MINUTES

COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

CHAMPLAIN ROOM

16 OCTOBER 1997

1:30 P.M.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOCIAL HOUSING

Councillor A. Munter asked whether any decision has been made as to which Standing Committee of Council will be responsible for social housing once the RMOC assumes the portfolio. He expressed the view that, as there is a close relationship between Social Services Department clients and tenants of social housing, the Community Services Committee should be charged with this responsibility. The Social Services Commissioner, Mr. D. Stewart, said a working Transition Committee, led by the Planning and Approvals Department and with representation from other corporate departments, is looking into upcoming changes but as yet no decisions have been taken.

Councillor Munter pointed out that social housing is the single largest component of the provincial downloading. For this reason, it would be appropriate for the Community Services Committee to recommend to Council that the new responsibility for this component be grouped with social services under any new committee structure.

Councillor R. Cantin said he felt the Committee should deal with policy issues, not administration and maintenance. He suggested Councillor Munter amend his Motion to ask that staff come up with suggestions on who should be responsible for social housing, ambulance, and child care licensing.

Councillor H. Kreling expressed his unwillingness to establish policy in an ad hoc manner preferring that the Planning and Approvals Department have an opportunity to make recommendations. He said he felt Councillor Munter’s Motion could be perceived as the Committee telling staff what direction they should be taking.

Councillor D. Holmes suggested Councillor Munter’s Motion be forwarded to the Chief Administrative Officer as an indication that the Committee feels the responsibility for social housing should be within a social service framework.

Councillor A. Loney said he saw Councillor Munter’s Motion as giving an indication that social housing should be linked with social services. He posited that, in the absence of any such indication, it may be perceived the Committee has no concerns about which Committee will have the ultimate responsibility in this important area.

Further to these comments and observations, the following Motions were considered:

Moved by R. Cantin

LOST

YEAS: M. Bellemare, R. Cantin, H. Kreling 3

NAYS: D. Holmes, A. Loney, M. Meilleur, A. Munter 4

Moved by A. Munter

CARRIED

YEAS: D. Holmes, A. Loney, M. Meilleur, A. Munter 4

NAYS: M. Bellemare, R. Cantin, H. Kreling 3

1. PEOPLE’S HEARINGS/AUDIENCES POPULAIRES

- Co-ordinator, Community Services Committee report dated 18 Seep 97

Ms. Joanne Steven, representing the Family Service Centre, introduced Ms. Louise Delisle, Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton. The presenters described the Public Hearings/Audience populaires, a series of meetings to be held in late October. A Panel of local and regional community leaders will listen to and witness the experiences of people struggling with poverty and the effects on them of recent cutbacks. The idea for the hearings originated in the spring of 1997, when a coalition of community partners came together under the auspices of the Social Planning Council as part of the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition (ISARC) and the Ontario Social Safety Network (OSSN). A total of five (5) local hearings will be held during the last two weeks of October. Presentations may take the form of reading a report, telling a story, reciting a poem, singing a song, and any other medium in which the presenter feels comfortable. The Organizing Committee is asking to be allowed to make a presentation to Regional Council to communicate the results of the hearings early in the new term.

In reply to a question from Councillor D. Holmes, Ms. Steven confirmed that the presentation to Council will be made primarily by coalition panelists, with the participation of one or two individual presenters.

Councillor Holmes put forward a Motion in support of the request, saying she felt such a presentation will get more attention if it is made at Regional Council. The Committee Chair, M. Meilleur, expressed the view this presentation will be as important as any presentation made during the Committee’s budget deliberations. She added that, since many Council members do not have the benefit of hearing from the community, they often do not have all the facts before them when making budgetary decisions:

a presentation from the Public Hearings/Audiences populaires will bring the facts before them.

Moved by D. Holmes

2. COMMUNITY MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR ONTARIO WORKS

- Co-ordinator, Community Services Committee report dated 19 Seep 97

The following individuals were present to address the Committee: Ms. Eileen Dooley, President, Social Planning Council (SPC), Mr. Dave Raynor, Chair, Day Programs, Mr. Garry Holmes, Board member, Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) and Ms. Susan Learoyd, SPC staff.

