 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
http://www.ontla.on.ca/french/hansard/house_debates/35_parl/session3/l092a.htm
The House met at 1002.
Prayers.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS
ASSISTANCE TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Mrs Marland moved private member's notice of motion number 33:
That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that persons with developmental disabilities are valued members of our
society who require assistance from the provincial government in order to enjoy the quality of life, independence and
community living that persons without disabilities take for granted;
And recognizing that there is a severe shortage of support for adults with developmental disabilities, including
supported employment, alternatives to sheltered workshops, a variety of living options, family support services and
parent relief;
And recognizing that institutions for persons with developmental disabilities are being closed before sufficient
community support is in place for the discharged residents;
And recognizing that when youths with developmental disabilities turn 21 years of age, they are no longer eligible for
children's support programs but can rarely be accommodated in support programs for adults because of the shortage
of resources and services;
And recognizing that parents who care for adults with developmental disabilities in their homes require provincial
government assistance to allow them to enjoy some of the freedom from child care responsibilities that most parents
of adult children take for granted;
And recognizing that as the parents of adults with developmental disabilities grow older, they worry about who will care
for their children when they can no longer do so;
And recognizing that the Ministry of Community and Social Services cut $1.5 million from its funding of sheltered
workshops in 1992-93, then promised it would not execute a further planned cut to sheltered workshops of $1.5 million
in 1993-94, but none the less reduced its 1993-94 transfer payments to community living associations by $1.5 million;
And recognizing that the 1993-94 Estimates for Community and Social Services show a $20.3 million (11.9%)
decrease in the budget for community accommodation for adults with developmental disabilities;
And recognizing that despite new provincial funding of $21.08 million in 1993 for persons with developmental
disabilities, there is still a crisis in support for adults with developmental disabilities;
And recognizing that possible cost savings have been identified in other program areas of the Community and Social
Services portfolio, including:
-- social services fraud, misallocation and mismanagement ($630 million per year, or 10% of the province's social
assistance budget, according to the Provincial Auditor);
-- payments to convert private day care centres to non-profit centres, bail out non-profit day care centres that are in
financial difficulty and build new non-profit centres through the Jobs Ontario Capital program, even though many
existing day care centres, both non-profit and private, have excess capacity (total expenditure: approximately $200
million);
And recognizing that in other portfolios, cost savings could be achieved by reducing health card fraud ($675 million a
year) and reducing workers' compensation fraud ($150 million a year), to cite just two examples;
Therefore the government of Ontario should immediately undertake to reform the financing of support for adults with
developmental disabilities, giving consideration to the following:
-- person-centred planning, whereby funding is allocated directly to each person with a developmental disability for
that person and her or his family or guardian to decide how best to meet his or her needs;
-- improving the funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on schedule and
the former residents of institutions can be ensured access to a full range of community support;
-- redirecting funds to adults with developmental disabilities from other areas, such as those mentioned above, where
expenditure cuts could be achieved.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes
for her presentation.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Before speaking to my resolution, I would like to thank the many persons
with developmental disabilities and their families, advocates and care givers who are in the galleries today. The
delegation from Community Living Mississauga is about 80 people. Many other groups are represented too. These
people went to great effort to be here because it is critical that we reform this government's financial support for adults
with developmental disabilities. I hope the outcome of today's debate will not let them down.
The subject of my private member's resolution is one of many which, as the Progressive Conservative spokesperson
for disability issues, I could have chosen to debate today.
Whether disabled persons are adults or children, whether their disabilities are physical, developmental or psychiatric,
many of them face an uncertain future. Their lives could be a little more fulfilling with a little more support from other
Ontarians, through our government. As a supposedly advanced and humanitarian society, how can we neglect the
needs of persons with disabilities?
I realize that many Ontarians are experiencing hard times. Half a million of us are out of work. Even those of us lucky
enough to have kept our jobs through this brutal recession find it hard to pay higher taxes and do without services we
used to enjoy.
Similarly, the Ontario government is facing exceptional fiscal challenges. I know that as legislators, we can't just snap
our fingers and come up with a few million dollars more for this health service or that social program. However, we
cannot let hard times blind us to the fact that there are people who need support from this government simply to enjoy
the basic rights and the simple human pleasures that most of us take for granted.
Moreover, there is something very, very wrong when we cannot support the vulnerable members of our society, yet we
are not doing everything possible to prevent fraud, to manage our resources better and to eliminate programs that we
simply do not need.
1010
Today we are debating the lack of support to adults with developmental disabilities. I chose this subject after a large
number of parents contacted me because their children, who are approaching their 21st birthdays, are about to lose
their children's services and there are no adult services to replace them.
