TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 2

1Appointments to the Toronto District Health Council

2Immigration Legislative Review

3A Social Development Strategy for the City of Toronto

4Restructuring of the Supportive Housing Program, Homes for the Aged Division

5General Welfare Assistance Regulation Changes

6Land Acquisition - Purchase of No. 4 Wynnview Court, Scarborough

7Amendment to Licence Agreement -St. Andrew-by-the-Lake Church (Centre Island

8Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on February 12, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Gordon Chong, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

1

Appointments to the Toronto District Health Council

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(a) the report dated February 16, 1998, from the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) Ms. Shirley Hoy, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Mr. Eric Gam, Executive Director, Social Development, be nominated as Toronto's staff representatives to the Toronto District Health Council; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.';

(b) the recommendations of the Striking Committee embodied in the communication dated February 23, 1998, from the Striking Committee, be adopted, viz.:

'The Striking Committee on February 23, 1998, recommended to Council that the Mayor of Toronto be requested to write to the Toronto District Health Council advising that:

(1) City Council at its meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, appointed Councillor Joan King as the City's nominee as a Member of the City of Toronto Council on the Toronto District Health Council; and

(2) City Council does not wish to nominate two candidates for this position.'; and

(c) the recommendations of the Board of Health embodied in the communication dated February 26, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'In accordance with the Toronto District Health Council's request for two Board of Health candidates for one position on the Council, the Board endorsed the Striking Committee's nomination of Councillor Joan King as City Council's representative as it felt she could also represent the Board of Health on the Council. However, the Board also forwarded the name of Councillor Michael Prue as the Board's candidate in the event that the Toronto District Health Council required additional nominations.' ")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee:

(1) submits without recommendation the following communication (January 20, 1998) from the Chair of the Volunteer Support Committee, Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council, respecting appointments to the Toronto District Health Council; and

(2) reports having requested the Striking Committee, the Board of Health, and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to submit directly to Council for its meeting on March 4, 1998, for consideration with the following communication their respective required number of candidates, in accordance with the Minister of Health's guidelines, for nomination to the Toronto District Health Council, as outlined therein:

As you know, the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council (MTDHC) advises the provincial Minister of Health on local health planning. The District Health Council is proceeding to amend its by-laws to reflect the new municipal government structure in Toronto. The proposed amendments to the by-laws will go before our Council in February for final approval. We are writing to you now in anticipation of the changes being ratified as we want to give Toronto Council as much lead time as possible to consider nominees for membership on the District Health Council.

We are proposing that our name be changed to the Toronto District Health Council. In addition, we have proposed a change in municipal representation. Council has been composed of consumers and providers of health and social services, as well as one individual nominated from each municipal council in Metropolitan Toronto (seven in all). The proposed by-law change recognizes the new single municipal council and brings MTDHC in line with the standard MTDHC membership of 40percent consumers, 40 percent providers, and 20 percent nominees from local government.

It is proposed that approximately 20 percent of Members will be nominated by the City of Toronto. Council will request that the City of Toronto Council give consideration to providing the following representation:

- one nomination will include a member of the City of Toronto Council;

- one nomination will include a member of the Board of Health; and

- two nominations will include staff members with knowledge of the health, social, and human service issues facing the City of Toronto.

The Minister of Health's guidelines require that two candidates must be nominated for each position on Council. District Health Council members are appointed by Provincial Cabinet. The Council, as a multi-stakeholder board, draws upon the personal experience and knowledge of all of its members. However, it is not a representational board. Members must focus on the broader health planning interests and needs of those using the health system.

In order to ensure that the City of Toronto has representation on Council as quickly as possible, you may want to begin your process for nomination to the District Health Council. We will write to you again, formally asking for your nominations, after the February meeting of Council. Once we have received your nominations, they will be forwarded to the Provincial Government for approval and appointment by Order-in-Council.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (February 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Striking Committee from the meeting held on February 23, 1998:

Recommendations:

The Striking Committee on February 23, 1998, recommended to Council that the Mayor of Toronto be requested to write to the Toronto District Health Council advising that:

(i) City Council at its meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, appointed Councillor Joan King as the City's nominee as a Member of the City of Toronto Council on the Toronto District Health Council; and

(ii) City Council does not wish to nominate two candidates for this position.

