MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

CONTENTS

Wednesday 15 November 2000

Ministry of Community and Social Services
Hon John Baird, Minister of Community and Social Services
Ms Jessica Hill, assistant deputy minister, program management division
Mr Barry Whalen, assistant deputy minister, social assistance and employment opportunities

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
Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier L)
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North / -Nord L)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington L)
Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings PC)

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim
Ms Susan Sourial

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

The committee met at 1531 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): I call the meeting to order. We are continuing with the review of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I understand we're at the rotation for the official opposition. You have 20 minutes, and I guess we're beginning with Ms Dombrowsky.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question to the minister is with regard to directive number 29, which outlines the provisions for temporary care assistance. What I would like the minister to define for us this afternoon is "temporary care." Can you assign a period of time to "temporary care"?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Are you talking about developmental disabilities, children's services, CASs, young offenders?

Mrs Dombrowsky: Foster care.

Hon Mr Baird: Perhaps you could provide-we deal with about 1.5 million clients.

Mrs Dombrowsky: OK. When application is made for temporary care support, some jurisdictions interpret "temporary care" to be a period of six months and others a full year, while other jurisdictions await some direction on that from your ministry. I was wondering if you would be able to clarify today, for the purposes of providing benefits to caregivers, how long "temporary care" is.

Hon Mr Baird: When you say "jurisdictions," do you mean a county or a children's aid society?

Mrs Dombrowsky: I have three counties in my riding, and each county has chosen a different interpretation in terms of the timeline for temporary care. What is "temporary"?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm afraid you'll have to give me more details. I'm not following the question.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I was hoping you'd be able to provide me with the detail in terms of "temporary" under directive 29.

Hon Mr Baird: I'm not going to debate with you. I'm saying I don't understand your question. I can either say "I don't understand" or "I can't give you an answer." If you give me more information, I could try to do my best to answer or one of the assistant deputy ministers. You're talking about directive 29 of what?

Mrs Dombrowsky: "This directive explains the circumstances under which temporary care assistance shall be paid."

Hon Mr Baird: I can't provide you with the answer. If you could tell me the directive of what, I'd be happy to look into it. You're speaking in code.

Mrs Dombrowsky: It was "formerly foster parent allowance."

Hon Mr Baird: Directive of what?

Mrs Dombrowsky: For temporary care assistance.

Hon Mr Baird: Maybe you could table with the committee what you're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry.

Mrs Dombrowsky: This is a ministry document.

Hon Mr Baird: If you table the document, we'd be happy to look into it for you.

Mrs Dombrowsky: OK. Thank you.

The Chair: The clerk will be happy to make copies of the documentation.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Would that be coming to me in writing?

Hon Mr Baird: You're speaking code, and I don't understand. We'll have to look at it and certainly get it to you in short order, whether that's a couple of minutes, a couple of hours, a couple of days or a couple of weeks. I don't know what directive you're referring to. I've got eight assistant deputy ministers behind me who don't know what you're talking about either.

Mrs Dombrowsky: This is a term in the Ontario Works legislation under directive 29.

Hon Mr Baird: That's what I asked you four times and you didn't tell me. I'm not going to play games. We'll look into it and get you an answer as soon as we possibly can.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I said it before.

Hon Mr Baird: I didn't hear you.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Read the Hansard.

The Chair: Ms Di Cocco.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question has to do with the funding for services to persons with developmental disabilities. You had a meeting, I believe at the end of last month, with the tri-counties-Chatham-Kent, Windsor-Essex and Sarnia-Lambton-in my constituency. When it came to funding for the developmentally disabled, the agencies in Sarnia-Lambton-the Lambton County Association for the Mentally Handicapped, the Sarnia and District Association for Community Living, the St Francis Advocates Inc and the Christian Horizons-have restructured and come together and, under the criteria you set out, requested $2.7 million. They only got $106,000. The funding is so small, particularly to aging parents with children. I'm just wondering if you're going to address the disparity between the need that area has and the actual funding you allotted them.

Hon Mr Baird: I think this goes to the issue of how the new funding for people with developmental disabilities was distributed, which I'm happy to discuss with you. As you know, $50 million was announced this year. Part of it went to support special services at home, and part of it went for fire code upgrades, which would depend dramatically, region by region, on which agencies had requirements for fire code upgrades. Some of it went in terms of baseline monies for wages in the sector. Some, in terms of residential bed capacity, was distributed in a formula as follows.

We looked at three things. We looked at the incidence, the number of people and the prevalence of a developmental disability within that region-our ministry has nine separate regions. So (1) we looked at the number of people with a developmental disability in that region, (2) we looked at the current population of that region, and (3) we looked at the expected growth in that region. The third one was only 10%, a rather small amount of the money. I'll follow up, because I want to give you a specific answer. It's not an unreasonable question.

In my judgment, there is a tremendous inequity across the province in the distribution of our supports to community living. For some time, some areas have got more than their population might otherwise justify. One area is southwestern Ontario, another area would be the Hamilton-Niagara region and another would be northern Ontario. On a per capita basis we would spend substantially more in those parts of the province than we would in other areas of the province; for example, the GTA, the 905 area. The city of Toronto doesn't get the amount of resources it might expect. It has 24% of the population.

Developmental disability is not substantially based on geography. There's not any more likelihood to be a higher prevalence in one part of the province organically, if I could say. There might be, depending on the way residential patterns for institutions have been based. For example, in Ottawa-Carleton, Renfrew county, Stormont-Dundas and Glengarry, and Prescott-Russell, there was less than they might otherwise suggest. That meant there was a historical inequity.

What we sought to do with the additional funding for residential supports for people with developmental disabilities as part of that $50-million announcement-was it $18 million or $24 million? Twenty-four million dollars of the $50 million was divided up that way. We sought to help tackle that historical inequity to try to compensate a bit more in those areas which had been underfunded for five, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years. Like I said, the city of Toronto was one, eastern Ontario-Renfrew county, Prescott-Russell-was another. The areas around the city of Toronto in terms of the suburbs was a third area which just had substantially less, and that's always a difficult challenge to do. Do you say to some people who had historically got a lot less funding that "If we get a new dollar, we'll spread it around equally," or will we try to address past shortcomings?

1540

Ms Di Cocco: The problem there is the fact that apparently it's approximately 17% of the province's need when it comes to the developmentally disabled. I understand that's the demographics of that area. Certainly, if you're saying that you are cutting up the pie, if you want, and trying to equalize it, in their opinion-and these are the people who service these people-they are saying that unfortunately they feel they really got the short end of the stick down there. I just would like to see you, in your capacity, address that. As you know, you're going to have an awful lot of cards coming to you from people from that whole region. The fact is that it isn't meeting the current needs and the needs of the aging parents of people who are developmentally disabled. They are saying they have a real crisis on their hands. I understand your problem, but they're saying they are not getting their share.

Hon Mr Baird: They certainly didn't get a proportionate share of this part of the announcement. We did try to deal with some of the historical inequities. For example, people in the city of Toronto could have rightfully said, "We just want the same per capita funding as you give southwestern Ontario: nothing more, nothing less." That was a concern, I appreciate, in this announcement. Obviously if it had gone around equally, it would have been spread more equally. You do point out the need for more supports for people with developmental disabilities. I agree. I met with the folks from your constituency and am certainly committed to-

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Can I do a quick follow-up, Minister, on this same issue? Is not part of the problem also that the new fund-there are some new initiatives involved and you're asking for new child-intensive initiatives. There are some new initiatives. So it seems to me that part of the problem is that despite what you've said, you're still asking them to do new initiatives which the organizations that are being funded on a much lower basis are still expected to do, but they can't really do it. Their resources are very tight, so those like Thunder Bay and-

Hon Mr Baird: Could you name one, just so I could-

Mr Gravelle: No, I'm asking you if that's the case; if, for example, there are new initiatives you're asking them to do as part of that funding and the organizations that are being underfunded are also being expected to do them. If that's case, the underfunding is a bigger problem.

Hon Mr Baird: The new initiatives-for example, a new program which started this year called Foundations to try and support day programming for folks leaving the school system, primarily young people between 18 and 21-plus who are leaving or have left the school system. That's being done on a proposal basis. People submit a proposal and we would approve it. No one is expected to undertake that without funding, so there's certainly no expectation there.

I haven't heard any complaints with respect to the fire code monies. If there are, I'd welcome them. There might be geographically some areas which weren't meeting the fire code more than others; in my judgment, more of the funds should go there. If there's no one in the city of Toronto who has a fire code problem, they obviously shouldn't get any money for fire code.

But if there is a specific instance where people, as part of these new programs, as part of that $50 million, have increased expectations but there isn't funding, I'd certainly be aware of them; I'd certainly like to receive them and I'd look into them. There's no intention to do that, so if there's an area, we certainly would look into it.

Ms Di Cocco: St Clair Child and Youth Services in Sarnia-Lambton provides services to about 700 clients, child/family, per year, and 300 or 400 child/family contacts that they service. They began the intensive treatment service in school and home to strengthen and improve their system, and they were really shocked when they found out it was only a one-time fiscal allocation of $100,000. I've submitted a letter to you, because maybe it's a mistake; other services of this genre across the province have gotten annualized funding. So they don't understand why they have gotten this one-time funding. They've already started the program and they're going to have to cut it in March next year if they don't get some kind of commitment to the annualized funding.

Hon Mr Baird: It's intensive services-

Ms Di Cocco: Yes, it is.

Hon Mr Baird: For?

Ms Di Cocco: Child and family intervention services. They are working with very critical areas at school and in the community.

Hon Mr Baird: Is it autistic services? Is it child protection, child welfare services, disability?

Ms Di Cocco: It's intensive intervention for youth and children. My understanding is that it works with prevention, kids who are at risk when it comes to getting involved with the law and getting into trouble, before they're incarcerated. So there's family intervention there.

Hon Mr Baird: I'm trying to compartmentalize it. Is it children's mental health or child welfare?

Ms Di Cocco: Mental health.

Hon Mr Baird: Children's mental health?

Ms Di Cocco: Yes.

Hon Mr Baird: The deputy minister may be able to address it, because it sounds like a fair concern.

The Chair: Leona, do you want to ask one more quick question?

Mrs Dombrowsky: Minister, I'm going to try this one more time, because I have a document with your signature-

The Chair: Sorry, are you going to answer that question?

Ms Jessica Hill: Yes, I was about to. My name is Jessica Hill, and I'm with the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

In the southwest region, there were a number of initiatives funded under the children's mental health initiative. Particularly, we responded to some crises in the Windsor-Essex area in terms of stabilizing the crisis intervention services and the hospital community programming. There was an effort to support the St Clair Youth Services, and it is I think well-acknowledged and understood by the agency that it was one-time funding. They recognize that it's not a long-term solution, that there also is planning in the whole region around how to ensure that the services are working in the best way possible. So it is true that it is one-time funding at this time, but it is being discussed with the regional office and being looked at.

Hon Mr Baird: Is that-

Ms Di Cocco: As I said, they're looking for the long-term funding, and it was their understanding that it was long-term funding.

Hon Mr Baird: It was? OK.

Ms Di Cocco: That it was going to be changed to long-term funding. So that's what the problem is.

Hon Mr Baird: We'll certainly look into it and review the issue.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I have a document dated September 25, 2000. It's an answer for an order question that I asked: "Would the Minister of Community and Social Services indicate whether or not his ministry has cut support benefits for those providing non-custodial foster care?" In your answer, Minister, the document which you signed, these are your words, "Temporary care assistance, formerly known as the foster allowance under the former family benefits and general welfare assistance program, has not been reduced."

