Legislative Assembly of Ontario

1996 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

CONTENTS

Thursday 31 October 1996

1996 annual report, Provincial Auditor:

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Ms Sandy Lang, deputy minister

Mr Kevin Costante, assistant deputy minister

Ms Mary Kardos-Burton, director, social assistance

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Chair / Président: Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)

*Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick PC)

*Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

*Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South / -Sud PC)

*Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)

*Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

*Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

*Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)

*Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South / -Sud L)

*Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)

*Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)

*In attendance /présents

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC) for Mr Gilchrist

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)

Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce

Staff / Personnel: Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1004 in room 228.

1996 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Colle): Ladies and gentlemen, we will begin the meeting of the standing committee on public accounts. I welcome again the witnesses from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Thanks for coming back. When we left off last week we had five minutes remaining on the government time. M. Beaubien, you had the floor, if you'd like to continue on the government side.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Possibly we could reserve it and let your friends on the other side --

The Vice-Chair: Sure, no problem.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's awfully early in the morning to be the first one on. I asked a question last week about the amount of fraud or speculation about the percentage of fraud there might be in the system. Have you had any opportunity to think about that?

Ms Sandy Lang: We think about that all the time. No, we don't have any further detail at this point in time.

Mr Crozier: Then let's pursue it from the point we had raised last week as well with regard to staffing, caseloads. Could you comment on how successful it would be to eliminate fraud if you had the appropriate caseload for your workers? That may be an obvious answer, but I'd like to hear it anyway.

Ms Lang: I must admit that does sound like every deputy minister's dream. I think we need more than just staff. The reality is that employees can only be as effective as the tools we provide them with. Part of our task in trying to deal with the issue of fraud is not only to have employees to do the work but to give them the tools, through information-sharing agreement so we can match, to be able to detect issues in their interviews with prospective clients and that sort of thing.

It's more than just having employees. It's also I think critical that we pursue, and we are pursuing, as we indicated last week, a very aggressive agenda of information-sharing agreements with departments of the Ontario government and departments in other governments as well.

Mr Crozier: I hope this committee, I think we found ourselves to be so, all of us, can be very much after the same objectives. Again I'll ask you a question that I hope you're able to answer openly. I'm not sure of how the system operates. I haven't been around here very long and I'm from a small town. I just want to see us do the

best we can.

To what extent, once government gives you its general direction or policy, do you influence either what government does, the advice you give, or how it's done? Do you feel that the ministry is there just to carry out the policy of the government or do you have other roles?

Ms Lang: There's no question that our purpose is to carry out the policy of the government and deliver services on its behalf, according to the policies as set by the government. But I think it's also fair to say that governments welcome advice from individuals who have the expertise and experience.

As policies are being formulated or issues are being contemplated for policy or legislation, there is no question that we are called upon to offer advice, bring in expertise as we feel is appropriate and offer that in the context of the various forums of decision-making for government. So we do, in addition to carrying out policies, attempt to offer the best advice and expertise we can on matters that are before the decision-makers.

Mr Crozier: Do you think that in the case of the 21.6% reduction or whatever it was last year at this time, making that reduction invites more fraud in the system? My objective here is to point out, let's say, that under certain circumstances, rather than just across-the-board reduction, it puts recipients in a position where they then are invited to mistreat the system because they simply don't have enough support, ie, live with someone else and not appropriately tell the officials. Do you think it invites that?

Ms Lang: I think, Mr Crozier, that would be a highly speculative response on my part. I don't think I could make a response that would suggest that a rate reduction in any way, shape or form is related to additional fraud. That would be very speculative, and I don't think I'm in a position to comment on that.

Mr Crozier: If you ever find that's the case, I'd like to know. Let me ask it in a different way. Rather than across-the-board changes, be they reductions, changes in policy, whatever, do you find them to be as effective and fair as more selective changes?

Ms Lang: It would very much depend on the nature of the change. In some situations it may be appropriate to have a specific policy, regulation or procedural change because of a particular classification of a case. On the other hand I think we strive very much to ensure that the policies and procedures are as fair and equitable as they can be across the board. It's very dependent on the situation and circumstances and the nature of the change that's being considered.

When you're dealing with human service delivery, human service policies, it's quite complicated and complex and you want to make sure that as you're providing advice and contemplating changes in policy and program, you are being fair and equitable and ensuring that individuals receive consistent treatment.

1010

Mr Crozier: When someone leaves the social assistance roll, is there any attempt to find out why they left?

Ms Lang: We do not have a standard process in place to find out why they left. As you will recall, we did have a survey conducted on our behalf over the course of the summer that attempted to determine why people left. That survey was released by the minister last Thursday. That's the only comprehensive review that I'm aware has been conducted by government to determine why individuals have left social assistance.

Mr Crozier: How do they survey someone who doesn't have a telephone?

Ms Lang: If you're doing a telephone survey, I'm afraid you don't do that.

Mr Crozier: Yes. Do you, as part of the application form someone has -- I assume they have to give you their telephone number -- have any idea how many people on social assistance have or don't have a phone?

Ms Lang: I'm not sure if we have that information.

Mr Crozier: It's easy to obtain. It's either on the application or it isn't.

Interjection: Case workers would.

Mr Crozier: Case workers would. This is not intended to be any kind of loaded question. I think we all want to know and we all hope that those who leave social assistance do so to get back into the workforce. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is what we all want. As was said earlier, when it comes to the percentage of fraud in the system we're hesitant to speculate on it because we don't want to be misleading.

At some point all of us, if the poll is favourable, have smiled and said, "That's very nice," and probably all of us have said at one time when a poll wasn't in our favour, "Who cares about polls?" and "Polls are misleading."

I don't know what to believe in polls. I like more to believe in facts and that's why I wonder if this kind of information or this kind of tracking is available when people leave the system. I find it to be more useful than calling 1,000 people in the province. Although I would never be misleading in a poll, I'm not so sure that everybody answers a poll accurately anyway.

Ms Lang: If I can simply comment, the survey was not done as a polling tool but as a survey tool. The methodology that was used, as I understand it, by the firm that conducted the survey was a representative sample, and they did talk to individuals. We can only operate on the assumption that as they talked with these individuals they were given accurate information and accurate responses.

Mr Crozier: What do you do with these results? What do you do with that survey?

Ms Lang: I think the survey has helped us in a couple of ways. In one respect it's helped us advise individuals that there has been some success for people leaving the social assistance system. But more important I think for public administration, it has offered us some input in how we can change the existing what we call termination codes; it's a technical term we use in our information system.

When someone leaves the social assistance system at the moment, our case workers complete a termination code. Those codes are far too extensive and complicated. Benefiting from the survey and the methodology, we've received some advice that suggests we could be changing our termination structure to more accurately reflect why individuals leave social assistance. So we intend to make some changes to that system.

Mr Crozier: So this will lead more or less to what we've been getting at: that you will have, hopefully, better tracking when people leave and have the statistical data at the time.

Ms Lang: Yes, that's certainly our intent.

Mr Crozier: That's great. Is my time up yet, Chair?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, it is.

M. Gilles Pouliot (Lac Nipigon): Oui, merci. Bonjour. Mr Crozier, with his usual eloquence, mentioned that this committee should be non-partisan; that it should rise above party affiliation, ideologies. After all, we're looking at the affairs of the state, that of public accounts, in terms of, are we Ontarians getting full value for our tax dollars? But I must say that, beyond being ironic, for me it is no surprise, since majority rules -- and that I understand and accept -- that the first item out of the auditor's report would focus on general welfare assistance fraud.

As I read the report throughout, there are many incidents where vigilance has not been the order of the day, where there's a lot more money. But one more time, by regulation, not by legislation, right off the bat, the night of the long knives, the first night, 21.6% cuts; cuts in staffing you explained last week, Madame, and I thank you, and again this morning; a snitch line, where people are invited to rat on their neighbours. It's one, two, three, four, and as long as there is any flesh left on that carcass, they shall pick it. That's their belief in life. They are driven that way. I am not, Madame, I can assure you.

You have read, no doubt, at times, because we do toss figures back and forth and I would imagine that the jury is out, that the element of fraud, although it's difficult and it would vary, would be centred at around 3%. Have you ever come across that figure -- that people who cheat the system, if you wish, who are fraudulent, would amount to about 3% when we're talking about general assistance?

