Ministry of Community
and Social Services
Hon John Baird, Minister of Community and Social Services
Mr John Fleming, deputy minister
Ms Cynthia Lees, assistant deputy minister, integrated services
for children
Ms Jessica Hill, assistant deputy minister, program management
division
Ms Bonnie Ewart, assistant deputy minister, business
transformation project
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ESTIMATES
Chair /
Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London L)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North / -Nord L)
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River ND)
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1534 in room 228.
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Alvin Curling): Could we start the estimates. When we
adjourned the last time, Minister, you had about 12 minutes left
on your rebuttal. After that, we will do the rotation of 20
minutes, starting with the official opposition. Are you ready,
Minister?
Hon John R. Baird
(Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible
for francophone affairs): Yes. Thank you ver much, Mr
Chair. Just in terms of the response, I was continuing to discuss
initiatives and policy responsibilities within the Ministry of
Community and Social Services.
Today I thought I would talk
a little bit about Ontario Works, which is obviously one of the
most important programs the ministry offers. It's one of the two
largest programs, together with the Ontario disability support
program. We provide a whole series of supports under the Ontario
Works program to help people realize the dignity that comes with
a job and the pride that comes with independence.
There's a whole series of
employment supports that are offered under the Ontario Works
program designed to give people the tools and supports they need
to be in a position to look for a job, to be in a position to
obtain employment and, probably most important, to be successful
and to maintain that employment in the future.
We provide just over $40
million to support child care, Ontario Works child care,
specifically designed for the Ontario Works program, although
parents can access a good number of other supports within our
child care system. It's interesting to note that it increased in
the 1998-99 year, and with the welfare caseload declines, which
have been unprecedented, we have the same amount of money to
support a smaller number of cases. So the dollar-caseload ratio
has certainly come down, which means we're able to provide
services to a higher percentage of the caseload than it otherwise
might have been in the past.
What we want to ensure,
though, is that Ontario Works child care support goes to people
who need it, and I will use an example, if I could. If someone is
taking a two-days-a-week course, training or job skills, we're
not going to be offering five-days-a-week child care,
40-hours-a-week child care, if they just need it for those two
days. We've implemented measures to ensure that those resources
are used wisely and well and as effectively as possible.
We also have supports ranging
from basic education-someone wanting to get a high school
equivalency. This can be particularly important for people with
English as a second language. In your home community of Toronto
or in mine of Ottawa-Carleton, that is an important support. Job
skills training: someone could, for example, get the skills and
the certificate necessary to drive a forklift. Things of that
nature are obviously important.
We also have a number of
other initiatives. One of the centrepieces has been placements,
Ontario Works placements, be they in the public sector as
community placements or in the private sector as employment
placements. Community placements and employment placements are a
particular priority for me. One of the things I've learned as
I've travelled around the province is that it's awfully difficult
for someone to get a job-and it was pointed out to me probably
most vividly by a participant I had the opportunity to meet and
speak with in Goderich, Ontario. She had accepted a placement at
a local non-profit agency. She told me how difficult it was to
look for a job. I said, "Can you give me an example? Explain this
to me." She said that every time she got a job application, the
first question after her name was "recent experience," and this
woman hadn't been in the labour force for 15 years. She was a
stay-at-home mom, had become a single parent and had been
disconnected from the labour force for some time. She hadn't
participated in the labour force for 15 years and didn't have any
recent experience, which was a huge barrier for her. Of course,
with that, she didn't have any recent references. She said to me
that she had references but, 15 years after the fact, they had
all died. So it can be incredibly important to someone to get
some experience and to get that all-important reference for their
next job application. Whether it's a part-time job or a full-time
job, that's particularly important.
One thing I perhaps didn't
appreciate 18 months ago when I first came to the ministry was
the bigger effects; most directly I would say self-esteem. Being
in economically trying circumstances, someone can question their
self-worth and their value and whether they can compete in the
labour market and in our society. Self-esteem and self-confidence
are huge barriers that Ontario Works case workers in communities right across the province
have identified to me as substantial problems. A placement is
obviously where someone can get some skills and experience.
In my own office we've had
six or seven placements, and in the overwhelming number of cases
it's been a very positive experience. We've felt in the office
that we've been able to provide an opportunity for someone, to
give them some skills and some experience. You can see the
self-esteem, and you realize that if someone has been out of the
labour force or hasn't participated in it at all, basic skills
that you learn in your first job-showing up for work on time
etc-are important skills that people can learn. I've seen a huge
difference in people as their time expires. Again, I think the
overwhelming majority of the folks we've had in our office have
been able to move into paid employment, in some cases at first
part-time and then moving to full-time employment. So they're
particularly important.
1540
We do have an Ontario Works
placement capacity in the private sector through employment
placements. That's basically the same type of thing with
obviously a different set of rules and regulations in terms of
someone's participation in that as it's in the for-profit
sector.
There is a range of other
supports that we provide in Ontario Works, whether they be a
back-to-school clothing allowance for parents to provide for
their children; there is a whole host of tax credits which are
offered above and beyond the basic welfare cheque in terms of
basic dental coverage and emergency coverage for children
particularly, which is important.
We also have two initiatives:
the earn-back initiative and the STEP initiative. The STEP
initiative existed under the previous government and has been
modified to some extent. What it does is allow people on welfare
to keep a percentage of their earnings, which is an
encouragement, an incentive for someone to get a part-time job.
Most people I've talked to at some point in their lives started
work, started in the labour force, with a part-time job, and that
can be an incredibly important confidence builder and can get
some experience for someone, as well as helping them supplement
their welfare cheque. That program existed before. It's been
modified somewhat by the government.
There is another initiative
that we implemented back in October 1995, what I call the
earn-back program, where someone on social assistance can earn
back the difference between the new rate and the old rate. As you
recall, welfare rates were realigned by 21.6% in October 1995,
and that was announced I believe on July 16 or July 23, 1995.
That initiative has been a pretty big success. I think people
would be surprised to learn that in excess of 25% of the
caseload, about 60,000 participants in Ontario Works, have a
part-time job and are earning a part-time cheque to help
supplement their welfare cheque. This is an important support
that allows them the ability to move from welfare to work and
that I believe has been one of the contributing factors to the
success of the program. Those are some of the supports we provide
under Ontario Works.
The Ontario disability
support program is really the companion sister program to Ontario
Works in terms of the social assistance sphere. It's an income
support program for people with disabilities. It's a new program.
It has received accolades, and at times perhaps a few justified
growing pains, but it's a program with which we're particularly
pleased. It has gotten a lot of good feedback and, in addition,
feedback where there's room for improvement. But it is more a
long-term program whereas welfare is a short-term program of last
resort. It's not meant to be a way of life, whereas the Ontario
disability support program is envisaged to provide more perhaps
long-term supports.
We've gotten rid of the label
"permanently unemployable," which is something that just about
everyone in the disability community found offensive, and tried
to provide supports. What we want to do there is to give people
the confidence, which will build over time, I believe, that they
can take a job and go off the system and have the ability to get
back on in very short order. That's something important.
Particularly people who suffer from a mental illness or a
psychiatric condition need to have that ability to go into work
and to come off work. We're in the course of doubling the
employment supports budget on the program to provide more
supports to people with disabilities, whether it be a
developmental disability or a physical disability, through a
whole host of our partners.
That's a quick summary of the
Ontario disability support program. It's a new program. We're
particularly pleased. We think it's a good program and we'll
continue to work to improve it.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Minister. Now we will start
the rotation. Mr Gravelle, 20 minutes.
Mr Michael Gravelle
(Thunder Bay-Superior North): If I may, Minister, I
would like to actually ask you a question related to the
mandatory drug testing program that you announced this morning. I
don't think you answered my questions directly this afternoon in
the House, so I thought I'd give you an opportunity to do so.
As you know, the human rights
commissioner, Mr Norton, has ruled that there can be no
discrimination based on people having addictions. In fact, I
think that's a very important point in terms of your plan to move
forward. How do you respond to that? Do you not think that every
Ontarian has a right to protection under the Ontario Human Rights
Code?
Hon Mr
Baird: Obviously, in the design of the initiative what
we did announce wasn't the program, as you stated, but our
intention to go out and consult publicly, as we have committed to
do, over the next four to six weeks on the development of the
program. We have a commitment that we'll honour to implement a
mandatory drug treatment program for those on welfare who are
addicted to drugs.
One of the challenges we'll
have, as we've had with just about all of our welfare reforms, is
to deal with the legal
consequences of that. Just about all of our welfare reforms have
been challenged at one point or another in the courts, and I
suspect this will be no different. The Ontario human rights
commissioner, as you mentioned, has expressed some concern about
the concept. Of course he hasn't seen the policy, because it
hasn't been developed. I communicated with him when he initially
wrote us last year and I spoke with him this week and indicated
not just our willingness but our desire to work with him and
certainly to attempt to address his concerns and the concerns of
his commission or his staff in the development of the initiative.
That follows as part of his mandate.
Mr Gravelle:
How do you see that working? The commissioner wrote this new
directive in terms of a legal ruling that came in place, and how
do you see it working? You cannot discriminate based on people's
addictions. Therefore, by obviously imposing mandatory drug
testing, which is indeed your intention-you're not hiding that
fact-how can you do that when it's clear that this would be
something where you would be treating certain citizens in our
province ultimately differently than other citizens? In other
words, are you saying they shouldn't have the same
protections?
Hon Mr
Baird: To be fair, I think the commissioner in his
letter to me on this issue has used words like "it appears" and
"it may." We haven't developed the policy yet. We'll be working
with him in the development of the policy, and we'll see where it
goes.
If we had put up our hands
and surrendered every time someone threatened court action, we
wouldn't have accomplished all that we have accomplished in
welfare reform. We aren't just willing but are open and want to
work with him and his office in the development of the program.
That's why we've committed to consult and that's why we want to
consult, and frankly that's why we need to consult, to make sure
we develop a good program. But I'll be the first to admit there's
no guarantee that we'll satisfy his thoughts.
Mr Gravelle:
Are you prepared to incur legal costs? This is obviously an issue
that could also go to court, as it has in other jurisdictions.
Obviously there have been legal decisions made. I cited the case
in Michigan specifically this afternoon.
Hon Mr
Baird: No. With the case in Michigan, which will be
ruled on later this month, if I'm not mistaken, it was about two
or two and a half months after the policy was implemented that
the courts intervened. I think that was a universal chemical
screening, which is not something that we're considering.
Mr Gravelle:
Is it not fair to say, though, that if you were truly serious
about helping people who have addictions and have drug-induced
problems, that you would be prepared to fund properly the
agencies that are there to help people deal with this problem?
Certainly when I talked to a couple of organizations today after
your announcement, it was made clear that a lot of the addiction
treatment centres have not received an increase in their base
funding, some over the last six years, some over the last 10
years. They do not have the resources to deal with the people who
are coming forward voluntarily. They do that. It strikes me, and
perhaps this is where we will differ, that providing that kind of
funding, let alone providing enough appropriate child care,
employment supports and cost-of-living adjustments, those are the
areas where you might be able to help people.
Hon Mr
Baird: One of the challenges in the health care budget
has been that just seven years ago the federal government was
paying 18 cents on the dollar for health care. That was the Brian
Mulroney way: 18 cents on the dollar with a $40-billion deficit.
We now have a $20-billion surplus and Jean Chrétien is
giving I think 10 cents on the dollar, and after this health
accord it will be 12 or 13 cents on the dollar. If Mr
Chrétien would show the same commitment to health care that
Brian Mulroney did, that would obviously be a good start in terms
of addressing capacity issues under the existing mandate.
I'm under no illusions that
there will be new funds and additional resources required to
support treatment. I think the Ministry of Health spends in the
order of $96 million on 160 agencies. I don't know whether I'd
want to commit that we'd use those 160 agencies. They obviously
have a lot of expertise there. We'll want to get some advice on
some of that and that obviously may be one of the vehicles which
we explore, but if someone says, "You can't make this work
without more support for treatment," I agree.