This is not to imply that there are no problems in the support of children with developmental disabilities. On the
contrary, cuts to special services at home, parent relief and recreational programs, to name just a few areas, have
placed an incredible strain on families who have children with developmental disabilities. None the less, those children
are entitled to educational services until they turn 21 years of age.
There are other supports too that are limited to children and cut off once those children reach adulthood. After a
birthday that most of us celebrate as our coming of age, young adults with developmental disabilities are cut off from
the social network they used to enjoy. No longer can they count on being with their peers during the day or learning
new skills. No longer can their parents count on the daytime freedom to earn a living or pursue other activities.
Among the people who are present in the galleries today are Shawna McKitrick, a young woman with autism, who is
about to turn 21, and her mother, Lois Mercer. Lois is a single parent who works as an early childhood educator in
Hamilton. Her daughter, Shawna, currently spends weekdays in a children's group home in Maple called Kerry's Place.
Shawna has made great progress in its program for autistic children. However, that home, like most, has a long waiting
list. Kerry's Place will try to keep Shawna until an adult placement can be found, but her future there is unclear.
Moreover, at the end of this month, Shawna's transportation funding from the Board of Education for the City of
Hamilton will be cut off. That means her mother will have to get permission to leave work very early on Friday
afternoons in order to drive to Maple to pick up Shawna. Lois may have to quit her job and go on social assistance to
stay home and look after Shawna, who requires constant supervision in a structured environment.
Lois Mercer worked very hard to get a post-secondary education so she wouldn't have to rely on social assistance to
support herself and her family. Are we telling her that the only way she can care for her daughter is to go back on
social assistance again? Talk about counter-productive.
I could spend the whole hour allotted to this debate recounting more and more stories like that of Lois and Shawna. As
Lois herself says, this debate is not about her daughter only; it is about every person with special needs.
Even if the parents' financial situation is such that they can keep their adult children at home, what happens when the
parents grow elderly and can no longer care for their children?
I met with a group of older parents in Kingston who are facing that eventuality. They have already made many
sacrifices to ensure that their children live in a loving, supportive environment where they can be busy and happy.
These parents have never enjoyed the freedom from child care responsibilities that most of us take for granted once
our children have grown up. Even something as commonplace as a night out or a short vacation is often impossible
for them. Now that the parents' health is failing, they know there are few community support services for their children
and they are trying desperately to prevent their children being placed in institutions.
The Ontario government has sadly failed these parents and their children. We have in place a policy to close
institutions and redirect resources to community living settings. But what is happening? Closing institutions which are
very expensive to run should free up money for community support. But if anything, the shortage of community
resources is getting worse, not better. Whether the need is for a day program, a few hours of respite care for their
parents, or independent living, far too many adults with developmental disabilities have no community support
whatsoever. To me, this makes no sense. It appears that not all the money saved from closing the institutions is being
rechannelled into community care.
I ask this government, where is that money going? Why are there not more community services for persons with
developmental disabilities? I am sure the only reason for this lack of support is that a few thousand rather than several
thousand families are affected. But the number of disabled persons in Ontario is rising as our population ages. We
must come to terms now with how we are going to manage the challenge of supporting persons with disabilities and
their families. This is no simple matter.
However, in my discussions with disabled persons, their families and supporting organizations such as community
living associations, several people have raised the option of providing funds directly to persons with developmental
disabilities and their parents or guardians. This way, the disabled person and his or her family can decide what
support they most need. They would have more control over their lives. The care would be what they need, rather
than what happens to be funded. Metaphorically speaking, right now we are trying to put round pegs in square holes
and vice versa, instead of matching support to the individual's needs.
We also have to look at ways to redirect money from other areas to the support of persons with developmental
disabilities. Even if we expend the existing allotment in a smarter fashion, it won't be enough. Obviously, a first target
in government cost-cutting must be fraud, mismanagement and waste. We know there is much room for correction in
the program areas of social assistance, health cards and workers' compensation. Also, there are many government
programs and policies that are costly and unnecessary. For instance, in my resolution, I cited the payments to convert
private day care centres into non-profit centres.
I will address some more additional points when my turn comes up later in the debate. For now, I ask the members of
this Legislature to recognize that the lack of support for adults with developmental disabilities and their families has
reached a critical state.
Applause.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the people in the gallery not to applaud. Only the members on the floor have the
right and the privilege of applauding.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm glad the member for Mississauga South has raised the issue of this
government's support for people with developmental handicaps. I would hope the member would have read the public
documents such as the annual estimates. These clearly show the Ministry of Community and Social Services has not
only maintained its commitment but has increased it.
