Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

SERVICE MANDATE FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

DRAFT REPORT

CONTENTS

Thursday 24 January 1991

Service mandate for developmentally handicapped

Draft report

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Acting Chair: Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West PC)

Vice-Chair: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

Beer, Charles (York North L)

Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

Haeck, Christel (St. Catharines-Brock NDP)

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent NDP)

Malkowski, Gary (York East NDP)

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie NDP)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre NDP)

Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt NDP)

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC)

Substitutions:

Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC) for Mrs Witmer

Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mrs Caplan

White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP) for Mr Silipo

Clerk: Mellor, Lynn

Staff: Drummond, Alison, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1402 in committee room 2.

SERVICE MANDATE FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Resuming consideration of the designated matter of evaluation of service mandate for individuals with developmental handicaps, multi-year plan, pursuant to standing order 123.

The Vice-Chair: I will call the committee to order. We will recess for 20 minutes so that members can read the draft report prepared by Alison Drummond.

The committee recessed at 1403.

1423

DRAFT REPORT

The Vice-Chair: Members, can we get going on this? I would like to start off with the section on recommendations and we can go through that.

Mr Owens: Could I just make a quick recommendation that we do as we did with the children's mental health report: we just flag contentious issues and leave those until the end for any further discussion?

The Vice-Chair: Sure. We will go through it step by step and those contentious issues, as they come up, we will leave to the end.

We will turn to Alison to take us through the sections.

Ms Drummond: If you will turn to page 10 of the document that Lynn had waiting for you at 2 o'clock, there is a brief preamble, as there was with the recommendations under children's mental health services. Then the recommendations have been organized in a very similar manner, with a brief preamble where it seemed relevant. The first section addresses the policies and programs under the multi-year plan. The second section addresses funding issues. The third section addresses advocacy and protection, which were issues which were raised a good deal in committee. After that, there is a section on training and human resources co-ordination, legislation and special-needs groups. I hope it is self-explanatory.

The Vice-Chair: Perhaps we could start with the preamble and we can go through each section. Any comments on the preamble? Any discussion? Okay, all those agreeing with the preamble. Carried.

Section 2, multi-year plan: policies and programs.

Mr Jackson: Mr Chair, in the second bullet, is it possible to further clarify the point I was hoping to achieve here: that services in the community be established to address the needs of developmentally handicapped people, whose aging parents have previously cared for them at home, on the waiting list for community services as well as people who are leaving institutions?

I just wanted to make it abundantly clear that these people are on waiting lists for support of some form and that they are being cared for at home. We tend to get confused with this concept that they are in the community, but they are in the community at home, not in the community at a halfway house.

The Vice-Chair: Do you want to repeat that?

Mr Jackson: I will pick it up in the second bullet, "whose aging parents have previously cared for them at home and are on the waiting list for community services." That was the nature of their concern that was expressed to us. It almost implies that these aging parents could be a mile away or in a neighbouring community. It does not imply clearly that we are talking about families who are maintaining care in their home with the family member and they are worried that they have to go to a nursing home and have no place for their son or daughter who is living in the home with them and they are on current waiting lists for a location and service.

Mrs McLeod: If we are being that specific with this particular point, and I appreciate the fact that it is geared to those who can no longer stay at home and therefore need a placement as opposed to job support, etc, it should probably read clearly "residential services." We are not talking about the broad scope of services at this point.

The Vice-Chair: You are making a distinction there.

Mr Jackson: I consider both. These are not a high priority for community-based relief programs and they are not at all on a priority listing for community residential. We are simply saying this is a bundle of community services which are residential and relief home care. The operative part here is that we were impressed by how important that need is without getting into which was the greater need, finding another home for them or finding parent relief.

Mr Owens: Could we address your concern by using the word "support services" in place of "community services" as a catch-all?

Mr Jackson: No. People First would object because the support service would be to institutionalize them, so they would not accept the loose interpretation of that. Community services are community services; they are not institutional services.

Mr Owens: How about "support services"?

Mr Jackson: We are saying the same thing then, are we not?

The Vice-Chair: "Community support services."

Mr Jackson: What is wrong with "community services"?

The Vice-Chair: I am trying.

Mr Jackson: I know. I think there is agreement on that.

Mrs McLeod: My only concern is that as we describe a broad range of services in the community, we do not want to appear in any way to be limiting those to people who are moving out of a home setting and into a community residence setting. We want to be able to ensure that the broader-base services continue to be equally available to those who are still living with the family. I was just concerned that we are beginning to be so focused on those who are moving out of the home into a community residence that we may be losing our focus on the broader-base community service to the others as well.

The Vice-Chair: Specifically, your concern would be towards the whole motion of residential services? I am just trying to get it clear so that we all understand the differences.

Mrs McLeod: It might be possible to deal with it on page 11, when we get to that one, on the second bullet point just to ensure that that broad-based support is available to all of the people who are in need of those services.

1430

Mr Jackson: Mrs McLeod's thoughts are helpful, but they are not moving in the direction I want this to go in. If we ask the community that we spoke to for the last three days what it considers its number one problem, it is generally coming to the conclusion that we really do not have programs in place for the person at home who is being taken care of by an aging parent. I get that from Brian Low, whether it is the ministry -- I get it from the association.

The Vice-Chair: I think we have agreement.

Mrs McLeod: We are agreeing on that.

Mr Jackson: All right.

The Vice-Chair: It is a question of finding the appropriate wording.

Mrs McLeod: I think we would be comfortable with Mr Jackson's wording on that one, as long as we can have another point in the document where we ensure that the broader-based community services are equally accessible.

Mr Jackson: Then might I suggest that we proceed with my wording, and that gives Lyn and Charles 5 or 10 minutes to develop the spot at which they would like their expanded wording to appear and then we can proceed.

The Vice-Chair: I think it was suggested that their points should be made on page 11, under the multi-year plan funding section.

Mr Jackson: Then let them do that and when we get to that point they can speak to it. At this point they have agreed that my wording was fine and we could proceed. That is what I heard.

The Vice-Chair: Is that acceptable to you, Mrs McLeod?

Mrs McLeod: Conditionally.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, conditionally. Mr Owens, is that acceptable to you?

Mr Owens: Could we see the final wording on that?

The Vice-Chair: Perhaps Alison has it.

Ms Drummond: Could I read it as I have it, and then we can see if that is what everybody wanted?

The second bullet point to read: "Services in the community be established to address the needs of developmentally handicapped people whose aging parents have previously cared for them at home and are on the waiting list for community services, as well as people who are leaving institutions."

The Vice-Chair: Is that acceptable? Okay, we have agreement on that. Any other matters pertaining to this section?

Mr Beer: In the fourth bullet in the group that we are dealing with on page 10, it seems to me there are two groups that also need to be included in the discussions where people are being transferred. If I could suggest this: "Developmentally handicapped individuals and their families, as well as front-line workers in facilities and service providers at the community level, be informed of and involved in...."

What I am just trying to catch there is that I think we do want to make sure that those who are working in the institutions and in the group homes are aware of and are involved in the planning. I think those points came forward in a number of briefs, not just from the union representatives but others, and indeed we would want to ensure that that kind of consultation took place.

I will read that again if it is helpful: "Developmentally handicapped individuals and their families, as well as front-line workers in facilities and service providers at the community level, be informed of and involved in planning moves from institutions and other transfers between settings."

It just seemed to me that would then capture all of those with the likelihood to be involved and make it clear that there should be that consultation, because all of those folks would be affected or could be affected.

The Vice-Chair: Is everyone agreeable? Okay. I will make that amendment. Now we will go on to the second part of that section.

Mr Jackson: Starting "parent relief programs"?

The Vice-Chair: Right.

Mr Jackson: I have a further addition to that if you are accepting it.

The Vice-Chair: Yes; now is the time to do it.

Mr Jackson: I would like to add a refinement of the first bullet. I will read it: "Flexible funding for expanded parent relief that recognizes significant specialized staffing costs; for example, nurses for children with complex medical needs." We heard that. We are saying that the parent relief is confined within a range but that the flexibility should also be in terms of whom we can access and would be more helpful at that time. It implies more than just flexibility of hours and flexibility of access but the flexibility of the kinds of support received. That is what I am trying to further refine with that recommendation.

Mr Owens: The issue of flexible funding is addressed later on in the recommendations. I think there is an agreement with all parties on this issue and I think the specific recommendation around parent relief programs should stand reasonably intact, because again, the issue of flexibility and funding and programs being individualized to needs, as opposed to systemic needs, is addressed in the later portion of the recommendations.

Mr Jackson: Where specifically?

Mr White: The first bullet speaks to flexibility and portability.

Mr Jackson: That is correct. I thought I had made that clear, that there are three elements of flexibility that we heard. This, in my view, generally refers to more of it and more flexible rules for its access. What is not here is that the range of support is part of a flexibility context that we support and they do not get certain nursing interventions or support, because it is not part of the criteria.

People were saying, "You are sending me essentially a baby-sitter, but my child specifically needs, because of the choking and the potential for the problems, the one-hour feeding." I am trying to put in context how that was conveyed to us, that you need somebody with very specialized training, and parent relief does not address that under its current terms of reference. That is the flexibility they were asking for, "Please, be flexible enough," so that when you only need a baby-sitter, you have a baby-sitter, and when you need someone with medical-dietary skills, you negotiate and work on an ability to get that, otherwise the mother cannot leave the home during a feeding period. The mother cannot leave in a period when they are expecting a grand mal seizure and those kinds of things. That is why I tried to be very clear about what I felt we could have enhanced with what we heard. We do not have to support it, but that is what I heard and therefore that is how I interpret flexibility.

Mr Owens: I do not think it is a matter of whether or not we support it. We do support the intent of what you are saying. I think if we can boil it down to less verbiage to address the intent, then we might be a little --

Mr Jackson: I am not worried about the economies of paper here. I am more concerned with the clarity of the report so that our constituencies out there understand that we heard them. Therefore, if it needs another half an inch of space in this report, I would be willing to invest in that.

Mr Owens: We are not, again, discussing --

Mr Jackson: Then I am having trouble understanding your point.

The Vice-Chair: Just a minute. Mr Beer wants to get a point in.

Mr Beer: We could say, "Flexible parent relief programs, including respite care and other specialized nursing services where needed, be enhanced to provide relief to already overburdened families." Irrespective of whether residential services are or are not being developed, we would want flexible parent relief programs. Instead of saying "such," say "including respite care and specialized nursing services where needed," so that those are by way of example and not totally defining what a relief program would be. Then, "be enhanced to provide relief to already overburdened families." Because whatever the situation, if they are overburdened, then we are putting the emphasis on "flexible." We have two examples of the kinds of things that were drawn to our attention, but they are not limiting.

1440

Mr White: I think Mr Beer's point is excellent. The other aspect to that is there is an implication with the last phrase that is presently there that those services will only be offered to children or developmentally challenged adults who are in fact on a waiting list for residential services. In fact, family respite services as we presently have them in my area are primarily for children who are at home. I think that is an excellent augmentation.

Mr Jackson: I did not feel those six words contributed to the recommendation anyway, so I support their deletion. In the interests of economy of words, we have left the impression that we support nursing support, and I was clear that I put an equal value on speech and other aspects of specialized support. I think Charles would agree that by tying it down the way he suggested, it meets the needs of nursing, but I am trying to hit down that there is a rigid definition of the types of services available, and flexibility to me means that in meeting a child's needs, we have to say that there are some times we will have specialized needs, and nursing is just one of them.

Mr Beer: Maybe if we just said, "and specialized services," either "including respite care and specialized services where needed" or "including respite care and other specialized services where needed," so that we are leaving open then the definition of what those services would be.

Mr Jackson: I thought the simplest way was to explain them.

The Vice-Chair: Do you accept Mr Beer's motion?

Mr Jackson: In the interests of time only.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, in the interests of time, it is accepted. I gather we have consensus on that. Shall we move on?

