MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

CONTENTS

Wednesday 1 November 2000

Ministry of Community and Social Services
Hon John Baird, Minister of Community and Social Services
Mr John Fleming, deputy minister
Ms Jessica Hill, assistant deputy minister, program management division
Ms Bonnie Ewart, assistant deputy minister, social assistance and employment
opportunities division, business transformation project

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James ND)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London L)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North / -Nord L)

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim
Ms Susan Sourial

Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer,
Research and Information Services

The committee met at 1600 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): We will reconvene this meeting of the estimates committee. We have representatives from each of the parties.

I understand we are continuing with the opening statement by the minister and I believe the minister has 10 minutes remaining. Minister?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Encore, c'est un grand plaisir pour moi d'être ici et je vais faire toutes mes remarques en français si les membres veulent, ou je peux les faire en anglais aussi.

I'm pleased to continue the discussions outlining the programs and services offered by the ministry. There are a terrific number of initiatives and programs that the ministry concerns itself with.

I think when we left off, I had just concluded discussions on child care and the activities and initiatives the ministry undertakes in that area.

Child welfare, child protection and the services offered by our children's aid societies are another important priority within the ministry. We've seen funding to our children's aid societies grow by almost 100% in the last five years, which demonstrates the substantial commitment that this government has put to child welfare and child protection. These initiatives have been, by and large, non-partisan in nature and had widespread support.

We're taking a step-by-step approach to improve our child protection system in the province of Ontario. We've undertaken a number of initiatives to better enable the child protection system to keep children safe from abuse and neglect. Some of these initiatives include a mandatory risk assessment model, new standards for all child protection cases, a new interactive database, additional training for our child protection staff, and a new funding framework to recognize volume has also been part of it. This is something that is perhaps one of our most important responsibilities in the ministry.

Early Years is also an initiative that comes under the ministry, although it's administered by my cabinet colleague the Honourable Margaret Marland, the minister responsible for children, and the secretariat with which she works. The commission on the Early Years Study and the creation of an Early Years program across Canada has been another important initiative of the ministry.

We have five Early Years demonstration projects in various parts of the province, including one that's bilingual in the city of Vanier, in the Ottawa-Carleton region; one, as well, in rural Ontario in Grey county. It's incredibly important that we be sensitive to the needs not just of urban Ontario but of different elements such as francophones and rural Ontario, and that's what some of these demonstration projects are undertaking.

There's also a $30-million Early Years challenge fund that will be launched later this fall. We have an Early Years task group and $6 million in funding over two years to recruit and hire Early Years community coordinators. There's a substantial amount of interest and priority that we've accorded there, and that's a personal interest of our Premier.

One of the other initiatives I wanted to raise is another important sector that the ministry deals with-and that's one about which I have had discussions with some of the members around the committee table in the past-the developmental services sector, providing supports to people across the province with a developmental disability.

This is actually the second-biggest area within the ministry after social assistance. Funding this year will have increased to about $965 million in total, outside of ODSP, which is a record for Ontario and it's an area where we've made substantial progress.

One of the important initiatives in that spectrum of services is the special services at home program. This is an incredibly popular program around the province.

I can recall visiting one family in St Catharines, a board member of the St Catharines Association for Community Living, who painted what the program meant to her. She discussed how her daughter was able to get support from a worker whom they hired to provide support, almost as important to her young daughter as it was to her, and her ability to get out and function in her community; almost a support for daughter and a respite for their family. She went on and talked about the incredible difference that the special services at home program was having in her family's life and how her daughter and indeed the entire family had benefited from the program.

I said, "How much support are you getting?" I was a new minister at the time and uncertain as to the level of support. She said, "About $3,500." You could see what a huge difference $3,500 had to this family in St Catharines at the St Catharines Association for Community Living, which is one of our excellent transfer partner agencies. That really brought home the importance of this program. It's a program that has increased regularly and has never been reduced and it is one of the most popular programs in the ministry.

Another important priority has been providing residential supports to people with developmental disabilities. This can be incredibly important for a number of folks. A lot of families who lead the way in the development of community living initiatives and community living supports in their communities are senior parents who are aging. They are parents who may be 70, even a few who are over 80 years old, who have provided care for their loved ones in their communities for going on 40 or 50 years. There are even a few with a greater amount of service than that.

They are coming to a point in their lives where they either are concerned about their ability to continue to provide supports for their loved ones or are concerned that when they need supports, they won't be there. That's an incredibly important priority within the developmental services sector, both for me personally and for the ministry. We increased funding by about $18 million to $24 million in this area of supports, hoping to provide at least 300 more community living opportunities for people in communities across the province. Obviously, senior aging parents is one of the challenges that we have to address.

There is a need for service and care for these families, but also every bit as important is for people to have some confidence that those supports will be there for them in the future. There is what I call almost a fear factor in that families, for many years, worry about what will happen to them when they're no longer able to provide supports. That's one of the priorities to which we're turning our attention through consultations and discussions.

A new initiative that the ministry undertook this year was a real personal priority of mine. It's an initiative called Foundations, where we're providing $6 million in new funding to set up a new program to provide supports to young people when they leave the school system. We do a tremendous amount in special education, spending more than $1.3 billion to help young people with special needs reach their full potential. But at the age of 21, they leave the school system and often there are additional supports there. There has to be a range of supports: for some people with a developmental disability, competitive employment is an option, is a potential, and others need day programming or supported employment.

I had the opportunity to visit with a young man in Sudbury recently who is actually one of four or five individuals with a developmental disability who started up their own small business and, with support from the Sudbury and District Association for Community Living, have been successful, with a number of other individuals, in starting up their own small business, with some supports.

For others, day programming is incredibly important-that they have something with which to live their life with dignity and something with which to continue their development. Again, this is another example of where it's not just important to the individual clients who would be served by such a program but indeed their families who need that almost 40-hours-a-week respite support in terms of the day programming it will provide. We're hoping that these initiatives, when rolled out, will add to the spectrum of services and supports that are available to young people with a developmental disability in our community.

This builds on the need to have more transition planning within our school system. Starting at age even 14 or 15, families and our government and the school system have to begin to make plans for individuals about what options and what opportunities are available for them in the future in terms of either furthering their education, their skills development or moving into the community. That initiative is something that we hope to expand across the province in the coming months.

That gives a small outline. I can go on perhaps in the remainder of the 30 minutes of the next go-round to give further examples of what we're doing to support people with developmental disabilities in our communities. These would include employment supports, fire code, labour issues, respite care and the community living initiative that expired in May in terms of the three remaining institutions in Ontario. Thank you very much.

The Chair: We now turn to the official opposition.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): If I may, with permission from the minister, I'd like to make some opening remarks and then use the bulk of my time for questions.

Hon Mr Baird: We always welcome all your questions.

Mr Gravelle: So that's acceptable. Mr Chair and members of the committee, I'm pleased to be here today to lead off our party's discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

As the relatively new Liberal critic for this important portfolio-I've just had this role for about a month-I will admit to feeling the enormity of the job we are beginning here today. There is little doubt that the operations of this ministry do beg closer scrutiny by the members of this committee. For my part, I intend to work hard through this process by raising the issues that I believe demand greater attention, clarification and perhaps some debate.

I want to thank the minister for allowing me to make some opening remarks and then move into questions so that I can now offer some general comments, if I may, about the ministry and its estimates.

As a member of this Legislature since 1995, I have been an unwilling witness to the calculated and sweeping overhaul that has come to Ontario's social services network under the Mike Harris government. I have watched with increasing anger and frustration as this government has heaped hurtful and punitive measures on top of other hurtful and punitive measures. The consistent approach shown by this government in maintaining its attacks on Ontario's poorest citizens has been nothing short of astonishing.

1610

What has been proven time and again is that this is a government guided essentially by hot buttons and by calculated moves. I think this could not be more evident anywhere else than in the operations and policies of this Ministry of Community and Social Services.

In terms of political propaganda, almost nothing matches this government's glossy and slick Making Welfare Work piece, a self-serving, hot-button, $800,000 public relations piece produced and distributed at taxpayers' expense recently.

I did listen very closely to the minister's opening statement, certainly looking for a deviation from what has become standard government fare on social service issues. While it is clear that the minister is comfortable talking about certain aspects of his ministry's operation, I had hoped to hear more compassion, respect and fairness for all members of society and those that have been impacted by the changes that have been made to the welfare system and the social services system in our province. I had certainly hoped to hear new commitments for combatting poverty or homelessness or even some acknowledgement that much more could and should be done to help Ontario's poorest children.

I had hoped also, rather faint-heartedly perhaps, for some commitment by this minister to put the "fair" back in welfare, because I believe that no such good fortune awaits the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have fallen into Ontario's social safety net only to discover that it does have a big hole in it. Instead of help, these Ontarians get treated to indecipherable catch phrases like "business transformation project," "common purpose procurement" and "consolidated municipal service managers," terms courtesy of the government's very own boondoggle contract with Andersen Consulting, which is costing us certainly up to $180 million.

I say to you, Minister, that when considering that you're dealing with Ontario's neediest citizens, I find it offensive that words such as "clients" and "business-oriented" and "benefits and returns" are among the favourite descriptions used by the ministry.

This is a ministry that is about community-that is, providing services to help those most vulnerable-and I think business is essentially about profit and return, the antithesis to what providing aid is truly about. Your terms may ease your conscience when it comes to the denial about the impact of your policies, but it is disrespectful to those people who turn to their government for help and find a CEO instead of a caring minister who is willing to intervene and help in their time of need.

Instead of help, we have a government led by Mr Harris, who professes that no Ontario child should fall through the cracks, yet who chastises those who suggest that so-called rebate cheques should be directed to agencies that help Ontario's poorest families. We have a Premier who says that many Ontarians needed their rebate cheques to buy clothes and food for their kids, yet who, by the very design of this vote-getting program, has shut out the poorest 1.2 million Ontarians by not making this rebate accessible to them.

I say to the government and to the minister and the Premier that we do need a new partnership in this province, and I believe it starts by leading by example. If I may, I want to look at the example set by this government so far just in the area of social assistance supports.