1550
Mr Gravelle:
How many people on social assistance have a drug abuse
problem?
Hon Mr
Baird: It's difficult, I suppose, in dealing with any
black market economy issue. People don't readily acknowledge
their participation in the black market. You can't do a survey or
run a computer check on whether someone purchases narcotics,
whether someone is buying or consuming heroin. They don't
normally readily admit to it. The best estimates we've been able
to gather are it's between 3% and 10% of the caseload. For a lot
of people, if they've lost their job because of a drug addiction,
welfare is their last step.
One of the really scary
challenges in this whole process is that if someone is addicted,
for example, to heroin, which was one of the examples cited to me
earlier today, that habit could be costing them between $100 and
$800 a day according to the Metro Toronto drug squad, which I had
an opportunity to meet with. Someone is having to seek
supplementary sources of revenue to help feed that habit. In some
cases, the welfare cheque could be as little as 5% or 10% of the
income.
Mr Gravelle:
You're focusing on such a very small percentage of people with
problems. As I pointed out, the general population has these same
problems. It strikes me you should feel at least a little bit
badly about the fact that you could leave the impression that
there's a large number of people out there and that it's rampant.
The fact is, and I'm sure your people will back it up and I'm
sure you know this, Minister, the vast majority of people who
have drug abuse problems have alcohol abuse problems. That's the vast majority and any
addiction treatment centre will know that. By focusing on the
very small minority, it strikes me that what you're doing is
trying to perpetrate a myth that it's a much larger problem than
it is. I think that is part of the politics of what's happening
here, that you're getting tough on a situation when what is
needed is more assistance.
Hon Mr
Baird: I'd be pleased to have a political discussion
with you on that initiative. Mr McGuinty was very clear during
last year's election campaign. He did not come out against this
policy. I can give you two quotes where they said either that
they support it or the Liberal Party supports half of it. If you
want to have a political discussion, we can have that. If Dalton
McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party came out with a clear
policy and were consistent on it, you might be better armed to
have that debate, that discussion.
I can appreciate that
reasonable people will disagree, but in the marketplace of ideas,
as elected officials and politicians, we come up with policies,
present them to the electorate, have a debate about that, and
certainly Mr McGuinty's views on this issue were clear before the
vote, and they're changing that now.
Mr Gravelle:
We are having that debate now. The truth is that we obviously
think there are ways you can be far more supportive in helping
people in this situation rather than a mandatory drug program,
which truly-I heard a reporter ask you a question: "What do you
say to somebody who's a 25-year-old single mother and is being
told she needs to get tested for drugs before she can receive any
assistance, and she's in a desperate situation?" I think we can
all be asked that question. The truth is we just think there's a
way to do it that's actually a lot more productive than basically
setting up this mandatory drug testing, which may indeed be
illegal, which clearly at this stage appears to be contravening
the Human Rights Code.
Hon Mr
Baird: I'll take you up on your offer. If you've got
other ideas or suggestions on how we can better help that
25-year-old single mother of a child who's a heroin addict, if
you've got other ideas-
Mr Gravelle:
No, I am talking about a woman who is not a drug abuser at all,
but is being told she must take this test or she won't receive
funding. That's what I'm talking about-
Hon Mr
Baird: We haven't designed the program-
Mr Gravelle:
-and that's what you're setting up. You're setting up a scenario
where you have a person who's in a difficult situation, and what
do you do? You tell them they have to take a test to see if
they're on drugs before you give them money, any assistance at
all. That is the scenario you're setting up as of this morning
and I think that's pretty alarming.
If we can move on, I asked
you last time, Minister, about the salaries and wages at your
office, your political staff, and they have gone up by about 25%
higher than last year. Can you tell me more specifically what the
staff increases have been? You explained them in a rather brief
fashion. I'm just curious about that.
Hon Mr
Baird: I have some-just give me one moment.
Mr Gravelle:
You can table it later if you wish.
Hon Mr
Baird: I will get the information for you, and perhaps I
could discuss it tomorrow.
Mr Gravelle:
It just does bring to mind-as far as I'm concerned, it seems to
me that you are basically saying one thing and doing the other by
ultimately increasing the costs in your office but not even
considering the possibility of a cost-of-living adjustment for
people. It bothers me enormously.
Hon Mr
Baird: I think there was an issue with what was spent in
previous years and has it gone up by 25%. We will get you that
information, and we can have that discussion tomorrow. I
apologize. I thought I had it, but it is not the information I
requested.
Mr Gravelle:
Let me move on to the Social Benefits Tribunal. During the last
session we had before the break, you responded to a question from
a government member about the lengthy wait for cases being heard
at the Social Benefits Tribunal. I think you said you were going
to put more resources into the tribunal to bring the waiting list
down to three months.
The estimates on page 3 show
that you've cut the resources to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
You chopped it by $1.7 million in 2000-01. That seems to conflict
with what you said at the session a week or so ago.
Why would you cut resources
to the Social Benefits Tribunal when clearly the waiting lists
are enormous? We know that people are waiting until well into
next year before they get a hearing. Obviously we know what
impact that has on people. We are hearing that August 2001 is
when some cases will be heard.
Hon Mr
Baird: You're hearing 18 months?
Mr Gravelle:
No. This is November.
Hon Mr
Baird: Sorry. That's certainly longer than the ones with
which I'm familiar. I think the issue there is that there just
doesn't seem to be-first I believe the number of representatives
on the tribunal should be increased.
Mr Gravelle:
But will that happen?
Hon Mr
Baird: It is something we are working on now. You'll see
a few things on that issue in short order. It is one that has had
my attention.
Two, there has been a
challenge administratively. One or two members of the tribunal
were on sick leave for a year. There was a problem in terms of
the nature of someone who's acting in a quasi-judicial function
at arm's length from the government in terms of our ability to
watch that. Obviously that was a concern.
Three, in terms of the number
of appointees, one of the things we'd like to get into a process
and be better at it is that if someone is going to be leaving the
board, for example in three months, if we could perhaps get an
appointee identified three months before that, the legislative
process could go forward so that any training could go forward. I
believe there's a process where new board members shadow an
existing board member to learn how to do the job so that the instant that tribunal
member leaves, someone will be able to start-
Mr Gravelle:
But that doesn't explain why the funding has gone down. The
1998-99 actual was $6.1 million, it's $5.7 in 1999-2000, and the
estimates for 2000-01 are just over $4 million. That's a real
reduction. It doesn't suggest you're actually going to be putting
more resources into it. Can you explain that?
Hon Mr
Baird: It is something we are looking at putting more
resources into as we prepare for the upcoming budget cycle, both
in terms of members of the tribunal and in terms of resources. It
is not one of which I need to be convinced.
Mr Gravelle:
What is the timing we can expect here? This is an unconscionable
delay for people who are obviously in a pretty perilous position.
The delay right now is enormous, and you're saying you're going
to cut it. What is the timetable you can commit to in terms
of-
Hon Mr
Baird: For additional appointees, which is a more
immediate concern, I think you'll see something in short order.
With respect to money, we will go through our budget process. It
is an issue that has been identified to me. I agree there have
got to be more resources placed there to get those time lines
down to a more reasonable level, and obviously, the Minister of
Finance normally presents his budget in late April or early
May.
1600
Mr Gravelle:
In the few minutes I have left on this part, I want to ask you
about Andersen Consulting and some of the related spending on
that. On the last legislative day prior to constituency week,
public accounts indicated that you wrote a cheque to Andersen
Consulting for $60.5 million in fiscal year 1999-2000. How do you
justify that? How many people were kicked off social assistance
in order for that cheque to be written to Andersen?
Hon Mr
Baird: We kicked off a number of people. In particular
we kicked off one individual who had a gold credit card and was
paying off monthly bills in excess of his monthly benefits.
Mr Gravelle:
You sound like Ronald Reagan. There you go again.
Hon Mr
Baird: We do kick people off welfare if they're not
eligible, sir.
Mr Gravelle:
In terms of Andersen Consulting, $60.5 million is a lot of
money.
Hon Mr
Baird: The consolidated verification process has
identified a lot of people who were entitled to collect social
assistance, and-
Mr Gravelle:
And their goal is to reduce the people on Ontario Works and to
basically, well, you know-
Hon Mr
Baird: That's not the goal.
Mr Gravelle:
You've tied their profit margin to their ability to do that.
Hon Mr
Baird: That's not their goal. Their goal is to ensure
there is integrity of the system, that if someone is on Ontario
Works, if someone is in receipt of an Ontario Works cheque, they
are indeed eligible for an Ontario Works cheque.
Mr Gravelle:
Which means you've now got this business transformation project
and basically the business maze in terms of ODSP which we have
some real concerns about, obviously, let alone the new call
centres which there are great concerns about as well, and I hope
to have more time to talk about that in the future.
It seems to me that basically
what you have done is tied the business of denying support to
those who need it most to the profit aspirations of a private
company.
Hon Mr
Baird: No, you're wrong. We're not tying the need for
support to someone who's vulnerable to the needs of a private
company. If someone is on social assistance, if someone is on
Ontario Works and they are in receipt of an Ontario Works cheque,
there are certain criteria they are required to meet to be
eligible. If you own 10 cars, you're not eligible. If we find
someone with 10 cars, they're not eligible.
Through the measure of the
consolidated verification process, they're going through on a
case-by-case basis to identify people who are no longer eligible.
What happened, basically, is that between 1985 and 1990 there
were so many reforms to the welfare system that were so generous
that when the economy in Ontario grew, the welfare caseload grew.
The more jobs that were created in Ontario, the more people went
on welfare, and in 1990-91 when the recession hit, the
caseworkers were overwhelmed. We're talking 400 cases per
person-
Interjections.
The
Vice-Chair: Can the minister give him a chance to ask a
question. I think he's satisfied.
Mr Gravelle:
That is not the answer-it's about the answer I expected.
Mr Steve Peters
(Elgin-Middlesex-London): I'd like at least to get two
questions on the record; the minister may not be able to answer
them today.
On page 55, it talks about
the home and vehicle modification program, a new program that was
initiated. My understanding is that there is a real backlog as
far as applications are concerned. I don't really need the answer
today, because I want to get another question on the record
before we run out of time-
The
Vice-Chair: You've got one minute.
Mr Peters:
If you could provide me with the status of the home and vehicle
modification program-where it's at, how much money is going to be
invested for 2000-01 and maybe a general idea of the backlog-I'd
appreciate that.
Hon Mr
Baird: To answer your question, what we're going to get
for 2000-01 is, of course, in the document in front of you. We
have identified that there are obviously incredible pressures
there, and the ministry did increase the support this year in the
order of $600,000 to provide more.
I think there is an
expectations issue here. This program was expanded in terms of
identifying and helping people be independent, whether it was for
employment-related reasons or not, from the former vocational
rehabilitation services. It's a new program. I think it would be
dishonest to suggest it's ever going to be in a position to universally provide and meet
all the demands. I don't think that was the intention or that
that was ever stated. It was meant to be a measure of support to
help people with home and vehicle modifications, administered
through the Ontario March of Dimes in their London office. We've
identified the need to put more resources in. I'm not going to
come to you as the Minister of Community and Social Services and
say the program is going to meet all the needs, because it's
not.
The
Vice-Chair: Ms Martel.
Ms Shelley Martel
(Nickel Belt): Minister, just out of curiosity, how many
people have lost their social assistance because they had a gold
credit card?
Hon Mr
Baird: I'd have to check. That was one example-a good
example.
Ms Martel:
I'd like to know how many.
Hon Mr
Baird: I think there was one. But it's the best
example.
Ms Martel:
How many social assistance recipients have lost their benefits
generally because of a conviction involving a credit card, never
mind a gold card, just a credit card?
Hon Mr
Baird: Could you repeat the question?
Ms Martel:
How many people would have lost their social assistance because
of fraud related to them having a credit card when they were on
assistance-not even a gold card, just a credit card?
Hon Mr
Baird: No one. You're allowed to have a credit card.