Mrs McLeod: Could I just make a proposal? It is not something that needs to be a big issue. I just want to ensure that we are continuing to be concerned about those individuals who live in a family setting. On the second bullet point on page 11, my suggestion would be, "Support to employment programs, job coaches and day programming be enhanced so as to be available to all developmentally handicapped individuals living in community settings."

The Vice-Chair: Acceptable? Agreed? Second bullet point on page 11.

Mrs McLeod: Shall I re-read it?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, please.

Mrs McLeod: "Support to employment programs, job coaches and day programming be enhanced so as to be available to all developmentally handicapped individuals living in community settings."

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? Okay. Any other items in this section for discussion?

Mr Jackson: Just a typo: "Grants received by colleges should be address any improvements needed." If we just recognize the typo, but other than that I am pleased that it was tied down in accordance with our suggestion there.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, that is a typo.

Ms Drummond: Yes, just cross out "be." I have actually noticed another typo a little further down the page, so I will try to address that when we come to it.

Mr Jackson: I will not have to raise that one either, then.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. Multi-year plan policies and programs be included in the recommendations. Agreed? As amended? Shall it carry? Okay.

The multi-year plan funding section. Discussion?

Mr Owens: With respect to bullet point 2, I would like to set that aside temporarily for a later discussion as a contentious issue.

The Vice-Chair: All right.

Mr Beer: What was that again?

Mr Owens: Bullet point 2 under multi-year plan funding.

The Vice-Chair: Page 11.

Mr Jackson: I want a separate recorded vote here.

The Vice-Chair: Can you just read that out again?

Mr Owens: No, it is bullet point 2 on page 11.

The Vice-Chair: Any other matters in this section?

Ms Drummond: This section has the typo that I wanted to address. The third bullet, "A portable funding mechanism which ensures that funds follow the individual into the community," not "allow."

Mr Jackson: I would like to put in there that the Ministry of Community and Social Services recognizes one-time funding to community agencies to upgrade group home improvements as required by the retrofit regulations of the Ontario fire and building codes. I would like to add that in this area.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, a new bullet.

Mr Jackson: I have shared the wording with Alison. I will not speak to it at length.

The Vice-Chair: Perhaps, Mr Jackson, you could repeat that.

Mr Jackson: Okay. "The Ministry of Community and Social Services recognize one-time funding to community agencies to upgrade group home improvements as required by the retrofit regulations of the Ontario fire and building codes." This is a safety issue for any member in support of housing with the changes in fire and building codes and their being safer.

Mr Hope: Could I have Alison read that back, please?

Ms Drummond: Certainly. "The Ministry of Community and Social Services recognize one-time funding to community agencies to upgrade group home improvements as required by the retrofit regulations of the Ontario fire and building codes."

Mr White: I would say this is probably an excellent recommendation, but many of the developmentally challenged individuals in these group homes are multiply challenged. I am not sure what the ramifications of that would be if we are talking of people who have cerebral palsy. There may be wheelchairs, a number of other issues, blindness, etc. I am not sure what the ramifications of that recommendation would be, given those extra factors, and I am not sure that we have time to study that costing at this particular moment on a Thursday afternoon.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Beer, Mrs McLeod, any comment? No? You are going to leave this one. Mr Jackson.

Mr Jackson: Just simply, there is not a single recommendation here that we have costed or studied from a costing position, so I just want to put that in perspective. Our only point from this was to identify the safety concerns, and we are not recommending the complete retrofit. We are asking this government to consider a one-time fund to address it. The concept comes up in several locations. We are not costing it because we expect the government to look at it and say that the will of this committee is that fire safety and compliance with the building code is a matter of concern. I do not want to be put in the position of it having been suggested to us and then not feeling it was important, and it was alluded to in one of the briefs. That is all.

I am not saying it has to occur in the next budget, which I know is a sensitive word for Mr Owens. I am not saying what year. I am simply saying this committee recognizes that the manner in which we have dealt with this in the past is to recommend one-time funding to assist those groups that have no funding base except from the government.

Mr White: One-time funding for each association and its capital expenses.

Mr Jackson: It is simply a recommendation to the government. It is not going to happen; it is just a recommendation.

Mr Owens: I hate to ruin -- I cannot even remember his name now -- Mr Jackson's day, but I would like to concur with his recommendation.

Mr Jackson: September 6 was the only day you ruined for me.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. We are agreed. Any other items for discussion in this section? We are on the funding section.

Mr Hope: On a point of order: We have a gentleman here and he has a list of things, and I think it is most appropriate that he be recognized by the Chair before discussion begins.

The Vice-Chair: I am sorry, I did not --

Mr Hope: What I am hearing is a lot of blurting out and no recognition from the Chair of who is to be identified as speaking.

1450

The Vice-Chair: Maybe I should have another cup of coffee.

Mr Jackson: I thought you had asked me when was I going to be ready to verbalize, and nobody said anything. He looked at me, and I said I had one more. I could not look at him and read my page at the same time, Randy. Maybe you can do that.

Mr White: You have hurt Mr Jackson's feelings, Mr Hope.

The Vice-Chair: I am sorry, I apologize if I overlooked someone, but I thought it was Mr Jackson who put up his hand and said he had another point of discussion on this section, so I turned to him.

Mr Jackson: And I was looking at my page to find it.

The Vice-Chair: If there is another member who wants the floor, I will recognize that other member.

Mr White: The concern I had, and perhaps the members opposite could assist in this issue, is something which has been addressed to the committee on a number of occasions: the problem of the local associations in really setting plans and in their infrastructure problems. The report here talks to a great degree about the co-operation among the government, the ministry and the local community services, but I believe the community services also have a need for support in service planning and with their infrastructure problems, such as was brought up during that long discussion. I am wondering if it might be possible to include some reference to that in this recommendation. I would welcome any response to that.

The Vice-Chair: Just for clarification, perhaps my clarification, we are still on the same point that was raised by Mr Jackson previously and you would like to amend that; is that right?

Mr White: I am sorry, I thought we had concluded Mr Jackson's concern.

The Vice-Chair: I thought we had too, but I am not sure at this point.

Mr Jackson: I found my last point.

Mr White: My apologies. I moved on to another issue.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, so this is another item. Accepted? Okay. We need some suggested wording so we can keep things moving right along. Do you have the phrasing for that recommendation?

Mr White: I had some. I hope it will be acceptable. I would welcome amendments to it. "Local associations be assisted in building up their infrastructures and in securing the consultative and planning services they need for matching with the multi-year plan."

The Vice-Chair: That is agreeable to everyone?

Mr White: I am sorry, "for matching the needs."

Mr Beer: Can you take it from the top?

The Vice-Chair: Repeat the whole thing.

Mrs McLeod: We are visual learners over here.

Mr White: I am sorry, I was going from the top of my head. "Local associations be funded to assist in the building up of their infrastructures and in effectively planning to meet the needs of their clientele as suggested by the multi-year plan."

The Vice-Chair: That is good.

Mr White: My apologies; it was off the top of my head.

Mr Jackson: Is there anyone here from the ministry who we can ask how we replace the word "infrastructure" for the word that was used in the multi-year plan? I do not wish to start reading to look for it, but I know "infrastructure" is not the word. Is there anybody in the room who can tell us the word to describe the network or whatever it is? "Infrastructure" is not the word used in the multi-year plan.

The Vice-Chair: Can we ask Alison to just clarify that?

Mr Jackson: I support it; I just have difficulty with the specific word that Drummond used. That is all. He is looking for help for that to be sympathetic.

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Jackson. Could it be amended to "organizational infrastructure"? Would that address that?

Mr Jackson: No, I just wanted to use the same word. It does not matter.

Mr Hope: So that we are not brainstorming and creating a lot of smoke, I think there is a direction to Alison to coincide that with the multi-year report.

Ms Drummond: Yes, and to be approved by the subcommittee?

Mr White: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: So we have agreement on that section.

Clerk of the Committee: Except section 4, bullet 2.

The Vice-Chair: Just a minute. I am sorry, within that section?

Mr Jackson: In that section, yes. It was to do with bullet 4, which dealt with the matching funding clause we were working on. What I would request is "funding be restored," not "funding in the field." Again the words "in the field" I do not think are appropriately used there. "Funding be restored to recognize the policy objective of matching funding for placement in the community for both people leaving institutions and for people who are currently being cared for in the community." That was the concept.

The Vice-Chair: Did everyone follow that?

Mr Hope: Could I have Alison repeat that?

Ms Drummond: As I understood Mr Jackson, "Funding be restored to recognize the policy objective of matching funding for placement in the community for both people leaving institutions and for people who are currently being cared for in the community."

The Vice-Chair: Discussion? Agreement? Agreed. Shall we move on? Shall this section carry, except for bullet 2, which we have set aside? Carried. "Advocacy and Protection" section.

Mr Owens: Mr Jackson can think of this as 5 September. The recommendation, bullet 3, we request that be set aside as a contentious issue.

The Vice-Chair: You are setting aside bullet 3 on the section on "Advocacy and Protection" as a contentious issue. Shall the rest of the section carry? That is the appropriate wording? Agreed?

Moving right along to "Training and Human Resources" on page 12, the next section.

Mr White: I am sorry, I have one specific item. The ministry is already funding an advocacy program and there was no representation from that program or the people who were involved in it. I think that is unfortunate. This set of hearings certainly was much more inclusive than the last, but that one omission struck me. We are probably going to be moving to a different advocacy system. However, that is in the future. I think there should be some notation about the problems with the present advocacy system in case we do not move to what is suggested.

The Vice-Chair: Discussion on Mr White's suggestion?

Mr Jackson: Can we have the wording?

The Vice-Chair: Do you have specific wording for that?

Mr White: I do.

Mr Jackson: That would be helpful.

Mr White: This would follow the last agreed upon resolution, so there would be a third bullet.

Mr Jackson: I am lost. What page and what bullet?

Mr White: Page 11, the bullet at the bottom of the page. This would be bullet 3 and it would state: "Unless and until an alternative advocacy system can be instituted, the present adult protective services program should be maintained. The `housing' of this system should be explored." Presently that system is housed with a number of differing agencies.

The Vice-Chair: Just to be clear, do you have that, Alison?

Ms Drummond: I do.

The Vice-Chair: Could you repeat that again?

Mr White: "Unless and until an alternative advocacy system can be instituted, the present adult protective services program should be maintained. The `housing' of this system should be explored."

Presently the adult protective service workers are funded 100% by the provincial government. However, they are housed with a number of different agencies. They are housed with public health in some places and with family services in others. In some situations they are entirely on their own with a separate board of directors. So we have a multiple network of funding for these people in their different regions and I am not sure how appropriate it is to have that wide a disparity in terms of the housing organization.

1500

Mr Martin: There is also the question in some areas, and particularly mine, where they are looking at the rationalization of various delivery systems to this population. There is a question of whether the particular service workers should be included in that and by so doing then creating a problem in terms of criticizing or advocating to itself on behalf of whether they should be outside and independent. There is a question there of that and perhaps this is what Drummond is also chasing. It really does need to be looked at and I am not sure whether it is covered in anything else that is here, but I could support it because in my area that is a problem.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I am just confused by the intent of the recommendation. It seems a little bit strange for the opposition side to be asking the government side about a recommendation that seems premised on not continuing with something the government has indicated it intends to do, which is the way I am hearing that recommendation. Quite frankly, I take as a given that the intent of the advocacy announcement is good intent and will be followed up, and that in the meantime the existing system would not be in any way eroded.

Mr White: No, I certainly agree with you. The point here is that I believe all types of service workers have been involved in the consultation processes towards that. My concern is that this is a major program for the developmentally challenged in the community. Perhaps that bullet could be excluded, but I do think there are issues. Let us say, for example, that eventually what is determined is that the advocacy system that is produced through legislation leaves this program alone and separate, then the housing of that program should still perhaps be explored. Regardless, we could leave that out if you wish.

