mr Cleary: A lot of years.
I was pleased to see that the minister was working with the developmentally handicapped. I know I've tried to work with them to the best of my ability for many years too. In fact, I had some enumerators who went with others and they thought that was the best thing that ever happened to them. They thought they were part of society. I would hope we would all look to doing things like that, because they need a little light too at the end of the tunnel.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I can tell you right now that I look out there and everyone is going like this.
Mr Cleary: It's serious.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Everybody in turn was doing that.
Mr Cleary: There are lots of things those people can do just as good or maybe better than others and they get a lot of pride from it.
Having said that, the other thing is I want to get back to the welfare fraud. I want to hear what you have to say about some who could be collecting -- I say could be collecting; according to the paper they have been collecting -- who don't even live within the boundaries of Ontario. What's happening there?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You're bringing up a very good point again. One of the things we're trying to do right now is work out some agreements with other jurisdictions. You're quite right. I think some of the problematic areas could be the Manitoba border, the Quebec border --
Mr Cleary: And others.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: -- and others as well. We're actively right now pursuing agreements with a number of jurisdictions, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, and with the federal government and some of its various departments as well, such as unemployment insurance, old age security, CPP and Revenue Canada. What we have to do is overcome some of the concerns, of course, of the privacy commissioner, who has a concern in terms of information sharing, but currently we have some agreements right now, even within our own, but certainly right now with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, we've just worked out something there, and we have some projects on tap. For example, Peel is a pilot project working with the feds.
1720
But you're right, I think the information is very important. When I was speaking to one of my colleagues out west, Bonnie Mitchelson from Manitoba, everyone across the country realized that it's important for us to have, this information sharing, so we prevent fraud. You're quite right. Any fraud is unacceptable, and I think we'd all agree with you there.
Mr Cleary: Okay. The other thing I know you mentioned was your hotline, your snitch hotline or whatever you want to call it, on fraud.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Those weren't my words.
Mr Cleary: What were your words? Welfare snitchline? You know that many municipalities have already had that going for years. I'd just like to know, how much did this cost to set this provincial operation up?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, I'll get one of my staff to indicate that to you, but just to give you some context with it because you did indicate -- I want to give you a chance to say this again, it's 1-800-394-STOP.
Mr Cleary: Yes, we know.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think you're right. There have been other areas and other provinces that have tried this before with some success. I might just indicate Manitoba, for example, which has about a tenth of our caseload and a tenth of our population, in its first year of operation saved $2.4 million in this particular area. But at this point in time, with respect to your questions about cost, I'll turn it over to Kevin Costante, who is the ADM in this area.
Mr Kevin Costante: My name is Kevin Costante, assistant deputy minister of social assistance. The cost to set up the hotline this year and to run it from October 2, when it started up, till March 31, is approximately $228,000 this year. That's staff, computers, telephone lines etc. We're estimating to run it for a full year, next year, at about $218,000.
Mr Cleary: Okay. How many cases have been investigated since you put the line in?
Mr Costante: There are approximately 8,800 cases that have been referred out to our field offices and to municipal offices to investigate to see if there's something there to follow up on.
Mr Cleary: How many convictions are resulting?
Mr Costante: Usually, these things take some time. Our welfare field workers make sure that the person is on social assistance, check out the nature of the fraud. If there is something there, they refer it to an eligibility review officer. Sometimes it's just a mistake, perhaps by the client, didn't know they were supposed to do something, and some of those things are corrected and we get the money back through overpayments.
If it is intentional fraud that we have some solid evidence on, there is a referral over to the police. They have to conduct an investigation. That often takes some time. So as yet, we're expecting our first reports back later this month, early March, and we'll have a better indication of some initial results, anyway, later in March.
Mr Cleary: In your opinion, what percentage has been legitimate?
Mr Costante: I think we have to check it out further. This is a new business for the province. I think as the minister said, there's been some good experience in Manitoba, and we hope that we would also benefit. I think you also noted in your remarks that a number of municipalities in Ontario have fraud hotlines themselves. Toronto's had one. I believe there's been one in Sault Ste Marie and a few other communities as well.