I would like to first address the member's concern about our commitment by first focusing on the bigger picture. The
goal of this government is to continue to integrate people with developmental handicaps into the community, because
it is the best-known way of improving the quality of their lives. Our plan and directions are based on the multi-year
plan, which is now in its seventh year. The multi-year plan is a 25-year plan document that will see almost every
institutionalized person with a developmental handicap living in the community. At the same time, we must do without
the assistance of expanding tax bases.
This government has increased spending by almost $100 million since coming into office; in other words, our
developmental services spending has increased just over 12% since we took office.
1020
Now I'd like to show the member for Mississauga South how we are wisely using tax moneys in carrying through with
our commitment to people with developmental handicaps, and it can be shown in many ways.
(1) There are many people in older institutional settings, psychiatric hospitals, sheltered workshops etc. We are
working closely with people with developmental handicaps and their representative groups to establish them in the
community, again based on the multi-year plan.
(2) We are doing this despite the significant cost of maintaining two systems at the same time. While we are creating a
community-based system, we still have to fund the old institutional-based system until all of the clients are moved
over. In a time of extremely tight money, that we see fit to continue funding this changeover is proof enough of our
support to people with developmental handicaps.
Without a growing tax base, we cannot throw money around as previous governments did. We have to work harder to
better use the resources we have, and we have done that.
(3) This government has consistently found millions more to provide for the most vulnerable group in our society by
tightening up the administrative and financial mess left by previous administrations. We are already doing what the
member from Mississauga is recommending.
(4) This government is the first one to ever create a separate branch for developmental services that brings together
operational and policy functions under one roof.
(5) This government is responding to the training needs of people with developmental handicaps by allowing the
community-led committee on sheltered workshops to expand its mandate to look at all employment training initiatives.
This government has been driven by trying to find the best possible solutions within our means to find the ways to
improve the quality of life for the vulnerable people in our society. As I read the resolution, which is clearly showing its
support for the developmentally handicapped, I must say that this government has, because in the indications since
1990 with community-based agencies, in 1990 we were spending $488.9 million, and in 1993-94, the estimates are
that $608.8 million is being spent. The depletion in the government institutions from $303 million in 1990 is now down
to $286 million.
So the resolution may be wrong. It agrees in principle with working with the people with developmental handicaps. This
government is showing its commitment and will still show its commitment. I know there are some groups out in the
community that are opposed to the resolution being put forward today.
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this morning to speak to the resolution put forward in this House by the
member for Mississauga South. Since becoming my party's critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services
nearly two years ago, I've been continually frustrated; frustrated by this government's inability to effectively manage
the services for Ontario's most vulnerable citizens.
As the member's resolution states, there is a severe shortage of support for adults with developmental difficulties,
disabilities, including supported employment, alternatives to sheltered workshops, a variety of living options, family
support services and indeed parent relief.
The NDP government continues to promise community-based services through which each person will be provided
with programs in their own community to meet their own individual needs. That sounds very good.
During the public hearings on Bill 101 last February, one of the deputants was Mrs Joan Rowe-Sleeman from Huronia
Helpers, and I'm sure people in the gallery will know this lady. Huronia Helpers is a parent organization at Huronia
Regional Centre. This is a schedule 1 facility with over 600 residents, 600 residents with varying needs. She said:
"There are indications that this process of change is like a riderless horse galloping off in all directions. The
government is proceeding to close institutions and the residents are being reabsorbed into the general population,
but there doesn't seem to be any real understanding of the degree of care needed for these residents." If I may
interrupt that quote, that's the real crux of the matter. To continue:
"They are a most vulnerable group and we have seen little, if any, evidence that this group of severe to profoundly
handicapped people has been considered realistically in policy planning." That again is the crux of the matter.
She went on to tell us: "We have...a group of people who can actually be said to be already in long-term care.... At the
present time very few, if any, residents are leaving Huronia Regional Centre for the community. It would appear that
their health requirements are so difficult that very few adequate and affordable placements can be found for them."
And she continued: "In the Metro area...there are 2,500 crisis situations...where aging parents," and some of them
marched on this Legislature, "with developmentally handicapped dependants at home are in dire straits because of
their own poor health. Their own age is making it difficult for them to care for their sons and daughters and they're
actually frantic with worry about how they'll be taken care of."
Margaret Paproski, another person who many in this province know as an advocate and a long-standing advocate
and president of the Federation of Ontario Facility Liaison Groups, also made a presentation during those public
hearings on long-term care. The federation she represents speaks for the developmentally delayed, speak for groups
of parents, relatives and friends of people who are living in Ontario institutions.
Mrs Paproski gave us some very revealing statistics about one facility in eastern Ontario, the Rideau Regional Centre
in Smiths Falls. "Approximately 90% of the people there have been diagnosed in the range of severe to profound
retardation; 85%" of the residents of "at that facility are over 30; 45% are over the age of 40; 6% are deaf; 46% have
epilepsy; 16% have cerebral palsy; 33% exhibit severe behaviourial problems and 19% are non-ambulatory."