There's no prohibition to your having a credit card.
I think people try to
characterize the consolidated verification process as some
American multinational company coming in here and haphazardly
kicking people off to make money on the system, and that is not
the case. The case is, they're going through and using a number
of instruments-and obviously the government didn't have the
capacity to do it or would have done it years ago-to bring in
some new measures to confirm people's eligibility.
Of particular note, what
I'm particularly proud of is their work with private sector
credit agencies, where they're able for the first time to
identify people's credit. If they're paying credit in excess of
their benefits, that's obviously a concern. I used that gold
credit card as an example to try to combat the misinformation
being spread.
Ms Martel:
I do have questions about Andersen, but your characterization of
fraud in the social assistance system when you wave around the
credit card-has this somehow been extensive?
Hon Mr
Baird: I think fraud is extensive in the social
assistance system.
Ms Martel:
That's why I asked the question: how many people have lost
benefits because of fraud with a credit card, a gold card or
whatever credit card?
Hon Mr
Baird: We don't track that.
Ms Martel:
You don't track that. So when you stand up in the House and flash
around-
Hon Mr
Baird: I said there's a lot of fraud in the system.
Ms Martel:
But when you stand up in the House and flash around a credit
card, and you've done that on more than one occasion-
Hon Mr
Baird: I could do it again.
Ms Martel:
-and after you referenced it here in the last meeting-
Hon Mr
Baird: It's actually an air miles card. I don't have a
gold credit card.
Ms Martel:
-clearly you have no basis of fact whatsoever, no evidence, no
proof, nothing whatsoever to suggest that people are actually
involved in that kind of fraud, right?
Hon Mr
Baird: That was one example, I repeat. But if the member
wants to talk about-
Ms Martel:
Can you find one for me? One person who did that?
Hon Mr
Baird: If you want to discuss fraud, we found 5,747
people who were in jail collecting welfare, 2,475 people with
undeclared spouses, 2,546 people with undeclared income, 1,958
people with undeclared earnings, 1,617 people with a false
address, 771 people with overstated rent, 261 people with
duplicate cheques and 280 people with undisclosed assets, not to
mention 1,291 people for other reasons.
Ms Martel:
How many were charged and convicted of fraud?
Hon Mr
Baird: Last year, in the order of 750 people were
convicted of criminal fraud.
Ms Martel:
What is that as a percentage of your overall welfare
caseload?
Hon Mr
Baird: We don't-less than 1%, in terms of criminal
convictions for fraud. But you've got to appreciate that in most
parts of Ontario-in the city of Toronto, for example-if we
uncover fraud of as little as $2,000, the police don't even
conduct an investigation.
Ms Martel:
Let me ask this question, because this is important: How many of
the cases you were looking at would have been administrative
errors made by Comsoc staff?
Hon Mr
Baird: None. These were not administrative errors. Pick
another category.
Ms Martel:
So all those 17,000 you are talking about were people
purposely-
Hon Mr
Baird: Those 5,700 people were in jail collecting
welfare.
Ms Martel:
-I don't want to use that word-for allegedly underestimating or
overestimating their incomes, a huge group that was in jail. I
don't think it was a crime to receive social assistance when they
were in jail.
Hon Mr
Baird: It is a crime. You're not allowed to receive
welfare when you're in jail.
Ms Martel:
You made that policy change, but these people weren't trying to
rip off the system.
Hon Mr
Baird: I think they were.
Ms Martel:
Clearly, people knew they were in jail, right?
Hon Mr Baird: Clearly they didn't,
because we found 5,747 people. The left hand didn't know what the
right hand was doing.
Ms Martel:
Their address was a jail. Where were the cheques being sent? What
I'm trying to get at-
Hon Mr
Baird: I think our fraud branch and the people who work
at the ministry can be incredibly proud of the work and success
they've had in restoring some integrity to the system. I suppose
there might have been 2,475 people who just forgot they had a
spouse.
Ms Martel:
Well, your spouse-in-the-house rule is being challenged, isn't
it? Your spouse-in-the-house rule has already been declared
illegal, and now you're appealing it and are going to spend some
more taxpayers' dollars doing that. But the court has ruled
against you with respect to that rule.
Hon Mr
Baird: If people are lying about having a spouse in the
house in the first place, then that's another issue. You're
required to fill out the application with honesty and
integrity.
Ms Martel:
But with respect to your numbers the question is, how many of the
people you said we're actually dealing with fraud are we not in
fact dealing with fraud if you look at the judgment that was made
by the court?
Hon Mr
Baird: You'll have to repeat that.
Ms Martel:
Of the group you're saying didn't declare they had a spouse, were
any of that category people who actually would have been
supported by the court decision in terms of them being
correct?
Hon Mr
Baird: The court decision was very narrow in terms of
the Family Benefits Act, which is a former program, so it would
be impossible to tell that.
Ms Martel:
Do you have any of the numbers?
Hon Mr
Baird: It would be impossible, because we'd have to
segment out the old program from the two new programs.
1610
Ms Martel:
Is the ministry undertaking taking that with respect to the
decision?
Hon Mr
Baird: No.
Ms Martel:
You're going to continue with the appeal?
Hon Mr
Baird: We will continue with the appeal, yes.
Mr Howard Hampton
(Kenora-Rainy River): I have some questions I want to
ask about provision for children, especially with respect to
CASs, and I especially want to ask about aboriginal children.
Your government has trumpeted your new funding formula for
children's aid societies, but in that new funding formula there
are very few, if any, provisions for part X of the act. Part X of
the act deals with aboriginal children's aid societies and the
unique situation of children in aboriginal communities.
Now, a number of those
aboriginal organizations have asked either to meet with you or
have asked for recognition that their situation is entirely
different from the kind of situation that you might find in
downtown Toronto, downtown Hamilton or downtown Ottawa. They, for
example, make use of a process or a procedure that they call
customary care. They make use of other procedures that are really
quite different from the procedures that would be used by
children's aid societies in a more urban setting.
My question is, what steps
are you prepared to take to recognize the unique challenges, the
unique differences, that aboriginal children's aid societies have
to face? I speak, for example, of the Weechi-It-E-Win or
Tikanogan as examples of children's aid organizations which have
a much, much different experience than you would find with the
Toronto children's aid society. What steps, what measures are you
prepared to take, are your officials prepared to take, to ensure
that those aboriginal children's aid societies receive the kind
of funding they need for their unique programs and their unique
strategies, which by necessity are much different from what you'd
find in Toronto?
Hon Mr
Baird: I'll make a couple of comments and then I'll ask
the assistant deputy minister to make some comments as well. I
assume you're talking about the designation of additional
aboriginal children's aid societies?
Mr
Hampton: No, I'm talking specifically about part X of
the act and I'm talking specifically about the unique strategies
that many of those aboriginal children's aid societies have
employed, have utilized and continue to utilize even though they
are not funded under your new funding formula. What are you going
to do to take steps to allow them to ensure that they continue on
their very effective work?
Let me give you an example.
Weechi-It-E-Win is a First Nations organization in my part of the
province. To my knowledge, no child has died under the
jurisdiction of Weechi-It-E-Win. They have been very effective in
terms of their interventions and in terms of their work with the
family and their work within the community. But much of the work
that they do is not funded and is not recognized by your new
funding formula. What steps are you prepared to take to ensure
that they have the funding they need to do their jobs?
Hon Mr
Baird: We're certainly encouraged when aboriginal
organizations with child welfare and child protection mandates
and goals and objectives undertake initiatives that are cognizant
of particular, even geographically different, aboriginal values.
We're aware of that. I understand that the political leadership
in some of the First Nation organizations has expressed concern
about the implementation of the child welfare reform in terms of
what it covered under the existing funding formula, and then the
bigger issue on which I have received feedback from those
representatives has been the designation of additional agencies.
I've certainly heard the two concerns.
We did commit to look at
the funding formula after it was implemented and to look at
potential changes. Obviously, limited budgets are always a
problem, but I think we've demonstrated a commitment to child
welfare and child reform in terms of funding. We've seen funding increase in excess of
80% and I think it will be substantially more than that this year
at the end of the day and next year, to recognize not just
increasing volumes; we're paying more for foster care, we're
paying more for other things.
I'll ask Cynthia Lees, the
assistant deputy minister for children, to make some comments as
well.
Ms Cynthia
Lees: My name is Cynthia Lees, Ministry of Community and
Social Services. Following up on what the minister has said,
we've been working very closely with the Association of Native
Child and Family Services of Ontario and the native societies to
look at the impact of the child welfare reform in the new funding
framework. We have also provided the association with dollars to
hire a coordinator, which will allow them to look at the
particular issues as they relate to the new funding framework. So
we are working very closely with both the societies and the
association to look at how this funding framework affects the
native societies. We have also recently provided dollars to help
build their capacity and train their staff. So basically we are
working very closely with them to look at their particular issue,
including customary care.
Mr
Hampton: One of the questions they ask is, why wasn't
this done before the new funding formula and the legislative
changes were made? Many of these aboriginal children's aid
societies have incredible success records, yet no effort was made
to accommodate their uniqueness, their differences, the unique
challenges they face. The legislation and the funding formula
were simply changed holus-bolus, despite the fact that the
funding formula is in many ways quite contradictory to the work
they do. In many cases they try to put the emphasis on prevention
and on working with the family, and working with the family in
the community, so that an intervention in terms of taking the
child out of the family and out of the community doesn't have to
happen.
Their complaint is that
their good work, which I would challenge anyone to examine, isn't
recognized and hasn't been recognized and needs to be recognized.
So I hear what you're saying about your becoming aware of the
problem, but many of them are in a very difficult situation now.
It's not six months from now; they're already in a difficult
situation because your funding formula simply doesn't acknowledge
the kind of work they do, the procedures they use and the
successes they have achieved. So what are you going to do?
Hon Mr
Baird: What you're communicating to us, in the cases of
the one or two agencies you've mentioned, is that it's obvious
they're not satisfied with the level of their input to date. I
know the panel of experts, when they released their report in I
think September 1998, conducted consultations. They were included
in those consultations across the province.
Mr
Hampton: I don't want to contradict you, but it was a
one-afternoon meeting and you can't call that consultations.
Hon Mr
Baird: They held two information sessions with the First
Nations and aboriginal organizations in the development of the
legislation. The ministry staff also met with some of the
designated aboriginal societies and the Association of Native
Child and Family Services of Ontario and the Union of Ontario
Indians to discuss the legislation before it was passed.
Obviously there are continuing concerns about it in terms of the
number of agencies which have been designated and in terms of
what is covered under the funding formula.
Ms Lees:
We have also made ourselves available to meet with the chiefs and
we have asked for a meeting so that we can look at some of the
concerns they're expressing, but again I'd like to stress that we
are working very closely with their association and with the five
societies to address some of their particular concerns and needs
that they have identified. So the ministry is working closely
with them and, like I said, we've provided them dollars to
increase their own capacity, to develop their own trainers-
Mr
Hampton: Capacity for what?
Ms Lees:
For the protection of children.
Mr
Hampton: They would argue that where they need the
increase in capacity is on the preventive side of things, given
the levels of poverty you find in a lot of aboriginal
communities, given some of the other social problems that you
find, that a few dollars invested at the prevention side of
things actually will save you a lot of money in terms of child
protection later on. That's their essential argument. The new
funding formula, and this government's new regime, is all about
taking children into protection. But their whole theme is that we
can avoid the heavy costs of that, we can avoid some of the other
collateral damage that happens, if you'll recognize the very good
work they've been doing for many years on the prevention side.
That's the core of the argument.
What is this government
prepared to do and what is this ministry prepared to do to
recognize that these organizations have always concentrated on
the prevention? They've been very successful at it. Any
examination of their record will show that. What are you prepared
to do to recognize that they need help on the prevention side,
not necessarily on the protection side?
