L057b - Mon 23 Nov 1998 / Lun 23 Nov 1998 1
The House met at 1832.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)
Mr Klees, on behalf of Mrs Ecker, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à empêcher la syndicalisation en ce qui concerne la participation communautaire visée par la Loi de 1997 sur le programme Ontario au travail.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to speak to this bill this evening. I would ask consent that I share my time with the members for Chatham-Kent and Kitchener.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Agreed? Agreed.
Mr Klees: The purpose of this legislation at the very outset I believe needs to be put front and centre as we approach this debate. Bill 22 provides that the Labour Relations Act, 1995, does not apply with respect to participation in community participation projects in Ontario Works. This legislation will prevent Ontario Works participants from using the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to unionize, bargain collectively or strike with respect to their participation in community participation activity under Ontario Works.
Let me be clear about the purpose and the scope of Bill 22. In reality, it has a very narrow and specific focus. It provides that the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, do not apply, but only with respect to participation in community participation activities under Ontario Works.
I know that in the course of discussions around this bill when we were in committee, there were those who objected to the concept that anyone in the province should be prevented from joining a union. That seemed to be a central objection to this bill. I made it very clear in the course of those committee hearings, as I have just underscored now, that this does not prevent individuals in this province, whether they be on welfare or not, from joining a labour union. Individuals, whether they are involved in Ontario Works or not, still have the ability to join a union or any other organization that they so choose. The distinctive aspect of this legislation is that they are precluded from doing so with respect only to their participation in community participation under the Ontario Works program.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): On a point of order, Speaker: I apologize for interrupting. I'm not sure what the standing order is, but I'm sure there's an order that says at least one member of either of the opposition parties should be present before debate can occur. Since there are no members here -
The Acting Speaker: That actually isn't a point of order. There needs to be a quorum in the House, which is the responsibility of the government to keep. Member for York-Mackenzie.
Mr Klees: I am sure my colleague was only interested in ensuring that as many people and members of the House as possible have the opportunity to become more familiar with this bill so they can better understand not only the letter of this bill but the spirit, so I want to thank the member for his concern.
Getting back to this bill, in the course of our debates around this and during the course of the hearings, there were those who had expressed concern about this issue of individuals being able to join a union. As I said, that is not what this is about. It is all about addressing the issue of the community participation component of Ontario Works.
The Speaker will know that there are effectively three components to the Ontario Works program. One of those components is the community participation component. It is true that we believe as a government that it's appropriate and, when someone is on welfare, that it is in fact mandatory for individuals to sign a participation agreement and to become involved in one of the three aspects of Ontario Works.
Why do we feel it is important specifically as we refer to community participation that this piece of legislation, which precludes individuals from joining a union with respect to that voluntary role they then play in community participation - why is it necessary for us to come forward with this legislation today?
Across the province there have been initiatives by labour unions, by political action groups, to undermine the very credibility of the Ontario Works program, to make it difficult for people to participate in this most worthwhile and most productive activity of volunteer activity with communities.
Individuals on welfare, we believe, would prefer not to be there. People end up on the welfare rolls in this province in large part for reasons beyond their control, whether that be the loss of a job, whether that be as a result of extended illness, whether that be as a result, in some cases, of a family breakdown. Whatever the cause may be, there are people in this province who are hurting, who need support, who deserve support, and we believe as a government that individuals who cannot help themselves deserve the assistance and the support of society. That's the reason we have a program in place in this province that provides a very strong safety net for individuals who cannot help themselves. However, we also believe that those people who are able-bodied, who have the ability to work, should do something in exchange for, in return for, in consideration of the support that society is giving them.
Many times, as I've travelled the province and spoken with individuals who are on social assistance, they tell me very clearly that they appreciate the opportunity to do something worthwhile in the community, to become involved in this voluntary activity. Whether it be in a nursing home, helping out in a hospital, helping out in a school, there are many voluntary activities that individuals become involved in in the course of their participation in community participation in Ontario Works where they have the ability not only to meet new people, to network, but to learn some skills, to know again what it's like to make a very solid and valuable contribution to their community.
1840
Why should we expose these people to the threat of an organization, whether it be a union or a political action group; why should we expose these people who want to participate in this community participation activity to those people who simply, perhaps because of a philosophical difference and a disagreement that this is an appropriate program - why should we allow these people to be robbed of the opportunity to have that community experience? We see, and many people across the province have experience, that that involvement in that program has been their first step back into a paying job.
We have examples across the province of individuals who for a period of time have been involved in this program of community participation and, as a result of meeting the employer, as a result of having the experience within that workplace, were actually offered full-time positions that didn't exist before in that organization. We have many examples of individuals who were involved in community participation and, through that, gained some new experience, perhaps a computer skill they didn't have before, perhaps an updating of some knowledge they didn't have before, an opportunity to develop some networks and make some contacts and, as a result of that, then were able to move into that next very important step in their lives of getting a paid job, of self-sufficiency. That is what this is all about. It's simply ensuring that we remove any potential barrier to individuals in our province being able to make that important next step into self-sufficiency.
Speaker, why was welfare reform needed? You and other members in this House were here during a time when some 1.2 million people in this province found themselves relying on welfare benefits. That's one in 12 Ontarians. I'm sure, Speaker, you yourself found that unacceptable. Whatever the reasons might be why people ended up with that dependency, it was unacceptable, particularly in a province like Ontario, where we have all the opportunities to be self-sufficient. It was absolutely unacceptable that we should have the highest per capita rate of people relying on welfare in this province. Annual welfare costs in this province were up some 423% in just 10 years, up from $1.3 billion in 1985 to $6.8 billion in 1995. Surely there isn't anyone in this province or in this House who would accept that that is an appropriate level of dependency.
Why did this happen? I believe it happened in large part - and I won't lay all the blame there, because it's true that this province went through an economic downturn. Yet when we look very carefully, even in the late 1980s, at a time when the economy was booming in this province, the number of people who became dependent on welfare increased. There is something wrong with that when the economy is on an increase, when jobs are being created, when the economic environment is appropriate.
That was under the Liberal Party, 1985 to 1990. Speaker, you will remember that time well. I'm sure you sat in your seat over there as a member of the New Democratic Party and you were appalled. You must have been appalled when you saw the kind of governance, the kind of policies that were being introduced by the Liberal Party at that time, who now aspire to wanting to be the next government of Ontario. I believe the people of this province will remember all too well those four or five years under Liberal governance. They were a disaster for Ontario. I don't believe for one moment that the people of Ontario want to go back to that philosophy that, quite frankly, opened the door to this concept of entitlement. The values of the people of Ontario were starting to be eroded under a system of government that said to people: "You deserve to receive these benefits. The government owes this to you." Welfare no longer came to be known as a short-term support but actually started to become accepted as a way of life by all too many people.
We believe it was high time to turn that tide and to give welfare a new definition, and that definition is: the shortest route to a paying job. Society owes it to those people who cannot work, who cannot help themselves, whatever the reason may be, to give them the support they need on a temporary basis. But at the same time as providing financial assistance, that support should be giving people the strength, the ability, the confidence and the self-esteem to move back into the workforce so they can once again become self-sufficient and independent. Surely that's the best thing we can do for people in our province who are poor, for people in our province who are dependent. The welfare system is being returned to that concept of short-term assistance for those people who cannot help themselves and a bridge back into the workforce. That's the objective of the Ontario Works program.
Speaker, you'll know that the most fundamental welfare reforms ever brought into this province were introduced by our government just this past year. Together with that came a very welcome reception, I believe, not only from those on welfare, who welcome the opportunity to transition back into the workforce, but it's my experience as I travel the province, as I speak with front-line workers who have chosen the career of social work, that they welcome the opportunity to now work under a system where they can help people develop programs, develop a long-term plan, that will actually see them transition back into the workforce, because the other two components of the Ontario Works program involve education. Under the employment support component, people can retrain; they can get their high school equivalency if that's what they need, additional computer skills.
The third component of Ontario Works is employment placement. Now that these people, as a result of their experience in community participation or their experience and their training in the employment support component, are employment-ready, the municipality will contract with an agency to actually help people find full-time employment.
So we see that there's a continuity of program, that there is an objective to the participation agreement that people sign when they become part and parcel of the Ontario Works program that moves them from where they are, dependent upon welfare benefits, to financial independence in actually working at a paying job.
I want to close my remarks by saying that no doubt we're going to hear some opposition to the legislation before us tonight. I do believe, though, if you listen very carefully, as I know you will, the opposition to the legislation will not be based on the facts of the legislation before you. That's why I wanted to be very careful to set out the purpose of this legislation, to articulate very clearly that the prevention of unionization applies only, very strictly, to those individuals who are involved in the Ontario Works program, and it applies only to their role in the community participation component of Ontario Works. So when you hear the objections, I believe it behooves all members of this House who will speak to it to be very clear and to be very honest with the facts of the legislation before us.
1850
We look forward to this legislation becoming law so we can continue to expand the program. Some 438,000 people have been involved in one of the three mandatory components of Ontario Works since its implementation.
Again, there will be those who will stand up and say, "Only a limited number of people are involved in community participation, so the program's a failure." How much of a failure can a program be that has moved some 350,000 people from the welfare rolls to independence? Anyone who would stand in their place and suggest that a program with those kinds of results is a failure really needs to assess their definition of failure.
We are very proud of the results of this program. We are most encouraged that some 350,000 people can today claim independence, who three and a half years ago were dependent on the welfare system in this province.
I know that all members of this House, especially the member from Welland, will welcome the fact that those on whose behalf he advocates - and he does so very effectively - the poor in our society, are given an opportunity to leave poverty behind and take on the challenge of a paying job.
Speaker, I trust that as you listen to the debate tonight, you also will recognize the wisdom of this government in bringing forward this legislation.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's a pleasure to follow my colleague, the member for York-Mackenzie, in adding a few comments about Bill 22.
Bill 22, as the member mentioned, is not a huge piece of legislation. It deals with a small component, and that is unionization as it relates to community placement. But I think it's wise that we talk more about the bigger issue, the safety net of workfare, welfare, whatever.
The member for York-Mackenzie talked about one in 12 Ontarians being trapped in welfare. In actual fact, it was substantially worse than that. It was actually 12%, which is one in eight people in the province trapped in our welfare system back in 1995. That was a welfare system that had become extremely generous in its payments relative to other constituencies in Canada, yet despite that, we had a situation where one out of every eight people in this province found themselves in that never-never land of welfare.
It would really be nice if we could finally move forward on this particular issue. Unfortunately, politics has clouded what should have been something that all members of this House should have come to grips with from the standpoint of, what is the compassionate thing to do for people who find themselves disadvantaged? Instead of that, the labour movement in its "wisdom" has chosen to ideologically fight this Conservative government on absolutely every issue, not the least of which has been the issue of work for welfare.
It's really interesting that the labour movement, which sets itself up as the great protector of the rights of the working man, would speak out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to the issue of workfare. While they tell the world how much the working man's lot has improved with them advocating on his behalf - and quite frankly, that is very true - they have taken this other group of people who are the most disadvantaged in our society and have used them as a political football for their own particular gain during the course of three and a half years of our government.
I think it's a travesty how Sid Ryan and his people have travelled the province threatening social services agencies that dare to give an opportunity to somebody who is on welfare and now are threatening a company such as Wal-Mart, saying, "We will shut you down if you dare entertain the prospect of helping somebody who is on welfare gain some experience and go on to a job." I don't understand where Sid Ryan is coming from, where Mr Witherspoon in London is coming from. I have no idea how they believe they are speaking positively on behalf of some of our most disadvantaged citizens by doing everything they can to make sure that the idea of workfare does not take hold.
It's interesting to read through some of the various press that has appeared on this issue. I'd like to make reference to some of it, because there have been some very bold statements made by some people in various communities who had a very positive experience with this.
From the Kirkland Lake Northern Daily News the headline: "Workfare Working!"
It says: "Workfare has been a success story in this town since the first day it was introduced.
"Many community-minded organizations have benefited from the workforce provided by workfare participants, completing many projects which might not have been possible without workfare....
"In addition, many of the individuals who have participated in workfare have been successful in finding jobs as a result of their work in the program...."
I really struggle to understand how anyone can argue with a program that accomplishes, on behalf of the community, work that would not have been completed otherwise because of a shortage of taxpayer dollars and leads to training and job opportunities for people who are disadvantaged. It absolutely amazes me that anyone could be opposed to that.
Moving from the north down to the eastern part of our province, from the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder: "Workfare Program is Proving its Worth."
"Workfare, much as the critics don't want to admit it, is working." Then it talks about those who are opposed to it. This is an interesting comment; those who are opposed to it, the Liberals and the New Democrats and the union movement. "These are the same people," this article states, "who during four years in power treated social assistance as a growth industry."