Mr Cleary: So to date, there hasn't been anything saved in that period of time to your knowledge?
Mr Costante: There may have been. Sorry, we're not getting our first reports in until later this month, and those reports will report on some of the cases from October. It takes some time, as I indicated, to investigate these things. It's not just automatic, particularly if it is a case of intentional fraud where we have to go through the police and the court system. That takes months. It's not a quick process.
Mr Cleary: We heard about new ID cards being proposed. What's the status on those?
Mr Costante: The ministry is currently looking at cards with a number of other ministries -- the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- to see if we can get some economies through reducing the number of cards, keeping the cards at a minimum, perhaps one card. That review is going on. There are a lot of privacy considerations and also the business needs of the various ministries that need to be reconciled before we can come up with a final solution. That's being looked at very actively right now.
Mr Cleary: When do you think it might be introduced?
Mr Costante: We have some development to go through and then we have to take it into the formal decision-making process of the government. I don't think I can guess at a date.
Mr Cleary: So you wouldn't know how much the cost of this ID card might be either, to the Ministry of Community and Social Services?
Mr Costante: As I said, we're looking at combining with other card projects. The Ministry of Health already has a card, as does the Ministry of Transportation. I think it's looking at those opportunities so that we're not duplicating and causing a lot of additional expense.
Mr Cleary: In your opinion, how much welfare fraud is there out there?
Mr Costante: That's been asked many times; I don't think there's any definitive answer to it. We've also surveyed our sister provinces to see if they can -- and no one will really own up, if you will, to the amount of fraud. The clients don't come forward and say, "I'm defrauding the system," so you don't really know.
There were estimates done for the Social Assistance Review Committee back in 1987 that suggested that the amount of fraud in the system was around 3%, so that number has been around. There was a recent report done by the Fraser Institute that talked about a level of fraud and client error in the 8% to 10% range. There are all other sorts of things. I don't think we have an accurate fix on it. I think with the introduction of the fraud line and our follow-up on that, we'll have a better fix. Certainly, we pursue all tips and complaints that come to us.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Costante. The time for the Liberals is up, the 30 minutes. The NDP, you have your 30 minutes now.
Mr Martin: I want to return, if I could, Minister, to the specific issue and case that I presented in the last round, because I think it speaks to some difficulties in the system and I think ultimately at the end of the day we'll measure the success or failure of the new programs by what comes out at the street level -- the delivery of program.
In this instance we have an organization obviously in great stress. They're in great stress for a number of reasons, mostly because they're really trying hard to deliver the service, they're really trying hard to honour the mandate they were given by government to deliver these services. Over the last few years, we've brought more and more people back to communities to live, either at home or in group homes close to their families, so that they can be part of -- and actually it's more cost-effective in the long run anyway, because they can become, in the way that has been spoken to here through various sheltered workshops and other ways, participating members of the community. This is what this organization is really trying to do.
You have on one end people who are relatively independent and can do some things and live in apartments, and we support that, and on the other end we have people who will never do that, who are very sick. In this instance with the group home on Queen Street we have a group of very sick children, ranging from three up to 15 and 16. Some of them have been there for 10 to 15 years. When Mr Wildman, who may join me here later, and I met with this group on Friday, we heard the stories. We heard of people who were at home and families who are struggling with the stress that brings, the work that has to happen, the emergencies that arise at any time of the day or night and the inability to deal with sickness that happens because you don't have the right facilities and the right equipment in your home.
1730
When you put those children into a group home where you can have easy accessibility to this equipment etc, you raise the quality of their life just unbelievably and you take a level of stress off the family that is almost seeable, feelable, very tangible. In this instance, they're very afraid that they're going to lose this, and if they lose this the ramifications can be very tragic.
This organization has, on every occasion that I've been in on meetings with them with ministry officials -- and in the letter that I sent to you that now your deputy has a copy of, I talk of visits by actual ministers to my community to convince these people that amalgamating was a good idea. It wasn't something that they naturally sort of said, "Yes, we will do," because there was a lot of stuff happening, a lot of turf protection, a lot of questions about distance. There was one organization that represented the district, another organization that represented the city and there was natural tension between those. Finally, we were able to convince them that it was in everybody's best interests that they would amalgamate.