The Striking Committee reports, for the information of Council, having further directed that the foregoing recommendation be submitted to Council on March 4, 1998, for consideration with Clause No.1 of Report No. 2 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, headed "Appointments to the Toronto District Health Council".

Background:

The Striking Committee on February 23, 1998, had before it a communication (February 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on February 12, 1998, recommended that:

(1) the communication (January 20, 1998) from the Chair of the Volunteer Support Committee, Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council (now the Toronto District Health Council), respecting appointments to the Toronto District Health Council, be submitted to City Council without recommendation; and

(2) the Striking Committee, the Interim Board of Health, and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to submit directly to Council for its meeting on March 4, 1998, for consideration with the aforementioned communication their respective required number of candidates, in accordance with the Minister of Health's guidelines, for nomination to the Toronto District Health Council, as outlined therein.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendation of the Board of Health from its meeting held on February 23, 1998:

Recommendation:

In accordance with the Toronto District Health Council's request for two Board of Health candidates for one position on the Council, the Board endorsed the Striking Committee's nomination of Councillor Joan King as City Council's representative as it felt she could also represent the Board of Health on the Council. However, the Board also forwarded the name of Councillor Michael Prue as the Board's candidate in the event that the Toronto District Health Council required additional nominations.

The Board indicated that it may reconsider forwarding the name of a second candidate once the structure and citizen representation on the Board of Health had been finalized.

Background:

The Board of Health on February 23, 1998, had before it a report (February 12, 1998) from the City Clerk requesting the Board of Health to submit directly to Council for its meeting on March 4, 1998, the respective required number of candidates, in accordance with the Minister of Health's guidelines, for nomination to the Toronto District Health Council.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 16, 1998) from the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To obtain Council approval for the nomination of two staff representatives to the District Health Council.

Financial Implications:

Nil.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Ms. Shirley Hoy, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Mr.EricGam, Executive Director, Social Development, be nominated as Toronto's staff representatives to the Toronto District Health Council; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council advises the Minister of Health on local health planning. It is now in the process of amending its by-law to reflect the new municipal government structure in Toronto by changing its name to the Toronto District Health Council and bringing its membership in line with the standard Provincial District Health Council membership of 40 percent consumers, 40 percent providers and 20 percent local government nominees. This would require City Council to make the following nominations:

(i) nomination of a Member of City Council;

(ii) nomination of a Member of the Board of Health; and

(iii) the nominations of two members of staff having knowledge of the health, social and human services issues facing the City of Toronto.

At its February 12, 1998 meeting, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee requested that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services forward the staff nominations directly to Council. All nominations will be reviewed and appointed by the Provincial Cabinet, which will focus on the ability of nominees to address the broader health planning interests and needs of the health system and its users. Given the Provincial criteria, the recommended staff nominees are appropriate.

Contact Name:

Ms. Shirley Hoy, 392-8302.)

2

Immigration Legislative Review

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting from Recommendation No. (2) of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee the words "City of Toronto cease operating the services and programs provided to refugee claimants", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report back to the Committee at its first meeting in 1999", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2) that Council set a time frame of no later than the end of 1998 by which time the Federal Government will be required to provide the $75.00 per person per night subsidy, and if this time frame is not met the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report back to the Committee at its first meeting in 1999;".)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report dated February 3, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to:

(a) amending Recommendation No. (2)(iii) to read as follows:

"(iii) the reimbursement to municipalities for social assistance, hostel and other service costs borne by the municipality for services and programs provided to refugee claimants;";

(b) adding the following Recommendation No. (2)(iv):

"(iv) the recovery of municipal costs in the situation of sponsorship breakdown;"; and

(2) that Council set a time frame of no later than the end of 1998 by which time the Federal Government will be required to provide the $75.00 per person per night subsidy, and if this time frame is not met the City of Toronto cease operating the services and programs provided to refugee claimants.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested Councillor David Miller, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues, to provide Members of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee with a copy of his submission to the March 3, 1998, Citizenship and Immigration Canada Legislative Review.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following report (February 3, 1998) from the Acting Executive Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to identify implications for the City of Toronto arising from proposed changes to Canada's immigration legislation as outlined in the report "Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration," commissioned by The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and released on January 6, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate direct financial implications. However, if relevant recommendations contained in the legislative review are adopted by the Federal Government, there may be future potential for reimbursement to municipalities for some social service costs provided to immigrants and refugees.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be forwarded to the Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues to be incorporated into the submission to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada legislative review consultation on March 3, 1998;

