STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DES
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRES SOCIALES
FUNDING FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES FUNDING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CONTENTS
Monday 1 December 1997
Funding for children's services ;Funding for persons with disabilities S-2211
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DES
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRES SOCIALES
Monday 1 December 1997 Lundi 1er décembre 1997
The committee met at 1600 in room 151.
FUNDING FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES FUNDING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Consideration of designated matters pursuant to standing order 124 relating to "The Impact of the Conservative Government Funding Cuts on Children and on Children's Services in the Province of Ontario"; and "The Impact of the Conservative Government's Funding and Funding Cuts on Persons with Disabilities and Their Families.
The Chair (Mrs Annamarie Castrilli): We are now in session. Ms Lankin.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I would like to raise a request for unanimous consent. I have substituted on to this committee today in the place of Marion Boyd, our regular member, because the two subject matters we are dealing with are part of my critic's portfolio.
I am also, however, required to be in the House for a period of time today to speak to the motion that is on the floor and I would like to have unanimous consent from the committee that during the 15 minutes of my absence, Ms Boyd could retake her committee membership in my place.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? There is unanimous consent.
Ms Lankin: Thank you.
The Chair: We are here today to consider standing order 124 relating to the impact of the Conservative government's funding cuts on children and children's services in the province of Ontario, and again under standing order 124, the impact of the Conservative government's funding and funding cuts on persons with disabilities and their families.
You may recall that there is some time left on each one of these standing orders, but just to refresh your memories, we have about an hour and 21 minutes on the first item and then an hour and 53 minutes on the second item.
We have a report that was prepared with respect to the first, and we have not yet given instructions to the researcher with respect to second one. The only other item that I would point out is that there was a deadline of November 17 for the various caucuses to make recommendations. No recommendations were received.
With that, what I will do is turn it over to our researcher to give us the background on these issues, which have been outstanding for some time. Mr Carroll.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Madam Chair, just a couple of points first. I presume this is the first time we've seen this particular report?
Mr Ted Glenn: No, it has been distributed before.
Mr Carroll: The updated one that included the last --
Mr Glenn: At the last subcommittee meeting a copy of this was distributed.
The Chair: To my knowledge, it's been distributed at least twice and it's been updated at least once.
Mr Carroll: The last time we met, as I can recall, and maybe somebody can refresh my memory, we talked about the need to update the report. This is the updated report. Is that what this is?
Ms Lankin: What is "this" that you are referring to, Mr Carroll?
Mr Carroll: The one that was at our place when we came in today.
Mr Glenn: Right, which is dated October 6, 1997. On the bottom left-hand side there is a date on it. We've had, over the last six months, two different meetings. One was to authorize me to go and survey the ministries for additional information. Subsequent to that, I updated the information. We had another meeting earlier this fall on the report, at which time this updated version was brought to the subcommittee meeting.
Mr Carroll: The package of materials that was distributed today to my office, I presume, other than the report -- did this come from the researcher?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): That came from our office.
Mr Carroll: It didn't include this report?
Clerk of the Committee: No.
Mr Carroll: And this report was circulated prior?
Clerk of the Committee: The only report I circulated that I had received was a July 25, 1996, report. That's the date in the corner of the one, the draft report on children's services that we dealt with in a subcommittee.
Mr Carroll: With all due respect, I do not remember seeing this before. But it has been circulated by --
Mr Glenn: The only substantive difference is updated information from the ministries that we received in June 1997. That was the only substantive difference between the two versions.
Mr Carroll: But this report in its current version --
Mr Glenn: The last subcommittee meeting.
Mr Carroll: -- was previously distributed to the members of this committee.
Mr Glenn: To the subcommittee.
Mr Carroll: Not to the members of this committee.
Mr Glenn: Not to the committee generally. The committee generally has not met on this issue.
The Chair: If I may, the reason this has gone to subcommittee, again as you know, we have had some difficulty in structuring the meeting because of our busy agendas and we thought it would be easier to just bring it to committee. In fairness, the full committee has not seen that report, but it was circulated to the subcommittee and that may be the reason for the confusion.
Mr Carroll: Should we not have had an opportunity, though, to peruse this report before we were asked to discuss it here? It's kind of cold to come in just today and see this report and now be asked to discuss it. Do you think we should have had an opportunity to look over the report and decide?
The Chair: Let me clarify. When was that report distributed to the members of the committee? I assumed that every member of the committee had it.
Clerk of the Committee: Today. I just received it today.
Mr Carroll: It was on our desks when we arrived here today. It's very difficult to ask our members of the committee to discuss this today when we just received it today.
Ms Lankin: Like they have any real input anyway.
Mr Glenn: If I could reiterate, the bulk of the report was written after the public hearings on the matter were completed in June: the summary of the witnesses' testimony, a summary of their recommendations, a summary of information brought to the committee's attention at that time. That initial summary has been around since July 1996. The only things that have been updated since that time have been the initiatives that the government has undertaken. So in substance the report has not changed, the summary has not changed. It remains the same. The only thing that is different that is highlighted in this report in underlined fashion is new initiatives that the government has undertaken. That's the only thing that has changed. The bulk of the report remains the same.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Chair, if I might, that may all be well and good. The fact is that this is the first time I'm laying my eyes on it, and if I'm to make any comments that have relevance whatsoever, then I think it's important for me to have had some time to review this report. Those changes may or may not be significant, but this is the first time I'm seeing it. I think we're at a disadvantage and I don't think we'll do justice to this report if we attempt to discuss it without the benefit of that previous information.
