PRESENT

Chair: A. Munter

Members: D. Beamish, W. Byrne, L. Davis, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, A. Loney, M. McGoldrick-Larsen

Notes:
1. Underlining indicates new or amended recommendations approved by Committee.
2. Items requiring Council approval will be presented on 26 April 2000 in Community Services Report No. 43.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

INQUIRIES

PRESENTATION(S)

1. CENTRE FOR EQUALITY RIGHTS IN ACCOMMODATION

- Co-ordinator, Community Services Committee report dated 23 Mar 00

The Committee heard from Ms. Sherrie Tingley, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) and Mr. Mike Farrell, Assistant Director, National Anti Poverty Organization. Mr. Farrell noted his organization has been increasingly concerned about human rights in Canada, particularly as they relate to people who are poor.

Recently, two international committees have drawn attention to the levels of poverty and homelessness in Canada and to the lack of action by all levels of government to address these problems. The CERA has brought forward a resolution that is an excellent step in the right direction in terms of a government recognizing its obligation to uphold the rights of its citizens and to do something to address the issues of poverty and homelessness Mr. Farrell said it is unfortunate there is so much reliance on people’s charity to deal with these problems when they should be dealt with by governments in the context of laws. He expressed the hope the Committee would consider the resolution favourably. Ms. Tingley pointed out that, increasingly, municipalities are delivering the programs that fundamental human rights depend on. She said she looked forward to working with the Committee on this issue.

Councillor W. Byrne thanked the delegation for bringing this matter forward, and she suggested they make a presentation to the Transition Board. The Councillor proposed a Motion calling for the matter to be referred to the Social Housing Working Group (SHWG), for debate and to sort out what are regional and what are provincial responsibilities. Chair Munter suggested that regional Legal Department staff be involved in the discussion, to ensure a better dialogue at the SHWG in terms of the Region’s responsibility. Ms. Tingley said the resolution was seen as one that would empower the municipality to consider the human rights of its citizens and potentially, to start a transparent dialogue with other levels of government where they saw a gap, within that context.

Councillor D. Holmes said that, in the past, municipalities did not think of themselves as the defenders of human rights since this was considered to be the federal and provincial governments’ responsibility. As cities become more powerful, with more responsibilities devolving to them, municipal and elected officials find themselves thinking about the legal and ethical aspects of their activities. The fact that the United Nations has expressed concern about Canada’s treatment of the poor and of women starts the Region down the path towards human rights as the area becomes one big city.

Moved by W. Byrne

2. USE OF SEAT BELTS - REGIONAL CHILD CARE CENTRES

- Co-ordinator, Community Services Committee report dated 28 March 00

Ms. Catherine Louli, a resident of Ottawa-Carleton, spoke about the need to investigate safety rules to ensure children in child care centres are safely transported during planned outings. Ms. Louli shared with the Committee the story of her daughter Emma, who attends St Luke’s Child Care Centre. Almost two years ago, St Luke’s gave notice of a day trip to a local pumpkin patch, to which Ms. Louli and her husband consented. On the morning of the event, the parents were shocked to discover there would be no use of car seats, as the bus taking the children on the outing did not have seat belts. Ms. Louli pointed out that all children under 45 pounds are required, by law, to be in a car seat when in a moving vehicle. Since that time, she has been trying, in vain, to start a discussion on the need for vehicles equipped with seat belts for use by child care centres for day trips. She expressed the view that, as a departure point, this should be a consideration for the regional child care centres. In doing her research, Ms. Louli discovered that the Glebe Parents’ Child Care is the only centre that has a bus with seat belts and can accommodate car seats. The company that most centres use, Laidlaw Transportation Services, has buses with seat belts only in the two front rows: when asked what the cost would be to equip buses with seat belts, Laidlaw indicated there had never been any such request. Ms. Louli requested that, in light of the recent tragic events in Trois-Rivières, the Committee investigate the possibility of introducing seat belts on vehicles that could accommodate car seats for trips with the child care centres.

The Social Services Commissioner, D. Stewart, informed the Committee that all outings have been suspended for the 17 regional child care centres providing services for under school-age children until the Department can resolve this issue. Commissioner Stewart expressed the hope the outings would be reinstated as soon as possible. The community-based programs will need to make their own decisions in this regard, and the Department encourages them to review this matter and come up with community-based solutions. Mr. Stewart said staff will make use of the expertise in the regional Health Department around restraint and child seats in cars, and this will be part of the solution.