Mr Beer: I understand what Drummond and Tony are speaking about and those are real issues. I do think though, quite frankly, in the wording of the recommendation here, it was a very clear statement by the minister, and indeed even prior, the thinking among ourselves was moving towards resolving that issue. It just seems to me there are a number of other different kinds of advocate groups out there and if we start talking about the one, I just think it can lead to confusion in people reading. My sense is that if as you go through trying to figure how that legislative piece is going to look, there are some holes, none the less those would be dealt with. I am just not sure if this would not make it more complex, because the proposal the minister made in the House, I think, stands on some pretty good research and pretty good agreement among the various players in all the systems.

Mrs McLeod: Just let us know if there are problems.

Mr White: It may not be a necessary addition so I suggest withdrawing it.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Owens, did you want to further comment on this?

Mr Owens: Are you still moving forward with the recommendation?

Mr White: No, I am not.

The Chair: I heard Mr White say he is dropping the suggestion. Okay, we are agreed. We will set aside bullet 3 as a contentious issue. We have agreement on the rest of the section. Shall the section carry? Agreed. Page 12, "Training and Human Resources." Discussion?

Mr Jackson: The absence of any reference to the Ministry of Health in any of our recommendations may require its surfacing in bullet 3 and again, in "Co-ordination," bullet 1. It strikes me that we are dealing with health care workers in areas and health programs. I recognize this is probably an oversight, but I think it would be appropriate for us to get that back in there and place certification standards developed co-operatively.

Maybe there is a role for Health given the health professions legislation review and some of the issues there that we have heard which might again surface in bullet 3 where we are talking about co-ordinating human resources planning. Again, Health should be involved. If we look at long-term care, we know that long-term care is predominantly a Minister of Community and Social Services envelope which will deal with developmental disabilities, so Health could be inserted in bullet 1 and bullet 3.

The Vice-Chair: The Ministry of Health is to be included in bullet 1 and bullet 3. Are there any other items for discussion on this section? Being none, shall this section carry as amended? Agreed.

Mr Beer: In the same point?

Mr Jackson: Yes, in bullet 1 under"Co-ordination," I believe Health should clearly be involved.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, so just to be clear, the Ministry of Health should be included in bullet 1 and 3 -- no, just the one.

Mr Jackson: Just bullet 1 at the moment.

Could I ask if we could get some clarity on bullet 2 in the next section, "Co-ordination"? "The Minister of Community and Social Services become involved in local planning committees as a matter of policy." Local planning committees for what? I just think we might strengthen that if we were a little clearer.

Ms Drummond: I refer that to Mr Beer. That was in the Liberal suggestions before recommendations.

Mr Beer: There was undoubtedly an extremely profound reason why we suggested that and I doubt we would want to change one word.

Mrs McLeod: Whatever it was. That would depend on which point we are talking about.

Mr Beer: We would be pleased to entertain anything that would strengthen the clear intent of that recommendation.

Mr Jackson: I wish to apologize for raising the question.

Mr Beer: I think you should. To be a little more serious here, I think the point was that in a number of places there are local planning committees, but the ministry is not always directly involved, and then what happens sometimes is that you then get something that is developed and a lot of thinking on that goes forward perhaps without the ministry having been aware or involved. Then you get sort of into a whole series of issues where if they were involved from the beginning and as a matter of policy, perhaps some of the planning problems could be avoided.

Mr Hope: If I understand Mr Beer correctly, he is referring to a standard policy throughout the province of Ontario that we follow, in a format, instead of every community going off in its separate way and there is some kind of direction in which we will be going, if I am understanding that clearly.

Mr Beer: I think also we go back to the Children First report and some of the directions around the local bodies that we are looking at in ensuring that they are involved.

Mr Jackson: Could I suggest we look at, "The Ministry of Community and Social Services supporting the development of and participation with local planning committees as a matter of policy." That implies that some are doing it and some are not, and it is a policy statement that we support them, and second, that they participate with. I think that would hit the essence of what Charles is driving at. It is a lot clearer than the way it was.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, we have a suggestion by Mr Owens on that point.

Mr Owens: I agree with Mr Jackson's suggestion. I am getting scared here.

The Vice-Chair: It is frightening.

Mr Beer: Dare I add my agreement as well?

Mr Owens: But I would also like you to include the role of consumer groups within those planning committees.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Jackson, I sense you want to point out --

Mr Jackson: No, it is okay.

The Vice-Chair: Do we have agreement on that, consumer groups?

Mr Owens: Yes, or consumers.

1510

Mr Jackson: The only trouble I have is with form. We have been doing a listing. If you look at the previous recognitions, when we refer to "the groups," we list them. For example, we excluded People First when we listed those people who should participate in consultation. I would assume that everybody understood that they were doing that. I am just simply saying that we have to be very careful because these reports are read in a very literal way, so that if you do not include somebody, they interpret that we did not expect them or want them included. That was only a cautionary note I throw out at the Chair, but it is more a form issue than a substance issue.

Mr Beer: I think that is a good point Cam has made. I think either we are going to have to list them all -- we had made that principal point earlier on in terms of the broad consultation, that we want everybody involved. I think in reading this one, the local planning committee, it would be assumed that we want everyone involved, but if we start naming one it suggests then that we are excluding others. We are simply trying to ensure that the ministry be part of that process as well, not apart from it.

Mr White: I am in agreement with that, but I am just wondering a little bit here, suggesting a change in wording a little bit, and that is, "As a matter of policy, the Ministry of Community and Social Services should support the development of local planning committees and participate with them on an ongoing basis." Therefore we are not creating them and leaving them high and dry.

Mr Beer: That is agreeable.

The Vice-Chair: Is that agreeable? It is a further clarification. Alison, do you have that?

Ms Drummond: I am not clear what the decision is on whether to specifically name the consumer groups.

The Vice-Chair: No, we decided not to do that.

Ms Drummond: All right, then that is fine; I have that.

The Vice-Chair: It is Mr White's last suggestion that would be acceptable to everyone in the group. Are you willing to repeat that?

Mr White: "As a matter of policy, the Ministry of Community and Social Services should support the development of local planning committees and participate with them on an ongoing basis."

Mr Hope: I am just starting to wonder if that does not take away from what Mr Beer was trying to clarify in his first opening remarks when he tried to explain --

Mr Beer: My second opening remarks.

Mr Hope: Second opening remarks.

Mr Owens: Whose side are you on?

Mr Hope: No. It is an open committee and I am just trying to get --

Mr Jackson: He is a lot closer to my point of view than you are right now, Steve.

Mr Hope: Again, I am looking at the clarity of it and when I started to understand it at first, it was that we needed direction for all local planning committees to go, and a way of offering information in a policy direction. I just thought maybe it was saying the ministry has to do it, and I think everybody has to do it.

Mr Beer: I think what I liked about the clarification was that the intent was not that there be only sort of one model or no flexibility in how these local planning committees go forward, but simply that the ministry be part of that, and so in that context I thought the direction that Cam went and that Drummond took a little bit further did not take away from that meaning. It still seems to me there is the broad direction, but within that we still want to be able to have the local community have the flexibility to shift things somewhat to meet the particular needs of that community, whether it is in the north or a rural area or downtown Toronto.

Mr Hope: Thanks for the clarity because we seem to be jumping from left to right to left to right and I still was not sure.

The Vice-Chair: We do that quite often around here.

Mr Hope: I am not about to vote for something I am not clear on, and thanks for the clarity on that.

Mr Jackson: Welcome to Queen's Park.

The Vice-Chair: I am sorry. I could not help myself. It is the Chair's prerogative.

Mr Owens: Lions 1, Christians 0.

The Vice-Chair: We have agreement on that. Could you please repeat that?

Mr J. Wilson: I want to go back to point 1 when you are done with this point.

The Vice-Chair: Alison, perhaps you could repeat that so that we all understand what we are agreeing to.

Ms Drummond: The second bullet point now to read, "As a matter of policy, the Ministry of Community and Social Services should support development of local planning committees and participate in them on an ongoing basis."

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? Agreed. Mr Wilson had a point to raise.

Mr J. Wilson: Going back to the first recommendation in this section, the intent I see, the way it is worded now, is of course to co-ordinate the ministries. What we have heard from some of the groups was the frustration by parents and handicapped individuals of accessing the system on a number of different points.

If the intent of this point is to co-ordinate, maybe we could say something like -- taking it up on the third line -- "services provided to the developmentally handicapped, with a view to establishing one point of ministry contact for the developmentally handicapped individuals and their families," the intent being that one of the ministries at some point in the co-ordination process would take it upon itself to actually be the point of contact for families. People were telling us they had to make several phone calls and it is a very confusing system to access.

I am not sure about the exact wording. You could put a period at the end of "for the developmentally handicapped individuals and their families." Then, "This co-ordination should be based on the principle of portable, individualized services," and we do not lose the intent of what is there now.

Mr Beer: Let me just think out loud here for a second. I do not think what we mean is to have one point of access. We are looking at getting the information, but in point of fact there would be multiple points of access. It is not all that dissimilar from last week when we were talking about children's mental health centres. Because that single point of access is a term that is used around long-term care reform, I want us to be careful, because there was an agreement from the witnesses that the multi-year plan should be necessarily within that system. It seemed to me that it was hard getting the information, but depending upon where the individual is in the system he may be accessing it through his family physician, at school, any one of a number of places, and we do not want to be saying that to access the services for the developmentally handicapped there is only one entry. I do not think that is what they were telling us. But is there one place you can go to get the information you need --

Mr J. Wilson: Yes. That is what I was saying.

The Vice-Chair: Do you have any suggestions on the wording?

Mr J. Wilson: Co-ordinated services, the way it is worded now, it is too loose.

Mr Beer: Can you read Jim's again?

Mr J. Wilson: I will make an attempt at it. Taking it in the third line, where it says "services provided for the developmentally handicapped," I had suggested "with a view to establishing one point of ministry contact for developmentally handicapped individuals and their families." Perhaps we could say "ministry informational" -- I was an assistant for years, and it does take half a day to phone all these different things. It would nice if Comsoc, for instance, worked towards setting up a small secretariat where people could phone. Gary mentioned at one time a 1-800 line. They might work towards that.

Mr Hope: I was just wondering, because we are talking about the community aspect of it, flowing of information, if we could not try to encompass that maybe in point 2, where it talks about developing policy and maybe establishing central contact for information purposes, for instance, somewhere along that line. I am just bouncing words out, but I think at that stage, when you are initially doing the planning, is where you have to develop the communication aspect and how the communications will flow. I think that would be important, that it play a part in that section not somewhere else down the road.

Mr Jackson: We have to be careful here, because we have already in place the Liberal government's initiatives on long-term care and it speaks clearly to the language of co-ordinating five and six ministries to a single window. It also includes the very people we are discussing, because a component for long-term care is the developmentally delayed or disabled who are in nursing homes currently. We already have a one-window framework that the current government is supporting which deals with part of this community, so it strikes me that we want to somehow create a second bullet which acknowledges that a small portion of this community is already benefiting from this government planning and vision and that we hope we would extend the same principle to the entire community of the developmentally disabled.

1520

That comes at it from the opposite angle, but the principle I would like to support is that we are tearing down a discrimination where, depending on how old you are as a disabled person, you have access as a parent or as an individual to a one-window approach. I would not try to burden the current paragraph, which really wants to talk about portability. That is, if I can steal from the old report, "a shift of emphasis" that we are trying to highlight here.

Mr White: I agree with Mr Wilson that this is a major concern. I think the issue the associations speak about, the prime concern in terms of the problems with funding, is the individualization of services. I think that while he has an excellent point, it is to some degree a major philosophical issue that may require a lot of discussion and hopefully consultation to resolve, which I do not think we will be able to do here. I think this paragraph, as it stands, already addresses some of their major concerns, particularly the individualization issue.

Mr Beer: I have one last suggestion. The question here is around information. I know that during the discussions on the long-term care initiative the community information centres came forward with a number of proposals about information and how it would be made available. For example, in Metropolitan Toronto the community information centre plays a particular role on weekends around welfare, for example, and other things.

If, in most communities, there is an entity, whether it is called a community information centre or some such thing, is the point here that we want people to have a place where they can go to get information about the system? That might even be a separate bullet which does not necessarily state that it shall be the community information centre, but that community information centres could play a role, or some kind of wording. I know they were looking at that and I just do not know where it went, in terms of some of the information needs that were going to arise out of long-term care.