The Chair: Ms Lankin, did you want to comment?
Ms Lankin: Yes, I wanted to comment on that. I just had one technical question first to --
The Chair: Are you going to comment on this point or --
Ms Lankin: Yes, and I just have a question. The updated information in terms of ministry programs that's before us, Ted, does that include the very late response from the Minister of Health which we received on October 1, 1997? Is that information included in the updated information?
Mr Glenn: I believe it is.
Ms Lankin: If I may, Madam Chair, I do believe that this poor little document has had such a tortured history and I'd like to put it out of its misery. I don't know about others who are around this committee, but this has been an extraordinarily long process because of competing demands for the committee's time, which is entirely understandable given the large legislative agenda that the committee has had to deal with, with relatively important items and controversial pieces of legislation.
If I may say to you, Mr Klees, while I understand the concern you're putting forward, the essential version of this has been circulated to the caucuses through each caucus's representative on the subcommittee. There is some responsibility of the person representing each caucus on that subcommittee to convey to the subcommittee, in their decision-making, the interests and concerns of the committee members from their caucus. That is, through that process, why the committee chair has, on our instruction, sought further updates and information as this has languished in time. The government has made certain announcements either with respect to further cuts or, in many cases, further expenditures with respect to these services and we have attempted to ensure that that information was sought and reflected in the report itself.
I might say that if you look through the history of this, early in the summer we started to attempt to get some more information from the Ministry of Health and you can see yourself the length of time they took to respond, the response only having come October 1.
All of this information has been available through the subcommittee and I hope we wouldn't set this through another period of long delay. I am assuming that your representative on the subcommittee has reviewed that with your caucus research staff and/or the members of the committee and is prepared to put forward a position of whether there is support for this document.
1610
There is no change in the reflection of what witnesses said to the committee and the characterization of what happened at the hearings or of the points that were raised or the concerns that were raised. By going through it you can see the underlined sentences, and if people need a few minutes to take a look at the actual underlined information I think, particularly for the government members, you will find that it is probably helpful to your point of view of explaining government initiatives that that information is included.
You will see that it is not the majority of the report. The majority of the report remains exactly as the copy that was circulated over a year ago, which all committee members have had, and they should have had, at this point in time, a position with respect to that.
Respectfully, I would request that we don't delay this further and ask the members to take a moment, as we are discussing this, to look at the actual information which is underlined and to see if there is concern with that. I think you'll actually find, as members of the government caucus, some comfort in that information actually being included.
The Chair: Let me briefly recap the events with respect to this particular motion. It was originally introduced in 1995 by Mr Gravelle, and there were hearings. The first report was prepared in July 1996. There have been two other reports since then. The one you received most recently was this morning. The other two reports were circulated quite widely, and the second one in particular was circulated to the entire committee.
Mr Glenn, our researcher, indicates that the difference between the one you received a week ago and the one you received this morning is minimal. I'd like to give him the opportunity to take us through the report and I think that may assist us all. Bearing in mind that this issue has been outstanding for some two years and more, it would be useful to try and get it moving forward.
Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, you made reference to a report we received a week ago. Is there something between July 25, 1996, and this report that was on our desks today?
The Chair: I'm advised that you received an entire package, which included that July 25 report, a week ago and then you received a further copy this morning.
Ms Lankin: And the update from the ministries --
The Chair: And the update, yes.
Ms Lankin: -- which has simply been taken and put into the report. We did receive that.
Mr Carroll: Is this the total final report? I want to ask the researcher. What was on our desk, is this the total final report?
Mr Glenn: October 6, 1997, date.
Mr Carroll: That is the total final report?
Mr Glenn: To date, yes.
Mr Carroll: And this is the first report since July 25, 1996.
Mr Glenn: That is the updated version of it. It's the same report; it's just been updated with new information.
Mr Carroll: The first time we are seeing this is right now.
Mr Glenn: It was distributed this morning.
Mr Carroll: Is that correct, okay?
Mr Glenn: Well, it was distributed to the subcommittee on October 6, when the subcommittee last met.
Mr Carroll: This report was distributed to the subcommittee.
Mr Glenn: That's right. That's what I just indicated.
Mr Carroll: With all due respect, Madam Chair, I have not forwarded a copy of this to the members of the committee. I think it is unfair to go from this report, which some of them may have -- quite frankly, it's over a year and a half old -- and to now ask us to consider this. I would like to move a motion that we delay consideration of this final report until our next committee meeting.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I guess my own history with this, because as the critic for my party that advanced this as the 124 subject matter initially, the purpose of it was to determine the cuts of the Mike Harris government and their effects on children in Ontario. That's what we were doing, looking through the first year, 1995. So when we launched it, we'd had that period of time when we were looking at it.
In that delay of an additional year, when all the writing was taking place etc, we have had significant other government policies. Unfortunately, and for good reason, we've continued to add additional information in because the scene keeps changing; unfortunately, in my own view, not for the better where kids are concerned. Regardless, the way the reporting is done it's almost procedural, collating information that was presented to us through hearings. I don't know what more it is. If you have another day, so that we reschedule to tomorrow or next week, it isn't going to change the content that's here, because that was brought to us via hearings.