Ms Lang: It's my understanding, Mr Pouliot, that that was the number identified as part of the SARC review back in the late 1980s.

Mr Pouliot: Okay, thank you. Oh, we're not here to talk about workers' compensation -- I'm sorry it's low there; thank you kindly -- or small business being late in remitting my tax dollars to the government. Oh, we're not here for that.

Madame, in 1991, "The ministry staffing study concluded that service to recipients could be effectively met with a caseload standard of 275 recipients" -- and I'm quoting -- "per case worker. The study also observed that for every case above 275, progressively more functions would go undone, to a point" at which even critical functions would not be performed.

The auditor's report on page 66 quotes on average 385 files. We're talking about a percentage exceeding, surpassing, or certainly neighbouring 20%. So here you have a situation where people are asking you to be more vigilant, and yet you have fewer people to do it. Obviously, people are under stress. You can only do so much on any given day. So many hours at your designated workplace constitute your workday. But you possess a new dimension, you go above, because you're there to serve and you understand the mandate. But you cannot bridge day after day after day from 275 to a capacity of 385. Something's got to give. At first you dish off experience. Then you start cutting corners. You don't do things. You're not meticulous any more. You're careful, but someplace, somewhere, it has to give. Is that not your impression?

1020

When you had a caseload exceeding 330 clients, you made a presentation in 1991 to hire another 200 staff. I recall that, because we were on that side then. But with the help and the benevolence of the electorate, now they're on that side. But when we were the government, we said, "Hey, hey, hey," and you had 200 more staff. My question is simple: How the heck, if I may be so bold, are we expected on the one hand to go after the fraud artists when we don't on the other hand have the tools to do so? It's simple logic, is it not? Do you need more staff, Madame?

Ms Lang: I think we are, at this point in time, looking at what other tools can be made available to deal with the issue of fraud. As we indicated last week, we are not only concerned about ensuring that our employees are well trained and have the ability to take on the tasks that we're putting in front of them, but we're also wanting to make sure they have the right kind of technical supports. As I indicated last week, the current information system and the current computer system that supports this program is so outdated and antiquated as to be less than helpful most of the time, so we have a major initiative under way to replace that system. It is a very complex system and does require a lot of time.

We also are aggressively pursuing these information-sharing agreements with other provinces and other departments to give the employees the tools they need to be able to track down potential duplication or double-dipping or concerns of individuals receiving benefits from more than one program. I think that as we introduce new technology and give them the benefit of automated capacity to do their job, we are alleviating much of the workload stress they have now on a manual, paper-driven process.

Mr Pouliot: Sometimes things happen, Madame; I need your help. They're unexpected. No system is perfect and sometimes governments initiate changes and the end result is not quite what they had anticipated. My focus is maintenance and child support.

We'll talk about Ms Jones -- hypothetical, Madame Hansard; Ms Jones is Ms Citizen -- with two children. Harry, also fictitious, is the former husband, the spouse. For the past six years he became less compatible; no one's immune, we all understand that. He kept making his payment to Ms Jones and, as is often the case, she has custody of the two toddlers. He has visiting privileges, but they don't apply here.

They keep taking the money off the paycheque, but she does not receive the money. People are of moderate means. It's not everyone who is fortunate; far from it. Your caseload will attest to that. It's pretty well her sole source of income, that and a supplement that she gets from you. You're the only support system. You're the only friend Ms Jones has. She keeps calling our office, you see, and she says, "What am I going to do now?"

Do you have any figures to attest to what has been raised in the House almost on a daily basis: spouse making the payment; the payment gets in limbo; maybe it's gone to a vortex, but the recipient, because of a glitch in the system, is not the recipient any more? Where's the money? Has that put more pressure on your system? You see, she used to get support payments. The deductions are still being made but for the past two months, in many cases, and they are documented, the money doesn't flow. She has not received the money, so she has to turn to you.

Ms Lang: If I understand your question, you're asking if the recent changes in the family support plan and some of the glitches they've experienced have had an impact on our program and our services. I believe we've had some additional inquiries. As you know, our program is there to be a safety net and a fallback position, so yes, there have been some inquiries from individuals who have not received their payments and they are in need of some financial assistance.

Mr Pouliot: Thank you kindly. When you do --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Your time is up. You'll have another opportunity. The government side.

Mr Hastings: My question to you, Ms Lang, revolves around -- you've got so many things going on in this ministry in terms of trying to serve a customer and I get an impression, and I don't want to put you on the spot, that you've got so many initiatives going on to try and fix the dike -- it's like the little Dutch boy with the hole in the dike and he has one finger in and there's another one starting and another one.

I'm wondering to what extent this ministry, like a lot of others, needs to go back to first base, to first principles, whether it has really got its mission lined up, so to speak, in your own mind, and your senior management, that is, to deliver social assistance and these other programs. I'm wondering whether all the folks down the line have a clear vision or a clear understanding of what it involves and how all these initiatives fit in or don't seem to fit in to what you're trying to achieve, going back to the original objective.

I wonder if you'd like to comment on that as to whether you yourself feel to some extent, because of the changes and all other stuff that's going on in society with relation to the cultural work changes, that you get inundated and you lose focus. I'm not looking for mea culpas or anything, but do you feel that we're losing our focus?

Ms Lang: I think I would suggest, Mr Hastings, that we are in fact shaping our focus and, as we have been involved in for the last year and a bit, a business planning exercise as part of the government strategy, we've been challenged to be very clear about our focus and our core businesses. We have produced a business plan that I believe does identify what are the core businesses of the ministry, sets out a strategic direction for ourselves for the next four to five years, and attempts to articulate the ministry's vision for services: what it is we think we can do, what we believe others need to be able to do to be part of the community service system on behalf of individuals in need.

As a result of the production of that business plan and the work that we've been through with cabinet and others in finalizing the business plan and the direction for the ministry, we have also been spending our time meeting with our staff, talking with individuals as we travel throughout the province about the business plan, the core business of the ministry. I make visits out to area offices on a regular basis to talk with all of the staff about what the ministry is doing and where we're going as an organization and how the work of our ministry fits into the government's overall agenda. So I think we're attempting very specifically to give focus and shape to the work of the ministry.

One of the things we are attempting to be very clear about with our employees and with the organizations that we deal with on a regular basis is that we cannot be all things to all people. As a human service organization, we will be quite clear about what we're prepared to support and how we're prepared to support it, but we're looking at others in the community to be part of that agenda as well.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a question. Do the welfare recipients get their cheques by mail or do they now pick them up from offices?

Ms Lang: We have a number of distribution capacities, Mr Boushy. We have direct deposit so that funds are deposited directly in many bank accounts across the province, which has been an incredibly helpful efficiency. We send some cheques and we have some cheques where we ask individuals to come and pick them up at the office if there is some question about whether that individual is still in need. We have a variety of tools that we use, depending on the nature of the particular recipient and the circumstances around their eligibility for welfare.

1030

Mr Boushy: You say some of the welfare recipients are not supposed to be on welfare. I was impressed by a comment made, I think, at the last meeting, I think in one of the states in the US where -- we talk about base budgets ourselves -- they said, "Nobody is on welfare from now on. As of the date today, you will apply for welfare," and only 30% of those on welfare did apply. Apparently the rest of them were taking advantage of the system, they weren't qualified or what have you. Do you think that kind of approach could work in Ontario? I believe it was in Michigan it was mentioned. I'm not sure if that's the state that tried it.

Ms Lang: I'm not sure whether that kind of approach would work. That would be an incredibly significant workload, as I understand your comment, to identify a point in time and indicate that, as of this date, everyone who is currently receiving benefits must come and reapply. I'm not sure we could cope with the workload, quite frankly.

But I think what we've been able to do is a case-by-case review, which was launched about three years ago, so that there was a case examination of every individual receiving benefits in the province as a way of ensuring that we have reasonable evidence to substantiate their need. Where there were some questions, we did that kind of follow-up where we would ask them to come in and see us. If they didn't show up, then obviously they were not in need of the benefit. So we've done a similar thing, but not quite in the way I think you're articulating it.