(2) Council support the recommendations contained in the report, "Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration," which pertain to municipalities, specifically:

(i) the inclusion of municipalities in formal consultations on relevant policy issues;

(ii) the maintenance of an ongoing federal role in settlement and integration services along with a commitment to adequate funds to ensure equitable access to settlement services; and

(iii) the reimbursement to municipalities for social assistance, hostel and other service costs borne by the municipality for services and programs provided to immigrants and refugees;

(3) Council encourage the Federal Government to conduct broad and public consultation on the proposed immigration legislative review to ensure all relevant stakeholders have an opportunity for input; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On November 25, 1996, The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, commissioned a three-member Advisory Group to conduct an independent review of Canada's current Immigration Act and to submit its report by December 31, 1997. The review process included consultations with all levels of government and the community-based social service sector. The commissioned report "Not Just Numbers" documents the results of this legislative review. Five, cross-Canada, consultation sessions have been scheduled for early March 1998 to allow relevant stakeholders an opportunity to respond to the report. Final decisions regarding any implementation of the legislative review are expected to be made by the Federal Government by the end of 1998.

Appendix A provides a summary of the report "Not Just Numbers" with a particular emphasis on recommendations which have implications for the City of Toronto. A copy of the full report is available upon request through the City Clerk's office.

The former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto had been involved in immigration and refugee settlement issues since the adoption of a Multicultural Policy in 1978. This policy reflects the important role immigration plays in shaping Toronto's diversity and vitality and shaped Metro's policies toward programs for immigration settlement. In 1990, Metropolitan Council adopted a new policy on Ethno-Racial Access to Metropolitan Services which focused on enabling ethno-racial minorities gain equal access to and derive equal benefit from Metro services.

The former Metropolitan Council approved a Policy Framework on the Settlement, Adaptation and Integration of Immigrants and Refugees in Metropolitan Toronto in 1994. The two main goals of this framework were:

(1) to address the specific needs of immigrants and refugees by supporting their settlement, adaptation, and integration into all aspects of community life, and by providing appropriate supports to enable the community at large in making the necessary adaptations and accommodations; and

(2) to seek an equitable distribution of resources from other levels of government to Metropolitan Toronto to ensure the smooth and productive settlement, adaptation and integration into community life of immigrants and refugees.

The former Metropolitan Council has had a long history of communicating concerns to the Provincial and Federal Governments on immigrants and refugees policy issues relevant to the municipality. Some areas which have been addressed include the need for: municipal consultations on policy issues, a "fair share" of resource allocations and increasing access to trades and professions for newcomers, for example. Position papers were submitted on a number of issues such as: the Immigrant Investor Program, Settlement Renewal and, in October 1991, a submission was made to the Immigration Legislative Review Advisory Group.

The Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues, established under the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, will continue to identify and respond to immigration and refugee issues relevant to the City of Toronto and recommend appropriate ways of integrating these issues into the City's policy, program and decision-making processes. Given the tight timeframes for responding to the "Not Just Numbers" report, Councillor David Miller, as Chair of the Advisory Committee, will be making the submission at the March 3, 1998, Consultation Session.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Context:

The City of Toronto is the key destination for immigrants and refugees in Canada. Toronto receives 56 percent of total newcomers to Ontario and 30 percent of the total newcomers to Canada. In addition, approximately 60 percent of refugee claims in Ontario originate in Toronto. While exact numbers have not been determined, it is fair to say that Toronto also receives a large proportion of newcomers by way of secondary immigration in which people move between different parts of the country.

Newcomers have been fundamental in shaping the diverse social, cultural, political, and economic landscape of Toronto. Considered to be the most multicultural city in the world, Toronto realizes profound benefits from the ethno-racial communities which now call this city home. It is estimated that almost 40 percent of Toronto's population are members of racial minorities. Further, it is expected that the city's population growth in the foreseeable future will be due to immigration.