My question is with regard to your reference to temporary care assistance. What is the time frame that your ministry considers temporary?

Hon Mr Baird: I can call someone up now. I wasn't sure of whether you were talking about the Child and Family Services Act, children's mental health, Ontario Works, the foster care plan. You were being very coded, and it was very difficult for us to understand. But I'll have Barry Whalen, our assistant deputy minister, answer.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Thank you.

Mr Barry Whalen: I would like to just double-check, but to my knowledge there is no time period that the temporary assistance can be provided. It would depend on the individual circumstances of the family.

Mrs Dombrowsky: That would be interpreted by the-

Mr Whalen: Ontario Works deliverers, the municipality.

Mrs Dombrowsky: The local social service.

Mr Whalen: Right.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Thank you.

Mr Gravelle: Minister, if I may go back to the developmental services sector again, you've certainly in your opening remarks and on other occasions spoken about the importance of this to your ministry. You talk about the extra funding that you've put forward, and I think that's appreciated, but you've also acknowledged that one of the most significant challenges facing the agencies which deliver these services is in the area of human resources. Obviously, ultimately organizations need to pay their staff an appropriate salary in order to keep them. We know, and I'm sure you do as well, that right now developmental services sector organizations across the whole spectrum are falling behind. They're losing staff, there's a tremendous upheaval in terms of staff going, and obviously in order for the system to work that infrastructure has to be maintained. So they are suffering very clearly from a wage disparity.

Having said that, the question I'm asking is, why does your government adopt basically a 2% salary increase for the broader public service sector-2% as a barrier-yet you provided social service agencies with the resources to only budget-I think it was-0.8%, less than a 1% increase for their staff? That strikes me as being a double standard, and it certainly seems to be something that doesn't match your commitment to see that the sector is properly supported, because obviously that won't keep the staff.

1550

Hon Mr Baird: For social service agencies within the ministry I think it was 1% and 1.5%. If you have a specific example that would be contrary to that, I'd certainly look into it.

In the developmental services sector, the folks for nine years working in that area I think got zero, so 1% and 1.5% is certainly substantially better than that. I'm the first to acknowledge that it's a very small recognition, that we've got to do more. As part of our developmental services reform and the consultations we've had, it has certainly been identified as a major issue from both the Association for Community Living and community agencies across the province. I have met on a number of occasions with CUPE and on one occasion with Sid Ryan. He strongly raised it. So you have both the employers and representatives of employees-

Mr Gravelle: What would you support then, at least 2%?

Hon Mr Baird: To the best of my knowledge, there was no differential in the sector; it was 1% and 1.5%. Would I have liked to have gotten more? Yes. I guess there was a balance. When we went forward with that request, at the same time we were asking for $6 million to start Foundations, we were asking for $7 million for fire code, we were asking for $24 million for residential support, we were asking for more money for respite care. So it was a challenge. Do I support increasing the budget for wages? Yes. That's part of our reforms. Would I like to see a big increase there? Yes.

Mr Gravelle: Staff issues are huge, as you know, and that doesn't even address-do I have any time?

The Chair: Thirty seconds.

Mr Gravelle: -pay equity. What are the outstanding pay equity obligations, as you understand them, in terms of your transfer agency partners? What are the pay equity obligations? That's another huge issue, obviously.

Hon Mr Baird: It depends on agency by agency, but there has been no change in provincial policy since, I believe, 1996 on that issue. It was capped at $500 million.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I appreciate the opportunity to sub in for my colleague Shelley Martel and to ask you a few questions today. I always appreciate it when there's a minister who knows his brief and knows his detail and has good staff backing him up. I also have to say that I appreciate, when at times I've brought specific problems, your willingness to look at them and take action, like the crisis in mental health in southwestern Ontario and in Windsor-Essex. I really appreciate that kind of response. Now that I've buttered you up-

Hon Mr Baird: That's always the part I fear the most.

Ms Lankin: You won't be surprised to know that I am here today to speak to you about issues with respect to anti-violence against women initiatives that your ministry is responsible for and also your role in the cross-ministerial strategy that the government has.

I'm aware of the announcement, for example, that stems from the budget announcement of the $10 million, the $5 million for the child witness program and the other $5 million for transition supports. It's hard for me in particular, because I spend most of my time looking at health estimates, to understand the Comsoc estimates, to see exactly where those initiatives, not just the $10 million but any other initiatives that you may have further investments in with respect to anti-violence strategies, appear in the ministry's estimates book.

On page 32, which sets out the general description of adults' and children's services program, in the objectives of that program area it talks about residential and non-residential community services to enable female victims of violence-and then it talks about other target groups in the community who are also aided by assistance there. Could you give me, first of all, the specific reference in the estimates book, the budget vote item, that contains anti-violence initiatives so I know where we're talking about it?

Hon Mr Baird: Page 75.

Ms Lankin: Maybe you can direct me to the actual vote item, just a brief description.

Hon Mr Baird: That would be vote 702, item 4.

Ms Lankin: The brief description in terms of the change in the estimates in violence against women, the 16% increase, can you tell me what that amount-

Hon Mr Baird: If you look at it, there are two budget initiatives: the transitional support program for women and children and the budget initiative for the child witness of domestic violence intervention program, each of $5 million. In terms of wage pressures, there is obviously $644,700 and some internal transfers of $474,700.

Ms Lankin: Which page are you actually looking at now? That's not on page 75, is it?

Hon Mr Baird: That's my explanation.

Ms Lankin: So the wage pressures would be in the area on page 75 described as "broader public sector-other grants"?

Hon Mr Baird: No, that would be the $999,900. If you noticed, on page 75 it says $10,999,900. The $10 million itself is the new budget initiative and the remainder is the wage pressure issue.

Ms Lankin: Is there any other area in the ministry's budget that is specifically designated to anti-violence initiatives, or is this the key area that we would be talking about?

Hon Mr Baird: Obviously, within the ministry we do some training initiatives. We fund 98 shelters. Through the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy, there's an initiative there.

Ms Lankin: Have there been major increases in any of those budget lines that I should be aware of before I start asking you questions?

Hon Mr Baird: This year, no. The aboriginal healing and wellness strategy obviously was renewed five years, the first Blueprint commitment we fulfilled in our ministry. But the major part was the wage issue and the two $5-million programs.

Ms Lankin: It is a strategy that I'm aware of from prior to 1995.

Hon Mr Baird: That's why I said "renewed," because it was a great program.

Ms Lankin: Good, we agree on something.

The budget initiative of $10 million-and let me say any investment in this area is something that I will support, while I am critical of areas there has not been movement on. That initiative, split $5 million and $5 million, is set up in an interesting way. It's allocated out to existing transfer payment agencies. It's on a regional basis, as I understand, nine regions in the province. Groups have been brought together to try and determine how that money would be allocated, particularly money in terms of the counselling positions, which agencies they would be in. Not necessarily shelters-in one case the Salvation Army, I think, is one of the service deliverers. The one thing I'm unclear about-I may not be right in this assertion-is that my understanding is the money is annualized to the region but not necessarily annualized to the organizational budget. Is that an accurate description, or can you clarify for me if I'm incorrect?

Hon Mr Baird: It's certainly annualized. The $10 million representing the two $5-million programs is certainly added to base. I can get you a specific answer.

Ms Lankin: I understand that.

Ms Hill: I think that the process was to select a lead agency and to allocate the funding there. We would check whether that's going to be incorporated into the lead agency's service contract on a permanent basis. What I would speculate, what I need to confirm with the regions, is whether they're leaving some flexibility just to ensure that the lead agency is delivering to the rest of the system the services that they've agreed to provide, so in a sense waiting a year to see if it's working through.

Ms Lankin: So the intent is not that it would be project money that's renewable; that in fact it would be annualized into that agency's budget as long as it meets the demands of the service contract.

1600

Ms Hill: Right, but I think the subtlety really has to do with their responsibility to the other service providers, in that they're playing a role on behalf of a number of agencies. So there may be some need to just ensure that they've picked the right lead agency. But I can confirm that.

Ms Lankin: I'd appreciate some clarity on that. I think there is some misunderstanding in the community itself, just about what the future holds-not whether that money will be there or not but how agencies will continue to-

Hon Mr Baird: And that can cause nervousness and uncertainty for staff. Just so you know, there's no motivation there for that. Obviously with a new program there are certain expectations where you want the intent followed through.

Ms Lankin: That money is being divided equally between two programs, the child witness of domestic violence program, and transitional support for abused women and their children. Again, as I said, I would certainly support any initiative on this front.

The first area I want to talk to you about, though, which is right now a key responsibility of your ministry, are the services provided through women's emergency shelters. I know there has been work within the ministry, and people have been looking at whether or not there is deemed to be a need to expand shelter services. There has been some dispute about the rate of utilization of shelter beds, for example. I will be the first one to admit that it's very difficult to get a good handle on what's happening out in the community even through their association, which has a lot of hard numbers that we have available to work on.

In a previous conversation with you, Minister, you asked me to take a look at the issue of utilization and where the pressures were and what I could find out: again, let me admit, anecdotal information, and I'm hoping over this period of time that you might have some harder numbers. The assaulted women's help lines: the number of calls, the frequency of calls, the volume of calls and the proportion of those calls seeking direct information about shelter placements, finding space in shelters, have increased over the last year and continue to be at a very high level.

Over the summer, with the tragic incidents that took place, there were specific reports about York region and the growing pressures in York region and the shelters there not being able to meet the need; in fact, turning women away. In Pickering, following the tragic murder of Gillian Hadley, there were reports that there were specific women in Pickering who had been working on trying to establish a new shelter and getting support from the ministry and having been unable to do that. The friends of Gillian Hadley who have spoken out have indicated that one of her problems was that there was no shelter in Pickering, there was no place to go. To go over to another community meant disrupting her children, taking them from school, and that was a real problem.

In London, I know that in one of the meetings the ministry held with people from the community in talking about the allocation of the $10 million there was discussion that these two initiatives were of a bit higher priority in that it would be nice if it was expressed that there wasn't the immediate need for more shelter beds and that this money was actually going to be meeting a higher priority need, and the response of the women from London at that meeting was that there was in fact a need for more shelter beds in London, that they were turning people away.

There's a group of aboriginal women in Ottawa we have spoken to who are trying to get a shelter for aboriginal women there because there are no specific services and because the Ottawa shelters have indicated and communicated to them that they are full and are turning people away.

In your own home community you may well have talked with people at Nelson House-

Hon Mr Baird: Not recently.

Ms Lankin: -and might have some sense of the trouble they've had from time to time. I'm sure you would have.

In Toronto and in Bowmanville, shelters like Redwood and Bethesda currently have no contract for operation funds from the ministry, so they're fundraising. They are operating without being ministry shelters, in that sense. They are meeting a need and are turning people away.

The most recent hard numbers that I was able to come across-even then they're not hard numbers-were in the Falling through the Gender Gap report, released in 1998, which OAITH researched and in which they talked about the demands on shelter services rising, and particularly the information they were getting through the crisis lines.

I don't have any better information than that and I don't have a way of getting better information than that, but all of that, and speaking to women on the front lines across the province, leads me to believe that there is a pressure. There's a pressure both for more beds in some areas and for shelters where no shelters exist in some areas.

What have you been able to ascertain over this last period of time when we've both engaged in looking at this issue, and what plans do you have to meet the needs that you've identified?

Hon Mr Baird: It's certainly something which I'm engaged in. It is a challenge when looking at the occupancy rates of shelters, because they can't tell the whole story. Some may, for example, be only 85% full in a year, but 10 months of the year they could be turning people away. So I've asked for more information. I have been engaged in it since we spoke about three or four weeks ago.