What a terrible legacy to have left our province, that after you are no longer in power, the comment is made that you treated social assistance as a growth industry.
It goes on to talk about workfare as another rung in the ladder out of the pit, that pit being the welfare pit.
A headline from the Orillia Packet and Times: "Workfare is Working." A headline from the St Catharines Standard: "Single Mother Lauds the Program." She says at the end, "If they have a chance to do it, do it. I feel much better about myself now," in reflecting upon her workfare placement.
In the Kitchener-Waterloo Record: "Two Men Celebrate Chance to Work." From the Chatham Daily News: "Welfare Overhaul Welcome."
It doesn't make any difference where we go in this province; we find every constituent, except organized labour and the Liberals and the New Democrats, in favour of the concept of assisting people who are trapped in the welfare system to gain some ability to improve their lot in life.
I understand where the New Democrats are coming from. The roots of the New Democratic Party are rooted in the trade union movement. Obviously, if the trade union movement says, "Here is the position we want you to take," the New Democratic Party is obligated to take that position. They tried to go against them at one point in their history, and that proved fatal for them.
The one that's really difficult to understand is the position of the Liberals.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): They don't have a position, do they?
1900
Mr Carroll: That's right. I've often said in this House that "Liberal position" is an oxymoron.
I hearken back to the red book. This was a famous document that was produced by the Liberals before the last election. In it, they talk about a thing they called "mandatory opportunity" or - I forget exactly what the terminology was. On page 16 it talks about people being given a chance, in relation to welfare. "However, when people who are able to work refuse to participate in any of these programs, they will receive only a basic allowance that reflects the national average and is less than the current allowance." The Liberals, as would be their position, were kind of, "Well, yeah, maybe, and maybe not." But now, of course, they're out there tying their horse to Sid Ryan and the organized labour leaders of our province in being opposed to work for welfare. I have no idea where that is coming from. However, most days we have no idea where the Liberals are coming from, because it seems to depend on what day it is.
There are some myths that surround the workfare program that I'd just like to make quick reference to. Our opponents say that Ontario Works blames the poor and victimizes people on welfare. I cannot imagine anybody who is on welfare ever being anything other than poor. I just cannot imagine how reliance on the welfare system can ever produce anything other than total poverty. The only way anyone, be it a single mom or a single male, can improve the quality of their life when they are currently trapped in the welfare system is to get a job. There's no other route. They could win a lottery, I suppose, but other than that, there's no other route. The work-for-welfare program is designed to assist in that process of getting people to full-time paid employment. What can possibly be anything other than positive about that, for people who are on welfare? We do not victimize anybody with the work-for-welfare system; it is an opportunity for people who have maybe been handed a tough time in their life to get some help to move on to a better quality of life.
Another thing our opponents would say, another one of the myths, is that participants have no employment protections. Madam Speaker, I'm sure you know, as do most of your colleagues, that nothing could be further from the truth. Health and safety protection under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act both apply to people on work-for-welfare. There's workplace insurance under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, or equivalent accident insurance when WSIA does not apply. They have privacy protection. There are limits on participation - no more than 70 hours a month. There's pregnancy and parental leave. So they have all the protections that a normal person in a full-paid job would have.
The third myth: Ontario Works replaces real jobs, creates slave labour. This is one that Sid Ryan likes to champion most of all. If you read the legislation, it's very clear: Program rules specifically require that community placements not replace duties performed by a paid employee in the last two years.
The fourth claim that the opponents to work-for-welfare throw out: There's no child care or there's not enough child care. We understand that if we're going to ask a single mom or a single dad with some dependent children to participate in an opportunity to improve the quality of their life, somebody has to provide some assistance with child care. The work-for-welfare program does that. Ontario will spend $699 million on child care this year, the highest commitment to child care in the history of our province. We've got a $25-million program for the Learning, Earning and Parenting initiative, to provide child care subsidies and other supports so that single parents can finish school.
Unfortunately, the whole arena of work for welfare is clouded with so many myths and there is so much opposition engendered by organized labour that has nothing to do with the whole idea of assisting people in the transition from welfare to work. It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with party politics. Unfortunately, the trade union movement, with support from the two opposition parties in this House, have supported that whole concept of holding some of the most fragile people in our community hostage by not allowing the work-for-welfare project to move ahead.
Bill 22 is a very simple bill. All it refers to is that for the purposes of community placements under work for welfare, participants not be allowed to join a union. In the real sense of the word, they're not unionized workers. They're out getting training, participating in their community; they're doing some things to help them move to full-time paid employment. As I've said before in this House, I would urge Sid Ryan and the other labour leaders to allow and participate and co-operate with us, help us to help these people get trained so they can find full-time jobs, and in those full-time jobs, God bless Sid Ryan if he wants to unionize them at that point in time. He can increase his membership.
In the meantime, I urge him and his counterparts to assist the government, and I urge the Liberals and the New Democrats to assist us, in this program that is for the benefit of some of the most fragile people in our community, to allow them the opportunity to move from dependence on the welfare system to the wonderful opportunities of paid employment that will improve the quality of their life.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I am very pleased to take part in the discussion on Bill 22. I wonder if I might be permitted a little bit of flexibility here to go back to the thinking behind welfare before we get to the workfare aspect.
You will recall that during the election campaign there was considerable debate about balancing the needs of the needy against being responsible in terms of our expenditures on behalf of the taxpayer. Even former Premier Bob Rae - you'll remember him - said recently: "The left has to admit that welfare dependency is a problem. The best anti-poverty that one can possibly have is work, a job." He came to realize this five years late, but nevertheless he did come to realize it.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Better late than never.
Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, better late than never. That's right, I say to my colleague from - somebody took my sheet, Steve, and I can't remember your riding.
I would like to focus on some of the events behind welfare before the last election. I know of instances, and I know every member in this House knows of these instances, where young people who did not like the rules at home decided they were going to go "find" themselves. But they were doing that at taxpayers' expense; they were able to collect welfare. We know of instances where, because parents moved out of town, away from what was their traditional hanging-out places, they decided they didn't want to live with their parents any more; they were going to rent an apartment in "their" community, and of course they got welfare for that. We know of many, many instances where young women became pregnant not once, not twice, but repeatedly, and got more and more money from the government.
This is not balancing the needs of the needy against responsible expenditure of taxpayers' funds. There needed to be some changes there. As you'll recall, we made a reduction in the amount of money on welfare by 21.6%, but nevertheless we were still at least 10% over the average of the rest of the provinces in Canada. Then it became necessary to provide jobs for people who were trapped in the welfare system - and I do say "trapped". The reason they were trapped is because in many instances these people had no training and they were not being trained. That is entrapment.
1910
Workfare would provide them with some training or some education to go out and get a job. Bob Rae recognized this. The Liberals recognized it in the last election campaign. So we bring in workfare, and all of a sudden Sid Ryan and his ilk are opposed to it. They're determined to destroy workfare. Why are Sid Ryan and other members of his ilk determined to destroy workfare? We'll get to that in a minute. I will suggest that it was because of his own political objectives.
But Sid Ryan recognized that it is a success. He did recognize this. In Hamilton recently, he recognized that it was working and, believe it or not, he actually took some credit for its success in Hamilton. Where is Sid Ryan coming from? I'm not too sure because I don't believe he's too sure. He says that Ontario Works isn't working on the one hand; on the other hand, he says it is working.
OK, let's look at this. If it's not working, why would he be trying to unionize the participants? Why would he be wasting his time pursuing potential memberships if it's not a big enough group? I don't think Sid Ryan is that stupid. He says it's not working on one hand, but then in Hamilton he says, "Oh, but it is working and we are partly responsible for that success."
Now, Ryan could be talking from a truly altruistic position that he is concerned about helping out those who are often trapped. He could be, and pigs fly. I don't believe for one minute that Sid Ryan is interested in making it work. I don't believe for one minute that Sid Ryan cares about the people who are on workfare.
Mr Gilchrist: Not unless they get dues.
Mr Wettlaufer: Not unless they get dues.
I think Sid Ryan is concerned about one thing, and I saw this as far back as three years ago on finance committee hearings. He came in and he didn't care what it was; he was opposed to it because this government had proposed it. It hasn't mattered: Anything that we have proposed in three and a half years, he's been opposed to. Sid Ryan, Earl Manners, the same ilk - Earl Manners, the guy who wants to be the next leader of the NDP. All they care about is defeating this government. They don't care if something is good or bad or indifferent. They have one aim, and these are the people the member for Windsor-Sandwich wants to align herself with.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Pardon?
Mr Wettlaufer: I said they are the ones you want to align yourself with. You want to attack workfare too. You like to align yourself with them.
I was interested in reading an article recently by Christina Blizzard. You know Christina Blizzard, Madam Speaker. Christina Blizzard is a very fine columnist. I'd like to quote a little bit from her column. She said, "It's ironic that the people who purport to speak for the poor and downtrodden in society often end up most hurting those very people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
"Take, for example, a memo sent by Ontario CUPE president Sid Ryan to his membership in July....
"Ryan said the provincial and federal governments are in negotiations on the devolution of the training portion of EI funding to the provinces. He says up to $8.8 billion could be transferred to this province by the feds over the next 10 years." We don't know about that.
Ryan also says, "The government says it would subsidize the wages of workfare so that private companies would only have to pay them $3 an hour." Well, come on. How ridiculous. We have wage laws in this province. There are minimum wage laws.
He says, "Community agencies are under immense pressure to participate in workfare."
Are they? I think the only immense pressure that community agencies are under is from Sid Ryan and the union bosses who are pressuring them not to take part: intimidation of United Way, intimidation of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. How terrible. Many of these agencies were actually threatened by the union bosses with losing their funding, their contributions from union dues, if they took part in workfare.
In June, "Sid Ryan was quoted in the Hamilton Spectator, gushing over an Ontario Works program...." That was in June.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Gushing?
Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, he was gushing, the same guy who in Toronto a couple of weeks later said it's an abject failure: Sid Ryan. We're not sure about him, you know.
In 10 years of well-intentioned welfare, what happened to it? We went from 430,000 participants in welfare, or recipients of welfare, I should say, to 1.35 billion.
Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): That's 1.35 million.
Mr Wettlaufer: Million; I'm sorry. Thank you. From 435,000 recipients to 1.35 million. Think about that. That's over a 250% increase in welfare recipients, and in spite of that, we had a system that wasn't working. We had more and more people suffering from poverty. Now we've got a system in place that will give the people a little bit of pride and a little bit of experience.
I don't think I'm allowed to mention this individual's name, but in Kitchener it was recently reported about a young man who was a woodworker. He was out of work for many months and he finally got a job - under workfare, by the way. That's how he got the job. Five years on welfare, and I'm going to quote him. I'm not going to quote his name because I don't know if I'm permitted to, but he said: "One year pass and you don't find a job. Another year pass, you feel down. Like I had many time.... I thought I can kill myself. I don't want to live like this any more." So he was hired and he is succeeding. Workfare has helped him. It has helped many in communities all across this province. It is working.
Four hundred welfare recipients in Waterloo region, from where I come, have been placed in jobs through a workfare program called Ontario Works. In my little region of Waterloo region, workfare is working.
Why do the union leaders want to tamper with it? Why do they want to destroy it? They don't want these poor people to have pride, to have training, to have education?
I'm going to be very pleased to support this bill.
1920
Mr Gilchrist: I am pleased to add a few comments to the comments that have been made by my three colleagues so far. I'd like to focus on rebutting some of the criticisms we've heard so far since the bill was introduced and which I'm sure we will hear ad nauseam from the other side this evening.
Opponents of Ontario Works claim that it blames the poor, that it victimizes people who are on welfare. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. It was precisely the old system that was victimizing people who needed government assistance, because it gave them only neglect; it gave them no hope, it gave them no prospect of improving their lot in life.
One of the claims you will hear about this specific bill and about Ontario Works in general is that the participants in Ontario Works have no employment protections. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone on Ontario Works is protected under the same health and safety regulations, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. They have workplace insurance under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act or equivalent insurance if the employer has a plan and WSIA does not apply.
They're protected by the same privacy laws the rest of the workers are.
There are limits to their workfare requirements. In fact, they can't be assigned more than 70 hours a month; not a week, but 70 hours a month. That allows, obviously, ample time for job search or any other activities they believe necessary to take them out of the circumstances they find themselves in and guarantee they are in a better position to find employment and to fend for themselves.
They're covered by all the relevant provisions for pregnancy and parental leave.
We've heard claims that Ontario Works creates slave labour and replaces legitimate, real jobs. Again, the only person who could make that insinuation would be someone who hasn't read the bill and its regulations. Program rules specifically require that anyone who is assigned to a community placement cannot be in one that replaces paid duties for any employee in the last two years.