This government has denied cost-of-living increases to persons on Ontario Works or the Ontario disability support program, despite the absolute clear fact that shelter costs have gone through the roof and despite the fact that the Ministry of Health's public health division has collected data showing unmistakable increases in the cost of food in communities across Ontario over the past five years;

This government has clawed back the national child benefit from social assistance recipients, despite the fact that it is not treated as income for other families;

This government has perpetrated the myth of rampant welfare fraud by imposing harsh, constitutionally questionable provisions, including liens on properties, lifetime bans for those convicted and restrictions on educational savings funds-yet this is a government that cancelled a tax fraud squad even though it found far more rampant and serious examples of tax fraud than anything dreamed up by this government in the area of welfare fraud;

This government speaks about the accountability in the social assistance system, yet refuses to make itself accountable for the irrefutable proof offered by the Ontario Association of Food Banks, community social planning councils, the Ontario Social Safety Network, and many others, that its policies are negatively impacting Ontario's poorest families.

These are but a few of the examples where this government's callous disregard and utter lack of respect for families in need show through and through. I expect through the duration of this estimates review we may be uncovering some more.

To this government I believe it is all about hot buttons and calculated moves. The Premier talks about doing his part for Ontario's children, yet it is his government's policies that have stigmatized and demonized the more than one quarter million children living on social assistance.

The question I ask is, where is the leadership in combating children's poverty? Where is the commitment to eradicate homelessness? Why is program efficiency not linked in your government's eyes to program effectiveness? Why have you tied Andersen Consulting's profit margin to their ability to kick people off Ontario's social assistance programs?

It is pretty clear where this government has drawn the line, and who benefits and who loses when it comes to social policies in this province. It is certainly not the 195,000 clients of the Ontario disability support program who have lost the continuity of staff working on their files under the guise of, I think, a nonsensical and unworkable team approach to case management. I'll look forward to talking about that at a later point. This reminds me very much of the Family Responsibility Office and some of the problems that have happened as a result of that kind of approach. Under this government, many of these same people have been put through the ringer in order to even prove the existence of a disability. In places like Port Hope, Fort Frances and elsewhere, persons with disabilities have lost access to local ODSP offices and services, which I think is wrong. I have certainly been told that a significant number of persons being denied support through the ODSP are being forced to endure horribly long waits before their case is brought before the Social Benefits Tribunal, which I think is inexcusable. I am also told that without advocates-legal aid clinics and various other advocates-many disabled people are simply being turned away, disappearing into the system.

This brings us to what I think is perhaps one of the most ominous omissions from this government's social programs and something completely absent in the estimates we are looking at today, and that is evaluation. I really do want to know, how does this government know where those who have left the system have gone, and why? Where is the evaluation outcome? Where is the unbiased, third party proof that the ministry's policies are, from their perspective, working?

I challenge the members of this government to ask that question of your minister, because there is no indication that this government has made any effort to trace program successes beyond the simplistic hot button sound bites when they announce the cuts to welfare every month, the number of people who have gone off welfare. If the government has undertaken strenuous studies, I would ask that they be provided. I would like to see them. Again, it's certainly not in the estimates of the ministry's budget.

There are many other things that are not in the estimates that we'll be asking about. There is no suggestion as to how the government intends to truly revitalize development services in this province-the minister spoke about it, and we need to do a lot more-or how the province really intends to deal with the fact that we do have a growing crisis in terms of aging parents who care for their developmentally challenged adult children.

We also don't know-I heard the minister talk about it yesterday-how the government intends to deal with the fact that only one in five Ontario children with autism are likely to be treated through the new current funding mechanisms, which have not yet flowed, or that pay equity obligations are threatening the ability of our transfer agent partnerships to provide the level of support and care they need and want to give to their client base, or that child care spending in this province continues to decline despite increasing need.

I want to conclude my prepared comments here by encouraging this minister to remember that society will judge us by how we treat our most vulnerable citizens. I hope, Minister, that you are able to put aside the rhetoric and begin a thoughtful, purposeful and constructive review of your government's approach to community and social services in this province. We need to spend some very serious time here looking at these issues, and I'm glad to have the opportunity.

With that I will close my formal remarks and, if I may, begin asking the minister some questions.

Hon Mr Baird: I'll mark you as undecided on the policies of the ministry.

Mr Gravelle: Let me just ask you a quick question, which is one you may be able to answer quickly. It was one that sort of came up as a result of previous estimates.

How much money is being transferred from your ministry to other ministries, particularly to the Ministry of Health? In other words, are there significant sums of money, or any sums of money, that have been transferred from the Ministry of Community and Social Services to the Ministry of Health, or to any other ministries, that aren't easy to identify, particularly to the Ministry of Health? It was a question that was brought forward to me and I thought I'd ask it of you right off the top.

1620

Hon Mr Baird: Operationally, we have one of our divisions, the integrated services for children, that the deputy minister appoints jointly to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. As for programs, there may be a number of programs in those areas that are jointly administered, but if you're asking whether I am aware of any attempt to holus-bolus transfer funding from one ministry to the other for accounting purposes, I am not familiar with any.

Mr Gravelle: So that has not happened? There hasn't been a transfer of funds, other than-

Hon Mr Baird: I'm not familiar with any.

Mr Gravelle: Let me at the start of this process just bring you back to a question that I've asked you in the House and that my leader, Dalton McGuinty, brought up in the House indeed yesterday. I think as everybody in this room knows, it's been five years since the 21.6% cut in welfare rates, which was essentially the first announcement your government made upon election in 1995. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, shelter costs have gone through the roof. The public health branch of the Ministry of Health has indicated that food costs have gone up dramatically across the province, certainly even more in northern Ontario, where I come from. We know that the use of food banks continues to go up everywhere. Yet there have been no cost-of-living adjustments made in those five years, even after the terrible cuts.

You have said no. You, may I say, gave a rather glib reaction to my question in the House, I thought, in terms of having some fun with it perhaps, which I wish you hadn't. But I appreciate that was your opportunity to do so, and certainly Mr McGuinty asked about it yesterday.

I want to ask you this and tie it into the estimates itself. You say no to a cost-of-living increase despite the reality of the increased costs all around for people who are living on social assistance. Yet the ministry estimates show there has been a 25% increase in the salaries and wages budget for the political staff in your office. The question I have is, how can you justify boosting the staff budget? If you can explain it, I'd appreciate that as well, but how do you justify boosting the staff budget for your own office by 25% when you say no to a modest cost-of-living adjustment for the 300,000 children whose parents are on social assistance?

Hon Mr Baird: The figures in the cost of the political staff reflect two parliamentary assistants; we only have one, so that money won't all be spent. It reflects the fact that we have a minister without portfolio, which is also under the ministry's office expenses, which is somewhat different as well. It also reflects the fact that in this year's estimates I am also the minister responsible for francophone affairs and have additional cabinet responsibilities which require additional resources.

I do think it's reasonable to have a discussion about what welfare rates should be. Our policy as a government has been that we want to keep rates at least 10% higher than the average of the other nine provinces. That's one which we've kept. They are between 11.7% and some 34% above the average of the other nine provinces for Ontario Works, and I think 47% above the average of the other nine provinces for the Ontario disability support program.

That's our position. It's straightforward; it's clear. With the greatest of respect, though, Mr Gravelle, your party's position isn't as clear. Your leader said he will raise welfare rates; then he said he won't. Just last week, you said he will again. Yet in your campaign document, where you costed out the commitments you made to the people of the province of Ontario, you included not a dime to pay for that. So there has to be a degree of commitment that is not there from the Ontario Liberal Party, sir. It is not there.

Mr Gravelle: That's not true.

Hon Mr Baird: Is it your policy, then, in the next general election? Will you commit today on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party to give a full cost-of-living adjustment retroactive to 1995? If it isn't, say so.

Mr Gravelle: Obviously, Minister, this is an opportunity for me to question you. We are committed to a cost-of-living adjustment increase to those on social assistance. Dalton McGuinty has made it clear-

Hon Mr Baird: And in 2003 you'll make it retroactive, sir?

Mr Gravelle: -he is committed to that.

Hon Mr Baird: Dalton McGuinty hasn't made it clear.

Mr Gravelle: Minister, I am questioning you, if I may. I don't think you've in any way explained the 25% increase in your staff. You've made a few references to some of the increase, but that's a pretty massive increase in terms of your costs.

May I say, too, no matter what you say, that you are obviously very conscious of the extraordinarily higher costs in terms of accommodation, shelter costs and food costs; no matter what, you've got to deal with that.

Hon Mr Baird: I agree with Dalton McGuinty.

Mr Gravelle: I just hope you will be considering that. But you still have a 25% increase and your ministry staff costs are pretty massive. You explain it how? By an extra parliamentary assistant?

Hon Mr Baird: No, we don't have an extra parliamentary assistant.

Mr Gravelle: No, you don't, so you're using your staff to-

Hon Mr Baird: What I'm saying is that in the budget, in the estimates, they budgeted for two parliamentary assistants. In fact, we've had a 50% reduction in the number of parliamentary assistants at the ministry.

Mr Gravelle: Let me ask you about the clawback of the national child tax benefit, which-

Hon Mr Baird: I would put on the record that I do support Dalton McGuinty's position on welfare rates. He was very clear that he didn't want to raise welfare rates, and I have a press release to indicate that. I agree with Mr McGuinty when he said it on that occasion.

Mr Gravelle: We certainly hope you will be looking at this, Minister, as an issue. We're going to chase you all the way. We feel very strongly about it.

Let me ask you about the national children's benefit, which you have clawed back from those most in need, which has been pretty much recognized as being a real detriment to helping improve the lives of those who most need it. Give me your quick justification for it and explain how you've used the money in specific terms to help those who are most in need.

Hon Mr Baird: I think that's a fair question. It's an area where I think reasonable people can disagree.

One of the new relationships that we have with the federal government, with the social union undertaken by my predecessor the Honourable Janet Ecker and the former Minister of Human Resources Development, Pierre Pettigrew, in the establishment of new social policy within provincial jurisdiction was to have a collaborative approach. So they worked with all provinces and territories and the federal government on this program.

There was an interest on the provinces' part to be able to have their constitutional jurisdiction recognized in the setting of social policy in this area. One of the challenges and one of the priorities that this government has made, and that a number of governments of all political stripes across the country have made, is to make it more attractive to work. We do so much for those who fall below a certain income level in terms of social assistance, whether it's monetary or drug supports and other benefits, that we don't do enough for those working poor, those folks with low and modest incomes.