Although Toronto does not have a formal policy role with respect to immigration, it is the municipality most affected by federal and provincial immigration and refugee policies, programs and practices. Toronto must deal with the impact of decisions made by other levels of government which affect the immigration settlement process at the local level.

The report "Not Just Numbers" proposes significant changes to the existing immigration legislation. Some of the recommendations for increased municipal consultation and for potential federal reimbursement for some social services provided by municipalities to immigrants and refugees would have positive benefits for the City. However, concerns have been raised by the immigrant and refugee service sector and the business sector on policies which are seen to discourage or restrict landing applications of newcomers.

Implications for the Municipality:

(1) Consultation and Collaboration:

A Federal-Provincial Council on Immigration and Protection is proposed under the new legislative framework to address mutual issues of concern in the areas of immigration law and gaps between policy, planning and service delivery. Some of the issues identified for discussion are: denial of access to welfare for self-supporting immigrants for the first six months and increasing access to trades and professions. The report encourages the creation of bilateral agreements similar to that which exists in Quebec. The urban communities who provide settlement and integration services for newcomers would benefit from clear lines of funding and administration responsibility between Federal and Provincial Governments.

Formal, structured consultations on "significant policy development" with municipalities, non-governmental organizations, businesses and other related groups are recommended in the legislative review. Historically, municipalities have been excluded from the table when policy and program decisions are being made by senior levels of government. An established consultation process could provide an opportunity for Toronto to have critical input on relevant policy issues at the decision making level. Toronto could also redress the issue of equitable resource allocations to municipalities which more accurately reflect local demand for immigrant settlement and assistance services.

(2) Settlement Services:

The former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's policy framework addressed the settlement, adaptation and integration of immigrants and refugees in Toronto. One of the goals of the framework is to ensure that Toronto has the infrastructure to provide appropriate supports to the newcomer community with respect to settlement, adaptation and integration. The community-based social services sector provides the majority of these services in Toronto. However, this sector is struggling to provide core services in the context of reduced budgets, more targeted government funding, major staff cutbacks and organizational restructuring (as revealed in the report "Profile of a Changing World", a joint study of the former Metro Community Services, the former City of Toronto and the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto).

The legislative review calls for the Federal Government to maintain an ongoing role in settlement and integration services even as it devolves responsibility for direct administration of these programs to the provinces. Further, that adequate funds be committed to ensure equitable access to settlement services. Stable and committed funding to settlement services is critical if an effective service delivery system is to be maintained in Toronto. Toronto must also have a place in discussions with the Province and the Federal Government with respect to redrawing the settlement service system.

(3) Potential for Municipal Reimbursement from the Federal Government:

The proposed legislation underscores the accountability of sponsors in upholding their financial responsibilities. It is the provinces and municipalities which absorb the costs associated with sponsorship breakdowns through social assistance programs (default rates in Toronto are estimated at 14 percent). The new framework recommends that the Federal-Provincial Council on Immigration and Protection negotiate effective mechanisms for recovering monies owed to the provinces as a result of sponsorship breakdowns (e.g., wage garnishment). Further, it is proposed that the Federal Government assume liability for all costs incurred as evidence of its commitment to enforce sponsorship. It is also recommended that the Federal Government assume all income assistance and health-care costs for inland refugee claimants until a final determination of status is made.

Toronto responds to the needs of some immigrants and refugees though the provision of social assistance, employment preparation programs, community development support and grants to non-profit organizations for anti-racist and community development initiatives, post-settlement adaption and integration services. The Province of Ontario is devolving increased funding responsibility for social assistance programs to the City of Toronto, thereby placing greater pressures on an already limited property tax base. Compensation by the Federal Government to Toronto for costs borne by the municipality for services and programs provided to immigrants and refugees is an area for further exploration if this recommendation is adopted.

Finally, the legislative review recommends that the newly created Protection Agency (responsible for refugee issues) negotiate agreements with federal, provincial and municipal entities, for the provision of various needs (such as legal aid, health care and accommodation) for successful refugee claimants. Toronto regularly provides temporary accommodation to newcomers on an interim basis through the hostel system. The exact numbers of refugees using hostels is difficult to determine as some may be admitted for reasons not related to status, such as abuse or eviction, for example.