Mr Boushy: I would say this would be a very effective way of pulling in some of the applications for people who are not qualified. I was a municipal councillor, and the best way we dealt with it, we said: "Right now, this year, we have a base budget. In other words, we don't have any other programs. We start from scratch." We found out that was a very effective way of getting rid of the duplications and programs that shouldn't have been there to start with.

Ms Lang: I don't want you to get the impression that we're not prepared to look at base budgets. We're going through that at the moment. But I think it's important to understand that the nature of family benefits is an entitlement program. As individuals apply and are deemed to be eligible, they are entitled to receive benefits for as long as they are in need of those benefits. So it's different from a base review exercise. That doesn't take away, though, from the fact that we could employ various techniques as need be to determine that people are still in need of that benefit. That is in fact much of the work we are doing.

The Acting Chair (Mr Bruce Crozier): You have a couple more minutes. Shall we move on?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I'd like to comment on the so-called survey that was done by the ministry about the number of welfare recipients who supposedly found work. I think it was in 1924 Alfie Landon was running for president. They did a survey and a poll and they predicted Landon would win in a landslide. You probably don't remember Alfie Landon because he didn't win in a landslide, he lost by a landslide, and the problem was the poll. The poll was done by telephone. In 1924, who could afford to have telephones? It was mostly Republicans that they polled, people with money who had telephones, and they obviously said, "Alfie Landon."

I think the sampling that was done is really not helping to find out what is happening to people on assistance. I think you should do a comprehensive analysis, because it helps to find out more about the nature of the problems people have in trying to find work and how to get them into work and how to encourage them and how to give them support services.

These, to say it mildly, unscientific political polls that are done are not helping at all. I think your ministry should undertake an analysis of where these people have gone and how they can be perhaps put into an analysis of what is happening to people on assistance. Without that kind of analysis I think we're all groping in the dark to find out where these people have gone.

The question I'd like to ask is, in terms of the system you have in place -- I know the new government has been in place for a year and a half -- but it seems that the computer system, the automation process, has still not caught up with the caseload. In fact some of the auditor's concerns in 1992 have still not been met. That is what is in the auditor's report. Why is it taking so long to put this system in order? Is it essentially because you have insufficient resources to put the system in order? We've got case after case of information not being completed. Over half the forms filled out don't have complete information. I think 50% of the cases have incorrect addresses.

Since the computer system is going to take another year or whatever it is to get into place, do you need people to get this process to a fair and manageable and publicly accepted process? Because right now I think the situation is still in a mess and I don't see any major strides made to get us out of the mess to where the system gets some credibility and some integrity in it.

What is happening right now is it's easy to blame the people who were caught in overpayment situations and so-called fraud situations and say it's their fault, but maybe it's the fault of the ministry, that once you don't have the systems in place to ensure there's proper information, proper follow-through, the system is therefore open to attacks in terms of its integrity and in terms of branding people on welfare, "You cheated." I think one of the reasons there has been fraud is that the systems haven't been in place, and they're still not in place, to make it difficult for people to abuse the system. Subsequently, people who are perhaps -- who knows what the number is? That's another thing that should be pinned down. How much fraud is there?

Until the system gets some integrity in it so that you don't blame the recipients for perpetrating the fraud or the mismanagement, I think we have to blame the people who are managing the system. I'm not saying it's your fault particularly, but it's something that has been building up over a number of years. I know we had a dramatic increase in caseload. I know we went from about 30,000 to almost 150,000 on assistance in Metro, a dramatic increase. How do we get this system on track? To me, it doesn't seem to be on track yet.

Ms Lang: I think what I'm going to do, Mr Colle, is ask Kevin Costante to talk to you about what we are doing in the area of technology and what our current process is and when we are hoping to be able to ensure that the various tools are there to help us maintain the integrity of the service system.

1040

Mr Kevin Costante: To follow up from the deputy, essentially we received approval in early 1994 to undertake redevelopment of our computer system. That was a joint project, as you may know, with Metropolitan Toronto, which had started the case worker system, and we partnered with them to develop that and then turn that into a province-wide initiative.

What we have done since then is essentially going from almost a completely non-computerized environment to a computerized environment. First, we had to rewire and make sure that the desks in offices could accommodate new technology. We had to train staff, then we had to install the personal computers in the various offices. So far, I believe about 60 offices have been installed. We plan to get the rest of them up and going next year. Our goal is to get another 20 done by the end of this calendar year. So we're moving quite aggressively on that.

Mr Colle: Can I ask you one specific question? In 1992 how many cases were there per worker? People in the field. I'm not talking about supervisory officers. I'm talking about case workers in the field. How many did they have in their caseload in 1992?

Mr Costante: I'm not sure if we have that. Do you have that?

Ms Lang: We'll check.

Mr Costante: We'll check the numbers.

Mr Colle: How many are there now?

Mr Costante: There's 840 or thereabouts.

Mr Colle: How many cases do they have each?

Mr Costante: I think the auditor reported at 385 per case worker. Can I make one comment on that, Mr Colle? I think some of the situation has indeed changed from there. I don't think it's completely fair just to measure it on the basis of the number of case workers per case. I think you also have to look -- we're still largely in a manual environment and you have to look at the number of clerical support workers, which we have also been increasing, and the number of specialized staff that we have brought in to assist the case workers. I think those other staff types have also increased quite rapidly. So I don't know if just looking at the straight caseload ratios is the be-all and end-all --

Mr Colle: But I can't understand why I can't get that information. You've had this dramatic increase in caseload. I know the gross numbers, so I assume there has been a tripling, a quadrupling of the number of people per case worker. Doesn't it make sense that that would be the case? Maybe that is one of the reasons why basic forms aren't completed. Nobody's checking them. Fifty per cent of the forms aren't -- I mean, addresses are wrong in most of them. They can't collect overpayments because most of the addresses are wrong. Does anybody even check the addresses?

Maybe it's because, through this transition, you don't have enough people while you're going into computerization, and I think staffing reductions may take place, but right now it seems there's nobody out there who can handle all this basic information. If you can't handle names and addresses and phone numbers, how are you ever going to ensure the system has integrity? Nobody's checking it seems, according to the auditor's report, whether the forms are even completed.

How many did we have before the bulge started and how many do we have now per case worker? I know it's only one thing, but how many would it be?

Ms Lang: According to our information, in 1992 we had 320 cases per case worker.

Mr Colle: But I guess 1990 maybe is when it really started. How many would they have in 1990? That's when the recession started. You can get that to me in a minute, but just to give me an idea. But I can't see why we went from such a small number to an unbelievable number and you still have about the same number of cases per worker. There's something that doesn't jibe here.

Mr Pouliot: I want to pursue the overpayment, the recovery. It can get pretty tough in terms of recovery out there. For instance, someone is overpaid and they don't have enormous capacity to pay back, so you go to a central agency whose track record, given the clientele, is -- I guess you measure the performance of recovery on a different scale, and I think we all readily acquiesce that you're not expected to do that well that quickly.

There's been talk of improving that recovery by going to other agencies whose approach, style and methods could help enhance the revenues. In some cases we know that it would be the unspeakable in pursuit of the most vulnerable. Some of the characters are said to be unsavoury. Their style -- well, I'll tell you what I think: They're insatiable and they will scare the living daylights out of people by their methods. Some people are not very strong. They don't have the tools to defend themselves and hence are more vulnerable.

Do you feel the recovery would be greatly enhanced, somewhat enhanced or enhanced at all if, in lieu of the central agency, private entrepreneurs would take over? If you give it to Harry and the boys to go and collect from Ms Jones, will they have more success than your central agency has, in your opinion?

Ms Lang: That remains to be seen. Through our work with Management Board, we are anticipating that if we have the individuals who have expertise in the field of collection taking on the task, presumably they will have more success than we have had, but we will not know that until we've actually launched that endeavour.

Mr Pouliot: Okay. I certainly wouldn't want to antagonize Management Board nowadays. Allegedly they have shown their determination and they're pretty close to their work and excellent at monitoring compliance. I say this by way of observation, not compliment.