Chair Munter read a Motion from Councillor W. Byrne, directing staff to look at this issue and report back to Committee. Chair Munter also pointed out that the Medical Officer of Health, Dr. R. Cushman, is a well-known expert on injury prevention, and the department is fortunate to have in-house access to this expertise.

Councillor C. Doucet wanted to know why children are being transported when it is against the law to do so, as stated by Ms. Louli. Commissioner Stewart replied that every outing in every centre is preceded by a request for parental approval. He added that no one has knowingly tried to contravene any law, and the most economical and most readily available mode of transportation has been school buses: this has been the standard across the province and across the country and other ways will need to be found to do it.

Councillor Byrne expressed her belief that seat belts should be in place, even for elementary school children in buses; if children, and especially toddlers, are not properly belted-in, there will be fatalities in an accident. The Councillor said she was saddened at the fact that outings have been cancelled, since these are enriching experiences. She posited this is not the way to respond to the situation; children should not be restricted to child care centres just because there are no proper and safe modes of transportation. Councillor Byrne said that, while there will be a cost for a solution, there is an even greater cost of not having a solution. She asked that the Committee support her Motion.

Councillor A. Loney described a two step process: seeing what can be done at the regional level, and investigating whether there are regulations and/or initiatives at the provincial and federal levels. The Councillor said he thought this matter deserved quick and thorough attention.

Councillor H. Kreling pointed out that the Province has a lot of studies, but has shied away over the years from mandating the use of seat belts in school buses. There has been a move to higher and better-padded seats and back supports, to prevent children from flying out of their seats completely in a collision. He echoed Councillor Loney’s comments about the need to see what the province has and to look at some of the information available on pre-school age children.

Chair Munter thanked Ms. Louli for doing the research and for her concern for her own child and for those of others. Chair Munter called this a classic public health issue, as it points to the value of prevention and he expressed the hope staff would come up with something that is feasible. Chair Munter suggested purchasing a small number of vehicles that could be shared among the network of child care centres. He asked that staff look at what the costs could be, noting that, in the collective mind, these costs would be worthwhile if they prevent the kind of tragedy recently seen in Québec. Chair Munter informed those present that a series of car seat clinics are being sponsored by the Region and by community partners and are being held at various locations beginning on 15 April.

Councillor M. McGoldrick-Larsen requested there be an additional car seat clinic in South Nepean, as this is an area with a very high birth rate.

Moved by W. Byrne

INQUIRIES/MOTIONS

3. "THE OWL’S NEST" - Possibility of Funding

- Medical Officer of Health report dated 15 March 00

- Response to Inquiry CS 29(00)

The Committee received a briefing from Maryann O’Hagan, Manager, Heart Health Branch, regional Health Department, and the staff person responsible for Urban Community Health. She began by thanking all the volunteers involved in the many programs available under Urban Community Health and more specifically the forty volunteers who have been active in The Owl’s Nest. Ms. O’Hagan said the program evolved into a health information and activity centre serving mainly seniors. Its strength came from the volunteers who gave their time and skills to the community particularly in the Drop In program which offered information about regional services. The new owners of the Lincoln Heights shopping centre had promised there would be continuing space available but this has not materialized. In early January 2000, the Health Department was informed that all the space would be used for retail purposes and was offered a small space which is not acceptable for programming. Ms. O’Hagan indicated that the rental costs for space in the area would be approximately $50,000 and, with no money in the 2000 budget, the department will have to close The Owl’s Nest at the beginning of March.

In response to questions from Councillor W. Byrne, Ms. O’Hagan indicated the new owners have not been very responsive, and she expressed the view there is nothing in their community philosophy that would support offering a space. Services are now being provided by community partners in the west end, with the Olde Forge and the Pinecrest-Queensway Community Resource Centre expressing an interest in some of the programs. Councillor Byrne wanted to know whether it is possible to move all the programs into the expanded Pinecrest-Queensway centre. Ms. O’Hagan reiterated that the centre is very open and interested in continuing with some of the components but there are few details about how things would develop at this point. The target date for completion of the work at the Pinecrest-Queensway centre is October 2000.

