MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

CONTENTS

Tuesday 14 November 2000

Ministry of Community and Social Services
Hon John Baird, Minister of Community and Social Services
Mr John Fleming, deputy minister
Ms Cynthia Lees, assistant deputy minister, integrated services for children
Ms Jessica Hill, assistant deputy minister, program management division
Ms Bonnie Ewart, assistant deputy minister, 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)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North / -Nord L)
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River ND)

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim
Ms Susan Sourial

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

The committee met at 1534 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

The Vice-Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Could we start the estimates. When we adjourned the last time, Minister, you had about 12 minutes left on your rebuttal. After that, we will do the rotation of 20 minutes, starting with the official opposition. Are you ready, Minister?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Yes. Thank you ver much, Mr Chair. Just in terms of the response, I was continuing to discuss initiatives and policy responsibilities within the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Today I thought I would talk a little bit about Ontario Works, which is obviously one of the most important programs the ministry offers. It's one of the two largest programs, together with the Ontario disability support program. We provide a whole series of supports under the Ontario Works program to help people realize the dignity that comes with a job and the pride that comes with independence.

There's a whole series of employment supports that are offered under the Ontario Works program designed to give people the tools and supports they need to be in a position to look for a job, to be in a position to obtain employment and, probably most important, to be successful and to maintain that employment in the future.

We provide just over $40 million to support child care, Ontario Works child care, specifically designed for the Ontario Works program, although parents can access a good number of other supports within our child care system. It's interesting to note that it increased in the 1998-99 year, and with the welfare caseload declines, which have been unprecedented, we have the same amount of money to support a smaller number of cases. So the dollar-caseload ratio has certainly come down, which means we're able to provide services to a higher percentage of the caseload than it otherwise might have been in the past.

What we want to ensure, though, is that Ontario Works child care support goes to people who need it, and I will use an example, if I could. If someone is taking a two-days-a-week course, training or job skills, we're not going to be offering five-days-a-week child care, 40-hours-a-week child care, if they just need it for those two days. We've implemented measures to ensure that those resources are used wisely and well and as effectively as possible.

We also have supports ranging from basic education-someone wanting to get a high school equivalency. This can be particularly important for people with English as a second language. In your home community of Toronto or in mine of Ottawa-Carleton, that is an important support. Job skills training: someone could, for example, get the skills and the certificate necessary to drive a forklift. Things of that nature are obviously important.

We also have a number of other initiatives. One of the centrepieces has been placements, Ontario Works placements, be they in the public sector as community placements or in the private sector as employment placements. Community placements and employment placements are a particular priority for me. One of the things I've learned as I've travelled around the province is that it's awfully difficult for someone to get a job-and it was pointed out to me probably most vividly by a participant I had the opportunity to meet and speak with in Goderich, Ontario. She had accepted a placement at a local non-profit agency. She told me how difficult it was to look for a job. I said, "Can you give me an example? Explain this to me." She said that every time she got a job application, the first question after her name was "recent experience," and this woman hadn't been in the labour force for 15 years. She was a stay-at-home mom, had become a single parent and had been disconnected from the labour force for some time. She hadn't participated in the labour force for 15 years and didn't have any recent experience, which was a huge barrier for her. Of course, with that, she didn't have any recent references. She said to me that she had references but, 15 years after the fact, they had all died. So it can be incredibly important to someone to get some experience and to get that all-important reference for their next job application. Whether it's a part-time job or a full-time job, that's particularly important.

One thing I perhaps didn't appreciate 18 months ago when I first came to the ministry was the bigger effects; most directly I would say self-esteem. Being in economically trying circumstances, someone can question their self-worth and their value and whether they can compete in the labour market and in our society. Self-esteem and self-confidence are huge barriers that Ontario Works case workers in communities right across the province have identified to me as substantial problems. A placement is obviously where someone can get some skills and experience.

In my own office we've had six or seven placements, and in the overwhelming number of cases it's been a very positive experience. We've felt in the office that we've been able to provide an opportunity for someone, to give them some skills and some experience. You can see the self-esteem, and you realize that if someone has been out of the labour force or hasn't participated in it at all, basic skills that you learn in your first job-showing up for work on time etc-are important skills that people can learn. I've seen a huge difference in people as their time expires. Again, I think the overwhelming majority of the folks we've had in our office have been able to move into paid employment, in some cases at first part-time and then moving to full-time employment. So they're particularly important.

1540

We do have an Ontario Works placement capacity in the private sector through employment placements. That's basically the same type of thing with obviously a different set of rules and regulations in terms of someone's participation in that as it's in the for-profit sector.

There is a range of other supports that we provide in Ontario Works, whether they be a back-to-school clothing allowance for parents to provide for their children; there is a whole host of tax credits which are offered above and beyond the basic welfare cheque in terms of basic dental coverage and emergency coverage for children particularly, which is important.

We also have two initiatives: the earn-back initiative and the STEP initiative. The STEP initiative existed under the previous government and has been modified to some extent. What it does is allow people on welfare to keep a percentage of their earnings, which is an encouragement, an incentive for someone to get a part-time job. Most people I've talked to at some point in their lives started work, started in the labour force, with a part-time job, and that can be an incredibly important confidence builder and can get some experience for someone, as well as helping them supplement their welfare cheque. That program existed before. It's been modified somewhat by the government.

There is another initiative that we implemented back in October 1995, what I call the earn-back program, where someone on social assistance can earn back the difference between the new rate and the old rate. As you recall, welfare rates were realigned by 21.6% in October 1995, and that was announced I believe on July 16 or July 23, 1995. That initiative has been a pretty big success. I think people would be surprised to learn that in excess of 25% of the caseload, about 60,000 participants in Ontario Works, have a part-time job and are earning a part-time cheque to help supplement their welfare cheque. This is an important support that allows them the ability to move from welfare to work and that I believe has been one of the contributing factors to the success of the program. Those are some of the supports we provide under Ontario Works.

The Ontario disability support program is really the companion sister program to Ontario Works in terms of the social assistance sphere. It's an income support program for people with disabilities. It's a new program. It has received accolades, and at times perhaps a few justified growing pains, but it's a program with which we're particularly pleased. It has gotten a lot of good feedback and, in addition, feedback where there's room for improvement. But it is more a long-term program whereas welfare is a short-term program of last resort. It's not meant to be a way of life, whereas the Ontario disability support program is envisaged to provide more perhaps long-term supports.

We've gotten rid of the label "permanently unemployable," which is something that just about everyone in the disability community found offensive, and tried to provide supports. What we want to do there is to give people the confidence, which will build over time, I believe, that they can take a job and go off the system and have the ability to get back on in very short order. That's something important. Particularly people who suffer from a mental illness or a psychiatric condition need to have that ability to go into work and to come off work. We're in the course of doubling the employment supports budget on the program to provide more supports to people with disabilities, whether it be a developmental disability or a physical disability, through a whole host of our partners.

That's a quick summary of the Ontario disability support program. It's a new program. We're particularly pleased. We think it's a good program and we'll continue to work to improve it.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Minister. Now we will start the rotation. Mr Gravelle, 20 minutes.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): If I may, Minister, I would like to actually ask you a question related to the mandatory drug testing program that you announced this morning. I don't think you answered my questions directly this afternoon in the House, so I thought I'd give you an opportunity to do so.

As you know, the human rights commissioner, Mr Norton, has ruled that there can be no discrimination based on people having addictions. In fact, I think that's a very important point in terms of your plan to move forward. How do you respond to that? Do you not think that every Ontarian has a right to protection under the Ontario Human Rights Code?

Hon Mr Baird: Obviously, in the design of the initiative what we did announce wasn't the program, as you stated, but our intention to go out and consult publicly, as we have committed to do, over the next four to six weeks on the development of the program. We have a commitment that we'll honour to implement a mandatory drug treatment program for those on welfare who are addicted to drugs.

One of the challenges we'll have, as we've had with just about all of our welfare reforms, is to deal with the legal consequences of that. Just about all of our welfare reforms have been challenged at one point or another in the courts, and I suspect this will be no different. The Ontario human rights commissioner, as you mentioned, has expressed some concern about the concept. Of course he hasn't seen the policy, because it hasn't been developed. I communicated with him when he initially wrote us last year and I spoke with him this week and indicated not just our willingness but our desire to work with him and certainly to attempt to address his concerns and the concerns of his commission or his staff in the development of the initiative. That follows as part of his mandate.

Mr Gravelle: How do you see that working? The commissioner wrote this new directive in terms of a legal ruling that came in place, and how do you see it working? You cannot discriminate based on people's addictions. Therefore, by obviously imposing mandatory drug testing, which is indeed your intention-you're not hiding that fact-how can you do that when it's clear that this would be something where you would be treating certain citizens in our province ultimately differently than other citizens? In other words, are you saying they shouldn't have the same protections?

Hon Mr Baird: To be fair, I think the commissioner in his letter to me on this issue has used words like "it appears" and "it may." We haven't developed the policy yet. We'll be working with him in the development of the policy, and we'll see where it goes.

If we had put up our hands and surrendered every time someone threatened court action, we wouldn't have accomplished all that we have accomplished in welfare reform. We aren't just willing but are open and want to work with him and his office in the development of the program. That's why we've committed to consult and that's why we want to consult, and frankly that's why we need to consult, to make sure we develop a good program. But I'll be the first to admit there's no guarantee that we'll satisfy his thoughts.

Mr Gravelle: Are you prepared to incur legal costs? This is obviously an issue that could also go to court, as it has in other jurisdictions. Obviously there have been legal decisions made. I cited the case in Michigan specifically this afternoon.

Hon Mr Baird: No. With the case in Michigan, which will be ruled on later this month, if I'm not mistaken, it was about two or two and a half months after the policy was implemented that the courts intervened. I think that was a universal chemical screening, which is not something that we're considering.

Mr Gravelle: Is it not fair to say, though, that if you were truly serious about helping people who have addictions and have drug-induced problems, that you would be prepared to fund properly the agencies that are there to help people deal with this problem? Certainly when I talked to a couple of organizations today after your announcement, it was made clear that a lot of the addiction treatment centres have not received an increase in their base funding, some over the last six years, some over the last 10 years. They do not have the resources to deal with the people who are coming forward voluntarily. They do that. It strikes me, and perhaps this is where we will differ, that providing that kind of funding, let alone providing enough appropriate child care, employment supports and cost-of-living adjustments, those are the areas where you might be able to help people.

Hon Mr Baird: One of the challenges in the health care budget has been that just seven years ago the federal government was paying 18 cents on the dollar for health care. That was the Brian Mulroney way: 18 cents on the dollar with a $40-billion deficit. We now have a $20-billion surplus and Jean Chrétien is giving I think 10 cents on the dollar, and after this health accord it will be 12 or 13 cents on the dollar. If Mr Chrétien would show the same commitment to health care that Brian Mulroney did, that would obviously be a good start in terms of addressing capacity issues under the existing mandate.

I'm under no illusions that there will be new funds and additional resources required to support treatment. I think the Ministry of Health spends in the order of $96 million on 160 agencies. I don't know whether I'd want to commit that we'd use those 160 agencies. They obviously have a lot of expertise there. We'll want to get some advice on some of that and that obviously may be one of the vehicles which we explore, but if someone says, "You can't make this work without more support for treatment," I agree.