In terms of research, MTO, for instance, there are about seven million of us Ontarians who have a licence in good standing. It has been used as a wide range for referencing. It's a good place to find out the right address etc. Can you help us? Who do you call or what do you use if you want to find out about a person? Do you call Revenue Canada? Do you call MTO? Can you walk me through the system?

Mr Costante: If there is a suspicion on an individual case, we have the authority -- because clients, when they come on to social assistance, sign a waiver -- to explore with Revenue Canada or workers' compensation or unemployment insurance what their status is with those organizations. As we indicated previously, that can be quite labour-intensive, and we're looking at doing that on a more mechanized and larger-scale type of approach. If it was with another province, you could run a tape of social insurance numbers between the caseload in Ontario and the caseload in Manitoba, for example, spot where there is duplication and then investigate those cases. That's the type of approach we're trying to get.

We're also looking to be able to do similar types of things with provincial organizations, including the Ministry of Transportation, which as you indicated has a good database. If we're looking for a spouse who doesn't have support payments in place, that's perhaps a place where we could go to seek that type of information if the spouse was still in Ontario.

1050

Mr Pouliot: Thank you very much, Kevin. Do you know of any of your case workers, in their constant quest to be good citizens, people who go beyond the call of duty, who help some of the clients file forms from time to time, such as the disability provision under the Canada pension plan?

Mr Costante: I would assume that many of our case workers try to be as helpful as possible in terms of clients who are seeking other forms of income, including Canada pension plan or old age security, whatever they're legally entitled to. Yes, I assume they would help.

Mr Pouliot: I'm sure every one of us -- it's a normal reaction -- wishes to have a job because we feel more functional, we contribute, we're like the others; character enhancement from our surroundings etc. It gives us -- not too many are philanthropists -- the means to do things. We can purchase things, we can plan etc.

It's been in the newspaper that it was going to be not a handout but a hand up. People were going to go and rake leaves -- well, not today; it's too windy. They were going to do this and do that. They've been the government -- it's getting a little long now -- a year and a half. How many workfare cases are you aware of where people do a job and then they come to you for the dole? They were going to be put to work, those people. What happened? Is this a reality? Out of the hundreds of thousands of recipients, can you tell me what line of work your recipients are in under workfare?

Mr Costante: The Ontario Works initiative includes a component of community placement, as you described. It also includes employment participation and employment support initiatives. We have a broad range of employment supports that help clients to get employed. It goes the full gamut from references into the Ministry of Education and Training for literacy training through to help with résumé writing and access to federal job information, their computerized job boards. As well, for those who are more job-ready, we are looking at a process where we can contract with a placement firm to get them into actual jobs, as well as the community participation things. Those types of projects are meant to help the client gain some skills if possible, give them a good reference.

In terms of the number, which I think you're asking me to get to, I don't think we have a full estimate yet. As you know, they're just starting. There was a recent report in Algoma of the start, and there were seven people in Algoma.

Mr Pouliot: Seven people in Algoma. Wow. Thank you very much. With respect, if you ever decide to enter politics, will you please call us? We'll find you a riding.

Again with respect, I work with professionals. I've asked, and you knew the question, sir, and I know it's quite difficult. I prefer my job to yours, because I have a lot of latitude. I also have -- I want to run this by you, Mr Chair -- immunity here, sir, right?

The Acting Chair: I'm not sure about committee.

Mr Pouliot: I sure do.

The Acting Chair: But you have run out of time.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I think most responsible people in the province do not mind helping anyone who needs help, but I think most people in the province are not very receptive when the system is not working or when we have fraud in the system.

My colleague Mr Colle has touched on a couple of points. Some 41% of the files reviewed for newly granted recipients were missing at least one piece of necessary information, and 85% of the files reviewed for ongoing recipients lacked at least one piece of necessary information. We can attribute this to maybe the system is not working, maybe the technology is not upgraded, maybe we are short-staffed. I would strongly suggest that Ontario Hydro has cut its workforce by 10,000 people in the past few years. I don't think we've had more brownouts and I think the service is just as good today as it was three years ago. I don't think we can associate the level of staffing we have with the quality of work.

I look in my own riding, and when I talk to social workers I know that the rate of fraud in welfare programs delivered by the county is somewhat less than the rate of fraud in the programs delivered by the province under family benefits. You have as a ministry contracted out the county in my own riding to review and revise your files, to bring them up to date, on numerous occasions in the past three years.

It's not a matter of not having enough people; it's a matter of not training your people properly. The Chairman was an insurance broker for a number of years. You're very conscious of possible liability. I am sure that once one of his employees took an application for whatever, especially if it was an insurance contract, he wanted the address properly done, he wanted the telephone, he wanted the pertinent information accurate. Why does it seem to be such a major problem to have the initial process done properly? Because if the initial process fails, the rest of the system fails.

Ms Lang: What I would like to do, Mr Beaubien, is have Mary Kardos-Burton talk to you a little bit about what the training is that we actually do provide for our workers and to talk with you about the material that is required as part of the intake application, what is absolutely essential information, and what information will follow that will be necessary to complete the file.

Ms Mary Kardos-Burton: In terms of the training programs, that is an area that the ministry can be very proud of, as well as our municipalities. For income maintenance officers for the provincial program, the training program that is offered for all staff is a three-week intensive program which takes you through the regulations, the legislation, the processes, how local practices vary. People get an opportunity to talk about that. It's an intensive program. It's often a residential program. The municipal program is a two-week program and it goes through much of the same thing.

In addition to that, one of the areas we've really improved on -- as we've been talking about this morning, in terms of the caseload, one of the things that's really important to remember is that there have been a number -- and I think the auditor recognizes this as well -- of policy changes that have been made. But what we have done is train staff each time those policy changes have been made as well, which requires a great deal of effort, because not only do you do a training program for an individual policy change, but then you incorporate that into the ongoing training program. For the provincial program, we've just done massive training for all of our income maintenance supervisors. Within a period of six months all income maintenance supervisors have been trained, and that's 150 staff. We're very proud of the training we've done.

In terms of the information requirements, the enhanced verification program which we talked about last week, in our training programs all of those requirements are covered as well so people are familiar not only with the requirements but what questions and approaches do you use in getting those requirements from clients and from outside sources as well.

1100

I think we talked about the enhanced verification process. I know we commented to the auditor that we would be looking at some of our requirements, determining whether the intensity of those requirements is necessary in all cases.

Just to close off, I think we've made significant improvements in our training programs. I think we have the programs in place for our staff and we've produced materials, resources, as well. Those are updated as often as possible. We have a massive program of communication where we send out directives on changes. Of course there's always room for improvement, but we're certainly trying our best in those areas.

Mr Beaubien: As a follow-up to that, do you think the system itself, legislation and regulation, is too complicated, and is that why you have to train your people continuously? Do you think there have been too many changes introduced in the system in the past few years? What's your feeling on that?

Ms Kardos-Burton: There have been a number of changes. I wouldn't say there are too many. When there is so much change it's always an adaptation for staff in terms of coping with it.

Mr Beaubien: What's your feeling? The whole process is to look after people who are in need, correct?

Ms Kardos-Burton: Yes.

Mr Beaubien: If people are in need I don't think we need two systems: FBA and the general welfare. What's your feeling about having just one system looking after people who need help?

Ms Kardos-Burton: I'll let the deputy minister answer that one.

Ms Lang: That's exactly where we are going, Mr Beaubien. The government has made it very clear that they want one single delivery system and they want one form of social assistance for those who require income support. We are currently into major policy development work now that would create a consolidated, single-tier delivery system for social assistance in the province.

We are also awaiting the results of the government's determination on the Who Does What panel that determines what level of government should be the delivery agent for that single tier. We are also actively engaged in policy development work on the creation of an income support program for individuals with disabilities, which is very different from a welfare kind of program.

It is a very clear agenda that's been given to us in terms of trying to create a single-tier service delivery system in the province for social assistance, determining what is the best delivery agent for that program and how it will be managed in the future. That means we will need very significant reform to the existing legislation. As you indicated, the existing legislation is very complicated; it is quite complex. It hasn't been revised in many years, and the regulations associated with administering this program are also quite extensive. They change quite frequently, and as a result the procedures need to be updated and upgraded all the time.