I can tell you, for example, that in the city of Toronto, which is not a high-growth area, I've certainly heard the concern and the question, do we have enough capacity, enough beds there? When women are seeking to leave a violent relationship, do we have enough capacity? All 12 of the 12 shelters in Toronto have occupancy rates of over 80%. Seven of the 12, I understand, have occupancy rates of over 90%, but I-

Ms Lankin: Could I just add to that, Minister, that the last stats I saw showed that there were over 300 women plus their children in emergency housing shelters-

Hon Mr Baird: I've heard that from Councillor Brad Duguid-

Ms Lankin: -who don't get any sort of counselling supports or the other supports.

Hon Mr Baird: -and from the social services and housing folks at the city of Toronto. Seven to 12 shelters over 90% is certainly something I'm continuing to work on. We go through our budget process, as I'm sure you're familiar with. If there's a need, we can-

Ms Lankin: But, Minister, can we start from a premise that even in, let's say, Toronto, or we can go community by community, you have identified already a real, pressing need?

Hon Mr Baird: The concern I have-this is the information I have, and I don't want to present myself as the expert in this area. I want to be clear on that. I'm just going by the information I have, that seven of the 12 shelters are at over 90%. What I'd like to be able to see is, are there seven of the 12 months where there's a hugely higher occupancy rate problem which would more than justify an expansion of the system? What is the nature of the use of the hostel space?

In some communities without a shelter, for example-I think of a formal shelter as being one of the 98 shelters funded by the ministry. I think of Bethesda House in Durham region that obviously gets substantial modes of funding from the province through the $34.50 per diem. So it would be a mistake to say that there's no funding going to-you can talk about the adequacy-

Ms Lankin: There's no operational grant.

Hon Mr Baird: You can talk about the adequacy, though, of the services provided there.

Ms Lankin: Minister, sorry. There are other issues I want to get to.

On this one, clearly it's going to take an effort to pull together the information so you can convince yourself and then take forward a proposal to convince cabinet in the budgeting process.

In the May-Iles jury recommendations, followed up in the joint committee report, and May-Iles is over two years now, there's a specific recommendation to undertake a review of shelter funding, a formal review of shelter funding. Not ad hoc; not trying to get some information to get a sense of it and now needing to go back and look at monthly and what does that mean? Let's sort of cut to the chase here. Will you empower your staff, direct your staff, to commence working with OAITH and with the 98 shelters and the other informal or outside the formal provision of the 98 shelters who are giving care? Will you direct a formal funding review so that you have the information to make a decision about your submission to the budgeting process this year?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm certainly not in a position to do that here today. I am saying that the issue is one that's of concern to me. It's one which we have been engaged with the officials in the ministry on. It's one which consistently, since I arrived at the ministry, I've identified as a priority. It's one with which, as I've said to you on previous occasions, I'm certainly happy to work with you. I'm certainly happy to work with advocates in this sector to get a better understanding of the capacity.

Ms Lankin: May I ask what the hesitation is? What's the hesitation about doing the formal review? I mean, it's a May-Iles jury recommendation. It's grounded in good work out there.

1610

Hon Mr Baird: I think a formal review would mean one thing to one person and one to another. I don't know whether I would want to create a false expectation that there will be some royal commission established to look into this. Senior officials within the ministry see this as a priority. We're engaged in looking into it. I've talked to my colleagues the Attorney General and the minister for women's issues, and we're going to be meeting next week with a cross-sectoral group. This is obviously one of the most substantial parts. I would say it's one of the more meaningful submissions they've made to government. It's one with which I have no hesitation to meet with.

Ms Lankin: Could I ask you to provide me with the data you have collected so far with respect to utilization and occupancy rates of shelters and whatever information you're able to collect as you continue to look at this so we have an equal basis of information to continue to discuss where we head with shelter funding and the expansion of shelter funding in the future.

Hon Mr Baird: Sure.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate that.

I want to turn next to the issue of crisis helplines. You know of course that the Toronto crisis helpline has continuously been making the point over the last two years that there is a need for their service to be expanded province-wide, that they do receive calls from other parts of the province. There are times when the lines are jammed. They don't have enough telephone lines or enough counsellors to provide the supports that are there. You will also be aware-they've been calling for it for two years-that they actually submitted a formal proposal to you some five months ago. What is the status of the review of that proposal? What are your views with respect to their request?

The Chair: Very briefly please, Minister.

Hon Mr Baird: It's one of the issues in looking at the recommendations coming from that cross-sectoral committee of 95 groups, is it?

Ms Lankin: It's about 125 now. It's growing.

Hon Mr Baird: It's growing. It was 95 then.

Ms Lankin: You'd better act quickly.

Hon Mr Baird: There are a lot of recommendations they're making-

Ms Lankin: This is a proposal that has been before you for five months.

Hon Mr Baird: Yes-which are unrealistic. This has been a concern that has been expressed and it's certainly one with the shelter capacity and shelter numbers that I have no hesitation to look at. As far as the specific one five months ago, on that issue-

The Chair: Sorry, Minister. We'll have to maybe continue this in the next round.

Hon Mr Baird: We'll have an hour to get it for you.

Ms Lankin: Forty minutes.

Hon Mr Baird: Forty minutes; sorry.

The Chair: I now turn to the government caucus and to Mr Wettlaufer.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I'd like to get on the record that in Kitchener Centre, in my riding, this year on April 1 we opened the children's mental health access centre in downtown Kitchener to provide service to families in the Waterloo region. What this does is streamline access to services for children and youth and their families. It provides a single, consolidated intake process for treatment and support services, and they will be provided by Lutherwood CODA and Notre Dame of St Agatha Children's Centre, which are major children's mental health service providers that you fund through you ministry-not personally but through your ministry.

In addition, the access centre houses the local interagency wraparound service and a single point of access to children's mental health residential services. The model for the centre was developed and recommended to the ministry through a consultation process that we undertook as part of the Making Services Work for People initiative. Collaboration with a number of local children and youth organizations is putting the concept into action.

Walter Mittelstaedt, who is the director of treatment programs at Lutherwood CODA, said:

"We are delighted to have the opportunity to expand intensive home-based services here in Waterloo region, because this service approach is increasingly being recognized across North America. The focus is to provide practical, effective home- and community-based help and to reduce the need for institutional and residential placements. With this new funding, we will be able to get involved earlier with families and reduce waiting lists."

Sonia Pouyat is with kidsLINK. She said:

"Access services are important and we need to ensure that the services families need are available. The access centre will provide a good point for assessing family needs and delivering or arranging services."

Supports for families with children experiencing mental health difficulties are expanding in Kitchener-Waterloo and across the province, but particularly in Kitchener-Waterloo. That's the area that I'm interested in. They're expanding because of the government's announcement in April this year of $20 million in new funding for children's mental health.

The second-largest increase in the ministry's estimates comes under children's funding, an increase in the amount of $37.8 million, which is a relatively significant increase. Is the announcement made in April in the area of children's mental health, in the amount of $20 million, part of this $37.8 million? If not, how does your ministry plan to spend this money, this total of $37.8 million? If it is part of it, how do you plan on spending the other $17.8 million?

Hon Mr Baird: I can answer two parts and then I'll get the answer to the third part in a moment.

The first was $20 million: that was $10 million, rising to $20 million, to expand and support children's mental health services. That will bring the budget for our children's mental health system in terms of our ministry to about $296 million, which is more than any government has spent in our history. There was a review done on children's mental health by our colleague Margaret Marland, the minister responsible for children's issues, prior to my tenure at the ministry, so we've been able to benefit greatly from that effort. She did a tremendous amount of consultation around the province and was able to talk to a lot of service providers, a lot of staff and leadership within that sector, parents, families, professionals, and there was a substantial amount of support providing that new funding.

The second area of that funding was in terms of increasing wages, in terms of the $37 million.

The third part was the autism initiative. As you recall, in the budget on May 5, 1999, the government announced its intention to introduce an autism program, intensive intervention for two- to five-year-olds with autism in the budget. This has been a rather large effort because we really had such limited, close to none, capacity to provide those services in Ontario. This initiative resulted when the Autism Society Ontario and Trevor Williams, who was formerly with that organization, came forward in the pre-budget consultations in 1999 and made a very excellent presentation. It was one of the few examples where I've seen-well, not few but not enough examples-someone in the social services sector coming in and making a business case for support, that if you make an investment in children, particularly at that early age, in the early years, in this area, in that type of therapy which has proven to be so more successful with the malleability of a young child's mind between the ages of two and five, it can make a gigantic difference in terms of that child's development. That money I think rises to $19 million a year.

The big challenge in that area has been that the parents who could afford it would bring in therapists or have folks from Ontario trained, some in New Jersey and other parts of the United States, flown up here or trained down there. Some who couldn't afford it went into debt and begged, borrowed and stole whatever they could to build private help for their children. But with this new program, what we've had to do is undertake a huge training initiative to be able to build capacity here within the province. We've continued to work closely with the Autism Society of Ontario. The training has been going very well in the past three or four months. The rubber is finally beginning to meet the road in the last number of months and children are beginning to be able to get that therapy.

1620

It has been a slow process, slower than I would have liked, but it will be well worth the time we've taken to get it right. I think the Autism Society of Ontario has been supportive of that effort to build a made-in-Ontario delivery mechanism. We can be very proud in Ontario to be the first province to introduce this type of program and I quite frankly am surprised this wasn't done 25 years ago. It's a good initiative.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you, Minister. Before I get to my question, I happen to be sitting reading a fact sheet. Yesterday we discussed a lot about drug treatment and fraud etc. I certainly had the opinion from those opposite that this drug treatment program was the first that anybody in the history of the world had ever done. Certainly we are the first in Canada, and I applaud us for that. I sometimes wonder where the rest of the provinces and indeed the federal government have been for the last good number of years.

But when I read this sheet that I have, it's interesting to note that a number of states in the United States have programs, programs mainly designed for treatment. If you look at places like Oregon, their welfare program focuses on addiction that is a barrier to employment and participation in the job opportunity and basic skills program. In their screening process they'll standardize screening assessment tools if it's done through the American Society of Addiction Medicine. So I guess if there is that type of support meted out for those who are not on social services, and that's why these organizations are formed, then indeed there must be some folks who need that assistance when they're on Ontario Works.

Maryland is another one that uses legislative support to link its medicated management care program and welfare offices. The state requires that all adults and teen parent participants be screened for substance abuse. Maryland also counts substance abuse treatments toward a participant's work requirements. Participants who do not comply with an assigned and available substance abuse treatment are removed from assistance-again, wanting them to participate. Nevada is another one: requires participants to work when welfare division staff determine them to be ready, but no later than 24 months after first receipt of cash assessment.

North Carolina places quality substance abuse professionals in every social service office. These professionals have become the focal point of screening assessment, treatment planning and care coordination for participants with substance abuse problems. They also require participants in the work program to spend a portion of a 24-hour week in work activities, the remainder of activities, such as treatment, that support work and self-sufficiency.

I just wanted to get it on the record that a number of states, a number of areas in this country, do believe that there is substance abuse and that it requires treatment. I think that is the key to it, that if we can give the treatment, we can then make those folks become more part of society and allow them to get off the dependency of social assistance and get back into the workforce.

The other thing that we talked about yesterday was fraud. I won't expound on what I said yesterday, but as you know, I have great deal of difficulty with anybody who does any type of fraudulent activity. In my mind, taking money or abusing social assistance and getting something that is not due you is in fact stealing. One of the more high-profile welfare reforms the ministry has implemented is zero tolerance for welfare fraud. I think it is fair to say that this is one of the more hard-nosed approaches ever taken to welfare fraud.