1550

Mr Gravelle: How many people on social assistance have a drug abuse problem?

Hon Mr Baird: It's difficult, I suppose, in dealing with any black market economy issue. People don't readily acknowledge their participation in the black market. You can't do a survey or run a computer check on whether someone purchases narcotics, whether someone is buying or consuming heroin. They don't normally readily admit to it. The best estimates we've been able to gather are it's between 3% and 10% of the caseload. For a lot of people, if they've lost their job because of a drug addiction, welfare is their last step.

One of the really scary challenges in this whole process is that if someone is addicted, for example, to heroin, which was one of the examples cited to me earlier today, that habit could be costing them between $100 and $800 a day according to the Metro Toronto drug squad, which I had an opportunity to meet with. Someone is having to seek supplementary sources of revenue to help feed that habit. In some cases, the welfare cheque could be as little as 5% or 10% of the income.

Mr Gravelle: You're focusing on such a very small percentage of people with problems. As I pointed out, the general population has these same problems. It strikes me you should feel at least a little bit badly about the fact that you could leave the impression that there's a large number of people out there and that it's rampant. The fact is, and I'm sure your people will back it up and I'm sure you know this, Minister, the vast majority of people who have drug abuse problems have alcohol abuse problems. That's the vast majority and any addiction treatment centre will know that. By focusing on the very small minority, it strikes me that what you're doing is trying to perpetrate a myth that it's a much larger problem than it is. I think that is part of the politics of what's happening here, that you're getting tough on a situation when what is needed is more assistance.

Hon Mr Baird: I'd be pleased to have a political discussion with you on that initiative. Mr McGuinty was very clear during last year's election campaign. He did not come out against this policy. I can give you two quotes where they said either that they support it or the Liberal Party supports half of it. If you want to have a political discussion, we can have that. If Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party came out with a clear policy and were consistent on it, you might be better armed to have that debate, that discussion.

I can appreciate that reasonable people will disagree, but in the marketplace of ideas, as elected officials and politicians, we come up with policies, present them to the electorate, have a debate about that, and certainly Mr McGuinty's views on this issue were clear before the vote, and they're changing that now.

Mr Gravelle: We are having that debate now. The truth is that we obviously think there are ways you can be far more supportive in helping people in this situation rather than a mandatory drug program, which truly-I heard a reporter ask you a question: "What do you say to somebody who's a 25-year-old single mother and is being told she needs to get tested for drugs before she can receive any assistance, and she's in a desperate situation?" I think we can all be asked that question. The truth is we just think there's a way to do it that's actually a lot more productive than basically setting up this mandatory drug testing, which may indeed be illegal, which clearly at this stage appears to be contravening the Human Rights Code.

Hon Mr Baird: I'll take you up on your offer. If you've got other ideas or suggestions on how we can better help that 25-year-old single mother of a child who's a heroin addict, if you've got other ideas-

Mr Gravelle: No, I am talking about a woman who is not a drug abuser at all, but is being told she must take this test or she won't receive funding. That's what I'm talking about-

Hon Mr Baird: We haven't designed the program-

Mr Gravelle: -and that's what you're setting up. You're setting up a scenario where you have a person who's in a difficult situation, and what do you do? You tell them they have to take a test to see if they're on drugs before you give them money, any assistance at all. That is the scenario you're setting up as of this morning and I think that's pretty alarming.

If we can move on, I asked you last time, Minister, about the salaries and wages at your office, your political staff, and they have gone up by about 25% higher than last year. Can you tell me more specifically what the staff increases have been? You explained them in a rather brief fashion. I'm just curious about that.

Hon Mr Baird: I have some-just give me one moment.

Mr Gravelle: You can table it later if you wish.

Hon Mr Baird: I will get the information for you, and perhaps I could discuss it tomorrow.

Mr Gravelle: It just does bring to mind-as far as I'm concerned, it seems to me that you are basically saying one thing and doing the other by ultimately increasing the costs in your office but not even considering the possibility of a cost-of-living adjustment for people. It bothers me enormously.

Hon Mr Baird: I think there was an issue with what was spent in previous years and has it gone up by 25%. We will get you that information, and we can have that discussion tomorrow. I apologize. I thought I had it, but it is not the information I requested.

Mr Gravelle: Let me move on to the Social Benefits Tribunal. During the last session we had before the break, you responded to a question from a government member about the lengthy wait for cases being heard at the Social Benefits Tribunal. I think you said you were going to put more resources into the tribunal to bring the waiting list down to three months.

The estimates on page 3 show that you've cut the resources to the Social Benefits Tribunal. You chopped it by $1.7 million in 2000-01. That seems to conflict with what you said at the session a week or so ago.

Why would you cut resources to the Social Benefits Tribunal when clearly the waiting lists are enormous? We know that people are waiting until well into next year before they get a hearing. Obviously we know what impact that has on people. We are hearing that August 2001 is when some cases will be heard.

Hon Mr Baird: You're hearing 18 months?

Mr Gravelle: No. This is November.

Hon Mr Baird: Sorry. That's certainly longer than the ones with which I'm familiar. I think the issue there is that there just doesn't seem to be-first I believe the number of representatives on the tribunal should be increased.

Mr Gravelle: But will that happen?

Hon Mr Baird: It is something we are working on now. You'll see a few things on that issue in short order. It is one that has had my attention.

Two, there has been a challenge administratively. One or two members of the tribunal were on sick leave for a year. There was a problem in terms of the nature of someone who's acting in a quasi-judicial function at arm's length from the government in terms of our ability to watch that. Obviously that was a concern.

Three, in terms of the number of appointees, one of the things we'd like to get into a process and be better at it is that if someone is going to be leaving the board, for example in three months, if we could perhaps get an appointee identified three months before that, the legislative process could go forward so that any training could go forward. I believe there's a process where new board members shadow an existing board member to learn how to do the job so that the instant that tribunal member leaves, someone will be able to start-

Mr Gravelle: But that doesn't explain why the funding has gone down. The 1998-99 actual was $6.1 million, it's $5.7 in 1999-2000, and the estimates for 2000-01 are just over $4 million. That's a real reduction. It doesn't suggest you're actually going to be putting more resources into it. Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Baird: It is something we are looking at putting more resources into as we prepare for the upcoming budget cycle, both in terms of members of the tribunal and in terms of resources. It is not one of which I need to be convinced.

Mr Gravelle: What is the timing we can expect here? This is an unconscionable delay for people who are obviously in a pretty perilous position. The delay right now is enormous, and you're saying you're going to cut it. What is the timetable you can commit to in terms of-

Hon Mr Baird: For additional appointees, which is a more immediate concern, I think you'll see something in short order. With respect to money, we will go through our budget process. It is an issue that has been identified to me. I agree there have got to be more resources placed there to get those time lines down to a more reasonable level, and obviously, the Minister of Finance normally presents his budget in late April or early May.

1600

Mr Gravelle: In the few minutes I have left on this part, I want to ask you about Andersen Consulting and some of the related spending on that. On the last legislative day prior to constituency week, public accounts indicated that you wrote a cheque to Andersen Consulting for $60.5 million in fiscal year 1999-2000. How do you justify that? How many people were kicked off social assistance in order for that cheque to be written to Andersen?

Hon Mr Baird: We kicked off a number of people. In particular we kicked off one individual who had a gold credit card and was paying off monthly bills in excess of his monthly benefits.

Mr Gravelle: You sound like Ronald Reagan. There you go again.

Hon Mr Baird: We do kick people off welfare if they're not eligible, sir.

Mr Gravelle: In terms of Andersen Consulting, $60.5 million is a lot of money.

Hon Mr Baird: The consolidated verification process has identified a lot of people who were entitled to collect social assistance, and-

Mr Gravelle: And their goal is to reduce the people on Ontario Works and to basically, well, you know-

Hon Mr Baird: That's not the goal.

Mr Gravelle: You've tied their profit margin to their ability to do that.

Hon Mr Baird: That's not their goal. Their goal is to ensure there is integrity of the system, that if someone is on Ontario Works, if someone is in receipt of an Ontario Works cheque, they are indeed eligible for an Ontario Works cheque.

Mr Gravelle: Which means you've now got this business transformation project and basically the business maze in terms of ODSP which we have some real concerns about, obviously, let alone the new call centres which there are great concerns about as well, and I hope to have more time to talk about that in the future.

It seems to me that basically what you have done is tied the business of denying support to those who need it most to the profit aspirations of a private company.

Hon Mr Baird: No, you're wrong. We're not tying the need for support to someone who's vulnerable to the needs of a private company. If someone is on social assistance, if someone is on Ontario Works and they are in receipt of an Ontario Works cheque, there are certain criteria they are required to meet to be eligible. If you own 10 cars, you're not eligible. If we find someone with 10 cars, they're not eligible.

Through the measure of the consolidated verification process, they're going through on a case-by-case basis to identify people who are no longer eligible. What happened, basically, is that between 1985 and 1990 there were so many reforms to the welfare system that were so generous that when the economy in Ontario grew, the welfare caseload grew. The more jobs that were created in Ontario, the more people went on welfare, and in 1990-91 when the recession hit, the caseworkers were overwhelmed. We're talking 400 cases per person-

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Can the minister give him a chance to ask a question. I think he's satisfied.

Mr Gravelle: That is not the answer-it's about the answer I expected.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I'd like at least to get two questions on the record; the minister may not be able to answer them today.

On page 55, it talks about the home and vehicle modification program, a new program that was initiated. My understanding is that there is a real backlog as far as applications are concerned. I don't really need the answer today, because I want to get another question on the record before we run out of time-

The Vice-Chair: You've got one minute.

Mr Peters: If you could provide me with the status of the home and vehicle modification program-where it's at, how much money is going to be invested for 2000-01 and maybe a general idea of the backlog-I'd appreciate that.

Hon Mr Baird: To answer your question, what we're going to get for 2000-01 is, of course, in the document in front of you. We have identified that there are obviously incredible pressures there, and the ministry did increase the support this year in the order of $600,000 to provide more.

I think there is an expectations issue here. This program was expanded in terms of identifying and helping people be independent, whether it was for employment-related reasons or not, from the former vocational rehabilitation services. It's a new program. I think it would be dishonest to suggest it's ever going to be in a position to universally provide and meet all the demands. I don't think that was the intention or that that was ever stated. It was meant to be a measure of support to help people with home and vehicle modifications, administered through the Ontario March of Dimes in their London office. We've identified the need to put more resources in. I'm not going to come to you as the Minister of Community and Social Services and say the program is going to meet all the needs, because it's not.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Martel.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Minister, just out of curiosity, how many people have lost their social assistance because they had a gold credit card?

Hon Mr Baird: I'd have to check. That was one example-a good example.

Ms Martel: I'd like to know how many.

Hon Mr Baird: I think there was one. But it's the best example.

Ms Martel: How many social assistance recipients have lost their benefits generally because of a conviction involving a credit card, never mind a gold card, just a credit card?

Hon Mr Baird: Could you repeat the question?

Ms Martel: How many people would have lost their social assistance because of fraud related to them having a credit card when they were on assistance-not even a gold card, just a credit card?

Hon Mr Baird: No one. You're allowed to have a credit card. There's no prohibition to your having a credit card.