We are looking for the potential to have the welfare legislation reformed, a single-tier delivery system created, and with any luck at all the technology will be there to support that newly designed welfare system and we will have what I hope will be a much simpler program to administer in the future.

Mr Hastings: You are a customer of social service. You have come to family benefits to get a cheque because of differing circumstances. Have you or any of your staff ever placed yourselves in the role of being a customer of the service delivery model you're trying to provide? If you haven't, have you ever thought about doing it? I think it would really open your eyes and those of some of your case workers if that occurred.

Ms Lang: I can't speak with absolute confidence, Mr Hastings, but I suspect that some individuals currently in our employ may have been recipients at some point in their lives, so they may have experienced it from a direct customer service perspective. I have been involved with case workers, spending time with them taking applications, but I have not been on the other end of the application process.

Mr Hastings: Do you know within the private sector a lot of that goes on to measure, to see what is happening? Could I recommend that you attempt at occasional intervals to measure how we are dealing with these folks who have come to you for whatever set of reasons?

I perceive it from the other end, of many people coming to my community action office. Even if I only believe 50% of their story, I get a consistent theme of a sort of indifference to their situation despite all your caseloads. I think it's something you need to look at and I can give you some documentation on this.

Even if isn't true, any of it, why is that perception being given to me by these folks despite their financial situation? In other words, we're talking about a communication problem.

Ms Lang: I understand.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. We'll move on and perhaps pursue it in the next rotation.

Mr Colle: I was trying to look again at the relationship between the big bulge of people on social assistance in relation to case workers. In trying to come to grips with the numbers one of the things that made me wonder and maybe answer in my own mind is that the GWA numbers had a much more dramatic bump up, didn't they, than the family benefits numbers during the recession? How would you compare the two bump-ups?

Mr Costante: We can get you the exact numbers of caseloads, Mr Colle, but there was a dramatic increase in the GWA numbers in the early 1990s. What we've experienced in FBA has really been a fairly rapid but steady increase.

Mr Colle: Yes, steadier than the GWA.

Mr Costante: Yes. It did go up as well. It bumped up in the early 1990s. The FBA caseload has been growing 7% a year for the last 14 years on average. I think what happened in the mid-1980s, when the GWA caseload either went down a little bit or evened up, FBA continued to grow.

Mr Colle: Okay. Just trying to clarify the staffing thing, the 1992 auditor's report mentioned there were about 320 clients per case worker. "These case workers can spend only five hours per year on each case." How can you adequately, as someone mentioned, provide service to a customer or ensure that guidelines are being met if you're only supervising or giving service five hours a year?

Ms Lang: I'm not sure where the five-hour number came from.

Mr Colle: I guess the auditor did this survey in 1992. Has this changed, that these case workers can spend only five hours per year? "This is insufficient time for case workers to perform their work adequately."

Ms Lang: I can comment on the way case workers manage their caseload, Mr Colle. Case workers determine as much as they can the needs of their caseload. For example, many individuals on social assistance are developmentally handicapped and for the most part are probably going to remain on family benefits for their lifetime. They may not require the same degree of interaction in ongoing eligibility determination as other individuals whose circumstances may change in a significant way. Case workers attempt to modify their interaction with cases depending on the nature of the caseload.

Mr Colle: I'm aware of that. Is it still about five hours a year per case today? Do you know how much time a case worker would spend on a case today? This is 1992 that the auditor was concerned. In fact he said that at this rate only half the work would get done.

Ms Lang: I understand, and perhaps Mr Peters could answer the question, but I suspect they arrived at five hours by a mathematical formulation. I would suggest that our case workers spend time according to what they believe they need to spend on a caseload, depending on the nature of the cases and time available to them. I wouldn't want to suggest that they spend only five hours on each and every case. They may differ their time on cases according to the needs of that particular individual.

1110

Mr Colle: Given the 40 hours a week they work, there's going to be a certain amount of limitation on a person's time. This average is quite shocking. I can't see any case being supervised or a customer being given support if on average you could only spend five hours. That's an average or median or whatever it is, but I don't know; I think maybe that's part of the reason why we've got this gap in terms of providing service and enforcing certainly our rules and regulations in this area.

I have another question. A lot of these recommendations were made in the 1992 auditor's report. In reading the 1996 report it seems a lot of the 1992 recommendations have not been followed through in terms of overpayment collection, caseload responsibilities, information in files. This is nothing new to the ministry. This is something the ministry knew about in 1992, and we still have this lack of follow-through by the ministry. Why is the ministry not able to follow the auditor's suggestions that go back four years?

Ms Lang: I can comment on a couple of things. First, just to give you a response to your earlier question about the caseload ratio in 1990, it was 368 cases per worker.

Mr Colle: It was 368, yes. Now it's 385, right?

Ms Lang: At the time the auditor did his review it was 385. I think it has been reduced since then as the caseloads are declining. But I don't know that we have today's information available to us.

The auditor's report in 1992 made some comments about the management of the program. Since that time the ministry hired 450 additional staff but, as we indicated earlier, the caseload continued to grow like crazy. We did a complete blitz of the caseload to ensure that those individuals who might be eligible for the Canada pension plan were being directed in that area.

We introduced over that period of time the enhanced verification initiative to ensure that there was clear eligibility. At that time we also added another 270 staff.

I think it's fair to say that since the 1992 audit there have been major efforts made to try to address the concerns the auditor had at that point in time, but I also have to reinforce the fact that the caseload continued to grow quite significantly. We were doing as much as we could to keep up with the demands of a growing caseload and the expectations for enhanced verification.

Mr Colle: In the area of overpayment, recoverable overpayments totalled $368 million, just for this latest audit, an increase of 163% since 1992. You've got a dramatic increase in overpayments: $155 million was due from active recipients, $213 million from former recipients -- there's no follow-through, it seems, in a lot of these cases -- outstanding payments of $142 million, $30 million written off.

The auditor said the reason this is happening is because there's no follow-through by your ministry. This overpayment situation was certainly referred to in the 1992 audit. A lot of it is because 50% of the addresses are still wrong on the forms, so you can't find the people, and collection agencies can't collect because the information is wrong. Isn't it a concern to you that this overpayment situation is still not rectified since 1992? In fact, there's been a dramatic increase in overpayments.

Mr Costante: I'll comment on a number of items in your question, Mr Colle. First, I think part of the dramatic increase in overpayments has to do with an increase in caseload. As well, I think it has to do with our workers being out there finding cases of error and fraud and putting the overpayments in place. So to some extent our being more vigilant creates more overpayments because you find more things. We agree that more has to be done, and as the deputy indicated in her remarks, we're going to be working with Management Board in terms of trying to bring in an improved system to collect overpayments from inactive cases.

Your 50% issue around addresses and stuff, that is for inactive cases. For active cases, I think we're very, very good in having current addresses. As a matter of fact, it's necessary if somebody is going to get a cheque. On inactive cases, we do feel that more efforts have to be taken, and that's why we're looking at a different approach here.

I should also point out that we know from our examination of this program that our clients are very mobile and that up to 30% a year move, so there's a lot of movement, and when somebody leaves the case it's often hard to keep track of that unless you have a very good system. I think we acknowledge and have acknowledged that we need to do more in this area, and we're pursuing it.

The Acting Chair: Before we move on, and it won't affect your time, perhaps Mr Peters could comment on the average hours that were raised by Mr Colle.

Mr Erik Peters: I think also the deputy raised the question as to whether we could comment on that. The matter was one of straight mathematics in a way. There were 800 case workers, there were 250,000 cases, and that gave 320 per. On assuming a 1,600-hour work year, which is quite a reasonable assumption, that gave the five hours per worker.

What concerns me a little bit, and that was one of the statistics that maybe the committee has asked for and should get, is that when we commented in 1992, there were 800 income maintenance officers. At that point, the ministry responded to say that the ministry had received approval to hire 450 additional case workers. In our 1996 report, which we just did, we found that the number had just gone from 800 to 850 case workers. In other words, we would have expected the number to go to 1,250 when it has only gone to 850.