That's been an incredible priority of the ministry, and one of the areas where we provide additional support through that is the design of the national child benefit, where those individuals, when they leave social assistance, can now become eligible for a new benefit that they weren't entitled to under their old circumstance, which makes it an advantage and provides additional support to those working poor. That's one of the initiatives, along with the Ontario child care supplement for working families. All of that money that is reduced from welfare benefits is, through public reporting, required to be invested in children's initiatives, and the Ontario government's choice is the Ontario child care supplement for working families. We've not only had the NCB but also the supplement now going to work to provide support to low- and modest-income working Ontarians. We've also taken a good chunk of folks right off the tax rolls to try to recognize the real struggles that modest-income working families have.

I can appreciate reasonable people can disagree on that. That's our public policy choice. Mr Chrétien and the Liberal Party have been very supportive of allowing the provinces to do that. They developed the national child benefit supplement with that in mind, and a good number of provinces across the country have taken a similar approach, though it's not unanimous.

Mr Gravelle: We sure do disagree. I guess that's why, when I hear your opening statement in terms of some of the concerns that you expressed-how they fly in the face of actually how you do treat people who are truly living in poverty and what an extraordinary amount of help that might be for those who are living in poverty. Obviously those who are living in poverty have a more difficult time simply looking after their children, feeding their children, and the benefit could be of extraordinary help to them. So it's a strong disagreement. Obviously two provinces have chosen to not claw it back. I believe Newfoundland and New Brunswick have not clawed it back. So there certainly is a strong belief by a lot of people that that should not be happening.

Let me move on to something else. How much time do I have left?

The Chair: I show you with about 10 minutes, Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: Let me talk to you about Andersen Consulting, if I may. It was obviously an open-ended contract that will net the firm a staggering amount of money. The Provincial Auditor has sharply criticized your government's signing of the contract and has continued to indicate that he has great concerns about it. Indeed, one of the realities is that, although I want to get from you some explanation as to how you think you managed to renegotiate it, you're actually very much stuck with the original part of the agreement. We know there were some extraordinary charges, and I have very real concerns with the directions, some of the decisions that have been made as a result of their advice regardless in terms of the business transformation project. I hope to get to that later.

There's no line item in the estimates that indicates how much this boondoggle is costing taxpayers, so can you tell us how much has been spent this year in terms of paying Andersen Consulting-this fiscal year and last as well?

1630

Hon Mr Baird: The entire figure in terms of what's payable to Andersen Consulting for the original contract is costs not to exceed $180 million. So I want to correct you in your statement that it's an open-ended contract. In fact, it's not. There is a cap, and that's something we maintained.

I've been one who's been very clear in discussions with members on all sides of the House in terms of my feelings on this project. I certainly think early on the project was mismanaged. I've said in the past and I'll say again that I'm not prepared to defend that early mismanagement of the project, but the good news is that over the last two years things have got on track. We've been able to address some of the challenges that faced the project early on, and I think it's going to yield incredible benefits to the taxpayers of this province in terms of effective delivery of the social assistance system.

Mr Gravelle: We already know there wasn't. I mean, we already know that the original amounts of money that were given out to Andersen were totally inappropriate; they were being paid for work they didn't even do.

Hon Mr Baird: What work were they paid for that they didn't do, specifically?

Mr Gravelle: In terms of the actual, precise job they were hired for, ultimately they were being paid in advance, were they not?

Hon Mr Baird: No. What work are you citing that they were paid for that they didn't do?

Mr Gravelle: The auditor expressed real concerns about the fact that they were being paid ultimately for work-I guess one of the real questions too is, ultimately they're reaping benefits from the drop in people from the social assistance rolls, whether or not they're responsible for it.

Hon Mr Baird: No, not at all.

In terms of being able to provide you with a specific answer, you mentioned that the auditor had said that Andersen was being paid for work that they didn't do. If you have a specific example of that, I'd like to respond to it.

Mr Gravelle: I'll come back to that, but I want to just talk to you about the cap issue, if I may. You did send a letter dated-what was the date on it? It was back in April, I think-April 27 to Mr Peters, the Provincial Auditor. There are several parts that I'm obviously interested in.

At one point you talk about, "The cap has been reaffirmed as per the original agreement. Specifically, [the service delivery model] will be implemented within the cap of $180 million," which is what you just said. But then it goes on to say, "Eligible expenditures outside the cap are limited to the terms allowable within the agreement." I'm not a very smart guy maybe, but that just strikes me as a bit of gobbledegook. More specifically, it suggests to me that the expenditures could be just about anything.

I wanted to know if you or your staff could explain to me what exactly that means: "Eligible expenditures outside the cap are limited to the terms allowable within the agreement." That says to me that there is some room there for a lot more expenses.

Hon Mr Baird: Let me give you a specific example. You are wise to make an inquiry there. With the original contract, there were terms describing specifically what type of process we wanted designed, what type of process we wanted built, and what type of process we wanted rolled out. That also included specifically the features of that. If we want to, at the ministry, make changes after the fact, after we've signed the agreement, after we've both agreed to the terms, obviously they would fall outside of the cap.

I'll give you a specific example. With the M. v. H. court decision and the subsequent legislation passed by the Legislative Assembly about same-sex spouses, that's obviously something that was not part of the original social assistance system and can have a potentially significant effect on the design of the technology; it's another field that's got to be added. That had to be added in a whole series of ways with both Ontario Works and the Ontario disability support program. So there's an example of a change which was not contemplated in the initial contract that was added after the fact. That certainly would be in the six figures, not anything greater than that. But there's a specific example. It's almost like if you were getting a new kitchen installed and you decided to get a microwave oven later as opposed to at the outset; you're obviously going to have to pay more than the original estimate.

Mr Gravelle: As you know, the Provincial Auditor has been interested in this contract from the very beginning and has done a follow-up report. There's been lots going on since then. Indeed, there's a certain expectation that the ministry has to further respond to the auditor. Is there another further response to the auditor that you're preparing or have prepared or have sent to him in terms of some of the questions he has?

Hon Mr Baird: The auditor put his original report out in the last Parliament, which you would be familiar with. He put out a subsequent report that I know the member for Nickel Belt would be familiar with. He's indicated on both of those reports he would be coming back with further recommendations. I guess we'll await the public release of his report, which I certainly welcome.

I think the Provincial Auditor is one of the best friends the taxpayers in this province have. He's given us some incredibly good advice. It's been helpful for the ministry. It's been helpful for the government and Management Board in terms of the design of common purpose procurement projects in the future. For me personally, he's been a good source of advice and counsel through his reports and recommendations. I don't think we'll see eye to eye with him on everything, but we certainly have greatly benefited from his advice and counsel, and I think he's done his job with care.

Mr Gravelle: Let me refer back to my earlier comments which you challenged me on. In terms of the auditor's report, this is actually from his report from June 20, 2000, this past June: "The auditor concluded in the 1998 report that the ministry could not demonstrate an auditable business case and therefore provide assurance there was value for money in the agreement. This concern was based on the significant unnecessary payments made to Andersen Consulting, the lack of control over the consultant's rates by the ministry and the significant failure to meet the ... revised project timetable contract." I think that is basically saying money went to them that shouldn't have gone to them.

Further on, he talks about "attribution of benefits." "At issue is whether fees paid to Andersen were correctly attributable to the business transformation project. The Provincial Auditor reported that Andersen was paid $55 million as of July 1999 for benefits from the earlier opportunity initiatives that are not attributable to the project's primary objective of developing and implementing new technology to replace CIMS and to provide the components required to deliver the income support in the Ontario Works program."

Those are two examples, may I say, in response to you saying there was never money given out that shouldn't have been given out. The auditor has suggested it has been. If you want to comment on either one of those-the fact is he was very specific about that. There were unnecessary payments, payments made that weren't attributable to the actual goal of the contract itself. So what's going on?

Hon Mr Baird: I think the statement that I disagreed with and challenged you on was Andersen Consulting being paid for work they didn't do; the initiative, for example, on the early opportunity savings. Here's one issue on which the auditor, the ministry and I have an honest difference of opinion. We believe the early opportunity savings are good. I personally strongly support them. I think the ministry's done an exceptionally good job in that regard.

Looking at the consolidated verification process, the early opportunity initiative you cited, here's an initiative that you would wonder why government, municipalities and the province wouldn't have done years ago. I suspect if they could have done it years ago, they would have; they didn't. So above and beyond all the fraud measures the government has taken, separate from and above and beyond all that, the consolidated verification process has yielded incredible savings to the taxpayers. Through a common purpose procurement arrangement, Andersen Consulting is entitled to one year's worth of savings, or a maximum of one year's worth, and the taxpayers get those savings ad infinitum.

I think it's bringing greater integrity to the process, and I strongly support the consolidated verification process. Obviously Andersen Consulting has undertaken that initiative and that activity with the active support of the ministry and, in this case, the minister. An example of that which I've cited in the past-and I can pull it out for the member for Nickel Belt, but I suspect she doesn't want to see it again-is the gold credit card. Andersen Consulting, on their file-by-file review of all the cases and working with a number of information-sharing agreements that the ministry didn't have in place before they undertook that initiative-

The Chair: Minister, the time has expired. Perhaps it can be picked up in the next round. We now turn to Ms Martel for the third party.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Minister, for being here. Let me just follow up on some of the exchange that just went on. I'm glad to see that Mr Maves is here because he's also a member of the public accounts committee and can confirm the concern we had with Andersen Consulting.

1640

I was interested actually in the contradiction of your statements. On the one hand you said the auditor is probably the best friend that taxpayers have, but on the other hand, when the auditor very clearly pointed out to you in not one but two reports that he firmly believed Andersen was paid for work that had nothing to do with the business transformation project, you tell the committee here today you would disagree with that.

Hon Mr Baird: But the statement was-

Ms Martel: You made it absolutely clear to the committee that this was-

Hon Mr Baird: The statement was "work that they had never done."

Ms Martel: Exactly, work that they had never done that had anything to do with the business transformation project. The auditor made it clear to us that this was work that was being done by your staff, that was already ongoing, that you gave Andersen Consulting credit for and then proceeded to pay them $15.5 million. He said that on more than one occasion during our committee's hearings. You may have a disagreement with him, and I appreciate that I'm sure you do, but this was certainly a point that was reinforced not at one committee meeting but at a number. Regrettably, the auditor repeated his concern not just in his first review of Andersen Consulting but in his second report of December 3, 1999. We look forward to the auditor's report, which I gather is coming November 21, because I know he was going to be looking at the agreement and we'll be interested to see what he thinks of it.