Ms. Dooley began by saying the RMOC is in danger of losing the social safety net it has worked to develop over the past twenty years. She commended the Committee for its desire to document the impact of change on individuals affected by the new social assistance legislation. She noted that both the Committee and the Social Services Department have a good record of listening to the community, to social assistance recipients, to front line workers. Ms. Dooley said is was unfortunate that "grassroots" organizations such as low income advocacy groups, citizens’ advisory committees, the Social Assistance Recipients’ Council (SARC) and the SARC Monitoring Committee have disappeared. A credible monitoring system is a good investment and will provide a mechanism to document and examine the impact of Ontario Works on social assistance recipients. It will provide information on changes that need to be made to improve this imposed program and will help communicate to the Province and the public what does and does not work. Finally, monitoring Ontario Works will give a sense of empowerment to individuals who feel more and more dis-empowered.

Garry Holmes, said community partners include representatives from the CMHA, the Anti Poverty Project, the Coalition of Community Health Centres, Day Programs, Catholic Immigration Services, Community Legal Services and others. There will be four main components: the establishment of a broad based community monitoring committee; the gathering of data on Ontario Works with the assistance of the Social Services Department; obtaining client feedback re: how Ontario Works affects their lives; making presentations to the Community Services Committee and to the broader community and developing recommendations for action. Mr. Holmes said the group has prepared a realistic budget and has initial commitments from its community partners. As there is a feeling that contributions made by community agencies are often undervalued, the group has quantified the time of agencies’ staff in its proposal. Preliminary approaches made to the Trillium Foundation, to labour groups and to community partners may result in approximately $30,000 in funding and the project will not happen. without this component.

Ms. Dooley concluded the presentation by saying the partners are not requesting a specific amount from the RMOC at this time to allow Committee members time to review the proposal and for the proponents to hold further discussions with the Department.

In reply to questions from Councillor D. Holmes, Ms. S. Learoyd indicated the Community Monitoring Committee’s total budget would be $53,000 annually. It is anticipated the Trillium Foundation will respond to the request in approximately 60 days.

When asked for his comments, Commissioner D. Stewart said this represents a good opportunity for the Department and an independent group to work together, as was the case with the Action for Career Training, a positive collaboration which lasted a number of years. He pointed out the approved Motion calls for a monitoring committee, and a distinction must be made between this and an evaluation process. Mr. Stewart noted the Province has no plans to evaluate Ontario Works as a research project, since its focus is on outcomes, participation and people going into jobs. The Department and other municipalities in Ontario will evaluate the plan through the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association (OMSSA) since there is a clear need to evaluate the impact of Ontario Works on the community and on specific clients. Commissioner Stewart pledged that staff would work in cooperation with the agencies towards preparing a joint proposal. He indicated, in response to questions from Councillor Holmes, that the report could be presented in January 1998 and that the costs associated with this activity will need to be built into the 1998 budget.

That the Community Services Committee receive this presentation for information.

3. RESPONSE TO THE HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING CoMMISSION DISCUSSION PAPER

The Executive Director, Homes for the Aged, Mr. Garry Armstrong, outlined the report, saying it presents another opportunity for Council to respond to the Health Services Restructuring Commission’s (HSRC) Interim Guidelines. In addition, Council has indicated its support for the commitment made by the HSRC to reinvest in community based programs and to care for people in the least restrictive environment for as long as possible.

The Committee Chair, M. Meilleur, said her concern was that the Ministry would not listen to Council’s concerns, citing as evidence the fact that some institutions have already closed without community-based facilities to replace them. She pointed out that having to care for aging parents will mean added responsibilities for working persons as well as adding costs to employers because of employee absenteeism. Chair Meilleur pointed to problems currently being faced by the Province of Québec, where similar changes are taking place, and she noted a similar situation could develop in Ontario.

Councillor A. Munter described the departmental response as a thoughtful one but he posited a more aggressive approach was required. The Ministry must be made aware of the impact of closures on the community and on chronic care and of the faulty mathematics used to arrive at erroneous conclusions. He proposed a Motion to this effect.

Councillor A. Loney spoke about hearing a presentation from the Chief Executive Officer, Queensway-Carleton Hospital, who stated emphatically that the hospital would not be ready for proposed movements in June 1998. Another important factor is that many hospitals slated for closing already have people in chronic care who will have no place to go. Councillor Loney said he did not think other hospitals were any further along and this indicates that, while changes in this sector are underway, they are not being managed well. He expressed the hope that hospitals will not be closed before alternative services are in place in the community and that the public will become sufficiently concerned to actively lobby their provincial representatives. He said he was alarmed at the fact that a real tragedy is about to happen.