At the same time, with all due respect, we also noted that approval had been given way back then to approve the case worker system, but in effect, at the same time, the old systems were still being worked. They were problematic then, they were problematic throughout the four-year period, and they are now supposed to be solved by 1997 through the new work. One of the problems I have, and maybe you can comment on that when you talk -- you just made the comment on the addresses -- is the point about the new system.

If the basic information is currently in trouble, like new applicants missing so many pieces of good information and ongoing missing so much, what part of the systems effort is directed at, if you will, to use a word I just now used on the pension system, data purification, so that the new system doesn't start out with 328,000 cases, or whatever it is, where the basic starting data are in difficulty? You might want to relay it. Maybe that will help illuminate the point that Mr Colle raised and the points that you would like to make in response.

Mr Costante: I think your point about data purification is a good one, Mr Peters. Right now we're pursuing the Andersen contract which, if we proceed with signing, would replace our CIMS main system. I think when we replace that system, that would give us an opportunity to look at that as we're transferring files from the old CIMS main system to the new system, to go through and use that as an opportunity to make sure we're starting off with an absolutely good file and not just transferring current problems on to a new system. It's a good point.

1120

Mr Pouliot: You've piqued my curiosity, Kevin. Thirty per cent of people who are on general assistance move on an annual basis?

Mr Costante: That's my understanding, that the movement rate in social assistance -- and I'm not sure whether it's general assistance or FBA, but social assistance in general -- is about that per annum.

Mr Pouliot: They would be more nomadic by virtue -- let's face it. When someone comes and grabs 21.6% of a meagre sum, you become a lot more vulnerable and, "Well, I hope I don't have to go to too many bus shelters," because it's getting cold out there yesterday and today with the swirling wind.

Interjection.

Mr Pouliot: I guess the human dimension's got nothing to do with that, M. Beaubien. When you help people, as a good Samaritan, to access their entitlement, namely, Canada pension plan, the disability provision, the federal government is tightening the rules because they have seen a dramatic increase under that provision, and it's attested for all of us to look at. The federal government is also becoming, because they guard their fiefdom, their jurisdiction, more vigilantly vis-à-vis provincial government or municipal make-work programs; for instance, you work the required weeks and then you ping-pong the client under another jurisdiction.

But they will come back, because the government is really tightening up. They're saying: "Look, UI, the requirements are more, the criteria are more severe, the time equivalent is longer. In terms of disability, we'll make it to another threshold." So fewer people will result, and some of those will be coming back. This will happen -- not UI, but what is now EI. This is in the process of happening. Some 180,000 to 220,000 under immigrant status and under refugee entrance, Ontario will get 60%. Let's agree on a number, 200,000, so we will get 120,000. There will be the usual ratio of refugee status vis-à-vis the overall number.

January 1, a couple of months, the first baby-boomer will reach 50. Each and every month in Ontario -- there's 11 million again -- 10,000 people get to be from 64 to 65. That's 120,000 per year, grosso modo. You have more people entering from 60, and I see where you're impacted from 60 to 64. I read about your supportive services.

And the economic cycle -- we have a streamlining, the information age. It makes it more difficult to look in a crystal ball. But one thing for sure is you have good years and you have bad years. When the warehouses are full, you don't have the same capacity to meet the marketplace because of the law of supply and demand, our great system.

When you add all these things up, and we try to put the onus on the positive as much as we can, is it going to get, even with the gadget, with the gizmo, the computer and so on -- and bring them on big time, but they don't buy Fords -- how do you see your ministry developing? I think you're doing an excellent job. We used to say at cabinet that you didn't have good news written all over you, by virtue of your mandate, and it was a very difficult ministry. I remember coming back from a retreat with Tony Silipo. We had a cabinet retreat and Tony was sitting beside me. It was on a Friday. There were some 20,000 or 25,000 cheques that had not reached their destination. He was quite panicky. So now I meet the people Tony was worried about. It's you, you and you and the many others. How do you see the role of the ministry and the workload when you factor all these things in? Surely you must think about that. Do you have time to envision what will happen?

Ms Lang: I'm not sure I can indicate to you that we have done the environmental scan that I think you're alluding to in terms of all of those potential changing societal circumstances. We attempt, as much as we can, to forecast the requirements for social assistance over subsequent years and we factor in a number of things like economic factors etc with our colleagues over at finance. I think it's very hard for any of us to be able to speculate on what would be the changing demands over a long period of time, because circumstances alter so fundamentally the circumstances of the province's economy and immigration.

As you referred to and as you know, the government in Ottawa makes immigration policy, so to a large extent we do not have control over what those decisions may be and how those decisions may impact. I think it's our task as public administrators to be able to advise the government and respond as the circumstances change.

Mr Pouliot: I'm going to ask you a difficult question but, I must say before I express it, only from the point of view of demographics, there is nothing other than my curiosity. Let me preface by mentioning what I had started to say last week. Some people will say "perennial and residual," but that's not the premise from which I'm expressing the following.

If I were to study welfare recipients over the past 10 years -- let's say I reach the airport and I'm going to pay you the compliment of my visit, Canada, on a permanent basis. I want to become one of yours. Is your clientele made up of first-, second-, third-generation Canadians? Is there a study, just to look at it, to help people? Am I more likely to be on welfare if I'm educated? Am I more likely to be a recipient if my parents were? If I come from another magnificent land, my country of birth, am I more likely to have a support system in place to welcome me at Pearson? When I reach Pearson, where am I likely to be from in 1950?

All that database, those stats, can help in formulating some policy. It's prevention. But more important, it's the human dimension. It's helping our sisters and our brothers. Really, nothing else matters. It's the essence of life. What database, what records do you use? Sometimes I read a little bit about this and a little bit about that, but I don't have in my hand a whole range of statistics analysing in depth the likelihood.

1130

Ms Lang: I don't believe we have the sort of comprehensive study that you're alluding to in terms of the changing profile of welfare recipients over the last 10 years, but we have on occasion completed analyses, for example, the age profile of individuals on assistance or the educational levels. There have been studies done on those kinds of factors, but the comprehensive nature of a review that you're referring to and using that to project future demands and future needs I don't believe has been done.

Mr Beaubien: I had two questions, but my friend Mr Pouliot touched on the subject matter with regard to employment insurance and immigration. My question would have been somewhat abbreviated, but I got the answer from the deputy minister, so I don't need to touch on this one.

On home repairs, apparently we spent $1.9 million last year on home repairs. Home repairs are supposed to be for emergencies, am I correct? When would a fence around a property be considered an emergency?

Ms Lang: I'm not sure that it would be considered an emergency in the definition that we would see as an emergency. I don't know the circumstances of which you're speaking.

Mr Beaubien: I know a circumstance in my riding while I was canvassing and campaigning last year that in fact did get me a vote, because the neighbour was somewhat appalled that the social assistance system in the province would pay for a privacy fence in somebody's yard.

Mr Pouliot: May I answer?

Mr Beaubien: It gives me great concern because it says the audit reviewed a sample of home repair expenditures and made the following findings: "The majority of proposed repairs were not inspected to determine their necessity." I think this is a blatant example of mismanagement, misuse and fraud in the system.

Believe you me, this side of the government has a social conscience. Nobody has a monopoly on that. I have been involved with social agencies, being chairman of fund-raising, being president, and I do not mind, as I'm sure most of our members do not mind, helping people who need help. But I find it an insult, an abuse of the system when we have blatant abuses in the system like putting a fence around somebody's yard. The home was not even owned by the recipient. That is what is wrong with the system.

Coming back to the previous point, if the application is not done properly, we are wasting an awful lot of time chasing something that was done wrong. If it's done properly the first time, then we can allocate our time efficiently in delivering the proper service. How do we get this across? In 1992 that was a problem; in 1996 it's still a problem. Hopefully in the year 2000 it will not be a problem. What assurances can you give us that it's not going to be a problem in the year 2000?

Ms Lang: The only assurance I can give you is that we are making every effort through our welfare reform policies and the procedural changes that we're making to ensure that all of the resources that are available to us can be expended on the front end, where we determine, when someone seeks eligibility for social assistance, that they truly are in need of that assistance. Our efforts and the actions we've taken over the last year and a half would suggest that is a very significant change in strategy that we're attempting to put in place with our system. But to be perfectly honest, we also need to reform the legislation and do all the other things that will allow us the benefit of regulation and procedural changes to make that workable for our staff.