Restriction on the hours also requires that the monthly benefit divided by the hours of participation equals at least the minimum wage plus 4% vacation pay. They are in every respect treated with the same dignity that all the other workers in the workplace are.
We've heard a claim that there is no child care or insufficient child care. Let's again put on the record the facts; not the rhetoric, the facts. This year Ontario will spend $698.5 million on child care, the highest commitment to child care in Ontario's history. There are new resources to support participation by single parents in Ontario Works, $25 million for the Learning, Earning and Parenting initiative to provide child care subsidies and other supports to help single parents finish high school, certainly the minimum requirement in an increasingly technologically driven society. I would hope everyone in this chamber would agree that these people should be at least equipped with those math and literacy skills that will allow them a fighting chance out in the workplace. There has been an increase in child care support for other parents in Ontario Works, from $30 million to $40 million this year alone.
There is no doubt that these facts show the claims of the critics of Ontario Works are false. The only reason for opposition to this program is ideology. The Liberals and the NDP have picked a fight with this government, as is their right to do. But, quite frankly, they should not be taking people on welfare and using them as their surrogate soldiers in that fight, making them pay the price for labour's political agenda as well as the political agenda of the two parties opposite.
Quite frankly, I found their tactics reprehensible: threatening the community agencies that are working with the government to ensure a better chance for people who have found themselves in a circumstance of requiring government assistance. What does this accomplish except to hurt the very agencies that are dedicated to helping the poor and to exploit the people who are trying to give a better break to the people who are on Ontario Works?
What the critics cannot deny is the obvious and documented success of Ontario Works. I know the other side gets very frustrated when we deal with facts. The facts are that more than 438,000 people have participated in one or more programs under Ontario Works. More than 340,000 people who were on government assistance on June 8, 1995, have now left government support, and that's increasing month by month. In fact, last month alone another 17,000 came off the welfare rolls, and the month before that it was 22,000. So the pace is continuing. We have the very real prospect of having the lowest unemployment rates, if the federal government can get their act together, and the lowest welfare rates we've ever seen in the very near future. Such is the health of the economy; such is the success of Ontario Works and the other changes we've made to the welfare system.
Two independent studies have shown that slightly over 60% of the people who have come off government assistance have gone right into the workforce. Those studies show an additional 11% have gone into training initiatives, and even more have gone back to school. The evidence is irrefutable: The overwhelming majority of people who have come off government assistance are in fact plugged back into either the workplace or the education system. The statistics prove that Ontario Works is working, that people on welfare want to work. They will work if they are given the opportunity, they are given the skills, they are given the chance.
Behind those numbers, of course, are the real stories, the stories of the families and the individuals who had nothing to look forward to day after day, who had been trapped in a system that paid them more to be on government assistance than to go and take a full-time minimum-wage job. What an incredible disincentive to individual initiative that must have been. You almost can't blame them, when the system was so corrupted under the previous government that there was no pressure for people to get back out into the workplace.
Instead of dealing with rhetoric and tired political arguments, I challenge the members opposite to talk to the people who are actually on Ontario Works, who are receiving the benefits I and my colleagues have talked about earlier. Those people support this program. They understand the benefits. They understand the better chance they are getting for themselves and for their families. Their families are stronger, communities have gained from the contributions that have been made in these community placements by the people on Ontario Works, and their children are proud that their parents are back working.
Ontario Works restores welfare to its original purpose: short-term help while people get back on their feet and back into the labour force. It was never designed to be a lifestyle. It was always designed to be a short-term gap between the sort of high employment that we've taken as a right here in Ontario - because quite frankly we probably are the richest jurisdiction on the face of the earth. That's the legacy of this province. That's the thing people have a right to expect when they enter the workforce. Unfortunately, in the lost decade before 1995 an awful lot had been corrupted, a lot of that sense of pride, that sense of certainty that if you took a few steps to better yourself, there was a job waiting for you out there in the workplace in Ontario.
Ontario Works restores accountability, restores responsibility to welfare. It offers opportunities for people on welfare to become self-reliant and self-sufficient. It gives people back their future by giving them the tools to change their lives.
Bill 22 confirms the determination of this government to prevent unions from hijacking welfare reform by exploiting people on welfare just to make a political point. If passed, this bill will ensure that people on welfare continue to benefit by having access to all the benefits of community placement. They'll be able to continue to benefit from all of our other welfare reforms as well.
This government has drawn a line. We will not give in to sabotage. We will not yield to the narrow political agenda of labour leaders who would exploit the needs of others for their own selfish purposes. We have come too far in transforming welfare into work for welfare to turn back now.
1930
Bill 22 protects the integrity of the government's necessary and successful welfare reforms. We will never return to the insanity of paying people to do nothing. We will not let labour leaders bomb the bridges we are building to opportunity and hope for these people.
If I can make one related point, as we approach this bill and all the bills that we've tabled in this Legislature, we do so with a very strong commitment to reaching out to all across this province and including people in debate on this topic, on all the topics. We've given more time to committee hearings, we've given more time to debate in this Legislature - per bill, we've given more time for consideration than either the Liberal or the NDP governments between 1985 and 1995. We have an abiding commitment, much as the other side would like to spin it and suggest otherwise. It makes good press; it makes great press to come out with inflammatory comments. But the bottom line is, this is a government that has proved with its actions that we are prepared to listen to the people of Ontario.
I have an abiding belief that over the next few months, maybe even as much as a year and a half, we'll get beyond the rhetoric, we'll get beyond the spin, and more and more Ontarians will come to know the facts: the facts about increased funding for all the programs that are important to them, the facts about a thriving workplace, the fact that we are leading the industrialized world in terms of increased GDP. There has never been a time in the last 15 years when people in this province could genuinely look forward with the kind of hope and the kind of lofty expectations that they can right now.
This bill guarantees that for those who were marginalized, for those who were trapped in the welfare system, they can share in that hope. They will receive the supports and they will receive the benefits necessary to make sure they can compete in the years to come.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mrs Pupatello: I'm going to be pleased to stand up and give my own debate on behalf of my party shortly. I just need to say that especially in the summary, the various members of the opposite party brought forward some claims, read newspaper articles, and I find that they are always, as usual, very selective. So I'm looking forward to the opportunity to bring forward the other side, the rest of the story, the things that the government doesn't want to talk about where workfare is concerned.
That the final member speaking should end on the kind of note that would suggest that most people think the programs of Ontario are being funded sufficiently is probably the biggest crock of the entire speech-making by all of the four MPPs who spoke on behalf of the government.
I come from the city of Windsor. I've spent a great deal of time looking at our hospital system. The one thing that matters most to people is healthy Ontarians and a system that helps people when they need help. This government has done more to ruin the hospital and health system in Ontario than any government in history.
We want to talk about children. This government makes wild, outlandish claims for what it does for children. The reality on the ground is that we have never seen such massive crisis at so many levels in so many agencies that deal with children. In this effort to supposedly streamline and find efficiencies, we in fact have ruined some very good, worthwhile programs. I look forward to getting into that further during my speech.
I must say that not one member even mentioned the sleeping beauty bill, which is the only reason we're here tonight: Bill 22, which is actually called the sleeping beauty bill -
Mr Gilchrist: Don't flatter yourself, Sandra.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please, the member for Scarborough East.
Mrs Pupatello: - and not just by me, although I admit to having launched it, but by the rest of Ontario.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): This has to be the last straw. Bill 22 is a throwback to the 1800s in Britain when, simply put, people who sought to organize were seen as evil. They wanted to bridge the difference between the masters and the servants.
These people are demonizing the labour movement. Every second word from some of our colleagues is, "the union bosses." They buy into it with such zeal.
`Tis the season. They should start reading Dickens and we can talk about workhouses. The two or three things that are missing in the bill no doubt will come in the form of regulation. Wait for it; it's coming soon: 60 hours at a designated workplace will constitute a workweek. No employee shall be remunerated at a rate of more than a buck an hour. Sixty hours a week, $1 an hour, and no one younger than 12 years old - who says they don't have a heart? - will be allowed to push a coal car in the underground mines of Ontario.
Really, this is sad. This is a direct attack, this is a contempt for citizens, for those who are more vulnerable. It's the back of the hand. Then they have the audacity to say, "Yes, we will help the poor." This lot couldn't care less about the vulnerable, about the marginalized. They feed on them. Then they move up the food chain to the middle class and beyond. No one is immune, so beware. It's another bad bill. Thank heaven the New Democratic Party of Ontario will try to save the day like we've often done.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just want to take a couple of minutes to compliment the members from this government who have spoken in support of this bill. This is a bill that I believe will affect, and has already affected, the people in the workplace in Ontario who are looking for a hand up, not a handout.
As the member from Chatham had indicated with the clipping he had from the Packet and Times, "Workfare is Working." It is having a tremendous effect in the county of Simcoe. This bill, as I've indicated before, has created at least 17 different agencies that have become involved in providing help to people who are looking for work, and not only looking for work, but looking for experience. That experience is so important to so many people today who have not had the opportunity.
There is a new centre at Tudhope Park in Orillia that is open for tourism. It was an old building but it was remodelled through the volunteer group that had wanted something to do. It was orchestrated by the social services department out of Midhurst, and those people had guidance to help those people. I was at the opening of that facility after it was completed. To see the work that had gone on there, the dedication of those people - those 11 people were there the day we had the opening, and they were so thankful when Minister Ecker had been there and indicated what she is doing across the province. It is a major thrust for people who really need a hand up, and it's giving them some experience. Experience is what so many people need today. To see those young people there working, they were really happy, and I was also.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I agree with the member who just finished making his comments, because this program has worked very well in my community as well. Indeed, there was one gentleman who picketed against some pickets who were opposed to the workfare program. He made headlines and got himself named in the budget as well for his activities because he believes in this program.
Ontario Works is up and running right now, and already more than 438,000 people have participated in one way or another in this program's activities. The Ontario Works program is indeed helping people. It's helping them to develop skills; it's helping them to become self-sufficient; it's helping them to contribute to the communities in which they live.
Since September 1995, there have been a total of 440,000 new jobs created in the province, and many of these jobs are now being occupied by people who formerly were collecting welfare. They would prefer to be working in the society. Over 340,000 people have stopped relying on welfare since this government was elected. In the month of October alone, some 17,000 people left the welfare system in Ontario, due in large part to the idea of an Ontario Works program.
I thank you very much for listening to my words tonight.
1940
The Acting Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie, you may sum up.
Mr Klees: I appreciate the contribution to this debate by the member for Chatham-Kent and the member for Scarborough East, as well as the member for Kitchener-Waterloo.
As well, I want to reiterate that the standing committee on administration of justice travelled throughout the summer to the cities of Sudbury, Cornwall, Chatham and St Catharines to get public input on this bill. In the course of those hearings we also arranged for members of the committee to be able to go to community participation sites where we had an opportunity to speak personally with individuals who were actually participating in this most worthwhile experience. Regrettably, none of the members of the opposition who were attending at these committee hearings took up the opportunity to see at first hand how the program was working within the communities. Not one took advantage of the opportunity to interview these Ontario Works participants who were ready, willing and able to share their experience, good, bad or indifferent. In fact, the opportunity was there for us to see where the program needed some improvements, how the program was actually working.
I can report to this House that there wasn't one person whom we spoke to, either as a sponsor of the program or a participant in the program, who didn't say this was one of the best programs that has ever been introduced in Ontario to assist people on welfare to make the transition to a full-time paying job.
We thank all members for their participation and -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Your time is up. Further debate?
Mrs Pupatello: I am very pleased to enlighten members opposite. I know that some of you strictly go to your computer, likely pull off the speaking points that your party gives you, and then you come rushing into the House and read off a speaking point and probably fail to ask some very specific questions about workfare in Ontario. For the people who are watching this debate tonight, with all these glowing reports from all of the members opposite, why would we have anything to complain about, unless of course you weren't telling the entire story? That would seem reasonable. So I'm very happy to speak this evening and I hope I may share my time with an additional member of my caucus.
I wanted first to say that workfare and all of the publicity and marketing surrounding workfare is probably, as one of the more significant pillars of the Conservative Party when it was elected and today, three and a half years later, the biggest hoax that has been perpetrated on the public. They have used all manner of things: money - taxpayers' money, not Conservative Party money - to propagate a belief that workfare actually exists in Ontario.
I would ask any member opposite to at least have the courage to stand up and say that what I am saying is in fact the truth. These numbers are irrefutable. Today in Ontario, 97% of all welfare recipients are in the same program that they have been in since the beginning.
Mr Gilchrist: The beginning of what?
Mrs Pupatello: The people will have changed, but the program is the same. That is the point.
Mr Gilchrist: The beginning of time or what?
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs Pupatello: All of a sudden this government gets elected and decides that they are going to change the nature -
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member referred to the beginning of time. I wonder if she could define that for us.