Mr. John Edwards, said he has been a volunteer at the Owl’s Nest for six years. He called the service provided therein to seniors second to none. Because there are so many seniors in that area, the services are essential, and a space should be provided to carry out this function. The Drop In has provided good support to seniors; many come there with problems and the volunteers are able to help them by referring them to the proper authorities and helping them personally. Mr. Edwards expressed the hope this would not be the end of the Owl’s Nest. He was hopeful that the Committee would be able to provide a space or help secure corporate sponsorships, and he stressed the importance of the service being in an area that is visible and open to the public.

The Committee Chair, A. Munter, read a Motion presented by Councillor W. Byrne. She began by acknowledging the value of the Owl’s Nest to the community, saying it has been a magnet for seniors, providing a space where they can access health programs to remain vital, healthy members of the community. It has also provided a social component, important to the health of seniors who live alone and who are unable to get out and be active in the community. Councillor Byrne provided a brief history of the Owl’s Nest, from its beginnings in the former Lincoln Heights Galleria to the current situation under the shopping centre’s new ownership. After renovations to the centre were completed, the Owl’s Nest was offered 200 square feet of space when it needs 1200 square feet to operate effectively. Councillor Byrne said the 200 feet offered is only enough space for a table and effectively constitutes an eviction. The mall management said that the space in question would capture approximately $50,000 in retail rent, and the Owl’s Nest is unable to come up with these funds. Councillor Byrne said her Motion calls for $25,000 which may be enough money to entice a community-spirited organization to rent space. Other possibilities being explored include the Bayshore Shopping Centre and the Pinecrest-Queensway Community Resource Centre: there are problems with bus access at the former and the renovations at the latter will not be completed before October 2000. Councillor Byrne thought that Pinecrest-Queensway could provide all the programs in one locale, thereby reviving the social component which was an integral element of the program.

Councillor M. McGoldrick-Larsen asked how the seniors’ centre at Carlingwood is funded from an operational perspective. Ms. O’Hagan advised it is supported mainly through fundraising and through grants received from the city of Ottawa and from the province. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen spoke in support of keeping the Owl’s Nest open and for other services to be provided in the community and in shopping centres. She expressed the view there should be "storefront" operations for other Health Department programs in a number of venues across the Region. The Councillor said it is really important to be proactive in trying to meet seniors’ needs, and in making the larger community aware of how it can provide assistance to seniors that need it.

Councillor D. Holmes said she would support the item, mainly to ensure it gets on the list of items that need to be examined for 2001. When the new Council has completed the review of its requirements, there may be space available in a satellite office or in a fire station, eliminating the need to rent space in a shopping centre. Councillor Holmes posited that a lot more space is needed in the community where people can meet and where programming can be carried out, and the Owl’s Nest program should be on the list with others requiring community space.

Councillor A. Loney felt it was timely to consider this matter, since the Transition Board is reviewing all the building requirements and something may turn up before the end of this year. He said he liked the idea of negotiating for space up-front with a developer, as was done at the Carlingwood Shopping Centre. He suggested this approach be tried with the Loblaw development in Westboro to see whether an arrangement can be arrived at for the community. Councillor Loney spoke about the need for similar services being provided for seniors in Nepean. He suggested that the seed be sown at the time of development proposals, to ascertain whether a developer would consider a community facility as part of the building. Councillor Loney said he was not convinced the Region should be paying commercial rates to rent space in shopping centres.

Moved by W. Byrne

REGULAR ITEMS

4. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTION PLAN TO PREVENT AND END HOMELESSNESS IN OTTAWA-CARLETON

- Special Advisor on Social Housing, Medical Officer of Health and Social Services Commissioner’s joint report dated 21 March 00

- Progress Report issued separately

Joyce Potter, the Special Advisor on Social Housing, introduced Bill Rooney and Bonnie Dinning two key members of the homelessness initiatives team. Ms. Potter began by recalling the findings of the Environmental Scan on Homelessness which documented the nature of the situation in Ottawa-Carleton and the development of the Action Plan to End Homelessness which proposed community-based initiatives to respond to the issues.

Ms. Potter noted that shelter use has increased by approximately 14% between 1997 and 1999. This translates into 6600 individuals in emergency shelters, including 1200 people in the family shelters. The number of applications for social housing has increased by 20%; this means there are 15,000 households on waiting lists. The vacancy rate in Ottawa-Carleton is now the lowest in the country so the availability of accommodation of any kind, particularly affordable accommodation, is problematic.