I know, however, that a number of municipalities have expressed reservations about implementing this policy. Do you believe you're going to be able to implement this policy and do you believe that it is the right approach to fraud, given that these are some of the most vulnerable people in society? I know the critics say that by going with zero tolerance against fraud, some of these folks will be out on the street. I would really like to comment on that one, but I won't in mixed company, because I cannot understand any critic saying, "Oh, we'll condone it, because if we don't let you steal you may be out on the street." I have difficulty with that. Minister, how do you feel we are going to be able to implement zero tolerance for welfare fraud?

Hon Mr Baird: I certainly support the policy. I think you've got to send a powerful message. I think deterrence is important. In the past, it almost became administratively acceptable.

It was not dealt with, in my judgment, as seriously as it should be, so we've tried to undertake three major initiatives in this area, above and beyond zero tolerance, which is the consequence. Through the anti-fraud measures of the ministry, we have a fraud unit which, as I said yesterday, I think is one of the most impressive in the Ontario public sector in terms of their abilities. They do a phenomenal job. Some of the initiatives they've undertaken they've had great success with, with a relatively modest allocation. We have good success with that in terms of identifying. The ministry has upwards of 19 information-sharing agreements: for the first time, the left hand can know what the right hand is doing in terms of someone collecting benefit cheques from two governments. Someone could, in the past, have been collecting UI and welfare. The information-sharing agreements that are in place really are impressive. In the past, even within the Ontario public service, we haven't done as good a job in terms of saying someone is a client of the Ministry of Community and Social Services in terms of social assistance, but they're also a client of the Ministry of Correctional Services. I think we match the tapes every seven to 10 days, and in the last available report we identified 5,700 people who had not reported their change in circumstances. We obviously don't want to pay room and board twice, into one institution and one in the form of a cheque. So we've been able to clamp down and deal with those more expeditiously than we might have been in the past.

The second area has been through the consolidated verification process, which has been a good success in terms of establishing or re-establishing that someone is, and continues to be, eligible, under the Ontario Works Act or under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act for assistance. That has yielded very, very good results.

Third, and most importantly, we're undertaking a major effort to change the way we do business in terms of the delivery of social assistance to stop overpayments which are administrative overpayments. It is incredibly difficult if we've overpaid to get money back. We can try, but it's extremely difficult. With the new welfare reforms, we have 60,000 people on Ontario Works crews, who are employed, who have part-time jobs. Their ability to report that income through the design of the new welfare administration will be a lot better, so that it won't be taken off in six to seven weeks, it will be taken off in their next cheque to reflect those circumstances. It's awfully difficult to go to someone and say, "Because there was an administrative overpayment of a few thousand dollars, we're going to try to take it back." It's awfully difficult to go to someone because there was an administrative overpayment of a few thousand dollars and try to take it back. It's very difficult. You can only do it in a very small amount.

1630

Those are three initiatives we've done to bolster public confidence in the system, and zero tolerance is obviously a powerful deterrent. We were clear before the election campaign, during it and after it, with the announcement at least two or two-and-a-half months before the policy. We ensured that it was not retroactive, so that policy would apply only to someone who had knowingly committed criminal fraud. My view is that it will be a strong deterrent to people and it will show that fraud is something the government and taxpayers care about.

Mr Stewart: Can you tell me the number of calls or average calls that would come in on the welfare fraud hotline that was established a number of years ago? Are they decreasing? I hope they're decreasing, with the number of folks who are getting off social assistance or those who are getting off for varying reasons.

Hon Mr Baird: If I'm correct, we spend about $143,000 or $149,000 on the welfare fraud hotline. I think last year it saved us about $8 million or $9 million. I don't know how many calls we get.

We had 16,000 cases where assistance was reduced or terminated as a result of the fraud initiative. I don't know how many were from the fraud hotline itself, though.

Ms Lankin: Reduced and terminated or referred?

Hon Mr Baird: That would be the whole fraud initiative, not just as a result. It was about $8 million or $9 million of $98 million from fraud, so about 10% of it was from the hotline. I don't know exactly how many calls. We can certainly get that back to you if you like.

Mr Stewart: My point being that since there has been a major reduction in welfare participants, possibly it would be coming down because those who are now getting it, and I would hope most of those who are getting it, are very legitimate Ontario Works people and are legitimately trying to look for work and trying to be trained and so on and so forth. Not to take it out of place, but I hope it would be dropping in the amount of usage, that people are realizing that, hey, you cannot break the law.

Hon Mr Baird: Once we get the consolidated verification process and the new system, the new technology, up and running, I think we'll see even better results and they'll be more consistent as well.

Mr Stewart: I think we've only got about half a second left.

Hon Mr Baird: Could I just quickly?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Hon Mr Baird: I can tell you there were 19,662 calls in the 1999-2000 fiscal year; 8,825 of those calls were referred. Social assistance was reduced or terminated due to eligibility assessments and investigations in 883 of those cases.

Ms Lankin: Not 16,000 cases?

Hon Mr Baird: Totally-this is 883 of that 16,000.

Ms Lankin: Where they were reduced or terminated.

Hon Mr Baird: Where they were reduced or terminated, yes. It wasn't $8 million; it was $6.1 million.

The Chair: We now turn to the official opposition.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): First of all, I'd like to express appreciation. We have a number of people from the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee with us today, and I'm pleased they could join us.

I have a wide variety of questions. I have talked to a number of constituents and a number across Ontario who are on ODSP, have had a medical condition with a doctor's letter indicating their needs, and yet the staff at ODSP have ruled that they will not fund that particular medication. My question is, given that a doctor has made the decision, what medical training have the ODSP staff had to overrule and not support that particular medication?

Hon Mr Baird: Are you talking about prescription drugs?

Mr Parsons: Prescription drugs.

Hon Mr Baird: I imagine that would be if they were listed on the Ontario formulary. I believe it's just if they are on the formulary that they are covered under the drug plan. The Ministry of Health has a prescription drug formulary which is used not just for seniors but for social assistance.

Mr Parsons: So if there is an individual whose doctor has said that this particular medication is in fact life-saving but it's not on the list, then they do not get it?

Hon Mr Baird: That wouldn't be covered, yes. You're right.

Mr Parsons: That's a disconcerting response.

Hon Mr Baird: There has been a successive, long-standing policy that we have a formulary and that there's a specific scientific process with physicians from the province, the college, the OMA and the Ministry of Health in the establishment of that. If the Liberal Party wants to put forward a policy that we give doctors the discretion to assign drugs haphazardly, we'd certainly consider it.

Mr Parsons: I'm not prepared to agree with the wording that it would be done haphazardly. I'm aware of instances where it's literally as a life-saving necessity and the ODSP has said no to it.

Second question: someone on Ontario Works gets 30 cents a kilometre for travelling-

Hon Mr Baird: I'll just say that we will double-check to ensure if there is an exception basis; there may be. We'll double-check that.

Mr Parsons: I'd appreciate that. I can share some actual examples with you after, if that would assist you.

Hon Mr Baird: There is as well, with the broader definition of prescription drugs, treatments and devices or assistive devices that are well above and beyond a strict prescription drug formulary.

Mr Parsons: Certainly the staff out in the field appear to not have any discretion whatsoever to make a decision, though. Everything is done off a formula or off a directive. I would think that clients, the people of Ontario, would be better served were there some discretionary powers given to staff, but that's an issue for you to deal with.

I have a second question, which has always intrigued me. People in Ontario Works gets 30 cents a kilometre for necessary travelling. People on ODSP get 18 cents a kilometre. What is the rhyme or reason? If Ontario Works has to travel from my community to Kingston for a medical, 30 cents; if they happen to be on ODSP, 18 cents.

Hon Mr Baird: An MPP, 29 cents.

Mr Parsons: Why the difference from 18 cents to 30 cents?

Mr Whalen: Can we look into that? There was a lower number in ODSP and it was changed, and if I'm honest with you, I'm not sure if the number you're quoting now is the current number of not. So, if we could get back to you on that.

Mr Parsons: OK. I think it's current as of yesterday. Certainly.

Now, I'm tempted to ask the question-it wouldn't be a flippant question-can you live on $930 a month? We're asking people on ODSP to live on $930 a month. We're saying if you're disabled, you must also be a pauper. You can't own your own house. You've got to deplete your RRSPs. You must live on $930 a month.

Hon Mr Baird: You're allowed to own your own home and live on ODSP.

Mr Parsons: There is no hope that people can ever acquire enough savings to purchase their own home if they're unfortunate enough to go on to ODSP. I'm talking about people putting away some money.

Hon Mr Baird: There are thousands of people on ODSP who-

Mr Parsons: If they already have; but if they do not own a house and they have to go on the ODSP program, my understanding is that they have to deplete their assets down to about $5,000 before they will even get the package to apply for ODSP.

Hon Mr Baird: There's a minimum asset limit. It's much higher under ODSP than it is under Ontario Works, whether it's a vehicle and there's a number of greater exceptions.

Mr Parsons: But an individual who turns 18, is disabled, has a disability, and applies for ODSP, at $930 a month they will never, ever, ever have even a dream of owning a home. Fair statement?

Hon Mr Baird: I don't accept that all recipients of the Ontario disability support program when they're 18-we're in the process of doubling the budget for employment supports. We've gotten rid of the term and the practice and the ideology and the thinking of "permanently unemployable." So, in fact, there are a good number of people on the Ontario disability support program who do take employment training or employment supports and do move into work; there are others, many others, who don't, but it's not-

Mr Parsons: I would suggest for someone who's deaf-blind, statistically, the chances of them getting meaningful employment are very, very slim in this province. So if they are deaf-blind and they turn of the age to receive the disability, they're not ever going to get more than $930 a month.

Hon Mr Baird: I wouldn't make a categorical statement. Right across the province I had the opportunity to meet with a good number of folks. I was in Sudbury not long ago and met with the Greater Sudbury and District Association for Community Living. They have people with developmental disabilities, four or five of them, who recently started up their own store, with support. So there are a good number of ODSP recipients who do and who are able to take advantage of some supports. I think we can do more in supports, I really do.

1640

Mr Parsons: That sounds wonderful, but I know that in Ontario the unemployment rate for people who are deaf is 85%.

Hon Mr Baird: It's pretty high, there's no doubt about it.

Mr Parsons: I think we need to deal with the 85% rather than the 15% who are employed.

Hon Mr Baird: And we need to try to get that 85% down, as well.

Mr Parsons: Exactly.

Hon Mr Baird: That's why we're doubling the employment support budget and have got rid of the term "permanently unemployable" and that thinking. That's one of the challenges, not just within government and the private sector, but within families, communities, organizations and public attitudes. That's why I think it's important not to write anyone off or make a conclusion.

Mr Parsons: I'm not writing them off, but I'm saying that if the average unemployment rate among the deaf is 85%, then for that 85%, if they do not own a house now they will never own a house on $930 a month. Am I correct that it has not been adjusted for about 10 years?

Hon Mr Baird: Eight or nine.

Mr Parsons: Yes. I've seen no movement whatsoever toward adjusting it. I think that for many people in Ontario-

Hon Mr Baird: My policy on that is the same as Dalton McGuinty's, though. Just last year, Dalton McGuinty said he wasn't prepared to commit to any rate increase. In fact, he issued-

Mr Parsons: You're the minister. You're responsible for these people.

Hon Mr Baird: But if you as the official critic for your party are going to throw a political charge, I'm going to respond. Not two years ago, Dalton McGuinty put out a press release saying that it was the policy of the Ontario Liberal Party that they were not going to raise social assistance rates in Ontario.