The Acting Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie, you know that is not a point of order. Member for Windsor-Sandwich, continue.
Mrs Pupatello: Here's the point: If you go back to the Liberal government, the NDP government, the Bill Davis Conservative government before those two, there are people who are receiving assistance in the same manner as they received it then - not just some, but 97%. That is, 3% of those receiving assistance are in this so-called workfare.
Let's just talk about the 3%. Even if you could prove that those 3% were actually working in a program, I guess we'd have to relent and say, "I guess it's working."
Mr Gilchrist: You are wrong. There would have to be 10 million people on welfare -
The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, come to order.
Mrs Pupatello: But the truth of the matter is this: There is not a workfare program in Ontario that is what this government got elected to do. Let's be clear. Mike Harris traipsed around Ontario and said to people, "We will make them work for their benefits." Ladies and gentlemen, that is not what is happening today in any program anywhere in Ontario. For every single person who is now part of some so-called workfare program, it is done completely voluntarily.
On that note, I would answer the question from the member from Waterloo earlier when he said: "Why was Sid Ryan so helpful? Why was he so happy to talk about the success in the Hamilton region?" It's because the deal that was made is voluntary; it is not a mandatory participation program like this government wants the public to believe. That is the point. Those who were on committee with us know that full well, because it's the same committee that sat on the initial workfare bill the year before.
We must give some history. This was identified in the Toronto Sun article, not a paper that I quote all that often, but in this case I certainly will. They refer to, "The Sleeping Beauty Bill Draws Fire." I have to do some explaining. Why the "sleeping beauty" bill? This Bill 142, the initial so-called workfare bill, was brought into committee and needed to be passed clause by clause. At committee, the majority of the members who sit on the committee are from the Conservative Party. That is the way it works. We were opposed to this whole Bill 142, the original workfare bill, as was the third party.
When we went to pass clause-by-clause - the majority of the members, being Conservative MPPs, voting in favour of each clause and we being opposed - they got to section 73 of that bill and we waited for what we knew would be yet another subsection that would pass because they have a majority of seats at that committee. And lo and behold, section 73 didn't pass because one of their members was asleep. When it came time to actually vote, one of the MPPs from the Conservative Party was asleep at committee and didn't raise his hand. When there was that pregnant pause in the room by the Chair to see if this was maybe an error and it was going to be rectified, still there was nothing. The member was out cold.
We wonder why since that time we had the reintroduction of a one-page bill. That one-page bill is simply a complete rewriting of section 73 from that first workfare bill. It has nothing to do with anything more. Rather than suffer the embarrassment of having everyone in the world know, which we hope would be the case, that it's just a sleeping beauty bill because one of their members fell asleep at committee and they need that section passed, they decided to send it back to the boys in the backroom of the party, try to refurbish it a bit and say: "How can we use this to best advantage? Why don't we go on a tour of Ontario to once again slam labour? Let's make it and call it an anti-union bill."
First of all, all of the members even today in the House spoke so far about how glowingly the public is responding to this and that the people who are in the program just love it. If it's working so well, what difference has this bill meant? Nothing, nada. It hasn't meant a thing. It's completely irrelevant, because the people who are in the workfare program today are involved in a voluntary program.
1950
I want the Conservative MPPs to go back home to your core supporters, the people who believed you when you told them in the 1995 election, "We're going to make those people work for their benefits." You remember that. That was you out there on the hustings during the last campaign. You said, "We're going to take those welfare people and make them work for their benefits." Today, three and a half years later, almost at the end of your term, that program still does not exist in Ontario. I want your own supporters to realize you haven't even managed to give them what they wanted Ontario to have. They wanted you to make them work for their benefits.
Instead, 3% - let's count it - of all those on welfare in Ontario today are in a voluntary program of their choosing that has something to do with training them for the workplace. Who among us would complain about that, if we talk about what it really is, a voluntary program where they choose, where the agencies that are employed in putting these things together want to do it. It's voluntary. That has nothing to do with making them work for their benefits. Let's be clear here.
You decided to take this whole thing because now all of a sudden this is the party of social conscience; this is the party that wants to give people opportunity. That is laughable. Nobody elected you people to be the health people. You're not the health people; you're not the social conscience people. You are the tax people. Remember that? That's all you were about. Anything you had to do to implement that, that's what it would take. Now you want to try to disguise yourselves as some kind of conscience of Ontario taking care of those poor people with that patronistic kind of attitude in here. It is absolutely insufferable. No one out there who actually works with these people believes it.
Those members of the public who voted for you on workfare are going to know the truth: that today, three and a half years later, 3% of all those receiving social assistance, a mere 3%, are involved in a program that they've called workfare but that is completely voluntary. I say to Sid Ryan, "It's no wonder that you are pleased with the Hamilton scenario."
Let's talk about Durham, where the Minister of Community and Social Services comes from. She was begging those people to make some kind of deal so that there, in her own backyard, she could say somehow that workfare was working. Of course they struck a deal. The deal they struck was that it would be a voluntary program.
That's very different from what you campaigned on. I want you to go back to your convention and tell your own Conservatives the truth. Don't be all dissuaded, Conservatives out there who are going to listen to these MPPs. You ask them the tough questions: "Is it mandatory?" No. "How many people?" Three percent of all those receiving assistance are in this so-called workfare, which is voluntary. And you wonder why Sid Ryan was so pleased with the Hamilton deal. That's why.
For me to be in the House today as we summarize Bill 22 and we talk about what it really was about, a Conservative MPP who chose to fall asleep at committee so that one of the subsections of the original bill did not get to pass - let me quote a Conservative MPP who said, "For every hour we are in this House, that's $100,000 of taxpayers' money." Do you know how much that catnap cost this House? Just in the initial readings, we were at $700,000. Then about three weeks ago we had another couple of hours, so now we're up to $900,000. So far with the clock, we're at almost two more hours; now we're at $1.1 million.
Let's add into that all of the costs of committee, the joke of committee, that they would take a one-page bill, Bill 22, and actually tour Ontario in this facade of being interested in Bill 22. Please. You slept through the passage, you made it a whole bill, and then you sent it on to committee and gave it more committee time than the original Bill 142 got.
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: In light of the member's concern about the cost of these proceedings, I wonder if I could ask for unanimous consent that the House pass this bill now, unanimously, and be done with this.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to pass the bill now? I heard a "no." Continue, please.
Mrs Pupatello: I find it very interesting that every time we start getting to the heart of the truth, these MPPs across the way decide to stand up and ask for a point of order just to try to get me off the pace. There is nothing that's going to happen in this House that'll get me off this pace, because the public deserves to know the truth.
Today we are at $1.1 million of taxpayers' money on a bill that should never have happened in the first place. That is where we are at today. We didn't even count in how many tens of thousands of dollars we traipsed around Ontario. We rented a bus at one point, flew at another point and took a train at another point to talk to people as though these people honestly believed they were at real, bona fide public hearings. But even that was not the case.
Let me read from the people who were opposed. They're not just, as the members would say, the labour people, the opposition parties -
Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'd just like to respond early to the challenge. I don't wish the member to get off topic, but would you please check if we have a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Are there two points there or just one?
Mr Pouliot: Quorum call.
The Deputy Speaker: There was something before the quorum call you're not interested in -
Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw my point of order, Mr Speaker. I speak quite fast. Will you please accept my apology.
Mrs Pupatello: Unlike what we heard earlier from a Conservative MPP, who said that the only people who were opposed were "unions and those opposition parties," let's talk to somebody who came to speak with us at committee in Cornwall. In fact, this person said she thought she was coming - listen to this: "When I was called to come - actually, the call was that I would come and answer some questions that people had on the placements we have made with workfare - I was very happy to be able to assist." She said, "But then I received a phone call and I was told that this was about Bill 22." She went on to say, "I hate to say this, but I'm very busy and I hadn't had a chance to be up on Bill 22...so I asked to have a copy of it...this was really a non-issue." That's what she said. That's not a labour person. That's not an opposition MPP. Those are people, real people out there in the field who would know better than any one of us in this House.
You know what she said in the end? "Where I was very sad is the fact that the biggest challenge we have when we're doing community work is to find funding and to find participation from people. What saddened me was the fact that I started to do a mental calculation of what this exercise is costing. Believe me, if I only had 20% of what this has cost the taxpayers to use in programs such as community gardens, youth centres, volunteer drivers - because the job I have at the centre is as manager of volunteer resources. If I could have just had that, I could really go far this year."
This woman knew that she was called to speak to committee and that it wasn't even a bona fide public hearing. She was called by some government MPP who said, "Come on down here and boast about workfare." Did she confirm it as a voluntary program? Of course she did. She actually delivers the program. But I found it very interesting that you couldn't just leave it open to people to come and speak at committee as though it were a real public hearing. No, you had to try to go and saddle up your list with your pro-government talks, and even then you couldn't find people who could tell you anything but the truth.
Here's another woman. She hails from the Heart and Stroke Foundation from Cornwall. Unlike the Heart and Stroke Foundation, evidently, that the member was referring to earlier who was so angry, this person said outright, "This is not a program that is going to be of benefit for people." She said too, "Also, before I begin, I want to point out that I've experienced some confusion and perhaps frustration in the setting up of this meeting." So once again, here she was called to come and talk about the wonders of workfare, and when she realized that she was meant to speak to Bill 22, she thought, "What an unusual waste of money." In fact, here's what she told us about people on assistance who need help:
"What we have on welfare and what we experience" - this is someone who works on the front lines - "we have a fragile but growing work atmosphere that's more positive for employment. What we have on welfare and what we experience is people whose lives are just not going well. They have significant barriers that prevent them from being able to acquire and hold a job. They have things going on in their lives or things going on with their health or things going on with their families that are providing them with significant barriers. They haven't got training, and of course the access to adult education has been significantly affected lately, negatively, in that these people don't have as much access to adult education as they once did. It's not as available, it's not as easy for them to access."
2000
She went on to say that what she believed was needed was an integrated approach in the community. She said:
"They need easy and consistent access to mental health counselling, not just, `If you're suicidal, we can probably get you in next week.' We need a health care approach here. They need counselling. We need a daycare approach that's consistent, available and high-quality. We need public transportation. It's well and good in the city centres to say, `OK, you have to work,' but I come from a rural area. Believe me, it's a better place to live, at least in my opinion, but there is no public transportation. If they don't have a car, they might as well be on an arctic ice floe."
This, from a woman who's on the front line. This, from a person who's actually meting out the parts of workfare - not the parts that you want people to believe, not the part that says, "We will make them work for their benefits"; the part that actually exists in Ontario today. It's voluntary. It's about agencies participating in a voluntary fashion that are going to make opportunities available for experiences for people on a voluntary basis. Moreover, 97% of all those who are welfare recipients in Ontario today are in the same program that existed under Bill Davis, never mind the Liberal or NDP government that followed, or even under King Harris, who got elected on the premise of workfare and has perpetrated the biggest hoax on the public in Ontario, because they actually think that workfare exists, and it does not. Workfare in Ontario today is a glorified voluntary program that you wish you had more of.
When we first came in to debate on workfare in general in this House, I remember in particular one Conservative MPP from Hamilton who stood up and said, "You know, all of a sudden we have a job board in Hamilton." The rest of us were sitting there thinking, "A job board?" Do you know how long they've had job boards at the welfare office? That's been around for years. Really, it is not just everything that you are given in your speaking notes at your Conservative Party office or inside your constituency office. There is more happening in the field that you just have not been aware of.
The issue with people on assistance has always been one of making jobs available for them to move from one to the other. It was always the case of people who had training needs, people who had language barriers, people who needed daycare, people who needed transportation to get to a job. There were people in Cornwall who told us clearly, "The biggest issue we have here is not having the jobs available." I want to say that this particular woman told us specifically, "Look, we don't have jobs, and I can tell you that these workfare placements are not going to lead to employment." She told us that. It's a wonderful opportunity that people have a volunteer placement, but you tell them that they're going to be there because it's going to get them a job, and the reality is that it isn't going to get them a job.
When people in North Bay first responded to workfare, they had people out painting park benches, but these were the people who used to be, admittedly, members of the union who worked for the city. Agreed. Those people had been laid off with your first round of cuts in 1995. So the truth was that those park benches wouldn't have been painted had it not been for these recipients, but let's call it what it is, folks. Let's say that it's a volunteer placement. Please don't perpetrate this kind of hoax on the public.
There were actually welfare recipients who made a point of going out to vote in the last election because by voting for Mike Harris they thought they were going to get a job. That's because they were told that if you were on assistance they were going to give you a job. It's just not fair to do that to people. You can't be that misleading in policy and in advertising and make people believe you're going to give them something you can't. Once you got elected, you decided to try to implement it, and the minister found one barrier after another, and you also discovered that with people on assistance who need jobs, there are real issues that you need to address.