Mrs McLeod: I think there is very much a difference from the long-term care model our government was proposing, which did involve one-stop access in terms of planning, that there would be a service access organization that would actually do the individualized planning that individual needed as support. When we looked last week at children's mental health services, I was one of the people who felt strongly that you did not want one-stop access for planning for children. You wanted to be able to access a co-ordinated service, but you wanted different points of access to it.

I think this could be either/or in terms of what is the best way to have a co-ordinated program. I guess the point Mr Beer made earlier was that we did not hear any witnesses asking for one-stop access delivery.

Mr J. Wilson: I purposely did not use the word "access," because to me, as both Charles and Lyn have pointed out, that is actually partaking in the service. It was more, as Charles did start out by saying, an informational point. Perhaps we could leave the first bullet intact then, because I think we did hear that they would like to be able to call one number or get information from one source rather than a number of ministries.

Perhaps we could put another bullet in after that which says that the dissemination of service information be coordinated through one ministry, to make it easier for developmentally handicapped individuals and their families.

Ms Drummond: May I make a wording suggestion? "That the ministry encourage the establishment" -- I would say the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- "of a central source of information in each community on the range of services available to the developmentally handicapped." Does that speak to some of the points you want to make?

The Vice-Chair: Is that a helpful suggestion?

Mr J. Wilson: Very helpful.

The Vice-Chair: Does everyone agree with that? Very good. Are there any other points of discussion on the section on co-ordination?

Mr Jackson: Bullet 3: I would like to amend in two locations the recommendation which I had asked for on school boards and the inconsistencies. I would like, "initiate measures including changes in legislation to eliminate inconsistencies between school boards in the access and delivery of programs for individuals with developmental disabilities."

If I may speak to that briefly, school boards will argue that they have the same program; what they have is different rules for access. So they could read it in its current form and argue: "We have the same program. It's just that we're allowing people to access it at different ages and at different points." In my view, its solution is in "legislative changes." I want the discrimination removed between regular day school students and children with developmental disabilities, and that is a legislative change, not a policy change. We already have a policy that says they should not do it, but we know it is happening. I would like to strengthen that as a recommendation in those two areas.

Mr Owens: So the first change is "including changes in legislation" --

Mr Jackson: And then: "to eliminate inconsistencies between school boards in the access and delivery of programs..." It is not the delivery of the program. You can deliver a program and not let anybody into it. I want to make sure they get into it. "Delivery" in legislative terms has come to mean, around here, that it is available, we can do it. "Access" implies that you will be able to get to it. With my background in education, I know how this has been working, and we really need to clean it up with legislation.

The Vice-Chair: Discussion? Is that agreeable?

Ms Drummond: Could I read it out so I am sure I have caught this? It says, "the Ministry of Education initiate measures, including changes in legislation, to eliminate inconsistencies between school boards in the access to and delivery of programs for individuals with developmental disabilities."

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? Agreed. Shall the section, as amended, carry?

Carried. "Legislation" is next.

Mr Beer: Under "Legislation," it seemed to me that there was just one other point we might to reflect. In a number of cases with social legislation, there are different pieces of legislation. For example, we are now working on bringing together the family benefits and general welfare into one act. It seems to me that it would be useful here to indicate, "Legislation should be updated to reflect the principles of the multi-year plan and brought into one piece of legislation," because there are a number of pieces, some that go back, and I think it would be strengthened if we had one piece of legislation. This is the intent. The government may find after exhaustive hearings and so on that there is still a need for some separate piece, but I think what we are trying to indicate here is that having the preamble reflecting the principles and "brought into one piece of legislation" would be the most effective way. I would add those words after the comma at the end of the first line. After the comma, "principles of the multi-year plan and brought into one piece of legislation."

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? Agreed.

1530

Mr Owens: I would like to make an additional amendment to that section; at the end, a new sentence: "Following passage of this legislation, the government undertake a program of public awareness to facilitate an understanding of the rights of developmentally disabled individuals."

Mr J. Wilson: This is under "Legislation"?

Mr Jackson: A good point. It should be under "Advocacy and Protection." You could expand it, but I do not think it belongs in "Legislation."

Mr J. Wilson: Could you repeat it?

Mr Owens: "Following passage of this legislation, the government undertake a program of public awareness to facilitate an understanding of the rights of developmentally disabled individuals."

The Vice-Chair: It is Mr Jackson's suggestion that we include it under"Advocacy and Protection."

Mr Hope: It deals with the legislation you are creating and developing. I think it is important, as you create and develop, that you explain to the general public. If you were to move it elsewhere, what are you going to explain? It does not give specifics. What you want to explain is the legislative change and possibly the new act.

Mr Jackson: Then eliminate the word "legislation," take that whole existing and the subsequent and put it at the end of "Advocacy and Public Awareness."

Mr Hope: It would take away from the meat of it. If we agree to it, why not just leave it there?

Mr Jackson: It is really not appropriately placed. I personally do not feel the need to let the public know flows from new legislation. I think the need to let the public know flows from the ongoing problem. We have people dying. We have a halt in the plan. There are enough reasons to have a public awareness campaign. I do not wish to suggest that the reason we are going to have public awareness is to broadcast that the government has changed the legislation. The prejudices for the handicapped community exist today and we should get on with the business today. It is a principle of public awareness that should not be tied to a piece of legislation but our ongoing commitment to help the public of Ontario understand the right these people have to community living. That is why. I really do not want to isolate it and say that awareness is a function of legislation. We end up broadcasting the legislation, not the principles of community living, the discrimination we are trying to tear down.

Mr Beer: I understand the point Cam is making. It did seem to me, though, that what Steve was saying was that this legislation, which was going to bring together a number of things and perhaps express them with particular clarity and focus -- in that context, it then followed that that being done, the public awareness would flow from that.

It is still a valid point and one that we may want to make just in general, irrespective of legislation, around the point of awareness. But I think that having a special heading on "Legislation" is important, because one of the things we found with the number of pieces of legislation in the social services area is how quickly they can become outdated and the need to really look at that as being an important part of any reform process. I like the way that came together under the heading. If perhaps we want to make a further comment about the awareness as of today, then I think we could do that, but I see a certain strength in linking that to the legislation that we are proposing be redone.

Mr Owens: I am hoping we are not going to have to remove this and put it on the contentious issue list. I would agree with Mr Beer, although I do not necessarily want to sit beside him.

Mr Beer: Was it something I did today?

Mr Jackson: I fully support what is stated in the legislation, but my sensitivity to this was developed by Richard Johnston when he first twigged me to the notion that it is wrong to tie the legitimate needs of the community for their ongoing advocacy to a government initiative. History has shown that all governments use it in a self-serving fashion to talk about what the government has done.

That is going to happen anyway. The government will allocate a quarter of a million dollars to sell the public the program. What I am saying is, if the principle is advocacy, then it should stand alone as an investment on the part of this government to help change the mindset of the people of this province and their treatment of developmentally disabled individuals, and not tie it to a piece of legislation which the government will interpret and may not be what the developmentally disabled community says it wants to say to the community at large. I feel very strongly about it. As I say, it was Richard Johnston who first flagged me on this concept and he was spot on. I think he would still be spot on if he were here today.

The Vice-Chair: Perhaps it would be appropriate, then, to ask if this should be set aside if there is disagreement. I will allow a few further comments.

Mr Hope: With all due respect to what Mr Jackson has put by our member previously sitting, I think he had reason to do so. But with the new government, we plan on making sure that proper information is flowed out to the community. I understand why it was flagged that way in previous governments. But we want to move ahead, and I think it would be most appropriate under the special-needs groups, I would firmly support that under the special-needs groups, that the proper advertisement or communication awareness to the public is put in that section also. I would support it to be in both sections.

Mrs McLeod: I thought Mr Owens' point was really quite specific and did not enter into the debate that Mr Jackson has raised at all. I had understood he was recommending that once legislation is created which gives new legal entitlements, we would want people to be aware that there was now essentially a bill of rights. That is quite different from ongoing advocacy, which all of us would support.

Mr Malkowski: Just to follow up with Cam's point, when you were talking about the issue with Richard Johnston, maybe he would give us a bit more of a point of reference on that. I am not clear on what that point was.

The Vice-Chair: Do you really want it?

Mr Jackson: No, it is a legitimate question. It surfaced with Richard and me with respect to changes in child care legislation. It surfaced with respect to the inordinate number of dollars spent on publicizing wife assault and the women's agenda without publicizing the fact that certain services were not available but certainly explaining what your legal rights were.

He also referenced it again --

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: No, it did not come up on the food banks because it was not a publicity issue. But there was one other. I know which one it was: access and enforcement legislation where there was awareness, dollars to promote a bill. Clearly there was conflict in the community as to how those dollars should be spent and who should be telling the public of Ontario what their real agenda is. I certainly am nervous about any government, whether it is our current federal government, the previous Liberal government or the current NDP government, as to how it interprets what it is doing for us and recommending spending large dollars on publicity.

The Vice-Chair: I do not think you have to worry about the previous Liberal government. It is not elected any more.

Mr Jackson: I want to make it clear I do not make a distinction.

The Vice-Chair: I want to move on to Mr Owens for a final comment, and then I think we have had enough debate on this point and would like to move on after this final comment.

Mr Owens: I am just wondering if we put a bullet point under the issue of advocacy. I do hear what you are saying, but I am still inclined to keep my suggested amendment intact.

The Vice-Chair: Is there agreement on that?

Mr Jackson: We can proceed. I really have strong views. I have shared them. That is sufficient. I just know that it is a sensitive point with me -- it is to a lot of people -- about how we spend government money to tell people what we are doing for them.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, is there agreement on this section as amended by Mr Owens? Agreed? Carried. Final section: "Special-needs groups."

1540

Mr Hope: In that section, just relating to what Mr Jackson has put forward about the need for public awareness, I think it would be important that we insert something in there about public awareness, because there is still a large percentage of the community that has a hard time accepting people. It is a not-in-my-backyard attitude at times. I think it would be most appropriate that we make sure it is a public awareness issue. I think the public has to be aware of what is happening.

The Vice-Chair: We are talking now about special-needs groups. You are suggesting we put in a new bullet point there?

Mr Hope: Just to try to pick up what has been communicated, I think it would be most appropriate also, and we are getting away from that viewpoint that it is government and government-manipulated, which it may have been in the past but will not be in the future, that we make sure that the independent source -- they will be able to see that communication is equal.

The Vice-Chair: I take that as affirming the amendment, but will I move on to Mr White.

Mr Hope: I was just picking up what you had put forward, but I firmly believe we need precise wording. That is why I tried it as a bullet point.

The Vice-Chair: Perhaps you could think about it. I will move on to Mr White, then if there are any other items --

Mr White: No, I will defer.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. Mr Jackson.

Mr Jackson: To be helpful to Mr Hope, I had indicated that its rightful place in my mind was in advocacy, which is where we placed it. Information is not an issue for a special-needs group. It implies that some of the public knows about it and some does not. I think advocacy is across-the-board awareness. Anyway, I have one further recommendation. I will read it and then answer any questions. "The ministry consider developing the necessary program enhancements with the Ministry of Health to eliminate the flow of funding to US agencies for people with Prador-Willi and establish community-based supports in Ontario."

Is that understood? I will read that again. "The Ministry of Community and Social Services consider developing the necessary program enhancements with the Ministry of Health to eliminate the flow of funding to United States" -- and the clerk might suggest a better wording than we have used in the past here, whether we use "American" or whatever -- "agencies for people with Prador-Willi" -- syndrome, if you wish -- "and establish community-based supports in Ontario."

Did we get that? I am simply suggesting that they consider the development of these, not that they be done -- I am going to make sure you get the operative word, "consider" -- with a view to eliminating the flow of funding to the United States.

