FUNDING FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES
CONTENTS
Monday 8 December 1997
Funding for persons with disabilities
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1548 in room 151.
FUNDING FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Consideration of the draft report on the designated matter pursuant to standing order 124 relating to "The Impact of the Conservative Government Funding Cuts on Children and on Children's Services in the Province of Ontario."
The Vice-Chair (Mr Dwight Duncan): I call the committee to order. We're going to discuss today the paper that's been distributed to you on "The Impact of the Conservative Government's Funding Cuts on Children and Children's Services in the Province of Ontario," a matter designated pursuant to standing order 124.
We have a total of one hour and 21 minutes left to discuss this report. I'm going to begin today by allowing the research officer to present to the committee what has been done to date and what has been determined by the subcommittee of the social development committee, and this time will not apply against the one hour and 21 minutes.
Mr Ted Glenn: Most of you will be familiar with the report now, as it has been drafted to date, on the standing order investigation. Hearings were held in December 1995 and June 1996 into the matter; 22 witnesses were heard from at that time. This report before you summarizes the content of those hearings and includes an updated account of programs offered by the various ministries for children as well as their expenditure levels.
As you can see, the first part of the report includes a bit of discussion about poverty levels in addition. A number of witnesses used various measures of poverty, and to flesh out that debate a little more the subcommittee instructed me to include a broader discussion of the various different terms used.
The report is broken down into "Child Protection and Welfare," "Child Care," "Health Care," "Education" and other effects that generally corresponded to the way witnesses presented their information.
The report as it currently exists ends with specific recommendations made by the witnesses as they relate to early intervention, policy and program coordination, equality between the public and private sector service providers, early childhood education, healthy families and community spirit and cohesion.
At the conclusion of the public hearings, the subcommittee met to decide how the report should be drafted. At that initial meeting, we also went through a detailed editing of this report up to the end of the witnesses' recommendations. It was decided at that meeting that each of the caucuses would submit their own sets of recommendations with regard to children and children's services and a number of deadlines had been proposed and have passed since that time about those recommendations.
What the committee needs to address at this point is how they would like to conclude the writing of the report, and that's the direction I look for right now.
The Vice-Chair: We have one hour and 21 minutes of time left. If I can just put a question before we start the clock running, could you be a little more clear about what you mean by "conclude the writing of the report"?
Mr Glenn: In an earlier subcommittee meeting it was agreed upon that the body of the report would include the draft that you have before you as well as recommendations from the caucuses. I need direction from the committee if we are to continue in that way or if we would like to conclude it with the witnesses' recommendations as kind of a snapshot in time, if you will.
The Vice-Chair: Have you received recommendations from the caucuses?
Mr Glenn: No, I haven't.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): That was going to be my question. I think poor Ted has been dragged through the knot-hole several times on this one with deadlines that we've set to attempt to do that. I'll let Mr Klees go ahead.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I was just going to say that in light of the fact that we really haven't come through with any specific recommendations, it may be appropriate for us to accept this report as it is, see to it that it gets perhaps translated and printed and tabled and then allow each of the caucuses to prepare their own reports in response to the report, which is really putting in place the submissions of the hearings that were held on this. I just hate to see this getting deferred further.
Ms Lankin: I agree with what Mr Klees said. A slight variation: I think the subcommittee has set several deadlines and the caucuses have not met those deadlines. I understand the reason why. Everyone has been flat-out busy with a lot of very important pieces of legislation. It's not at all that these areas before us contained in this report aren't important, but they weren't focused in the same way with a piece of legislation in the House and a timetable attached to it.
I think at this point in time we would be doing a disservice to the people who participated in this and to the staff, research in particular, who have worked hard to put it forward, if we keep this on ice any longer. I think the report should be tabled and released, and what any of the caucuses do with respect to the issues and questions and concerns raised in the report is up to those caucuses at this point in time.
I would be in favour of not holding this up any longer either. I think it's unfortunate that we have not been able to give it the attention it truly deserves, but it becomes a problem of it becoming too stale-dated if we hold on to it any longer.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I don't know what the format is at this point, but I would like to make a motion that this report be tabled in the House.
The Vice-Chair: Is that supported? I guess the appropriate motion would be that the committee adopt and accept the report and that it be tabled in the House.
Mrs Pupatello: What format does that take? Does it require a motion to move it?
I guess, Chair, the hour and 20 minutes we have is strictly for the 124 on children, separate from the time on the disabled?
The Vice-Chair: That's my understanding, yes.
I guess the appropriate motion would be that the report be adopted, that it then be translated and printed and then the report tabled in the Legislature. Just as a caution, if this is not done by next week and the House prorogues, everything dies.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): I should clarify that. If the House prorogues and this committee is disbanded, then the 124 issue dies. If the House prorogues and this committee carries over, because this is a committee-generated issue, this issue would carry over. But if the committee is disbanded, then the issue would die.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Pupatello, is that a motion that the report be adopted, printed and tabled in the Legislature?