We've had several subcommittee meetings that were constantly cancelled for any number of reasons, given the scheduling of the committee, but our reviewing for an additional week etc so that ultimately we're going to accept the report -- I'm going to presume that we can't not accept the report, because we were all here during the process that we took in collecting it. The actual preparation of it in a report is a reflection of what we all went through in of those hearings. It was a long time ago. It feels like it was in another lifetime by now, nevertheless an extra week -- we can walk through it today and look at what we've done, but I don't know what purpose additional time is going to serve, because it can't change what went into the report. What went in was the view of that year of government policy's effect on children. A week now, a week next week won't change that we were looking at that period of time. In fact, if you delay any further, what you should do is call a whole new 124 again, after two and a half years of this government's policies' effects on children, because there have been considerable changes even in this last year that in my view would cause us concern and we would want that information as well to be put in the report.
In the end I'm saying that the picture isn't going to get any brighter by delaying it an additional week. This is the heart of the matter. This is why we called it. That's why we asked for this topic to be considered, because it was so serious. Nevertheless, it's a reflection of that picture of that window in that year. We've delayed, delayed, delayed and we've continued to have meetings scheduled, only to be shuffled out for whatever reason. We can't change the facts as they happened that year.
Ms Lankin: I understand what Mr Carroll is saying. I would ask you one more time to flip through and take a look at the underlined sections and I think you will see it's all information that came from your ministries. It's all just a statement of initiatives they have undertaken. I'm not sure what the problem is. If you need a further week to review the changes or those updates, I can understand that.
I would just like to point out that we are actually, in the process, past the time in which committee members can submit changes or caucuses can submit changes to the report. We did set in our process a couple of deadlines over the course --
The Chair: November 17 was the deadline for recommendations.
Ms Lankin: The last one. We've all had to meet those deadlines. If your review is simply to review the updated information that has been added and to see if it is factual or correct or if there's a concern with respect to that, then I think that is warranted. This has come from government and it's translated but I think everyone should have a right to satisfy themselves that the translation has been done in a way that satisfies members of the committee.
If your concern is to start from square one in reviewing the report and/or making recommendations for changes in any aspect of the report other than the underlined sections, then I would say we really would be opening up to the possibility of delay. I can tell you there are, as a result of recent things that have happened, a number of recommendations I would like to add to this report now. If you open the door, you open the door all the way around.
I would support Mr Carroll's request for a one-week delay, but with the understanding that the only information being reviewed is that which has been underlined in the report and indicated as an update based on ministry information.
Mr Klees: I just want to point out, and I'm not sure if I'm the only member, that I was not a member of this committee when the hearings took place, so I'm at a disadvantage in not having that history. I also have to admit that I haven't seen the report until now, so it's not just a matter of going through and looking at the underlined parts.
Ms Lankin: That's all you're entitled to do, is what I'm saying.
Mr Klees: It's the context of it that's important for me.
Ms Lankin: Could I ask for further clarification on that, because presumably committee membership could change again tomorrow, Mr Klees, and you may be gone, or next week, and someone else may be in who wasn't there and didn't see it. There is a process that has been set up and we have passed the time in which caucuses can have input to the report and change aspects of the report.
We as a committee, through our subcommittee, asked for some updated information, which took some time to get but has been incorporated in. If we should choose to question some of that updated information, I can understand that, but we have arrived at an agreement with respect to the content of the report. If you're suggesting that this be opened up again, that's a very odd process at this point in time.
I'm very respectful of the fact that you're new to the committee vis-à-vis when these hearings took place, but I think it would be untenable, with respect to the process of committees, to have that option to continually reopen and potentially continue to delay. Given that this is over a year and a half old already, it really has been through the wringer. I think we must discipline ourselves in terms of what we're prepared to review over the course of the next week if we give ourselves one more week.
1620
The Chair: Mr Klees, I appreciate your difficulty. Let me tell you that I was not Chair at the time that this thing was instituted. In fact, Mr Gravelle, who initiated what was then the 125 motion, is not even here. But there is a responsibility on each of us and each of our caucuses to make sure there's continuity. That's really the issue we have to deal with.
There has been some time for review of this issue. I appreciate that this particular report is new as of this morning, but the report itself has been outstanding for some time.
There is a motion to remand this issue. There has been what may have been a friendly amendment of one week, I'm not sure.
Mr Carroll: I understand what Ms Lankin is saying and I don't have any problem with that. I just think, to make the five of us comfortable with what's in this, some time to review it so we know what we're talking about -- I'm not looking at opening it up again for more information.
The Chair: We couldn't in any event because of the deadline that has been previously set with respect to this.
There's a motion on the floor to defer this matter. Ms Lankin has suggested it might be for a week. Would that be considered a friendly amendment?
Mr Carroll: A week is reasonable.
The Chair: Can we consider them together or shall we have the amendment first?
Ms Lankin: The friendly amendment.
Mr Carroll: Yes.
The Chair: So you'll restate that?
Mr Carroll: That we delay it until next Monday.
The Chair: All in favour of that motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Mr Carroll: I would like to ask one other question too that was asked in the initial report back in July 1996. It's about the title. Back then the subject was Draft Report on Children and Children's Services and the question was asked, "At present, the title of the report is Report on Children and Children's Services." I've been led to believe that there was some discussion about that title and it was accepted as a title. Now I see the title is the standing committee report on "The Impact of the Conservative Government's Funding Cuts on Children and Children's Services." Was anybody here to remember if there was a discussion on the title?