Minister, I want to actually go back to comments you made on Monday in the Legislature. Our leader asked you what I thought was a very important question about the chaos that's going on at the ODSP. He referred to a report that was done by your staff, which I have here. I'm sure you have a copy of it. You said the following: "It's a report we've seen, and we're working on implementing much of the information contained in it. The member opposite will want to be honest with the House and tell people that it's a report from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, a union that I wouldn't characterize as a supporter of the government." This report was based on a survey of staff who work in the ODSP, correct?

Hon Mr Baird: If I could, you characterize it as a staff report. It is not a report of the Ministry of Community and Social Services; it's a report of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which is very different from characterizing it as a staff report. A staff report would lead one to believe it was somehow a corporate document, which it is not.

I think in the Legislature, and then again today, you somehow take offence with my comments about the political activities of the union. These are people who have stormed public meetings, and screamed and yelled and hooted and hollered at meetings that I've had in Nepean-Carleton. I would not characterize an agency which has spent tens of thousands of dollars to try to politically defeat the government-I don't think it's an unfair statement to characterize the union leadership as not being any neutral arbiter of either the facts or the presentation of the same.

Ms Martel: If I might, the question was, this report is based on a survey of staff who work in the ODSP. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Baird: As I understand.

Ms Martel: Twenty-nine local offices participated in the survey, representing all regional offices-

Hon Mr Baird: Twenty-nine union member staff, not offices. It implies it was a corporate activity, Ms Martel, which it's not.

Ms Martel: Are these people who work for you, Minister, the people who work in ODSP?

Hon Mr Baird: These are employees of the ministry.

Ms Martel: OK. These are people who work every day on the front line with the disabled in this province?

Hon Mr Baird: Yes.

Ms Martel: So why would you treat their views with such contempt?

Hon Mr Baird: I think if you look at the transcript of my comments the other day, you will see that I said there are a number of initiatives, concerns and suggestions they brought forth which we looked at, which we are even, in some cases, implementing. I've taken the time and, as I said in the House, visited your leader's constituency. I met with staff in the Kenora office and specifically asked them about their concerns and certainly heard that concern. I've spoken to staff in our London office and in our Ottawa office who have expressed some concern. It's obviously a new program. A new model has been used. I don't think anyone suggested it's perfect or that it can't be improved or built upon.

We have undertaken a business process review beginning last March to examine the delivery model that's been undertaken in the ministry offices with the Ontario disability support program. The objectives were to develop and implement an approach to service delivery that would ensure consistency and efficiency in service delivery, in business practices, in office organization and staff workload.

Ms Martel: Minister, if I might, I'm going to get to that. I've got the comments in front of me, and I was in the House. The inference clearly was that the report had no value because it was done by OPSEU.

Hon Mr Baird: That's your inference.

Ms Martel: I was there, and I'm looking at your comments which-

Hon Mr Baird: I would say it's not a neutral third party report.

Ms Martel: Minister, it was done based on a survey of your staff. I've got copies of the questions that were sent which staff were asked to respond to. Are you saying they responded to something differently, that they didn't respond to those questions, that OPSEU made this up?

Hon Mr Baird: No.

Ms Martel: Why do you express such disdain with respect to what the results have been and the fact that the report was even done? That's clearly the perception that came across.

Hon Mr Baird: My point is, and I repeat again, I don't think it's an independent third party report, as your leader was trying to present it in the House. I took issue with it. I disagreed with him. Reasonable people can disagree. I guess that's an example of it.

Ms Martel: Minister, I asked you in my response why it was that you did not want to meet with Bob Eaton. In fact, I suggested that he had called your office just after this report had been released and asked for a meeting and was turned down flat.

There was an exchange between you and I in the House after the question was over, so I called Mr Eaton again and Mr Eaton confirmed that just days after this report was completed, which was in July, he called your EA, Mr Dykstra. He asked for a meeting and said, "Our folks are having a heck of a time delivering a program we know is inferior." And he says, again today, that Mr Dykstra's response was that under no circumstances would he advise you, the minister, to meet with Eaton to resolve service delivery problems. Dykstra said this is a labour relations issue and suggested the deputy minister should deal with it.

It seems to me your front-line staff are so concerned about what is happening and they are so concerned about their ability or inability to deliver services to the disabled that they wanted to talk to you directly about that. Why would you not do that, especially when this is a signature piece of your government?

Hon Mr Baird: I think the inference that was presented in the Legislative Assembly was that I would not meet with staff within the ministry, when I regularly do. I've gone out of my way on a number of occasions to talk to folks who work in the ODSP office to get their thoughts and their opinions, and that was contrary to the presentation of the facts as had been made in the assembly.

As far as going ad nauseam, at great lengths, through staff relations with a particular employee, I don't think it's appropriate that we do it at a legislative committee.

Ms Martel: Minister, if I might, I didn't make an allegation; I made a statement. The statement was that the staff who deal with this program are so concerned that they wanted to meet with you directly about it and they were turned down.

Hon Mr Baird: Bob Eaton doesn't work with this program.

Ms Martel: He represents those folks. He made it clear that the staff wanted to meet. He saw your comments that said you have no objections whatsoever to meeting with staff to learn their views, so he called Mr Dykstra again on Monday to ask for a meeting and he hasn't heard back.

So I'm asking you, given this is allegedly a signature piece of your government, given that there clearly are problems here, are you prepared to meet with your front-line staff who work at the ODSP to hear what they have to say about this program?

Hon Mr Baird: I regularly meet with front-line staff in the ministry. Again, I'm not going to go on at great length in terms of discussing a particular staff member and our relations with same.

Ms Martel: Minister, OK. Can you tell me how many ODSP offices there are in the province now?

Hon Mr Baird: It's 79. I said 50 to 100, and it's 79. So I was close.

Ms Martel: Can you tell me how many have been closed in the last year?

Hon Mr Baird: I'd have to check and get back to you.

Ms Martel: My next question is, do you have plans to close more offices in the next year?

Hon Mr Baird: I think, in terms of the management of the program, I wouldn't rule it out. Is there a corporate decision that I've taken to go around closing offices? No. I think it's always a challenge in providing services in a ministry like the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which affects virtually every community. Obviously, we're not present in every community.

Your leader has raised concerns within his own constituency about issues, which were presented in the usual fashion in which that member presents the facts, that I think was not fair. I don't think there's any thought-for example, I think he brought up a concern about an office in Fort Frances-that we would expect the disabled in Fort Frances to make their way to Kenora to get service. I don't think there's ever been that statement. I think that suggestion was probably a leap.

Ms Martel: Well, Minister, if I might-

Hon Mr Baird: We don't necessarily have a field office in every single community in the province of Ontario.

Ms Martel: But you had a field office in Fort Frances and you recently closed it.

Hon Mr Baird: It hasn't been closed. You're wrong.

Ms Martel: You've announced that it's going to be closed.

Hon Mr Baird: No.

Ms Martel: And clients have gotten letters in the mail stating that.

1650

Hon Mr Baird: There was a case, there was one individual staff member, which I can get the information on.

The ministry's local office in Fort Frances in fact has not been closed. There remains a full-time income support specialist, a probation officer and a vacant client service representative position located at that site. The income support specialist continues to be available for service to the public five days a week during the ministry core hours. As the result of a client service representative contract expiry on October 20, case management responsibilities have been temporarily relocated to the Kenora local office. This provides greater access for all clients in the Kenora and Rainy River areas, as there is a larger pool of client service representative staff available to respond to client needs. Notice was sent to clients on October 17 advising them of these temporary changes.

To support the income support specialist in providing customer service, the following has been put in place: the voice mail in the office has been changed to say that clients can call the 1-800 number in Kenora to speak to a client service representative who has been dedicated to that caseload. They can leave items in a drop box that will be collected and sent to Kenora on a regular basis and they can mail that in to Kenora themselves or can access the northern development and mines office in Fort Frances to have items faxed or photocopied.

Ms Martel: For the client who used to come in the door and get service from your customer service representative-

Hon Mr Baird: We'll come to them.

Ms Martel: You'll come to them? You're going to drive to them in Atikokan?

Hon Mr Baird: There's a thought that in the Fort Frances issue, which you raised, an individual could work out of Kenora for three weeks a month and then Fort Frances one week, by appointment. Not all the services require in-person meetings. We can schedule appointments and be able to reach those people who are far away geographically or, through a disability, are unable to make it into the office.

Ms Martel: The Fort Frances office was already serving people within a radius of 150 kilometres. They come in from Atikokan, Rainy River; so it was already serving a huge geographic area. People who used to go and get front-line service now have an option of getting on the telephone or, if they want to talk to a real, live body in person, they have to go to Kenora, right?

Hon Mr Baird: There has never been a suggestion that anyone has to go to Kenora.

Ms Martel: Where do they go to get front-line service?

Hon Mr Baird: If they need front-line service, we can make an appointment and come to Fort Frances and provide the service.

Ms Martel: But you just finished saying that your customer service is gone and cases are temporarily reassigned to Kenora.

Hon Mr Baird: I will give you a more specific response from Jessica Hill, our assistant deputy minister of program management.

Ms Jessica Hill: The situation is that if people would like an appointment, there will be client service representatives visiting the Fort Frances office based on scheduled appointments. This approach to delivering the program is not one that is restricted to Fort Frances. Many of our ODSP offices have moved from less of a drop-in situation to more of an appointment basis. It actually satisfies many customers because they aren't coming into the office and having to wait for service. They can set the appointment in advance.

Ms Martel: You said that they would be there one week in every month?

Hon Mr Baird: That was an example.

Ms Hill: I'd actually have to get the specific schedule for you.

Ms Martel: Forgive me, but how is that providing timely service to clients in need? You just said that they can come into the office right now and they might have to wait. Well, at least they can come into the office and wait today-

Hon Mr Baird: Give me an example of a service.

Ms Martel: If they want to come in and make an application to ODSP, they could do that now. You're saying to them that they can make an appointment and they can meet with someone and, "We'll send someone from the Kenora office to do that, but it might be one week in every month." I'm trying to figure out how that's providing timely and adequate service to people.

Ms Hill: Actually, the majority of clients on ODSP are clients who have been with the program for a number of years. It's true that there are new clients, and the first point of contact would be the 1-800 line. If there was some urgency in terms of processing an application form, I believe the office would make every effort to ensure that a client service representative could meet with them as quickly as possible.