I think your government is looking at amalgamations, where they make sense -- municipalities, school boards, different things of that sort. In my mind, that kind of thing does make sense. But they have to be helped, initially particularly, to get over the hump, to deal with things like collective agreements and all of that kind of stuff. They have.
As recently as yesterday, in talking to the executive director of Community Living Algoma, there was a commitment from him to work, as they are, very aggressively to find a way to live within their means and to live within the restrictions that your government will ask them to share. But they're having an awful time dealing with this $625,000 or so that was promised to them by way of adjustment to get them to a point where this would roll out.
I know it was promised because I was at those meetings and I heard ministry staff tell them -- and in fact, some of this promise has been broken. They said there would be no reduction in staff and there would be no reduction in level of service. That was not the exercise. The exercise was not to downsize the service that was being delivered and to downsize the workforce; the exercise was to try to find efficiencies in administration, in putting things together.
If you have had a chance -- and perhaps you haven't, and I can share it with you. In the meetings that have taken place over the last week or so, the association has restructured; they've chopped 12 management positions just in the last couple of months. They are doing their best to try and manage, but they can't manage the whole package.
I guess what I'm asking for from you, Mr Tsubouchi, at this point -- I have another question that comes later -- is, will you commit to giving them the transition money they need so that they can then deal in a more healthy manner with the further downsizing or restriction that they will have to absorb as your government unfolds its agenda?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think the one thing I can say is that the ministry and certainly myself will work to help to support the board to try to resolve this. If we can, I'd like to see them live within their budget and try to work out their solutions. I haven't seen their proposal yet. I don't know if Sue Herbert has as well. I have your letter in my hands now; it's dated February 5. I'll be certainly more than happy to meet with both you and Mr Wildman to discuss the issue.
Mr Martin: Okay, well, I'll take you on your word on that. As soon as possible?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Well, as soon as I get through these hearings.
Mr Martin: That won't be too long; in another couple of days I think we'll be done.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Certainly we can. Certainly I'll work with all MPPs. Certainly we'll see what we can do in terms of the ministry working with their board to try to come up with a solution. I'll certainly meet with you and Mr Wildman.
Mr Martin: Just to follow up on that and to ask the second question, I don't think it's appropriate myself, to be frank with you, to ask the staff to be contributing in the way that they're being asked here, to contribute 5% when everybody else is sort of holding the line, at best, in the world that we live in now. These people work really hard, and it's a very difficult job that they do, and they deserve the actually modest remuneration that they get to begin with. Part of the problem that we've got here is one of the bigger organizations that came into the amalgamation a few years before this entered into negotiations with their management, and through -- I forget the word now, I've lost it -- but through a process --
The Chair: Back to the mike again.
Mr Martin: Sorry, I'm thinking, and I don't want my thinking on the mike. Through a process of conciliation, they arrived at an agreement. When they came into the amalgamation, then the other organizations, it was felt that it would be best if everybody arrived at the same level. I don't think the agreement that they're living under and working with is really a rich one when you compare it to other organizations that do the same kind of work. I don't think it's appropriate that a big chunk of the answer to this should be laid on the backs or the shoulders of the staff who are already, in many instances, overworked in doing this work. I say that in all honesty and in all sincerity because I've been close to this for a long time, not just in my role as a member of Parliament but I was on the association for the mentally retarded when I lived in Elliot Lake and I've worked very closely with this group over the years, so I know the work that they do.
The other thing I think would be really important, Minister, is if you could find it at all in your schedule to come up and have a look and visit some of the facilities that we're talking about here. But even more than that, this organization services an area from Hornepayne over to Elliot Lake. It's massive, it's long. The distance is unbelievable. The challenges that presents to this organization in travel and support and communication and all of that is quite extraordinary. I think, actually, if you plan on a long life in either this job or another one of the same stature, that it would help us in the north if you got a real, firsthand feel for it. I'm suggesting that you come up, and I don't mind if you fly into the Sault, for example, but that you drive to Elliot Lake or Wawa to get a sense of the distance and the roads.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: My family's from Thunder Bay.