Ms. Potter continued by saying the report identifies the sources of funding used to try to address the problem. These include:

Ms. Potter informed the Committee that the federal homelessness Minister, the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw, recently met with the community and staff have learned that the federal funds should flow by June 2000. There will be a requirement for matching funds, and the report before Committee suggests where some of the matching funds could be found:

The Province of Ontario has identified a number of initiatives undertaken to deal with homelessness. The private sector, through the Community Foundation, has donated $1 million towards this end. Ms. Potter said this means that the $1 million from the Region has leveraged approximately $9.2 million in housing initiatives. Other contributions have included land contributed by the lower tier municipalities.

Ms. Potter said staff are also reporting back to Committee and Council on the projects that were approved for funding through the homelessness initiatives program. Annexes A and B provide a complete list of these projects. The following were highlighted:

Ms. Potter said these are just a few examples of the initiatives being funded. She added that each of the 22 recommendations of the Community Action Plan is identified with a description, actions taken to-date, summary outcomes, accomplishments to-date and indications of future action. Speaking to the latter, Ms. Potter highlighted the following:

With respect to the latter, Ms. Potter said the University of Ottawa is assisting the Region in evaluating a number of key initiatives, including all of the hostel funding redirection that is underway.

Councillor C. Doucet congratulated staff on what he called a very clearly written report. He expressed the view that having only 150 housing units for nearly $10 million dollars is not a considerable number. Ms. Potter explained that a number of these are new housing units, and the actual costs are significant: $9.2 million represents the total capital costs, including land, construction and other related costs. When one considers that the Region is only providing $1 million, the number of units realized is quite incredible. Councillor Doucet said the report gives an indication that a lot of money will need to be put into housing. He asked that staff provide information on the cost per unit and on the sources of funding. Ms. Potter indicated staff will provide a breakdown of the individual capital costs, noting these will vary significantly with the kind of housing generated.

Councillor D. Holmes sought clarification about Ms. Potter’s presentation about the funds from the sale of the Echo Drive property being used for housing purposes. Ms. Potter said the difficulty is that staff are not aware of how much of a matching contribution will be required. She added that staff were actually hoping to receive word from the federal government in time for this report, but this is not the case. Had this information been available, proceeds from the sale of the property could have been identified and set aside to match the federal funds, as was indicated by the Finance Commissioner. Councillor Holmes said she thought the funds had been set aside specifically for housing purposes. Ms. Potter indicated that Council approval would be required for this purpose.

The Committee Chair, A. Munter, encouraged members to point out to federal MPs that the four-month old announcement on federal funding is still in limbo and that the concern is that funds will be parceled to 10 urban centres across the country. He stressed the importance of ensuring there is a formula which recognizes Ottawa-Carleton has the greatest need because it has the lowest vacancy rate and the longest waiting list for shelters and affordable housing.

Councillor L. Davis asked who staff are dealing with at the federal level with respect to the funding. Ms. Potter indicated that the federal Minister for Homelessness has established a secretariat operating through HRDC; staff have been dealing with the regional office, the head office and the Minister’s office. Ms. Potter added she has reason to believe, based on recent discussions with Minister Bradshaw, that her staff may come forward with an allocation sometime soon. Councillor Davis asked if any official letters had been sent in this regard. Chair Munter indicated he sent a letter in January with a copy to members of Council which generated a form letter response. He said he spoke with the Minister early this week where he learned that the provincial government is involved because of constitutional issues related to housing. Chair Munter thought the next step will be the appointment of a facilitator for each community and that person will coordinate the flow of money locally. Chair Munter thanked staff for all of the work they have done. He noted they are well respected in the community for their expertise and their commitment to this issue. He also acknowledged Councillor R. van den Ham for the work he did on the allocations panel.

Catherine Boucher, representing the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Association (CCOA) and a member of the provincial Ontario Non-Profit Association, wanted to congratulate both the Committee and Council and all those who worked on these initiatives. Ms. Boucher said that, as a member of the provincial association, she has been proud to say that Council has taken the problem seriously and has put money into addressing it. She noted that staff have done yeoman’s work in bringing programs to fruition. Ms. Boucher spoke in support of getting some of the proceeds from the sale of property into reserve funds, as there are other sources of funding in the community that are contingent on players bringing money to the table. She pointed out that the main difficulty in providing new housing has been the lack of funds, and the community has struggled with this since June 1995.