Issues Identified by the Community:

The following issues have been identified as areas of interest or concern by some community and business groups. It is therefore appropriate to forward the following items to the Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues for consideration in developing the submission to the legislative review consultation, and to the Task Force on Access and Equity.

(1) The Right of Landing Fees:

The imposition of the right of landing fee has been controversial in the community, especially with respect to refugees and people with low-incomes. This policy has been viewed as an obstacle to family reunification. In 1997, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto adopted a recommendation that right of landing fee was discriminatory to low-income families and should be repealed. The legislative review has called for an examination of the rationale for the right of landing fee and the development of additional application fees which better reflect the costs of services provided. A loan system would be implemented for payment of immigration-related fees for spouses and dependent children in order to facilitate family reunification.

(2) Access to Trades and Professions:

A significant barrier to successful settlement and integration into Canadian society for newcomers is the restricted access to trades and professions. Many immigrants arrive in Canada with professional credentials only to find they are unable to practise because of differences with Canadian regulatory bodies. The legislative framework recommends that a Federal-Provincial Council on Immigration and Protection and Federal Immigration authorities work together to increase access to trades and professions. There is a wide diversity of regulatory bodies and professional associations which all tend to operate independently. While the co-ordination of these groups represents a difficult challenge, if successful, this could increase the range of employment opportunities and address historical problems of underemployment for newcomers.

(3) The Immigration and Refugee Board:

A central feature of the proposed legislative framework is the disentanglement of immigration and refugee policy. This separation may result in more effective systems for dealing with the distinct issues of immigrants and refugees. A "protection agency" would be created to administer refugee claims both abroad and in Canada. This system restructuring, however, would also result in the dissolution of the current Immigration and Refugee Board. A number of community groups and refugee advocates fear its elimination will remove the only available independent, objective body to deal with immigration and refugee issues and leave determinations solely to bureaucrats.

(4) Language Fees:

Standardized language requirements are being proposed for all Family Class and Self-Supporting Class immigrants. Language training fees would be applied for family members who are not proficient in either official language. This provision is considered by some to be exclusionary and prejudicial to immigrants from non-English speaking countries. Immigrants with limited incomes will likely find costs of language training prohibitive, especially in combination with the myriad of other fees which are imposed such as the application and right to landing fees. Some members of the business community also see language training fees as a discouragement for economic immigrants.

(5) Residency Requirements:

Under the proposed framework, requirements to maintain landed immigrant status will be more demanding. At least one year of physical residency in Canada is required during the first three years following landing. Currently, people are free to travel back and forth between their homeland and Canada without it affecting their ability to apply for citizenship. This has been identified as an area of concern by members of the business sector who feel it will make Canada less desirable to foreign investors and entrepreneurs seeking citizenship.

Conclusions:

Migration is primarily an urban phenomenon as most newcomers choose to settle in larger cities. In Canada, Toronto is the city of choice for most immigrants and refugees. Newcomers to Toronto have been formative in creating a vibrant, thriving and dynamic community which benefits residents and visitors alike. The economic, political, social and cultural contributions made by immigrants and refugees to our city are immeasurable.

Although Toronto does not have a recognized formal policy role with respect to immigration, it is the municipality most affected by federal and provincial immigration and refugee policies, programs and practices. Toronto must deal with the impact of decisions made by other levels of government which affect the immigration settlement process at the local level.

The report "Not Just Numbers" proposes significant changes to the existing immigration legislation. While recommendations for increased municipal consultation and potential federal reimbursement for some social services provided by municipalities to immigrants and refugees would have positive benefits for the city, concerns have been raised by the immigrant and refugee service sector and the business sector on recommended policies which are seen to discourage or restrict landing applications of newcomers. As a result, broad and public consultation on the proposed legislative framework is essential to ensure that stakeholders, including municipalities, non-governmental organizations, community and business groups, have an opportunity to provide input on implications relevant to their sectors.