Mr Martin: Pardon?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: My family's from Thunder Bay. I have family in Marathon. I drive there all the time.
Mr Martin: Okay, well then you probably understand.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I know now not to try to drive to Thunder Bay in the beginning of November. Even though the trees look nice, when you get to Marathon you can't see anything.
Mr Martin: I would ask that you give that some consideration. I would suggest to you that if you chose to do that, and hopefully in the very near future, that Mr Wildman and I would make ourselves available to be with you and to talk with you and explain to you some of the challenges that these folks have to deal with, so that in the end you might arrive at a position of understanding why it is that to have to deal with this kind of reduction is just impossible without cutting whole programs, which is what's happening here re the package that we're now dealing with and that has been presented to the ministry I guess for approval.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You know, Mr Martin, it's part of the challenge, I think, in terms of funding that we have to start to recognize a few things as well. One of the things that certainly we're trying to pay some attention to is to look at areas of high growth, for example, and their needs there, but also areas of the north, and there are some huge distances that you have to go. I know that in the north, you have to look at the quality of service you receive up there too. Perhaps we can discuss that second matter when we get together. I'm sure I can free up some time as soon as I'm finished with all this.
1740
Mr Martin: You're saying within the next week or so we could possibly sit down and --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: In fact, maybe what we can do is I'll get one of my staff to contact your staff tomorrow to arrange that.
Mr Martin: My colleague might have a question or two for you.
Mr Wildman: I apologize that I wasn't here for the earlier discussion. I appreciate the fact that you've indicated as minister that you would meet with us. I'm sure my colleague has made it very clear how unacceptable it is for children with these multiple handicaps to be turned back to their families, because it's inevitable that these kids are going to end up in nursing homes if there's room for them there, which there probably will not be. If not, they'll end up in hospital.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It could be a regressive step if that happens.
Mr Wildman: Certainly that would mean less adequate care than they're now getting. Ironically, even on the dollars and cents side, it'll cost more for the public purse to have them in hospital than it would to continue the group home setting. In terms of the possibility of these people living in anything approaching dignity, and for their families to be able to feel that they are being adequately cared for and not to feel guilty that they are somehow not providing for their children in the way they should, it's just imperative that this decision be changed.
It's not adequate to say that it's up to the local agency to make choices. We recognize that the local agency has to make choices, but when it finds itself in a situation where children who frankly can't control their bowels, much less other bodily functions, should become a burden to their families when there is a possibility they can continue to live as they have and be cared for and have a good relationship with their families in a way that gives them some sort of human dignity -- I appreciate that you're willing to meet with us, and this is a matter of the utmost urgency. I won't prolong the discussion.
Mr Martin: The association covers both our ridings in terms of children's services --
Mr Michael Brown: And a little bit of mine.
Mr Martin: A little bit of yours too. That's right.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I can really appreciate what you're saying to me, and that's one of the reasons I think we should get together fairly quickly.
Mr Martin: Just to go on to another subject and put some thoughts on the record and ask for some response, it's in the vein of the questioning that my colleague Mr Cooke took in terms of your choice of phrasing or words and how that comes back to and hurts those who are on the receiving end of the systems that for the most part they've paid into, that all of us have paid into over the years.
The reality in today's economy is that none of us is ever any more than a paycheque or two away from being in a situation where we may be dependent in one way or another on the system. I think it's important that we not do anything to diminish the dignity and quality of life of people who find themselves, through no fault of their own in most instances, at the mercy of those of us who are still fortunate enough to have a job.
It concerns me that we would be making statements or even making political points at the expense of people who simply want to put bread on the table for their children, continue to own their own home, however difficult that is when you don't have a job, and pay the bills. It's one of the things that bothers me the most about this business we're in here. Sometimes in trying to do our jobs, we forget there are people at the other end of this who often get hurt by the statements we make, the way we phrase things and present things.
I've had people into my office who are just beside themselves as to how they will make ends meet, and they won't go on welfare. They won't go on welfare because of the impression they have of what welfare's about, the image they have of anybody who's on welfare that's painted by the media, that's painted by us as politicians from time to time and that's painted for them by themselves sometimes in conversation on social occasions, as we are wont as human beings to sometimes belittle or look down on those who are less fortunate than ourselves. That concerns me.