One of the reasons this was done, quite on a practical level, was the ending of a contract. However, one of the benefits has been that there are a number of other communities that currently have service this way and it has worked satisfactorily. One of them is Elliot Lake, and there are other examples of where this service is delivered this way.

Ms Martel: People in Elliot Lake travel to where? Sudbury?

Ms Hill: I'm not sure. I'd have to get back to you.

Ms Martel: I'd like to know the kilometres, because the drive to Kenora and to Fort Frances is going to be almost 300 kilometres.

Ms Hill: From?

Ms Martel: From Kenora to Fort Frances, it's going to be almost 300 kilometres one way. Right?

Ms Hill: But for whom? If the client service representative-

Ms Martel: No. You're trying to send staff there who are going to support that office.

Ms Hill: Right, on a periodic basis.

Ms Martel: That's going to be a major requirement for some staff person.

Ms Hill: That's right. But there are many communities-

Hon Mr Baird: It's a major effort, but we're happy to provide service for the disabled. That's our responsibility. That's our job, which we do with great pride.

Ms Martel: And if you would actually keep the person in Fort Frances, you'd probably provide a better service, right? Because you're saying to me that there's going to be appointments and people shouldn't worry. I'm wondering about the timeliness of their being able to respond to serious issues. I don't believe it's the job of the staff of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to be delivering the service on your behalf; they've got enough to do. It seems to me that if you were interested in providing front-line appropriate service, you'd either have a new position in that office or continue to fill the contract.

Hon Mr Baird: One contract just expired, so I think it's more an operational issue currently.

Ms Hill: Currently, but I think what might be helpful is if we provide some information about how this service model has worked for other communities.

Ms Martel: Can I ask, in June 1998, when ODSP opened, were all of the offices at full complement when the program began?

Ms Hill: I would have to get back to you.

Hon Mr Baird: I don't think any new program would be at a full complement on day one. We will get back to you with a specific answer, but I can't imagine that any program on day one is operating at a full complement.

Ms Martel: OK. Let me ask a few more questions like that, then. Can you tell me right now what is the permanent staff complement for ODSP?

Ms Hill: I don't have the figure. I'd have to get back to you about what the permanent complement is.

Ms Martel: OK. Could you tell me how that permanent complement now might relate to the staff complement that was in place when the program opened in 1998?

Ms Hill: I'll have to get back to you with the specific figures.

Ms Martel: Let me tell you why I'm going down this road. Let me tell you-

Hon Mr Baird: I can tell you there's no cost-saving initiative corporately, in terms of the minister, to try and say "Let's reduce staff in the ODSP office."

Ms Martel: No. My problem is, was there enough staff there at the beginning to make the program work effectively? That's why I want to start from whether or not when this program began it was staffed adequately. Because one of the things I did-and we can disagree about the report from OPSEU-is take a look at the complaints. I have serious concerns about whether or not the staff who are in place are able to meet their work which is, I think, what they want to do. So I'd like to know if, when the program opened, it was fully staffed. All right?

Second, what's the staff complement now? I'd like to see the difference between the June 1998 figures and what we have now, permanent staff.

Ms Hill: OK.

Ms Martel: Then I'd like to know how many temporary staff are working in the ODSP offices now, and I'd like to know how many permanent staff vacancies are open right now.

Minister, so you'll know why I'm going here, I'm concerned that some regional offices are managing their constraints by not filling these vacancies and that is why we are seeing problems in the ODSP offices. My concern comes not only from what I read in the OPSEU report, but frankly we continue to have a large number of cases in our office as well. It doesn't go away. It just goes up and down in terms of sheer numbers. We have a very good working relationship with our ODSP office. So it's not a staff problem; it's a problem of volume and whether there's enough staff to deal with it.

1700

Hon Mr Baird: It's a new program.

Ms Martel: I understand that.

Hon Mr Baird: I wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that I'm here or that anyone from the ministry is here to say that it's a perfect program and we're operating at 100%. It's a new program. I think it's been very successful. If anything, we're a victim of our success. It has been very well subscribed. It provides good supports to people with disabilities. Like any new program of this size, a $2-billion-plus program, it's in the first two years and it's not going to be all smooth sailing, but I think the staff have done a pretty good job in the program.

As an MPP-not just in the 18 months, but in the last two or three years-generally speaking, we've got good service. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Would we suggest anything other than that? No.

Ms Martel: I have a couple more questions about staffing. How many offices are using temporary agency staff to fill in, and how many offices would be using unclassified staff to fill in? There is a difference between those two categories of which you are aware.

It would be helpful if you could provide a breakdown of the ODSP offices, office by office, in terms of the temporary and permanent staff vacancies. I'd like to see if it's in a particular region, because that would either support or negate my concern that a regional office is not funding these positions or not filling these positions because they're managing under constraints.

I want to go back to the ministry's response. This would be follow-up that you did with respect to ODSP. It's very clear from this document that you're going to maintain the team concept, case management approach. I want to ask you why you're doing that, Minister, because in the review that was done, biased or not-we have our differences of opinion about that-clearly there was an overwhelming recognition that the team concept of dealing with cases was not working. Some of the comments about that were pretty clear: "utter chaos," "no tracking," "no clear responsibility for tasks," "no accountability," "confusing to clients," "too much duplication," "no one knows what the other is doing," "tried it but too many mistakes."

Am I clear then to assume that this is a concept that you're going to continue in these offices?

Hon Mr Baird: I take issue with "utter chaos." I've visited our offices in various parts of the province. "Utter chaos" is extreme rhetoric. Are there improvements required? Can we do a better job? Do we recognize that in this new program there are enhancements that can be made by working with our front-line staff? Do we want to listen? Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. But I take issue with the crisis. I think it goes further.

We've done an in-depth workload analysis of the delivery of the program. That has been undertaken. As a result, significant design improvements in terms of the organizational design will take place just this fall, beginning this fall. I think if there are enhancements we can make to the program to see how it works, we'll do that and we'll obviously evaluate their success.

Are we prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater? No. Reasonable people, I suppose, will disagree. We are reorganizing our staff into smaller teams, which we hope will enhance the accountability and the customer service. We believe that this will also address some of the concerns raised by staff and the union with regard to the operation of the program.

Like every initiative, we'll make what we see as enhancements and we'll see what the result is and want to monitor closely. I don't think anyone is pretending that this new $2-billion-plus program is being perfectly run and that we can't do a better job. I think we've always got to be open to listening to new ideas and suggestions. But at the first sign of concern we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

Ms Martel: Minister, if I might, the phrase "utter chaos" did not come from me; it came from your staff. So if you take exception to it, you'll have to take that up with them, I guess. Maybe you could in a meeting with them, if you agree to it.

But the point is, overwhelmingly, if you look at the results that came back, the number one concern had to do with this team approach-

Hon Mr Baird: I've heard that myself.

Ms Martel: -and whether or not it's smaller is not going to resolve the issue.

I raise this concern because we had the same problem at the Family Responsibility Office, and when the auditor did his audit last year, he made it very clear that that kind of concept did not work, did not work for clients, particularly, and did not work for staff.

I'm wondering why you want to go down that road when your staff are trying to tell you very clearly, "This is not working, not for us, and not for the clients we're trying to serve." Why do that?

Hon Mr Baird: I've heard the concerns myself. I heard them in Kenora when I talked to some of our staff there. I heard them in London last year when I spoke with some of our staff there. Clearly there is not unanimity on that. I think, though, that when concerns come forward, even serious concerns, to just say, "Listen, we're going to scrap the whole program and go back to the old way," suggests that a case-based approach is a perfect solution in and of itself, and it is not. There are significant problems as well with having assigned caseloads if someone is unavailable, if someone is on vacation, if someone is sick. We did hear a lot of concerns about that and want to seek design and service improvements.

Are we hell-bent on change at all costs? No. We've implemented a great new program. It's doing great things across the province. I think we're doing a pretty good job implementing it. Some concerns have been expressed. We have some concerns. We're looking at some enhancements to try to deliver the program better. We'll watch those. Some of them are just being undertaken this fall, and we will see what the results are. I don't think anyone is married to a particular approach. We're trying a new way. Every time you do something new, obviously there will be room for improvement, and no one denies that or suggests otherwise.

Ms Martel: Do the enhancements include adding more staff?

Ms Hill: Not currently.

Hon Mr Baird: Not currently, but that's not something I would rule out in the future. I don't know if there is any area within government anywhere in the last 50 years in which you would say, "If we just hired more staff, everything would be hunky-dory." We have to strike a reasonable balance. I strongly believe-and I don't apologize for this-that we have to try to put every single dollar we possibly can into the final product, whether it's services for autistic children, services for the disabled, services for people with a developmental disability, services for people who find themselves in financial difficulty. We want the administrative cost to be as low as possible. We could probably provide better customer service if we doubled the budget on administration, but I don't agree with that.

Ms Martel: I am asking specifically about the ODSP. Let me get back to it. Is this a growth program?

Hon Mr Baird: Definitely. The bottom is going up. It's a very popular program.

Ms Martel: The program is going up and you're not going to hire new staff. What's the growth factor?

Hon Mr Baird: Are we going to state that we won't hire any new staff if the program grows because it's so popular? No.

Ms Martel: What's the ministry's estimate of the growth, then, Minister?

Hon Mr Baird: Some 2% to 4%.

Ms Martel: Every year?

Hon Mr Baird: Is that fair? Two per cent.

Ms Martel: Every year, is that right?

Hon Mr Baird: That's the estimate. It's been much more oversubscribed than we would have anticipated in the first years because it's such a great program. We've done such a great job in terms of helping people with disabilities.

Ms Martel: You ought to talk to some of my constituents because they've got a whole different view.

Hon Mr Baird: It's not perfect.

Ms Martel: Your own front-line staff have a different view. I know you don't want to hear that, but that is a fact.

Hon Mr Baird: I talk to a lot of folks who think the program is pretty good. Is it perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. But I talk to a lot of folks who are pretty-

Ms Martel: Do you have some problems? Yes. I'm trying to figure out what your staffing complement is going to be and whether or not you're going to meet it. It's not only a question of adding new staff, are you going to fill in the temporary vacancies and the permanent vacancies that you have now? That's why I want those numbers, because I think it would be very interesting to see how many people aren't working in the program now who probably should be.

Hon Mr Baird: Certainly at the regional level we do all we can to recruit.