I think people try to characterize the consolidated verification process as some American multinational company coming in here and haphazardly kicking people off to make money on the system, and that is not the case. The case is, they're going through and using a number of instruments-and obviously the government didn't have the capacity to do it or would have done it years ago-to bring in some new measures to confirm people's eligibility.

Of particular note, what I'm particularly proud of is their work with private sector credit agencies, where they're able for the first time to identify people's credit. If they're paying credit in excess of their benefits, that's obviously a concern. I used that gold credit card as an example to try to combat the misinformation being spread.

Ms Martel: I do have questions about Andersen, but your characterization of fraud in the social assistance system when you wave around the credit card-has this somehow been extensive?

Hon Mr Baird: I think fraud is extensive in the social assistance system.

Ms Martel: That's why I asked the question: how many people have lost benefits because of fraud with a credit card, a gold card or whatever credit card?

Hon Mr Baird: We don't track that.

Ms Martel: You don't track that. So when you stand up in the House and flash around-

Hon Mr Baird: I said there's a lot of fraud in the system.

Ms Martel: But when you stand up in the House and flash around a credit card, and you've done that on more than one occasion-

Hon Mr Baird: I could do it again.

Ms Martel: -and after you referenced it here in the last meeting-

Hon Mr Baird: It's actually an air miles card. I don't have a gold credit card.

Ms Martel: -clearly you have no basis of fact whatsoever, no evidence, no proof, nothing whatsoever to suggest that people are actually involved in that kind of fraud, right?

Hon Mr Baird: That was one example, I repeat. But if the member wants to talk about-

Ms Martel: Can you find one for me? One person who did that?

Hon Mr Baird: If you want to discuss fraud, we found 5,747 people who were in jail collecting welfare, 2,475 people with undeclared spouses, 2,546 people with undeclared income, 1,958 people with undeclared earnings, 1,617 people with a false address, 771 people with overstated rent, 261 people with duplicate cheques and 280 people with undisclosed assets, not to mention 1,291 people for other reasons.

Ms Martel: How many were charged and convicted of fraud?

Hon Mr Baird: Last year, in the order of 750 people were convicted of criminal fraud.

Ms Martel: What is that as a percentage of your overall welfare caseload?

Hon Mr Baird: We don't-less than 1%, in terms of criminal convictions for fraud. But you've got to appreciate that in most parts of Ontario-in the city of Toronto, for example-if we uncover fraud of as little as $2,000, the police don't even conduct an investigation.

Ms Martel: Let me ask this question, because this is important: How many of the cases you were looking at would have been administrative errors made by Comsoc staff?

Hon Mr Baird: None. These were not administrative errors. Pick another category.

Ms Martel: So all those 17,000 you are talking about were people purposely-

Hon Mr Baird: Those 5,700 people were in jail collecting welfare.

Ms Martel: -I don't want to use that word-for allegedly underestimating or overestimating their incomes, a huge group that was in jail. I don't think it was a crime to receive social assistance when they were in jail.

Hon Mr Baird: It is a crime. You're not allowed to receive welfare when you're in jail.

Ms Martel: You made that policy change, but these people weren't trying to rip off the system.

Hon Mr Baird: I think they were.

Ms Martel: Clearly, people knew they were in jail, right?

Hon Mr Baird: Clearly they didn't, because we found 5,747 people. The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.

Ms Martel: Their address was a jail. Where were the cheques being sent? What I'm trying to get at-

Hon Mr Baird: I think our fraud branch and the people who work at the ministry can be incredibly proud of the work and success they've had in restoring some integrity to the system. I suppose there might have been 2,475 people who just forgot they had a spouse.

Ms Martel: Well, your spouse-in-the-house rule is being challenged, isn't it? Your spouse-in-the-house rule has already been declared illegal, and now you're appealing it and are going to spend some more taxpayers' dollars doing that. But the court has ruled against you with respect to that rule.

Hon Mr Baird: If people are lying about having a spouse in the house in the first place, then that's another issue. You're required to fill out the application with honesty and integrity.

Ms Martel: But with respect to your numbers the question is, how many of the people you said we're actually dealing with fraud are we not in fact dealing with fraud if you look at the judgment that was made by the court?

Hon Mr Baird: You'll have to repeat that.

Ms Martel: Of the group you're saying didn't declare they had a spouse, were any of that category people who actually would have been supported by the court decision in terms of them being correct?

Hon Mr Baird: The court decision was very narrow in terms of the Family Benefits Act, which is a former program, so it would be impossible to tell that.

Ms Martel: Do you have any of the numbers?

Hon Mr Baird: It would be impossible, because we'd have to segment out the old program from the two new programs.

1610

Ms Martel: Is the ministry undertaking taking that with respect to the decision?

Hon Mr Baird: No.

Ms Martel: You're going to continue with the appeal?

Hon Mr Baird: We will continue with the appeal, yes.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have some questions I want to ask about provision for children, especially with respect to CASs, and I especially want to ask about aboriginal children. Your government has trumpeted your new funding formula for children's aid societies, but in that new funding formula there are very few, if any, provisions for part X of the act. Part X of the act deals with aboriginal children's aid societies and the unique situation of children in aboriginal communities.

Now, a number of those aboriginal organizations have asked either to meet with you or have asked for recognition that their situation is entirely different from the kind of situation that you might find in downtown Toronto, downtown Hamilton or downtown Ottawa. They, for example, make use of a process or a procedure that they call customary care. They make use of other procedures that are really quite different from the procedures that would be used by children's aid societies in a more urban setting.

My question is, what steps are you prepared to take to recognize the unique challenges, the unique differences, that aboriginal children's aid societies have to face? I speak, for example, of the Weechi-It-E-Win or Tikanogan as examples of children's aid organizations which have a much, much different experience than you would find with the Toronto children's aid society. What steps, what measures are you prepared to take, are your officials prepared to take, to ensure that those aboriginal children's aid societies receive the kind of funding they need for their unique programs and their unique strategies, which by necessity are much different from what you'd find in Toronto?

Hon Mr Baird: I'll make a couple of comments and then I'll ask the assistant deputy minister to make some comments as well. I assume you're talking about the designation of additional aboriginal children's aid societies?

Mr Hampton: No, I'm talking specifically about part X of the act and I'm talking specifically about the unique strategies that many of those aboriginal children's aid societies have employed, have utilized and continue to utilize even though they are not funded under your new funding formula. What are you going to do to take steps to allow them to ensure that they continue on their very effective work?

Let me give you an example. Weechi-It-E-Win is a First Nations organization in my part of the province. To my knowledge, no child has died under the jurisdiction of Weechi-It-E-Win. They have been very effective in terms of their interventions and in terms of their work with the family and their work within the community. But much of the work that they do is not funded and is not recognized by your new funding formula. What steps are you prepared to take to ensure that they have the funding they need to do their jobs?

Hon Mr Baird: We're certainly encouraged when aboriginal organizations with child welfare and child protection mandates and goals and objectives undertake initiatives that are cognizant of particular, even geographically different, aboriginal values. We're aware of that. I understand that the political leadership in some of the First Nation organizations has expressed concern about the implementation of the child welfare reform in terms of what it covered under the existing funding formula, and then the bigger issue on which I have received feedback from those representatives has been the designation of additional agencies. I've certainly heard the two concerns.

We did commit to look at the funding formula after it was implemented and to look at potential changes. Obviously, limited budgets are always a problem, but I think we've demonstrated a commitment to child welfare and child reform in terms of funding. We've seen funding increase in excess of 80% and I think it will be substantially more than that this year at the end of the day and next year, to recognize not just increasing volumes; we're paying more for foster care, we're paying more for other things.

I'll ask Cynthia Lees, the assistant deputy minister for children, to make some comments as well.

Ms Cynthia Lees: My name is Cynthia Lees, Ministry of Community and Social Services. Following up on what the minister has said, we've been working very closely with the Association of Native Child and Family Services of Ontario and the native societies to look at the impact of the child welfare reform in the new funding framework. We have also provided the association with dollars to hire a coordinator, which will allow them to look at the particular issues as they relate to the new funding framework. So we are working very closely with both the societies and the association to look at how this funding framework affects the native societies. We have also recently provided dollars to help build their capacity and train their staff. So basically we are working very closely with them to look at their particular issue, including customary care.

Mr Hampton: One of the questions they ask is, why wasn't this done before the new funding formula and the legislative changes were made? Many of these aboriginal children's aid societies have incredible success records, yet no effort was made to accommodate their uniqueness, their differences, the unique challenges they face. The legislation and the funding formula were simply changed holus-bolus, despite the fact that the funding formula is in many ways quite contradictory to the work they do. In many cases they try to put the emphasis on prevention and on working with the family, and working with the family in the community, so that an intervention in terms of taking the child out of the family and out of the community doesn't have to happen.

Their complaint is that their good work, which I would challenge anyone to examine, isn't recognized and hasn't been recognized and needs to be recognized. So I hear what you're saying about your becoming aware of the problem, but many of them are in a very difficult situation now. It's not six months from now; they're already in a difficult situation because your funding formula simply doesn't acknowledge the kind of work they do, the procedures they use and the successes they have achieved. So what are you going to do?

Hon Mr Baird: What you're communicating to us, in the cases of the one or two agencies you've mentioned, is that it's obvious they're not satisfied with the level of their input to date. I know the panel of experts, when they released their report in I think September 1998, conducted consultations. They were included in those consultations across the province.

Mr Hampton: I don't want to contradict you, but it was a one-afternoon meeting and you can't call that consultations.

Hon Mr Baird: They held two information sessions with the First Nations and aboriginal organizations in the development of the legislation. The ministry staff also met with some of the designated aboriginal societies and the Association of Native Child and Family Services of Ontario and the Union of Ontario Indians to discuss the legislation before it was passed. Obviously there are continuing concerns about it in terms of the number of agencies which have been designated and in terms of what is covered under the funding formula.

Ms Lees: We have also made ourselves available to meet with the chiefs and we have asked for a meeting so that we can look at some of the concerns they're expressing, but again I'd like to stress that we are working very closely with their association and with the five societies to address some of their particular concerns and needs that they have identified. So the ministry is working closely with them and, like I said, we've provided them dollars to increase their own capacity, to develop their own trainers-

Mr Hampton: Capacity for what?

Ms Lees: For the protection of children.

Mr Hampton: They would argue that where they need the increase in capacity is on the preventive side of things, given the levels of poverty you find in a lot of aboriginal communities, given some of the other social problems that you find, that a few dollars invested at the prevention side of things actually will save you a lot of money in terms of child protection later on. That's their essential argument. The new funding formula, and this government's new regime, is all about taking children into protection. But their whole theme is that we can avoid the heavy costs of that, we can avoid some of the other collateral damage that happens, if you'll recognize the very good work they've been doing for many years on the prevention side. That's the core of the argument.

What is this government prepared to do and what is this ministry prepared to do to recognize that these organizations have always concentrated on the prevention? They've been very successful at it. Any examination of their record will show that. What are you prepared to do to recognize that they need help on the prevention side, not necessarily on the protection side?