It brings me to the point that I really want to make, which is the issue of the cheat lines and that kind of thing. It's another piece of that whole approach to life and to a system that in itself is very honourable and should be in place in any civilized society but is diminished by the imposition of things like cheat lines.
I can't help but share with you, every Christmas I watch the movie Doctor Zhivago. I don't know how many of you have watched that movie. In that, if you remember, Doctor Zhivago goes out to break wood off some fences so that he can come home and put it in the stove to keep his family warm. While he's doing it, his brother, who happens to be a police officer, is watching him, and except that he was his brother, he would be arrested.
That ties into that whole image of a Communist country, state, where Big Brother is always watching, and whether you're right or you're wrong, chances are you may be challenged and perhaps arrested for doing something that is simply an effort in your own, sometimes maybe mistaken, way -- who knows? -- to try and put food on the table for your family and to pay the rent and to make sure that your kids have warm clothes in the wintertime.
To be putting in place cheat lines where your neighbour or somebody who has something against you or who doesn't like the colour of your skin or the religion you practise or whatever, the potential for taking advantage of this and maybe misusing it is unlimited.
Mr Preston: What about Crime Stoppers?
Mr Martin: I have some difficulty as well with Crime Stoppers, I have to tell you, because of the potential that's there, not for sometimes the good results that come out of it -- and I'm trying to be serious here in this -- but for the potential that's there for people to be damaged and to be hurt. Where does all this become counterproductive?
What I say to you, Minister, is that it makes more sense to me, if you're going to grapple with and be successful in dealing with the issue of fraud -- and I don't agree with fraud either. I don't think people who don't qualify or don't deserve should be accessing and misusing a system to the detriment, ultimately, of those who legitimately use it. I don't agree with people who go into apartment buildings and trash them and move on. I don't think that's right. But I think that there hava to be other ways within the system to deal with it.
I don't know why well-qualified people who work in social and family welfare offices don't do the proper checkups that they're required to do. You've said that you've now initiated home visits and all that kind of thing. I think that's fine.
Mr Baird: Your government cancelled that.
Mr Martin: No, we didn't. As a matter of fact, we hired extra people to do those kinds of things.
Mr Wildman: Two hundred and thirty-some staff.
Mr Martin: We were criticized severely by the anti-poverty activists out there on this one, because we hired extra staff to make sure that we were giving the limited money that was there -- and you have the same problem -- to the appropriate people. But we didn't put in place snitch lines and hotlines.
Mr Preston: That's your term.
Mr Martin: It's not our term; it's what you're calling them.
Mr Baird: No, we're not.
Mr Martin: Yes, it is.
Mr Baird: Anti-fraud lines.
Mr Martin: Anti-fraud lines. Same thing. It becomes the same thing after a while.
Mr Preston: Crime Stoppers is a snitch line and it's open to cranks using it.
1750
Mr Martin: We have a snitch line in Sault Ste Marie. I disagree with it fundamentally and totally, and I've told them that. I think it's a waste of money. I think it would make more sense for them to maybe hire an extra person in their office to make sure that everybody who has responsibility for a package of cases is able to be helpful, not just be overzealous in terms of making sure that people qualify, but also in that job to be helpful to the people who are coming for assistance by way of trying to explain to them what opportunities are out there for training or work or whatever.
We have in Sault Ste Marie as well a job development officer who does excellent work, but he is only one, so he can't be as effective as he could otherwise be. We need a couple more. I would urge you to do that kind of thing as opposed to, in my understanding of it, wasting your money and spending your money on this other snitch line or anti-fraud line. You will disagree with me, which I think and see as very politically opportunistic, and part of that whole genre of what you phrase, "one out of ten people living at the expense of the taxpayer." We are all taxpayers in one way or another, even people on welfare.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I didn't say that either.