The Chair: Thank you. Hopefully we can continue this line in the next questioning. Now to the government side.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I wasn't going to say much at the beginning of this. My colleagues beside me have some questions they wanted to ask but because of my presence on the public accounts committee, I was implicated to be a corroborative witness to Ms Martel's charges earlier on. I thought I would take the initial few minutes, as a member of the public accounts committee, to answer some of the charges she made and a couple of other issues I'd heard.

1710

The ODSP offices, some of which have been consolidated-I lost one in my own riding of Niagara Falls. Before it closed, I received concerns, mostly from the employees who worked there but also from some of their clients. Since it's closed, I haven't received one phone call from either staff or clients. That may change after I've made that statement today. Ms Martel may get on the phone quickly, but that is the case.

There's another statement I'd like to make. I know if the minister met with Mr Eaton every time he asked, he'd probably be the only person you ever met within the ministry, and I know there are other opinions you value. You've been unfairly criticized for not meeting with some particular front-line staff. In my own experience, I've been with you on several occasions when you have met with front-line staff and asked both management and union officials to leave the room so that you could have an open and clear dialogue with front-line staff. You've done that on many occasions, only a few of which were with me. You actually deserve to be commended for the efforts you've taken to that end. I don't think there are enough people who do that.

More to the point, I want to talk about some of the charges brought forward by Ms Martel and her attempt to enlist me as a corroborative witness on the BTP.

Ms Martel: It was a unanimous report out of public accounts, Bart.

Mr Maves: It's good that you say that because all the recommendations were answered by the ministry and yourself. I want to note that the contract was something you, as the minister, inherited, and you also inherited the Provincial Auditor's report.

Ms Martel talked about Andersen getting some benefit payments for things they didn't do. I recall at the time the consolidated verification process being mentioned by the ministry as something that Andersen actually developed a whole software program for. In fact, people they identified through that software program as inappropriately receiving benefits were receiving benefits from two or three different places at the same time. That was deleted from the system, and those were savings. Those were attributed to Andersen and it was appropriate. At the time of our hearings, that contribution by Andersen of a software program for that purpose was unknown by the auditor, so that was something that came up during public accounts that is important to note.

The Provincial Auditor also said it wasn't clear that the business case was done at the outset of the contract. I think you have acknowledged that and said that was the case, but since that time, a business case has been completed. I can't remember the firm that completed the business case. Ms Ewart may remember.

Ms Bonnie Ewart: It was the firm of Hickling, Lewis and Brod.

Mr Maves: That's right. I recall that they determined there was a robust business case for the contract that ended up being signed with Andersen and the project they were undertaking, and at one point they identified, when the project was in full completion, $200 million a year in net benefits to the province of Ontario. That could change a little bit. If we continue our tremendous performance on moving people from welfare to work, some of that benefit may decline, but that's a good reason to have a decline, by having people at work.

Furthermore, of the charges made across the way, the Provincial Auditor did talk about savings being attributed perhaps to Andersen that weren't there. I think the Provincial Auditor's case was that there are people leaving welfare perhaps because of a robust economy. With this government's excellent stewardship of the economy and the booming economy we have experienced in the past five years, so many people are leaving welfare for work. Was Andersen being inappropriately attributed with the welfare decline there and therefore receiving money from the benefits pool? In actual fact that also has been taken care of by the ministry, as all of those people who lose welfare for reasons such as a booming economy and getting into work, which had nothing to do with the Andersen project and the early savings opportunities you identified, do not get attributed to the business transformation project. I think I'm not misspeaking on this. That's probably the understanding.

Hon Mr Baird: Right.

Mr Maves: The Provincial Auditor said at the time that he was concerned about-and the members opposite talked about-unchecked escalating rates charged by Andersen. I think at the time when you inherited the contract, you were similarly concerned, but I also recall, during our public accounts hearings, your sending a letter to the Provincial Auditor and the committee saying that you had renegotiated that contract and in fact reduced the rates, as well as putting a check on their escalation.

Hon Mr Baird: Indeed, we reduced it by 39.5%, retroactive to January 1 of the year.

Mr Maves: Thank you very much.

Two more things: there was a concern-

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Chairman, I believe I should be able to hear Mr Maves. Could he speak a little louder? I can hear the minister.

Mr Maves: Sure.

Two more things on this. Again, there was a concern the ministry wasn't charging all of its own costs to the benefit pool. I'm not sure if it was Mr Gravelle or Ms Martel who brought that forward. I also think that has been taken care of. We have a system in place. That was brought up during public accounts, that there is indeed a system in place to ensure that all of the ministry's costs are appropriately billed to the benefits pool. Is that not correct?

Hon Mr Baird: That is correct.

Mr Maves: Lastly, there was some concern that there wasn't a senior manager in place. One of the very first things he identified was he thought there should be a senior manager in place to oversee the project. I also believe that's been put in place.

Hon Mr Baird: We now have an assistant deputy minister dedicated to the project. It has the active attention of the deputy and the minister and of senior management within the ministry.

It had been a difficult project early on, but I think as the project has matured, as we move into the final phase of it, it's going to yield great results for the taxpayers. It's going to be a difficult journey that's well worth taking, not just with respect to the province but with respect to municipalities and with respect to those people who turn to government for income support and, in addition, to those people who pay the freight, to ensure that only those folks who are eligible for social assistance are receiving it.

We have 30-year-old technology at the ministry. Sometimes we almost have to go to archaeologists to find people who even know how to write the programs for some of these machines, to scour the province and do head-hunting to find people who have retired who can come back and do some basic programming for things like data conversion. If it was easy, governments before us would have done it. In fact, the thing that's most interesting is the previous government, which correctly recognized the need to change the way we do business-I think had they been re-elected they probably would have gone along the same road.

Would it have been easier to do nothing, like in the past 10 or 15 years? Yes, it would have been. Would it have been the right thing to do? No. I think we've done a reasonably good job over the last year or two in terms of getting the project on track. I think the benefits are going to be significant for the taxpayers. If you think of the savings that will take place in terms of the effective delivery of the program and ensuring that only those people who the people of Ontario, through their elected representatives, deem eligible for social assistance are receiving it, the benefits will be fantastic. There will be more money available to provide services for those most vulnerable in the province, whether it be a young child with autism or whether it be an adult with a disability.

Mr Maves: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Hello, Minister. Good to have you here.

Hon Mr Baird: Thank you.

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, statements were being made in the House today on violence against women, and this is an issue that has captured my attention for many years.

You probably are not aware of it, but five years ago I got involved in putting together a report for the then minister of women's issues, the Honourable Dianne Cunningham. In Kitchener we had a committee of many people looking at this. We had a doctor at St Mary's hospital, a psychologist at St Mary's hospital, we had a nurse, we a police officer, we had the executive director of the multicultural community, we had a couple of victims-there were about 11 or 12 people in total. When we started out, we didn't know how far it was going to go. We actually expanded the report to include spousal abuse, not just against women but some against men, because there are a few cases of that. Over the course of the 11 or 12 months that it took to complete the study, while we found that there were a couple of instances in which the women had not been abused like they said they were but were counselled to say they were-there were only a couple. There were a great many women who had been abused, some seriously. Unfortunately, a sizable percentage of them were in the ethnocultural community. We made some recommendations and the minister adopted some of them in her report.

1720

In Kitchener, we have a counselling centre. While it's called the Catholic Family Counselling Centre, it is a non-denominational professional counselling agency. You, through your ministry, gave them a capital grant this year of $150,000 in order to build new facilities. The centre offers a variety of services to children, adults and families, not just within Kitchener but the entire region of Waterloo. They do receive funding from your ministry for services related to violence-against-women programming.

They've been helping children in the region since 1952, so for almost 50 years. In 1999, the agency provided individual, marital, family and group therapy or treatment services to over 8,000 community members. In so far as violence against women is concerned, it provides counselling, it provides education as well as groups for men, women and children who have experienced childhood sexual abuse.

It has an annual operating budget of $1.5 million. Its diversified funding base includes the United Way, your ministry, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Solicitor General, correctional services, as well as the Catholic Diocese of Hamilton and miscellaneous other revenue sources. Your ministry provides $125,000 in ongoing operating subsidy for this centre.

The new facility that has just been completed and just opened will increase their total space from about 4,700-and-change square feet to 18,000 square feet. The counselling offices will increase from 11 to 28 and of course they now have parking for 61 spaces; previously they only had parking for 20. They'll have one large group room, three small group rooms and they added volunteer and student work areas. They have accessibility now to include the handicapped, for wheelchairs.

I want to say that I think you have exhibited a great deal of foresight in granting funding, both from the operational standpoint and also from the capital standpoint, for this agency. I say all this because I have a great deal of interest in the agency. I used to serve on the board of directors, but of course I had to resign when I got elected because I, of course, want to lobby on their behalf for more money. You're not allowed to do that if you're a member of the board.

I do want to comment that this issue is prominent not just here, not just in my riding of Kitchener, but it's a prominent issue throughout Ontario. I abhor violence against women; I cannot tolerate it. I've noticed that you've increased the funding this year, according to the estimates on page 73, from $70.5 million to $81.6 million, an increase of 15.7%. I think everyone on the committee will agree that this money is very important, but I was wondering if you could tell me how the money will be used.

Hon Mr Baird: This initiative was announced as part of the budget. It was one that the ministry put forward in the pre-budget exercise to address two separate issues, but obviously it shared the same fundamental concern; the root cause was the same. One was $5 million to provide more support for transitional supports to women who are in shelters and who need supports to transition themselves back into life in the community. This support will give about $50,000 to many agencies, or one worker-to many agencies, depending on the size; there may be a small variance-to provide additional supports to help women get their lives and the lives of their families back on track after they've escaped violence. It's one in which I didn't need to be convinced that more could be done, and certainly our colleagues strongly supported the issue.

The second one was with respect to the children who are victims of violence and/or the witnesses of violence, in many cases both. In the Legislature earlier today, our colleague Helen Johns, the minister responsible for women's issues, spoke of the terrible tragedies of children who are the witnesses to this violence and the effect it can have not just in the short term, but even in more disturbing terms in the long term. I think of the examples that she gave of young boys growing up to be men and somehow believing that it's acceptable behaviour to engage in domestic abuse, as almost something they learned at home; or conversely, a young girl getting any sort of indication or receiving any sort of message that this is normal or acceptable.