1620

Hon Mr Baird: As a member of the Legislature, if you as their representative want to come forward with some thoughts, I'm certainly prepared to meet with you on it; I'm certainly prepared to meet with them on it. If you want to come forward with any ideas or suggestions, we are looking at the future of the funding formula. We're certainly open to receiving suggestions or advice on that.

Mr Hampton: My response is, how soon? I met with representatives of some of those children's aid societies. I met with the grand chief of Treaty 3 and a number of chiefs who actually work on this specific issue and they have been trying to raise the issues on a number of occasions. They're quite prepared to meet. They're quite prepared to provide me with the material which sets forth their position. They want to continue to provide good children's aid societies, especially on the prevention side, as they have been doing for the last 14 or 15 years. The new funding formula and the new regime don't recognize the unique things they did and do under part X of the act. That's the pitch they want to make.

Hon Mr Baird: Your intervention is not unconstructive. The ministry, I think, would be happy to sit down with them.

Mr Hampton: Well, you're the minister. Tell me when. Before Christmas?

Hon Mr Baird: We'd be happy to, sir.

Mr Hampton: Wonderful. Now can I pass on to the next issue I want to raise?

The effect of your funding formula and the effect of the new regime are to essentially now base the funding of CASs upon the number of children they take into protection. It'll cut away some of the other things and that's what emerges. So in a large organization, for example, like the Catholic CAS here in Toronto or the Toronto CAS, where they take a number of children into protection, they have the funding which allows them to do that.

My experience in my part of the world, where we actually still have organic communities, where uncles and aunts and grandparents still live in the same community, is that there is less of taking children into protection-I'm talking both aboriginal and non-aboriginal here-and there is more work in terms of working with the extended organic family. But I'll give you the example of the CAS that I know, that I used to be legal counsel for before I was elected to this place. They're now put in a position where the pressure is on them to take more children into protection. In other words, if they want the funding to do their job, they have to be out there almost headhunting, saying, "Well, we can take a child here; we can take a child there," in order to get the funding to do their job. If they don't do that, they're going to be forced into, in effect, a regional amalgamation that makes no sense.

Let me give you a further example. My constituency is larger than Great Britain, about the size of Sweden. There are two non-aboriginal CASs: there's the Kenora Chil-dren's Aid Society and there's the Fort Frances-Rainy River Children's Aid Society. The reason there are two is because the geographic distance between the two means that trying to amalgamate them would make no sense.

Let me give you the parallels. When your government was looking at the forced amalgamation of school boards, they initially said there will be one large school board for everything west of Thunder Bay on the public side. They abandoned it. It wouldn't make any sense. There are two school boards: there's essentially the Keewatin-Patricia school board and the Rainy River school board. One operates along Highway 11, which is Yonge Street extended; the other operates along the Trans-Canada Highway.

The Vice-chair: You've got a minute, Mr Hampton.

Mr Hampton: So they recognize that. When your government moved toward district services boards, you didn't try to amalgamate one whole one; you set up the Kenora district services board and the Rainy River district services board. They recognized that geography renders one big, amalgamated CAS as just an absurd idea. But your ministry right now is going to force the CAS to do what you wouldn't do to the district services board and what the Ministry of Education wouldn't do in education. I am asking you: if it doesn't make sense for education, if it doesn't make sense for all the other social services, why would you force it on the CASs?

Hon Mr Baird: I am not aware of any initiative to amalgamate the two CASs in your part of the province. I am troubled by the thought that any child protection or child welfare organization, worker or professional would want to seek out removing children from their home just to get increased funds. I'll be honest with you: I haven't seen that.

Mr Hampton: That's not-they're saying, "Look, if we look at the funding formula, that's the direction it pushes us in." I talked with some of those social workers on the weekend. They said, "All of the emphasis now, all of our emphasis in terms of where the funding comes from, is not upon prevention, it's not upon working with the family in the community to avoid a child protection situation; it's about taking more children into child protection."

Hon Mr Baird: The emphasis is on protection. There's no doubt about it.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Minister, time has run out.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Minister, last week was constituency week, of course, and I was in my office, as all good MPPs were, talking to my constituents. I had some local business people in the construction trades come to the office and complain that they were not able to hire a number of people for their businesses-unskilled jobs-people who were on welfare who were actually coming to their places of work, interviewing, and then declining to take jobs that were paying $15 an hour, for a number of reasons, one of which had to do with outside work and the cold weather coming on. Another reason was because it was hard manual labour. I had another reason given that they were still doing well enough with their welfare cheques that they didn't have to take jobs such as the construction trades offered.

In 1995, when we came to power, there were a million-plus people on social assistance. Since 1995, more than half a million are off. We have achieved savings for the taxpayer in the amount of $8.2 billion. This year your ministry budget is down, year over year from last year, by $310 million.

The NDP and the Liberals are constantly harping about our government's wrong or misguided policies. In fact, we heard Shelley Martel right here in committee this afternoon say, how many recipients who had been taken off social assistance were due to fraud or how many had been in jail? I submit to you that the people in my riding, who are hard-working, blue-collar, unionized workers who voted for me, are upset that there would even be one who was in jail or guilty of fraud receiving welfare because that's coming out of their tax money.

We have the best economy in this province right now that we have ever had. We still have nearly half a million people on welfare, and I am being asked by employers and employees alike in my riding why we still have half a million people on welfare when some of these welfare recipients are unwilling to take a good job even when it's an unskilled job. I wonder if you could comment on that.

Hon Mr Baird: I guess it is a challenge for any government in terms of helping people make that transition from welfare to work. I think what happened in the past was that perhaps too many good people got stuck in a bad system, which was not helpful for their career path, obviously. Ontario Works is a mandatory program. You have to participate. Last year, in 1999-2000, there were about 4,182 people disqualified for refusing employment supports, refusing a community placement, refusing an employment placement. So it's a small percentage and I would underline that; it's not something which I would say is commonplace.

1630

It is a concern, for example, when you look at the greenhouse industry. We've heard our colleague Mr Crozier talk about the greenhouse industry outside of Leamington, where they're bringing in literally hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of workers from Mexico to work in tomato greenhouses, for example, when not too far down the road, in Windsor, Ontario, they have substantial welfare caseloads. It's not a stretch, as you've said, to say, "How can we be bringing so many people in on temporary permits, temporary visas, to do work they can't find folks here in this country to do, particularly in tomatoes in greenhouses?" It's not like picking tobacco. It's tough work, it's not easy work, but there are many jobs that certainly require greater endurance, and that is a concern when you see the growing economy and that some folks lack the ability to get into that job. I'm concerned particularly when you hear people-the odd story; I don't hear them regularly but I do hear them the odd time-not wanting to accept employment for preferential reasons. Obviously, that's not the whole purpose of the program. That's not the way to apply the program, what the program is all about; that's not the way it was designed.

I guess what we're trying to do is provide the supports to people so they're able to get the jobs. Obviously, the challenge is to ensure that they get them. The caseload ratios have gone down and hopefully caseworkers have more time. They don't have 400 cases any more and they can spend more time trying to be job coaches, trying to facilitate someone making that transition. That's why one of the initiatives we want to move forward with that was contained in the Blueprint was expanded caseworker training programs to help people identify that new role, the new responsibility as part of their job. But if there are specific instances where people are saying they don't want to take a job because it doesn't pay enough and they'd rather stay on welfare, obviously we're concerned about that.

You are required to accept reasonably proximate work in your field and even, in some cases, beyond that. So if there are specific examples we can look into and challenge our policies and procedures, we're certainly prepared to do that. We'd welcome that sort of input.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you, Minister, for your comments today.

I can't for the life of me figure out why the two opposition parties in this province would be against drug treatment. Are they suggesting that we should condone the taking of drugs and not assist anybody in trying to help them get off drugs? I can't understand that. I can remember we had said during the campaign that we wanted to make sure we offered treatment for these welfare folks to be able to make them contributors to society-you know, the comment that you can't get off welfare if you're on drugs. Certainly, if you've ever had somebody you employed who was on some type of drug, and I did have, and that drug happened to be alcohol, and I don't believe that is any different from some of the other drugs that are out there these days-you cannot do your job and you jeopardize a business, you jeopardize your customers, you jeopardize your family if you're on that. I just can't get it through my possibly thick skull that the opposition would be against trying to help people get off drugs. I can't understand that. I was not brought up that way and I've never tried to bring up my kids or my grandkids that way, saying, "Hey, I condone the taking of drugs, and if you're on them, I don't want to help you get off." I'm sorry, I don't operate that way and I have real difficulty when I listen to what came out in the House today and what I hear in this committee.

Hon Mr Baird: Could I intervene on that just for a moment to respond? You can take issue with the entire opposition, save the Leader of the Opposition, because he is not against the idea. He said during last year's election campaign, "No, I'm not against the idea," when asked whether he was in favour of drug testing. Then, the following day or two days later there's drug testing-

Ms Martel: That's different than drug treatment.

Hon Mr Baird: The member for Nickel Belt is correct; there's drug treatment and drug testing. When asked whether he was in favour of drug testing, he said, "No, I'm not against the idea." That's the drug testing side. The member opposite from Peterborough will be interested to learn that two days later, Liberal Party president Tim Murphy talked about treatment and said, "In fact, McGuinty's policy is supportive of drug treatment." So we've got drug treatment and drug testing.

Mr Gravelle: Of course we support drug treatment. We fund the agencies-

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Gravelle. It's my turn. I have the floor.

I thank you for that, Minister.

Hon Mr Baird: I appreciate Dalton's support.

Mr Stewart: If you don't know that somebody has a drug problem, it makes it extremely difficult to treat them.

The other thing Mr Wettlaufer was talking about was fraud. If I go into a bank, whether I steal $100 or $500 or $1 million, it's still stealing. When I find that people in a system steal from those people who need the service, I also have a lot of difficulty and I don't understand, again, why the opposition condones fraud. I can't understand that. I wasn't brought up that way and I have difficulty understanding why this group over here condones fraud.

Anyway, that was not my question. I'm about to get to my-

Interjections.

Mr Stewart: You people are saying it, not me. I'm just repeating what you said. It appears I've possibly hit a nerve here, because they seem to be trying to get out of it. They were the ones who were saying this, not Gary Stewart. They're the ones who are saying this.

Anyway, the question, Minister. I've finished rambling now but may come back to it later. You had a program with Ontario Works for communities that exceeded the target in putting people on Ontario Works into the workforce. In my riding of Peterborough and Peterborough county, I believe we were the seventh-highest in getting people into the Ontario Works program, I think, to the tune of $373,000. I commend both Peterborough and Peterborough county for this.

I think this is an absolutely tremendous initiative. I'm a great believer in responding to and rewarding groups that exceed the targets set, especially if they're targets that are going to help society. I'd like you to make a couple of comments on this particular initiative.

Hon Mr Baird: You're correct in terms of Peterborough and Peterborough county. That consolidated municipal service did not just manage to meet the target but they were at 193% of the target, so you are right. I was pleased to have the opportunity to visit your constituency to talk to some of the caseworkers themselves and people on the front lines, the mayor and other members of the council, and congratulate them for that support. They've obviously accepted the challenge, and that makes a huge difference in terms of lives of people who need just the most basic things like some experience, a job reference, some self-esteem and some self-confidence.