When you're in a single-industry community and something happens to that single industry, what on earth is workfare going to do to get that community back up and running unless there are people there who are prepared to hire them? That is the reality. There are people in my own community who have been laid off, who lost their jobs back when Windsor Bumper was operating and then was closed. The people in Windsor-Essex will remember Windsor Bumper. Some of those people, most of these individuals without an education, first came to this country with no language skills, no education, and went right into the factory. They had been there for decades. The last thing they needed was to have that factory closed, and when it did, there they were with a whole change of an industry, with computerization in the workforce, with new technology that they didn't understand because they didn't have the training. The best things we could do for them were to get them the training, to assist them with language training. Some of them still didn't speak English fluently enough to pass a test, so we weren't going to just all of a sudden realize, "We'll just get them another job." There were issues for these people that needed to be addressed. The shame of it is that in a market like ours, there are still those kinds of jobs, and when they're gone they won't be replaced with similar jobs.
I say to everybody here that there are issues of people on assistance. There needs to be a concerted effort to address the real reasons why people are on the system in the first place. When you realize why they're on, then you know how to work to get them off. This is not brain surgery here. The solutions are not easy but they can be simple. They can simply be a matter of daycare.
Today once again in this House we had a minister stand up and make an absolutely outlandish claim about the many new spaces available for daycare. Folks, the people who really need daycare, those same people who are on social assistance who need the daycare to get off, cannot afford the amount that they would pay for private daycare. What we're talking about is subsidized spaces. There has to be that availability for them. Are we suggesting that all of a sudden a single mother of three - well, forget the three kids at home, regardless of their age, and get the mother into the workforce. You just have to be realistic to understand that there's a daycare issue with many of our single parents on social assistance.
It is an absolute myth to hear some of the MPPs in this House talk about those stereotypes. The stereotypes that we heard in this House today are outdated and they're just dead wrong. You and I both know that all those inflated cases of fraud are exactly that. You have taken every opportunity to try to use fraud as another political angle. You had the nerve to come in and say that you were going to do better, that you were going to be unpoliticianlike. You weren't going to waste money on advertising that was sheer propaganda. So the other day arriving at every home in Ontario was another brochure, this one exclusively on workfare. Nowhere in this booklet does it say that this is a completely voluntary program. It doesn't say anywhere on this thing that in fact 97% of all recipients are in the same old program that has always existed in Ontario.
Why didn't you tell the truth when you sent this to every household in Ontario? Why did the Conservative Party not pay the $4 million for this piece of propaganda? That's all it is. Why on the document itself does the minister, Janet Ecker, say that you should be able to feel confident that the tax dollars are going to those most in need and not being abused? The very printing of this document is abusive. This document should have been paid for by the Conservative Party. Millions, instead, were spent to propagandize the notion that workfare exists in Ontario, and it does not, so let's be clear.
Of course we have an ideological difference of opinion in how you choose to deal with these people. My own gut reaction, I admit, my own opinion is that you'd just as soon sidebar this whole discussion. It's really not relevant, in your view, to why you're here. You're not the social assistance people. You're not the social conscience of Ontario. You're not the help people. You're not the school people. You're not the kids people. You're the tax people. That's what you said when you were out there. That's why people elected you. So don't come in here today, three and a half to four years later and pretend you've got some kind of social conscience for people on social assistance. You've decided to wait until the 11th hour, just before we're going into an election, and to put out propaganda. You could at least have the decency to have your Conservative Party pay for the damn thing. How many millions of dollars did you spend on this thing? That's what I want to know. Would it have been good money that could have been spent instead on the nutritional supplement aid that you cut to pregnant mothers? I think that's the case.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Is that in there?
Mrs Pupatello: Lyn McLeod asks me if that's in the document; of course it isn't.
2010
Would people honestly have some problem with the idea that you promised workfare that you didn't deliver? Promises made, promises broken. When you delivered it, you even had the audacity to call it workfare, which it is not. Workfare in every other state - Republican - that's implemented workfare acknowledges they have had massive problems with SA. But it's not their concern. Those Republican groups weren't elected to be the social conscience either. They're tax people. You're not the health people; you're not the social conscience people; you're certainly not the health people where Windsorites are concerned.
You spent how much money on this document in full colour to tell people what amounts to inaccurate information? Nowhere in the document does it say that it's voluntary, which it is. Nowhere does it say that only 3% of all recipients are actually in this volunteer program, that 97% of all recipients are in the same program that existed during Bill Davis's time. That's what you should have told people. You have turned this into the biggest public relations marketing tool that I think Ontario has ever seen.
Is it fair for Ontarians to sit and listen that their own representatives, 82 of you in this House, will not tell the whole truth on an issue that is of such significance to the people who are affected? There were actually people in the last election who were on assistance who were thrilled because they thought there was a party paying attention to them and was going to get them a job, so they voted for Mike Harris. When the reality set in about what you've done, of course they were incensed. They were duped.
You attempt now to dupe the entire Ontario electorate. How long do you think this is going to go on for? The point is we're now at, easily, $1.1 million of taxpayers' money on Bill 22 that you've cutely called the "anti-union bill." All it is is a subsection that you slept through the first time around, which is why it was dubbed the sleeping beauty bill. For heaven's sake, the committees are not that long; they're only about three hours in length. I admit it was a very long bill, but you get paid to at minimum stay awake. What did they say? It was a $700,000 catnap. That's what they said at the time. At that time we had only spent seven hours of debate in the House. Seven times $100,000 of taxpayers' money for every hour we are in this House was $700,000. Now, given the time of almost two hours that we're at just tonight, we can add at minimum another $400,000. We're at minimum $1.1 million.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Sandra, you've got to have some fresh material. This is what you said half an hour ago. Let's hear something new.
Mrs Pupatello: The Attorney General wants to interrupt, but the truth of the matter is this is the gang that was complaining about all that government waste; this is the gang that said it was going to be different; this is the gang - your taxpayers federation people. You signed on the bottom line with the taxpayers federation. Why would the taxpayers federation ever agree to this kind of printing? Why? Why would you spend $4 million putting out a propaganda piece? Do you know what we could do with $4 million in this province, what we could have done for those kids who need the kind of attention that these days, these families deserve? You have selected instead, through community and social services, to spend $4 million on propaganda, and your Conservative Party should pay the money back to the taxpayers. You said you were different. You said, "Oh, we're not like the other people, no, no, we're serious about this, about streamlining, efficiency." You're all about propaganda, that's all you are.
Here we have the text: "A Message from Premier Mike Harris." What it should have said: "97% of all people collecting social assistance are on the same program we had when Bill Davis was the Premier." It should also say in this booklet that the 3% in so-called workfare are in voluntarily, and that anywhere in Ontario where it currently exists today it is entirely voluntary.
All those Conservative Party supporters who at the time had those figments dancing around in their heads of people in orange coveralls, probably chained at the ankles, dragging the broom behind them on the highway, because that was going to be Ontario workfare - it doesn't exist anywhere in Ontario.
When I think of all the money you've spent to propagate this, it is unbelievable to think that you may actually get away with it, that you may actually not implement workfare, because you can't, and then get credit for implementing workfare, even though you didn't, because people think you did. It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
We made a count of all these propaganda ads that you've done just recently. So far, your total is nearing $44 million. The $1.1 million on the sleeping beauty bill, Bill 22, is just a drop in the bucket compared to the propaganda ads. The only thing you forgot to put in your propaganda ads was, "PS, vote for Mike Harris," for heaven's sake. Your party ought to at least have the courage to refund the taxpayers of Ontario, but at this point we don't see any movement that way.
We're going to keep counting. We're going to continue to count all the propaganda ads, especially when you come from the Windsor area, especially when you realize what our hospital system is like, when you know you could sit in emergency for two or three days because no bed is available because you chose to pour your money into propaganda advertising instead of our nurses who could take care of patients in a bed. Our critical care unit is working at 95% instead of the traditional 75%, so when things go wrong - and you never know who might appear in the emergency room - we don't have the flexibility in our hospital system any more to have an appropriate bed for appropriate people when they need help.
Why has this party not shown that kind of interest in these real-life, life and death situations for people? I want to know why it is that a patient would actually stay longer in recovery because there is no critical care bed available to move them out of the operating room from recovery and into an appropriate bed. Why, on occasion, does a patient stay longer in a critical care bed, at a higher price, when there is no room for lower-level bed somewhere else in the system because you've cut that kind of money out of hospitals - $44 million? Our Windsor hospitals have lost $41 million alone, and what they could have done with that kind of money that could have meant the difference in how people are actually cared for.
That's my question, that you would instead come here today and talk about workfare, at an enormous cost to the taxpayer, about Bill 22, the sleeping beauty bill which isn't even required because you have self-admitted that you have workfare operating in Ontario today without Bill 22. So why do you need it? Only to further propagate the idea that workfare actually exists in Ontario, and we in this House know the truth. I would challenge anyone here to stand up and say: "We agree that 97% are on the old system. Only 3% are on so-called workfare and those 3% are voluntary."
The people we met with when we traipsed around, at enormous expense to the taxpayers, who could have been much better served in my Windsor hospital, for example, or the Niagara general hospital, for that matter, or the hospitals in Sarnia where adults are now being moved into children's wards because they just don't have beds available any more - that money should have been used as a priority for people when they need it, but you choose to have us here tonight debating Bill 22, which is essentially irrelevant, just more propaganda for you to go forward and slam unions, slam labour, actually vilify individuals by name, which is completely inappropriate. Government members ought to know better.
Mr Gilchrist: I didn't name anybody.
Mrs Pupatello: Of course he named people. If he said "Sid Ryan" once, he said it a hundred times.
Mr Gilchrist: Oh, that name.
Mrs Pupatello: Oh, that name. I think it's about time you showed a little respect for people. Do you honestly think that just because they have an opposing point of view, they should somehow cease to exist? I have a continuous opposing view to the government, but that doesn't mean that I think you should just up and disappear. You do have a right to be there. I wish the government members would understand that just because people disagree with you doesn't mean we have to go away or that we should cease to exist. We do have a right to be here. All I can say to follow up with that is, pride before the fall, and I hope that arrogance will be seen by the people in those ridings when they are voting.
2020
I can tell you too that when we spoke to the people who came to us, who took the time - the Golden Horseshoe Social Action Committee, when we were in the Niagara region, took time to compare numbers with the Republican states, that when those welfare rolls dropped, the Wisconsin governor has been quite open in describing workfare as a deterrent, and that in fact every other place that brought this workfare in agreed, and at least they were open about it. They said, "Look, we're setting up obstacles and hurdles to stop people from getting into the system." That's what Bill 142 was about right here in Ontario. It wasn't about helping them; it was about keeping them out. I think the government figures if we don't know that they are there, then we're not obligated to help them, and you've set the hurdles enormously high for people to get into the system.
I'm very pleased to turn the floor over to my colleague from St Catharines, who will also be speaking about Bill 22, the Sleeping Beauty bill. I look forward to the vote, because this government should be on record. At minimum, you must tell the truth: Workfare does not exist anywhere in Ontario.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thought, Mr Speaker, as you probably did, that we'd be dealing tonight with some legislation which would prevent this government from closing Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. I know several of the government members over there probably were wondering if it would do the same thing.
It seems to me this bill is the one that has that hostage in it about bank employees. Does it not have that in it? There is a hostage somewhere in this bill. I think the member for York-Mackenzie will agree with me. There is a provision in it that deals with banks and bank employees or certain rights of bank employees, as I recall. We were wondering why it would be contained in this particular piece of legislation, because we know the banks are attempting to merge at this time and orchestrated a demonstration. I don't know whether it was on Bay Street, but I'm going to say it was on Bay Street anyway, where there was a large demonstration.
I'm sure in places like Monkton, Ontario, and Stratford and several of the municipalities -
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: Brunner, I think, is the pronunciation there. We didn't see them there because they're worried that this government, through this bill, although it's going to help out the banks in a certain way, is not going to help the banks out in another way. In other words, what we want in your town and my town and all towns -
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You will agree that not only is the member on the wrong bill; he's in the wrong House. It's the federal House I believe that he would prefer to be in to speak about bank mergers. You will know that there is nothing in this bill about banks, so either we could order a transplant of the member or -
The Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be a point of order but it isn't the point of order that you would want to bring up at this time. The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It mentions the Labour Relations Act. I know there was a provision in here - I remember the hostage. I remember somebody talking about the hostage at one time that was in this bill that related to banks. As I was trying to say, the employees of the banks in your part of the province and my part of the province - we understand that, Mr Speaker, that we have to have employees with jobs.