1620
Hon Mr
Baird: As a member of the Legislature, if you as their
representative want to come forward with some thoughts, I'm
certainly prepared to meet with you on it; I'm certainly prepared
to meet with them on it. If you want to come forward with any
ideas or suggestions, we are looking at the future of the funding
formula. We're certainly open to receiving suggestions or advice
on that.
Mr
Hampton: My response is, how soon? I met with
representatives of some of those children's aid societies. I met
with the grand chief of Treaty 3 and a number of chiefs who
actually work on this specific issue and they have been trying to
raise the issues on a number of occasions. They're quite prepared
to meet. They're quite prepared to provide me with the material
which sets forth their position. They want to continue to provide
good children's aid societies, especially on the prevention side,
as they have been doing
for the last 14 or 15 years. The new funding formula and the new
regime don't recognize the unique things they did and do under
part X of the act. That's the pitch they want to make.
Hon Mr
Baird: Your intervention is not unconstructive. The
ministry, I think, would be happy to sit down with them.
Mr
Hampton: Well, you're the minister. Tell me when. Before
Christmas?
Hon Mr
Baird: We'd be happy to, sir.
Mr
Hampton: Wonderful. Now can I pass on to the next issue
I want to raise?
The effect of your funding
formula and the effect of the new regime are to essentially now
base the funding of CASs upon the number of children they take
into protection. It'll cut away some of the other things and
that's what emerges. So in a large organization, for example,
like the Catholic CAS here in Toronto or the Toronto CAS, where
they take a number of children into protection, they have the
funding which allows them to do that.
My experience in my part of
the world, where we actually still have organic communities,
where uncles and aunts and grandparents still live in the same
community, is that there is less of taking children into
protection-I'm talking both aboriginal and non-aboriginal
here-and there is more work in terms of working with the extended
organic family. But I'll give you the example of the CAS that I
know, that I used to be legal counsel for before I was elected to
this place. They're now put in a position where the pressure is
on them to take more children into protection. In other words, if
they want the funding to do their job, they have to be out there
almost headhunting, saying, "Well, we can take a child here; we
can take a child there," in order to get the funding to do their
job. If they don't do that, they're going to be forced into, in
effect, a regional amalgamation that makes no sense.
Let me give you a further
example. My constituency is larger than Great Britain, about the
size of Sweden. There are two non-aboriginal CASs: there's the
Kenora Chil-dren's Aid Society and there's the Fort Frances-Rainy
River Children's Aid Society. The reason there are two is because
the geographic distance between the two means that trying to
amalgamate them would make no sense.
Let me give you the
parallels. When your government was looking at the forced
amalgamation of school boards, they initially said there will be
one large school board for everything west of Thunder Bay on the
public side. They abandoned it. It wouldn't make any sense. There
are two school boards: there's essentially the Keewatin-Patricia
school board and the Rainy River school board. One operates along
Highway 11, which is Yonge Street extended; the other operates
along the Trans-Canada Highway.
The
Vice-chair: You've got a minute, Mr Hampton.
Mr
Hampton: So they recognize that. When your government
moved toward district services boards, you didn't try to
amalgamate one whole one; you set up the Kenora district services
board and the Rainy River district services board. They
recognized that geography renders one big, amalgamated CAS as
just an absurd idea. But your ministry right now is going to
force the CAS to do what you wouldn't do to the district services
board and what the Ministry of Education wouldn't do in
education. I am asking you: if it doesn't make sense for
education, if it doesn't make sense for all the other social
services, why would you force it on the CASs?
Hon Mr
Baird: I am not aware of any initiative to amalgamate
the two CASs in your part of the province. I am troubled by the
thought that any child protection or child welfare organization,
worker or professional would want to seek out removing children
from their home just to get increased funds. I'll be honest with
you: I haven't seen that.
Mr
Hampton: That's not-they're saying, "Look, if we look at
the funding formula, that's the direction it pushes us in." I
talked with some of those social workers on the weekend. They
said, "All of the emphasis now, all of our emphasis in terms of
where the funding comes from, is not upon prevention, it's not
upon working with the family in the community to avoid a child
protection situation; it's about taking more children into child
protection."
Hon Mr
Baird: The emphasis is on protection. There's no doubt
about it.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Minister, time has run out.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): Minister, last week was constituency
week, of course, and I was in my office, as all good MPPs were,
talking to my constituents. I had some local business people in
the construction trades come to the office and complain that they
were not able to hire a number of people for their
businesses-unskilled jobs-people who were on welfare who were
actually coming to their places of work, interviewing, and then
declining to take jobs that were paying $15 an hour, for a number
of reasons, one of which had to do with outside work and the cold
weather coming on. Another reason was because it was hard manual
labour. I had another reason given that they were still doing
well enough with their welfare cheques that they didn't have to
take jobs such as the construction trades offered.
In 1995, when we came to
power, there were a million-plus people on social assistance.
Since 1995, more than half a million are off. We have achieved
savings for the taxpayer in the amount of $8.2 billion. This year
your ministry budget is down, year over year from last year, by
$310 million.
The NDP and the Liberals
are constantly harping about our government's wrong or misguided
policies. In fact, we heard Shelley Martel right here in
committee this afternoon say, how many recipients who had been
taken off social assistance were due to fraud or how many had
been in jail? I submit to you that the people in my riding, who
are hard-working, blue-collar, unionized workers who voted for
me, are upset that there would even be one who was in jail or
guilty of fraud receiving welfare because that's coming out of
their tax money.
We have the best economy in this province right now
that we have ever had. We still have nearly half a million people
on welfare, and I am being asked by employers and employees alike
in my riding why we still have half a million people on welfare
when some of these welfare recipients are unwilling to take a
good job even when it's an unskilled job. I wonder if you could
comment on that.
Hon Mr
Baird: I guess it is a challenge for any government in
terms of helping people make that transition from welfare to
work. I think what happened in the past was that perhaps too many
good people got stuck in a bad system, which was not helpful for
their career path, obviously. Ontario Works is a mandatory
program. You have to participate. Last year, in 1999-2000, there
were about 4,182 people disqualified for refusing employment
supports, refusing a community placement, refusing an employment
placement. So it's a small percentage and I would underline that;
it's not something which I would say is commonplace.
1630
It is a concern, for
example, when you look at the greenhouse industry. We've heard
our colleague Mr Crozier talk about the greenhouse industry
outside of Leamington, where they're bringing in literally
hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of workers from Mexico to
work in tomato greenhouses, for example, when not too far down
the road, in Windsor, Ontario, they have substantial welfare
caseloads. It's not a stretch, as you've said, to say, "How can
we be bringing so many people in on temporary permits, temporary
visas, to do work they can't find folks here in this country to
do, particularly in tomatoes in greenhouses?" It's not like
picking tobacco. It's tough work, it's not easy work, but there
are many jobs that certainly require greater endurance, and that
is a concern when you see the growing economy and that some folks
lack the ability to get into that job. I'm concerned particularly
when you hear people-the odd story; I don't hear them regularly
but I do hear them the odd time-not wanting to accept employment
for preferential reasons. Obviously, that's not the whole purpose
of the program. That's not the way to apply the program, what the
program is all about; that's not the way it was designed.
I guess what we're trying
to do is provide the supports to people so they're able to get
the jobs. Obviously, the challenge is to ensure that they get
them. The caseload ratios have gone down and hopefully
caseworkers have more time. They don't have 400 cases any more
and they can spend more time trying to be job coaches, trying to
facilitate someone making that transition. That's why one of the
initiatives we want to move forward with that was contained in
the Blueprint was expanded caseworker training programs to help
people identify that new role, the new responsibility as part of
their job. But if there are specific instances where people are
saying they don't want to take a job because it doesn't pay
enough and they'd rather stay on welfare, obviously we're
concerned about that.
You are required to accept
reasonably proximate work in your field and even, in some cases,
beyond that. So if there are specific examples we can look into
and challenge our policies and procedures, we're certainly
prepared to do that. We'd welcome that sort of input.
Mr R. Gary Stewart
(Peterborough): Thank you, Minister, for your comments
today.
I can't for the life of me
figure out why the two opposition parties in this province would
be against drug treatment. Are they suggesting that we should
condone the taking of drugs and not assist anybody in trying to
help them get off drugs? I can't understand that. I can remember
we had said during the campaign that we wanted to make sure we
offered treatment for these welfare folks to be able to make them
contributors to society-you know, the comment that you can't get
off welfare if you're on drugs. Certainly, if you've ever had
somebody you employed who was on some type of drug, and I did
have, and that drug happened to be alcohol, and I don't believe
that is any different from some of the other drugs that are out
there these days-you cannot do your job and you jeopardize a
business, you jeopardize your customers, you jeopardize your
family if you're on that. I just can't get it through my possibly
thick skull that the opposition would be against trying to help
people get off drugs. I can't understand that. I was not brought
up that way and I've never tried to bring up my kids or my
grandkids that way, saying, "Hey, I condone the taking of drugs,
and if you're on them, I don't want to help you get off." I'm
sorry, I don't operate that way and I have real difficulty when I
listen to what came out in the House today and what I hear in
this committee.
Hon Mr
Baird: Could I intervene on that just for a moment to
respond? You can take issue with the entire opposition, save the
Leader of the Opposition, because he is not against the idea. He
said during last year's election campaign, "No, I'm not against
the idea," when asked whether he was in favour of drug testing.
Then, the following day or two days later there's drug
testing-
Ms Martel:
That's different than drug treatment.
Hon Mr
Baird: The member for Nickel Belt is correct; there's
drug treatment and drug testing. When asked whether he was in
favour of drug testing, he said, "No, I'm not against the idea."
That's the drug testing side. The member opposite from
Peterborough will be interested to learn that two days later,
Liberal Party president Tim Murphy talked about treatment and
said, "In fact, McGuinty's policy is supportive of drug
treatment." So we've got drug treatment and drug testing.
Mr
Gravelle: Of course we support drug treatment. We fund
the agencies-
Mr
Stewart: Thank you, Mr Gravelle. It's my turn. I have
the floor.
I thank you for that,
Minister.
Hon Mr
Baird: I appreciate Dalton's support.
Mr
Stewart: If you don't know that somebody has a drug
problem, it makes it extremely difficult to treat them.
The other thing Mr
Wettlaufer was talking about was fraud. If I go into a bank,
whether I steal $100 or $500 or $1 million, it's still stealing.
When I find that people in a system steal from those people who need the
service, I also have a lot of difficulty and I don't understand,
again, why the opposition condones fraud. I can't understand
that. I wasn't brought up that way and I have difficulty
understanding why this group over here condones fraud.
Anyway, that was not my
question. I'm about to get to my-
Interjections.
Mr
Stewart: You people are saying it, not me. I'm just
repeating what you said. It appears I've possibly hit a nerve
here, because they seem to be trying to get out of it. They were
the ones who were saying this, not Gary Stewart. They're the ones
who are saying this.
Anyway, the question,
Minister. I've finished rambling now but may come back to it
later. You had a program with Ontario Works for communities that
exceeded the target in putting people on Ontario Works into the
workforce. In my riding of Peterborough and Peterborough county,
I believe we were the seventh-highest in getting people into the
Ontario Works program, I think, to the tune of $373,000. I
commend both Peterborough and Peterborough county for this.
I think this is an
absolutely tremendous initiative. I'm a great believer in
responding to and rewarding groups that exceed the targets set,
especially if they're targets that are going to help society. I'd
like you to make a couple of comments on this particular
initiative.
Hon Mr
Baird: You're correct in terms of Peterborough and
Peterborough county. That consolidated municipal service did not
just manage to meet the target but they were at 193% of the
target, so you are right. I was pleased to have the opportunity
to visit your constituency to talk to some of the caseworkers
themselves and people on the front lines, the mayor and other
members of the council, and congratulate them for that support.
They've obviously accepted the challenge, and that makes a huge
difference in terms of lives of people who need just the most
basic things like some experience, a job reference, some
self-esteem and some self-confidence.