The Chair: The researcher probably has the continuity.
Mr Glenn: There was a very long discussion at an editing meeting of the subcommittee between Janet Ecker, who was the PA at the time, and Bud Wildman, and the other individual at the time I think was Dave Cooke. We had an extended discussion about the title. At one point we said it was going to be just Report on Children's Services, at which time Janet Ecker suggested the title that is currently on the front cover just so there's no confusion over its relationship to the standing order or to who initiated it or anything. It was her suggestion and at that time the three caucuses agreed that it should be the title.
Mr Carroll: So the title on this document was suggested by Janet Ecker.
Mr Glenn: Yes.
Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to, if I may, as well for information: Each party has an entitlement, at least at that time, whatever the rules used to be, to their selection of one to five committees. This was our selection. That was our request for 125 and it was granted, so it's obvious that is why it's there.
Mr Carroll: I understand the motion. I'm concerned about the presumption in the title as opposed to the rather innocuous title of a Draft Report on Children and Children's Services. I'm hard-pressed to think Janet Ecker suggested this title. I'm not saying that she didn't, but I just don't understand her suggesting this as a title.
Mr Glenn: If you note in the title it's actually in quotes and the quotation is directly to the standing order 125 at that time. She presumed it would be the least technically confusing title to go with because it is in quotes as well. It is a quote. It is not the title per se.
Mr Carroll: When I remind her about that, then she will say, "Yes, I did that."
Mr Glenn: You can certainly go ahead and remind her.
Ms Lankin: If I may, my recollection of the discussion as it was reported back to me was the concern that if it was a report on children and children's services, the parliamentary assistant of the day, now minister, did not believe that it adequately reflected all the government's good intentions and terrific record on this because it was a compilation of --
Mrs Pupatello: Is that in quotes?
Ms Lankin: Yes, that is in quotations. I'm paraphrasing what the now minister must have said.
The concern as I understand it was that this report is a reflection of the groups that were invited forward to participate in a section 125 hearing and she felt it was therefore slanted, if I may say, to public or special interest groups, which is something we've heard from this government as a criticism in other areas. So it doesn't surprise me that it was their concern. The title, therefore, is just reflective of what the motion was and the section was.
If I may say so, I think it is the most appropriate way to entitle these reports, given that these are questions raised through the rights of the standing orders by opposition members for review. That is the question the Liberal Party put forward to be reviewed, and the report should be the answer to that question. I think that title is technically correct.
Mrs Pupatello: Can you confirm that we have a committee next week this time, that we don't run into some other delay?
The Chair: We will set a meeting for it next Monday at this time. That's the motion.
If we could turn to the second matter, then, which is the hearings on the disabled, just to recap, the hearings on this particular matter were held in January and February of this year, and what you have in your package is a summary of the hearings. Is that correct?
Mr Glenn: That's correct.
The Chair: We have not as yet even given instruction to the researcher as to how we might proceed, but I might ask him to just give us an overview of what he has prepared here.
Mr Glenn: As the Chair has indicated about the document before you, the summary of hearings under standing order 125 entitled "The Impact of the Conservative Government's Funding and Funding Cuts on Persons with Disabilities and Their Families," the title makes reference to the standing order, which is dated February 5, 1997. It contains a summary of the information presented to the committee by roughly 20 witnesses in January and February of this year.
The document also contains a condensation of background information provided by various government ministries that provide services to people with disabilities. That survey was facilitated by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation in I believe the fall of 1996. I think it stands as a very good survey of the programs which exist.
The document goes on to discuss various programs, the impact that witnesses reported, and then it also concludes with witnesses' recommendations for service delivery to the disabled. That is where the document stands now.
Mr Carroll: Would the researcher suggest putting together the information received at our hearings plus this document he just referred to, to form a report?
Mr Glenn: It has been the practice in the past that the body of a report on a matter such as this would be both things together: the information received from the ministries as well as a summary of the witnesses' testimony. Typically, it would also include recommendations by the caucuses either collectively in the same document or there could be minority reports as well.
Mr Carroll: He's awaiting direction now from us as to how to proceed with the report?
The Chair: That's precisely right.
Mr Carroll: I would like to move that we instruct the researcher to proceed with the report on item number two, "The Impact of the Conservative Government's Funding and Funding Cuts on Persons with Disabilities and their Families."
Mrs Pupatello: I second that motion.
Ms Lankin: A question: The document you're talking about is what you refer to through this as appendix A for full details?
1630
Mr Glenn: I'm sorry. There is a document that has been circulated, the summary of hearings into SO 125, entitled "The Impact" etc, dated February 5, 1997, which includes the witness summary as well as the information received from the ministries.
Ms Lankin: Yes. For example on page 5, "health services," you're talking about the information under "current funding situation" on the graph.
Mr Glenn: Yes.
Ms Lankin: Under that it says: "This is a partial list. Please consult appendix A for full details concerning these and other programs."
Mr Glenn: Yes. Is the appendix --
Ms Lankin: I don't have a copy of the appendix.
Mr Glenn: I'm sorry, that's my fault with the circulation of the appendices. It's just the ministry's full response. I believe it was in the envelope that was distributed. I'll distribute that.