I'm wondering, when we look in the total context of jobs and workfare and so on, where the jobs are going to be for people in this province. We have a situation now where we have the corporate entity in some cases making unprecedented profits while at the same time the bodies are being fired out into the street. These are people who are being laid off. I don't understand the stock market that well, but it somehow causes a blip in the stock market, and the president of the corporation gets a bonus because they are even meaner and leaner as a result of trying to downsize the corporation.
Mr Gilchrist: Better for their shareholders. A radical concept, isn't it?
Mr Bradley: I don't mind. I've never found "profit" to be a bad word, because even at one of my favourite stores, Canadian Tire, I like to see them make profit and I like to see other businesses make profit. What I'm talking about, however, is a situation where we have corporations making unprecedented profits. Meanwhile, they keep sending people out the door: "downsizing," as they would say, or they would really prefer to say "rightsizing."
There are a lot of people who might be affected by workfare in this province who would like to have those kinds of jobs. Those job opportunities aren't going to be there for people, particularly people who don't have the right connections. We don't have to worry over there because we know they have the right connections. I'm not speaking of you, Mr Speaker, of course, but I'm speaking of the government caucus at this time. They have people over there who have the right connections. They know people who can get the good jobs. Or the person may be fortunate enough to be able to afford a good education or the person may be brilliant academically and be able to obtain a good education that way. There are a number of people out there who haven't had that opportunity, and one has to ask, where are these people going to work if these companies keep downsizing while making unprecedented profits?
You and I understand, Mr Speaker, that if a corporate entity is losing money and either the service isn't being purchased or the products are not being purchased, then we all understand. We don't like it, but we understand that there are going to be layoffs. What ordinary people in Ontario don't understand is how these corporate entities can be making unprecedented profits while at the same time laying these people off and putting them out in the street.
I have a worry, when I look at the legislation in its broadest context this evening, that there are not going to be jobs for a lot of people that used to be there. They used to say: "That person doesn't want to work. There are all kinds of jobs." At one time there were a lot of jobs out there for even people who may not have had the opportunity to acquire a good education or a lot of specific skills. There were still job opportunities out there for those folks. Today, I wonder whether that's the case, whether really when you say, "Go and get a job," there is a job for people who haven't had those wonderful opportunities in life for a good education or good connections or some specialized training.
I know somewhere in this bill, because I remember people talking about the hostage in it, it made it easier for the banks to be able to do something in terms of their employees. I remember seeing that in a piece of legislation.
Another thing I'm worried about is that if people don't have these jobs - and we find out, if you look at all the studies, that a person's economic situation affects that person's health. If we have people who are not in a good economic situation - in other words, they don't have a job - they're going to need hospital care, and in our area, we're wondering where they'll get it.
You'd be interested to know this, Mr Speaker, because I know you've gone through the hospital circumstances in your area, some discussions that have taken place in your area about hospital funding and the keeping open of hospitals. I was at the Hotel Dieu Hospital at a meeting the other night, and while we were sitting in the meeting an announcement comes over the PA system that says, "This hospital is now on critical care bypass." That means you can't send an ambulance there with somebody who is seriously ill. You have to redirect it to some other hospital in the Niagara region. Yet I hear crackpot realists out there saying: "Well, you know, we have to downsize our hospitals. We have to have fewer hospitals in our part of the province."
Just as in your area, I suspect, Mr Speaker, in our area we want to have available in our city two emergency wards so that people have access to either one. If one is full, if one can no longer receive patients, it's nice to know that you have a backup. As well as that, Hotel Dieu Hospital delivers oncology treatment; that is, chemotherapy treatment for people who are afflicted with cancer. That's something specialized and something that has been developed at the Hotel Dieu Hospital.
2030
Something else that is there - and again, we're seeing more of this now, largely because our population per capita is getting older. All of us now, for a variety of reasons, medical and otherwise, have a circumstance that allows us to grow older, where our target date, I would say - I don't know if "target date" is a good term. But the possibility of living now into our 80s is certainly not unusual, whereas it may have been a generation or two ago. That means we're going to have to have adequate health care, not only for chronic care.
We all understand that, that people who are somewhat older and may have a chronic affliction are going to require chronic care and home care. But also, the older we get, the more likely we are to need access to emergency care, or what we would call acute care, active treatment hospitals, in other words. It doesn't mean that older people are going to be in the hospital for a number of days, but it does mean that perhaps for a week or less they maybe have to go into the hospital for some emergency circumstance. So we must still have our hospitals for that purposes.
What we've got going on in our community, and I hope it's not going on in Perth county - I hope it isn't. What we've got going on now - and I'm biased, I guess, when I say it's because of the government policy - is that we've now got hospitals fighting one another. Why? Because the government says: "We've got to close the hospitals. We've got to withdraw the funding from the hospitals."
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: The member for Scarborough East doesn't want to hear this.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Apart from insulting the people in my riding by suggesting that somehow East York has been absorbed into Scarborough, the member has got in his hits on the subject of the Hotel Dieu Hospital. He's done that before; he's had his chance again tonight. His colleague for Windsor-Sandwich did manage to confine her remarks to the subject matter of the bill before the House. I wonder if the member can be encouraged to do likewise from here on in to the end of his remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I'll watch very carefully that the member does that.
Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to say this about this Speaker: He is very understanding of the wide parameters which are always present in debates in this House, particularly on second and third reading. In committee, I understand that we must be much more narrow.
I don't know what the member for Scarborough East is thinking now, because it sounds as though the member for York East felt insulted because I mentioned Scarborough East.
Mr Gilchrist: I think you insulted them because after three years you don't know the difference.
Mr Bradley: Both are fine parts of the province of Ontario; both those ridings are just excellent places. I really like the people in both those areas and I admire them. I certainly feel bad that after three years in the House I'm still not able to know which riding Mr Parker represents. I apologize for not knowing that it was York East, and I certainly make that reference to him now.
Now to go back to the Hotel Dieu, because we're talking here about people who need jobs. Their health care - you know this, Jack. The member for Chatham-Kent knows that their health care is influenced by their economic station in life.
Mr Carroll: It's one of the determinants.
Mr Bradley: It's one of the determinants; he mentions it quite appropriately. That's what I'm saying. If they don't have these jobs, or if they don't have a good job that they'd like to work at, they may need the services of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. That's what I am saying. I want to see that hospital saved.
It also adds kidney treatment. I met with Dr Broski the other day. Dr Broski is a young nephrologist, I think is the word they use, a kidney doctor, who noted in the commission report - this is the commission which was set up under Bill 26, which is the hospital restructuring commission, or the Health Services Restructuring Commission, they call it in Ontario; I call it the hospital closing commission, because that's what it has done so often, probably unfairly, to call it that.
Mr Gilchrist: And "restructuring" is too big a word.
Mr Bradley: The member says "restructuring" is too big a word. I'm just saying it's more accurate to say it's the hospital destruction commission, because that's what it seems to be doing around the province.
Anyway, they did an evaluation of the future needs for kidney care, kidney dialysis, in the Niagara region. Dr Broski, who is an expert and has people in his field who know this area well, says that the commission has grossly underestimated the amount of space that will be needed in the future for kidney dialysis and grossly underestimated the cost.
When I hear them say they want to move the whole Hotel Dieu Hospital down to the other end of the city and plunk it all at one site, at a cost, I might add, of at least $23.5 million to the local people - not the provincial government; the local people - I become very concerned. That's why I've joined with some of my colleagues in the area in opposing the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital, which I think has served us so well over the years. In the past, I've described it, perhaps in strong terms, as putting the boots to the religious hospitallers of St Joseph, who've operated this hospital. But I look at all the services -
Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Despite your edict to the member to stay on topic, standing order 23(b) specifically directs the member to talk about the bill before us here today. There is no reference to hospitals. I'd love to stand here and talk about all the things that have improved in the hospitals in Scarborough, but there is no relevance. Since this bill, and all bills, have a set amount of time to be debated, would you please direct the member to either speak to the bill, Bill 79, or sit down and let someone else talk to the bill who wants to.
Mrs Pupatello: It's Bill 22.
Mr Gilchrist: Sorry, Bill 22. Forgive me.
The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I'll direct the member for St Catharines to Bill 22. We'll look forward to his continuing debate.
Mr Bradley: Thank you very much. I know it was Bill 22. I'm glad you said that. The member for Scarborough East thought it was Bill 79 we were on. I don't know which Legislature he's in. It just goes to show that sometimes members aren't always following the debate as closely as they might.
I can understand why the government gets edgy when I talk about the Hotel Dieu Hospital, because they well remember -
Mr Gilchrist: Come on, Mr Speaker. This is getting farcical.
Mr Bradley: I don't know why the member for Scarborough East is trying to intimidate the esteemed Speaker of this assembly. I trust his good judgment much more than I trust the impartial judgment of the member for Scarborough East.
I want to say that the people of St Catharines, who are interested in this bill, remember what the Premier had to say during the last election campaign. He had a lot of things to say, including - you know what he had to say: "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." I know why the member feels edgy and touchy about my mentioning that. I know that and I understand it. I feel bad about that. Nevertheless, it is the case.
I'm simply saying that people who do not have an opportunity to have a good job, who do not have an opportunity to have a job that allows them to get a decent wage and reasonable working conditions, tend to fall into ill health more than others. My friend from Chatham-Kent, as he was walking by, was assisting me in making that argument because he understands that.
Dr Fraser Mustard, a former dean of medicine and former president of McMaster University, said that on many occasions, that one of the determining factors of a person's health is that person's economic station in life. In other words, poor people tended - not always - to have more trouble with health than those people of wealth who were able to look after themselves in various ways. That's why I'm saying this bill may relegate some people into that particular position of not having the wherewithal to be able to help themselves in terms of their medical future.
That's why I want to ensure that if they're in that circumstance, they have the general hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital in St Catharines. The Shaver Hospital, by the way, is for people needing chronic care and rehabilitative care. Everyone is asking that question. When they say, "What are they discussing in the House today?" I like to say that the Conservative members wanted me to talk about the need to keep the Hotel Dieu Hospital open.
2040
Mr Speaker, you will be interested in this, in case you ever encounter it. Have you seen the form that the hospital restructuring commission puts out for people to respond? You would have to be a downtown Toronto lawyer to be able to fill this out. You have to have so many copies; it has to be spaced a certain way. There have to be a dozen conditions on submissions that people have to make and it's a short period of time. It's now by the end of this week that they have to have their submissions in on the whole report and the response to the report of the hospital restructuring commission.
My friend from Welland-Thorold says that they obviously must not want to hear from the average person. Otherwise, they would first of all give more time to hear, and I hope that will happen. Second, they would make the requirements much less onerous on the average person who's had an experience in that wonderful hospital that we call the Hotel Dieu; or on people who want to indicate that they also want our other hospitals to stay open, because I'm equally supportive of the St Catharines General Hospital and the Shaver Hospital in our community.
As I look at Bill 22, I know it could have an impact on health care in this province, knowing as I do that a person's economic station in life is one of the determining factors of perhaps how long they will live, but certainly the quality of life as it relates to health care. That's why, if you were wondering why, I brought that point forward -
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: That's why I did, and I know it irritates the member for Scarborough East, who is a chief government spokesperson on CBC television. It certainly does that because he speaks on behalf of the government all the time. I've got to give him his credit: He gives the party line every time, no variances. He's upfront, he's forward, he's a believer, he's committed and he gives that line.
I want to say to the member for Scarborough, at least I know where he's coming from. He doesn't try to vary from that idea, doesn't try to move away from his ideological bent. He is a person who will give the government line every time.
I want to compliment my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich. The member for Windsor-Sandwich is a member for whom I have the greatest respect, and she led off in the first part of the bill. I'm going to have to sit down soon because I want to finish Buzz Hargrove's book, Labour of Love, which I wanted to advertise as being quite a good book, very revealing. I'm going to get Buzz, if he will, to autograph the book because it has so many interesting passages in it. I recommend it to my friends on the governing side.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Pouliot: I must share with you that I'm always, to say the least, appalled and surprised when the member for Windsor-Sandwich, with the commitment, with the passion of a world saviour - I would assume that her association with organized labour has been long-standing, that she's been on many picket lines supporting the brothers and sisters when they're involved in a lockout or a legal work stoppage.
My most distinguished friend from St Catharines, the House leader, never misses an opportunity to talk about Hotel Dieu Hospital. It has nothing to do with Bill 22, with respect, and I certainly appreciate the effort. But the member over the years has become insatiable. He must speak on every piece of legislation, and his caucus lets him. His caucus has little say. In fact, it's been said that the member for St Catharines, if it was decreed by the government of the day that we shall sit on Christmas Day, would say, "Let's go for two: Christmas Day and Boxing Day as well." This is his whole life.
Freedom of association: Whatever happened to it when we're presented with this dreadful intimidation? What happened to the right to go to collective bargaining? It's not mentioned there. What happened to the right to organize? This lot of 60 hours per week, I repeat, a buck an hour at your designated workplace, will help you. They are not friends of the workers. They never will be. They dislike workers and even more so they dislike the poor.