That's why we strongly
support the program. It has not been an easy one. It's been one
of those which has been a challenge. We've been able to double
the number of folks on Ontario Works placements this year over
last year. Then we're going to follow through with our commitment
in the Blueprint campaign document to double them once we've met
the targets. I think this year we're on track to do that in terms
of a 50% increase this year over last year, which is good news.
Some will question the value of a community placement officer. We
think it is particularly important as part of the solution.
Mr
Stewart: Thank you, Minister.
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): I just want to focus on London for a
minute, and your deputy minister probably could address some of
the issues.
Hon Mr
Baird: The deputy is really keen to answer some
questions this morning, so if you have any hard ones, he'll
answer them.
Mr
Mazzilli: In October in London, we saw welfare cases go
down to 9,729 from a high in June 1995 of 21,097. What kind of
saving would that represent for the city of London?
Mr John
Fleming: Mr Mazzilli, we don't have actual dollars here,
but the saving is certainly a very substantial one.
1640
Hon Mr
Baird: One thing I'd just add is that for a
municipality, while it's only 20% in terms of the benefit itself
that they're responsible for, in most cases that 20% is a
substantially higher percentage of their budget than the 80% is
for us. That's particularly the case because the health budget
just keeps going up and up and our share of the budget keeps
going down and down because of all that new money flooding into
the health care system.
Mr
Mazzilli: I want to go back to-this is certainly
something I was not going to bring up, but since you did start
the consultation on drug testing, I will bring it up. In Ontario
we still have numbers on the order of over half a million people
on welfare. As you said, welfare recipients with addiction
problems, drug problems, may be as low as 3% to 10%. If we split
that in half and make it 5%, we're still talking about 25,000 to
30,000 people who are not able to work their way back into the
workforce because of severe addiction problems.
I've seen it, and I will
participate in this consultation right now and give you some
ideas. I've seen the crack houses, where a large number of people
live under one roof, under one deposit box and the welfare
cheques go in. Guess what? They never see them; they sign them
over to someone. So if we target areas-certainly we don't have to
go around and test everybody, but there are areas we can target
that likely have an enormous percentage of addiction.
I think you hit the nail on
the head before. The Toronto police told you that people with
severe addictions have habits that go into the thousands of
dollars a day. Many resort to dealing drugs to support those
habits, and many resort to prostitution to support those habits.
To do nothing would be irresponsible, Minister. I encourage you
to do this in a targeted way. Certainly you're not going to help
everyone, but of the 25,000 or 30,000 people, if we keep our
estimates low, that is a substantial number to try to help.
Hon Mr
Baird: It's obvious we're going to be more help by
trying than by not trying. The effects and the costs are quite
startling. I've had the opportunity to meet with some
representatives of the Metro Toronto drug squad and to learn what
it costs to support a habit. I found that absolutely
extraordinary. I had absolutely no idea how much it actually
costs to support an addiction. This is a gigantic challenge for
anyone with a significant substance abuse problem whether they're
working or not.
These officers told me that
far too often people are put in a situation out of desperation
and have to find ways of supporting that habit. It's not
uncommon, I am told, for a heroin habit to cost up to $800 a day.
Obviously someone can't support that on a $520 welfare cheque. It
is a tremendous human
tragedy when people have to get involved in selling narcotics
themselves or resort to prostitution or crime to support a habit.
It's a human tragedy, particularly for young people, often
youths, and indeed in some cases older children.
Obviously we're
tremendously concerned about that and want to provide that help.
But what it points to is that it's far more complicated and far
more serious than one might expect at first sight. I think the
easiest and most expedient thing to do would be to simply turn
our backs and say we are going to write these people off: "We're
just not going to worry about it. We'll send them a cheque month
after month, year after year, and just hope that some morning,
out of miraculous inspiration, people will wake up and want to
get help and then, if we're lucky, we'll be there," or we can try
to push them into taking that help.
I think a substantial
amount of research says that mandatory treatment doesn't work.
There's also a substantial amount of research which says it can
be every bit as effective as voluntary treatment. I've even read
some articles which suggest, in essence, "Is there really any
voluntary treatment?" There's always some sort of intervention,
whether it's through the courts and police, in terms of someone
facing a charge and having the option of jail time or drug
treatment, or be it job intervention at work, where someone's
employer says, "You can't keep showing up for work drunk," or
"You can't keep showing up for work high on drugs. You've got to
get some help. We'll provide you with the supports to get that
help, in terms of time off work etc," or it'll come through
someone's family in terms of a marriage or a family not being
able to stay together unless a change in course is made. I think
a certain element of consequence to not taking help and not
taking treatment has to be in place, and it has to be a real one.
I wish we could just bring in a volunteer program and everyone
would go to it.
I don't think this issue is
any different from any of the other welfare reforms in Ontario.
Our work-for-welfare program is a mandatory program. There are
not just expectations but requirements. People are required to be
part of the solution; they're required to do something in
exchange for their welfare cheque. They're required to take
retraining, they're required to take basic skills, they're
required to take a community placement or they're required to
take a part-time job. They're required to do something in
exchange for that cheque. And it's right there in that
regulation: accept drug treatment. I don't know why we would make
an exception there.
Mr Bart Maves
(Niagara Falls): I was actually chatting with the member
for London-Fanshawe before about identifying people with
addictions. I know that he, as a former police officer, and case
workers who deal on a regular basis with folks with drug
addictions-he thought there are telltale signs where people could
direct folks with problems. You could look at some of those signs
and say, "These are the folks we need to concentrate on who
probably have a problem and whom we need to get into treatment
programs." I just wonder if you want to comment on that a bit
more.
Mr
Mazzilli: Certainly I'll have some input, but the
ministry, through the consultation, should look at places of high
incidence of drug use such as crack houses and so on. Although
those types of places are transient and move from location to
location, I suspect the social agencies and the police services
within those communities usually have a pretty good record of
tracking where those establishments are. That is the highest
percentage of people you can try to help with a program like
that.
The Acting Chair
(Mr Michael Gravelle): Thank you, Mr Mazzilli. Your time
has expired.
Mr
Curling: I appreciate the opportunity to put something
on record here. I'll just make a comment first.
Andersen Consulting, as you
just stated, recently received about $61 million toward their fee
to clear up the welfare mess you said the province found itself
in. Mr Mazzilli talked about London today having only about 9,000
people on welfare, which was reduced from 21,000. I understand
that across the province you may have had about 300,000 people
who came off welfare or were put off welfare, who were abusing
the system and so on, and you still have about half a million
people on welfare.
It seems to me that, yes,
the system was in a mess and wasn't working. How many bureaucrats
have been fired because they did not do their jobs in this
process? It seems to me the only people who got off welfare who
seem to have been contributing to this mess were the people on
welfare. But of the people administering the welfare screening,
was anyone fired because of-
Hon Mr
Baird: Yes, you bet: the entire David Peterson cabinet
and the entire Bob Rae cabinet.
Mr
Curling: Don't be cynical with me now.
Hon Mr
Baird: No.
Mr
Curling: It wasn't David Peterson and the cabinet who
caused it. I'm saying there are people who are monitoring these
people-
Hon Mr
Baird: Who was it? If it wasn't David Peterson and his
cabinet who were monitoring, who was it? I wasn't at the cabinet
table. If you know, I'd love to know and we'll all go looking for
them.
1650
Mr
Curling: I presume that you won't tell me the answer to
that one because you wouldn't tell me that-if I go to the bank
today and somebody doesn't screen me properly and gives me the
loan without any proper sort of screening process and I get it,
you're going to say the president of the bank was doing that or
so but not the clerk who has thought of putting it through.
That's the kind of answer you're giving me.
Hon Mr
Baird: I think to paraphrase one of your cabinet
colleagues in the Peterson government, Mr Nixon, he said, "We
threw a whole bunch of money at the problem and hoped it would
get better," and it didn't work. Rules were changed, changes were
made to the eligibility, benefits were increased, and that was
done in good economic times.
This is the chart I
frequently use. A lot of the blame goes to the New Democratic
Party, which is perhaps unfair. Between 1985 and 1990, a huge amount of
job creation, welfare rolls soared. Then when the bottom fell out
of the economy and when poor Floyd Laughren found himself on the
seventh floor of the Frost Building south, they simply couldn't
cope. That's when you saw the welfare rolls really soar based on
the Peterson Liberals' welfare policies.
Mr
Curling: Mr Minister, let me go to another point,
because I want to get the answer from you, actually. There's
another area that I spoke to you about and you were quite
forthcoming with that. I think you and the Minister of Health, Ms
Witmer, have put forward a comprehensive mental health housing
policy that is to deliver housing for those with special needs
and other people like that. I think it was far overdue to make
that strategic move.
I know you want to create a
single, consolidated provincially funded residential care program
and I know there are consultations that are going on with the
various providers represented from the municipalities and
associations, owners and operators of residential care homes. You
know, there is quite a complex array of people who need
special-needs housing itself.
I know what you've put
forward is just about a month of consultation across the
province, you and the minister. I feel it's completely inadequate
in order to address all those who are providing those services. I
think there is a wide array of people. Among the most important
people in all this are really the owners and operators of the
residential care homes. They need to be consulted.
I have a suspicion here
that there are associations who are coming and saying, "We are
going to represent you all" and they will then take over the
delivery of these residential homes.
Would you consider having a
wider consultative approach for owners and operators of these
residential care homes so they can give you a much more direct
and closer monitoring of needs and services that are required so
you can have a better policy? I don't think the one month will be
adequate. Would you consider that?
Hon Mr
Baird: I'm certainly realistic in terms of any outcome.
As you know and we discussed, we are reviewing four types of
mental supported housing, three operated by the Ministry of
Health, with which I'm not that familiar, the fourth being the
domiciliary hostel program offered through the Ministry of
Community and Social Services.
We have been doing a good
amount of consultation with dom hostel operators across the
province. Will we speak to every single independent operator?
Undoubtedly not. When we come forward with some reforms, I
suspect they won't meet with unanimity in terms of approval. That
rarely is the case. I think the system is in need of some reform,
particularly on the funding side with respect to the per diem for
dom hostel, which has been identified as a significant issue.
I've had the opportunity to
tour a number of dom hostels. I toured the Edgewood Care Centre
in the constituency of your caucus colleague, Mme
Boyer, and talked to some of the residents there, talked to the
owner-operators, talked to people who work there, and-
Mr
Curling: I just want to say-because, you know, my
colleague has been very generous in giving me the time. I just
want to say to you, don't get caught up in the rut of not opening
up consultation. I think you can have a better policy in a much
more effective way by listening to home owners and those who
deliver the special needs for those residents there.
Hon Mr
Baird: I certainly appreciate the advice and if your
constituents have any advice in that regard, I'd certainly
welcome it, sooner rather than later in terms of being able to
contribute it to the debate.
Mr
Gravelle: I just want to return, if I can, to Andersen
Consulting and the spending related to that. The auditor two
years ago certainly had expressed some very strong concerns about
the contract that was signed by your ministry with Andersen
Consulting, and I think there's a reasonably good chance that
when the value-for-money audit comes out next Tuesday, I believe,
on the 21st, we may hear some more about that. I think it's only
fair to ask. You know we've got $60.5 million given to Andersen
Consulting in fiscal year 1999-2000. I'd like to ask you to
precisely break down how that money was spent: how much for
staff, how much for services, how much for technical support. I
presume you could break that down for us.
Hon Mr
Baird: Certainly that meets our obligations under the
contract. I think the auditor came forward with good advice that
was helpful to the ministry, helpful to Management Board of
Cabinet, helpful to the government in terms of the whole nature
of a common purpose procurement. Designing and building and
rolling out new welfare processes and technologies is not an easy
effort. I've used a number of analogies, particularly like
getting a new kitchen built in your home when you've had an old
one. While it's unpleasant in terms of the havoc it wreaks on the
family living there, a better day arrives when the overhaul is
done.
Mr
Gravelle: But can you break it down, Minister?
Hon Mr
Baird: The $60-odd-million supports our obligations on
the contract. It supports the consolidated verification process,
which made great strides in the first year, and we've expanded it
this year to go into more parts of the province in more areas. It
also meets the process in terms of designing the new technology
and in terms of building the new technology, and now we're
rolling out the new technology.