Obviously, the individual needs of these people are very significant and very specialized. Individuals with such severe
problems require a wide range of services, including specialized health care, physiotherapy, supported employment,
respite care and family support.
Even with this poignant testimony that I've spent most of my time relating, the strongest commitment we've been able
to get out of this NDP government is, and I quote from government documents, "Beginning within the next three years
there will be a review of the two systems." So within the next three years -- no real time lines -- a review. "Long-term
care and services for those with developmental disabilities will be reviewed to product a better-coordinated, efficient
system that reflects the concerns of consumers, their families and providers." Doesn't that sound nice.
This just isn't adequate. It isn't just. It's an insult to the people who are here this morning, the developmentally
delayed, their families and their advocates. The needs of these vulnerable people and their families are obvious and
they're immediate, yet they are given little, they're promised little within the complete mandate of this government, its
full five years in power.
On September 20, 1993, the minister announced with great fanfare the allocation of $21 million to the developmentally
delayed. The purpose of this announcement was to show, and I quote from the minister's press release, "this
government's resolve to support the most vulnerable members of our society during this time of fiscal restraint."
Let me share with this House some of the many things this province-wide, right across the province, $21 million is
going to accomplish.
-- Funding community placements of residents from Northwestern Regional Centre, which is scheduled to close in
1994.
-- Initiating the closure of Oxford Regional Centre in Woodstock.
-- Proceeding with community placement from other institutions.
-- Funding special services at home.
-- Promoting development of community services.
-- Funding new and existing services for people living in two Simcoe county nursing homes.
-- Addressing the health and safety measures in five facilities.
1030
This is going to be a very, very busy $21 million. It's just a first step, a modest first step, to accommodate the
magnitude of genuine, real needs right across this province of real people, some of whom are with us this morning.
This $21 million is being presented when other expenditure control and social contract outcomes are inevitably cutting
services to those in need on a daily basis, and each of us in this Legislature is receiving letters to that effect.
I note also that the $21-million figure earmarked in the minister's announcement is remarkably similar to the projected
decrease -- I repeat, decrease -- of $20.3 million in the budget for community accommodation for adults with
disabilities which we find in the 1993-94 estimates.
As the presenter of this motion has said very well, there is a great deal of comparison with the $22 million that's been
spent for very ideologically driven motives in the conversion of child care without one extra space, one extra
subsidized space, one extra child being cared for in this province.
The $22 million that has been devoted to the conversion process in child care could've been directed to the needs of
real people within this real community in this province. The people we are speaking about this morning, the
developmentally delayed, could have begun to have a real reason to believe that their government had them and their
needs on the front burner, but no, decisions were made otherwise.
This government must begin to take its responsibilities to the developmentally delayed very much more seriously. This
government must begin to allay the fears and the concerns of real people who are supporting the vulnerable in our
communities, the parents, the care givers, the advocates.
The adequate community services are just not there, and that is the crux of the matter. The community-based
services must continue to be developed. They must meet real needs of real people and they must become a priority of
this NDP government within its present mandate before the year 1995.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on this important resolution. I want to
thank my colleague the member for Mississauga South for bringing it to our attention. This resolution calls on the
provincial government to immediately undertake to reform the financing of support for adults with developmental
disabilities by giving consideration to:
-- Person-centred planning, whereby funding is allocated directly to each person with a developmental disability for
that person and his or her family or guardian to decide how best to meet his or her needs.
-- Improving the funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on schedule and
the former residents of institutions can be assured access to a full range of community support.
-- Redirecting funds to adults with developmental disabilities from other areas such as those mentioned above where
expenditure cuts could be achieved.
I will be supporting this resolution because the current provincial government's approach to dealing with the plight of
the adults with developmental disabilities across Ontario has been lame, to say the least.
Unfortunately, the provincial government is taking that same lame approach when it comes to the closure of
institutions without any thought to the needs of the developmentally disabled. I am disappointed that the current
Minister of Community and Social Services has firmly entrenched his ministry's position to close institutions without any
new data or rationale, with no recognition of the significant needs of people who have severe to profound intellectual
disabilities, and no acknowledgement of any of the constructive recommendations proposed by the Federation of
Ontario Facility Liaison Groups.
I share concerns expressed to me by the Orillia Association for the Handicapped about the minister's irrational plans
to cut funding for in-home community therapy services and sheltered workshops like the ARC Industries in Orillia.