Mr Klees: I'd like to respond very briefly to the member for Windsor-Sandwich, who has great difficulty with the concept that the mandatory aspect of Ontario Works could possibly have individuals who are part of that program not needing to be forced to participate. The member is absolutely right that the vast majority of people who are involved in the mandatory Ontario Works program do not have to be forced to participate. As I have said on many occasions, people involved, whether it be community participation, employment support or employment placement, want to be there. That does not mean that the program has lost its mandatory nature at all. In fact, the record of our government and of our ministry will show that individuals are cut off welfare in various areas of this province for non-compliance with the mandatory nature of Ontario Works. There are many examples, unfortunately, of individuals who after having been given a number of opportunities, a number of alternative opportunities to participate in one of the three aspects of Ontario Works, refuse to do so for no reason and, based on that, forfeit their benefits. That's their right. Their right is to do that.
I say to the member opposite, this government has not compromised on the mandatory nature of Ontario Works. What has happened, however, is that the vast majority of people in the program want to participate and don't need to be forced to do so.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the efforts that my colleagues have made to point out that Bill 22 is, as my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich said, the biggest hoax perpetrated on the people of Ontario. The only issue I would take with my esteemed colleagues is that I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that this is the biggest hoax among all the other hoaxes that are being perpetrated with $45 million worth of advertising on the people of Ontario, and I appreciate the fact that my colleague from St Catharines has identified several other of the hoaxes that are being perpetrated.
I'm one of the people who perhaps most keenly remembers the advertising campaign in the last election, when it said over and over again night after night: "Mike Harris will bring in mandatory workfare; Lyn McLeod won't. Mike Harris will bring in mandatory workfare." I hear the member opposite say, "We haven't capitalized on the mandatory nature of workfare." Indeed, they have not. As my colleague says, there are only 3% of the people on social assistance who are on the workfare program and their participation, fortunately, is voluntary. This is another one of the promises that Mike Harris did not deliver. It may be one of the only bits of truth we've seen in Mike Harris advertising when they said that Lyn McLeod would not deliver mandatory workfare, because that was a program that we never would have delivered. So this is one promise that I'm glad the Mike Harris government was not able to keep.
I'm distressed about the other promises that weren't kept, like not cutting hospitals, which my colleague from St Catharines has pointed out again tonight was a major promise that wasn't kept, not closing hospitals. I'm distressed about the fact that they said they weren't going to hurt classroom education, and classroom education is in absolute chaos. But this promise they haven't been able to deliver, to bring in mandatory workfare, I'm glad they weren't able to do.
My real concern, though, is that there are not choice programs there for people. When it comes to education and training, there are no programs there at all. This is the government that wants to talk tonight about what it has done for social assistance recipients. They cut them off social assistance, if they wanted to go back to school, and forced them into debt on OSAP.
2050
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got but two minutes now, but as soon as the member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley, is done with his two minutes in response, I'll have a whole hour.
I thought this bill had been dealt with months ago, years ago. It's been lingering around, hidden away. What a surprise. Bill 22, here it was, one page; it's a one-pager. They spent more time in committee on Bill 22, one page, than they did on all of their workfare legislation, and I'm going to explain why in just a couple of minutes, so hang in there.
I've got to tell you this, because I see the member for St Catharines. He made reference to Buzz Hargrove's book, Labour of Love. I actually bought it, read it and quite frankly enjoyed it and am pleased that Buzz wrote it. Mr Bradley, I hope not like some cheap shill on the Canadian Home Shopping Club - I hope he isn't going to reduce himself to some sort of ersatz Ivana Trump here in the provincial Legislature.
I have no doubt that he will refer to Labour of Love again, as he did earlier, but he may refer to another book currently out there on the shelves; I didn't buy it. I don't know, it's Three something - what? - who's on first?
Mr Bradley: For $27.99.
Mr Kormos: I don't know what the other two questions are. Quite frankly, I think consumer protection should rear its head and prevent Mr Bradley from touting that little work of fancy, and people should wait until that Three Questions book is indeed on the remainder tables at Coles where it can be picked up for mere pocket change. Again, appreciate that I didn't buy it, but I leafed through it at the bookstand. It didn't take long. The footnotes are longer than the actual text. I don't know who ghost-wrote it, but that first-year university student should get top marks for a typical first-year university student essay.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich has two minutes to respond.
Mrs Pupatello: I need to say again to the members opposite that you must ask your Conservative Party to reimburse the taxpayers of Ontario $44 million in propaganda ads, only one of which was this householder that was sent to all of Ontario that only propagandizes workfare, which doesn't even exist in Ontario.
You decided to take the sleeping beauty bill, Bill 22, called "sleeping beauty" because your Conservative MPP fell asleep at committee so that one of the paragraphs could not be passed by a Conservative majority on the committee. After that, $1.1 million is the total count so far of taxpayers' money to talk about this bill in this House, and not one Conservative MPP would stand up and admit, maybe to their own Conservative supporters who wanted badly to have workfare in place here, that in fact 97% of all recipients currently are on the same program that always existed in Ontario, that the 3% who are involved in a separate and different program that this government has called "workfare" is in fact a voluntary program.
Those are the facts. They are irrefutable: those people we met while this government wasted money sending this bill around on committee, and we repeatedly called to stop the charade of hearings every day of the hearings, but to no avail. We said: "Cancel it. Stop this charade. Stop wasting taxpayers' money so that this government can go forward and blast the unions and blast labour once again, because you find them to be an enemy of the state."
We don't agree with what this government is doing. We know that those who must implement this will find their own way around it, and indeed they have.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Kormos: I'm going to open by mentioning to you, as I do oftentimes, that I can't for the life of me think of what I'm going to say about this bill over the course of a whole hour. I couldn't begin to imagine. I've got an hour. It's called a leadoff speech. It's the maximum period of time you can speak in the assembly nowadays. After the Tories changed the rules, it's the maximum period of time you can speak for, because you do the leadoff speech for an hour and then subsequent speakers - I think Mr Christopherson, our labour critic, certainly wants to speak to this; Mr Pouliot wants to speak to it; Ms Boyd wants to speak to it - all they're going to get is a mere 20 minutes per person to speak to this bill. People remaining will have but 10 minutes to speak to it.
When I responded to the member for St Catharines - because from the first notification, remember, we were going to talk about Bill 25 tonight. That was the first thing that appeared. That's an interesting one. Bill 25 I'm looking forward to, especially schedules C and J. Listen, people, I wish that the government members would pay close attention.
I should tell you as well, though, that down in the constituency office today the phone has been ringing off the hook because this morning's local newspapers, the Welland Tribune and the St Catharines Standard, both owned by Conrad Black, close associate of the member for St Catharines - the member for St Catharines speaks of Conrad Black often. He and I have been in venues where he's spoken to the press about Conrad Black - in language that is somewhat unfamiliar to me, but I trust it's complimentary - but somehow it never gets reported. There's a gremlin at the Standard that deletes those references that people in the public are inclined to make about Conrad Black.
In any event what happened is that - I don't want to prejudge a criminal investigation and what may well result in a trial - there have been a number of charges laid involving, literally, a used car dealer who is alleged, according to the newspaper reports, to have been peddling stolen iron, stolen cars. What's been happening, according to the press reports and the calls we've been getting at our constit office today - I suspect these calls are going to occur all over Niagara region because it's going to spread throughout the region and it'll involve more than a few vehicles - is that the vehicles that have been purchased are, as I say, allegedly stolen, which means they don't belong to the people who bought them.
We're not talking about little $500 push-it-off-the-lot junkers. We're talking about quite a few thousands of dollars that families are investing in these used vehicles. The police have seized a number. The press reports indicate that they're going to seize a number more, because what happens is that folks have been buying, literally, stolen vehicles, according to the investigation. If they were stolen vehicles, they don't belong to the people who bought them. That's the reality of the law. You can't buy something that wasn't the vendor's to sell, because it didn't belong to the guy who sold it to you. Apparently most of them, the title to them, the property in them, is with the insurance company that paid out to the owner from whom they were stolen.
Mr Bradley: Who's watching over all this?
Mr Kormos: Exactly the point. You're talking about people who have indicated being out $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 at a shot, down in Niagara region, one of the places that's been hardest hit by this government's policies. It has persistently high levels of unemployment, even higher among young people. People have been whacked. People have been hit hard by - well, let's face it. At the end of the day we expect to be - the number of stolen vehicles that have been purchased with good, hard-earned money, many times borrowed money. You see, the lender doesn't care about the status of the vehicle.
People have been calling my constituency office. My staff, both down in Welland-Thorold and here at Queen's Park, got to work early. We pulled the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act today and of course, as you know, the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act - I got the office consolidation. I'm hoping it hasn't been revoked by some red tape commission.
Mr Bradley: Is somebody writing letters?
Mr Kormos: It makes me nervous. Is somebody going to suggest that a prosecution not take place here? Is some government backbencher going to prevail upon a minister, saying, "Don't prosecute these people, it's more red tape," to protect the public and to protect consumers?
We pulled the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, and of course it makes reference to the regulation-making power. Regulation 801 provides for the compensation fund. The problem is this: Our reading, and we called - have you ever tried to call the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations? Let me tell you, what happened is I've got a case down in London, Ontario. What happened is a fellow got his car towed - it was one of those Jimmy 4x4s - by a rather notorious towing company in London. They scooped the car off of private property.
You know the case law in that regard. It can't be done, right? The cases, as a matter of fact, all emanate out of London, Ontario, and have gone to the Court of Appeal. You can't scoop vehicles off of private property and then hold the owner of the vehicle liable. You could well have the owner of the property who turned in the vehicle charged back for the tow. Unlike where the police write you up and call the tow truck and authorize its removal because of a violation of a municipal bylaw or the HTA, the Highway Traffic Act, you can't, by and large, tow off of private property and make the owner of the vehicle liable. There have been a number of law suits, litigation, about that, dealt with all the way to the Court of Appeal here in Ontario.
2100
Anyway, this fellow gets his car towed. It ends up disappearing in the bowels of the tow truck company, and before you know it, the guy doesn't own a vehicle. It's been rolled over through two corporations within this tow truck operator, which also runs a service dealership, and then sold to yet another party.
Mr Bradley: Who's watching all this?
Mr Kormos: Wait, I'm going to get to the point here in just a second. Just hang on.
Mr Bradley: Is the fox in charge of the henhouse?
Mr Kormos: Speaker, please. I want you to hear this. You've got a consumer here, a little person. All he knows is that he doesn't have a Jimmy any more, it isn't in the compound any more. First he's told he owed storage fees and towing fees, and then he's told, "We sold it under" - what is it they say? - "a warehouseman's lien." That used to be the old terminology. So this young fellow initiated a Small Claims Court action against this company -
Ms Mushinski: That actually started under your government.
Mr Kormos: Oh no, this happened well during this government's tenure.
I said, "Let me see what I can do." So I drove down to London and I drove over to this operation, because I'm checking it out, OK? This is something out of a Burt Reynolds movie: the bays and the big compound yard at the back. I take a look and I see that there's no compliance with the legislation that requires notice being posted in the shop of hourly rates - it's compulsory - of the right to have your used parts returned, no compliance with the Motor Vehicle Repair Act. I took a look at the statute. I said: "By God, this operation is as dirty as they get. They're breaking the law left and right."
Here's where we get to the point. I called the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, phoned them from here in Toronto. I wanted to turn these actors in. I wanted them busted. I wanted due process to take place. I wanted the ministry to deploy one of its investigators and see what I saw and lay charges and let the courts deal with it. I got on the phone to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It took several efforts to get the ringing to stop, and when there was an answer it was voice mail. I pressed "1" and it was more voice mail; I pressed "2" and it was more voice mail; I pressed "3" and it was more voice mail. I'm getting frustrated. I'm getting a little irate. What if this were an emergency? Think about it. What if it were an emergency? What if the offence were occurring right then and there? I finally got hold of a supervisor, by calling a deputy minister and an assistant deputy minister and a bureaucrat here and a bureaucrat there.
Ms Mushinski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While I recognize that the speaker from I believe Welland-Thorold is actually telling a very interesting story about Jimmys - I'm not quite sure which Jimmy he's talking about - but my point of order is that I'm not sure that what he's talking about has anything to do with workfare and unionization. I'd appreciate your ruling on that, Mr Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: It is a point of order, and I'll just remind the member for Welland-Thorold that we're on Bill 22.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, to Ms Mushinski. I am grateful to her for bringing me back to the initial point. Ms Mushinski, I appreciate that this is a taxing exercise for you, to monitor the commentator, to make sure people are on point. Please, I really want to apologize to Ms Mushinski. I want to express my heartfelt and sincere regrets, because she's right. I digressed. I don't know what took hold of me. I can't for the life of me begin to think why it was, when I started with Bill 22, I mentioned the incredible lapse of time from when we had second reading and committee. I was on committee. Did I mention, Ms Mushinski, that we spent more time in committee on this one-page Bill 22 than we did on the whole workfare legislation? Did I mention that already?