Ms Lankin: Yes. I've gone through the whole package and I don't have a copy of the appendix. I'm in support of the motion, but I would like to have that circulated.
The Chair: Very well.
Interjection.
Ms Lankin: No, that's the witnesses -- the actual ministry information that each of these graphs has been taken from. You essentially have combined the information already.
Mr Glenn: Yes.
Ms Lankin: It is here. When Mr Carroll raised that we instruct you to proceed, what exactly are the next steps that you would be proceeding with?
Mr Glenn: I was about to ask the question after the motion was voted on whether or not to request from the caucuses their own recommendations or if they would like to include their own recommendations in it. I think the draft thus far is pretty well complete and ready for editing by the subcommittee. The decision that has to be made is whether or not the caucuses' recommendations would be included.
Mr Carroll: To be consistent we should, because again some issues -- obviously we've introduced a whole new act.
The Chair: We can deal with that subsequently. Perhaps we'll deal with your motion first. Ms Lankin, we'll make sure that the appendix is distributed to anyone who does not have it.
Ms Lankin: If I also wish to have the issue of caucus recommendations addressed, it seems that it should be addressed in the context of this motion. If Mr Carroll is going to move a motion for updated information to be included, I would like to see that before I'm asked to put my caucus recommendations in. We might have a little bit of a problem with the cart before the horse here in terms of these motions. Perhaps Mr Carroll would like to stand down the motion that's on the floor and proceed with the motion with respect to his request for updated information, what he wants contained in the report.
Mr Carroll: A good point, because I believe the motion should read that we direct the researcher to produce a report that includes updated information from the ministries that offer services to people with disabilities.
Mrs Pupatello: If we can we'll need to include then, if we're going to do that update on ministry policy change, information regarding the funding numbers updates in that same time frame. There have been additional cuts right across ministries that are mentioned here and they will have to be updated as well.
The Chair: We're now discussing Mr Carroll's motion. I understand him to have stood down his original motion.
Mr Klees: Yes, I understand that. In fact, I was hoping we would move in this direction because much has happened. I think it's important that we incorporate the changes that have taken place in 124 into this report.
Further to Ms Pupatello's comments, the relevancy isn't the cuts to ministries. The context of this report deals specifically with the impact and services to people with disabilities. Clearly we want this report to be relevant, so I think it's important that the report link the funding commitments that have been made for people with disabilities, particularly the provisions under the ODSP, to ensure that is reflected in this report.
Mrs Pupatello: I have to take the committee back to the request for the 125 in the beginning. I recognize that you weren't here at the time that was made, but the request was specifically for a 125 committee report on the impact of the Conservative government's funding and funding cuts on persons with disabilities and their families. It's not a wholesale discussion on government policy etc. Just like the report on children, this is a specific report on funding and funding cuts. That's why you see the content doesn't get into policy etc.
We are allowed as an opposition party to make a request for a 125. We've done that under the rules as they apply. We haven't done anything untoward or that we can't be granted. That is the request we made. It was accepted. It goes forward. So when we get into discussion in terms of updating, I'm presuming that the parliamentary assistant assumes that there will be additional funding information being added over the course of this last year.
What I'm suggesting is that there are additional funding cuts. If you start adding the funding additions, you have to also add funding cuts, but not a wholesale description of policy, because that's outside the 125. That's not what the 125 was concerning. If you have a request for a committee report that is going to deal with government policy as it affects the disabled, you probably have more wherewithal to have that done than we do, but that's going to be your subject matter. We selected the subject matter here and this is exactly what we were focusing on, not government policy. So it's outside our committee's report.
Ms Lankin: I'm going to leave and Ms Boyd will be taking over. I just want to indicate that I think Mrs Pupatello is correct in her characterization of this. Obviously there's a way in terms of the Ontario disability support program because it has to do with funding service or service which is funding, but you could describe that as funding. So you could do that.
I would just beg us not to do what we did on the last 125. I find this really frustrating. This was to review to a point in time when those hearings took place. Perhaps, if I may suggest, if the government caucus wanted to put a minority report in on it, you could do that in terms of the update, and others could as well. This is a review of what the ministry provided us at the time and what the witnesses said at the time.
Life goes on and things change, and we could be here into the millennium continuing to update a report in the life of government. That's not what this is all about. If it's a fight about who's on the side of good or evil with respect to these, we have our mechanisms through our recommendations. I would like us, once we've voted on Mr Carroll's, to get on to talking about the process for caucus recommendations to be submitted or through minority reports to provide a reflection of an update, which you have complete control over in individual caucus.
I would suggest that's a more useful way of doing this rather than going through the process of asking ministries to update numbers again. You saw we waited months and months and months with several attempts by Leg research to get information from the Ministry of Health updated. They're busy people and we're not high on their priority. I don't want to see this report fall to the same fate as the children's services report.
Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, could I just ask Ms Lankin something before she leaves? This has been an unbelievable --
Ms Lankin: I really do have to go.
Mr Carroll: Maybe I can just kind of ask it. This has been a terribly fractured process, one that most of us weren't involved in at the beginning. We've got a new minister, new PAs and so on. I agree it has gone on far longer than it should have gone on.
1640
What are we going to do with the report at the end? We've been two years, different people, different personalities in and out, different government policies and initiatives and responses and studies. What are we going to do with the report when we do get it written? Are we going to have a huge press conference and announce big, bad government beating up on little people? What are we going to do with this report when we do finish it? Are we going to table it in the Legislature? What do we do with these reports?