I agree with foster parents like Isabel Seguin, Margaret Smit of Orillia and Shirley Black of Brechin, who are outraged
at the NDP government's plan to claw back a portion of the federal children's special allowance which is used to offset
the cost of raising children in their care. This is another example of a provincial government policy that is outrageous,
insensitive and irresponsible, and that is why I'll be supporting this resolution from the member for Mississauga South.
I will also be supporting it in an effort at reflecting the opinions of my constituents in Simcoe East, who recently
responded to a questionnaire that asked, "Do you believe the appropriate support services are in place that would
facilitate the policy of deinstitutionalization and allow developmentally handicapped persons to live with dignity in the
community?" In response, 28% were undecided, 21% said yes and 51% said no, the appropriate support services are
not in place to allow the developmentally disabled to live with dignity in the community.
I urge my colleagues to support the member for Mississauga South in her efforts at improving the funding of
community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on schedule and the former residents of
institutions can be assured access to a full range of community support. Huronia Regional Centre is in my riding; the
member for Ottawa-Rideau spoke with regard to the Huronia Helpers. I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the
opportunity to say a few words.
Mr David Winninger (London South): I would certainly like to commend the member for Mississauga South for bringing
forward this resolution today. I think it has provoked and will provoke some very important discussion around how we
can best meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities.
Parts of the resolution are quite positive. They place a value on people with developmental disabilities. They affirm
and encourage quality of life, independent living and full participation in community life. I think it's very important that
we be mindful of the commitments in this kind of resolution.
Virtually not a week goes by when I don't hear from parents in my own constituency of children with developmental
disabilities, including children with autism, and the monumental challenges that those parents face each and every
day, sometimes 24 hours a day, even during their sleep, with children who wake up, who are hyperactive, who have
demands that are not easily met; who need respite care and need more respite care, who need supports in their
homes, who need supports in their community so that their children can live independently in their homes where they
can receive love and affection and a nurturing environment. These are very important supports that parents of
developmentally handicapped children require if they're going to continue to be able to keep their families together.
Certainly supported employment is important, living options, family supports, parental relief. The special services at
home program needs to be a flexible one, it needs to be able to meet the needs of individual families and their
children. Yes, sheltered workshops are important for those children who are unable to enter mainstream life, but on
the other hand I think we need to encourage as much as we possibly can the integration of children into mainstream
life.
One of the ways to do that is to improve access, access to child care, access to education, access to skills training
and access to the job force, so it strikes me as a little strange that some members of the Conservative Party and the
Liberal Party would oppose Bill 79, our employment equity legislation, which strives to do just that sort of thing, to
improve access to the workforce for disabled people.
There will always be people, young and older, infants and more mature people, who are unable to adjust necessarily
to a competitive work environment, and we need to look a little more at how we handle children with severe disabilities.
I know that many nations in the G-7, such as Great Britain, Italy, France and Japan, have made very progressive
strides towards dealing with people with severe disabilities. I know that ARCH and PUSH here in Ontario would like to
make the same kind of progress that has, for example, been made in the United States for people with severe
disabilities.
1040
This government has already taken several steps, despite the economic constraints under which we're suffering, to
integrate children and more mature people with developmental disabilities into the workforce, not only employment
equity but also our reform of skills training, known as OTAB, which seeks to invoke the full talents and skills of the
developmentally disabled.
In schools, we're no longer segregating children with special or exceptional needs. We're trying to integrate them into
the regular classrooms.
Our reform of the social assistance system is notable in that one of the provisions is Job Link, which is designed to
provide people who are currently on social assistance, on family benefits because they have disabilities, with
opportunities to enter the workforce. If they are unable to work due to mental or physical disabilities, they still need
options, options to participate fully in community life. The key to giving them the options is to remove some of the
barriers and some of the discrimination that children with disabilities and their parents encounter when they seek to do
so.
Child care is important too. We continue to reform our child care system to make it more accessible, more affordable,
to add quality to it. It's important that children with developmental disabilities participate in these reforms as well.
Housing: we have a tremendous commitment to the construction of non-profit and co-op housing. In each and every
one of these housing projects today, normally there are units for disabled people.
It's important that there be community supports for those disabled people if they're to have independent living: Groups
homes, yes, where necessary, but encourage independence wherever possible, but provide community supports to
those children and their parents where necessary.
We recently announced that we're implementing the Lightman recommendations. That too is important news for
people with developmental disabilities.
Health care, reform of the long-term care system: That too is a very important initiative to confirm that when people
are moved out of institutions the necessary community supports are there for them.
Just to close, in London, through the Coordinating Council for Children and Youth, we've done a good job, I think, of
coordinating services for youth, but there's a lot more that can be done and should be done.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to join in the debate this morning. I too want to congratulate
the member for Mississauga South.
Since the process of deinstitutionalization was started some time ago, we all, I think of all party stripes, have watched
this with great sensitivity.