Mr Beaubien: I want to put it on the record that I do not mind feeding the children, clothing the children, housing the children, but I object to providing a fence. I think there has to be some responsibility somewhere so that at least it is on the record that we are not opposed to the social programs this province provides, that we are concerned about the children. But there has to be a level playing field, because if one neighbour is feeding his kid, is responsible for his family, and he sees the neighbour next door who's on social assistance putting up a privacy fence, like he tells me: "I can't afford to do it. Why should my tax dollars pay for that?" It's not good for a society as a whole, it's not good for the mentality. Maybe for some people it is, but for me it's not. It's just a statement. I'm done.

Ms Lang: I will ask Mary Kardos to simply outline for you what the home repair policy is intended to do.

Ms Kardos-Burton: In terms of home repairs, the intention of the policy -- and the policies are actually quite clear that it is for urgent and emergency repairs. The types of examples are for plumbing repairs, patching of a roof, if there's been a fire, if there's been a disaster etc. What we agreed to in the response to the auditor was to reissue our policies and directives and ensure that our delivery sites are very clear on when home repairs are to be approved or not approved.

In terms of the issue around inspection, the auditor cited that some of our offices have used specialized expertise for inspection. That is a resource that is available to people. I think we want to work with our offices on the cost-benefit of that and use that when that is required.

The Acting Chair (Mr Gilles Pouliot): Thank you kindly, M. Beaubien, a distinguished member of your caucus, an additional four minutes at your convenience. You're satisfied with the fence issue, M. Beaubien? You have more time if you wish.

Mr Beaubien: I will reserve my comments on this one, Mr Chairman.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I just want to go back to the issue of staffing as it relates to new programs. First of all, we talk about numbers and the drop in general welfare assistance. Can you relate to us what the number in family benefit recipients had been in Ontario, how dramatic that drop has been? FBA recipients rather than GWA.

Ms Lang: Since what period of time are you --

Mr Agostino: In the last year.

Ms Lang: Do we know the caseload reduction?

Mr Costante: From June 1995 to September of this year there have been 17,000 fewer cases on FBA, which is about 50,000 people.

Mr Agostino: So when we talk about a drop, the 180,000 or so the government refers to, we're talking about primarily general welfare assistance. I'm just having a difficult time making the correlation. The auditor's report refers to staffing levels in FBA, family benefits, being too high. The response of the government has been, "Well, the numbers have dropped; therefore the caseload has dropped."

When you isolate and you talk about 17,000 cases in the FBA system, that seems to be a small drop in the percentage of the overall caseload and would have a small impact on the numbers. Again, I'm separating GWA and FBA. I understand the difference between the drop in one area and another. Does it still hold in your view that with the 17,000 overall drop in cases in the past 16 months, that would have a significant impact on the caseload of the average FBA worker in this province?

Ms Lang: It certainly does have an impact on the caseload. If there is a reduction, then it frees up time for individual case workers to do some of the additional work that they need to do, yes.

Mr Agostino: But again, when you look at the number of FBA workers you have across Ontario and you look at 17,000 cases, what would be the average reduction in caseload per worker?

Ms Lang: Potentially 20 to 25.

Mr Agostino: Which is insignificant compared to numbers -- I guess the point I'm making is that I think we have to be careful not to confuse the overall drop, with the auditor's report referring to the numbers and the caseloads in family benefits, and the drop in family benefits has been small compared to the drop in GWA. So I don't think it's as simple as saying, "We've addressed the caseload problem, because the numbers have dropped." I can tell you that in my own community of Hamilton-Wentworth probably the average case worker at FBA handles a caseload of about 450. So the numbers have not dropped, and frankly I don't think that issue has been addressed. I would like to see us detail a little more how that has actually impacted on the caseload.

1140

I want to get to the issue of staffing at the GWA level and the programs which were introduced. With the introduction of workfare, which will commence in 20 municipalities across Ontario, I presume that the workload per GWA worker will increase as a result of the fact that now the type of planning and the type of case management will have to change dramatically. If you all of a sudden have a caseload of 120, and 70 or 80 of those clients are employable, you now have the responsibility to find a placement and to monitor and follow up on the placement of those 70 or 80 of your clients who are employable.

Do you feel, with the current caseload ratio at the GWA level, that the average case worker will be able to handle the increased work that is required as a result of their involvement with workfare, or are you willing to allocate additional resources to ensure that they are able to handle the cases?

Mr Costante: I guess there are a number of answers. The caseload ratios at the municipal level, as you know, Mr Agostino, are, we estimate, in the range of 110 to 135. It varies community by community. Historically, I think municipalities have put a lot more time and effort into employability anyway.

We think, with the increased funding and resources available through the Ontario Works initiative, they will be able to cope with this. Because this is a very strong emphasis on trying to bring income maintenance and employability together, yes, many municipalities are having to do some shifts in how they do business and reorganize what their case workers do. Many of them are introducing specialized services, specialized workers to help the case workers. Some of them are going to be looking to community agencies to help them with the community participation aspect. I can see some of them contracting with community agencies also to help in their efforts to get people with skills back into the workforce.

Mr Agostino: I just find it hard to imagine a case worker -- and the intensity for a case worker at the GWA level is significantly greater, obviously, than at the FBA; that's why the numbers are so different. But the same case worker who now may be handling 10 or 15 training or placement or upgrading programs and so on that the various municipalities carry out will now be able to handle 60, 70 or 80 of those programs. I guess time will tell. I think one of the weaknesses in this is that the management won't be there.

Just to follow through on that workfare aspect, what is the number of expected placements that those 20 pilot projects will result in at the end of the first year, based on the business plans that have been submitted to you and approved by your ministry?

Mr Costante: I don't have that information. Right now we have nine approved business plans, I believe, as of last week. I'm not quite sure that's increased this week; there were four or five more that were near approval. We could likely provide you the information on the first nine approved ones. The rest are still in the negotiation phase and those numbers could change.

Mr Agostino: Just to go back, when the 20 pilot projects were chosen initially --

Mr Costante: Sorry, there are 20.

Mr Agostino: Yes. When the 20 pilot projects were chosen initially, was there not an expectation for those 20 pilot projects to submit to you at that point what their expected placement targets would be as a result of the workfare initiative?

Mr Costante: That's correct.

Mr Agostino: Would you not have that information available, based on the original submissions made to your ministry?

Mr Costante: The audit today, Mr Agostino, is on FBA. Our Ontario Works initiative is being done through GWA, so I did not bring those statistics with me.

Mr Agostino: But you can provide for me, then, the initial job or placement projections submitted when the 20 pilot projects were approved by your ministry?

Mr Costante: No.

Mr Agostino: You can't?

Mr Costante: There were no initial projections. Our position has been that the individual municipalities will tell us what they are able to do, given their local circumstances, so we can tell you what is in the approved business plans.

Mr Agostino: What you're telling me is that there was an approval of 20 pilot projects for workfare without those pilot projects having to give any outline or business plan as to what they plan to achieve at the end of the first year. So you chose communities X, Y and Z, but you had no idea, or the ministry had to idea how many placements were to be in place as a result of those communities you have chosen.

Mr Costante: That's right. We asked those communities at that point in June to develop their business plans and give us that information, and that's what they did over the summer period. That's why we can now report on it, sir.

Mr Agostino: I find it just somewhat amazing that we would approve a $120-million program in its first year, choose communities, but not ask those communities, when we chose them, to tell us what their projection would be. I would appreciate, if I can, a question just to follow up to make sure --

The Acting Chair (Mr Bruce Crozier): No, I'm sorry.

Mr Agostino: Can I be assured that I can get the nine communities that have been approved?

The Acting Chair: You can speak to them after perhaps.

Mr Agostino: Just a clarification; It's not a question. Can I get the nine that have been approved?

Mr Costante: I believe we can provide you with those numbers, yes.

Mr Agostino: Okay. Thank you.