I think it's important to be honest about that. If you're going to be critical of our government for taking that policy, I'm going to show you a press release where your leader took a position on behalf of your party before the last provincial election campaign that agrees with me. So Dalton McGuinty and I are on one side and you're on the other.

Mr Parsons: Well, that was two years ago, and I guess I am pleased that you're now going to follow our direction on, I hope, any issue at all.

Hon Mr Baird: We can both follow it.

Mr Parsons: I think that was two years ago.

Hon Mr Baird: That's the beauty of it. That was before the election; this is after the election.

Mr Parsons: For people who may have been working and who have acquired a disability that causes them to no longer be able to work, have you considered a mechanism that would allow them funding support to continue in a similar manner to the lifestyle they have been used to? It's a major drop to go from employment to the $930 I referred to.

Hon Mr Baird: There are a number of responses to that. There are two programs operated by the federal government. There's the unemployment insurance program, where people can for a period, depending on the area they live in and what their employment income was-obviously if they were making more than $930 a month, adjusted with respect to taxation and payroll taxes, that would be substantially more than that, for a limited period of time, under a year.

Second, there's Canada pension plan disability, to which they may or not be entitled, which also applies if someone has worked for a period of time.

Mr Parsons: It's still a major cut.

Hon Mr Baird: Plus the $930, there's the GST credit and the provincial tax credit. There are a number of credits and benefits that exceed that cheque.

Mr Parsons: If someone is on Ontario Works and becomes disabled, they are immediately taken off Ontario Works because they're simply not available for work. But there can be-

Hon Mr Baird: People on the Ontario disability support program can be available for work. The disabled can work. I strongly believe that. One of the things I learned when I came to the ministry-

Mr Parsons: That's not what I said. That's not what I'm talking about. If someone is on Ontario Works and becomes injured and has to apply for ODSP, when they become injured or disabled they are immediately removed from Ontario Works funding. They then apply for ODSP, which may take-I can document cases of six months before they were approved for ODSP. What are they to do in the six months between Ontario Works stopping and ODSP starting?

Hon Mr Baird: As an Ontario Works recipient, if you're injured or disabled you're entitled to stay on Ontario Works while you apply for the Ontario disability support program.

Mr Parsons: You may want to get back to me on that.

Hon Mr Baird: No, I don't. As a matter of fact, people applying to ODSP can collect from the Ontario Works program while they're applying.

Mr Parsons: I'll get you some anecdotes on that.

Hon Mr Baird: If there's been a misinterpretation of that somewhere, bring it to my attention. I'd be happy to take corrective action.

Mr Parsons: There clearly has been.

A constituent needing ODSP paperwork in Braille was told she should contact CNIB to see if they could do it in Braille for her. Surely ODSP paperwork should be available in Braille.

Hon Mr Baird: That issue was brought forward in the House last year, and I believe it was addressed.

Mr Parsons: Has it been acted on?

Hon Mr Baird: To the best of my knowledge, it has been. If it hasn't, again let me know.

Mr Parsons: If it has been done, I would ask-

Hon Mr Baird: Yes, it has been.

Mr Parsons: -that you get the paperwork out to your various offices then. It's not available

Hon Mr Baird: Sure.

Mr Parsons: My last question is, at one time Comsoc had in place a caseworker system, so that someone on ODSP could call and they had someone who knew their file. Now they retell the story each time to a different person-in simplistic terms, whoever answers the phone.

Have you considered going back to a caseworker system where they can get to know each other? It is very difficult for people on ODSP to deal with a different individual each and every time.

Hon Mr Baird: The short answer to that question would be no.

The Chair: Mr Gravelle. Before you start, Mr Gravelle, just for the minister's sake, we have approximately 28 minutes remaining for each of the parties, the opposition being in the middle of their allotment. We have all-party agreement to do that in a consecutive manner, so it would be the official opposition till about three minutes after, then the third party and then the government caucus to finish us up. OK?

Hon Mr Baird: When do the bells ring?

The Chair: We usually run here till 6.

Hon Mr Baird: We're to leave when the bells ring?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): We have a vote.

Hon Mr Baird: There's a vote, so we'll be ending early. Would that formula need to be adjusted to accommodate that?

The Chair: We don't normally take that into account. If we have a vote, we'll find out what time it is. Then we'll advise the Liberal caucus, and it will be adjusted accordingly. We always do that.

Ms Lankin: We might even be able to come back another day if there's a vote.

Hon Mr Baird: No. It's the last day.

The Chair: I don't want to put more time on this, Minister. I wanted to give you and other members of the committee advice on that.

Madame Boyer will be assuming the chair in a few minutes. May I ask you to continue, Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: Regardless, Minister, this is my last chance to ask any questions. There are lots, so I'm going to go quickly.

Hon Mr Baird: You can ask me questions any day you like.

Mr Gravelle: That's true. Let me ask you a direct question. I understand that your ministry, along with the Ministry of Health, is undertaking a full re-look at the way your government provides housing and related services to persons with special needs. First, is that true? Second, has your government given any consideration to moving these housing programs under just the Ministry of Health in order to end possible duplication between the two ministries?

Hon Mr Baird: I would say housing for people with special needs in a broader spectrum. There are four programs, three offered by the Ministry of Health, with which I am less familiar, and the domiciliary hostel program offered by our ministry.

As you know, we are currently reviewing that issue and looking at ways of addressing some of the challenges and issues they're facing. There are some legitimate concerns that the residents and operators of some facilities have brought, and we have had the benefit of some good consultations. Obviously I'm more familiar with the domiciliary hostel issue, because it falls within my ministry. We're currently reflecting on what we've heard, and no final decision has been made.

I suppose it would not be unreasonable to suggest, why do we have two ministries providing four programs, three in one ministry and the fourth in the other?

Mr Gravelle: Has any determination been made that it makes more sense to have them all in the Ministry of Health? Have you gone that far in the process?

Hon Mr Baird: No decision has been taken on that.

Mr Gravelle: Let me ask you a quick question as well-and I will move along here-in terms of you're announcement yesterday about mandatory drug testing, which obviously has been very controversial.

Are you planning to bring it forward in terms of legislation? I understand you may be in a position to do it under regulation, but are you thinking of legislation in terms of mandatory drug testing for people on social assitance? Can we expect that?

Hon Mr Baird: I think it depends on how the program is designed and how the policy is designed, and the nature of an Ontario Works and ODSP issue. Obviously we're only looking at, I think, 0.0025% of the ODSP and Ontario Works caseload, so by and large it would depend on the result of the consultations we have over the next four to six weeks.

Mr Gravelle: What if the overwhelming number of people you consult reject the idea of mandatory testing? Are you going forward regardless? What if that happens?

Hon Mr Baird: I suppose the government will be every bit as flexible as the official opposition in terms of, if the consultations go really well, will you support it?

1650

Mr Gravelle: We look forward to seeing the consultation, of course. The truth is, there's no way you can support this on the basis that obviously it's a contravention of the Human Rights Code. There's no way you can do it in terms of the legal challenges. There's no way to do so. But I still think it's a fair question.

Hon Mr Baird: But if the integrity of-

Mr Gravelle: If indeed you do hear from people that you can't, that it shouldn't happen, will you consider that?

Hon Mr Baird: If the Human Rights Commissioner signed off on it, could I count on your support?

Mr Gravelle: Just answer the question, please, if you would, Minister.

Hon Mr Baird: Asking them is fun too.

Mr Gravelle: Maybe you won't answer the question.

Mr Parsons: He should answer it.

Mr Gravelle: Yes, well, he should answer it.

That brings me to the next point, which is, what form will the consultation take? Who will you be dealing with, and will you be listening to anybody who wishes to consult? In other words, if groups say, "We want to meet with you to talk about it," will you be open to that?

Hon Mr Baird: We'll receive any submission that folks have. We want to consult with principally five groups of folks: people in Ontario, those who depend on the system and those who pay the freight; we want to talk to other jurisdictions to look at what's worked and what hasn't worked, whether that be in treatment or whether that be in terms of welfare; we want to talk to municipalities, our caseworkers, the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has an Ontario Works committee that gives us advice from time to time, chaired by Joyce Savoline. We'll want to talk to treatment experts, physicians, community agency folks who deal in this area, and get their best advice.

We've certainly done a lot of work to date to be better informed on this issue in terms of moving forward with it. The more I deal with it, the more complicated I realize it is. It's not something that's easy. It's not something that's pretty. But it's something I think it would be wrong to turn our back on and to not make an honest effort to try to offer help.

Mr Gravelle: Which brings me back to the question, though, Minister. If indeed all those groups you consult tell you why they don't think it can happen, for a variety of reasons-the legalities, the contraventions or whatever-or they don't think it will work, which I think is a significant point that may be made to you, that it simply won't work and obviously there are other ways to improve funding to treatment programs, if that happens, are you open to the possibility that you'll withdraw this, that you will not go forward with this, if that's the advice you receive from those people you consult?

Hon Mr Baird: I don't accept the premise of your point. We're open to consulting on how we implement this policy, not whether we implement it. It's the commitment we made and we're a government that keeps our campaign commitments. We want to consult and listen to people.

Mr Gravelle: So you're going to do it regardless of what you hear, is what you're saying. You're going to go ahead with mandatory drug testing regardless of what you hear, is what you're saying.

Hon Mr Baird: We made a commitment. We're going to follow through on it.

Mr Gravelle: Even if everyone-

Hon Mr Baird: Even if everyone says it's terrible, and even if, and even if-I mean, I don't accept the premise of your question. You say that no one agrees with it. I think there are a lot of people out there who would say that mandatory drug treatment can work. I realize this is a controversial issue, I realize that people don't always agree, but I don't accept the premise of your questions, the if, if, if, if.

Mr Gravelle: I appreciate that too. All I'm saying is that I think there's a reasonable chance that some of the groups you are consulting may tell you why they don't think-

Hon Mr Baird: I agree, definitely.

Mr Gravelle: And I want to know how seriously you're going to take that consultation.

Hon Mr Baird: I think it's important, and I said this at the outset, that we'll consult on how. We want to listen; we want to learn.

Mr Gravelle: So it's not a real consultation in terms of whether-

Hon Mr Baird: It's not a consultation on "if." I was very clear at the outset on that.

Mr Gravelle: OK. Let me just move on; we haven't got much time.

Hon Mr Baird: We have the mileage answer to Mr Parsons's question. I'll leave it at your discretion as to when you'd like to hear it.

Mr Gravelle: OK, can you table that, or will it take long?

Hon Mr Baird: Whenever you'd like.

Mr Gravelle: A couple of quick other questions. I'm really short of time. What have I got, about five minutes?

The Chair: About seven minutes.

Mr Gravelle: Seven minutes, excellent.

Minister, one of the acts administered by your ministry is the offensively titled Homes for Retarded Persons Act. I know the developmental sector has told your government more than once that they would like the bill retitled, at a bare minimum, and perhaps completely overhauled in the long run.

Hon Mr Baird: They want it scrapped, not retitled. They want it scrapped, repealed.

Mr Gravelle: Exactly. So tell us what your plans are in regard to that.

Hon Mr Baird: That's one of the issues we've looked at in developmental services reform. My personal opinion is we should repeal it. It's offensive and-

Mr Gravelle: Is it on your agenda?

Hon Mr Baird: Definitely.

Mr Gravelle: Where does it sit in terms of priority?

Hon Mr Baird: It's one of the issue we're looking at in terms of reform. My personal view is I find it offensive. The Ontario Association for Community Living, with which we have a very good working relationship, has identified it as one of their five big priorities, and it's one of the issues that's under our active consideration now. It's not an issue which I have to personally be convinced should be scrapped.