4. Healthy Babies, Healthy Children - Family VISITOR PROGRAm

- Medical Officer Of Health report dated 06 Oct 97

The Medical Officer of Health, Dr. R. Cushman, pointed out that the driving force behind a number of agenda reports is the fact that hospitals are closing beds and discharging patients earlier. This results in young mothers and their babies going home without the preparation they had heretofore received and puts more pressures on services in the community. He spoke about a concept called School Readiness, i.e., that if children are dealt with appropriately and receive the encouragement and nurturing they need, there are good indications by the time the child gets into Grade 1 society will benefit from them as adults.

Dr. Cushman continued by saying that one in five children in Ottawa-Carleton grows up poor: there are extreme socio-economic pressures on young families and young children. Very little of the health care budget is devoted to children, they get little educational funding before they start school, yet this is an area where a dollar goes a long way and can prevent many problems down the road. He expressed the view the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children Family Visitor Program represents an investment in the future and an effort that needs to be reinforced and strengthened in view of the pressures on children in the community.

The Committee heard from Ms. Nikki Sims-Jones, Acting Program Manager, Healthy Babies, Healthy Children Program, who made the following presentation:

Ms. Sims-Jones said the Health Department will work with the MCSS and other community agencies on the integration of prevention services. The home visiting component will involve screening pregnant women and mothers of newborns to identify who will benefit the most from the program. Home visitors will provide 13 home visits over a two-year period to 597 families with clinical supervision by a Public Health Nurse (PHN). The program will fund 3 PHNs and 7 Family Visitors who will be employees of the Region. The program will be available to all families in Ottawa-Carleton and will be based in existing community agencies. Six clusters of service have been identified and are described more fully in the staff report.

Ms. Sims-Jones concluded her presentation by saying the advantages of the program are many; home visiting has been shown to be more effective when linked to a system of services. Basing the program in community agencies will increase its effectiveness; home visitors’ travel times will be minimized and this will increase the time they are available to families.

The Committee Chair, M. Meilleur, said she was pleased to see activity in this area. She spoke about her concern, after fourteen years as a delivery room nurse, in seeing reductions in the length of stay in hospitals for young mothers who need the attention. She posited that reducing the length of stay saves pennies in comparison to the sums that have to be spent later on. She expressed the hope there would be a second component to the program, namely that resources would be put in place to assist clients afterwards.

- Medical Officer Of Health report dated 15 Sep 97

- Commissioner, Social Services Department report dated 16 Sep 97

The Social Services Commissioner, Mr. D. Stewart, indicated the report before Committee provides an update on activities undertaken by the Department further to the directions it received in July 1997. He said there has been no response from the Province on allowing depreciation and maintenance costs as eligible expenses in calculating per diem rates. The department is also preparing a long-term capital budget, similar to that of the Transportation Department, as directed by Committee and Council

Commissioner Stewart continued by saying the priority of the child care community and of the department is to maintain and preserve the existing infrastructure. To this end, there have been continuing discussions of the need for a longer term assessment of child care requirements through a strategic planning exercise. This would tie the Capital funding program to anticipated expansions in the child care system and would dovetail with priorities around language of service, geographic area, etc. In order to better understand what it would mean to "maintain the existing infrastructure", the department will undertake a review of community agencies with the assistance of the Property Services Division.

Ms. Stewart concluded his presentation by saying that future requests for capital funding will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Department will analyse the request based on the agency’s ability to contribute a share of capital funding or raise money and will make recommendations to Committee and Council. He added that staff do not expect to receive any formal requests until issues related to school board amalgamations have been clarified.

Councillor A. Munter wanted to know what has changed in the child care sector since July 1997 when the Department made its original recommendation to Committee. Commissioner Stewart responded by saying staff thought it would have been made aware of the amendments to Day Nurseries Act and of the Province’s position towards child care reform before the end of 1997: none of this information is available at the present time. Another factor that impacts is the uncertainty over school board amalgamations: the department did not fully appreciate the impact of this situation and staff thought it would be inundated with requests for funding from agencies located in school facilities. It is now clear this will not happen in the next six months.