That's why we strongly support the program. It has not been an easy one. It's been one of those which has been a challenge. We've been able to double the number of folks on Ontario Works placements this year over last year. Then we're going to follow through with our commitment in the Blueprint campaign document to double them once we've met the targets. I think this year we're on track to do that in terms of a 50% increase this year over last year, which is good news. Some will question the value of a community placement officer. We think it is particularly important as part of the solution.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I just want to focus on London for a minute, and your deputy minister probably could address some of the issues.

Hon Mr Baird: The deputy is really keen to answer some questions this morning, so if you have any hard ones, he'll answer them.

Mr Mazzilli: In October in London, we saw welfare cases go down to 9,729 from a high in June 1995 of 21,097. What kind of saving would that represent for the city of London?

Mr John Fleming: Mr Mazzilli, we don't have actual dollars here, but the saving is certainly a very substantial one.

1640

Hon Mr Baird: One thing I'd just add is that for a municipality, while it's only 20% in terms of the benefit itself that they're responsible for, in most cases that 20% is a substantially higher percentage of their budget than the 80% is for us. That's particularly the case because the health budget just keeps going up and up and our share of the budget keeps going down and down because of all that new money flooding into the health care system.

Mr Mazzilli: I want to go back to-this is certainly something I was not going to bring up, but since you did start the consultation on drug testing, I will bring it up. In Ontario we still have numbers on the order of over half a million people on welfare. As you said, welfare recipients with addiction problems, drug problems, may be as low as 3% to 10%. If we split that in half and make it 5%, we're still talking about 25,000 to 30,000 people who are not able to work their way back into the workforce because of severe addiction problems.

I've seen it, and I will participate in this consultation right now and give you some ideas. I've seen the crack houses, where a large number of people live under one roof, under one deposit box and the welfare cheques go in. Guess what? They never see them; they sign them over to someone. So if we target areas-certainly we don't have to go around and test everybody, but there are areas we can target that likely have an enormous percentage of addiction.

I think you hit the nail on the head before. The Toronto police told you that people with severe addictions have habits that go into the thousands of dollars a day. Many resort to dealing drugs to support those habits, and many resort to prostitution to support those habits. To do nothing would be irresponsible, Minister. I encourage you to do this in a targeted way. Certainly you're not going to help everyone, but of the 25,000 or 30,000 people, if we keep our estimates low, that is a substantial number to try to help.

Hon Mr Baird: It's obvious we're going to be more help by trying than by not trying. The effects and the costs are quite startling. I've had the opportunity to meet with some representatives of the Metro Toronto drug squad and to learn what it costs to support a habit. I found that absolutely extraordinary. I had absolutely no idea how much it actually costs to support an addiction. This is a gigantic challenge for anyone with a significant substance abuse problem whether they're working or not.

These officers told me that far too often people are put in a situation out of desperation and have to find ways of supporting that habit. It's not uncommon, I am told, for a heroin habit to cost up to $800 a day. Obviously someone can't support that on a $520 welfare cheque. It is a tremendous human tragedy when people have to get involved in selling narcotics themselves or resort to prostitution or crime to support a habit. It's a human tragedy, particularly for young people, often youths, and indeed in some cases older children.

Obviously we're tremendously concerned about that and want to provide that help. But what it points to is that it's far more complicated and far more serious than one might expect at first sight. I think the easiest and most expedient thing to do would be to simply turn our backs and say we are going to write these people off: "We're just not going to worry about it. We'll send them a cheque month after month, year after year, and just hope that some morning, out of miraculous inspiration, people will wake up and want to get help and then, if we're lucky, we'll be there," or we can try to push them into taking that help.

I think a substantial amount of research says that mandatory treatment doesn't work. There's also a substantial amount of research which says it can be every bit as effective as voluntary treatment. I've even read some articles which suggest, in essence, "Is there really any voluntary treatment?" There's always some sort of intervention, whether it's through the courts and police, in terms of someone facing a charge and having the option of jail time or drug treatment, or be it job intervention at work, where someone's employer says, "You can't keep showing up for work drunk," or "You can't keep showing up for work high on drugs. You've got to get some help. We'll provide you with the supports to get that help, in terms of time off work etc," or it'll come through someone's family in terms of a marriage or a family not being able to stay together unless a change in course is made. I think a certain element of consequence to not taking help and not taking treatment has to be in place, and it has to be a real one. I wish we could just bring in a volunteer program and everyone would go to it.

I don't think this issue is any different from any of the other welfare reforms in Ontario. Our work-for-welfare program is a mandatory program. There are not just expectations but requirements. People are required to be part of the solution; they're required to do something in exchange for their welfare cheque. They're required to take retraining, they're required to take basic skills, they're required to take a community placement or they're required to take a part-time job. They're required to do something in exchange for that cheque. And it's right there in that regulation: accept drug treatment. I don't know why we would make an exception there.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I was actually chatting with the member for London-Fanshawe before about identifying people with addictions. I know that he, as a former police officer, and case workers who deal on a regular basis with folks with drug addictions-he thought there are telltale signs where people could direct folks with problems. You could look at some of those signs and say, "These are the folks we need to concentrate on who probably have a problem and whom we need to get into treatment programs." I just wonder if you want to comment on that a bit more.

Mr Mazzilli: Certainly I'll have some input, but the ministry, through the consultation, should look at places of high incidence of drug use such as crack houses and so on. Although those types of places are transient and move from location to location, I suspect the social agencies and the police services within those communities usually have a pretty good record of tracking where those establishments are. That is the highest percentage of people you can try to help with a program like that.

The Acting Chair (Mr Michael Gravelle): Thank you, Mr Mazzilli. Your time has expired.

Mr Curling: I appreciate the opportunity to put something on record here. I'll just make a comment first.

Andersen Consulting, as you just stated, recently received about $61 million toward their fee to clear up the welfare mess you said the province found itself in. Mr Mazzilli talked about London today having only about 9,000 people on welfare, which was reduced from 21,000. I understand that across the province you may have had about 300,000 people who came off welfare or were put off welfare, who were abusing the system and so on, and you still have about half a million people on welfare.

It seems to me that, yes, the system was in a mess and wasn't working. How many bureaucrats have been fired because they did not do their jobs in this process? It seems to me the only people who got off welfare who seem to have been contributing to this mess were the people on welfare. But of the people administering the welfare screening, was anyone fired because of-

Hon Mr Baird: Yes, you bet: the entire David Peterson cabinet and the entire Bob Rae cabinet.

Mr Curling: Don't be cynical with me now.

Hon Mr Baird: No.

Mr Curling: It wasn't David Peterson and the cabinet who caused it. I'm saying there are people who are monitoring these people-

Hon Mr Baird: Who was it? If it wasn't David Peterson and his cabinet who were monitoring, who was it? I wasn't at the cabinet table. If you know, I'd love to know and we'll all go looking for them.

1650

Mr Curling: I presume that you won't tell me the answer to that one because you wouldn't tell me that-if I go to the bank today and somebody doesn't screen me properly and gives me the loan without any proper sort of screening process and I get it, you're going to say the president of the bank was doing that or so but not the clerk who has thought of putting it through. That's the kind of answer you're giving me.

Hon Mr Baird: I think to paraphrase one of your cabinet colleagues in the Peterson government, Mr Nixon, he said, "We threw a whole bunch of money at the problem and hoped it would get better," and it didn't work. Rules were changed, changes were made to the eligibility, benefits were increased, and that was done in good economic times.

This is the chart I frequently use. A lot of the blame goes to the New Democratic Party, which is perhaps unfair. Between 1985 and 1990, a huge amount of job creation, welfare rolls soared. Then when the bottom fell out of the economy and when poor Floyd Laughren found himself on the seventh floor of the Frost Building south, they simply couldn't cope. That's when you saw the welfare rolls really soar based on the Peterson Liberals' welfare policies.

Mr Curling: Mr Minister, let me go to another point, because I want to get the answer from you, actually. There's another area that I spoke to you about and you were quite forthcoming with that. I think you and the Minister of Health, Ms Witmer, have put forward a comprehensive mental health housing policy that is to deliver housing for those with special needs and other people like that. I think it was far overdue to make that strategic move.

I know you want to create a single, consolidated provincially funded residential care program and I know there are consultations that are going on with the various providers represented from the municipalities and associations, owners and operators of residential care homes. You know, there is quite a complex array of people who need special-needs housing itself.

I know what you've put forward is just about a month of consultation across the province, you and the minister. I feel it's completely inadequate in order to address all those who are providing those services. I think there is a wide array of people. Among the most important people in all this are really the owners and operators of the residential care homes. They need to be consulted.

I have a suspicion here that there are associations who are coming and saying, "We are going to represent you all" and they will then take over the delivery of these residential homes.

Would you consider having a wider consultative approach for owners and operators of these residential care homes so they can give you a much more direct and closer monitoring of needs and services that are required so you can have a better policy? I don't think the one month will be adequate. Would you consider that?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm certainly realistic in terms of any outcome. As you know and we discussed, we are reviewing four types of mental supported housing, three operated by the Ministry of Health, with which I'm not that familiar, the fourth being the domiciliary hostel program offered through the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

We have been doing a good amount of consultation with dom hostel operators across the province. Will we speak to every single independent operator? Undoubtedly not. When we come forward with some reforms, I suspect they won't meet with unanimity in terms of approval. That rarely is the case. I think the system is in need of some reform, particularly on the funding side with respect to the per diem for dom hostel, which has been identified as a significant issue.

I've had the opportunity to tour a number of dom hostels. I toured the Edgewood Care Centre in the constituency of your caucus colleague, M^me Boyer, and talked to some of the residents there, talked to the owner-operators, talked to people who work there, and-

Mr Curling: I just want to say-because, you know, my colleague has been very generous in giving me the time. I just want to say to you, don't get caught up in the rut of not opening up consultation. I think you can have a better policy in a much more effective way by listening to home owners and those who deliver the special needs for those residents there.

Hon Mr Baird: I certainly appreciate the advice and if your constituents have any advice in that regard, I'd certainly welcome it, sooner rather than later in terms of being able to contribute it to the debate.

Mr Gravelle: I just want to return, if I can, to Andersen Consulting and the spending related to that. The auditor two years ago certainly had expressed some very strong concerns about the contract that was signed by your ministry with Andersen Consulting, and I think there's a reasonably good chance that when the value-for-money audit comes out next Tuesday, I believe, on the 21st, we may hear some more about that. I think it's only fair to ask. You know we've got $60.5 million given to Andersen Consulting in fiscal year 1999-2000. I'd like to ask you to precisely break down how that money was spent: how much for staff, how much for services, how much for technical support. I presume you could break that down for us.

Hon Mr Baird: Certainly that meets our obligations under the contract. I think the auditor came forward with good advice that was helpful to the ministry, helpful to Management Board of Cabinet, helpful to the government in terms of the whole nature of a common purpose procurement. Designing and building and rolling out new welfare processes and technologies is not an easy effort. I've used a number of analogies, particularly like getting a new kitchen built in your home when you've had an old one. While it's unpleasant in terms of the havoc it wreaks on the family living there, a better day arrives when the overhaul is done.

Mr Gravelle: But can you break it down, Minister?