Contact Name:

Eric Gam: 392-8238

________

Appendix A

A Summary of the Immigration Legislative Review

"Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration"

Background:

On November 25, 1996, The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, commissioned a three-member Advisory Group to conduct an independent review of Canada's current Immigration Act and to submit its report by December 31, 1997. The review process included consultations with all levels of government and the community sector. The commissioned report "Not Just Numbers" documents the results of this legislative review and includes a series of recommendations. Five, cross-Canada, consultation sessions have been scheduled for early March 1998 to provide relevant stakeholders with an opportunity to respond to the review and its recommendations. The following is a summary of the recommendations under the terms of the proposed legislative framework.

The New Legislative and Accountability Framework:

(a) Fundamental to the framework is the disentanglement of immigration and refugee policy as their issues are distinct. Two new Acts are proposed: the Immigration and Citizenship Act and the Protection Act for refugees.

(b) Increased accountability requirements include annual reporting to Parliament on key program performance indicators (e.g., system integrity indicators such as rates of public assistance).

(c) Future immigration levels to be determined in consultation with provinces based on assessments of resources committed by various levels of government.

(d) A working group consisting of "organizations representing the interests of clients" to examine rationale for the right to landing fees and develop application fees more reflective of the costs of services provided.

Consultation and Collaboration:

(a) Given that available resources are scarce and financial sharing arrangements need to be reviewed and strengthened.

(b) A Federal-Provincial Council on Immigration and Protection is proposed to address mutual issues in the areas of immigration law, gaps between policy planning and service delivery.

(c) Formal, structured consultations on "significant policy developments" will be held with municipalities, non-governmental organizations, businesses and other related groups.

Active Integration and Citizenship:

(a) The Federal Government will maintain an ongoing role in settlement and integration services even as it devolves administration to the provinces. Adequate funding will be essential to ensure equity of access to settlement services.

(b) Requirements to maintain landed immigrant status will be more demanding. At least one year of physical residency in Canada is required during the first three years following landing. Currently, there are no physical residency requirements.

(c) The Federal-Provincial Council on Immigration and Protection and Federal Immigration authorities will work together to increase access to trades and professions for newcomers.

The Family Class:

(a) The definition of family will be expanded (i.e., to include same-sex spouses and common-law relationships). Three tiers of family relationships are proposed: spouses and children, fiances or parents, and a new category for more distant relatives or "close acquaintances."

(b) Standardized language testing is being proposed. Language training fees will be applied for family members over age six not proficient in either official language.

(c) Financial accountability of sponsors is highlighted. Cases of domestic violence are the exception. Sponsors in default will be prohibited from additional sponsorships until debts to social assistance are repaid.

(d) Current sponsorship agreements require a commitment of a maximum of ten years. The new legislative framework recommends reducing this to three years.

(e) A new Resolution and Review Branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will affect decisions on sponsorship denial, revocation of status and detention.

(f) The Federal-Provincial Council on Immigration and Protection will explore mechanisms for recovering monies owed to provinces as a result of sponsorship breakdowns and the Federal Government will assume liability for all costs incurred.

Self-Supporting Immigrants:

(a) Skilled workers, entrepreneurs and investors will be merged into a single self-supporting category. Selection criterion includes: proficiency in one of the official languages, education and work experience. Language fees will be applied to family members who do not meet the language standard. A maximum age restriction of 45 is recommended unless an offer of employment or a financial commitment is established. Denial of access to welfare for the first six months following their landing is suggested.

(b) "Excluded occupations" will be eliminated along with the self-employed and family business job offer categories. Live-in caregivers incorporated into the broader foreign workers category. Provinces have the option to nominate individuals or groups beneficial for social, economic or cultural reasons.

(c) Requirements for skilled foreign workers will be more flexible: focus will be on bona fides of the employer rather than extensive market testing, family members could work in Canada, and applications for landing could be made within Canada.

The Protection Act (for Refugee Claimants):

(a) The current Immigration and Refugee Board will be dissolved and a "protection agency" is to be established with offices in Canada and overseas. Career civil servants function as Protection Officers to determine protection claims and Appeal Officers to review decisions on in-Canada protection claims.

(b) Functions of the agency will include negotiating agreements with federal, provincial, municipal entities, for co-ordination, information sharing and service provision (such as legal aid, health care, accommodation).

(c) An Advisory Committee of representatives from domestic, international, governments and NGOs will advise on matters such as changes in the law, budgets, emerging trends, etc.