Councillor D. Holmes asked whether child care services are a component of the new Development Charges Act. Commissioner Stewart said he thought this was the case, but given his uncertainty, he would consult with the Finance Department in this regard.

Councillor A. Loney inquired how the absence of a capital funding policy would impact on the situation at the Youville Centre. The Director, Child Care Services Division, Ms. Gayle Preston, indicated this is one of the programs that needs to relocate, however they have not found a suitable space and are awaiting settlement of the school board issue.

Joanne Hunter, Child Care Council, congratulated the Social Services Department for the methodology it is using to develop long term funding. She noted that, given the uncertainties currently being faced, there may be a lot more need for capital funding. Many agencies are worried about their space allocation since some Boards of Education are more amenable to accommodating child care centres and some agencies feel at risk. She said she thought placing the main focus on maintaining existing programs was, unfortunately, realistic at the present time. She stressed it was important to remember that existing programs only serve a small number of families that need the service. Child care services, though not as visible, are as essential as roads and sewers. She recommended the capital funding contribution be in the range of 80% and funding be budgeted to cover this percentage.

Ms. Hunter spoke about the gaps in service, the long waiting lists, and the many families not supported by the present infrastructure. She indicated the Child Care Council will continue to participate in the strategic planning exercise and she thanked the Committee for its ongoing dedication to, and support of, child care services.

Suzanne Dugas, representing le Regroupement des services de garde de langue française d’Ottawa-Carleton, said there are concerns because many francophone centres have fewer subsidized spaces and more full fee paying parents, and it is always difficult to raise additional funding in these circumstances. She added that, for a population of 17 to 18%, francophones have 8% of subsidized spaces and 11% of all child care spaces.. She noted francophone centres have stated all along they have some catching-up to do, therefore the approach of maintaining existing programs over development does not have unanimous support.. Ms. Dugas echoed the request for capital funding between 50-80% and she suggested the RMOC match, dollar for dollar, any funds raised by the Community Foundation.

Cindy Magloughlin, representing the Ottawa-Carleton Child Care Association, urged the Committee to approve the outstanding component of the policy presented in July, but with 80 to 100% funding. She felt it would be impossible for a program having to relocate on short notice to contribute 50% of a major capital project or renovations. Other sources of funding, such as the Community Foundation, should be explored but this is not a viable option at the present time. The Program Development and Support component should be approved as an interim policy until factual information on child care reform is available from the Province. The unknown impacts of provincial downloading and future funding levels will be a factor, but these uncertainties should not prevent the policy from being put in place. In addition, having a policy in place would ensure a contribution can be made to the Child Care Capital Reserve Fund in 1998.

Councillor Loney pointed out how difficult it is for groups such as the Youville Centre and others to make long term plans if they have no indication of the Region’s intent. He proposed that the Capital Funding Policy presented in July 1997 be adopted, with the reinstatement of a 50-80% contribution for the Program Support, Development and Expansion component, and that there be a further evaluation later in 1998. He said he thought it would be too difficult for Committee and Council to undertake budget deliberations in the absence of such a policy.

Moved by A. Loney

That the allocation process/policy for the Program Support, Development and Expansion stream be set at 50-80% as in the 03 Jul 97 report to Committee be adopted by Council;

COUNCILLORS’ ITEM

7. presentation by sylvia house hospice

- Co-ordinator, Community Services Committee report dated 06 Oct 97

Mr. Roger Nickerson, a volunteer fundraiser for Sylvia House, informed the Committee this organization is run entirely through volunteers, with two persons working half time. He indicated that while operating costs can be funded through other sources there are problems with upgrading and growth. Sylvia House would like to be able to continue accepting 80% of the requests it receives, but without modest changes, the agency will be unable to do this. He requested that the Region consider funding the entire capital expenses of $14,400 for the next twelve months.

Councillor A. Munter described Sylvia House as a truly dynamic and resourceful agency that operates in the western half of the RMOC. He noted there have been reductions in palliative care in many institutions, and the new investments promised by the Province have not yet materialised. He proposed the following Motion:

Moved by A. Munter

- Commissioner, Community Services Committee report dated 03 Oct 97

The Social Services Commissioner, Mr. D. Stewart, began by saying this is the most significant amendment to social assistance legislation experienced in Ontario in the last 30 years.