5. Review Of Human Services Departments And Functions

- Co-ordinator, Community Services Committee report dated 28 March 00

- Report to be issued separately

Ian Cullwick, Partner, Deloitte & Touche, introduced Steve Dion, Project Manager, who would be presenting on the mandatory guidelines and Jack van Beek, who would be explaining the conceptual and detailed overview of the service delivery framework and organization. Mr. Cullwick noted this was one of the first, if not the only such study, done since the inception of the Region in 1969. He explained the purpose of the study was to examine opportunities for integration and more effective service delivery across the existing four human service areas: Public Health, Homes for the Aged, Social Services and Social Housing. Many factors precipitated the need for the study: Provincial downloading, increasing regulations in certain areas, changing funding requirements, changing policy parameters from the Province, municipal restructuring, changes in technology and the changing and increasing demands from clients and the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton. Mr. Cullwick then outlined the existing department structures for human services, and highlighted that there are issues, trends and linkages between programs in the four departments that cut across departmental units. He offered the following key observations:

Mr. van Beek stated it was important to realize the consultants were not trying to create a new organization chart. The recommended model is a conceptual representation of what is felt makes the most sense for the community. He said the consultants were very conscious of the role played by many organizations other than the Region, such as volunteer organizations and individuals and they recognized that the more change introduced, the more difficult it is to preserve the trust that builds up over many years. As well, they were also very conscious that front line service delivery is a foremost consideration when making changes to the current set-up. Keeping all of this in mind, as well as what is happening in terms of the coming changes to the City, he explained Deloitte & Touche wanted to create something reasonably flexible and adaptable. In this respect, Mr. van Beek explained the recommended model could be adapted with a minimum of changes to the underlying concepts, creates two portfolios, and takes advantage of opportunities for greater integration and cooperation.

Mr. van Beek went on to note that during the study, there were a number of issues they struggled with. The first was the positioning of the Medical Officer of Health (MOH). This position currently embodies a number of roles, is required by legislation, and has a tendency to be snowed under with direct operational responsibility and sometimes prevents the broader overview that could benefit other parts of the new city. He said Deloitte & Touche wanted to explore the possibility of decoupling some of the direct responsibility from the more strategic and advisory aspects of the position. He noted other communities have reached the same conclusions and have found a working model and he said Deloitte & Touche felt confident in recommending this approach.

In concluding his remarks, Mr. van Beek said they recognized how important these services are, how great an impact they have on the budget and on resources, and also how important they are to preserving the quality of life in the community. They found a number of significant opportunities for integration within the broader realm of human services functions, and feel the integration will result in efficiencies in human services. As well, the proposed model would be enhanced if consideration was given to strategic investment in information technology to support activities such as client services. Mr. van Beek stated Deloitte & Touche feel their proposed concept has sufficient flexibility and could be adapted to the new structure of the City of Ottawa.

Mr. Dion stated the mandatory guideline review was conducted parallel to the human services review and its purpose was to study how the Health Department could meet the Province’s mandatory guidelines in 17 broad program areas that were changed substantially in 1997. The Health Department is currently facing three challenges: 1) coping with the additional requirements imposed by the new guidelines; 2) the need to balance core programming with the ability to respond to emerging health priorities; and, 3) the reality of fiscal constraint and being able to operate with restricted budgets.

Mr. Dion stated the review concentrated on how the Department could best meet the new guideline requirements and a panel of four experts were retained (including two former Medical Officers of Health of Ontario) to serve as advisers. He noted an important part of the panel’s role was interpreting the guidelines and assessing the resource requirements in the context of their external, objective interpretation of the guidelines. As well, Deloitte & Touche consulted extensively with the Health Department, to determine its vision for program delivery and what was currently taking place in terms of addressing the mandatory guidelines, and also gathered data on community need. This information was provided to the panel who were then able to render an interpretation of the guidelines that were grounded in the community’s needs.

With respect to the advisory panel’s conclusions, Mr. Dion advised it recognized the need for an additional 22.35 FTEs (including the 10 FTEs approved by Council in the 2000 budget) and $48,000 for the Health Department’s budget. The panel deferred an opinion on an additional 23.5 FTEs recommending that the Department engage in detailed and integrated planning of three service areas. These areas were: delivery of services to schools, an area where the mandatory guidelines are very prescriptive, and where the Department had identified a significant shortfall in terms of resource requirements. The second concerned access and dissemination of information and the panel felt there was a great opportunity to use new technologies in the areas of call centres to add efficiencies and to free up resources that are currently being used to staff phone lines. The third area was in relation to tobacco, because of the changing demographics of our community, this was viewed as an important area of need.