Mr Pouliot: I too share the appalling and shocking revelation, Mr Agostino, that little was done before workfare pilot projects were introduced. If I were to ask you the data, the studies that were prepared -- because general assistance is your ministry. When we talk about a transition to workfare, you would have had that research done. You would know the philosophy prior to any pilot project. You would attach a timetable to it. I mean, you would get real, and all that would be relevant. Then you would march alongside the data and go to a stage of implementation.

I get the impression that a lot of it, and I'm not asking you to comment on that, was by way of political expediency. When you do this to feel the pulse, I feel it borders simply on political crassness -- nothing short of that -- and it's shameful, shameful, shameful, in order to gather those extra votes so you can have power in lieu of government with sensitivity.

I have a question. You've mentioned enhancement of a database and you hired a consultant. How much do you pay those people? A brief summary of what they do. What is it they're going to do? Before you talked about data enhancement. What does that mean?

Ms Lang: I'm not sure that I understand the question, Mr Pouliot. Could you --

Mr Pouliot: You've talked about a consulting firm.

Ms Lang: Oh, I'm sorry. This is the replacement of our technology system. I'll ask Kevin to comment on that.

Mr Costante: Essentially we've not finalized the contract for the replacement of CIMS-MAIN. I believe it's the Andersen contract. The contract is not finalized. We would hope it will get finalized some time this fall, so at that point that information will become public.

Mr Pouliot: This is this fiscal year, sir, with respect?

Mr Costante: Sorry. There are two phases to our technology initiative. The first phase, which is about $100 million, was to essentially rewire our offices, put the personal computers to the case workers, do whatever changes we needed to do to the desks. That is likely a three-year project. We're partway into it now. We hope that would be completed next year. That money is being expended for ministry staff, for the cost of the computers. We have several firms helping us with that. Systemhouse is doing a lot of the work to restructure the offices, and we also have a contract, which I believe is a government-wide contract, with a firm called MFP, which I believe provides our hardware.

1150

Mr Pouliot: That's big, $100 million. Is that going to make you more efficient? For instance, will you be able to preferably put a number on the rate of attrition and say, "Okay, now that we have this state-of-the-art, the latest technology at our disposal," like Mr Beaubien has said, maybe you won't need as much personnel? How will your job be made easier?

Ms Lang: It is our belief, Mr Pouliot, that our case workers should be spending their time interacting with the clients and not completing paper. The extent to which we can use the technology that's available to us now and the benefits of automation I think free up our staff to be able to carry on the work that's associated with assisting individuals to get back into the workplace.

Mr Pouliot: By way of conclusion, thank you very much. I've learned a lot and it's in large part because of your expertise. I appreciate not only the courtesy but the knowledge you have brought forth.

The Acting Chair: We have a little less than nine minutes left until our 12 o'clock adjournment. Are there questions from the government side?

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: Don't force it. If we get out of here nine minutes earlier, you won't mind, will you?

Mr Hastings: They're not going to be back again for umpteen years.

The Acting Chair: Next week we have them back again, on a different section, but depending on the Chair that day, who knows what latitude there might be?

Mr Hastings: My request would be whether the deputy could respond directly with statistical material, not a truckload, with very targeted responses to all the observations the Provincial Auditor has made in his 1995 report. Is that too big a task?

The Acting Chair: Do you understand what Mr Hastings is asking the deputy to do? I just want to make sure we understand what --

Mr Hastings: I'd like to ask Mr Peters if there are specific things out of the transcripts he's looked to whether the committee is getting sufficient response back on the issues highlighted in his 1995 report.

Mr Peters: I think you mean the 1996 report.

Mr Hastings: The 1996 report.

Mr Peters: What I do a little bit is I keep a little bit of score -- I hope you don't mind that word -- on the questions the researcher provided to the committee as to whether they have been raised or not, and just very quickly to summarize, I think most of them have been asked, but just very quickly, if you want to refer to the document, page 10 is the first place where there were questions raised. They dealt with the progress made from 1992 to 1996, and I think that has been to some extent addressed.

There was the question about whether the automation will guarantee more checks and balances in the system and I think that has been answered. That is still, if I remember the answer, in a bit of flux in terms of the RFP just having been given, but a lot of work being done.

The current status of agreements with other ministries and other provinces and the federal government: There is potentially one that maybe the ministry could provide us with, not now, with a short -- way back when this committee asked my office to prepare a document about the information that was turned over to the central collection services with regard to overpayments, there was one particular major issue being dealt with, and that was to what extent the province could reach an agreement with the federal government to latch on to tax refunds from Revenue Canada and tap into that tax system. Because it's coming a little bit out of left field at this stage, I wouldn't expect an answer here, if you're prepared to answer as to where that stands.

Mr Costante: I can give you a partial answer anyway, Mr Peters. We have worked with our colleagues in the Ministry of Finance. We've approached the federal government to do that. They've shown some interest. Their interest, however, to attach it to tax refunds would only be as a last resort. They would want us to go through a very thorough process and use that only as a last resort. I can give assurances to the committee here today that we are pursuing that actively with our colleagues in finance.

Mr Peters: More than we had expected. Do you want to hear more of the questions? I'm not sure. I continue to refer to the document that the researcher prepared for the committee. I believe page 14 was the next item. Correct me if I'm wrong, Elaine.

The Acting Chair: I have one more member's question.

Mr Peters: Oh, you do? Then please proceed with that.

The Chair: Would the committee agree? Mr Agostino said he had one short question as a wrapup. Is that okay?

Mr Agostino: Thank you, members, for one minute here. Just a question to the administrators at the end of the table: The auditor's report talks about accountability a great deal, different aspects of the thing. Can you outline to us -- there was a change made. It seems like a simple thing, but administratively, when the welfare numbers were released every month, initially when this government took office, they were broken down by categories. It had the unemployable, the employable, seniors, disabled and so on when you looked at the category of welfare and the drop.

About a year ago it was changed so that the only numbers that were reported were basically the overall, with some other categories, but particularly the categories that referred to the disabled and seniors were eliminated, so the public or the media or the curious members of the opposition could no longer monitor how many seniors or disabled were still receiving welfare. Can you advise me if that was an administrative change, if it was a government policy change and what the rationale would be for no longer including what had been a long-time tradition in releasing that information: the number of seniors and disabled who were on welfare?

Ms Lang: I'm actually not entirely sure how we made that decision. It may have been related to the ability to get that information out monthly and our ability to put it out in a clean and concise way. I'd have to go back and assess how that decision was made.

Mr Agostino: Can I ask for that to be looked at? Let me suggest that what had happened was clearly that there was criticism in the first three or four months as a result of seniors and disabled staying on the welfare system, and all of a sudden those numbers disappeared. It was not difficult in the previous five years or 10 years for that information to be released and it wasn't difficult in the first three months. I just find it hard to understand that all of a sudden it would be difficult to release that information. It was simply a category that said seniors, X amount; disabled, X amount.

I urge the deputy minister to look at that again and try to find a mechanism for ensuring we don't have to go through order paper questions, as a member of the Legislature, to get information that had been available for years. It's causing more work for your staff, because I'm going to keep doing that every month. If you could just simply release it the way you normally used to do it, it would make everyone's life a little simpler.

The Acting Chair: I think the deputy minister is about to suggest something.

Ms Lang: No, I said we would follow up.

The Acting Chair: Okay, good. We are at 11:59. We could use one more minute if Mr Peters has anything else to say. I kind of cut him off. I'm sorry, I don't want to do that to the Provincial Auditor.

Mr Peters: That's fine. I think we have the questions, and there are the two data pieces still to come from the ministry. I believe the accounting for the 1,000 new hires is one of them, and I think, Donna, you mentioned one other piece that was still outstanding.

Clerk of the Committee (Donna Bryce): Yes, that was the report that's being issued in the fall. Once it's released, it will be tabled.

Mr Peters: The report on the success of the 1-800 line I believe was the other item that was forthcoming in the fall, was forthcoming in the next few months.

Ms Lang: Yes.

The Acting Chair: On behalf of the committee, and to the extent that we've been reviewing section 3.04, I want to thank the ministry staff for the last couple of weeks, and the committee for their cooperation. We look forward to seeing you next week when we will review section 3.05.

The committee adjourned at 1201.