The detail of the legislation will not be known until the regulations are published, and this will be done after the legislation is proclaimed. He noted that some of the concerns shared by the Department and the community are based on anticipation of what is in the legislation and thus open to some interpretation.

In response to a question posed by Councillor A. Munter, Commissioner Stewart said the legislation has received First and Second Reading and is currently before the Standing Committee on Social Development. Hearings will be held in Ottawa-Carleton and the amendments will go back to the Legislature for a Third reading, clearing the Legislature by the end of October. Mr. Stewart was of the opinion the legislation will be proclaimed sequentially, most importantly the cost sharing implications: other aspects may not be proclaimed before 01 April, depending on the capability of delivery sites.

Councillor Munter commented on the absence of departmental recommendations in the report, and he asked whether it would be helpful for Committee and Council to take a position on the proposed amendments. Commissioner Stewart replied it is always useful to raise concerns. He added he was paralysed at the prospect of receiving the regulations and having to implement these rapidly: once the regulations are in force, it is difficult to amend them. There may be an opportunity to influence the outcomes through the Regulation Team process currently underway.

In reply to a question from Councillor D. Holmes, Commissioner Stewart said some elements of the Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP) are very progressive, i.e., the acknowledgment that asset levels for disabled persons should be much higher than assets for persons receiving Family Benefit Assistance (FBA); another example of a positive shift is the flexibility built into the legislation that allows people to move in and out of employment. This reflects the desire of the disabled community to be able to work on occasion. He spoke about the exclusion of 60 - 64 year-old persons from the ODSP and the requirement at certain times that they receive their benefits from the Ontario Works Act. Mr. Stewart posited that, in a very competitive job market, it is ridiculous to take this position: it will reduce income and raise expectations to perform in labour market that will be hard to realize.

Replying to a further question from Councillor A. Munter, Commissioner Stewart said the fact that the legislation is silent on the issue of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid, and this is of particular concern to the department. He continued by saying that, from an administrative point of view, the legislation will work against itself, as it is adopting many elements of the current legislation regarding verification and documentation of eligibility for social assistance. The Department would prefer to see a lightening of these requirements at the front-end, with more time being contributed to issues of employment and true support for clients to move towards this goal.

The Committee heard from Ms. Linda Kinsella, who expressed concern about the narrowing of the definition of disability, resulting in many people currently receiving benefits being forced to participate in Ontario Works. She posited this situation would make some persons more ill through added stress. She spoke about persons with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, AIDS acquired through intravenous drug use, or lung cancer saying they would lose their coverage and not receive adequate funding to guarantee their survival. These persons will be forced into hospitals and nursing homes, at a greater cost to the community. Ms. Kinsella said the issue of fingerprinting is generating much discussion, as people are being told it is a crime to be unhealthy.

Sue Clark, Coordinator, Canadian Advocates for Psychiatrized People, said there are numerous grave concerns about the proposed legislation, among others, changing the definition of the term disabled to "permanently or substantially permanently disabled" and the transfer to the ODSP. People with disabilities stemming from addictions, drug use, alcohol, learning or multiple barriers will not qualify. Employable people will be required to perform up to 70 hours of activity per month, report to minimum wage jobs and they cannot choose or appeal their placements. Ms. Clark spoke about a recent report on social assistance reform prepared by a lawyer with expertise in constitutional law which said workfare violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the United Nations have said workfare is against human rights. Ms. Clark commented on the new limits to appeals, saying that most of the decisions made by social workers will be final and without recourse to appeals. Appeals will be severely limited and handled by a politically-appointed tribunal that has no power to question the legalities of social assistance policies. Internal appeals will be required before going to the tribunal; there are no standards for these appeals, those deemed frivolous can be denied and there is no mention about being able to have an advocate. She posited the labour movement will be affected by the sudden creation of a large, cheap slave labour force. All of society will be affected by increased poverty, increased homelessness, crimes of desperation, ill health and social chaos.

Further to these presentations, the following Motions were considered:

Moved by A. Munter

CARRIED, as amended

CARRIED, as amended

IN CAMERA

That the Community Services Committee recommend Council authorize the Health Department to bid on the contract to provide Obstetrical Services on behalf of the Ottawa-Carleton Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) for a 12 month period commencing April 1, 1998.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

NEXT MEETING

The Community Services Committee agreed to cancel its next regular meeting, scheduled for 04 November 1997.