The Chair: The procedure is this, Mr Carroll: The report is written. If it's adopted by the committee, it then is tabled in the Legislature and is adopted or not by the Legislature. If it fails in committee, it goes nowhere. That's the only responsibility that we have. There's no requirement on us to have a press conference or anything of the sort. The legislative process is just as I've described it.
Mrs Pupatello: If I may, Chair, there are very few opportunities that the opposition parties have to have a public process under the official title of government except through these 125 committees, very few opportunities for us.
When we do have them, like the selection of these topics for discussion for the committee to draft a report, the reporting process from the research side is pretty clear and straightforward: "Here are the facts that come from the ministry," which he's got. "Here are the details of what was presented through the hearing process we went through." Then they report factually on the ministry information they were given and factually summarize what people said when they came for hearings. Then they make the report. There isn't a question that we can say no, this isn't the report, because it's a summary of everything we've gotten factually from the ministries. That's it. So of course we're going to accept the report when it's through, but because there's always that politicizing of it, every caucus then has the opportunity to submit their minority report to the committee's report. Yours in all likelihood in this case is going to go on at length about the new ODSP program. That's fine. That's going to be your caucus part of it.
But in the end, it's going to happen the same as happens with all the others. We're going to take this kind of document to the minister politically and say: "Here's what we heard. Here's how we hope to influence your policy." That's certainly what the intention is with children. You now have a minister without portfolio responsible for children. She's the first one who ought to get the detail of the report as written, because it's meant to influence policy.
The Chair: Any further comments?
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I feel at a bit of a disadvantage.
The Chair: Welcome to the club.
Mrs Boyd: I'm quite curious about what the process is that's going on. Having been in government for seven years, this process of 125 is quite laid out. It's got a long history. You look at the particular subject matter, you have people come and speak to it, the Legislative Assembly staff make a report and the committee has the report on what was said and what the answers to those questions were. Normally it's a snapshot in time. Normally it doesn't keep sitting there and getting revised every second. It's a snapshot in time: The questions were asked, the hearings were held, and the report is thus.
It seems to me a bit peculiar for the parliamentary assistant to be asking what use is going to be made of it. The use is that the information was gathered and the information then can be used in any form of policy discussion that's held. There is an opportunity, one assumes -- and I gather this is the next question -- to determine exactly how each party has an opportunity to respond to what is in the report, which is a factual report, and to make recommendations as a result. We all have that opportunity. So I'm not quite sure what the delay is.
Mr Carroll: Instead of a snapshot here, we have a full-length movie. It's been going on for two and a half years --
Mrs Boyd: But it shouldn't have been. That's your problem.
Mrs Pupatello: That's your side, Jack.
Mr Carroll: -- that most of us were never part of.
The Chair: One at a time, please.
Mr Carroll: We're trying to figure out what we're going to do with it now, and we want to be sure that when it does get tabled in the Legislature, it's something that we at least understand. That's the place I'm coming from.
The Chair: This particular issue has not been outstanding for two and a half years, since the hearings were actually in this calendar year.
Mr Carroll: Yes, this particular half. They tend to be together, so --
The Chair: I'd like us to stay on top of it with respect to this one.
Mrs Pupatello: Right now, what we need to determine is that the researcher is going to now complete the writing of the report. The only addition is that we get some of that appendix information to each caucus?
The Chair: There's an actual motion on the floor that I'll ask the clerk to read in a minute. Mrs Boyd, did you want to add something else?
Mrs Boyd: I guess the issue is, we shouldn't be full-length movies. Your term of office is a full-length movie, if you like. This is one frame where in one of the very few opportunities that opposition parties get, they get to ask some questions and get some factual material submitted and get some hearings on an issue that concerns the electorate. The reason, as I understand it, that it's been a full-length movie with the children's one is exactly this: You kept changing your personnel and people kept wanting more and more information. I would beg you not to have the same thing happen here.
The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to read the motion.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Carroll moves that the researcher produce a report that includes updated information from the ministries and offices who deal with such programs.
Mrs Pupatello: So that we don't run into where we were with the children's 125, what's our time frame to meet again on that with the updated information? Maybe what we can do is get it to each caucus in advance so that when we get to the next committee meeting, we won't have to see it new just at that point; we can go on and discuss it at the next one.
The Chair: Typically these kinds of matters would be considered at subcommittee first. It doesn't have to come to the full committee. The other issue with respect to children's services is an extraordinary one, and that's why it's gone to full committee. But normally the report would go the subcommittee and then be moved on.
Your other issue about the time frame, it's hard to put a time frame on responses from ministries, but I'd be certainly willing to hear what members think we should put on as a time frame.
Mrs Pupatello: What were you intending, Jack?
Mr Carroll: Obviously, the researcher has to request updated information from the ministries. I'm not in a position to force them into a time frame when responding. Hopefully, they would respond in a timely fashion, but I'm not in a position to say you have to respond in a week. It's up to the Chair and the researcher to perform that function. But I think it is wise that we have updated information from them.
Mrs Boyd: I'm looking at the report. It seems to me that the things that need to be updated -- basically, is the parliamentary assistant saying that he wants an added line for the 1997-98 estimates? As you go through this, that's what we're talking about.