Mr Martin: But it is part of that larger thing that is happening, that I feel your government is really using for a political end. I don't think it is helpful in the long haul to anybody, ourselves included, because ultimately in the end we all may be there one day. We have to ask ourselves whether we would like to be dealt with in this manner, would like to have our neighbour looking over our shoulder, checking to see what we have in our cupboard or if there is somebody actually coming and staying over, or if the family is helping out, or the myriad of things that people dream up to accuse others of actually abusing the system, and doing them a real disfavour. Any comment on that?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Obviously I am going to fundamentally disagree with you on this, because we believe it is going to be an effective tool for our staff to work to uncover fraud. I have to agree with Mr Preston's characterization in terms of what it is like, like Crime Stoppers. The only difference here is that the crime is being committed against the taxpayers of Ontario.
Mr Martin: But it's part of --
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let me finish this. That is one of the reasons why when, I think it was, Kevin Constante was up here talking about this he was indicating that that's why we have to check out anything reported to us very carefully and very properly to make sure someone who is not involved with abuse or fraud is not somehow wrongly accused. That is why we have measures in here to make sure that proper investigations will be done so someone is not going to fall in that area.
I know what you are saying, but there are a lot of dynamics involved with this right now. Your government put in the case review process with the eligibility review officers, and that has been very effective. You took measures to combat fraud, so I think we are both saying that no fraud is good. But I think the challenge really is, if you have fraud or abuse in the system, as you know, that takes money away from people who are truly in need.
It's a difference in degree, I suppose, but we believe it's a tool our staff can use effectively, as long as the measures are properly checked out, people are properly checked out, and somehow it is done that way. I think that is really what's intended to be done. Kevin Constante was indicating when he was asked about the anti-fraud hotline exactly that, that that's why we haven't got results. We don't jump on everybody once in a while, it takes a while to go through the process, to make sure that people somehow are not wrongly accused, that if it is a case of abuse or fraud, that will be what gets funnelled into the system.
What do you do? You guys did some very good measures. I'll give you credit. The eligibility review officers are working out very well; they are doing a fine job. But this is just another tool, and I think any tool you have combating fraud, as long as you have the proper checks in there, will not be abused. I still view it as Crime Stoppers. Really what you are doing is having responsible citizens helping us out. However, there will be some indications sometimes where people may want to try to be funny about it when they call in, try to report somebody wrongly, and that is why we have the responsibility to check it out properly.
Mr Martin: Mr Wildman had a question.
Mr Wildman: Just very briefly. I know you are almost out of time, Mr Chair. In response to that, all of us would agree I think that Crime Stoppers has been a successful program, and I have been in support of it. But it is open to abuse.
I happen to know of a particular case -- I won't give the names of the people for obvious reasons -- where the son of the family was apparently accused on a Crime Stoppers call of having been involved in vandalism, and the family ended up with a police officer on their doorstep investigating something, and in a small town everybody knows about it. Eventually it was found that there was no basis in fact for the accusation. But still, for weeks after, that family knew everybody was talking about the fact. Apparently the call -- we don't know, it may have been just an error -- but the police I think believe it was a crank, somebody who had something in for that kid and was doing it maliciously. So that is a problem.
I would just like to put a question on the record which I hope you will be able to answer next time. It may have been already raised by my colleagues or others here. We have seen the numbers of recipients go down substantially, and you have pointed to that. I would just like to know what follow-up studies your ministry is doing to find out where those people are. How many of them have gone back into the workforce? How many of them are in school, in training? How many of them have fallen through the cracks? How many are on the streets? This is particularly important in this cold weather, when we see what is happening on the streets of Metropolitan Toronto.
Apparently in Alberta they have also seen substantial decreases. There have been stories about people moving out of Alberta to other jurisdictions. But they aren't doing the kind of follow-up that I think, I hope, you are doing to know where these people are. In Alberta the Alberta government doesn't know where those people are. They don't know whether they have got work, whether they've gone to British Columbia or Ontario, or if they have disappeared somewhere, are on the streets.
I'm sure you wouldn't allow that kind of lack of follow-up in our jurisdiction, so I would be happy if you could just lay on the table next time the studies you have been doing to tell us where these people are and what's happened to them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. We have used up four hours and nine minutes of estimates time. All that long time, Minister, moves slowly. The committee stands adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1757.