It makes sense. These people who at one time in our history we thought were not capable of independent living, were
not capable of a lot of things, those of us who do not suffer from that developmental handicap have grown to
understand that these people can be developed to their full potential and have to be developed to their full potential.
Probably the most heart-wrenching thing, though, as was indicated by one of the members in the debate, is that we as
parents, if we're making our will or are making plans for our children in the possibility that we may pass on before they
reach adulthood, have grave concern and go to great extremes to do that. Parents of these children, who will become
adults, have that concern with them constantly, and as they grow old, it becomes an even more pressing and more
demanding problem for them.
That's where government, of whatever political stripe, has to place great emphasis: on providing the services to
ensure that those people able to live independently do so, yes, but also that you can relieve the minds of those
parents who see themselves growing old and perhaps are not seeing the services being kept up by the government of
the day in terms of ensuring that those young people or those adults will be secure.
I suggest to you that it really comes down to a matter of how you deal with the economic affairs of the province. It
causes me some concern to watch this government; I hate to say this. They look at areas where the private sector
could continue to operate -- day care is one that's suggested in the resolution -- and instead it wants not-for-profit,
wants government to run it, wants government to fund it. I say to you, wake up. Let the private sector look after day
care. Use the very scarce dollars you have to improve the system to provide the safety net for these young people
and these young adults, to allow them to live independently, to allow them to reach their full potential and, most
importantly, to allow their parents to feel comfortable that when they pass on or they become incapacitated, that the
government of the day will have the funds sufficient to do that in an appropriate way.
I can only see one parallel to the concerns of parents as they grow older. Their concern must be equivalent to that of
the parents of a schizophrenic. I know that is not related to this particular issue, but it's one that concerns me and one
that has to be changed by this government. The parents of the schizophrenic don't know where their child is: He or
she has been released from institutions; we don't institutionalize them any more. They're out on the streets; they're
the street people of this province, the street people of this country. We have a Mental Health Act which does not
require them to take their medication. That has to be amended. We have an OHIP plan which doesn't pay for the most
recently discovered type of drug that can be taken, which is far more acceptable to schizophrenics.
It's things like that which cause parents great concern. I feel there's a parallel between that and the parents of people
who have developmental handicaps. They in fact are worrying, they're waiting. They want to be sure that when they
pass on or become incapacitated, their loved ones will be looked after adequately.
I suggest again that it's a matter of how you deal with your money. I suggest that the government of the day
unfortunately is putting money into things that are better handled in the private sector, and that if it didn't do that,
there would be funds available to ensure that each and every individual in Ontario and in Canada who has a
developmental handicap would be able to reach their full potential and their parents would be able to rest easy,
knowing that the government, which is using the taxes they pay, is using them properly, fairly and wisely to ensure that
all of these programs that are available continue to be so.
I notice in the resolution that there are certain transfers that have been reduced. I always hear the Premier of the day,
in fact this morning on Gzowski, talking about the cutbacks of the feds in transfer payments. Well, Premier, don't cut
back transfers to your particular ministries, this one.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I want to say a few words in support of my colleague the member for Mississauga
South, particularly regarding the improving of funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions
can proceed on schedule. I want to make clear to the government and remind it that there is a certain percentage of
these residents who cannot be placed outside of the institution.
As the member for Ottawa-Rideau has pointed out, for the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, that institution has
been reduced, I would say, from the information made available to me, to the numbers now that basically have to be
retained in that type of environment. It is an excellent building, in excellent shape, and the living standards there are
extremely high. I would strongly recommend to the government that it look at that particular location as a location for
the province of Ontario for those residents who are not able to go out into the community regardless of the money
available.
1050
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I don't have much time this morning, unfortunately, because I think this is the kind of
debate that should go on for a lot longer. I know some of my colleagues have already mentioned the multi-year plan
and have already mentioned the special services at home review that has been under way for a couple of years. Even
in my own community, Mila Wong from community living has been talking to me a great deal and I understand the
situation entirely.
But I want to speak in my brief time to the particular resolution of the "therefore" at the end. Historically, we know that
the idea was to hide people away. Anybody who was even slightly different was supposed to be locked up and not be
a bother to anyone. Of course that reform has been going on. It took a long time coming, and it is still going on, we are
still doing many, many things. Unfortunately, as with a number of other things, you can't do it all in a very short time,
much as we would like to.
To have 600 people, as the member opposite says, in an institution is totally unacceptable; there's no question of
that. and in the three years that we've been the government, that reform is continuing. Again, you can't take 600
people with no place to go; they have to have the support that's in the community. On that, we're very much in
agreement.