Hon Mr Baird: The $60-odd-million supports our obligations on the contract. It supports the consolidated verification process, which made great strides in the first year, and we've expanded it this year to go into more parts of the province in more areas. It also meets the process in terms of designing the new technology and in terms of building the new technology, and now we're rolling out the new technology.

Mr Gravelle: Could you table it in detail for us? I think everybody would be curious as to exactly how the money breaks out.

Hon Mr Baird: We can get more details for you. Sure.

Mr Gravelle: I presume that what you're relating to is the automation of the system, as well, automating the system. Is that part of what Andersen is involved with as well?

Hon Mr Baird: With the technology as well. Yes.

Mr Gravelle: It's fascinating: on page 69 of the estimates your ministry spent $52 million more than was budgeted in 1999-2000 and is planning to spend $50 million more in 1999-2000 for supplies and equipment, and that's above and beyond the $60.5 million that was given to Andersen. So we're talking some extraordinary dollars here. But if you could table that, we'd like to see the details, I think.

Hon Mr Baird: We'll certainly try to get you more details.

Mr Gravelle: Just some straight estimates questions: on page 47, in 1999-2000 you underspent to the tune of $160 million in the area of Ontario Works financial assistance and $80 million in the area of employment supports; on page 57, you underspent in the area of employment assistance for the Ontario disability support program by $13 million. Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm very familiar with both of those. I'd be happy to offer an explanation.

In terms of financial assistance, greater than anticipated caseload declines, that was in terms of financial assistance under Ontario Works, were largely responsible for the underexpenditure. We used the best information, through our forecasting branch, provided by the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance, I think with good reason, uses the conservative end of the spectrum of private sector forecasters in terms of their economic model, which is something that, by the very nature of our using the Ministry of Finance's numbers, we use as well. That answers the first question.

The second part concerns Ontario Works employment assistance. We were underspending it; we weren't using all the resources that were available to us that we could. I think we could use more money to help people make that transformation from welfare to work. That was 1999-2000. You'll see we've certainly spent more money there than we did the year before, you'll see us spend more money this year than we did the year before, and I suspect you'll see us spend more money next year than we did the year before.

Obviously, the face of the caseload is changing to a great extent and more expensive interventions are required in terms of getting people the skills and the supports they need to go into work.

1700

For example, I think $7 million in terms of rewarding municipalities which exceed their targets is one area. We've done a lot of innovation fund proposals for community placements and for the harder to serve, which you'll see probably more of in terms of supporting innovative social service delivery.

The third point you raised was ODSP employment which again I can speak to. That budget is being doubled to $35 million. The process hasn't happened overnight and it's rolling out over a few years. I think you'll see a lot more money spent this year than last. I think you'll see close to the full amount spent in the next year or two.

Mr Gravelle: Minister, let's just turn to the technical side too for a moment. Obviously in terms of your business transformation project and what Andersen is doing as well, we've heard that no new staff are being hired on in the ministry's Ontario disability support program offices despite an increasing caseload, from 180,000 to 195,000 in the last two years.

We know that you have closed some offices as well. I think my colleague the member for Nickel Belt asked the question last time too. This is obviously of great concern in terms of people being able to access the program. How many more will be closing?

Hon Mr Baird: That office hasn't closed. Which office closings-

Mr Gravelle: You're talking about one person being left there now. Is that-

Hon Mr Baird: That office hasn't closed. Which office closings were of concern to you specifically?

Mr Gravelle: The office in Fort Frances was the one that-

Hon Mr Baird: That one hasn't closed. Are there any others that have been of concern to you?

Mr Gravelle: That's the question I'm asking you. What are your plans? Are you planning to close or downgrade offices? If it's a question of definition of term, you're downgrading the office, the ability to actually access. Whether there's one person there does not mean they're able to access the program and be well served by the process. So are there other-what are your plans?

Hon Mr Baird: I thought you had said that you were concerned by office closings "such as"-and I just wondered which ones you were concerned about, because we haven't closed that one. Are there any others with which you're concerned?

Mr Gravelle: That office has been downsized, has it not?

Hon Mr Baird: I think there's one person whose contract expired, but you said a number of them were of concern. Is there-

Mr Gravelle: Correct me. That's just great, Minister. Thank you very much; I appreciate it. But what I'm asking is, are you planning to close any offices in terms of that? How many are you planning to close? Which ones are you planning to downgrade into one-person offices? I just think that's information-

Hon Mr Baird: To date, they haven't been a concern to the opposition.

Ms Jessica Hill: Jessica Hill, with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. In terms of our plans for closing offices, we periodically review whether there are satellite offices where the caseload is so small that it can be served from a more centralized site within a region. So currently we are looking at Fort Frances, but we'll assess whether the 1-800 number is working effectively for the CSR service, which we use as a model in a number of communities in the north. We've had a very small number of complaints. Usually, it has to do with aspects of the services they're receiving as opposed to whether they're being responded to effectively.

In terms of access, all of the offices that serve smaller communities in the north provide what we call emergency response service that is delivered within 24 hours, which means essentially that if someone called with a specific need to fill out an application or had a problem, a worker would be responding to their concern within 24 hours, including visiting their community if required.

Mr Gravelle: I've been just been told that Port Hope is the other office.

Ms Hill: Port Hope has closed, but the service is delivered in Port Hope on a regular basis for scheduled appointments. I can give you specific information on Port Hope. Just a second.

Mr Gravelle: The concern is that with the new system that is being put in place in terms of the 1-800 number, the plan is to close a number of smaller offices because of the 1-800 number, the whole new way of doing business, which I happen to be really concerned about and quite critical of. I'm not sure it's serving the people the way they want in terms of the interactive voice response, but finish off; I'm sorry.

Ms Hill: On the question of whether there's a significant number of more closures considered, in fact most of the closures of satellite offices have already taken place, and they took place because the business was largely being restructured. In transferring the sole-support cases to the municipalities, there was a significant change in our caseload and therefore there were some communities that had a very small remaining caseload. Obviously, the nature of the program design was a very big change. The second aspect of this is that staff were also given opportunities to move to municipalities for work.

I think most of the restructuring has happened. There are literally a very small number of satellite offices we would consider looking at at this point. The changes have been made, and it has not affected customer service negatively.

Mr Gravelle: There are no plans to close any more of those offices; in other words, the closures have been done.

Ms Hill: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: I've got some real concerns about the new system in terms of-there's a recorded message at one office that we called that says, "We will be introducing interactive voice response for social assistance telephone systems," or IVR for short, "to get selected personal case file information and announcements from the ODSP."

This is designed to what? To save you money? I can't see how it's designed to help people actually access a system that's already difficult to access. We know it takes a long time to get claims through. Do you not have concerns about the fact that some people are not able to use that system or will find it difficult? Some people don't have Touch-Tone phones; that's still reasonably common.

Hon Mr Baird: If there are people without Touch-Tone phones or if there are people with a disability who are unable to utilize it, obviously we'll provide it another way.

I think IVR can provide better service more inexpensively in terms of someone calling to get the status of a cheque or someone making some of these routine calls that you can now do through IVR. I think the initial implementations have been quite positive. If people want to check on the status of a cheque after hours, they have the ability to do so. There's been a high level of satisfaction. This isn't any different from a number of other consumer services. But if people don't have a Touch-Tone phone, they'll call-

Mr Gravelle: Let's be honest. We all hate this. I mean everybody hates it. We all hate calling up anywhere and not being able to access it except through-we can't deal with real people any more. We are talking about a situation like this and on my next go-round I want to talk about call centres in terms of, in a general sense, the pilot project. But the fact is it's more difficult.

Hon Mr Baird: It's fairly easy.

Mr Gravelle: I know a lot of people who find it very difficult to access that kind of a system, and so do you, Minister; everybody does. It makes it more difficult to access and people tend to drop off, and in this situation you've got people who are on disability who are going to have a far more difficult time, some of them, accessing it and will drop off. This clearly is one of the methods of reducing the caseload, it seems to me. Some people are going to drop away because they can't access it.

Hon Mr Baird: I just don't see the link, sir.

Mr Gravelle: I know you don't, sir.

Ms Martel: Minister, I was curious to hear your colleagues talk about how fraud is fraud and it's wrong, and stealing is stealing and it's wrong. There was some nodding of heads, and you would have probably nodded yours too, so I've got to ask you, what do you really think about tax evasion and MPPs involved in that?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm not aware of any member of the Legislature who has been involved with tax evasion. I think any kind of fraud is bad.

Ms Martel: So do I.

Hon Mr Baird: My mandate at the Ministry of Community and Social Services is to ensure that there's integrity to the system. I want to be honest. Some of the most impressive people I've seen working in this provincial government are in our fraud branch at the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They are very, very well regarded and they can be exceptionally proud of the job they do. They do a fantastic job. Some of the initiatives they've done have been at extraordinarily low cost and have been able to yield gigantic benefits to taxpayers. I don't know about the folks in Nickel Belt, but I know the folks in Nepean-Carleton strongly support integrity in the system and strongly support our antifraud measures.

Ms Martel: I'm worried about tax evasion too, Minister.

1710

Hon Mr Baird: By all means, bring those to the Minister of Finance. I'm concerned about all kinds of fraud.

Ms Martel: I want to ask you about your testing. Let me begin by this: you would agree that there's a difference between mandatory testing and mandatory drug treatment?

Hon Mr Baird: Correct.

Ms Martel: All right. So what I want to know from you is, your government's proposing mandatory drug testing for social assistance recipients.

Hon Mr Baird: I want to give you a clear answer so I'll preface it.

Ms Martel: I'd like to get a clear answer. That would be great.

Hon Mr Baird: To preface my comments, we announced this morning that we'll be going out and consulting over the next four to six weeks to get some best advice. We want to consult with five groups. We want to consult with the public, those people who depend on the system and use it and those who pay for it. We want to talk to drug treatment experts on treatment capacity, medical practitioners. We want to talk to other jurisdictions both on capacity and on their experience in terms of social assistance in this area. We want to talk to legal experts to get their best advice. We want to talk to municipalities and caseworkers on how to administratively implement the policy.

I agree with you wholeheartedly: there are two issues. There's mandatory treatment and there's mandatory testing. I think it would be a leap to suggest that the government is entertaining or will entertain a policy where stapled to every welfare application will be a Styrofoam cup. We're not proposing, to my knowledge-I've never talked about any sort of universal chemical screening of people on social assistance.

Ms Martel: What exactly are you proposing then with respect to mandatory drug testing? Who is going to be tested?

Hon Mr Baird: I'll give you a window on our thinking. We don't have a proposal in front of us, but we're going to consult-

Ms Martel: Yes, but you're consulting with people, so you must be consulting with something. You must have some plans.

Hon Mr Baird: We're going to consult first, and develop the policies and plans second. What we want to do is identify people with an addiction to narcotics where that's a barrier to their being able to get off welfare and get a job and maintain a paid job. That's the preface of our remarks.

Chemical testing, for example, can only determine use; it cannot determine an addiction.

Ms Martel: That's right.

Hon Mr Baird: I've seen a number of screening instruments that have been used in jurisdictions, developed by medical teams and treatment experts and academic experts, that help identify someone with a dependency, someone with an addiction.

Ms Martel: What kind of testing or screening are you going to use to identify people? You just have people who come walking through the door in any number of offices across the province. How are you going to pick and choose who's going to be screened?