If we can do more to address those issues at the early stages I think it'll be an incredibly important investment to stop what too often has been and is and continues to be a cycle of violence. So those two initiatives were included in the budget. Over the summer we took the time to meet with women's organizations, including the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, the second-stage representatives and a good number of representatives of women's groups from around the province, in two separate consultations, to get their advice, to get their thoughts, to get their suggestions and to be mindful of that in the development of both programs.

It's a good initiative. It brings to a record amount the support and funding that we provide toward domestic violence in the ministry, which I'm proud of. It's more than $10 million, more than was provided even five or six years ago. It demonstrates the commitment that we bring to this issue.

I don't think anyone though suggests for a moment that what we're doing alone in the ministry is enough. We can do more within our own ministry, as a government, as a society, as governments at all levels. One of the challenges is balancing off prevention, dealing with the victims, supports and services, dealing with crises, dealing with the health challenge, dealing with the legal challenge in terms of our colleague the Attorney General in terms of the domestic violence courts, the legal response, the development of attitudes in the community which clearly demonstrate that this type of behaviour is not acceptable and it's criminal and it'll be treated as such.

Too often over the past 25, 35 or 50 years this has been a problem which people don't want to discuss, they don't want to talk about. It's one in which often governments and communities and people in communities have turned their back and not paid as much attention as they should. Changing attitudes are incredibly important in our society on this issue.

Mr Wettlaufer: We had a report distributed to us in the Legislature today indicating that 43 women had died as a result of spousal abuse or general violence against women since the May-Iles report. I was just wondering if you have any numbers as to whether this has been a dramatic increase, or is it a decrease? If you don't have those numbers, it's all right. It's just something that I'm wondering.

Hon Mr Baird: I don't have the specific numbers in terms of the rates, the ultimate victimization I guess, of someone dying. I can say that one of the concerns we have in this area is how much domestic violence goes on in communities around the province that we don't know about, that isn't reported to police. It isn't reported, it doesn't show up on the radar screen. That's something that causes us all concern. It's much the same, for example, when we talk about child abuse or rates for children's aid societies; the children coming into care have increased by 40%. We don't know if that's because there are 40% more children being abused or whether, through more resources and through more powerful laws and procedures, we are able to catch it. But it is obviously a growing concern not just for the government and for me and our ministry, but it's a growing concern for people in our communities, right across the province, that more can and has to be done in this area.

1730

Mr Wettlaufer: One of the things that came up during the study that we did five years ago, both in consultation with the crown attorney's office as well as with the police officer on the committee, was that as more and more people were becoming educated on this issue and realizing that there was less tolerance for it, there were, in fact, more reported cases than before and they felt that it wasn't as a result of there being an increased incidence of it, just more education. So you could be right on that one.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Mr Minister, I wondered what performance standards you have for service to the ODSP clients.

Hon Mr Baird: In terms of their entry into the system, we have a number. It's not an easy process in terms of an individual getting the assessment they need to determine and validate a disability.

We have set, in terms of the performance measure, in terms of the adjudication, six to eight weeks. It's one with which I was concerned when I was first elected; the former program was taking as much as two years. Our standard is to realize it within six to eight weeks. It's one, with new cases, we are meeting now, which is good. But we have been looking at, two years into the program, what reforms we can bring in to help provide better service in terms of whether it's a medical form that the doctor has to fill out-the doctor has to fill it out so that it's clear, so we can get better advice and better information to assist that process. I think we've got to do more. I think we've got to get more resources on the Social Benefits Tribunal. The huge number of cases that have come forward-the applications have been much more significant through the disability adjudication unit-have been much greater than anyone would have anticipated. So we're looking at more resources and more members for that to ensure that we can get the length of time it takes for someone to get an appeal reduced, because I'm not satisfied with it. I think we've got to do a lot better job and that's something that has our attention.

Mr Wood: What about performance standards? How long does it take to answer the phone when you phone? Do you have any standards like that?

Hon Mr Baird: Yes, the OPS has standards like that and I would refer to our deputy.

Mr John Fleming: There are standards on that. I can't recall them precisely at this moment, but they have to do with the number of rings by which, on average, telephones are answered. But in addition to that, given the modern world of voicemail, there are also standards set across the Ontario Public Service for how quickly voicemail messages are returned by the person for whom they are left. In addition, where people encounter voicemail and wish to speak to a live person and press zero to be transferred, there are government-wide standards as to how many times such calls can be transferred. In other words, we have standards that avoid people being trapped in what's commonly called "voicemail jail" so that if you desire to get out of voicemail, you can in, I believe, one step or two reach a living person. Those are the standards that apply across the Ontario Public Service.

Mr Wood: We've heard the standard bandied about that you have an answer within three rings and you're not referred more than once. Does that seem a reasonable standard for this ministry?

Mr Fleming: I believe it's a reasonable standard. I believe it's a similar level of standard that would apply in most private business operations.

Hon Mr Baird: With the Ontario disability support program and the 1-800 number, there were substantial concerns raised by some members of the Legislature on this issue. Before question period every day for about a month, I would make three calls to test how quickly they would respond. I was getting pretty good success. I stopped getting the question, so-

Mr Wood: What's the time period that elapses from the time of an application to the Social Benefits Tribunal until an appeal is finally dealt with?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Baird: They didn't believe me when I told them the minister was calling. They didn't believe me.

Mr Wood: Minister, did you hear the question?

Hon Mr Baird: No; I apologize.

Mr Wood: What's the timeline that elapses, on average, between the lodging of an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal and the final disposition of that appeal? What's the average time that's taken?

Hon Mr Baird: I think it would be up to six months.

Mr Wood: Do you find that an acceptable time period?

Hon Mr Baird: No; it's completely unacceptable. I'm not prepared to defend it. I think we've got to do a much better job than that. We're prepared to put more resources into the tribunal. The chair made that case, and I'm one who did not have to be convinced. I think, as well, we've got to have more members on the tribunal to be able to make those determinations on a more timely basis.

I'm not prepared to defend it; I think we've got to do a better job. That's one of which I don't need to be convinced, and one that has our active attention.

Mr Wood: What do you see as a reasonable time period, on average?

Hon Mr Baird: I think, on appeal, two or three months would be a good benchmark for us to go to at the outset. A lot of it has to do with the factors that lead to the appeal in the first place, not just how we deal with the appeals once they've taken place. That's why with the medical evaluations we want to work with physicians and others who can make these determinations to make sure it's crystal clear, that it's as simple as possible for them to make accurate assessments that will support a case.

Mr Wood: What mechanisms do you have in place to determine whether or not your performance standards are being met?

Hon Mr Baird: Within the disability adjudication unit or the SARB?

Mr Wood: Both.

Hon Mr Baird: Both?

Mr Wood: I'm sorry to ask all these tough questions. The opposition questions were so easy, I thought I'd better be a little tougher on you.

Hon Mr Baird: I followed Mr Wood as the parliamentary assistant to the Chair of Management Board, where we worked on performance measures.

Ms Hill: We monitor, through the provincial services branch, which manages the disability adjudication unit, all of the performance standards, including the volume of mail, how quickly we respond, phone calls, the length of time to adjudicate, which is currently at seven weeks. All of that data is managed in the provincial services branch.

In the management support branch in the ministry, we monitor other performance standards in our programs: whether we're implementing in a timely manner and whether we're meeting the standards we've set for the program. Then we take corrective action through our regional offices.

Mr Wood: What steps are you taking as a ministry to reduce red tape within your ministry?

Hon Mr Baird: We work very closely with the Red Tape Commission.

Mr Wood: That is a very wise first step. Perhaps you could share with us the other steps you're taking in that area. What sort of advice are you getting from the commission, and what follow-up are you doing on it?

Hon Mr Baird: Always good advice. I think we can constantly look at our processes in terms of our delivery of services. One of the things we've done, for example-I'll talk about services for children. We've tried to take a more integrated approach in the delivery of services to children, and we've tried to stop parents from having to sit down and tell their story four, five and six times. They can go in and tell their story once.

The example of that would be through the Making Services Work for People initiative, where we've tried to have central assessment and provide better services. There could be a tremendous challenge for a family having to go through all the hoops for a child with a multiple or dual diagnosis. So integrated services for children, our Making Services Work for People initiative and developmental services-I think we've come a long way. We've got a lot of new agencies around the province that are starting out to help make that early assessment. In Brantford we have Contact Brant, which just opened recently. In Niagara region we have Contact Niagara, which just opened up recently.

Those are a few examples of where we're trying to reduce the type of hoops that parents have had to go through in the past in terms of getting services for their children.

1740

Mr Wood: Do you have an overall plan to try to reduce red tape in the ministry?

Hon Mr Baird: An overall plan, centrally? No.

Mr Wood: Do you think-

The Chair: Mr Wood, I'm sorry; your time has expired. However, the minister may be able to oblige you because we now turn to the minister's response time. The minister has 30 minutes to respond to the concerns raised by the various members of the committee.

Hon Mr Baird: Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

To finish the point, within government there has to be a willingness to evaluate and hold yourself to a higher standard in the delivery of service to those we are there to serve and the taxpayers who pay the freight. A big example of that is the business transformation project, where we're trying to make it a streamlined system that gets help to people who need it in the most efficient way possible-serves them, and the taxpayers who pay the freight, well. I think we're going to be able to save, administratively, up to $200 million a year once the project is fully completed and realized and provide better services to the public in a more efficient way. Using technology is extremely important to that. I think we can do a better job. The business transformation project is one example.

You can also look at a number of other social policy areas. When we look at the provision of children's mental health services, how can we use new communication technologies to better provide supports to young children with a mental health problem in northern Ontario or in rural Ontario? I attended the Children's Mental Health Ontario convention in Sudbury in September, and I got a lot of positive feedback on the telepsychiatry initiative the ministry has taken as one of the initiatives which is part of the $20 million in expansion of children's mental health funding. Through telecommunication links, a service provider in rural Ontario could make contact with the Hospital for Sick Children and go to an expert in terms of a child's particular diagnosis and be able to get supports for that child. It's an area where I think we can expand service and do a better job and do it cost-effectively.

Our challenge as a ministry is to constantly look at those standards, both in terms of service to the people we work for and the taxpayers who pay the freight. There's always room for improvement; if anyone suggested there isn't, that should probably be treated with some skepticism.