Mr
Gravelle: Could you table it in detail for us? I think
everybody would be curious as to exactly how the money breaks
out.
Hon Mr
Baird: We can get more details for you. Sure.
Mr
Gravelle: I presume that what you're relating to is the
automation of the system, as well, automating the system. Is that
part of what Andersen is involved with as well?
Hon Mr
Baird: With the technology as well. Yes.
Mr
Gravelle: It's fascinating: on page 69 of the estimates
your ministry spent $52 million more than was budgeted in 1999-2000 and is
planning to spend $50 million more in 1999-2000 for supplies and
equipment, and that's above and beyond the $60.5 million that was
given to Andersen. So we're talking some extraordinary dollars
here. But if you could table that, we'd like to see the details,
I think.
Hon Mr
Baird: We'll certainly try to get you more details.
Mr
Gravelle: Just some straight estimates questions: on
page 47, in 1999-2000 you underspent to the tune of $160 million
in the area of Ontario Works financial assistance and $80 million
in the area of employment supports; on page 57, you underspent in
the area of employment assistance for the Ontario disability
support program by $13 million. Can you explain that?
Hon Mr
Baird: I'm very familiar with both of those. I'd be
happy to offer an explanation.
In terms of financial
assistance, greater than anticipated caseload declines, that was
in terms of financial assistance under Ontario Works, were
largely responsible for the underexpenditure. We used the best
information, through our forecasting branch, provided by the
Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance, I think with good
reason, uses the conservative end of the spectrum of private
sector forecasters in terms of their economic model, which is
something that, by the very nature of our using the Ministry of
Finance's numbers, we use as well. That answers the first
question.
The second part concerns
Ontario Works employment assistance. We were underspending it; we
weren't using all the resources that were available to us that we
could. I think we could use more money to help people make that
transformation from welfare to work. That was 1999-2000. You'll
see we've certainly spent more money there than we did the year
before, you'll see us spend more money this year than we did the
year before, and I suspect you'll see us spend more money next
year than we did the year before.
Obviously, the face of the
caseload is changing to a great extent and more expensive
interventions are required in terms of getting people the skills
and the supports they need to go into work.
1700
For example, I think $7
million in terms of rewarding municipalities which exceed their
targets is one area. We've done a lot of innovation fund
proposals for community placements and for the harder to serve,
which you'll see probably more of in terms of supporting
innovative social service delivery.
The third point you raised
was ODSP employment which again I can speak to. That budget is
being doubled to $35 million. The process hasn't happened
overnight and it's rolling out over a few years. I think you'll
see a lot more money spent this year than last. I think you'll
see close to the full amount spent in the next year or two.
Mr
Gravelle: Minister, let's just turn to the technical
side too for a moment. Obviously in terms of your business
transformation project and what Andersen is doing as well, we've
heard that no new staff are being hired on in the ministry's
Ontario disability support program offices despite an increasing
caseload, from 180,000 to 195,000 in the last two years.
We know that you have
closed some offices as well. I think my colleague the member for
Nickel Belt asked the question last time too. This is obviously
of great concern in terms of people being able to access the
program. How many more will be closing?
Hon Mr
Baird: That office hasn't closed. Which office
closings-
Mr
Gravelle: You're talking about one person being left
there now. Is that-
Hon Mr
Baird: That office hasn't closed. Which office closings
were of concern to you specifically?
Mr
Gravelle: The office in Fort Frances was the one
that-
Hon Mr
Baird: That one hasn't closed. Are there any others that
have been of concern to you?
Mr
Gravelle: That's the question I'm asking you. What are
your plans? Are you planning to close or downgrade offices? If
it's a question of definition of term, you're downgrading the
office, the ability to actually access. Whether there's one
person there does not mean they're able to access the program and
be well served by the process. So are there other-what are your
plans?
Hon Mr
Baird: I thought you had said that you were concerned by
office closings "such as"-and I just wondered which ones you were
concerned about, because we haven't closed that one. Are there
any others with which you're concerned?
Mr
Gravelle: That office has been downsized, has it
not?
Hon Mr
Baird: I think there's one person whose contract
expired, but you said a number of them were of concern. Is
there-
Mr
Gravelle: Correct me. That's just great, Minister. Thank
you very much; I appreciate it. But what I'm asking is, are you
planning to close any offices in terms of that? How many are you
planning to close? Which ones are you planning to downgrade into
one-person offices? I just think that's information-
Hon Mr
Baird: To date, they haven't been a concern to the
opposition.
Ms Jessica
Hill: Jessica Hill, with the Ministry of Community and
Social Services. In terms of our plans for closing offices, we
periodically review whether there are satellite offices where the
caseload is so small that it can be served from a more
centralized site within a region. So currently we are looking at
Fort Frances, but we'll assess whether the 1-800 number is
working effectively for the CSR service, which we use as a model
in a number of communities in the north. We've had a very small
number of complaints. Usually, it has to do with aspects of the
services they're receiving as opposed to whether they're being
responded to effectively.
In terms of access, all of
the offices that serve smaller communities in the north provide
what we call emergency response service that is delivered within
24 hours, which means essentially that if someone called with a
specific need to fill out an application or had a problem, a
worker would be
responding to their concern within 24 hours, including visiting
their community if required.
Mr
Gravelle: I've been just been told that Port Hope is the
other office.
Ms Hill:
Port Hope has closed, but the service is delivered in Port Hope
on a regular basis for scheduled appointments. I can give you
specific information on Port Hope. Just a second.
Mr
Gravelle: The concern is that with the new system that
is being put in place in terms of the 1-800 number, the plan is
to close a number of smaller offices because of the 1-800 number,
the whole new way of doing business, which I happen to be really
concerned about and quite critical of. I'm not sure it's serving
the people the way they want in terms of the interactive voice
response, but finish off; I'm sorry.
Ms Hill:
On the question of whether there's a significant number of more
closures considered, in fact most of the closures of satellite
offices have already taken place, and they took place because the
business was largely being restructured. In transferring the
sole-support cases to the municipalities, there was a significant
change in our caseload and therefore there were some communities
that had a very small remaining caseload. Obviously, the nature
of the program design was a very big change. The second aspect of
this is that staff were also given opportunities to move to
municipalities for work.
I think most of the
restructuring has happened. There are literally a very small
number of satellite offices we would consider looking at at this
point. The changes have been made, and it has not affected
customer service negatively.
Mr
Gravelle: There are no plans to close any more of those
offices; in other words, the closures have been done.
Ms Hill:
Yes.
Mr
Gravelle: I've got some real concerns about the new
system in terms of-there's a recorded message at one office that
we called that says, "We will be introducing interactive voice
response for social assistance telephone systems," or IVR for
short, "to get selected personal case file information and
announcements from the ODSP."
This is designed to what?
To save you money? I can't see how it's designed to help people
actually access a system that's already difficult to access. We
know it takes a long time to get claims through. Do you not have
concerns about the fact that some people are not able to use that
system or will find it difficult? Some people don't have
Touch-Tone phones; that's still reasonably common.
Hon Mr
Baird: If there are people without Touch-Tone phones or
if there are people with a disability who are unable to utilize
it, obviously we'll provide it another way.
I think IVR can provide
better service more inexpensively in terms of someone calling to
get the status of a cheque or someone making some of these
routine calls that you can now do through IVR. I think the
initial implementations have been quite positive. If people want
to check on the status of a cheque after hours, they have the
ability to do so. There's been a high level of satisfaction. This
isn't any different from a number of other consumer services. But
if people don't have a Touch-Tone phone, they'll call-
Mr
Gravelle: Let's be honest. We all hate this. I mean
everybody hates it. We all hate calling up anywhere and not being
able to access it except through-we can't deal with real people
any more. We are talking about a situation like this and on my
next go-round I want to talk about call centres in terms of, in a
general sense, the pilot project. But the fact is it's more
difficult.
Hon Mr
Baird: It's fairly easy.
Mr
Gravelle: I know a lot of people who find it very
difficult to access that kind of a system, and so do you,
Minister; everybody does. It makes it more difficult to access
and people tend to drop off, and in this situation you've got
people who are on disability who are going to have a far more
difficult time, some of them, accessing it and will drop off.
This clearly is one of the methods of reducing the caseload, it
seems to me. Some people are going to drop away because they
can't access it.
Hon Mr
Baird: I just don't see the link, sir.
Mr
Gravelle: I know you don't, sir.
Ms Martel:
Minister, I was curious to hear your colleagues talk about how
fraud is fraud and it's wrong, and stealing is stealing and it's
wrong. There was some nodding of heads, and you would have
probably nodded yours too, so I've got to ask you, what do you
really think about tax evasion and MPPs involved in that?
Hon Mr
Baird: I'm not aware of any member of the Legislature
who has been involved with tax evasion. I think any kind of fraud
is bad.
Ms Martel:
So do I.
Hon Mr
Baird: My mandate at the Ministry of Community and
Social Services is to ensure that there's integrity to the
system. I want to be honest. Some of the most impressive people
I've seen working in this provincial government are in our fraud
branch at the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They are
very, very well regarded and they can be exceptionally proud of
the job they do. They do a fantastic job. Some of the initiatives
they've done have been at extraordinarily low cost and have been
able to yield gigantic benefits to taxpayers. I don't know about
the folks in Nickel Belt, but I know the folks in Nepean-Carleton
strongly support integrity in the system and strongly support our
antifraud measures.
Ms Martel:
I'm worried about tax evasion too, Minister.
1710
Hon Mr
Baird: By all means, bring those to the Minister of
Finance. I'm concerned about all kinds of fraud.
Ms Martel:
I want to ask you about your testing. Let me begin by this: you
would agree that there's a difference between mandatory testing
and mandatory drug treatment?
Hon Mr Baird: Correct.
Ms Martel:
All right. So what I want to know from you is, your government's
proposing mandatory drug testing for social assistance
recipients.
Hon Mr
Baird: I want to give you a clear answer so I'll preface
it.
Ms Martel:
I'd like to get a clear answer. That would be great.
Hon Mr
Baird: To preface my comments, we announced this morning
that we'll be going out and consulting over the next four to six
weeks to get some best advice. We want to consult with five
groups. We want to consult with the public, those people who
depend on the system and use it and those who pay for it. We want
to talk to drug treatment experts on treatment capacity, medical
practitioners. We want to talk to other jurisdictions both on
capacity and on their experience in terms of social assistance in
this area. We want to talk to legal experts to get their best
advice. We want to talk to municipalities and caseworkers on how
to administratively implement the policy.
I agree with you
wholeheartedly: there are two issues. There's mandatory treatment
and there's mandatory testing. I think it would be a leap to
suggest that the government is entertaining or will entertain a
policy where stapled to every welfare application will be a
Styrofoam cup. We're not proposing, to my knowledge-I've never
talked about any sort of universal chemical screening of people
on social assistance.
Ms Martel:
What exactly are you proposing then with respect to mandatory
drug testing? Who is going to be tested?
Hon Mr
Baird: I'll give you a window on our thinking. We don't
have a proposal in front of us, but we're going to consult-
Ms Martel:
Yes, but you're consulting with people, so you must be consulting
with something. You must have some plans.
Hon Mr
Baird: We're going to consult first, and develop the
policies and plans second. What we want to do is identify people
with an addiction to narcotics where that's a barrier to their
being able to get off welfare and get a job and maintain a paid
job. That's the preface of our remarks.
Chemical testing, for
example, can only determine use; it cannot determine an
addiction.
Ms Martel:
That's right.
Hon Mr
Baird: I've seen a number of screening instruments that
have been used in jurisdictions, developed by medical teams and
treatment experts and academic experts, that help identify
someone with a dependency, someone with an addiction.
Ms Martel:
What kind of testing or screening are you going to use to
identify people? You just have people who come walking through
the door in any number of offices across the province. How are
you going to pick and choose who's going to be screened?