Hon Mr Baird: This is one of the issues on which we're going to consult. It is a leap in thinking to suggest that there will be universal chemical testing. There are a number of screening instruments which have been identified as best practices in other jurisdictions. We certainly want to talk to those jurisdictions and talk to those treatment experts who developed those and try to find some format which would be part of a made-in-Ontario pro-gram.

I met with a group of caseworkers right here from Toronto the other day, and one of them told me that each and every day he sees someone come into his welfare office, Ontario Works office, who's high on drugs, who's intoxicated. Obviously it's a little bit easier in that case. Obviously it's a little bit easier if someone has got track marks up and down their arm. There are physical symptoms in some cases, but these instruments can help screen addiction. If someone wants to quarrel on whether they have an addiction-this goes to the second point-it can be put to rest very quickly, I would suggest, with another form of test. Those would be the issues we'd go and consult on.

Ms Martel: Let me ask you this. Is it going to apply solely to Ontario Works recipients or to Ontario Works and ODSP recipients?

Hon Mr Baird: It's a fair question. I say two things: Ontario Works recipients. With respect to the Ontario disability support program, I think in general the answer is no. There are 250 people who have been grandfathered on to that program whose sole identified condition is a drug addiction. We want to talk to people on whether we should just simply write these people off or include them. I can tell you my personal view is that I think we probably should include them and offer that help. That's obviously one issue, but only those 250 people where drug addiction is their sole condition.

Mr Fleming: Could I just add something to the minister's earlier response about the whole issue of screening? As we go out and begin our consultation process and start to get into the whole matter of assessment and screening, well before any chemical tests one of the things we're going to want to talk to people in other jurisdictions with experience in this particular area about is around the requirements for training of staff who carry out these kinds of assessments. This is not an area, despite the kind of evidence the minister was referring to where something might appear to be indicative of drug addiction-there may be other people who have substance addictions where their appearances are not quite so obvious and yet are still constituting a barrier to employment. A part of what we're going to be interested in hearing about from other jurisdictions is their experience in training staff to see those kinds of behaviours that are barriers to employment.

Ms Martel: Outside of the ODSP, the 250 you've already indicated have an addiction problem now, are you going to be screening the current caseload or new applicants for OW?

Hon Mr Baird: OW? That will be one of the issues which we'll discuss in the consultations, so there's no decision there. I can't imagine conditions where it would just be new applicants. That decision hasn't been made, but I can't imagine circumstances where we'd write off 216,000 or 217,000 people.

Ms Martel: Let me ask you this. Mr Norton has, in a press conference last October, expressed his concerns about this. I understand you have a letter from him with respect to this issue. Would you table that with this committee?

Hon Mr Baird: Sure. If you pick up today's Globe and Mail, I think it's quoted in there.

Ms Martel: I'm not sure if all of it's there, so if we could see the whole thing, that would be great.

Hon Mr Baird: We'll certainly look into that.

Ms Martel: You are going to be consulting with him directly?

Hon Mr Baird: Yes. I spoke with him yesterday and indicated we were not just willing to get together with him but that we wanted to work with his office.

Ms Martel: Let me ask you this. You specifically target a certain population in the province, but I've heard you say before that you're concerned about how drug use would impact upon anyone who's working. I'm assuming that means public and private. Why is it you are specifically targeting a particular group?

Hon Mr Baird: I am concerned about anyone where drug addiction is a barrier to employment. It seems to me it's just a good place to start, with those people who are unemployed.

Ms Martel: You could, though, I assume, pass a law that would make this applicable to employees in the private sector as well. But you're not doing that, correct?

Hon Mr Baird: My mandate in social services is to help people move from welfare to work. That's my focus. If someone is in the private sector, they're obviously working, so it's not a barrier to employment, because they've got a job; they're employed.

Ms Martel: It might be a health and safety concern, though, for some of their co-workers.

Hon Mr Baird: I suppose that's an issue in employment law that comes out. There's a lot more experience in Canada on the employment law side of this equation than there is on the social assistance side.

Ms Martel: Are you going after this group in particular because they receive public funds as a means of support?

Hon Mr Baird: I disagree with your characterization that we're going after anyone.

Ms Martel: Are you going to make it mandatory for these individuals on social assistance to be tested because they are on social assistance and receiving public funds?

Hon Mr Baird: What we want to do is combat the challenge, combat the drug addiction of people where it's a barrier to employment. Those are folks on Ontario Works.

Ms Martel: Minister, are you not worried about the perception that has to exist, that you've targeted a particular group? You would have, I would think, drug problems in every sector of society, not just with respect to social assistance recipients. I don't know how rampant it is among social assistance recipients. I don't know how rampant it is in the rest of society.

Hon Mr Baird: I'm sort of counting on convincing you, that you'll correct the record.

Ms Martel: You're clearly going after a particular group and certainly giving the impression that somehow this group is much more likely to have addiction problems than others.

Hon Mr Baird: I don't think it's a leap to say that people who are unemployed and experiencing financial difficulties are more likely-I think there are folks with drug addictions in all backgrounds. I'd suggest over the years there have probably been a few members of the Legislature; there have probably been doctors, lawyers, business people, people inside and outside government in all occupations with a chemical dependency, with an addiction to a list of drugs and narcotics.

1720

Do I think someone who's on social assistance is any more likely to be in that condition? No, I don't. However, our focus is on people with a drug addiction where it's a barrier to their getting a job. I think people who don't have a job are probably substantially more likely to be included in that, because if you have a job, it's not really a barrier to your getting a job, if you already have one.

Ms Martel: This is a specific group of people whom you will perhaps, depending on the outcome of your discussion paper, specifically bar from receiving assistance.

Hon Mr Baird: No, we're not going to specifically bar them. Everything in Ontario Works except this-every single part of Ontario Works is mandatory.

Ms Martel: Is drug testing going to be a condition for receipt of social assistance?

Hon Mr Baird: We're going to undertake the consultations. Obviously we've said in the past the treatment is mandatory. If there's a process in place that we can develop in terms of testing, obviously it'll be mandatory.

Ms Martel: You're not ruling out today that people could be barred from receiving social assistance?

Hon Mr Baird: Welfare, yes, I agree.

Ms Martel: Right. That's different than any other group in society. We don't bar anyone else from receiving an income. If they refuse to undergo mandatory drug testing, we don't bar anyone in the public sector who might have a job, anyone in the private sector, but you are considering barring these folks from receiving assistance if they don't undergo mandatory either testing or treatment, correct?

Hon Mr Baird: We bar people from welfare if they refuse to look for a job. We bar people from welfare if they refuse to take a community placement. We bar people from welfare if they refuse to provide certain information they're required to under the program. This is the only single part of Ontario Works, to the best of my knowledge, under regulation where we say, "You don't have to do this."

Ms Martel: But the human rights commissioner has said this is clearly a violation of the code. That's a difference, isn't it?

Hon Mr Baird: He has used words like "may" and "it appears." He hasn't seen the policy, because we haven't developed it yet. We certainly indicated a willingness to sit down and talk to him, to talk to his staff and to try to work with them. I can't guarantee an end result that they'll sign off on it. We're certainly not adverse. We're certainly keen to proactively seek out their best advice.

Ms Martel: Do you have a discussion paper that you're going to be giving to those groups for them to consider?

Hon Mr Baird: No. There are five issues we want to talk about that were part of the announcement today.

Ms Martel: Are those public?

Hon Mr Baird: Yes.

Ms Martel: Can they be tabled with the committee as well? I saw the highlights on your release. I'm wondering if there's anything-

Hon Mr Baird: I think those are the issues.

Ms Martel: That's what they'll be asked to respond to, those five issues?

Hon Mr Baird: I don't envisage any sort of travelling road show or three-ring circus. We're going to go out and talk to a lot of-I've already met with some caseworkers. I've already met with some law enforcement officials. We want to meet with people in other jurisdictions and learn what the best practices are. We want to talk to folks at the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Health. We want to invite input and suggestions. Here are five areas we want to discuss. I suspect we're going to get a lot of advice outside of those five areas, and that's welcome too.

Ms Martel: Would you table with the committee the list of people you intend to discuss this with?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm certainly happy to take that back. There may be some folks we're talking to who are recovering drug addicts who don't want their names tabled in the Ontario Legislature. I'm certainly happy to consider that.

Ms Martel: Fair enough. So you will do that?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm certainly happy to consider it.

Ms Martel: That would be helpful.

I would like to ask some questions about Andersen Consulting. I saw the letter you sent back to Mr Peters after the negotiations were complete at the end of April. I have some questions with respect to your letter. Specifically, I see that the cap of $180 million will remain in place. One of the auditor's concerns repeatedly has been how the ministry arrived at that cap as appropriate. I'd like to ask you why the cap of $180 million is the figure that has been arrived at. What is the justification for it?

Hon Mr Baird: I think the auditor's concerns in that area are fair. I've said that in the past, and I'll say it again today. I accept the majority of his complaints and his concerns in that regard.

Having said that, we set out to renegotiate the contract with a number of objectives. Obviously one of the objectives wasn't, "Could Andersen please rip up the contract and let us start from scratch?" I think that would be unrealistic. Even the standing committee on public accounts, by resolution, rejected the idea of abrogating the deal and losing two or three years of momentum and of time in this effort and said the best strategy was to renegotiate the contract.

My bottom line was that I wanted to see the project successfully completed. I wanted to see it successfully completed on time, successfully completed on budget and I wanted a substantial reduction in the rates.

Ms Martel: The question was, what's the justification for the cap of $180 million?

Hon Mr Baird: I think the auditor has criticized that there wasn't a justification. I don't think that has changed.

Ms Martel: You're saying there's no justification? How do you arrive at a figure of $180 million and determine that's good value for the taxpayer?

Hon Mr Baird: The auditor made that complaint.

Ms Martel: Yes.

Hon Mr Baird: Obviously Andersen doesn't get paid a dollar if the taxpayers don't save a dollar. That's what a common purpose procurement arrangement is all about. I think the contract probably would be very different-this is the first major common purpose procurement that the government has ever undertaken. In my judgment and in my opinion, the auditor made a number of very fair complaints and criticisms of the ministry in that regard. We've since done our very best to address all those issues which we're capable of addressing, and I think we've made good progress. I'm pleased to say the project has improved incredibly in the last year or two. At the end of the day, I think it's going to yield some excellent results for the taxpayers, some excellent results in the delivery of social assistance in the province.

Ms Martel: You still haven't answered the question, though.

Hon Mr Baird: I have. You just don't like the answer.

Ms Martel: No. The auditor was very specific that he was looking for some evidence as to why the ministry would agree that paying Andersen $180 million was a legitimate amount of money to pay. He made that criticism in his first report and in his second. I see you have reaffirmed the original cap of $180 million. I'm wondering if you have now been able to provide to the auditor some justification for arriving at that figure as a payment to Andersen.

Hon Mr Baird: My answers aren't going to be like a good bottle of wine; they're not going to get better with age. I've responded. You have the right not to accept my answer, but I've answered it twice.

Ms Martel: All right. The auditor was also critical of expenditures outside the cap, and I see those still exist as well. Can you tell me what eligible expenditures are still allowed outside of the $180-million cap?