(d) For overseas applicants, priority will be given to the most vulnerable. A fast-track system would expedite entry of people in imminent danger. For refugees requiring extensive medical care, arrangements must be established with the provincial destination prior to their arrival.

(e) A "safe third country" policy is supported based on the principle of international responsibility for ensuring safety for those seeking protection.

(f) Protection determination for inland applicants will proceed quickly, within a few months of arrival in Canada. A new category of "temporary protected status" will be created for refugees without satisfactory identification.

(g) Refugees meeting requirements upon arrival will have the right to work and access to relevant social benefits. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume all income assistance and health-care costs for inland claimants until final determination of status.

(h) People designated as in need of protection, either inland or overseas, will be exempted from paying a fee for processing a landing application. A right of landing fee will still be required. Loans would be available. Spouses and dependent children will be processed along with the protected person.

(i) Use of "discretion" by immigration officers will be eliminated as principles of "humanitarianism and compassion" are to be built into the new legislative framework. Two discretionary areas allowed: matters of national interest; and exceptional situations of dependency between people.

(j) A one-time resource allocation is proposed to clear the current backlog of 26,000 refugee claims.

Compliance:

(a) Key components of the new system will include: incentives for voluntary compliance; clear criteria for inadmissibility, detention and removal; proactive approach to enforcement.

(b) Provisional status to be granted to persons deemed co-operative with the process and who meet the reporting conditions until formal status is determined or denied. Automatic tracking systems (e.g., biometrics) are proposed to assess compliance.

(c) The Federal Government is urged to initiate efforts to increase co-operation of foreign governments in providing travel documentation to their citizens.

________

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (February12,1998) from Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, and Ms. Karen Liberman, Co-Directors, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto noting that they will be seeking an opportunity to comment and offer input on the Immigration Legislative Review at a later date.

Councillor David Miller, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues, appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the "Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration" Executive Summary was forwarded to all Members of the Committee with the agenda of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on February 12, 1998, and to Members of Council for consideration at City Council on March 4, 1998, and a copy thereof, together with a copy of the full report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Councillor Minnan-Wong, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he is a practising lawyer whose practice includes immigration law.)

3

A Social Development Strategy

for the City of Toronto

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by deleting the words "in two months" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "as soon as possible", viz:

"(2) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee as soon as possible, following the consultation with stakeholders, to outline the elements, timelines, process and preliminary budget for developing social development strategy":

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek approval to consult with key community stakeholders on the development of a social development strategy, and to outline the rationale, proposed elements and process considerations in developing the strategy.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Commissioner will prepare a budget following consultations with key community stakeholders and report back to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services consult with key community stakeholders regarding the development of a social development strategy; and

(2) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in two months, following the consultation with stakeholders, to outline the elements, timelines, process and preliminary budget for developing a social development strategy.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Municipal governments in Ontario have historically played a strong role in the provision of community social and health services. With amalgamation, the City of Toronto has assumed responsibility for an even broader range of services and programs, including social assistance, child care, hostels, social housing, public health, homes for the aged, community grants, parks and recreation, and libraries. These services and programs together form a large part of the broader social infrastructure. Historically, the programs provided at the local level have developed independently because of their separate mandates. Even those community services formerly provided at the regional level are delivered through decentralized community-based service delivery systems.

However, despite differing mandates and delivery structures, the services and programs contribute to the overall health and well-being of communities and residents of the City. It is now commonly recognized that a strong social infrastructure is a key factor in ensuring economic competitiveness, liveable, sustainable communities, and a high quality of life for residents. And it is increasingly clear that resilient, accessible and adequate community and health services are among the key building blocks on which a region's economic prosperity and social cohesion depend.

Recognizing this, each of the official plans for the former Metropolitan Toronto and the Area Municipalities acknowledge the importance of social programs and services in ensuring a healthy social region. As examples, the former Metropolitan Toronto and the former City of Toronto have established strong precedents for leadership in social infrastructure planning .

Through the 1991 Social Development Strategy, Metropolitan Toronto established clear goals and principles related to social equity, and service access which were the underpinnings for the community services system. The Social Development Strategy's goals were also incorporated into the region's Strategic Plan and Official Plan. The importance of an integrated, comprehensive planning approach was clearly recognized.