I wanted to finish my comments in terms of talking about developmental disabilities and developmental services. The employment supports area of the ministry, through the Ontario disability support program, has been an area where we've doubled funding in terms of the budget line and are expanding that, over the last couple of years and over the next year or two, to try to provide more employment supports to people with disabilities. This is something we're proud of.

In addition, with respect to funding, retrofits for group homes and changes to the fire code brought in by the Ontario Fire Marshal has been an area where we've provided $7 million in new funding this year to be able to help our transfer partner agencies around the province to be able to meet those new standards.

This is a personal concern of mine, in terms of having to strike a balance between the safety of the residents of a group home and, at the same time, balancing off that it is a community living centre. We're all troubled by the thought that-at some point, I fear that the fire marshal is going to say, "We have to have fluorescent orange backlit exit signs in residents' bedrooms." That's not community living. We've got to be very mindful that we don't re-institutionalize people when they move into the community. That has been an area which has caused me and a good number of others in that sector concern, so it's one that we're working on.

The government has been there to provide additional resources to help agencies around the province deal with this challenge, which is through no fault of management and is not through service volumes; it's just new regulation which, in some cases, is very well justified and meaningful. But we are mindful of that and are watching it very closely, because we don't want to see the re-institutionalization and the erosion of what community living is.

Labour issues are of concern within the developmental services sector. This is a sector with some agencies having a particularly high turnover among their staff. I have met, on a number of occasions, with representatives of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and heard this concern. I've heard it from the agencies themselves, the boards of directors and the agency heads. For the first time in almost 10 years, we provided an increase for staffing of $6 million, rising to $15 million next year. That's a very small amount, but it's a recognition that we acknowledge this is a challenge and it is a concern. Some of the agencies have turnovers of as much as 40% and the strong economy is making it a real challenge to be able to recruit and retain qualified staff.

This is not an easy job in the developmental services sector. On a partisan level we may have debates in terms of the compensation of folks in the public sector, but this is not an area with which anyone gets involved for the money. For the people who work in the developmental services sector on the ground in our agencies and in the ministry in terms of the provision of direct, front-line services, it's more a vocation than it is a job and it's certainly a labour of love for many of the folks who work in that area. That's something we're mindful of. We did put new money on the table this year, growing to $15 million next year. I don't think anyone would suggest that solves the problem but I think it's a tangible example where the ministry has recognized that it is a real concern.

Respite care is something that I strongly believe in and support, and not just for people with a developmental disability or with a disability in general, whether they be an adult or a child. It is particularly important to them and to their families. We announced $17 million last year and began to roll that out: $7 million for in-home respite care for children with a disability who are medically fragile or technologically dependent, and we were able to further announce at the Ottawa-Carleton children's treatment centre earlier this fall $10 million for out-of-home respite care. This, in a budget of $7.5 billion, seems relatively modest, but it is absolutely astonishing when you see the benefits it can have to families in terms of their ability to cope. I don't think any one of us knows how we would deal with the challenge of having a family member, a loved one, who required such a high level of care. We certainly want to do more to support families in providing that love and care to their family members, in this case to children. Respite care is obviously something where I think we get a tremendous bang for our buck in terms of support that makes it easier for people to cope.

One area where we've begun to consult, particularly in terms of reforming our developmental services sector, is the future of the three institutions. The ministry has three remaining institutions: in Cedar Springs just outside of Blenheim in southwestern Ontario; just outside of Smiths Falls at the Rideau Regional Centre adjacent to my constituency; and just north of Toronto, in Orillia, we have the Huronia Regional Centre. These are the last three institutions that remain for people with a developmental disability in the province of Ontario.

The last five governments, representing three political parties, have strongly supported moving to community living. The ministry had a community living expansion strategy that expired this past March where we were able to move a significant number of people into community living environments. Certainly the reports I've heard to date are that it has been quite successful.

There has been a lot of concern and maybe misunderstanding in some quarters. The experience maybe in the 1960s and 1970s with psychiatric patients in community living certainly gave a lot of concern and perhaps could have been done better. The ministry goes to great lengths to work with individuals and their families on providing the link, the support, for moving from an institution into the community. It's one area on which we're starting to consult over the past month or two to get people's ideas and views and suggestions on what we should do with the remaining three institutions in the province. Obviously, we strongly support community living. We're not admitting any new residents into these three facilities. We're looking at what the future will be for those three institutions, for the individuals and their families and also importantly for the staff members who work there.

We do have a challenge, being the last three institutions, that many of the residents there are particularly challenged. There are a lot who have high needs, whether they be behavioural or in terms of a medical need, often with a dual diagnosis. We've got to be mindful of that consideration when we move. But just about all the research that has been done at the ministry, through the University of Toronto a number of years back, which I have had the chance to review, virtually all of the advocates and all the people who work in the sector suggest that there is a substantially higher quality of life for individuals when they live in the community.

1750

There is a significant amount of apprehension among some of the families whose individuals continue to remain in the institutions. We try to be mindful of that fear and that concern they express and we'll certainly take the time to reflect on that in the future. That is something on which we're beginning to consult. I have had discussions with colleagues in the government caucus and with Mr Gravelle and Ms Churley in the Liberal and New Democratic parties. I'm getting their ideas and suggestions because I certainly believe it's a non-partisan issue. It's one of the few issues I can look at in any area of government that has survived the last four or five governments. All parties have strongly supported community living, provided obviously that supports are there in the community. Community living can't take place and shouldn't take place unless there are enough supports there in the community to accommodate that, and that's something we're looking at.

I'm very pleased with the relationship we've been able to build with the developmental services sector. It's one that has been strained under all governments, but we have a tremendously positive working relationship with our transfer partner agencies around the province, whether they be providing residential supports or other supports to people with a developmental disability. The ministry, through our nine regional offices, has good and improving relations with this sector.

We'd like to begin to look at what sort of plan we can develop for the future in terms of providing services for people with developmental disabilities, of supporting community living and ensuring that the right mix of supports are there, being mindful of the needs of aging parents, of young adults leaving the school system, and then the supports to families whether they be through respite care or through other community supports; as well, employment supports. Many individuals with a developmental disability can work, and there's an area where government can't do it all alone. There have been a number of corporations which have done a good job in terms of providing employment opportunities for individuals with a developmental disability across the province. That's been the feedback I've heard from this sector: what can we as a government do to reach out to the corporate sector and reach out to non-profit agencies around the province, to look at what sort of responsibilities we all collectively have to provide a place for every member of our society, in this case people with a developmental disability, people who are our friends, our neighbours and our family members?

That's an area in terms of developmental services reform. We increased funding this year by $50 million, bringing it to approximately $965 million. That's a record in the province of Ontario and that builds on the $35-million increase last year announced by my predecessor, the Honourable Janet Ecker. This is an area in which we believe there's a strong role for government to play. We may have differences of opinion depending on our ideological and political persuasion about the role of government, but certainly in this area there's a strong role for government to play in helping to provide supports for some of the most vulnerable people in the province. That's one we embrace and recognize as an important responsibility.

I am mindful as well in terms of the power of this sector. The business community or the teachers' unions have a terrific amount of power to be able to contribute to political debate. This is not a sector which has enjoyed that type of power. I think those of us in government, whether in the legislative or the executive branch, have got to be mindful of that in terms of compensating for that. That voice may not be the loudest at times but it's every bit as important. That's one which I take very personally in terms of supporting people with a developmental disability and policy toward that.

The biggest area within the ministry is the social assistance branch and the provision and delivery of welfare and supports through the Ontario disability support program. We had a bit of a discussion about that earlier on. We're very proud of the Ontario disability support program. We think it's been a big success. There is a lot of room for improvement, as there is with every government program, particularly coming out of the first two years. But it has been a good program, it is a good program, and we're tremendously proud. I believe the staff have done a fantastic job in the development of the program and working with the disabled community and advocates in that sector, people with experience in developing the program and in terms of managing the rollout of it. The reform is not complete. There is still more we can do in employment supports and more we can do in ensuring there is good customer service. But for a program that is two and a half years old, I think the staff in the ministry can take great pride in the effective delivery of the program and be mindful that there is always more we can do in this area.

The same is the case in Ontario Works. This is a top priority of the government in terms of reforming our welfare system. Five years ago our welfare system was letting a lot of good people down. In my travels around the province this past summer I took the opportunity to visit 17 of our consolidated municipal service managers, 17 municipalities which are delivering welfare. In each of the 17, I tried to take the opportunity to meet with the county warden or the councillors who work on the committee, who deal with it, the senior management team, and to take time to talk to the caseworkers on the ground who are delivering the program. I found wherever I went a lot of support; not unanimous support, but a lot of support for the programs they were able to provide, good supports, and I've provided a number of examples.

I visited Parry Sound and one caseworker told me how she's seen first-hand the difference this program has been able to provide to the people who are down on their luck and need a hand up. That's been incredibly positive.

One of the fundamental premises of the program is that you've got to do something in exchange for your welfare cheque. If you have a mandatory requirement, you are required to do something in exchange for that cheque. We exempt single parents with preschool-aged children, we exempt a small number of seniors who are on the caseload, and people can get a temporary deferment if they have an extenuating circumstance, whether it's a short-term medical problem, a bereavement or some other issue. But for those with mandatory requirements, there is the view that you've got to be involved in one or more of the activities under Ontario's workfare program. That can involve everything from taking part in employment support.

I visited Kitchener-Waterloo and they have a six-week program they operate to get people ready to look for a job, to interview for a job, to get the job and, most important, to keep the job. So there are some who will have to participate in a program like that. They have to take a basic education initiative, which might be English as a second language, doing a high school equivalency, taking some job skills, whether it's learning how to drive a forklift, getting some other specialized training, which is generally in the short term, or taking a community placement where people can get on-the-job experience.

That's been a particular success. Last year we had just over 30,000 people involved in community placement under Ontario Works, which is the workfare placement in the public sector. This has been a program which I was an early supporter of, and I appreciated the value of someone getting some experience, getting something they could put on their next job application, getting that all-important job reference.

I talked to one participant in Goderich who told me she was a single mother, a stay-at-home mom for a number of years and now has been out of the workforce for 15 years. She said the most daunting problem she had whenever she got a job application form was, "Recent experience, nil; references, nil." That is something we're very mindful of.

The Chair: I'm just checking to see if we have a vote. I think it's simply the House recessing. So we are also adjourned. Thank you, Minister, and thank you, committee members.

The committee adjourned at 1758.