Hon Mr Baird: Sure. If I could give you a specific example, the $180-million cap was for a certain set of-it's "up to." It's not necessarily $180 million; it's up to $180 million for them to do a certain number of things that are enumerated in the contract. There inevitably are things above and beyond that that were not contemplated in the original contract, and I want to give you a specific example.

The Legislature passed legislation last year, last October, to implement the M. v. H. decision. Obviously that has a substantial effect on the delivery of social assistance in terms of the definition of "spouse," particularly "same-sex spouse" and the whole host of how that operates in terms of a benefit unit and the whole host of entitlements and requirements in the social assistance system. Therefore, we have to change all the software and the processes in order to reflect that new change that was not part of that initial order. I go back to that analogy of a kitchen. You build a kitchen. Halfway through the process you decide you'd like ceramic floors. Obviously they're not going to throw that in for the same cost they gave you. You're going to have to pay extra. So that change in the order-the M. v. H. decision-would be one example of something that is outside the cap.

Ms Martel: Does Andersen have to get prior approval of the ministry before they submit that and before you'll agree to pay?

Hon Mr Baird: Yes. We asked for it.

Ms Martel: That has been a change from the original contract because they didn't have to seek prior approval for expenditures outside the cap.

The Vice-Chair: You've got a minute, Ms Martel.

Hon Mr Baird: Yes, they have to get approval.

Ms Martel: Tell me about the billing rates that are now being charged. I think you told the committee last time you were here the billing rates have been decreased by 34%?

Hon Mr Baird: It's 39.5%.

Ms Martel: Here's my concern. The auditor's concern was that the rates were actually 63% higher than the original quote Andersen gave at the time it got the contract. It looks like they're probably still about 29% higher than the original rates quoted. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Baird: No, I don't believe it is, and we can invite officials from the ministry to come up and make that presentation. I think there is an honest difference of opinion. The auditor, if I'm not mistaken-from memory-looked at averages within certain categories that maybe didn't accurately reflect the rates. I'm happy to get someone up here to give you specific information on that because I think it's a reasonable question.

Ms Martel: What the auditor says-and I'll just quote it, "We noted that the rates charged by Andersen Consulting exceeded the rates quoted in its proposal by an average of 63% and can be increased by Andersen at any time without the approval of the ministry." Those were in his first two reports.

1730

Hon Mr Baird: Can we just take a moment and we'll get you that information? In the renegotiation I think we did a pretty good job. Is it perfect? No, but I think we did a pretty good job.

The Vice-Chair: If the response could be pretty short, and of course the next time-

Hon Mr Baird: Those are the good types of responses, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Half a minute.

Ms Bonnie Ewart: Bonnie Ewart. Yes, the auditor did state a quote that said the rates went up 63%. When we renegotiated, we renegotiated back down to almost precisely the same amount as they were in this RFP document, which translates into 39.5%. It's just strictly the math. The rates are the same as they were to begin with. They are the same now as they were to begin with, but when you-how can I explain this? When you do an increase of $50 to $100, that's a 100% increase, but when you go backwards, your reduction is on a higher base, so your math is not going to be the same going backwards.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms Ewart: I can demonstrate it on paper.

Ms Martel: Send it to me after.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Stewart.

Mr Stewart: I want to go back to the treatment again, if I may, Minister. I'm not going to ramble quite as much as I did the last time. Probably there are those who would be pleased about that, but I do want to get on the record that in my riding of Peterborough we've had 4,356 fewer people on welfare than we had back in 1995, which I think just proves that with a strong economy and a new direction in social assistance it is definitely working.

Regarding the treatment, is alcohol going to be classed as a treatable drug? I don't know what the stats are, but I've certainly had folks in my office a number of times who have been under the influence of alcohol. Many of them will admit they abuse alcohol. I'm just wondering if it will be a treatable drug.

Hon Mr Baird: That's something to which we've given a lot of thought and a lot of consideration. Obviously the whole motive is to try to provide help to people who face an addiction where that's a barrier to employment. I know of instances where alcohol is a chemical addiction where it is a barrier. I think that will be part of our consultations. I can tell you my own personal view is that it should be included. At the same time, though, we want to be realistic as far as the capacity of our program to respond to everything at once. I think you can have three-you can have an illegal drug, you could have alcohol and you can have even prescription drugs, which are often abused. We might want to, for example, phase it in in terms of those three types of areas, but that will be one of the things we consult on.

There's often a difference in terms of the definition of an addiction. There's a physiological or chemical addiction; you know, cocaine, heroin. There are other addictions which might be better characterized as habits. Even some illegal drugs have been characterized by some as being habits, for example, marijuana. Some characterize it as a chemical addiction; others characterize it as a habit addiction. That will be one of the things we want to do in talking to treatment experts.

I can tell you my own view is that we shouldn't simply write someone off who's an alcoholic. At the same time, I want to be realistic as far as the capacity of the system. One of the things we learned in our first term was not to bite off more than we can chew. By all means bring in a lot of change, but just be cognizant of the demands on the system.

Mr Stewart: I'm pleased to hear that. As I said in the first time I made comments today, I can remember having a young fellow working for me and we eventually found out that he was an alcoholic. In the old days-not in my particular case, but if you came to work drunk or you did it consistently, you were gone. These days, of course, they class it as a medical condition in need of support. So I would hope it is considered with the consulting, and I compliment you on that, because I believe this is a contentious issue. I don't know why it is contentious, but it appears it could be, that you could get the information and the input you should have.

One thing that seems to have come up a bit in my riding in the last few weeks is the policy of putting liens on homes of welfare recipients. I know some people believe this is too harsh-I know it only happens when they've been on social assistance for a year. On the other hand there are those in this world who feel that once you're on social assistance it's your God-given right to be there forever. Needless to say, I don't believe that. Maybe you could give us a an idea of the intent of the policy as well as the justification for it.

Hon Mr Baird: I should say at the outset that this is not a new policy. It was passed as part of the Ontario Works Act. I concede that perhaps it was not being implemented by some or all consolidated municipal service managers. The program was proclaimed in 1998, and then by nature of the timelines on it, it came into effect a year later.

One of the challenges has been to design a welfare system that is two things. These are two premises on which our entire welfare system is based. It's a temporary program, and it's a program of last resort. This is a last-resort program, different from unemployment insurance, for example, which is not a program of last resort. The programs have different mandates and different functions.

Part of Ontario Works is that there are asset limits and requirements. We don't let someone apply for Ontario Works if they've got $25,000 in the bank or a stock portfolio or if they have a $25,000 car. They are not eligible. There is an alternative. They have an asset. Welfare is a program of last resort.

One of the challenges you have is people who own their own homes. For me, my home is my biggest investment, and for most middle-class working families in Ontario their principal residence is their biggest investment. At the same time, when someone falls on hard times economically, we don't want anyone to be forced out of their home based on economic circumstances, which by the nature of the program are temporary. So we've done two things.

For example, someone could own a $100,000 townhouse-in Nepean you can buy a townhouse for $100,000. If it is owned outright, a family on Ontario Works could easily afford to pay the condominium fee and the taxes and continue to live in that home. What we're saying in terms of this policy change, this regulatory change, is that if you're on welfare for 10 or 11 months, it's not a problem. But if you're on welfare for longer than that, it would be somehow wrong for you to enjoy an increase in the value of your home. For example, that $100,000 townhouse-and I'm familiar with one-is worth $110,000 a year later. In my judgment it would be pretty ridiculous for someone to see an asset, the biggest investment in their life, appreciate by $10,000, with no capital gains tax on that $10,000 increase, at the same time they are on social assistance. In fact, in some cases it could actually be in excess of their social assistance benefit. They could actually earn more money from the increase in the value of their home in terms of a capital gain than from their income flow from Ontario Works.

What we have said is that when you go on the program you have to consent to a lien being placed on your home after 12 months, and you would pay back your welfare costs whenever you sold that home. So if you are on welfare for two years, for example, after you've been on welfare for a year, a lien would go on your home, and whenever you sold that home, in five, 10 or 25 years, the taxpayers would get their money back. Not one single person would be forced out of their home as a result of the policy, but at the same time it would recognize that the poor, working-class individual living in the townhouse next door who is renting, who can't afford the down payment to buy a home, shouldn't be paying for your welfare cheque while you are realizing a capital gain. Using that same example, someone should not be on social assistance paying off their mortgage, where you would have the person renting next door essentially helping you pay off the principal on your mortgage.

1740

I appreciate there is concern and disagreement about this policy. We're particularly sympathetic in rural Ontario. If you're in Bancroft or Oxford Mills or Spencerville and own your own home, it might be cheaper and better economically to stay in that owned accommodation rather than renting, which may or may not be available and, if it is, may even be more money than owning.

I think it's a very pro-middle-class policy that we don't ask people on welfare to have their next-door neighbour who is renting pay off their home or help them realize capital gains. I appreciate there will be an honest difference of opinion on that, but it's a policy I wholeheartedly support.

Mr Mazzilli: I want to talk about an area of your ministry that you were asked many questions about in the Legislature earlier in the year-and I believe Ontario is the only province where it falls under your ministry-that is, youth detention centres. You were asked many questions, but often in the Legislature you are given a limited amount of time to respond. Can you tell us how many youth detention centres your ministry is responsible for, how many of those were operated by social agencies in the past, such as the Salvation Army, as many have been through different governments, and the few you recently turned over to other agencies to operate? Just give us a breakdown over the years, and certainly have one of your deputy ministers-

Hon Mr Baird: The ministry, as you know, is responsible for young offenders between the ages of 12 and 15. I think we currently have about 104 young offenders' facilities for those 12- to 15-year-olds, in just about every region of Ontario.

When I came to the ministry 18 months ago, I believe 99 of the 105 were operated by outside agencies: in many cases non-profit agencies and in some cases private sector operators. The experience of the ministry was fairly positive in that. It was a policy that was followed by the NDP government and the Liberal government. It wasn't a new policy or a radical change from the status quo that had been going on for 10 or 20 years.

For the last five facilities, we did seek community-based operators. I'm referring to the Genest centre in London, the Syl Apps facility in Oakville, the York Detention Centre in the city of Toronto, Project DARE in the Parry Sound-Muskoka area and, I believe, one in Sault Ste Marie. Those were the five. The ministry has had a good experience with those operators. From time to time, there are problems, just as there are with facilities directly operated by the ministry. But by and large I think it's been a good experience.

I can give you an example of one that was passed on to a community operator in my own community before I became the minister. The William Haye centre in Ottawa used to be directly operated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Today it's operated by the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton, an agency with a long history of providing supports to young people in our community, very well regarded in the community and with a good track record. To date I think they're doing a pretty good job operating it, obviously with ministry standards and ministry supervision.

Mr Mazzilli: If I could move on to something else, earlier this year you, along with your ministry, were responsible for some changes to the Child and Family Services Act. Can you or someone from your ministry explain what those changes were intended to achieve?

Hon Mr Baird: We've undertaken a reform agenda within the area of children's aid societies, child welfare and child protection. The major part of that was the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. Actually that was passed in the year leading up to your election. We've seen an 80%-

The division bells rang.

The Vice-Chair: We have about two more minutes left. You can use that tomorrow. We have to go for a vote now.

The committee is adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30.

The committee adjourned at 1746.