I have several constituents who are currently being diagnosed and dealt with and supported within Comsoc and Health, but their programs are all in the US. These are becoming a great expense. For a special-needs group, the fact that it was too late to get the Prador-Willi group before the committee -- it was referenced by the Head Injury Association and one other brief reference to program dollars that may be utilized in the US -- I would feel remiss if I did not present this recommendation at this time. I have watered it down considerably in order to ensure it is understood that we are asking the government simply to consider these programs in the interest of stemming dollars that are currently flowing to the US for these support programs.

For clarification, Prador-Willi is a biologically diagnosed eating disorder which develops within the developmentally disabled community and others that creates a situation of obesity leading to death. There is a supervised element of housing component which is required and the ministry has recently acknowledged that it fits within the ambit of Comsoc and Health programming, but the program availability is in the United States.

Mr Hope: Just so I get a clearer vision in my head of what Mr Jackson is talking about when he says "people" and referring to numbers of people and the cost value that is slipping out to the United States, if he has some more reference to the material about the flow of people going there, I just need some more clarity in my head, before I vote on something, about whether I think it would be appropriate or not.

Mr Jackson: In the last year, I do not think it is an extensive amount of money, but we are looking at program access for Ontario residents in the nature of about 20 to 25 individuals in this province. It is not these kinds of dollars flowing as are with the problem of how recovery programs and drug abuse programs and solvent abuse programs, but none the less a program which receives funding to go to the US for the program.

Mr Owens: I am just wondering if I could ask Mr Jackson to explain the ideology and the prognosis of persons with this syndrome, the ideology of the Prador-Willi syndrome and the prognosis that these folks have.

Mr Jackson: The research is in its infancy. It is considered chemical imbalance is the area on which they are now focusing. Its manifestations are obesity and the uncontrolled urge to eat. The elements of community living that require supervision are that they will, for example, go into a restaurant and run up a huge bill and not have the wherewithal to pay for it, and going on binges. It falls between the developmentally disabled community and the mental health community issues, but because there is a supervision component to it, Comsoc seems to be focusing more in terms of delivery programs. The support groups that are now developing around it are through associations for community living.

Mr Owens: With respect to the prognosis, it is something that folks --

Mr Jackson: They do not know, but they have programs in the US, some of which have a chemical and basic component to them and there are some which are counselling and trigger mechanisms for people who then can know what the problem is. I do not wish to get into high-incidence rates among various groups because I do not feel qualified to and I think that would create an unfair image of the disease. It cuts all lines, but I know that the most sensitivity now is being expressed from the Association for Community Living which has several cases of it that it is dealing with.

Mr White: I was just going to comment that I am impressed with Mr Jackson's informed tutelage of us on this particular disorder -- I have not personally heard of it; I am not at all familiar with it -- and with his concern about the fiscal responsibility of our government. I guess what I was also concerned about was that the kind of program that will be necessitated for the disorder, you mentioned as you clarified it, would be extremely difficult to provide from the local association standpoint. It might in fact be the kind of program that might be able to be offered only in a larger-scale facility. In some sense, addressing that might require a total divergence with the rest of the intent of our report.

1550

Mr Beer: Are there other programs or are there other cases, different kinds of illnesses, disabilities, whatever the appropriate term would be, like this? I guess the question was just -- because I think a number of us do not know that much about this -- the way you worded it, I thought, was one that did not say you have to do this and so but to look into it. But if we specifically refer to this, are we leaving any others out or is this the key one that you have heard about?

Mr Jackson: This is the one group that is being caught between the chairs or falling into the crack. When we moved the Head Injury Association agenda forward, one might reasonably argue that they should not be discussed in the general discussion around people with developmental disabilities. Prador-Willi is put clearly within the area of developmental disabilities and it is the one identifying group that I have been able to find which is getting nowhere in terms of program development. That is not to say that these individuals do not need support and assistance in the community. My community is making efforts to assist them for a broader community in Hamilton. Mississauga is in fact where we are trying to develop this in the Burlington area. To answer your question directly, much like the Head Injury Association a decade ago, no one really was talking about them or dealing with them, but in no way did that limit their legitimate right to be dealt with.

Mr Beer: Given the discussion since Cam first read out his recommendation, could you, Alison, just read that back one more time? It is starting to be clearer to me now. I would just like to hear the original recommendation again.

Ms Drummond: Sure. "That the ministry consider developing necessary program enhancements with the Ministry of Health to eliminate the flow of funding to US agencies for people with Prador-Willi syndrome and establish community-based supports in Ontario."

The Vice-Chair: Just for the Chair's clarification, you said eliminate funding for that?

Ms Drummond: To the US.

The Vice-Chair: The flow of funding going to the US.

Mr Beer: Do we want to put in the wording the emphasis on developing the alternatives here? There is always a transition period and I do not know that we want to have an immediate cutoff, but is there some way that that might work; the emphasis on the positive, of the development of the programs here, or whatever? Because you know what can happen is that something gets eliminated, it is not set up here and people are in a worse --

Mr Jackson: Yes. I could even say "to reduce the flow of funding to US agencies." I know the minister is under tremendous pressure to increase the funding for these programs in the US.

Mr Hope: Just to kind of blend, I guess, both concerns into the first stage would be to reduce and then ultimately to eliminate, if that would help.

The Vice-Chair: I think the suggestion was, because I raised this, just a question of cutting things off abruptly, but I will allow further debate on this to see where it is going.

Mr Jackson: Simply, the objective here is to ask the ministry if it would consider developing Ontario-based programs. I am not wedded to the elimination of the flowing of funds to the US. I think it is important that we understand we are not providing the programs here, that we are having to purchase them in the US and that we are basically wanting Prador-Willi to understand that we are hoping we can provide these services here, that they should not have to leave the country in order to get assistance and support.

Mr Owens: I was just going to suggest, with respect to Mr Jackson's last comment, that I do not have a particular problem with the statement as a whole. I am happy he has finally seen the light about stopping the flow of funds to the US, but if we can just take that section out I think that might be a good compromise, if that is acceptable to yourself.

Mr Jackson: Might I ask what part of my political career would lead you to believe that I have come to the light recently on this issue? What was the intent of that statement?

Mr Owens: With respect to your party support of free trade.

Mr Jackson: That has nothing to do with it. I would ask you to be very careful about that.

The Vice-Chair: I think we are getting off topic.

Mr Jackson: Yes, we are very off topic.

The Vice-Chair: I will turn my attention to Mr Beer, who had a point to raise on this.

Mr Beer: In the wording that you are suggesting, with your suggested change, we would not have the part around the eliminating? The emphasis would be on the developing within Ontario.

Mr Owens: Exactly. In consideration of developing program enhancements.

Mr Beer: That is fine.

Mr Jackson: I understand the sensitive word. Just give me the word you want to replace.

Mr Owens: I just want to take out the phrasing, "eliminate funding to US agencies." I think what we are talking about is to get the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health in consultation to develop programming enhancements. I think that is the issue you are trying to address.

Mr Jackson: I addressed that earlier by saying I could move to the word "reduce." If the elimination was the difficult part, then fine, put in the word "reduce," but I think it is appropriate to note that we do not have the programs, that we are sending people to the US. I do not feel it is fair for any handicapped group to have to go to the States for its program enhancement or for its program delivery. If that is the contentious word, change it to "reduce."

Mrs McLeod: I just want to add a comment at the end of this discussion. I do not want to interfere with the debate about wording.

The Vice-Chair: I think we are just stuck on terms of wording and emphasis here. Is "reduce" acceptable?

Mrs McLeod: I support the recommendation. I worked very briefly with a Prador-Willi syndrome child so I am sympathetic to the concerns of Mr Jackson, but it does continue a little bit that we are dealing with a recommendation that does not flow from any testimony we had during the course of the hearings. In order to rectify that, I hope that it would be possible to circulate among committee members some information about the Prador-Willi syndrome and the concerns, whether from Mr Jackson or through legislative research, so that as we speak to this report we are all informed about the nature of the problem.

The Vice-Chair: I think that is a very useful suggestion. Perhaps if Mr Jackson has some information, you can offer it.

Mr Jackson: That will be great.

The Vice-Chair: Shall the section on special-needs groups, as amended, carry? Carried. We will deal with the contentious items now. Our able clerk reminds me we have an hour and 25 minutes remaining in total. Before we get on with that, Mr Owens has a point.

Mr Owens: I think we need to deal with the narrative of the report, as I would like to add one more contentious issue to the list to be dealt with.

The Vice-Chair: Do you want to deal with the narrative first and then go back to the contentious recommendations, or shall we finish them off?

Mr Jackson: I think we should finish the recommendations because the necessity for a minority report might flow more from the recommendations section than from the narrative. The narrative, quite frankly, is observable events as recorded by the committee. The recommendations are purely negotiated and interpreted matters. So let's get those out of the way. There should not be anything contentious in the narrative.

1600

Mr Beer: Just on a point of information: Are we agreed that we are going to try to complete all of this this afternoon?

Mr Owens: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: We have an hour and 23 minutes now.

It is suggested that we complete the recommendations first. Mr Owens, you wanted to go with the narrative, but I think it is better to do the recommendations as those may take additional time. I am concerned that we get that completed, whereas on the narrative I think there will be easier agreement. It is easier to get consensus on the narrative.

Mr Owens: Yes, let's go.

The Vice-Chair: Bullet point 2 on multi-year plan funding section: "The upcoming provincial budget provide the necessary additional funds to the special services at home program to enable it to be a primary home support option." That is a contentious point.

Mr Owens: One brief comment. Before we discovered what recorded votes were for on the last section, we had made comments with respect to the same recommendation under the children's mental health section. As Mr Jackson corrected me, while it is certainly within the purview of this committee to make recommendations with respect to spending money, I am not sure, however, that I would like to be putting something into a report that I am not completely sure is going to happen. This is why I suggest we vote not to include this particular item.

Mr Jackson: It is hard to comment on what you are struggling with. I can merely state that your rationale can apply to virtually half the recommendations. There is no guarantee that any of this could potentially happen. We attempt as a committee to examine these matters as carefully as possible, to listen as carefully as possible, and the tough part for us is to take all of those opinions and, in some instances where conflicting opinions arise, which we heard -- not a lot -- we have to make the difficult decision as to what our belief system is.

We have seen that governments have had to deal with very difficult decisions with respect to funding. We recognize that there is more pressure, the fact that the economic climate of the day puts even more pressure on these kinds of decisions. However, the legislative process called us together to examine this and we set out within that mandate to look at whether or not we feel we are committing the necessary dollars. Nothing in this report is binding on the government. It is simply a non-partisan report which is presented to the Legislature in the hope it will stimulate discussion and that, in this hopefully non-partisan forum, we can suggest to the minister that we have come to certain conclusions.

Having said that, I think I personally have attempted to temper some of my recommendations that I feel very strongly about, but I have tempered them in recognition of the economic climate in which we now find ourselves in this province. However, I still feel that on one or two issues they are worthy of the statement that additional dollars may be required, which now brings me to the very focused question, which is tying it to the upcoming provincial budget.

This has traditionally been an area of difficulty, yet I do not think it is as threatening, given that I have asked the minister on both occasions if she has been lobbying the Treasurer and the cabinet, because I fundamentally believe that she supports the principle of getting additional funding.

The fact that she may or may not get it, yes, is in the realm of uncertainly, but I oft-times look at these recommendations as being extremely helpful to a minister of the day, to suggest that there is wide and broadly based support for increased commitments and priorities in this area, and sometimes it even works as an excellent assist to a minister when she goes forward to see a Treasurer.

I have no difficulty making the recommendation and would suggest that it is less mischievous than it would appear to try and sound. Rather it is in recognition of the fact that everybody agrees we need additional dollars in order to ensure the safety of these individuals and to ensure their rights to access in our community. Therefore, the time for that would be in the upcoming provincial budget, in our view, and I do not think there is as much threatening about that as is being interpreted. I will leave it at that.

Mr Beer: I think a number of the points that Cam has made are good ones to reflect on. Let me perhaps just share with our colleagues in the government party that I can think of a couple of cases where there were committee reports where our members -- I mean government members -- were recommending some things that I sensed, as a minister, at the very least were going to be very difficult because of the potential financial implications. Yet there was also recognition that, "But look, in the best of all possible worlds, this is really what we would want to do." I am also thinking of the food banks report of this committee last year, and some of the recommendations of the select committee on education.