Ms Mushinski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe it is a common courtesy in this House to refer to members by their riding name rather than their personal name, as I did to the member for Welland-Thorold.
The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I would remind the member for Welland-Thorold that I would like comments directed through me. It is a custom of which you sure ought to be aware that we refer to other members by their ridings.
Mr Kormos: Once again, Speaker, I apologize. The problem is, I can't for the life of me, even after three years, recall which riding she represents.
Mr Gilchrist: Scarborough Centre.
Mr Kormos: OK. To the member for Scarborough Centre -
Mr Bradley: Who is Scarborough-Ellesmere then?
Mr Kormos: Well, wait a minute. Is Scarborough Centre the riding that Jim Brown is going to contest? I understand a deal was struck, because Mr Brown, who represents a Scarborough riding, was going to run against Mr Newman. They took our schematics.
I apologize to this member from Scarborough because she's right, I referred to her by her name. I called her Ms Mushinski, and for that I apologize. I express my sincere regrets to you, to your family, to your neighbours, to anybody who has ever met you, to people who know you as their MPP, to people who've met you and wish they hadn't. I express my apologies, and I express my gratitude to you, Speaker, for coming to the assistance of the member and drawing my attention to the fact that it's just plain wrong to refer to a member by her name.
But it was wrong for those people to steal that young man's car, his four-wheel-drive truck, his Jimmy, his GMC. It was wrong for them to do that. It was wrong for me to refer to the member by her name; it was wrong for those people in London to steal that truck. The only recourse I had on his behalf was to contact the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and it was wrong for them to have gutted their ministry to the point where investigators simply aren't available for aggrieved consumers. It was wrong for this government to gut the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to the extent that consumer protection doesn't exist in this province any more. That's wrong too. That is as wrong as it was for me to refer to the member by her name.
In fact, when I refer to the member by her name, an apology will suffice to remedy it. For this young person from London, Ontario, an apology from the ministry isn't going to restore to him the vehicle stolen from him by an unscrupulous tower and auto repair dealer.
Ms Mushinski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A few moments ago I rose on a point of order asking the member for Welland-Thorold to get back to the issue at hand, and I do not believe that has occurred since my last point of order. I would ask you to bring him back to the issue at hand, Mr Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I would direct a comment or two to the member for Welland-Thorold if I could, and that is, I am becoming a little bit confused about Jimmy. I want to know if Jimmy is on workfare and covered under Bill 22 or not. I would ask you to address your comments and debate to the bill that's in front of us.
2110
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker.
Let me tell you, this young man whose Jimmy was stolen from him by the tow truck operator is going to be on welfare and forced to submit to workfare if he is inadequately compensated for being victimized by an unscrupulous tow truck repair operator. That member over there who keeps rising on points of order should know what's out of order here. I'm talking about a victim of this government's abdication of its responsibility to provide consumer protection and to provide the services that any fair-minded person would relate to consumer protection.
I told you it was going to be tough to stay on point with Bill 22 because (1) it's been so long, (2) it's but one page and (3) we spent more time in committee on Bill 22 than we did on all of the workfare bill itself. Why should I repeat what other people said? I don't want to repeat what members from the official opposition said; they've already said certain things about Bill 22.
I'm a little preoccupied with the phone calls we've had today from similar victims. I called the two police officers working on it, Jeff Skelton and Dave Shannon down in number 3 division in Welland. I left a call for them, got a call back later today, wasn't able to answer that call. I had a concern that some of these people who have been ripped off may be on social assistance. Some of them may be on this government's workfare programs; some of them just might be.
Here, when we are addressing Bill 22 - the member from Scarborough somewhere will know this - and reflecting on what it means to be on this government's workfare, we can't help but think of the injustice that's being imposed on those people who are out of pocket, who may still owe the finance company or the bank or the credit union, and whose vehicle was picked up because, quite frankly, it doesn't belong to them, it was stolen.
What we've done is get hold of the compensation fund, confirm that it appears it's still in existence. Their office has been dispensing the information that people who have been victimized should be getting hold of their MPP's constituency office; they should be getting the appropriate application forms from the compensation fund.
Unfortunately, first there's a $15,000 cap that appears, according to regulation 801, on the amount of monies that can be paid out. That means if you're owed $18,000 or $19,000, you're out the difference between 15 grand and 18 or 19. Second, one had to either initiate civil action - and obviously the jurisdiction of Small Claims Court is what, $6,000? If you want to go beyond $6,000, that means you've got to get into more expensive courts, the old county courts; or one can rely upon a criminal conviction, as long as the circumstances of the conviction make your case. That means there's going to have to be some communication between these victims and the investigating Niagara Regional Police and the crown attorney's office that eventually engages in a prosecution with a view to getting a conviction.
My concern - and I'm concerned about Bill 22 as well, but that concern has to be accompanied by my concern for the victims of this stolen car scam, this scheme operating down in Niagara region - is the incredible period of time that's going to transpire between when these people don't have a vehicle - let's face it, if you live down in Niagara, you don't have strong public transit from city to city, even within the community in some cases, all the more so now, and a vehicle can be a fact of life, a necessity for getting to and from work, if there is work. Lord knows, work has been hard to come by in Niagara region. Unemployment levels remain high.
Mr Gilchrist: It's 4.9%.
Mr Kormos: Well, unemployment levels in Niagara region have remained higher than they have in most of the province.
Mr Gilchrist: Oh, 4.9%.
Mr Kormos: And among young people twice that much.
Ms Mushinski: That's stretching it.
Mr Kormos: You see, people are objecting to that observation on my part.
Mr Gilchrist: Because it's incorrect.
Mr Kormos: People are objecting. Go talk to the workers from Mott's in St Catharines. They had good jobs. They were unionized jobs; that's part of why they were good jobs. They were good-paying jobs. Not great-paying jobs, good-paying jobs. They had some security, or some sense of security, the people who worked at Mott's. The plant ran away on them, gone, like that - jobs eliminated. You've got people with lifetimes in that workplace, just right out of luck.
It doesn't take long to get off UIC - what do they call it now, employment insurance? - on to welfare rolls. It doesn't take long to move from a good-paying job in this Ontario of 1998, a job that appeared to have a future. It doesn't take long to move from that on to Bill 22, on to workfare, when you have companies like Mott's just shutting down and moving out.
Talk to the folks down at Ucar in Welland. Talk to the workers there. There were 200 jobs - finished. These workers aren't going to be allowed to finish out their own work careers, never mind have jobs available for their sons and their daughters unless their sons and daughters finish high school and community college. Another runaway plant: 90 years reaping profits off the hard work of all kinds of people down in Welland and across Niagara region. Just shut her down and move on. Don't even sell the property. You know why? Because they don't want to create competition. It's not that they haven't made money out of that Ucar plant down in Welland. They made lots of money, lots of profit. Are they prepared to share that with the workers whose lives are being destroyed, whose families' lives are being destroyed? Are they prepared to share that? No. What's this government got to say to them? Workfare? Bill 22?
We went through the workfare hearings with some interest because across the province, once again, the government tried to whip up some support for its so-called workfare scheme. I know what the data are, I know what the numbers are. We're told the welfare rolls are reduced. I know there has been some modest upturn in the economy. I also know what kind of jobs people are increasingly being required to do.
Let me put this to you. I recall when I was a student back a good chunk of time now, back in the 1970s, a university student like a whole lot of other people. Jobs were plentiful. They were the low-paying jobs, they were the minimum-wage jobs. They were in the retail sector or in the service sector, and not just down in Niagara but up here in Toronto as well. As I visit some of these same workplaces now, I see that the people doing these jobs, inevitably part-time, temporary, at minimum wage, are no longer students and other young people; it's their parents doing those jobs now. If they're lucky, they've got two or three of them so they can have some modest hope of maintaining the households, the homes they've been paying for and investing in over the course of working lifetimes.
That's Mike Harris's Ontario: minimum-wage Ontario. It's temporary job Ontario. It's part-time Ontario. It's if you're really lucky, you've got two or three of those jobs, because that's the only way you can generate enough income to keep the mortgage payments up to date and keep food on the table. That involves so many people. Visits to the food banks as well.
What's remarkable, as we witness what this government says - decreases in unemployment and decreases of the welfare rolls - we witness increases in the utilization of food banks. Go talk to the people down at the Daily Bread Food Bank here in Toronto. Talk to Ms Cox or any of the people who work there with her. She'll tell you about a food bank that's never had as strong a demand placed on it. Before the month is over, inevitably it ends up with bare cupboards and with people who turn away disappointed, their tattered plastic bags empty. All they've been looking for is a couple of cans of whatever it was, and maybe a couple of boxes of macaroni and cheese dinner to feed hungry kids.
2120
Talk to the people who run soup kitchens. Welfare rolls down? That's what the minister tells us. Welfare rolls are down, and the reliance on soup kitchens has never been this strong. Go to some of the soup kitchens here in Toronto. You don't have to stay in Toronto. You can go to small-town Ontario too. Come down to Welland and go to soup kitchens. You can go to St Catharines and go to soup kitchens.
You can go right up here, like I've done, up to Bloor Street, in the middle of the carriage trade, just a couple of doors down from Holt Renfrew and across the road from Birks Jewellers, to the little church at the corner of Avenue Road and Bloor. Go in the basement there at lunchtime - a soup kitchen. In the midst of the carriage trade, a soup kitchen operating to capacity.
Welfare rolls are down? Well, levels of homelessness, especially among children, have never been higher. Welfare rolls are down, and the incidence of homelessness has never been higher, especially among kids.
What's fascinating is that the profile of who is homeless has changed dramatically within a few short years. I don't want to be presumptuous, and let's understand that I'm making old generalizations - I concede that - but there was a point in our history where the homeless person was perhaps the idiosyncrat or the eccentric. There was the phenomenon of substance abuse, addiction to drugs; any number of drugs, I suppose, alcohol included. Then when we saw the withdrawal of support for mental health programs, we saw persons with mental illnesses and survivors of psychiatric treatment swelling the ranks of the homeless. That again was yet a new profile.
We're seeing an entirely new phenomenon now. I've met with these people and I've been to some of the hostels and I've been to the soup kitchens. It's moved far beyond what it has been historically, even in our recent history. Because now you've got whole families, you've got increasing numbers, as I say, of children - kids, literally kids. You've got university graduates. You have people who but a year or two ago were working at decent-paying jobs. But once those jobs disappear and once the EI or UIC runs out and you're up on Mike Harris's workfare, there isn't enough left to keep the apartment or the home you were living in. People are being transformed in mere months from relatively middle-class lifestyles to lifestyles of despair and total overwhelming poverty.
Let me tell you that yet a new little blip in who is homeless in this province is increasingly going to be seniors, retirees, that grey-haired generation, the folks who thought they'd done all the right things, folks who inevitably had worked hard, had saved, had put their kids through school. But in Niagara region alone, where this government's downloading has resulted in $18 million in new property taxes, these same seniors, living on fixed incomes, what with more and more, newer and higher user fees in almost every facet of their life, are now facing the prospect of yet even higher property taxes. A new profile of who's homeless in this province: It's seniors.
What does homelessness mean? It means to be deprived of decent accommodations that you can afford to sustain. Increasing numbers of seniors are finding themselves living with the dread - because you know what's probably worse than being homeless itself? It's living with the fearful anticipation of the day that it's going to happen. Think about that. As bad as if not worse than being homeless itself is being in your home, knowing that it could be tomorrow or the next day or maybe the day after, but knowing that within the foreseeable future the bailiff's going to come to the door.
You know how that process takes place? You know how the bailiff evicts families? They use those big green garbage bags and they load up what's left willy-nilly into those garbage bags, they tie off the tops and throw them out on the sidewalk. That's where families end up when they're homeless.
Those possessions, once they're but the contents of green garbage bags piled in a heap on a public sidewalk, start to lose some of their relevance and some of their value. Do you ever wonder how sometimes homeless people seem to have an obsessive sense of property over what appears to be the most modest collection of personal belongings in those tattered A&P or Zehrs bags that have been around the block more than a couple of times? You see, most of those people owned far more than what they own in their shopping carts. Most of those people had homes, most of those people had families, most of those people had furniture and bank accounts.
The Deputy Speaker: I'm supposed to interrupt the proceedings at 9:25. Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 4, 1998, I'm now required to put every question.
Mr Klees has moved third reading of Bill 22.
Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The motion is carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
It being almost 9:30, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2127.