Mr. Dion advised Deloitte and Touche endorse the recommendations of the advisory panel and also recommend that the Region consider the following points from an implementation perspective. First, in looking at additional staffing, it should first dispose of the human services review, to determine what gains or savings may flow out of that; second, the development of the three integrated service delivery strategies noted earlier; and third, assess the implications of moving to a one city model.

Having completed their presentation, the delegations then responded to questions from the Committee.

Councillor Holmes sought clarification on Mr. Dion’s statement that Deloitte & Touche endorse the recommendation of the advisory panel concerning the 23 FTEs yet they do not recommend the Region hire staff. Mr. Dion replied Deloitte & Touche did not feel it was within their scope of authority to tell the Region who to hire or not to hire, but there was certainly recognition of a resource requirement. He noted that within the report, there are areas where the panel suggests efficiencies can be gained, such as in the dissemination of information, where professional resources could be freed up by the use of alternatives. The panel suggested that these areas be looked at before determining what the net staffing requirements are.

Councillor Holmes then questioned how the consultants had arrived at their recommendation that the MOH should play an advocacy role and not manage the Department. Mr. van Beek replied they viewed the MOH as having three roles: advisory, technical and administrative. As the requirements under the mandatory guidelines change, and as the community needs change, that role is becoming more and more demanding. He explained in their research, they found evidence there was a desire to look at an alternative model. For example, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) lobbied for changes to the Health Promotion and Protection Act that were passed in 1997. Previously the MOH was designated, under the legislation, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Health Department, and that changed. Based on some of their research, part of the rationale for this change was to take away the constraints of administrative responsibility. Mr. van Beek noted they provided examples of where this is occurring in other communities, for example Peel Region has had this model operating for a year. He said part of their rationale was to permit the MOH to advise Council on broader health issues versus being constrained to managing delivery of mandatory guidelines. Responding to a further question from Councillor Holmes, Mr. van Beek advised Peel had significantly increased their Health budget, with much of the resources dedicated to meeting the mandatory guidelines.

Councillor Loney noted the advisory panel recommended 22.35 FTEs and $48,000 and he asked if this meant that all but $48,000 could be found within the existing budget to hire those people. Mr. Dion replied this was not correct and advised the $48,000 was to address specific requirements in the guidelines (e.g., $38,000 of it was for a new requirement for fissure sealants in the Dental Program). He said Deloitte & Touche had not estimated the cost of the recommended additional FTEs as it would be impossible for them to estimate (at this time) what potential savings could flow from either specific areas where the advisory panel recommended the Department review its resource allocations, or out of moving to a more integrated model.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Loney, Mr. Dion advised the members of the advisory panel were: Dr. Richard Schabbas, former MOH for the Province, Dr. David Mowat, also a former MOH for the province and for Kingston, Diane Bewick, an expert in public health nursing, and Andy Papadapolous, Executive Director, Association of Local Public Health Agencies (ALPHA). Councillor Loney asked if it would be fair to say, that Deloitte & Touche’s reasoning behind their positioning of the MOH, was that the operation would be too vast for the CAO to be in charge of. Mr. van Beek agreed this would be a fair statement.

Councillor Byrne questioned why the Homes for the Aged (HFTA) site administrator would not report to the MOH. Mr. Cullwick replied the MOH currently has three roles to play, advisory, technical and administrative. He said in the recommended model, they saw the HFTA units as program areas and the Health Commissioner in charge of program management and administration. They saw the MOH as having more of a strategic advisory role. Councillor Byrne felt a Health Commissioner would mean an extra layer of bureaucracy.

In response to questions posed by Councillor van den Ham, Mr. Dion advised the mandatory guidelines are in some cases very prescriptive and in others, there is more room for interpretation. He said in balancing these guidelines against what the community needs or desires, the consultants relied on data gathered in consultation with the Health Department.

Councillor van den Ham referred to the chart on page 3 of the report and noted the panel recommends an additional 23.5 FTEs while the Department wants about 59 FTEs. He asked the consultants to explain the gap. Mr. Dion advised that the advisory panel deferred recommendation on the 23 FTEs that were requested for services to schools, access and dissemination of information and tobacco. In these three areas, the panel recommended the department look at a more integrated strategy for meeting the needs, as the needs were identified across programs. With respect to the balance, the panel did not agree with the resource requirements the Health Department had requested.