It seems to me that if the parliamentary assistant wants to wait until the ODSP program is fully implemented -- and the statistics on individual things look very different than they do here -- that's going to take a very long time and it is not reasonable for a 125 motion.
If your concern is to try and include in a motion that was brought some time ago everything that subsequently happens up till the end of your term, that's not particularly reasonable. But it seems to me that those situations throughout the report where we've got the estimates for 1995-96 and the estimates for 1996-97, if what you wanted was the estimates for 1997-98 added to that, or even the actuals for 1996-97, that might be a reasonable request, since they're published. The estimates are now published, so that should be very easy to do.
Mrs Pupatello: My question is for the parliamentary assistant. Because the 1996-97 estimates are in here, what were you expecting wasn't? What update were you looking for?
Mr Carroll: I understand that what we have here is a summary of the hearings. Is that not what we have, Mr Glenn?
Mr Glenn: What we have, as I'd explained, is a summary of the public hearings on the standing order investigation as well as a condensation of the information received from the survey that was conducted by myself and facilitated by the Ministry of Culture. It includes both.
The Chair: The researcher has also reminded me that if the House should prorogue before Christmas, this motion fails. There will be no report. It ends; the matter is dead.
Mrs Boyd: I guess then it's fair to ask, is that the purpose of the parliamentary assistant's motion, to have the motion fail?
Mr Carroll: Pardon?
Mrs Boyd: Is the reason we're asking for yet another delay on this report because you want the motion to fail on the order paper? Is that what's happening here?
Mr Carroll: I believe we should follow the same procedure with this report as we followed with the report on children, and that is to give it to the ministries affected to give us an update before we finalize the report. The policy has been established. I just suggest that we do the same thing with this report.
Mrs Pupatello: My question is for the researcher. In terms of updating, as you look at what's been prepared, will the update include simply going to the financial records to confirm the 1996-97 estimates?
Mr Glenn: I haven't received that direction yet.
Mrs Pupatello: Jack, based on the way the report has been written then, would that suffice, updating the data? That way we can go through financial information to confirm, because the estimates were probably from the estimates books. Now we can say that these are actual estimates. Would that suffice?
1650
Mr Carroll: Whatever the ministries believe they should contribute to update the report I believe is what's appropriate. I'm not going to prejudge that and say, "All we want is this." We have given the ministries the opportunity in the previous 125 to update the information that they have supplied. I think they share the same opportunity with this report. I'm suggesting we give that to them without putting some parameters on that, "This is all we want." I don't think it's that difficult to ask them to update the information they've provided.
Mrs Pupatello: Actually, it will be difficult because if you ask them to blue-sky -- or here's what you think you want to put in -- as opposed to sticking with the information that they sent previously and then updating the data, then at least we know we're going to get it in within the time frame so that an actual report will be tabled.
Would you be prepared to simply ask the ministries to give us some idea -- I guess they'll know right away if there's more info to give or not, but that the time frame for them has to be within the week, that they have to give us the information within the week so that we will get this report tabled?
Mr Carroll: I'm not in a position to force the ministries into any kind of time frame. The Chair will request the information, as she did on the previous one, or the researcher will, and then we're subject to whatever time lines they can provide the information for us on.
Mrs Pupatello: Are you prepared to make that request, even knowing that it runs the risk of not having a report tabled? Are you prepared for this request for an update, even though you're running the risk of no report being tabled at all?
Mr Carroll: The report, when it's tabled, should contain as current information as we can --
Mrs Pupatello: But you may not get it tabled if you have it open-ended like this.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello, let Mr Carroll finish.
Mr Carroll: I think it should be as current as it can be.
Mrs Pupatello: Do you want it not to be tabled, Jack?
Mr Carroll: I have no comment on that. I want the information to be as current as it can be, as it is in the previous one. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Mrs Pupatello: The previous one is not up to date as of today.
Mr Carroll: It's up to date as of the deadline that we drew.
Mrs Pupatello: We see what your plan is, Jack. It's only going to make it worse for you. I wish you'd just get on with it.
Mrs Boyd: Madam Chair, I've just gone through this, and the only statistics that the ministry would have to update, the only statistics that have not been presented by hearing -- people who presented their own statistics in the hearings cannot be updated, because that was what they said in hearings. I looked through on page 5, page 6, page 7, page 8, page 9, page 10, page 11, page 12, pages 14, 15 and 16. The statistics that are there are estimates statistics. The last year that the estimates were presented here were the 1996-97 statistics. The estimates for 1997-98 have now been tabled and have gone through the process.
If what the parliamentary assistant is saying is that he wants the 1997-98 estimates added here, we can give the deadline of a week. They're published. It's easy. It's not a problem, because they're all published estimates, if that's what you're asking. That's the only statistics that are here that can be changed by the ministry. The ones that were presented by operations like MARC or the Kidney Foundation or whoever else were part of testimony. That can't be changed by the ministry. If you're asking for the --
Mrs Pupatello: What you're saying is that when we go to make the request for ministry updates, it's going to be very easy to provide it because they provided really a very limited amount in the beginning.
Mrs Boyd: That's right.
Mrs Pupatello: We should be fine. We'll be able to get it within a week.
Mrs Boyd: We should ask for it next week.
Mrs Pupatello: Okay, researcher, it's all up to you.