I know that what happens, both in terms of the bureaucracy and the folks around the minister, is that everybody gets very nervous because obviously if we get to the Treasurer's budget and there are funds for the special services at home program, are they "the necessary additional funds," and what flows from that? I think in terms of what we heard in the testimony before us it was clear that people really emphasized this program and what the committee is saying is, "Look, whatever the dollars are within Community and Social Services, this particular program with respect to the developmentally handicapped is the one to focus on and this is where it should go."

Again, it is a recommendation and neither the government nor a particular minister has to accept it, and I do believe, as a former minister, that we are trying to have committees -- and I think in opening the process more -- to express some of those views and that there need not be the sense that: "Well, can we do this? What if the minister finds it difficult or the Treasurer is saying, `Look, there isn't any more money'?"

Based on what we heard and our own discussion, this is the program I think where we would say we would like to put the dollars, and for that reason I think this is a legitimate recommendation which, to the extent possible, I am sure you and the minister and others would like to see implemented. There can still be arguments as to why ultimately that might not be there, or even if additional funds are put in, the opposition in its wisdom can always argue as to how necessary or how additional those were. But it seems to me this can be supported without perhaps causing as many difficulties as sometimes ministers and those around them think it may do.

Mrs McLeod: I just want to second what Mr Beer expressed and add to it a reminder of the testimony we heard from people concerned about the special services at home program and the fact that there may be a reasonable degree of fiscal accountability in looking at extended funding to strengthen this program, because there is less financial support needed to ensure that those children and/or adults can stay in a home setting than to move into a group home setting. It is an important focus for dollars, I think.

1610

It was also pointed out that the wages for substitute care givers were even lower for the special services at home care givers than they would be in a group home. We have already expressed a concern about the equity of wages between group homes and institutional settings. I just feel it would not do justice to what we heard in this committee if we did not acknowledge that this program needs additional support.

Mr Owens: There is clearly no intention to deny the acute need for money in the system. I understand that all three parties here have a clear understanding of that problem. The witnesses were exceedingly clear on that issue. The problem that I see, again sensing the acuity of need, is tying the government to providing something that may not happen within the next budget process, and I do not think we are saying that obviates the need for money. Again, my only problem is the time line that we are trying to tie the government to.

Mr White: Before I start my discussion of this point, I believe there is a small typographical error at the bottom of page 10 which I would like to be able to come back to at some later time. Could I discuss that now, before Mr Jackson's point?

The Vice-Chair: Is it a small thing? We can just make the correction.

Mr White: I hope so. The special services at home should be regarded as a primary program available to families. This is not a prevention program, as with the children's mental health services. People in the field working with the developmentally challenged often react to the sense of there being a disease that can be prevented. Could that be deleted?

The Vice-Chair: Could I just interrupt and say that if it is agreed to and it is something that we can get over with quickly, then we shall do that without any debate, because otherwise we are jumping into the middle of another --

Mr White: I realize that, but it would be a red flag for that community.

Clerk of the Committee: We have an hour and 10 minutes.

The Vice-Chair: Is that agreed upon on page 10, that we remove the word "prevention" in the last bullet point and get back to the original discussion or debate here?

Mr Jackson: Delete the word "prevention" and just put "primary program available to families"?

The Vice-Chair: Right.

Mr White: It could be "primary support program."

The Vice-Chair: The suggestion was made that we delete the word "prevention."

Mr Beer: But remember that the Ontario Association for Community Living specifically used that wording.

The Vice-Chair: Could we debate that after we finish?

Mr White: At some later point, yes.

The Vice-Chair: On the same point, Mr White.

Mr White: Back to the point we were on, if I could, I want to express my appreciation for Mr Jackson's non-partisan suggestion in regard to this particular bullet, and as well to Mr Beer for his lengthy experience and knowledge of the effect of these recommendations. But with due respect, I want to mention that I believe we are looking at what is referred to as the multi-year plan, not the multi-day plan, and the recommendations which we have are extremely extensive.

In order to incorporate pay equity, adequate funding, training, staff support and develop a program to gauge what is the necessary additional funding for special services at home would require a fair bit of time. The amount of time we would have prior to the provincial Treasurer coming down with a budget would not allow for those kinds of negotiations in terms of pay equity. I think certainly we should be supporting the intent. My concern is simply with the immediacy of this issue.

Mr Beer: To raise another example on this one, perhaps the irony is that at this very moment as we are talking here the Provincial Coalition on Special Services at Home, some of whose members were before us earlier in the week, is speaking to the finance committee on pre-budget consultation. But two years ago, the standing committee on finance and economics made some recommendations around the Social Assistance Review Committee report, about the funding of that, which very definitely had implications for the government and, it is fair to say, caused no end of anguish and discussion among those who were trying to argue how far we could or could not go.

It seems to me that what we are saying here as a committee is that we believe this to be the primary option and we would like to see more money in that program. My colleague Lyn McLeod had noted how that could well save us dollars in terms of other programs. It is ultimately up to the government in its budget deliberations to accept what this committee may say on what the finance committee may say. Often, there are recommendations which, for various reasons, they cannot accept. On the one I am referring to, in terms of the SARC report, the finance committee's recommendations were very specifically on that next budget, because it was the pre-budget consultation. So I think this is not out of line for a committee to do and would really reflect something very important we heard from the witnesses and would urge that we all accept this.

Mr Owens: As a result of the persuasive arguments by the members of the other two parties, I would like to withdraw this as a contentious issue and recommend all-party support.

Mr Hope: I was just going to put forward my support for this. I listened to my colleagues talk about how we can use it to encompass the shopping list and to supply support to the minister. I know it will be on a number of requests from a number of ministries, and anything that would appropriately help my minister to obtain funding for a viable program of this nature, I would support.

Mr Beer: If they wanted to invite those of us on the opposite side to any meeting of Management Board or Treasury, we would be delighted to go forward.

The Vice-Chair: Do we have agreement on this? Agreed. Shall the section, as amended, carry? Agreed. We move on to "Advocacy and Protection," bullet 3.

Mr Owens: The NDP caucus cannot support this recommendation, as there are currently two ongoing investigations. We cannot conduct investigations on top of legally mandated investigations, such as the coroner's inquest into the Christopher Robin institutions. At such time it is found that an inquiry is needed, the government will be pleased to do that. At no time will there be any effort to conceal any information. As information becomes available, it will be fully and freely shared with all those who request it. It is with that that I restate this caucus cannot support the recommendation.

1620

Mrs McLeod: I would like to concur with Mr Owens that we feel the appropriate investigations into Brantwood and Christopher Robin are being conducted, recognizing in addition that the coroner is involved in the Brantwood investigation. We think one of the concerns that overrides the two specific situations is the issue about the standards of care and the way in which those are monitored on an ongoing basis, which is why we fully support bullet point 1 and feel that this is looking beyond these two situations to ensure that this kind of eventuality is avoided in all similar institutional settings in the future.

Mr Jackson: It is no secret that I feel very strongly about this and certainly would like to put on the record that there is no legal impediment to the suggestion I indicated in the House, that this recommendation flows from a recommendation the current Premier made around nursing home deaths. I feel that vulnerable adults or children, especially those who have died, require the special efforts of people when potential for criminal investigations are at hand. That was a view of the Premier in 1986. It is the view I have in 1991. It is also the view of several of the deputants. I would feel remiss if I did not table it, because of how strongly I believe. The people died. We are, yes, interested in standards of care. That, as Mr Owens has said, is the subject of an inquiry. But to correct Mr Owens in his thinking, in this province's long history only one coroner's inquest has ever resulted in criminal charges. I, for one, feel that with those odds there will be in all likelihood no criminal charges.

I do not wish to belabour the point -- I would like a recorded vote -- but I feel very strongly that had this occurred in an Ontario hospital, any member of the community, with deaths of this magnitude and this number and without that information being shared with the public, there would have been a criminal investigation. I ask for no less for those children who have died. I have called for a recorded vote, and that will be the last I wish to say on this issue.

Mr Hope: With all due respect to Mr Jackson -- and I do understand where he comes from, because there were a number of issues in my previous life where I pushed for the same thing -- the unfortunate part is that there is a current investigation now taking place. When you have two investigations happening at the same time, there seems to be a battle or a mixture of what is going on.

I feel it is most appropriate, first, that the current investigation be completed, a report filed and if justification -- I believe our party is firm, because my Premier has stood on this issue a number of times. If we feel it was unjust or leaned one way, I am sure we would not hesitate to share the information with the members opposite. I am sure we will make sure things are handled in a proper manner that will serve justice to those.

The Vice-Chair: We shall now be voting on bullet point 3, as it stands now. Shall the bullet point be included in that section?

The committee divided on whether point 3 should be included in the report, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 2

Mr Jackson, Mr J. Wilson.

Nays -- 7

Mr Beer, Mr Hope, Ms Haeck, Mr Malkowski, Mr Martin, Mrs McLeod, Mr Owens.

Mr Hope: A point of clarification, Mr Chair: Maybe I am wrong, but do the total recommendations as a whole need to be voted on?

The Vice-Chair: No. We passed each section as we went along.

Mrs McLeod: The issue is the use of the term "prevention" in relation to the special services at home program. I would like to suggest that the word is probably not the most appropriate to describe the purpose and that the words be "primary home support," which would be consistent with the wording the coalition for support services at home has just used in its presentation to the finance committee.

The Vice-Chair: Let me get this clear. You want to use "primary support program"?

Mrs McLeod: "Primary home support" is the term the coalition is using.

The Vice-Chair: So you suggest we delete the word "prevention" and use "primary home support program." Is that understood by all members?

Mr Beer: If members want to look at it, in the presentation they are currently making upstairs, they say: "Recommendation 2: commit to special services at home as a primary home support option for families." That would seem to be the word. I would accept Drummond's opinion on that.

Mr Jackson: Just a matter of note, the next bullet puts a dollar figure of $30 million annualized for a total of $54 million of additional dollars they are recommending for the budget for fiscal period of 1993-94. Someone was asking how much it might cost.

The Vice-Chair: What we have before us is the deletion of the word "prevention" in the last bullet point on page 10 and the inclusion of "primary home support program." Shall that amendment be made? Agreed. We move on to the body of the report, page 1, "Introduction." Any problems with that?

Mr Beer: Just a question on terminology. Can I deal with terminology?

The Vice-Chair: Let's deal with each section. Standing order 123, is that in agreement? No problems? Carried.

Mrs McLeod: I just wanted to ask whether there should be a reference to the directive to the committee establishing the purpose of the hearings.

Mr Jackson: Would you tell us where it is?

The Vice-Chair: That is open to discussion. That is entirely up to the committee. Mr Jackson, do you have a point to make on that?

Mr Jackson: The same point: Where is the resolution which is the reason we had these hearings?

The Vice-Chair: It is part of the official record. It is not in the body of the report.

Mr Jackson: But when we did the food banks report, it was there.

The Vice-Chair: You want it included in the text.

Mr Jackson: I think it would be good form so that the public, when it reads the report, will know its genesis. Otherwise, they have to get Hansard and find out why we did it.

The Vice-Chair: First, is there agreement that we do that? There is. Where would you like it placed?

Mr Jackson: That is a leading question, if I ever heard one.

1630

Mrs McLeod: There is an indication of the directive of standing order 123. I think it would be appropriate to have a reference to the directive to the committee before getting into terminology.

The Vice-Chair: Somewhere between "standing order 123" and "terminology" we will have that included as a second point? Agreed? Agreed. Next is "Terminology."

Mr Beer: Terminology in this area is always sensitive. I would find it useful if Gary had any comment on this, but let me just put this forward. This document uses the term "developmentally handicapped." I can recall one set of discussions where the Advisory Council for Disabled Persons was discussing this and using references to "individuals with developmental handicaps." I know we can appear to get kind of picky, but the argument was that the term "individuals with developmental handicaps" was placing the emphasis first on the individual as a full human being, if I can put it that way, and then the developmental handicap is almost adjectival or adverbial. While I know that is a little more involved than "developmentally handicapped," that whole aspect of the sensitivity around how we use words and terminology is one we would like to express here. I just make the suggestion that we might consider using, "This document uses the expression `individuals with developmental handicaps throughout."