Committee Chair Munter read three Motions submitted by Councillor Holmes and Committee then heard from the following public delegation

Margaret Singleton, City Living, advised she had only just received the report that afternoon and so she had not fully absorbed it. She stressed that although the model is very conceptual, she was concerned with what could happen if the Transition Board were to receive it, before it was given a great deal of consideration. Ms. Singleton offered that she found the treatment of housing in the consultant’s recommendation somewhat strange. She noted there is recognition in the report that housing is in a particularly uncertain state but there is no clear recognition that currently the Region (and presumably the new City) does not have a direct service role in housing other than as funder and program administrator.

Referencing the recommended model on page 9 of the report, Ms. Singleton felt there were two ways of interpreting the fact that housing was included with the five areas where the Region has a direct service role, and both caused her concern. The first way of interpreting it is that the housing is intended to be the municipal non-profit housing providers (e.g. City Living). She explained that currently City Living’s relationship with the City of Ottawa, is very much an arm’s length one. She said the City Living Board and City Council believe this to be a very definite improvement from the situation that existed prior to 1995, where City Living was much more closely integrated into the municipal administrative structure. Ms. Singleton advised the City Living Board is very committed to trying to maintain this position in whatever scenario emerges in the new municipality.

Ms. Singleton said the second interpretation derives from work the Province has been doing around universal access to Ontario Works, Childcare and Housing benefits. She said this issue had not been debated, to her knowledge, at the Region but had been debated extensively at the Province, with input from housing providers across the Province. Ms. Singleton advised a report was produced and the Ontario Non-profit Housing Association raised a series of issues as to why the integration of these services is not necessarily something that makes sense. She said if this is part of the intention, she would hope the Region would not be sending this through to the Transition Board with an implication of support for it. Referring to the service delivery model approved by Council the previous Wednesday, Ms. Singleton offered her opinion that this was not consistent with the recommended model in the staff report on human services. She said in the approved service delivery model she noticed that City Living was included under the Social Services and Housing Commissioner, as well as on its own in a box to the right (like a local Board). She felt the second option made more sense.

The matter then returned to Committee for discussion. Referring to Councillor Holmes Motion, Councillor Loney suggested the last two should in fact be amendments to the first Motion. He felt if the motions were separated, it would appear the Committee was endorsing the entire report as presented.

Councillor Holmes agreed to this suggestion. She stated that the conclusions the were of no surprise. She said the Committee and Council were well aware the Health Department was not meeting its core recommendations from the Province and they also knew there was not sufficient money or staff to do this. The Councillor felt the 23 recommendations from the advisory panel were the absolute least that they could professionally agree on and recommend because of the restricted budget. She opined it was pointless to engage the panel and then restrain them with budgetary considerations.

The Councillor said she was not surprised to see that an additional 23 FTEs were needed as an absolute minimum and in fact, probably a lot more are needed. She said she was disappointed to find out the Department did not ask for any additional health/food safety inspectors.

Referencing the consultant’s recommendation that the Medical Officer of Health have more of an advocacy role, Councillor Holmes expressed great concern about separating the MOH from the budget. If this were to occur, she felt certain the MOH, who is inundated with demands from the public (e.g. universities, schools, hospitals, residents, etc) for additional funding for health programs, would be coming forward at budget time with recommendations for increased funding. The Councillor stated she was not pleased with the proposal for a General Manager, as she felt this added another level of bureaucracy. She said she would not be supporting the recommended model.

Referring to the first portion of Councillor Holmes motion, Councillor Beamish stated it was his understanding that the 22.35 FTEs recommended by the consultant, included the 10 positions approved by Council in the 2000 budget. He questioned why Councillor Holmes’ motion said the full 22.35. Chair Munter confirmed that as a step towards meeting the mandatory guidelines, $880,000 had been included in this year’s budget for 10 FTEs. Councillor Beamish felt the motion should be clarified to say the 22.35 FTE’s included the 10 FTE’s approved in the 2000 budget. Councillor Holmes agreed to this amendment.