Mr Klees: I think what all of us want is a report that has integrity and that is current. I think Mr Carroll's reason for wanting that updated information to be included in the report is exactly that, so that we can in fact use it to improve services, to caution the government or to raise alerts as to where we need to focus our attention. I don't think it's just a matter of updating statistical information.
I've asked staff to give me the details, but I know I read a press release just within the last 48 hours that Isabel Bassett has made an announcement about what I would call a new information system that directly relates to people with disabilities in the province. I think that isn't just blue-skying, as Ms Pupatello put it; there was a substantive commitment to a program that obviously will impact the very people this report will deal with. We should be including that kind of information as this report is being drawn to its conclusion so that at that moment in time, when that report is completed, we know precisely what we're dealing with. It's more than just statistical information. Whatever the programs are that have been put in place by this government should be incorporated.
Mrs Pupatello: Just as we agreed in the last 125 report on children, all of us are going to have that opportunity to include that in our caucus report that becomes part of the document, so you can go right across all your ministries and find all the things you'd like to say concerning policies, additions, changes. All of that will be included if you choose to include that in your caucus report, just as we will. We're going to have the opportunity to make recommendations that will be attached to this report, and so can you. We've all just agreed to that process as with the last 125, and Jack is saying we want to do the same as we've done with the last 125. We should be fine. You're going to get exactly what you want in terms of added information in the report. We all agreed to do that with the last one on children, so if we're doing the same, you won't have any difficulty getting that information in.
Mr Klees: Just to follow up on that, what I'm saying is that if the researcher is going to be in touch with the ministries and ask them for their updated comments on services affecting the disabled, it should be complete and it should be included in the committee's report. Yes, as caucuses we can certainly add our comments, but there's no reason at all why current information should be overlooked. I think it compromises the integrity of the report.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor. I suggest we vote on it. Does anyone need it read again? All in favour of Mr Carroll's motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Mrs Boyd: I would like to move that this information needs to be returned to us by Monday, December 8.
The Chair: We have a motion that in my correspondence with the ministry I indicate that the information needs to be returned to us by December 8. Any discussion? All in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mrs Boyd: If I may, it's quite clear that this is just a delaying tactic and that the government clearly plans to prorogue and that is what this is all about.
Mr Klees: I think that is an inappropriate comment and imputes a motive to this committee that is not correct. That is not the intent of the government. It was certainly not mine as I voted on this motion. As Mr Carroll had indicated previously, we want the information in this report to be complete. I think the integrity of the work of this committee is dependent on a complete report and I think Ms Boyd's comments are out of order.
The Chair: I think Ms Boyd is entitled to say what she wants and it's not a question for me to rule on whether it's in order or out of order.
Mrs Boyd: I think the government has a very easy course, if that is how they respond, by saying that if indeed they should prorogue, they will hold this report over, as part of the motion to prorogue.
The Chair: In fairness, Ms Boyd, the motion has already gone through its normal course. If you want to make another motion we can certainly put it on the floor but at the moment there's nothing to discuss. Are you making a motion that if the matter is prorogued, there be a commitment from the government? Is that what you're saying?
Mrs Boyd: I will make a motion that if the House should be prorogued before this updated information is received and this report acted upon by this committee, the government members commit to having this report held over as part of the prorogation motion.
Mr Klees: May I speak to that? I think Mrs Boyd knows full well that it's not up to the members of this committee to make a decision as to what is held over and what is not, so for us to vote on that particular motion would be an exercise in futility.
I can tell you that I for one consider it an important report and I will certainly undertake to have discussions with our House leader on the importance of this report, to see what can be done to ensure that the work that's gone into it and the appearances of the witnesses is work that isn't lost, but I couldn't support the motion Ms Boyd is suggesting for that reason.
The Chair: Before you go much further, Mr Klees, the motion is in fact not in order because there is no power in this committee to do what you suggest. You would have to reword it if you wanted it on the floor.
Mrs Boyd: Exactly, and I think that in fact Mr Klees made what I would regard as a friendly amendment, which was that the members of this committee will make every effort to convince their respective House leaders that this report should not be lost should the House prorogue.
The Chair: You can't have a friendly amendment to a motion that's not in order, but I will take that to be a new motion.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you.
The Chair: Very well. Any discussion on that motion? All in favour of Mrs Boyd's motion?
Mr Klees: Sorry, I did not hear it.
The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to repeat it.
Clerk of the Committee: That the committee request of their respective House leaders that if the House prorogues before the updated information is received and the report is completed, the matter be carried over to the next session.
The Chair: Discussion?
Mrs Pupatello: You couldn't possibly argue against that.
Mr Klees: What is the implication of that, and is it possible for the next session to deal with this issue, because we have the matter before us? We have the information and the work has been done. Is it possible for us to deal with that information that's before us without having this matter carried over formally? That's my question. I'd like some --
The Chair: I think the response to your question is this: If the House prorogues, the matter is ended. The only way we could consider the information that's been received over the last year or more would be by agreement of the House leaders. Failing that agreement, there is no way this committee would be seized of the material.
Mr Klees: I can say to you again that I have no problem with making a recommendation to the House leader.
The Chair: There is already a motion on the floor.
Mrs Boyd: That's what the motion is.
Mr Klees: Before we vote, I am simply saying I don't have a problem with that.
The Chair: Very well. Any further comments? All in favour of Ms Boyd's motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Is there any further business that members want to bring to the attention of the committee? Seeing none, we will adjourn. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1704.