Mr Malkowski: "Individuals with developmental handicaps" I think should be replaced by "individuals who are developmentally disabled." "Handicap" has very strong negative connotations, saying, "They can't." But if you look at the disabled, they have a physical disability.

Mr Beer: That would be quite acceptable and I think very helpful.

Mr White: I am a little confused with this terminology, because I know the phrase "developmentally challenged" is often used and I am wondering why there is no reference to that phrase, which is, I would suggest, less pejorative.

Mr Malkowski: "Developmentally challenged" is not acceptable phrasing within the disabled community.

Mr White: I have certainly heard it used by that same community.

Mr J. Wilson: The term "challenged" is usually linked with physically challenged, which is acceptable.

The Vice-Chair: Let me see where we are here.

Mr J. Wilson: I think we have agreement on "developmentally disabled."

The Vice-Chair: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr Beer: Sorry. I just want to be clear here. Are we saying this document uses the term "developmentally disabled" or uses the expression "individuals with developmental disabilities?"

Mr Malkowski: Either one would be fine.

The Vice-Chair: To be consistent, I think we should just replace "developmentally handicapped" with "developmentally disabled."

Mr Beer: I would concur with the parliamentary assistant to the minister.

The Vice-Chair: Okay? Agreed.

Mrs McLeod: Do I understand that will be changed throughout the text of the report?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, that is what I was trying to suggest. I am sorry I was not clear.

Mr Jackson: There is now no reference in the report to the term "developmentally handicapped." Do we wish to include that as also being seen as more derogatory? My question is to Mr Malkowski.

The Vice-Chair: Do you really need a discussion on that?

Mr Jackson: I did not ask for a discussion. I wanted his advice on it, because we are not telling people they are not using it; we are just telling them we chose this word. Mr Malkowski shared with us that it was not the best wording but it was better than the other. I am just asking him if he wants us to educate the public that we would like them not to use "handicapped" because it is seen by this committee as being more derogatory. This is an opportunity to clarify that. Otherwise, we are silent.

The Vice-Chair: I guess we need further discussion on this.

Mr Malkowski: I think it would be important for public awareness that we do include it in the report.

Mr Jackson: "`Mentally retarded' and `developmentally handicapped' or `mentally handicapped' are now seen to be more derogatory."

Mr J. Wilson: That would be my suggestion.

The Vice-Chair: Okay.

Mr Jackson: Mr Malkowski concurs.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Hope, you had a point on this.

Mr Hope: My point would be that if we change that word, then we are going to have to look at our recommendations.

The Vice-Chair: It would just be changed once in the report.

Mr Hope: Yes, just once, just so that we all know.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, I understand we have agreement to include that. Moving right along then to "Historical Background," are there any difficulties with that section? Shall this section carry? Carried. "Demographic Profile" on page 3.

Mr J. Wilson: On the second bullet there, "26% report," 26% of what?

Ms Drummond: I can clarify that in the body of the report. It is 26% of those 275,000 children mentioned in the previous bullet. I will clarify that.

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? Anything else on that section? Shall the section carry as amended? Carried. Moving right along to "Existing Services" and "Institution-Based." Is there any discussion? If not, shall the section carry?

Mr J. Wilson: It just needs an "s" on it, in the last paragraph, that section.

Ms Drummond: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, the section on "Community-Based," moving right along, is there any discussion? If not, shall the section carry? Carried.

Page 5, "Multi-Year Plan." Discussion? If not, shall that section carry, the first part of it? Agreed. "Co-ordination," under that same section, on page 6. Is there any discussion? Shall the section carry? Carried. Page 7, "Problems and Issues," starting with the auditor's report. Is there any discussion on that section? Shall that section carry? Carried. "Temporary Halt: Multi-Year Plan."

Mr Owens: We object to the inclusion of the final sentence, "A witness also mentioned the perception that OPSEU had influenced the decision (OHIA)." Mr Jackson has characterized this as simply an observable event that took place within the context of our committee hearing. However, we feel that it certainly ought not to be the business of this committee to report unsubstantiated rumours, and the witness did in fact state that it was only a rumour. Again, we are not in the business of reporting rumours.

1640

Mrs McLeod: I think I would concur that while clearly the witness did put that in his written testimony, he indicated that was a rumour and perhaps that is not the best piece of his testimony to use in our report. I do think it would be important to reflect the fact that he did make testimony, and perhaps the issue of the confusion that was created by the temporary freeze on the deinstitutionalization program -- the confusion for the reasons behind the freeze -- might be a better part of that testimony to include in our report.

Mr Jackson: This section is deficient in so far as the notice of the freeze or the pause in the multi-year plan was as a result of a letter from the ministry on 15 November to the Ontario Association for Community Living -- that should be a matter of record -- and the fact that the freeze was in late November, but in fact it was in the first week of November that the decision was made. The report suggests it was in late November that the halt was put on when we have documented information from Val Gibbons that the halt had been put on during the week of 7 November and was being confirmed. We have the minister's letter.

I believe it should be in the report that concern was expressed that the temporary freeze was announced by OPSEU to its membership on 21 November and that the association was only able to advise its membership on 22 November. Again these are documented items which have been raised in the Legislature and certainly form the basis on which we supported the investigations of this committee.

Mr Owens: Just to comment on Mr Jackson's last statement, in re-reading the request for the hearings under this committee, in no way, shape or form was the issue which was addressed in this final sentence ever mentioned. The issue was around the quality of programming, etc. It had nothing to do with, again, the issue that is addressed within the final sentence of this paragraph.

Mrs McLeod: I would like to support Mr Jackson in introducing some additional material for background. The indication of the temporary halt was also not part of our directive to the committee. With the fact that the lifting of that freeze has been noted, I think the intervening factual information is also appropriate for the record.

Mr Owens: I would also like to object to the entering of information at this point with respect to this issue. If this is the intention you have, to enter your press releases or whatever material you have --

Mr Jackson: No. Your ministry letters while you are the government, I am sure you have no difficulty with that, do you?

The Vice-Chair: Let me just clarify something, Mr Owens. There is no point at which a member cannot introduce material to the committee. That is perfectly within any member's right to do so. At any point in the committee's deliberations, anyone can introduce any information he likes before the committee. Mrs Haeck -- or Ms Haeck.

Ms Haeck: Mrs Gannon, but that is okay; Ms Haeck under most circumstances.

The balance is missing entirely from this particular paragraph because the minister herself has stated on a number of occasions in the House, and in fact in front of this forum, that she heard from parents. She definitely mentioned she heard from parents. I feel that really should be reflected in the comments presented here. You have a substantial portion of the minister's statements that address the reasons for the halt. You do not indicate that in fact the minister had listened to parents.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, if we begin to expand this by including portions of what the minister or either of the critics or leaders said in the House, we are going to be in for some difficulty in terms of trying to keep an objective record. I think the focus of the committee has been to achieve something constructive, that what Mr Jackson has introduced is a matter of absolutely objective record with documentation. If we were to go beyond that, then I think we would, in fairness, have to go back and include major portions of Hansard over the fall.

Mr Owens: The missing piece in this puzzle is that the minister has cleared up and has clearly set to rest any misapprehension. With all due respect, we are satisfied that the issue has been cleared up. I agree with Mrs McLeod that we have done good work within the context of this committee and it is a little bit of a bitter pill to have to swallow at this point to end on this type of note. Whether Mr Jackson would like to introduce at this point his press releases or letters from the government, as you indicate, Mr Chairman, is clearly within his right. We still cannot support the last sentence in that paragraph.

Mr Jackson: If I may speak to this issue directly, I thought that in the best interests of a unified report we could negotiate down to a simple statement a recorded, documented incident which was discussed publicly in various forums about even the allegations of influence by OPSEU. That, in my view, is an objective observation, and I said it would be misleading and a coverup to avoid completely in the report. In our discussions we had come down to as simple a statement as this and I had hoped we had achieved that. Mr Owens has the right to change his mind or get additional direction and perhaps I was misguided by his authority at the time we were discussing this.

Mr Owens: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman: I do not think the purpose of the discussion is to question what authority I have within the limits of the subcommittee, and further to that, any suggestion that there was any agreement on my part is clearly misleading, that I had agreed in any way, shape or form to any kind of toning down of the statement. I placed my objections firmly and clearly on the table at the time when the statement was first brought forward.

Mr Jackson: As I recall --

The Vice-Chair: Perhaps we can stick to the main arguments.

Mr Jackson: We will stick to the issue, Mr Chairman. I, for one, have indicated to Mr Owens again in these meetings that we would perhaps not even be having this examination of the multi-year plan had not the nature around the temporary halt been done in such an unusual fashion in this province at that time.

For us to imply that there was never any question that there was no documented evidence, as I have indicated -- I do not need to present press releases, Mr Owens. I can present the OPSEU newsletter which openly crows about the issue, that they have obtained a halt. I have also previously -- this is not new -- entered into the record the OPSEU memo dated 6 November -- I would like that to be on the record -- indicating that effective immediately the multi-year had been put on hold.

1650

I am sorry, Mr Owens. This is documented, recorded correspondence which was expressed and exposed to the entire province. I do not have to interpret them. They have stopped. People are not allowed to leave except when their bags are packed. Now there is a copy. Nobody from OPSEU has denied the existence of this letter. The minister regrets, as does the Premier, that it happened, but we cannot abide this report which must be fixed in time in this province's history without there being an understanding that there was some concern expressed out there by all groups.

I have letters demanding resignations, if you want me to get into actual testimony to be presented to this committee. I thought I had tempered it during my questioning. I thought I handled it in a most responsible way, as did the groups. But I think we would do an incredible disservice and I submit we are participating in a coverup if we try to imply that there were not concerns raised about the degree to which OPSEU may have influenced the minister in her decision.

I accept the minister's statement. I am not saying she did not tell the truth. I am saying there were clearly statements made by OPSEU. I have never said in this committee setting exactly what happened, but I am suggesting that I must stick to this principle. It would be unfortunate that a minority report would be called for simply to express my concern that the NDP refuses to acknowledge the existence of the documented evidence which all the deputants were aware of and have, on the record, at some time expressed very serious reservations about it. It will never happen again, Mr Owens, if we have at least recorded it somewhere that it should not, and I am not even asking for that. It will be a minority report if that sentence is taken out to begin with, for God's sake.

Mrs McLeod: I just would like to indicate that I also believe the documented evidence Mr Jackson has proposed entering as some part of the record is as much a part of that record, certainly, as the reference to the minister's statement which appears in the body of this report, and therefore the documented evidence is as relevant to the record as statements from the minister made during the course of the committee hearings.

I think that as we look at a record of what took place at the time of the temporary halt, the documented evidence of what was in fact known at that time is even more relevant than the minister's statement. I cannot concur with Mr Owens that I can take satisfaction from the minister's statement with a retroactive explanation of the reasons for that halt. I was prepared and am prepared to move past that, so that we can deal with a constructive review of the program, and move beyond that so that it does have a constructive outcome, but I would be concerned about censoring a record of what took place at that time.

The Vice-Chair: At this point I am a little concerned that we are going to run out of time very quickly. We have two more speakers on the list and I am going to allow them their say and then I think we should move from there.

Mr White: I am concerned that we seem to be sliding into partisan rhetoric here. I am reminded of Mr Jackson's point that in the report here we are dealing with substantive issues around program delivery and we should be producing a clearly non-partisan directive document. It seems to me that on the halt we are talking about in this debate, I do not have the clarity from these two days of hearings about this particular issue that I think I would need to be able to make a clear decision on this issue. So I have real reservations about having these items included when I am not really clear about them, certainly not from our discussions over Monday and Tuesday.