But the government's job -- any government; I don't care which political stripe it is -- is to balance whatever decisions it
has to make with the funding dollars it has. We have to deal with real people, as the member opposite said, people
who need housing, people who need social assistance reform, people who need education, people who need health
care, people who need all of those things, with the smaller and smaller dollars we're getting. Given the restraints, I
think to have actually increased the budget in the social assistance reform for the developmentally challenged is a
very good indicator of the commitment we have to this area. I wish we could do more.
On the resolution, focusing on the "giving consideration to" part at the end, "redirecting funds to adults" is the only
part I have a problem with, because you can't just redirect to people with developmental disabilities; you have to
redirect any savings you find to all kinds of areas and you can't just do it to the one. With the proviso that it's giving
consideration to the three items she has mentioned, I support this.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): First of all, at the outset let me say I want to commend my colleague and
close friend the member for Mississauga South. Both of us were elected on the same day in this House back in 1985,
but we also were school trustees in different jurisdictions. Between us, we've figured out that we have about 35 years
of participation with and support of community living associations in our community. I'm not surprised to see this
resolution and the level of commitment coming from our critic responsible for disability issues, and I, as the critic for
Community and Social Services, wish to put some points on the record.
Today we're going to hear a lot about dollars spent and dollars not spent, but really the issue is whether or not
politicians in this chamber representing three different political parties understand what's going on in communities;
whether or not this government or the previous government is committed or was committed to having listened to the
needs of the disabilities community. If they had listened to them and understood clearly what they were saying, then
we would have proceeded in an orderly fashion, building upon understandings of how we were going to make this a
more caring, humane society where people with disabilities had an equal place and an equal standing in our society.
We as Conservatives believe we understood this fundamental right, that children who are handicapped should not be
shunted away and hidden, that they had a right to be integrated into our school system, so it was our government that
brought in Bill 82 and fundamentally worked on that principle. The philosophy of understanding and listening to what
families were doing grew so that we started an understanding of a multi-year plan, that the role was not to hide people
away in institutions. There is a role for some people in institutions -- don't get me wrong -- but far too many children
were just put away there, and the promise and the understanding was that we would bring them back into the
community.
But what we as politicians have to remember is that there were a lot of families who didn't put their children into
institutions, who made conscious decisions that the most supportive, loving environment they could provide was in
their home.
So why would we stop listening to those people and just stay focused on those people in institutions? We have
stopped listening to those people, apparently, when we look at where the government is spending its money and who
the government's listening to.
Frankly, I've seen some very terrible turns in the wrong direction since this government was elected. I want to run
through these very quickly, because I've been the Community and Social Services critic and my colleague has been
responsible for disability issues since this government was elected.
I recall when the whole multi-year plan was seized by a private meeting between Fred Upshaw of the union and
Zanana Akande, the then minister. The differently abled community had to fight to get their rights back to all the
ground they'd earned over the seven-year period leading up to that.
We've seen the reductions in sheltered workshops, because there's again that sort of union bias that nobody in
society should be paid less than minimum wage. But did they understand exactly what was happening in sheltered
workshops? No. The unions again are going to dictate to the community, to the families, just how their lives will be
ordered.
We've seen supported living rules change dramatically, not only access, saying to families: "You can't pick who you
want to come into your home and assist you with the daily living activities. Oh no, we've got to have somebody we
choose to go in there." When that person has difficulty lifting an adult and throws his back out and goes on workers'
compensation, now it's the workers' comp expense for that family. These are the kinds of things that are going on out
there, and nobody's listening.
There are more issues. Long-term care reform: They were told from day one, "You don't count." Now, where are these
people going to live? Family after family comes and visits us year after year. The parents are getting older. Their
ability to care for a 35-year-old living in their home is getting difficult. We're not providing the supports. I'm watching a
family where a mother now has to be hospitalized because of the care requirements of an older husband and a
younger son or daughter with developmental disabilities. Are we listening to these families? Are we providing the
funding? Do we have an awareness? No.
We've seen user fees being dreamed up now for families and a grab of the baby bonus money.
Ms Murdock: No.
Mr Jackson: Oh yes, you know there's a grab of the family allowance moneys for those persons under the age of 21
with the community living associations.
What I'm trying to say, because I really wanted to give the floor back to my colleague with her excellent resolution, is
that government is moving off its commitment to these families and to these citizens who are differently abled. We'd
better get back on track if we want to say we're a caring society and that we understand their rights to normalization,
their rights to empowerment, and listen to families who are failing under the burden of these additional responsibilities.
We have to stop making promises to these families and to these individuals and start funding appropriately so they
can live with dignity in our communities as we promised them. That is the philosophy of community living. That is the
commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the commitment of the member for Mississauga South, and I
urge all members to support her resolution today.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): It's my pleasure to participate in this debate today. I stand in support of the resolution
in principle.