Hon Mr
Baird: This is one of the issues on which we're going to
consult. It is a leap in thinking to suggest that there will be
universal chemical testing. There are a number of screening
instruments which have been identified as best practices in other
jurisdictions. We certainly want to talk to those jurisdictions
and talk to those treatment experts who developed those and try
to find some format which would be part of a made-in-Ontario
pro-gram.
I met with a group of
caseworkers right here from Toronto the other day, and one of
them told me that each and every day he sees someone come into
his welfare office, Ontario Works office, who's high on drugs,
who's intoxicated. Obviously it's a little bit easier in that
case. Obviously it's a little bit easier if someone has got track
marks up and down their arm. There are physical symptoms in some
cases, but these instruments can help screen addiction. If
someone wants to quarrel on whether they have an addiction-this
goes to the second point-it can be put to rest very quickly, I
would suggest, with another form of test. Those would be the
issues we'd go and consult on.
Ms Martel:
Let me ask you this. Is it going to apply solely to Ontario Works
recipients or to Ontario Works and ODSP recipients?
Hon Mr
Baird: It's a fair question. I say two things: Ontario
Works recipients. With respect to the Ontario disability support
program, I think in general the answer is no. There are 250
people who have been grandfathered on to that program whose sole
identified condition is a drug addiction. We want to talk to
people on whether we should just simply write these people off or
include them. I can tell you my personal view is that I think we
probably should include them and offer that help. That's
obviously one issue, but only those 250 people where drug
addiction is their sole condition.
Mr
Fleming: Could I just add something to the minister's
earlier response about the whole issue of screening? As we go out
and begin our consultation process and start to get into the
whole matter of assessment and screening, well before any
chemical tests one of the things we're going to want to talk to
people in other jurisdictions with experience in this particular
area about is around the requirements for training of staff who
carry out these kinds of assessments. This is not an area,
despite the kind of evidence the minister was referring to where
something might appear to be indicative of drug addiction-there
may be other people who have substance addictions where their
appearances are not quite so obvious and yet are still
constituting a barrier to employment. A part of what we're going
to be interested in hearing about from other jurisdictions is
their experience in training staff to see those kinds of
behaviours that are barriers to employment.
Ms Martel:
Outside of the ODSP, the 250 you've already indicated have an
addiction problem now, are you going to be screening the current
caseload or new applicants for OW?
Hon Mr
Baird: OW? That will be one of the issues which we'll
discuss in the consultations, so there's no decision there. I
can't imagine conditions where it would just be new applicants.
That decision hasn't been made, but I can't imagine circumstances where we'd
write off 216,000 or 217,000 people.
Ms Martel:
Let me ask you this. Mr Norton has, in a press conference last
October, expressed his concerns about this. I understand you have
a letter from him with respect to this issue. Would you table
that with this committee?
Hon Mr
Baird: Sure. If you pick up today's Globe and Mail, I
think it's quoted in there.
Ms Martel:
I'm not sure if all of it's there, so if we could see the whole
thing, that would be great.
Hon Mr
Baird: We'll certainly look into that.
Ms Martel:
You are going to be consulting with him directly?
Hon Mr
Baird: Yes. I spoke with him yesterday and indicated we
were not just willing to get together with him but that we wanted
to work with his office.
Ms Martel:
Let me ask you this. You specifically target a certain population
in the province, but I've heard you say before that you're
concerned about how drug use would impact upon anyone who's
working. I'm assuming that means public and private. Why is it
you are specifically targeting a particular group?
Hon Mr
Baird: I am concerned about anyone where drug addiction
is a barrier to employment. It seems to me it's just a good place
to start, with those people who are unemployed.
Ms Martel:
You could, though, I assume, pass a law that would make this
applicable to employees in the private sector as well. But you're
not doing that, correct?
Hon Mr
Baird: My mandate in social services is to help people
move from welfare to work. That's my focus. If someone is in the
private sector, they're obviously working, so it's not a barrier
to employment, because they've got a job; they're employed.
Ms Martel:
It might be a health and safety concern, though, for some of
their co-workers.
Hon Mr
Baird: I suppose that's an issue in employment law that
comes out. There's a lot more experience in Canada on the
employment law side of this equation than there is on the social
assistance side.
Ms Martel:
Are you going after this group in particular because they receive
public funds as a means of support?
Hon Mr
Baird: I disagree with your characterization that we're
going after anyone.
Ms Martel:
Are you going to make it mandatory for these individuals on
social assistance to be tested because they are on social
assistance and receiving public funds?
Hon Mr
Baird: What we want to do is combat the challenge,
combat the drug addiction of people where it's a barrier to
employment. Those are folks on Ontario Works.
Ms Martel:
Minister, are you not worried about the perception that has to
exist, that you've targeted a particular group? You would have, I
would think, drug problems in every sector of society, not just
with respect to social assistance recipients. I don't know how
rampant it is among social assistance recipients. I don't know
how rampant it is in the rest of society.
Hon Mr
Baird: I'm sort of counting on convincing you, that
you'll correct the record.
Ms Martel:
You're clearly going after a particular group and certainly
giving the impression that somehow this group is much more likely
to have addiction problems than others.
Hon Mr
Baird: I don't think it's a leap to say that people who
are unemployed and experiencing financial difficulties are more
likely-I think there are folks with drug addictions in all
backgrounds. I'd suggest over the years there have probably been
a few members of the Legislature; there have probably been
doctors, lawyers, business people, people inside and outside
government in all occupations with a chemical dependency, with an
addiction to a list of drugs and narcotics.
1720
Do I think someone who's on
social assistance is any more likely to be in that condition? No,
I don't. However, our focus is on people with a drug addiction
where it's a barrier to their getting a job. I think people who
don't have a job are probably substantially more likely to be
included in that, because if you have a job, it's not really a
barrier to your getting a job, if you already have one.
Ms Martel:
This is a specific group of people whom you will perhaps,
depending on the outcome of your discussion paper, specifically
bar from receiving assistance.
Hon Mr
Baird: No, we're not going to specifically bar them.
Everything in Ontario Works except this-every single part of
Ontario Works is mandatory.
Ms Martel:
Is drug testing going to be a condition for receipt of social
assistance?
Hon Mr
Baird: We're going to undertake the consultations.
Obviously we've said in the past the treatment is mandatory. If
there's a process in place that we can develop in terms of
testing, obviously it'll be mandatory.
Ms Martel:
You're not ruling out today that people could be barred from
receiving social assistance?
Hon Mr
Baird: Welfare, yes, I agree.
Ms Martel:
Right. That's different than any other group in society. We don't
bar anyone else from receiving an income. If they refuse to
undergo mandatory drug testing, we don't bar anyone in the public
sector who might have a job, anyone in the private sector, but
you are considering barring these folks from receiving assistance
if they don't undergo mandatory either testing or treatment,
correct?
Hon Mr
Baird: We bar people from welfare if they refuse to look
for a job. We bar people from welfare if they refuse to take a
community placement. We bar people from welfare if they refuse to
provide certain information they're required to under the
program. This is the only single part of Ontario Works, to the
best of my knowledge, under regulation where we say, "You don't
have to do this."
Ms Martel:
But the human rights commissioner has said this is clearly a
violation of the code. That's a difference, isn't it?
Hon Mr
Baird: He has used words like "may" and "it appears." He
hasn't seen the policy, because we haven't developed it yet. We certainly indicated a
willingness to sit down and talk to him, to talk to his staff and
to try to work with them. I can't guarantee an end result that
they'll sign off on it. We're certainly not adverse. We're
certainly keen to proactively seek out their best advice.
Ms Martel:
Do you have a discussion paper that you're going to be giving to
those groups for them to consider?
Hon Mr
Baird: No. There are five issues we want to talk about
that were part of the announcement today.
Ms Martel:
Are those public?
Hon Mr
Baird: Yes.
Ms Martel:
Can they be tabled with the committee as well? I saw the
highlights on your release. I'm wondering if there's
anything-
Hon Mr
Baird: I think those are the issues.
Ms Martel:
That's what they'll be asked to respond to, those five
issues?
Hon Mr
Baird: I don't envisage any sort of travelling road show
or three-ring circus. We're going to go out and talk to a lot
of-I've already met with some caseworkers. I've already met with
some law enforcement officials. We want to meet with people in
other jurisdictions and learn what the best practices are. We
want to talk to folks at the Ministry of the Attorney General,
the Ministry of Health. We want to invite input and suggestions.
Here are five areas we want to discuss. I suspect we're going to
get a lot of advice outside of those five areas, and that's
welcome too.
Ms Martel:
Would you table with the committee the list of people you intend
to discuss this with?
Hon Mr
Baird: I'm certainly happy to take that back. There may
be some folks we're talking to who are recovering drug addicts
who don't want their names tabled in the Ontario Legislature. I'm
certainly happy to consider that.
Ms Martel:
Fair enough. So you will do that?
Hon Mr
Baird: I'm certainly happy to consider it.
Ms Martel:
That would be helpful.
I would like to ask some
questions about Andersen Consulting. I saw the letter you sent
back to Mr Peters after the negotiations were complete at the end
of April. I have some questions with respect to your letter.
Specifically, I see that the cap of $180 million will remain in
place. One of the auditor's concerns repeatedly has been how the
ministry arrived at that cap as appropriate. I'd like to ask you
why the cap of $180 million is the figure that has been arrived
at. What is the justification for it?
Hon Mr
Baird: I think the auditor's concerns in that area are
fair. I've said that in the past, and I'll say it again today. I
accept the majority of his complaints and his concerns in that
regard.
Having said that, we set
out to renegotiate the contract with a number of objectives.
Obviously one of the objectives wasn't, "Could Andersen please
rip up the contract and let us start from scratch?" I think that
would be unrealistic. Even the standing committee on public
accounts, by resolution, rejected the idea of abrogating the deal
and losing two or three years of momentum and of time in this
effort and said the best strategy was to renegotiate the
contract.
My bottom line was that I
wanted to see the project successfully completed. I wanted to see
it successfully completed on time, successfully completed on
budget and I wanted a substantial reduction in the rates.
Ms Martel:
The question was, what's the justification for the cap of $180
million?
Hon Mr
Baird: I think the auditor has criticized that there
wasn't a justification. I don't think that has changed.
Ms Martel:
You're saying there's no justification? How do you arrive at a
figure of $180 million and determine that's good value for the
taxpayer?
Hon Mr
Baird: The auditor made that complaint.
Ms Martel:
Yes.
Hon Mr
Baird: Obviously Andersen doesn't get paid a dollar if
the taxpayers don't save a dollar. That's what a common purpose
procurement arrangement is all about. I think the contract
probably would be very different-this is the first major common
purpose procurement that the government has ever undertaken. In
my judgment and in my opinion, the auditor made a number of very
fair complaints and criticisms of the ministry in that regard.
We've since done our very best to address all those issues which
we're capable of addressing, and I think we've made good
progress. I'm pleased to say the project has improved incredibly
in the last year or two. At the end of the day, I think it's
going to yield some excellent results for the taxpayers, some
excellent results in the delivery of social assistance in the
province.
Ms Martel:
You still haven't answered the question, though.
Hon Mr
Baird: I have. You just don't like the answer.
Ms Martel:
No. The auditor was very specific that he was looking for some
evidence as to why the ministry would agree that paying Andersen
$180 million was a legitimate amount of money to pay. He made
that criticism in his first report and in his second. I see you
have reaffirmed the original cap of $180 million. I'm wondering
if you have now been able to provide to the auditor some
justification for arriving at that figure as a payment to
Andersen.
Hon Mr
Baird: My answers aren't going to be like a good bottle
of wine; they're not going to get better with age. I've
responded. You have the right not to accept my answer, but I've
answered it twice.
Ms Martel:
All right. The auditor was also critical of expenditures outside
the cap, and I see those still exist as well. Can you tell me
what eligible expenditures are still allowed outside of the
$180-million cap?