Mrs Pupatello: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: Is that supported?
Mr Klees: I'd like to speak to that. I'd like to know from the clerk what a reasonable time frame is there to have this report translated and printed. What are we looking at, reasonably?
Clerk of the Committee: December 8. We may be able to do it just before the House rises. Translation can take four or five days. We pay a premium if there's a rush on it. For printing it goes outside, so if we want a quicker turnaround we may pay a premium on that as well.
Mr Klees: I'd like to suggest this, so that we don't box ourselves in: I wouldn't support the motion as it is worded. I'd like to see us put a motion forward that accepts the report, refers it for translation and printing and leave it at that. I would like to see this report tabled as soon as possible. If the House rises -- in other words, if this work doesn't get done -- then I would like to see it tabled with the Clerk in the intersession so that at least we have the report available to us and so it is public and we can work with the report over the next three or four months.
Ms Lankin: This is just a question to the clerk. Is it not the normal process, if the House is not actually in session, that it is tabled with the Clerk of the House?
Clerk of the Committee: That is correct.
Ms Lankin: So this is a standard motion, Mr Klees, that's come forward here, which is just to adopt the report, send it for translation and printing and to be tabled. It will be tabled, if the House is sitting, with the Clerk, and the Speaker will announce it or not; if not, it's tabled with the Clerk.
The Vice-Chair: That is correct. It will be tabled with the Clerk in the event that the House is sitting as long as it's adopted today.
Mrs Pupatello: That would be my motion. That was the clarification I was looking for.
The Vice-Chair: That's supported.
Mr Klees: Could you read that motion again, please?
The Vice-Chair: First of all, that the report be adopted, translated, printed and tabled in the Legislature. When the Legislature is not sitting, it's tabled automatically with the Clerk.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Could I ask what the status is of a report that's tabled with the Clerk if the House prorogues? Is it then subsequently tabled when the Legislature comes back or is it deemed to have died, along with other bills on the order paper? I recognize, with that qualification there, but in all other respects, once it's in the hands of the Clerk, does that give it a different weight than if it was still in the hands of the committee and the committee carried on?
Clerk of the Committee: Right. It's a tabled report. It's a sessional paper. It has been tabled.
Mr Gilchrist: The proroguing will be irrelevant.
Clerk of the Committee: Right.
The Vice-Chair: The key is that this committee has adopted the report.
Mr Gilchrist: Fair enough.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? I'll call the question on Mrs Pupatello's motion. All in favour? Anyone opposed? The motion carries. The report will be adopted, translated and printed and reported to the Legislature. It was carried December 8.
That concludes our business for the day.
Mrs Pupatello: Question of the Chair. I don't know if research or the clerk has information about questions that were brought out last week concerning the timing of the next document, the 124 on the Liberal Party's request, The Impact of Conservative Government Funding Cuts on the Disabled Community. We had some questions last meeting around the proroguing etc, when we have to have that in, what the time frame was going to be like to get answers from ministries. Can you give us an update on successes you've had so far in getting additional information?
Mr Glenn: The Chair and I spoke at the end of the meeting last Monday and agreed that I will draft a memo to the ministries asking them to update information they had originally sent us last December and January. If the House happens to agree that this issue shall be carried over, the Chair will sign the memo on December 18 and we will distribute it.
Clerk of the Committee: I should just clarify that. If this committee is still standing and carries over to the next session, this issue will carry over. It is only if this committee is disbanded and doesn't exist that this issue would die, and then you would have to request through the House leaders that it carry over.
Mrs Pupatello: Does that tell me then that we have no hope of getting additional information, say this week, in terms of dealing with it next week, or do you have any indication from the ministry?
Mr Glenn: Given the record of the time frame involved, the number of individuals involved in the ministries and the resources they have to pull together to answer this, the Chair and I decided, given that the time frames are one to two or three months, that we would not pursue the issue until December 18.
Mrs Pupatello: Okay, and to the clerk: What is the likelihood of the committee standing through? What is the history?
Clerk of the Committee: I couldn't answer that. The House leader makes that decision.
Mrs Pupatello: Have there been committees that have carried over in the past?
Clerk of the Committee: I know there have been committees that have been allowed to sit during the intersession. I really don't know. I'd have to look into that and get back to you. But committees have been given permission to sit during the intersession. I don't know if the committees will be disbanded. I can't answer that.
The Vice-Chair: That would be, I assume, subject to some discussion with the House leaders. Perhaps the opposition caucuses will want to put forward that this can carry forward.
Are there any other comments? That was a good meeting. I declare the meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1602.