I've met representatives from the Metropolitan Agencies Representatives' Council, from ARC, from PUSH, from People
First, consumers who have shared their experience in the years that they have suffered from previous governments'
terrible management of the huge institutions they built. Their purpose was to not allow disabled people to participate in
society, and their history has been a disgusting one.
A lot of what I'm hearing today is a bunch of baloney and I find it rather disgusting. I'm very proud to say that our
government has worked very hard with legislation such as the Employment Equity Act, the Advocacy Act. I've sat in
committees where I've heard Liberal members and Conservative members working their darnedest to stop legislation
like that from going through. Why are you now standing and saying you want to make sure disabled people participate
in society when you have in fact stalled on this sort of stuff?
The federal government has cut transfer payments, and I see nothing except a lot of talk. I'd like to see some action.
We're the only province that has actually proved itself by a commitment, by programs that are actually in place. I ask
the Conservative and Liberal members to work with us, then, to help us stop the federal government cutting the
transfer payments that in fact do not allow us to continue with many of the programs we need so that --
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired.
Mr Malkowski: But we have maintained social programs and maintained education and training opportunities for
disabled people.
1100
Mrs Marland: I want to remind the members in this House that this is private members' business and each and every
member has an obligation to vote to represent the people in their ridings and their constituencies. I hope for once we
don't have a whipped vote on the government side.
I challenge this government, which has made the cuts to these much-needed programs, to look into the faces of these
people here today. I challenge you to recall the 5,000 people who were on the front lawns of this building one year
ago. I hope that this time your actions will be different. I hope that you will promise them this time that you will not
disappoint them and you will not turn your backs on them again.
For the Minister of Community and Social Services not even to answer my question in the House and two letters about
the predicament of Mrs Lois Mercer and her daughter Shawna is plainly irresponsible and uncaring. Is this the best
this government can do, that it won't even answer the questions about people with special needs? I say, as I've said in
this House so many times, that disabilities do not disappear overnight on a person's 21st birthday, that government's
obligation to these young people and their families also does not disappear either. How can we abandon them? They
need us now more than ever.
If it is the right in this province for a francophone family in Ontario to be able to drive the highways of this province and
read the highway signs in French, then surely it is the right of persons with developmental disabilities and their families
to drive the road of life in Ontario with the support they need.
Mr Winninger: Who wrote this?
Mrs Marland: This government is about to pass equal opportunity for employment legislation that a member has
referred to. They are about to pass legislation on equal opportunity for employment.
To answer the question that is being asked in this House at this moment as to who wrote the speech: I wrote my own
speech. I don't need anybody to write my speeches.
All I say is, at the same time that you're passing equal opportunity for employment, what about equal opportunity for
persons with disabilities to survive on a daily basis? They need to have support for functions that others take for
granted. What about equal opportunity to live independently? What about equal opportunity to live with dignity?
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: Let us join our hands for once around this chamber and work together to achieve a solution. I ask you
this morning to consider very carefully before you vote, that vote which will be taking place approximately an hour from
now, after we deal with the next resolution that is scheduled for this morning. When that vote takes place this morning,
I challenge each and every one of you to prioritize once and for all on the basis of human need. You can go and stand
on any public platform in this province, for any political party, and defend prioritizing on the basis of human need first.
I'm asking you to give the support for people who need it most.
Yes, we're in a depression; yes, we're short of money. And as the member for Sudbury said, there are all kinds of
drains on government funds. I said that in my speech at the beginning this morning. We understand that. But in this
time of recession, who do you think it hurts the most? The most vulnerable people in our society.
We have a moral obligation and a responsibility that I hope not one of us will turn our back on, and that is to vote in
favour of this resolution once and for all. I ask you, when you do that this morning, for once not to listen to your whip
but to listen to your heart and to your mind and, by voting to support this resolution, give hope to these people for a
better future.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.
I want to welcome the people in the gallery who are interested in this resolution. The vote on this resolution will take
place at 12 noon.
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: In accordance with our standing orders, I would ask that the
member for Cochrane North withdraw his statement during the interjections that my colleague's comments were racist.
The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry; I didn't hear that.
Mr Jackson: I would like to give the member the opportunity to rise in the House and withdraw his interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Would the member care to comment?
Mr Wood: Yes. I was upset that other groups were being attacked to gain support for this particular group of people. I
agree that this group of people needs extra money. I was upset over that.
The Acting Speaker: Would you care to withdraw?
Mr Wood: The other remarks -- I will withdraw if it upset Mr Jackson, yes.
Mrs Marland: On a point of personal privilege, Madam Speaker: I did not say that money should be taken from that
program. I simply said that if that is the case, then this also should be the case.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of personal privilege. Orders of the day.