Councillor Doucet said he had a hard time taking this issue seriously, as it reminded him of the Ottawa Hospital restructuring. He said if this model is approved, the Region would move from a very efficient system to an absolute mess, that will cost the next five years of reorganizing. With respect to the MOH playing more of an advocacy role, the Councillor felt the fact the MOH was in charge of the budget increased his ability to defend his recommendations. He said he would not be supporting the staff recommendation.

Councillor Kreling expressed his support for the motions put forward by Councillor Holmes. However, with respect to the recommendations going forward to the Transition Board, Councillor Kreling emphasized the importance of the Transition Board having information on the mandatory guidelines (which they will have as part of their budget review) as well as indicating to them that it is because of these Provincial requirements that the Department finds itself in this position. The Councillor went on to say he did not see that the recommended organization structure was in line with what was approved at Council the previous day. He said he did not mean to imply anything negative towards Deloite & Touche as he felt they had done what was asked of them. The reality is however, that under the new City structure, the organization will have to be flatter and more service oriented, such as what was approved by Council.

Councillor Loney stated his opinion that the advisory panel’s conclusions were important but he also felt it important that the practical aspects be looked at, including administrative efficiencies. He said this did not mean there should be someone in an administrative capacity over the MOH, as he felt both of these aspects could be embodied in the MOH. Councillor Loney felt it was important that this item be brought before the Transition Board so that it is included in the preliminary estimates and that wherever possible, people within the overall system fill these positions. He felt it reasonable that the additional 23.5 FTEs be found as part of the reorganization effort. In concluding his remarks, Councillor Loney stated he would be very interested in having the Department, on an on-going basis, monitor where their counterparts across the province are vis-a-vis meeting the mandatory guidelines. He said this would not preclude the Region from going beyond the guidelines when it is considered important for the community but it would be useful to have this as background information. Councillor Loney stated he would be supporting Councillor Holmes’ motion.

Councillor Byrne stated she too would be supporting Councillor Holmes motion. She said she felt the MOH has been very active in promoting health care and that he is able to defend his budget because he has managed his department. It is obvious that he is able to carry out those roles in addition to being an advocate. With regard to integration between the commissioners, Councillor Byrne stated it this is what they have been doing and it has been a matter of course for the two departments to integrate on many issues and programs and they have done it well. She did not feel a General Manager was needed and would merely add an extra layer of bureaucracy.

Committee Chair Munter thanked the consultants for the effort they put into their report and the time spent with the expert panel. He noted that when this report began out of the 1999 budget process, there was no talk of a single City. Since that time, things have changed and as a result, the consultants recommendation are not consistent with the current thinking around the direction Council believes the new single city should go.

Chair Munter stated he would be supporting the motion put forward by Councillor Holmes and felt its intent was consistent with what was approved by Council the previous day.

The Committee then considered the Motion:

Moved by D. Holmes

CARRIED

SOCIAL SERVICES

6. Social Assistance Intake Screening Unit (ISU) FOR Eastern Ontario

- Social Services Commissioner’s report dated 20 Mar 00

Commissioner Stewart noted the Department is on the edge of the most dramatic change in the public welfare system in Ontario. He said the next 22 months, until January 26, 2002 (when the transformation will be complete), will be an unprecedented period of change in the Province in terms of how public welfare assistance and the related employment supports are provided, who provides them, how clients consume them and how they are paid for. The Commissioner noted the report before the Committee was focused on one of the elements of change, the intake screening unit and staff had prepared a presentation. Mr. Stewart noted there is a timing issue, as the response to the RFP had to be in by 19 April 2000. He said from a technical point of view staff did not need Committee and Council’s endorsement to proceed to an RFP but it would be considered a measure of the support the Region is putting on this, if staff did have that endorsement.

As many members of the Committee had to leave for other pressing commitments, Commissioner Stewart suggested, if it were the will of the Committee, they could endorse the staff recommendation and staff could make the presentation to Committee at its next meeting.

Councillor Loney stated he would move the staff recommendation. He felt Council owed it to their employees to try to have the ISU in the Region as opposed to having it go elsewhere and the Region would have to lay-off people. He said this could happen in any event, but he felt a full effort should be made. He agreed to move a motion requesting Council waive the rules of procedure to consider this item at its next meeting.

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

1. DECISIONS OF THE ALLOCATIONS COMMITTEE FOR 2000 PROJECT GRANTS FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES

2. ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR 2000

- Social Services Commissioner’s report dated 8 March 2000

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. 

_____________________________ _____________________________

CHAIR CO-ORDINATOR