The Chair: Do you want to get your answer now? Would like to have this?

Mr Parsons: Sure.

The Chair: Minister, if you could. We need to hear it.

Mr Whalen: Very well. The answer on the transportation is that it is 18 cents-you were right-for ODSP. That's the new rate. It actually matches the rate we have for transportation for assistance to children with serious disabilities. That is consistent with the Ontario disability support program.

Mr Parsons: So there are two groups being discriminated against, then. OK.

Mr Whalen: In terms of Ontario Works, for self-employment transportation it's 18 cents per kilometre. That is an allowable business expense. For employment assistance activities, we actually provide a community start-up benefit of up to $253 a year, and that includes all out-of-pocket expenses, including transportation, at the actual costs. Some municipalities may actually establish their own guidelines, so that would be an individual municipality. We have a similar one for employment placements and community placements. It's a cap of $250 a year and it's all of the out-of-pocket expenses for the year. So any transportation would be incorporated in that.

Mr Parsons: I know Ontario Works is getting 30 cents. My bottom line, though, is, if MPPs are getting 29 cents, people on disability are getting 18 cents. Where do they buy their gas? There's got to be a much cheaper place.

Hon Mr Baird: Federal MPs get 42 cents, I think.

Mr Parsons: We're talking about us.

Mr Gravelle: That's a good point.

Minister, you talked about the supports to employment program, STEP, fairly often. You have introduced cuts to that program, which I think is nothing more than-

Hon Mr Baird: Adjustments.

Mr Gravelle: -a disguised cut to social assistance. I think you did this in the name of increasing the incentives to get full-time work, but you are actually imposing penalties, I think is how it's perceived in the community, for not doing so. Why have you cut back on that program? I think there is ample evidence that the program has been working and it does help build a bridge to the labour market. Under the changes, a single person earning well under $200 per month is facing marginal tax rate hikes of I think 100%. I know the social community is very concerned about this and obviously it's something we feel strongly about. I wish I had more time to discuss it, but it's very much a problem and something we think is not going to work.

Hon Mr Baird: There is certainly no one on Ontario Works who I can conceive would be paying income tax from part-time income, at least Ontario income tax.

Mr Gravelle: So 100% tax rate is-you think that's-

Hon Mr Baird: I'll give you the background on the issue of the STEP changes in terms of my thinking and in terms of the changes. This is an issue-I met with a group of caseworkers and two or three of them mentioned it. We went back and looked at it and I was certainly convinced.

The STEP change existed under the previous government. With the introduction of what I call the earn-back, the ability to earn back the difference between the old and the new rate, the 21.6% change that came into effect on October 1, 1995, it required some change. I think a small number of people were going into what I would call a holding pattern, where it actually might have been in their best interests to keep one foot in the welfare system and one foot in the working world. So we've time-limited some of STEP to two years rather than five. It had already been time-limited, so the principle that it should be time-limited was in place. We just moved it up from five years to two and made it a little bit flatter.

Mr Gravelle: How much time do I have left?

The Acting Chair (Mrs Claudette Boyer): Two minutes.

Mr Gravelle: The employment support funding: I've talked to municipalities about some of the things that are happening in terms of the changes to the system. One of the problems in terms of municipalities is the technology that drives the program. I think it's understood that it's archaic, and staff have wasted a lot of time duplicating client information.

My understanding is that under Minister Ecker they were actually-apparently it still takes the system 20 minutes to issue a cheque for transportation. The issues of the technology in terms of that were raised by Minister Ecker, and apparently she held a meeting with people in Ottawa and said the system would be fixed. Are you conscious of the problem that exists in terms of the systems out there?

Hon Mr Baird: The Ontario Works technology?

Mr Gravelle: Yes.

Hon Mr Baird: You bet. They're terrible.

Mr Gravelle: So how are we going to fix that?

Hon Mr Baird: We've brought in Andersen Consulting.

Mr Gravelle: In other words, Andersen Consulting gets all the money. The fact is, you haven't fixed it, Minister. Municipalities are very frustrated by that.

1700

Hon Mr Baird: We're just building. We did the design, the building and now the rollout of that. It's actually coming on line. I was out in Mississauga a few weeks ago and saw some of that technology in place. I'm not going to defend the old technology. It should have been replaced years ago. Thank God, in this province we had a government that had the courage to recognize this problem. It was Tony Silipo, the Minister of Community and Social Services, who recognized that we had a technology problem. We're just following through on Tony's dream.

Mr Gravelle: We're all looking forward to the value-for-money report by the auditor next Tuesday.

The lack of transitional dollars for the new funding formula-I'm glad you're so delighted by your own answer, which is not that unusual for you, I'm learning.

There is a lack of transitional dollars to the new funding formula. Municipalities, I guess through AMO, have requested transition costs. They are contending that the ministry does not recognize the cost of supporting clients to employment. I know Ann Mulvale sent a letter on behalf of the municipalities I think in September 2000. I don't believe municipalities have heard anything regarding the transition costs. Can you tell us when the ministry will communicate-

The Acting Chair: Mr Gravelle, I think your time-

Mr Gravelle: -whether there will be transition costs?

The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, you can't have the answer.

Mr Gravelle: Come on, a quick answer?.

Hon Mr Baird: I'm meeting with Ann Mulvale shortly.

Mr Gravelle: When?

Hon Mr Baird: This month.

The Acting Chair: Ms Lankin, it's your turn. You have until about 5:30.

Ms Lankin: Minister, just before I start, I want to indicate that I know there are a number of people here who were downstairs meeting with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act committee and who have come up here. I just wanted to indicate for their information that my colleague Ms Martel did question you extensively on ODSP earlier on in this estimates process, and on Ontario Works.

Hon Mr Baird: And in the House.

Ms Lankin: And in the House, yes. I'm going to continue in the area dealing with domestic violence, but I wanted them to know they can access that exchange through the Hansard record.

One leftover item from Ms Martel's questions to you yesterday about mandatory drug testing was that I understand you made a commitment to table Mr Norton's letter. I'm wondering if you have that here for us today.

Hon Mr Baird: I'm happy to table that but I don't have my briefcase. On my word, we'll get it to you.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate your instincts better than the advice you just got back from the corner. That's good. So you will table that with the committee some time this afternoon?

Hon Mr Baird: We can send it to you or directly to Ms Martel.

Ms Lankin: OK. We will get that by tomorrow, then, in the morning? We would appreciate it.

Before I go back to the item of the province-wide crisis line-

Hon Mr Baird: Can I interrupt you? Did you want an answer to the question you raised before? I've got it now.

Ms Lankin: The province-wide crisis line?

Hon Mr Baird: Yes.

Ms Lankin: Yes. I'm going to come back to that. Just before I do, I hadn't intended to read this quote because I want to treat this question very seriously. This isn't the place for rhetorical exchanges except for the odd humourous one that I appreciate. You said a few minutes ago that you are a government that makes promises and keeps promises and that you live up to your word. So I decided I am going to read this quote to you, given your reluctance to acknowledge openly a current need for more shelter beds in this province. It reads as follows:

"Decades of study have established the need for more shelters for abused women and their children. It is long past time for government to dedicate the necessary resources to this problem and to work with volunteer groups in design and construction.

"The issue of financial cost pales in comparison to the moral demand for action in this area. However, even from a strictly financial standpoint, it is arguable that providing more shelters can save criminal justice costs in the long run."

Just so you know, that comes from page 18 of A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario, which was encompassed as part of the Common Sense Revolution.

You do have a commitment on this, Minister, and you've made the statement here again today, as your government often does, that once a commitment is made, you live up to your word. You've said that the studies have been done, that the need is undeniable, it's long past time for government action, that the financial costs pale in comparison to the moral imperative.

Perhaps I should ask you again with that, will you indicate to us that you will undertake an immediate review of shelter funding with a view to establish the increased levels in an attempt to meet the needs that are out there in the communities?

Hon Mr Baird: Your question and preamble suggest that I'm stating or suggesting that there isn't a valid concern, which I'm not. We're going to be meeting next week with representatives of the cross-sectoral group. I've certainly been working with my colleagues the Attorney General and the minister for women's issues. I'm engaged on this issue internally within the ministry with our officials, trying to identify the anecdotal suggestions that I hear, like you, and from you as well. I'm happy, certainly, to meet with OAITH again on this issue if that's a particular concern. I know it's one of the central issues that the cross-sectoral group has.

Ms Lankin: Minister, I appreciate the genuine expression that you're making, and believe it. Those in your government at some point in time felt bold enough to put it down in writing, that the studies had been done, that the need was undeniable, that the moral imperative outweighed the financial cost. I guess what I'm saying to you is, take those words and run with them inside the government processes that you need to go through and where you need the support to advocate to get the money that is needed. The documentation has already been established within your own government's words and commitments. I'd be happy to stand in the House when you make this announcement and say, "A promise made, a promise kept. About time."

Hon Mr Baird: I appreciate your offer, and I appreciate that it's being recorded on Hansard.

Ms Lankin: You noticed that. OK.

A project proposal for a province-wide crisis line: this was submitted to you in July. I'm assuming that you have seen it and I'm assuming that there has been a review of it and that there is some movement in the ministry to either address the issue that's been put forward or to reject the premises of the proposal. Can you tell me what the status is?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm offering these points just as matters of fact, not to enter into a debate with you. In fact it wasn't sent to me. I hadn't seen it when you mentioned it earlier, and I was concerned and wondered why. It was sent to an official within the ministry, not to me directly.

Ms Lankin: And it hadn't been sent up to you? Given the number of times I've raised this in the House, the number of times we've come back to this, this has not been drawn to your attention?

Hon Mr Baird: We get-

Ms Lankin: I don't want to drop anyone in trouble here, but that is of great concern to me, this proposal. I have mentioned it specifically and I have asked questions on it directly, Minister. You should have seen it.

Hon Mr Baird: I haven't got a question, certainly in the House, from you on this issue. I'll give you the-it was sent to staff.

Beth Bennet, the program director of the Assaulted Women's Helpline, I understand will be one of the representatives we meet with, whether it's next week, with the cross-sectoral group. Certainly the benefits of this type of proposal are good. The adequacy of what's in place now is obviously the central issue here, how we can best provide supports through that. We've got to better coordinate our efforts to some of the victims' efforts down at the Ministry of the Solicitor General. So in terms of the need, the importance and the benefits of a helpline are there. Whether it's in domestic violence or rape crisis, it can obviously be pretty important. This is one of the central issues presented in September to the government, which I have read, and we're currently looking at the issue.

I know that's not the answer you want to see, and I don't have an intention of putting you off here. We do spend $1.7 million in this area to date a year. I know there is a concern about the adequacy. We've been receiving 160,000 calls on the various lines.

Ms Lankin: Let me offer to you that I think it has been well established, in addition to the local lines, that there is a need for a province-wide line that can provide the multi-linguistic services as well as the TTY supports so that it is accessible and it is there and able to respond when women need the help.

1710

The proposal that has been submitted to your ministry is for roughly $750,000 as the annual cost of operating. There is another couple of hundred thousand dollars-plus as a one-time capital upstart. So in the first year you're looking at $1 million, and after that it drops down. It's something that doesn't take much time to turn around in terms of approvals. You have a meeting coming up. I suggest it's a very good place for you to start in terms of responding to the cross-sector strategy that has been submitted to you.