Hon Mr
Baird: Sure. If I could give you a specific example, the
$180-million cap was for a certain set of-it's "up to." It's not
necessarily $180 million; it's up to $180 million for them to do
a certain number of things that are enumerated in the contract.
There inevitably are things above and beyond that that were not
contemplated in the
original contract, and I want to give you a specific example.
The Legislature passed
legislation last year, last October, to implement the M. v. H.
decision. Obviously that has a substantial effect on the delivery
of social assistance in terms of the definition of "spouse,"
particularly "same-sex spouse" and the whole host of how that
operates in terms of a benefit unit and the whole host of
entitlements and requirements in the social assistance system.
Therefore, we have to change all the software and the processes
in order to reflect that new change that was not part of that
initial order. I go back to that analogy of a kitchen. You build
a kitchen. Halfway through the process you decide you'd like
ceramic floors. Obviously they're not going to throw that in for
the same cost they gave you. You're going to have to pay extra.
So that change in the order-the M. v. H. decision-would be one
example of something that is outside the cap.
Ms Martel:
Does Andersen have to get prior approval of the ministry before
they submit that and before you'll agree to pay?
Hon Mr
Baird: Yes. We asked for it.
Ms Martel:
That has been a change from the original contract because they
didn't have to seek prior approval for expenditures outside the
cap.
The
Vice-Chair: You've got a minute, Ms Martel.
Hon Mr
Baird: Yes, they have to get approval.
Ms Martel:
Tell me about the billing rates that are now being charged. I
think you told the committee last time you were here the billing
rates have been decreased by 34%?
Hon Mr
Baird: It's 39.5%.
Ms Martel:
Here's my concern. The auditor's concern was that the rates were
actually 63% higher than the original quote Andersen gave at the
time it got the contract. It looks like they're probably still
about 29% higher than the original rates quoted. Is that
correct?
Hon Mr
Baird: No, I don't believe it is, and we can invite
officials from the ministry to come up and make that
presentation. I think there is an honest difference of opinion.
The auditor, if I'm not mistaken-from memory-looked at averages
within certain categories that maybe didn't accurately reflect
the rates. I'm happy to get someone up here to give you specific
information on that because I think it's a reasonable
question.
Ms Martel:
What the auditor says-and I'll just quote it, "We noted that the
rates charged by Andersen Consulting exceeded the rates quoted in
its proposal by an average of 63% and can be increased by
Andersen at any time without the approval of the ministry." Those
were in his first two reports.
1730
Hon Mr
Baird: Can we just take a moment and we'll get you that
information? In the renegotiation I think we did a pretty good
job. Is it perfect? No, but I think we did a pretty good job.
The
Vice-Chair: If the response could be pretty short, and
of course the next time-
Hon Mr
Baird: Those are the good types of responses, Mr
Chair.
The
Vice-Chair: Half a minute.
Ms Bonnie
Ewart: Bonnie Ewart. Yes, the auditor did state a quote
that said the rates went up 63%. When we renegotiated, we
renegotiated back down to almost precisely the same amount as
they were in this RFP document, which translates into 39.5%. It's
just strictly the math. The rates are the same as they were to
begin with. They are the same now as they were to begin with, but
when you-how can I explain this? When you do an increase of $50
to $100, that's a 100% increase, but when you go backwards, your
reduction is on a higher base, so your math is not going to be
the same going backwards.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms Ewart:
I can demonstrate it on paper.
Ms Martel:
Send it to me after.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Stewart.
Mr
Stewart: I want to go back to the treatment again, if I
may, Minister. I'm not going to ramble quite as much as I did the
last time. Probably there are those who would be pleased about
that, but I do want to get on the record that in my riding of
Peterborough we've had 4,356 fewer people on welfare than we had
back in 1995, which I think just proves that with a strong
economy and a new direction in social assistance it is definitely
working.
Regarding the treatment, is
alcohol going to be classed as a treatable drug? I don't know
what the stats are, but I've certainly had folks in my office a
number of times who have been under the influence of alcohol.
Many of them will admit they abuse alcohol. I'm just wondering if
it will be a treatable drug.
Hon Mr
Baird: That's something to which we've given a lot of
thought and a lot of consideration. Obviously the whole motive is
to try to provide help to people who face an addiction where
that's a barrier to employment. I know of instances where alcohol
is a chemical addiction where it is a barrier. I think that will
be part of our consultations. I can tell you my own personal view
is that it should be included. At the same time, though, we want
to be realistic as far as the capacity of our program to respond
to everything at once. I think you can have three-you can have an
illegal drug, you could have alcohol and you can have even
prescription drugs, which are often abused. We might want to, for
example, phase it in in terms of those three types of areas, but
that will be one of the things we consult on.
There's often a difference
in terms of the definition of an addiction. There's a
physiological or chemical addiction; you know, cocaine, heroin.
There are other addictions which might be better characterized as
habits. Even some illegal drugs have been characterized by some
as being habits, for example, marijuana. Some characterize it as
a chemical addiction; others characterize it as a habit
addiction. That will be one of the things we want to do in
talking to treatment experts.
I can tell you my own view
is that we shouldn't simply write someone off who's an alcoholic.
At the same time, I want to be realistic as far as the capacity
of the system. One of the things we learned in our first term
was not to bite off
more than we can chew. By all means bring in a lot of change, but
just be cognizant of the demands on the system.
Mr
Stewart: I'm pleased to hear that. As I said in the
first time I made comments today, I can remember having a young
fellow working for me and we eventually found out that he was an
alcoholic. In the old days-not in my particular case, but if you
came to work drunk or you did it consistently, you were gone.
These days, of course, they class it as a medical condition in
need of support. So I would hope it is considered with the
consulting, and I compliment you on that, because I believe this
is a contentious issue. I don't know why it is contentious, but
it appears it could be, that you could get the information and
the input you should have.
One thing that seems to
have come up a bit in my riding in the last few weeks is the
policy of putting liens on homes of welfare recipients. I know
some people believe this is too harsh-I know it only happens when
they've been on social assistance for a year. On the other hand
there are those in this world who feel that once you're on social
assistance it's your God-given right to be there forever.
Needless to say, I don't believe that. Maybe you could give us a
an idea of the intent of the policy as well as the justification
for it.
Hon Mr
Baird: I should say at the outset that this is not a new
policy. It was passed as part of the Ontario Works Act. I concede
that perhaps it was not being implemented by some or all
consolidated municipal service managers. The program was
proclaimed in 1998, and then by nature of the timelines on it, it
came into effect a year later.
One of the challenges has
been to design a welfare system that is two things. These are two
premises on which our entire welfare system is based. It's a
temporary program, and it's a program of last resort. This is a
last-resort program, different from unemployment insurance, for
example, which is not a program of last resort. The programs have
different mandates and different functions.
Part of Ontario Works is
that there are asset limits and requirements. We don't let
someone apply for Ontario Works if they've got $25,000 in the
bank or a stock portfolio or if they have a $25,000 car. They are
not eligible. There is an alternative. They have an asset.
Welfare is a program of last resort.
One of the challenges you
have is people who own their own homes. For me, my home is my
biggest investment, and for most middle-class working families in
Ontario their principal residence is their biggest investment. At
the same time, when someone falls on hard times economically, we
don't want anyone to be forced out of their home based on
economic circumstances, which by the nature of the program are
temporary. So we've done two things.
For example, someone could
own a $100,000 townhouse-in Nepean you can buy a townhouse for
$100,000. If it is owned outright, a family on Ontario Works
could easily afford to pay the condominium fee and the taxes and
continue to live in that home. What we're saying in terms of this
policy change, this regulatory change, is that if you're on
welfare for 10 or 11 months, it's not a problem. But if you're on
welfare for longer than that, it would be somehow wrong for you
to enjoy an increase in the value of your home. For example, that
$100,000 townhouse-and I'm familiar with one-is worth $110,000 a
year later. In my judgment it would be pretty ridiculous for
someone to see an asset, the biggest investment in their life,
appreciate by $10,000, with no capital gains tax on that $10,000
increase, at the same time they are on social assistance. In
fact, in some cases it could actually be in excess of their
social assistance benefit. They could actually earn more money
from the increase in the value of their home in terms of a
capital gain than from their income flow from Ontario Works.
What we have said is that
when you go on the program you have to consent to a lien being
placed on your home after 12 months, and you would pay back your
welfare costs whenever you sold that home. So if you are on
welfare for two years, for example, after you've been on welfare
for a year, a lien would go on your home, and whenever you sold
that home, in five, 10 or 25 years, the taxpayers would get their
money back. Not one single person would be forced out of their
home as a result of the policy, but at the same time it would
recognize that the poor, working-class individual living in the
townhouse next door who is renting, who can't afford the down
payment to buy a home, shouldn't be paying for your welfare
cheque while you are realizing a capital gain. Using that same
example, someone should not be on social assistance paying off
their mortgage, where you would have the person renting next door
essentially helping you pay off the principal on your
mortgage.
1740
I appreciate there is
concern and disagreement about this policy. We're particularly
sympathetic in rural Ontario. If you're in Bancroft or Oxford
Mills or Spencerville and own your own home, it might be cheaper
and better economically to stay in that owned accommodation
rather than renting, which may or may not be available and, if it
is, may even be more money than owning.
I think it's a very
pro-middle-class policy that we don't ask people on welfare to
have their next-door neighbour who is renting pay off their home
or help them realize capital gains. I appreciate there will be an
honest difference of opinion on that, but it's a policy I
wholeheartedly support.
Mr
Mazzilli: I want to talk about an area of your ministry
that you were asked many questions about in the Legislature
earlier in the year-and I believe Ontario is the only province
where it falls under your ministry-that is, youth detention
centres. You were asked many questions, but often in the
Legislature you are given a limited amount of time to respond.
Can you tell us how many youth detention centres your ministry is
responsible for, how many of those were operated by social
agencies in the past,
such as the Salvation Army, as many have been through different
governments, and the few you recently turned over to other
agencies to operate? Just give us a breakdown over the years, and
certainly have one of your deputy ministers-
Hon Mr
Baird: The ministry, as you know, is responsible for
young offenders between the ages of 12 and 15. I think we
currently have about 104 young offenders' facilities for those
12- to 15-year-olds, in just about every region of Ontario.
When I came to the ministry
18 months ago, I believe 99 of the 105 were operated by outside
agencies: in many cases non-profit agencies and in some cases
private sector operators. The experience of the ministry was
fairly positive in that. It was a policy that was followed by the
NDP government and the Liberal government. It wasn't a new policy
or a radical change from the status quo that had been going on
for 10 or 20 years.
For the last five
facilities, we did seek community-based operators. I'm referring
to the Genest centre in London, the Syl Apps facility in
Oakville, the York Detention Centre in the city of Toronto,
Project DARE in the Parry Sound-Muskoka area and, I believe, one
in Sault Ste Marie. Those were the five. The ministry has had a
good experience with those operators. From time to time, there
are problems, just as there are with facilities directly operated
by the ministry. But by and large I think it's been a good
experience.
I can give you an example
of one that was passed on to a community operator in my own
community before I became the minister. The William Haye centre
in Ottawa used to be directly operated by the Ministry of
Community and Social Services. Today it's operated by the Youth
Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton, an agency with a long history
of providing supports to young people in our community, very well
regarded in the community and with a good track record. To date I
think they're doing a pretty good job operating it, obviously
with ministry standards and ministry supervision.
Mr
Mazzilli: If I could move on to something else, earlier
this year you, along with your ministry, were responsible for
some changes to the Child and Family Services Act. Can you or
someone from your ministry explain what those changes were
intended to achieve?
Hon Mr
Baird: We've undertaken a reform agenda within the area
of children's aid societies, child welfare and child protection.
The major part of that was the amendments to the Child and Family
Services Act. Actually that was passed in the year leading up to
your election. We've seen an 80%-
The division bells
rang.
The
Vice-Chair: We have about two more minutes left. You can
use that tomorrow. We have to go for a vote now.
The committee is adjourned
until tomorrow at 3:30.