The second thing I am concerned about is that we are talking about a halt -- there seems to be a debate whether it was six weeks, six days, four weeks, whatever -- in a multi-year plan and in fact a process which has been ongoing since 1974, some 16 or 17 years. We seem to be giving a great deal of attention to a fairly small aspect of the development of these programs, and this kind of partisan rancour seems really unfortunate given the substantive agreements we have had in these other areas and the importance of proceeding with the report as a whole. It just strikes me as being an unnecessary highlighting of what seems to be an unsubstantiated rumour or whatever, and I fail to see that much would be achieved by a continuation of this discussion.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I really have to register a concern, after our days of hearings and I think a demonstration on all sides of real concern about this program and about the individuals who are affected by the program, that our indications that we would like the record to be clearly a record of what took place is now being attributed as partisan rhetoric. We were genuinely concerned with what took place and we were genuinely concerned that the only information that was available to us at the time about the reasons for that delay -- in fact I would have to amend my statement by saying there really were not reasons given, and that was a source of the confusion. It was the source of our concern. One of our witnesses clearly indicated that it continued it to be a source of confusion for people out in the field.

We were very deeply concerned about the lack of consultation prior to the freeze. We were deeply concerned about reasons not being given. We were concerned about the confusion that resulted. I do not think it is fair to suggest that is partisan rhetoric. We were prepared to move past that in this committee, but before us in this preamble is a statement of record. Much of what is here has not been discussed in the two days. It is nevertheless a part of the record and for us it was a genuinely important part of the record because of our concern for those individuals.

Mr Owens: I guess with respect to what Mrs McLeod has said -- maybe it was Mr Jackson -- about people reading reports and taking them extremely literally, our concern is that the whole issue may come down to that, when a person reads this report, of course it is going to appear that there has been some collusion between the minister and the union, and to my knowledge and to the knowledge of the minister that has not been demonstrated in the House. It has not been demonstrated anywhere, and again, to report unsubstantiated rumour is clearly not within the mandate of the committee.

Mr Jackson: Have you seen that letter?

Mr Owens: No, I have not, actually.

Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, to be helpful, perhaps I can share the letter. He said he has never read the 6 November letter from OPSEU.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, on a point of order --

The Vice-Chair: It is not a point of order. Mr Owens has the floor.

Mr Owens: It is again with those thoughts in mind that we cannot support the inclusion of that last statement in the report.

Mr Beer: Mr Chair, I think what we are talking about here is what is part of the public record and making clear in our report what resulted in calling for this review.

On the record, we have the minister's statement, we have the minister's letter, we have a letter from OPSEU. Is it possible that we put in the middle of that paragraph where it says, "A substantial portion of the minister's statement to the committee addressed the reasons for the halt and for the ongoing review of the multi-year plan," if we then had a sentence, something that noted "material related to this is appended" as part of the report, which would include therefore those public documents that are part of the public record, that have been introduced at different points in the discussion, but where the committee would not be expressing any particular point as to whether this in fact happened or did not happen?

Anybody then reading the record of our deliberations would simply have documents that in fact were part of the public record, and that would include the minister's speech and the two or three other documents that are there. I think we had said then that the last sentence would not be necessary, but it would at least respect the public record. I am wondering if there is some possibility of expressing it that way, which does not mean we get into a long discussion of whether this was correct or not correct but at least have it as part of the public record.

The Vice-Chair: Is there any discussion on Mr Beer's suggestion to make that change? No agreement on that. Okay. Any further debate on this point?

Mr Jackson: It is not a debate; it is a clarification, Mr Chairman. Are the NDP members indicating they are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the minister informed OPSEU on date X and then informed the association and community on date Y as observable events? Are they not prepared to include that in the narrative explanation of what went on? Oh, no. That is part of what Charles was saying. These are the issues that are --

The Vice-Chair: Sorry, Mr Jackson. I have Mr Hope next on the list.

Mr Hope: Just dealing with documentation which is to be presented, documentation that is not written by the ministry's hands, I would have a hard time, because we are not a governing power. As Mr Jackson has stated, he has ministry letterhead, or with the deputy minister's signature on it as being a part of it.

Mr Jackson: You do not believe that the deputy minister can speak for your government. Very interesting.

Mr Hope: With the minister's signature on a piece of documentation, I could understand it being part of it, but to put a piece of OPSEU's newsletter, something we do not have governing power on, I sometimes wonder.

Mrs McLeod: I think the issue is one of reasons offered, understanding in the community at large about the action that was taken, which did give rise to the request for hearings at this committee, and if a letter with the deputy minister's signature on it going out to the community agencies, which was the only piece of information that the community agencies received, is not considered to be acceptable documentation of what took place, then we would have to have the record show that no communication took place with the community agencies, because that is all they received.

The Vice-Chair: One final question. I would just like to remind members that we are quickly running out of time and, Mr Owens, you are going to have to deal with this matter.

Mr Jackson: I was simply going to request that the clock be stopped and that we have a fast five-minute caucus, recess, whatever.

The Vice-Chair: Is that agreed? We will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed at 1703.

1711

The Vice-Chair: Can we call the meeting back to order? Mr Owens.

Mr Owens: I would like to revisit the idea that Mr Beer suggested with respect to eliminating the sentence in the "Temporary Halt: Multi-Year Plan" section and to go forward with developing, I guess in a fast manner, some wording that is acceptable to all three parties, if that is acceptable to Mr Jackson.

Mr Jackson: You do not expect me to agree to withdrawing a sentence in support of wording I have not seen nor worked on, so from that simple perspective I could not buy into that one bit. If we are to hold the clock and reconvene tomorrow, then maybe, but I am not prepared to release this sentence under any circumstances. Maybe that will be helpful to the committee.

The Vice-Chair: Would the committee desire a quick recess and then come back?

Mr Owens: Perhaps we can stop the clock, as Mr Jackson has suggested, but continue to work as a group. I think there is mutual agreement that --

The Vice-Chair: No, no. Let me get this clear --

Mr Jackson: That is what I said. I am not prepared to release the sentence, so let's get on with the vote, because I do not need tonight and tomorrow to work on the dissenting opinion. That is not a threat. It is nothing. I have stated my ground and let's get on with it. That is all. I do not wish to burden this committee further.

The Vice-Chair: I do not think we have agreement, so we must move on. Can we deal with that section, Mr Beer, before we deal with the matter?

Mr Beer: Did you want to try some wording on that?

The Vice-Chair: We do not have agreement, Mr Beer, in terms of a consensus position. Mr Jackson does not agree with carrying forward with that kind of initiative.

Mr Jackson: To be helpful, I would be prepared to work on wording, but not as a condition of removing that sentence. That is what I thought I heard. I was just being clear.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Owens, is that what the understanding was?

Mr Owens: The two are hinged, that with the acceptance of the wording, the last sentence be removed.

Mr Jackson: That is what I thought.

The Vice-Chair: And you are not prepared to agree with that.

Mr Jackson: No.

The Vice-Chair: That is pretty clear now. Is that clear to everyone? Mr. Hope, one final comment.

Mr Hope: Yes, just one final comment. By putting the so-called documentation that he has and filing it as part of the report, I would see no problem with it. It is public information. But the last line is not one that is justifiable.

The Vice-Chair: We have reached a point where I think we must carry on and I think we will put it to a vote.

Mr Beer: No, I am sorry, Mr Chairman.

The Vice-Chair: Point of order, Mr Beer.

Mr Beer: It is just that there are different things which may or may not be able to happen here. There is some wording that we would like to suggest after that phrase "multi-year plan" which in our view might encompass the concern we have expressed. It may not encompass that which Cam has expressed, but that would obviously then alter it. If we were to have a vote, it would potentially affect that.

The Vice-Chair: Can I remind members that we did have a recess, and if you would like to recess again -- if not, I will proceed with the vote, because I do not see a consensus. I am forced to do that.

Mr Beer: Can we have a five-minute recess then in order to see if we can come up with the wording?

The Vice-Chair: If we have consensus to do that, I certainly will accede to the wishes of the committee. Do we have agreement to recess for 5 or 10 minutes? Mr Jackson, is that agreed?

Mr Jackson: To recess for five? Is that what you are asking me?

The Vice-Chair: That is what is being put forward.

Mr Jackson: Sure, no problem.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. Mr Owens, agreed? Recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed at 1715.

1740

The Vice-Chair: I call the meeting back to order.

Mr Owens: Mr Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amended wording, as proposed by the other two parties, that the matter was raised in the Legislature, and we agree that the material that has been presented to this committee by Mr Jackson -- which is a 15 November letter to Harry Zwerver signed by Val Gibbons, a memorandum to Ms Nancy Stone, president, Ontario Association for Community Living, as well as a 6 November memorandum sent to the membership over the signature of Nora Anderson from president, OPSEU, Local 117 -- be appended to the report. While I have not read them in sequential order, I would respectfully request that they be entered in sequential order. We also will agree to the withdrawal of the last sentence in "Temporary Halt: Multi-Year Plan."

The Vice-Chair: Is there agreement on what Mr Owens has proposed? Mr Beer, Mrs McLeod?

Mr Beer: Just a point of clarification: Are the wording changes acceptable?

Mr Owens: Yes, they are. We did not put them into the order, but they will appear in the draft report. However, the wording that the matter was raised in the Legislature 28 November and 17 December that, "One witness noted that confusion created by the halt continues," is acceptable, and again the withdrawal of the final sentence in that section, "A witness also mentioned the perception that OPSEU had influenced the decision (OHIA)."

The Vice-Chair: Okay. Can I get this clarified for Alison for purposes of rewriting that section to reflect what you just said? Can someone suggest wording then that would be more appropriate?

Mr Beer: Can we stop the clock?

The Vice-Chair: Is there agreement to recess for a couple of minutes?

The committee recessed at 1744.

1748

The Vice-Chair: Order. Can we resume our meeting? Mr Owens, do you have a proposal?

Mr Owens: Alison has the records. I would like to move that the committee accept, as read slowly, so that we can all --

Ms Drummond: Very slowly, and people make noises if I am doing something wrong.

The paragraph will now read: "In early November 1990, a temporary halt on transfers from institutions was placed by the new minister. The matter was raised in the Legislature during question period on November 28. A review of the community services -- "

Mrs McLeod: I think you go next to the sentence about the halt. "The halt was lifted the following month and a review."

Ms Drummond: Yes. "The halt was lifted the following month and a review of community services" --

Mr Beer: Available to them.

Ms Drummond: -- "available to residents was announced." "Them" does not seem very clear.

"Material relevant to the imposition of the halt is appended to the report. A substantial portion of the minister's statement to the committee addressed the reasons for the halt and for the ongoing review of the multi-year plan. One witness noted that confusion created by the halt continues. The review is addressing the question of whether the client who is moved into the community is at risk; if there is, responsibilities are clear: internal and external monitoring is available and whether the client is able to develop to his or her full capacity."

The Vice-Chair: Agreed, as amended? Shall the section carry, as amended? Carried.

We have nine minutes left, so I would like to get through the rest of the report. "Deinstitutionalization and Cost Savings"? Agreed. "Waiting Lists"? Carried. "Poverty"? Carried. "Benefits and Staffing"? Carried. "Other Issues" on page 9? Carried.

Is it agreed that the report be tabled for debate and that the minister respond to the report? Carried.

Clerk of the Committee: The subcommittee will get copies of the document as soon as we can to approve the final changes, either tomorrow or Monday.

Mr Beer: Can I just note that if it is tomorrow, give it to Mrs McLeod, as I will not be here?

Mr Jackson: I just wish to note that at no point have we put on the record those items which are to be appended. As long as that is clear.

Clerk of the Committee: I thought Mr Owens read them.

Mr Jackson: No, they were not read into the record. We were not sitting. The clock was not running at the time it was discussed.

Mr Owens: I would disagree.

Clerk of the Committee: No, he read the names to me.

Mr Owens: I read them into the record.

The Vice-Chair: He referred to specific items, I believe.

Mr Owens: That is right, in sequential order.

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? Okay, so the subcommittee will have a final quick look before it is sent off for translation, before the report is finalized. We are adjourned. Thank you very much, members of the committee.

The committee adjourned at 1754.