I do want to indicate to you that I have specifically asked in my questions about the establishment of this province-wide hotline. I have referred to the proposal that has been in. Even before the current proposal was in, talks were going on with the ministry for a year and a half, that I am aware of. This has been raised in previous questions. I can't tell you at this time, because my memory is blurred, whether it was by me or Ms Churley. It may well have been Ms Churley who raised this when she was critic in this area.

I hope you will take into account the length of time it's been around, and that people have honestly believed that serious work was going on and that it was under consideration in your office, and see if there's a way of expediting assessment of this proposal and of its assertions for the need that's out there and whether you can respond to it.

Hon Mr Baird: Many of your points are fair. It wasn't in my office. Your points on whether it should have been are again fair. The issue is one we will consider. A lot of issues the sectoral group have come forward with which are significant. You are very correct to say this is one of their more modest requests.

Ms Lankin: Can I ask you about that? You made a comment earlier and I was in the middle of some questions so I didn't want to take you up on it, but I found it disturbing. You talked about a number of the demands in the cross-sectoral strategy. I'm sorry, I can't remember the exact word, but they were "excessive" or they were very-I don't know which word you used, but it was a superlative that expressed your belief that some of them were very unrealistic demands. I found that very disturbing.

I should tell you that you would not believe the work the cross-sectoral group went through to pare down what they believe is the list of things the government must do to respond to this critical issue of putting an end to domestic violence. They pared that down and had a lot of difficulty coming to an agreement across all the various sectors that are embodied in that strategy, and they did so with a view to a set of demands that were realistic and implementable, ones that total a cost of $350 million, which is only 10% of the budget surplus.

I don't want to be rhetorical, and I don't believe this is. I believe the issue is so serious, and we all feel very passionate about it when we get into it. How much is a life worth? How much is saving a life worth? When are we going to see a response on these community demands? When you said that, I was very disturbed. Can you tell me which of their demands you find to be excessive or unreasonable?

Hon Mr Baird: I wouldn't say "excessive" or "unreasonable" would be the words with which I would characterize it. One of their recommendations that I recall was to increase social assistance rates by 21.6% or beyond. That's far more than the $300-million policy change that you just enumerated.

Some merit more serious consideration: the issue of the shelter capacity system within the province, both at existing shelters and in areas where there may be none or where the community may be underserved. I've used examples like Kanata, which 10 years ago had 25,000 people and today would have 50,000 or 55,000 people. They brought forward some concerns with respect to francophone women and the services that are offered to them. Obviously that was doubly important to me in terms of my cabinet responsibilities. Another request was in terms of the phone helpline, which we've just discussed. There was one, if I recall correctly, that affected our ministry with respect to deferment from mandatory requirements under Ontario Works, which is one that I am unaware of and I'd certainly be open to hearing it. There is the ability and discretion at the caseworker level to give a temporary deferment. If someone's been the victim of violence-

Ms Lankin: They're looking for a full deferment; they're aware of the temporary deferment.

Hon Mr Baird: They can get a temporary deferment. That is not unreasonable whatsoever. I'm not suggesting it's not a concern and a problem, but if it is then I haven't heard any specific incidents. And if it is, I'd like to hear about them. No one would suggest that the victim of any violent crime-

Ms Lankin: I think you will be able to ask that question directly and they'll be able to respond to you. Similarly, in the same vein, they are asking you to stop the practice of requiring or requesting that women disclosing violence seek child support or spousal support in order to qualify for social assistance.

If someone is a victim of spousal abuse, the last thing you want to do is place them in a situation where, in order to get the supports to support their family, they have to go to that abusive spouse to get child support or to get spousal support. While we would all agree that the first line of responsibility lies between partners in a marriage and we want to ensure that spousal support and child support is paid, where a person is a victim of domestic abuse, to require them to go and seek that out in order to qualify for social assistance is a significant and onerous and dangerous requirement that you're placing on them. So they would like you to look at reviewing that and lifting that requirement.

Hon Mr Baird: Obviously, that would be assigned to the ministry. It would not be assigned to them individually. If there's-

Ms Lankin: What do you mean, "It would not be assigned to them"?

Hon Mr Baird: If someone's on Ontario Works and there's child support-

Ms Lankin: You're talking about the actual payment, the assignment? But they need to seek it. You require that they seek that.

Hon Mr Baird: Maybe administratively we can tell how that's dealt with.

I understand that there can be a deferral period for three to six months, a period which can be renewed in that area. We can get you some more information on the administrative practices of the ministry in that area. It is an issue which we discussed a year ago.

Ms Lankin: I think it's something that you should take a look at in terms of how it's actually being practised out there with the ministry and workers out in the field. Legitimately, living up to your expectations for tougher enforcement of all of the rules, in fact people have found themselves in a difficult situation and/or have found themselves in a situation where even if they, through lawyers, can seek the supports, they have put themselves in greater danger because it escalates the pathology in the relationship at that point in time.

Hon Mr Baird: This would be one of the reasons we want to sit down and talk to representatives of the group. It is a delicate issue, obviously. At the same time, we don't want to be letting people off just because they're criminals, letting them off without having to pay child support. That causes me another concern. But that's why we want to sit down and talk to the group, so that if someone doesn't-

Ms Lankin: OK. I would appreciate it if you would have some people take a look at that before you go in. One of the things that I'm hopeful we can do, by the fact that you've had enough time to review the proposals that are in there, the fact that again I'm highlighting some of them with you, is that you will have answers to some of these things before you go in to meet with the group. This continues to drag on, and I do understand how things work inside the government, but some of these initiatives-like the shelter funding review: Minister, it's over two years since the May-Iles recommendation. It is not acceptable for the ministry not to have prepared a definitive response with which you can go and talk to those women and say, "Yes, we're going to do it. This is the time frame and now let's talk about how it happens."

1720

Hon Mr Baird: The cross-sectoral group-this is the report that came in September-asked for meetings with, I think, just about everyone in the government except me. If they had asked to meet with me, I would have met them. I was in town that day and I could have met with them. I wasn't asked to meet with them. I would have met with them, and I'm meeting with them-

Ms Lankin: I'm going to ask you to please accept the fact that I've only got about 10 minutes left here.

Hon Mr Baird: But if I could just add one little quick thing, and I appreciate that. I want to underline that this is an important area. Within our ministry, in the 1995-96 budget year, we spent $66.7 million, and this year we're spending $81.7 million. I think it does represent a priority that I and the ministry have accorded to it.

Ms Lankin: Minister, I have well heard members of your government stand in the debate on the domestic violence and the restraining order bill that's in and say over and over again, "As a government, we're spending now $37 million more than when we took over." I can tell you that when your government took over, across various programs-second-stage housing cancellation and other things-you cut $9 million a year. Cumulatively, that's $45 million in services that women have not received over that period of time, and an increase of $37 million doesn't make up for that.

Hon Mr Baird: It does.

Ms Lankin: We've got a way to go, right?

Hon Mr Baird: With great respect, in 1994-95, the government was spending $97.9 million. Today we're spending $134.1 million. We're not necessarily spending it all entirely on the same thing, but I think we are doing a lot.

Ms Lankin: That's $37 million?

Hon Mr Baird: That's $37 million more money. Now maybe not on the same-

Ms Lankin: That's $37 million more money-

Hon Mr Baird: A year.

Ms Lankin: -after you had cut the $9 million a year.

Hon Mr Baird: No.

Ms Lankin: Cumulatively, that is $45 million of services that women lost. Gradually you're ramping back up, but you haven't met that same amount is the point I'm making.

Hon Mr Baird: With great respect, you're trying to suggest that number is not a net number. That is a net number.

Ms Lankin: No, no. I understand.

Hon Mr Baird: I think that's the impression people might be left with.

Ms Lankin: That's not what I'm saying. Clearly you understand the point that I'm making. I know you don't disagree that there's more to be done. Let's get back to the specifics, though, of where we're at.

The proposal to reinstate second-stage housing: since the moment your government cancelled those supports for second-stage housing, there has been a demand. It has been raised over and over in the House. It's been raised with the minister responsible for women's issues. It has been raised across government. Your Premier, this fall, said that putting an end to domestic violence was going to be one of the key priorities. That's after you had already made the announcement of the $10 million in the budget. That's after there had already been the announcement of the money for the cell phones from the Attorney General-I can't tell how disdainful people out in the community are of that initiative and how much better that money could be spent.

The only thing we have seen come forward from your government has been the restraining order bill, which has some merit to it but affects such a small number of people it's not worthy of discussion in this context.

In your role, looking at the supports that women need in their communities, do you acknowledge and understand the important services that were provided through supports in second-stage housing-the community counselling services and supports-and the gap that has been created by the cancellation of that, and do you have a plan to either lobby for the reinstatement of that program and/or in some face-saving way, I don't care, reinstate the content of what was being done so that women in our communities have access to those services?

Hon Mr Baird: I appreciate the concern and I've heard the concern expressed by the Ontario caucus, the second-stage housing group. I've met with them. I've heard from them directly. They participated in our consultations on the design of the budget initiative with respect to transitional supports.

I think there can be a reasonable debate about what kind of supports are offered. I don't think you or I, or your party or mine, would disagree that the government has a role here, that we should be doing things, that we could do more-in terms of a summary of your last comments. I think where we would have a difference of opinion is on what mix of services, what would be the best mix of service in terms of-we've talked about this-community support, things on the social services side, the housing side, the justice side, the court and judicial side, the police officer side-

Ms Lankin: If I could be clear here, I'm not talking about the proposal for more affordable housing. I'm talking about the proposal for supports, the second-stage housing, after a woman has been in a shelter, leaves the shelter and goes into a transitional housing program, the supports that made up second-stage housing and made it a unique service. It's those community supports which fall directly under the responsibility of your ministry.

Hon Mr Baird: I agreed that we could do more in the area of transitional supports. The budget initiative for $5 million in that area, delivered through a different mechanism-I acknowledge it's a different mechanism and not the one of choice for the Ontario caucus-was a vehicle to try to address the need for us to do more. I concede that reasonable people can disagree on where that money should be spent.

Ms Lankin: Do you recognize the need for a proportion of those women who leave shelters to have safe, secure housing accommodation with on-site supports to help them put their lives back together, keep their kids safe and move to re-establishing some normality in their lives? While you may be putting supports out there that people can access in the community, the concept of second-stage housing, the concept of someone moving into a place where there are security systems in place, where they know they are safe, where they're not in fear every minute of their lives, where they can go out of their living space and to a place within that same accommodation to get support and help-do you understand how critical that can be to a woman starting to put her life and her kids' lives back together?

Hon Mr Baird: I have certainly spoken with a number of representatives who have made those points.

Ms Lankin: And?

Hon Mr Baird: I guess there is a difference of opinion. There was an issue of $2.9 million, and I think the Ontario caucus is now using, in terms of requests, $3.6 million in supports to help with that transition, building on the $4 million we have already spent on the housing component, which continues to be spent. There are 25 second-stage housing projects around the province which continue to get support through the local services realignment.

Ms Lankin: That's affordable housing; that's the housing side of it.

Hon Mr Baird: Yes, that's the housing side of it. I realize people say we could do more on the transition side. I agree. They said, "Spend $3.6 million here," and I said, "Spend $5 million over there." So there was a difference of opinion. Mine was more money, but I guess it was an honest difference of opinion on how we could best spend that money.

Ms Lankin: The more recent demand from second-stage housing has been formulated specifically with the knowledge of your $5 million for transitional supports. So I don't think you can characterize what you've done as being more than has been asked for from the community.

Hon Mr Baird: No. I used the requests over the last number of years, which I recall from preceding my time at the ministry were-and I think they came forward on a number of pre-budget consultations, if I'm not mistaken, or I certainly saw some submissions in the past before I arrived at the ministry. There was an issue on $2.9 million of funding to provide those transitional supports.

Ms Lankin: But we're not talking about the same kind of transitional supports. I think that's the problem here. It's like the way the minister responsible for women's issues uses the term "women's centres." We should perhaps get a common definition of the things we're talking about, because it's too easy to simply work on a level of confusion about what we are and are not prepared to do, and in this area it's too important not to. Let me ask you specifically what you disagree with about the second-stage housing supports, the programs your government cut, and the reason you have not been prepared to reinstate support to those programs for five years? What is the element of that and how that's delivered that you disagree with?

Hon Mr Baird: I wouldn't suggest for a moment that any decision is black or white, that one support is wrong and one support is right. I think reasonable people using normative judgment could come to different opinions about what type of supports we can provide to women in terms of making a transition from an emergency shelter, from one of the 98 shelters we fund, to get their lives back on track, to get reintegrated into a community and get their kids back in school, to be able to get back on their feet in terms of getting a job, to feel safe in their community, to feel safe in their home, to have a sense of security. There is a difference of opinion which reasonable people can have on how we do that, and I think we have a reasonable difference of opinion.

1730

Ms Lankin: I'm running out of time.

The Acting Chair: You've got two minutes left.

Ms Lankin: I won't even take that.

In a closing comment, I find it difficult to understand how you actually have come to a point where you can say reasonable people can have a difference of opinion on this issue-in the abstract I understand it-how you can say you have come to a different opinion. We have not once been able to get ministers of the crown to answer why you will not support the requests that have been coming forward on specific issues. Whether it be the jury recommendations in certain areas that were highlighted from May-Iles, whether it be a request like the crisis line proposal, whether it be requests like reinstatement of second-stage housing programs or expansion of shelters, there is never a definitive answer.

If you actually have come to a different opinion, lay your cards on the table. If not, then I have to suggest to you that the women you will be meeting with in a week's time are the experts. They are the ones who know. They are on the front line every day delivering these services and working with abused women and their children. They know what's happening, they know what's missing in the system, they know how the gaps have to be filled. While you may find the list of demands to be beyond what you as a government are capable of responding to right now, for God's sake, at least respond in what areas you're prepared to move and why, and what areas you can't move on and why not. Where there is a disagreement on content, tell us. Where there is an inability to move because of the price tag and it's something you look to in the future, tell us. Let's get some clear dialogue, because this issue is too important to leave to politicians to bandy about in the Legislature through question period, which is not a forum for honest dialogue. You've got that opportunity, and I'm asking you to please make the most of it in your preparation and to urge your two colleagues to do the same, so that when you go to that meeting it is a dialogue that moves forward, not spins its wheels on this important discussion.

Hon Mr Baird: I understand I've been the only minister who has met with them in four or five years.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate that.

Hon Mr Baird: So I'm not reticent to be engaged.

Ms Lankin: I hope you're going to move the agenda forward. I'm looking to you to lead this.

The Acting Chair: Your time is up.The government now has 28 minutes.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Minister, the pressure continues for new programs, and obviously it's going to come. But I want to caution you and your ministry that before any of these programs is considered, you check with other ministries as to what is provided. This is a long-standing problem, and if one did not know the inside workings of the system-if you were a victim, you would never know how to get help. Let me give you many examples.

Surely you've heard pressure for a specific type of program. One thing I continually see as a problem in Ontario is that many different governments have come up with many different initiatives at a given point in time, and all with good reason: there was a need out there. The difficulty is that when a new one is created, the old one is never eliminated. When a new one that has a much broader outlook is created, the old one lives and continues to increase its funding. Let me give you some examples.

You've heard of some needs. The large police services have crisis intervention teams to help with crisis intervention and domestic violence. The large departments have that presently. Many of them, just to help victims, manage their way through help centres and where to get help. The smaller services, through our ministry of the Solicitor General, use volunteers in remote areas where you cannot justify full-service teams but have full-time staff to train volunteers to do that. The Ministry of the Attorney General has the same sort of thing in the courts to help people through the court process after the police are done with that stage. For many years rape crisis centres have been funded through our ministry. But at some point in time the Ministry of Health came up with sexual assault treatment centres which go above and beyond that, where you have qualified medical staff to do sexual assault examinations and counselling along with it. Yet we continue to fund the others to the same degree we did before.

There are battered women's advocates, and Ms Lankin talked about the need for support out in the community. Certainly affordable housing is very important, but I always thought that battered women's advocates did follow-up work after. The whole point of battered women's advocates was to support women who either had not gone to court, where charges had not been laid, or well after that process was over as a follow-up service.

I really caution that when we start a new program, we check what is available within other ministries and build upon that rather than start a new one. Frankly you would have to be an expert, you would have to be the deputy minister of a certain ministry to even know how to access that. That is not my experience with victims; it's someone who has found themselves in a desperate situation and they need help at that time.

We've heard a lot of political rambling today, and I'm going to do my fair share of it right now. We hear the Liberals today tough on crime on domestic violence. They want weapons of all sorts seized from people. Well, you know what? There are Criminal Code provisions that if someone is violent, the police can go in and seize those weapons. So we can get through all the political nonsense: those provisions are there under the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General put forth what is provincial jurisdiction: restraining orders. Restraining orders are not for people who have been assaulted. This is a much lesser degree, someone who feels they are under some sort of threat-it has not occurred.

So you hear the political rambling. Mr Gravelle gave his legal opinion, or that of others, that perhaps drug testing for people who are on social assistance who you feel are drug addicts is somehow against the human rights code. I would like to know from the Liberal caucus if they would put forward a legal opinion on whether it's constitutional to take someone's weapons before they've committed anything? Bring that forward. You have a lot of lawyers.

I wonder if they would put their name to such a legal opinion using their law degree beside it. I doubt it very much. If they feel strongly that such an amendment would be constitutional, put that on paper with their LL.B beside it and see how they would be taken within the legal profession; probably not very highly.

We've heard a lot of this stuff continually today. I just urge you and your ministry, before you consider any further programs-I'm not denying the need for some of them, but ensure that you know what is available through other ministries.

Hon Mr Baird: If I could just respond a bit, I want to completely agree with you. Particularly in the area of violence against women, I think it's important to work to provide a comprehensive set of supports. At the same time, it's important to try to focus on that. That's one of the things I think-we announced this new initiative with respect to transitional support workers. We're using our 98 shelters. We're not reinventing a new system holus-bolus. I agree with you. But we have the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Ontario Women's Directorate, the Ontario Seniors' Directorate, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, and the office of Francophone Affairs, all working on the challenge of domestic violence.

I think we can do a better job of coordinating. The ministries have tried to work more closely together, particularly ours and Health, we've been real leaders in that in terms of co-locating our offices in the regions, so that the front-line supports we're providing can be done better. Some good work has been done in that area, as well as in terms of the Attorney General and the minister for women's issues. We are trying to be more actively engaged and work more closely together with our ministries to ensure that doesn't happen. I think what you said is good advice.

Mr Mazzilli: On the issue of the Child and Family Services Act-I asked you about it yesterday but we ran out of time. The title of that act has actually been changed several times over the years; I was going to say the Family and Children's Services Act. Some amendments were made, and there was a ministry news release dated March 27. This act has been changed many times through the years. The wording always changes, but the realities are the same. What is a child in need of protection, and what are the difficulties for a case worker or police officers or anyone trying to actually deal with that subject? I'm just wondering, what was the intention of some of the amendments you made the act, and have they seemed to work?

1740

Hon Mr Baird: In simple terms, I think we wanted to tilt the balance more in favour of child welfare and child protection. Too often there were a number of other good but competing factors on the table which maybe did not serve vulnerable children in need of protection as well as we could have. We've certainly raised the bar and given more authority to people to intervene and provide that support. Things like common risk assessment tools and systems required a whole host of administrative supports as well, not just on the legislative side.

In terms of funding, we're well over an 80% increase in funding. I'll be shocked if it's not 100% in short order. We have 760 new protection workers who were either hired or are being hired, so many people we couldn't hire them as fast as we would have liked over the last three years.

We've substantially increased the rates for foster parents to try to encourage more of that, which is obviously a better environment and more cost-effective to taxpayers. We've improved training for current and new staff and made a substantial investment in technology. There's been a good amount of change there to deal with.

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, I want to talk about something Mike Gravelle raised earlier, and that is mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. He questioned you as to what consultation process you were going to undergo and what you would do in the event that all the consultation suggested we should not adopt mandatory drug testing. I would like to add my input on that. That was contained in the Blueprint. We campaigned on it during the election campaign last year.

I come from a blue-collar riding, and many of my constituents spoke out long and hard in support of that issue. I think we've already engaged in the consultation process that is necessary. In spite of what Keith Norton suggests, the people in my riding are very strongly in favour of mandatory drug testing.

Mr Norton has suggested it's discrimination. It is left to the imagination, I guess, that someone in the workplace is allowed to use drugs and not lose his job. Many of these blue-collar workers I spoke with and continue to speak with suggest that if people in the workplace are on drugs or are using or abusing drugs, they shouldn't be in the workplace because it endangers the lives and welfare of those who are not. I would like to add my voice very strongly in support of your carrying on with mandatory drug testing, and I speak as a representative of my constituents in this regard.

However, I really want to talk about something else.

Mr Gravelle: You don't think there's any need for consultation?

Mr Wettlaufer: You had your time.

I would like to speak to an issue that is of grave concern to everyone in Canada today, especially those in the larger cities, but certainly we're not exempt from it in the region of Waterloo-Kitchener Centre, my riding-and that is homelessness.

Many reasons are given: drugs, mental illness, to escape a bad home situation. In any case, there are many reasons. We accept that. It's not an issue that is going to be solved by one person, one agency or one level of government.

I've noticed that in 1998-99, the actual spending in that regard by your ministry was $6.7 million. That increased in 1999-2000 to $17,366,988, and in the estimates for 2000-01, that has been further increased to $29 million-plus. What role do you see your ministry taking in this issue of homelessness?

Hon Mr Baird: The short answer is that in terms of the government as a whole we put in $100 million of new funding to provide supports to people who are homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. We identified the city of Toronto as being the biggest service provider in terms of money for support for the homeless. We can do more on mental housing supports. More of that has been announced and will be rolling out, and people will benefit. As well, our colleague Tony Clement will provide more supplements as that program rolls out. We've put a $10-million program to municipalities, the provincial homelessness initiatives funding, which has provided substantial supports. So there is a significant increase in supports, building on the $2 billion we already spend helping people who are homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless.

I wonder if I might ask for one minute just to put a comment on the record, if I could.

Mr Wettlaufer: By all means.

Hon Mr Baird: This is the response in terms of the office budget. I've got the numbers.

In terms of the 24% increase mentioned in the budget, in terms of salaries and wages, we only have one parliamentary assistant. That will save $65,000 on the salaries and wages side, so that will be down. In-year expenditures of our ministry are $148,000 less, so that would amount to only a 3% increase over the 1999-2000 actuals, and that would also account for my having two cabinet responsibilities as opposed to one. It may come in less than that, because it also includes the deputy minister's office and the minister responsible for children.

Mr Gravelle: I appreciate that, Minister. Could I have a copy of that?

Hon Mr Baird: It's my handwritten notes.

Mr Gravelle: OK.

The Acting Chair: I apologize, but we're called for a vote, and we need to vote here.

Shall votes 701 and 702 carry? Carried.

Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services carry? Carried.

Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to the House? That's carried.

Thank you very much. We're just in time for our vote in the House.

The committee adjourned at 1748.