In 1989, the Board of Health in the former City of Toronto released "Healthy Toronto 2000" which was premised on the broader social determinants of health model. This model looks at the various elements of urban life as being interrelated and interconnected. This led to the creation of the Healthy City Office with the responsibility of ensuring that City programs addressed community-based social issues. In addition, the official plan of the former City of Toronto included a strong emphasis on quality of life and social equity considerations. This was realized through policies that focused on the importance of providing adequate social infrastructure at the neighbourhood level.

Thus, the programs and services that comprise the social infrastructure in the new City have a strong history of community-based service delivery developed in response to local needs. The attempt by the former local municipalities and Metro to plan and co-ordinate these services and programs is consistent with the broader recognition of the importance of social infrastructure in ensuring a high quality of life in urban areas.

A key opportunity, therefore, resulting from amalgamation is the new chance to develop an integrated social policy and planning framework, or social development strategy, to guide the development of a strong social infrastructure that is effective and responsive in meeting the needs of residents and communities.

Responding to Emerging Needs:

Over the past decade, City residents have experienced rapid economic and social changes. Fundamental changes in the labour market have adversely affected a substantial number of people, many of whom face long periods of unemployment for the first time in their lives. New needs have continued to arise due to the City's changing demography, home as it is to many newcomers, to an aging population and to changing family and community configurations.

A number of groups are particularly at risk in this environment. The increase in both the number of people who are homeless and the number of children growing up in poverty provide clear evidence of the growth of vulnerable populations. Overall, these changes have resulted in new and more urgent social needs, which have, in turn, placed growing demands on the City's community, social and health services.

Broader Context:

At the same time, all governments have been struggling with the pressures to reduce, or at best maintain, funding for social, health and educational services. Over the past decade, the health and social welfare systems that provide the safety net for all Canadians have been undergoing fundamental reforms.

Policy and program reform at the senior levels of government throughout the 1990s has been dominated by three major imperatives: downsize, devolve and reduce deficits. The impact of these directions on social and community health programs is unprecedented in the post-war period.

At the federal level, the passage of the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act, accompanied by significant funding reductions for health and social programs, has effectively signalled the Federal Government's withdrawal from social programs. Federal income support programs, like Employment Insurance, now provide lower benefits to fewer people as a result of policy changes to benefit levels and eligibility requirements. Ongoing federal and provincial discussions on social policy reform are premised on the provinces having an increasingly prominent role and enhanced responsibility for social and health programs. The Federal Government is also looking to devolve federal responsibilities for social housing and immigrant settlement services to the Provincial Government.

At the provincial level in Ontario, there have been sweeping legislative and regulatory reforms across the social and health policy envelopes, as well as substantial reductions in funding infrastructure. New social assistance legislation and the introduction of Ontario Works have resulted in the most significant changes to the social assistance and employment services system since the 1960s. Health care reforms are impacting hospitals, the system of community-based mental health services, and the long-term care system, which includes home care, supportive housing, homes for the aged, as well as the range of community-based services for seniors and the disabled. In public health, changes to the Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines will be finalized this year.

In addition to this, January 1, 1998, marked the implementation of the Provincial downloading exercise, "Who Does What". As a result, the City is now the main funder of social housing, alongside the Federal Government. It also now has sole responsibility for funding most public health services. All social assistance programs - even provincially-delivered programs - are now cost-shared by the new City. Child care is now a mandatory service, with a broader range of programs and management responsibilities being devolved to municipalities.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The need for a social development strategy:

The cumulative impacts of amalgamation, devolution and downloading on the Municipality are significant. In effect, although the Provincial Government retains the legislative and regulatory authority for community social and health programs, the stewardship of these programs now firmly rests with the City of Toronto, with significant accompanying financial and system management responsibilities. To a large extent, the actions of this Council regarding local community social and health programs will have a strong bearing on the overall quality of life, economic vibrancy and competitiveness of this urban area.

The past efforts of the former local municipalities and Metro in ensuring a strong social infrastructure has resulted in international recognition of this urban region's high quality of life. Given the broader mandate and expanded roles of the City, it is more imperative than ever before that the solid social infrastructure be retained and sustained in the future. A social development strategy can provide the vision necessary to keep the City on the right path.

A broad consultation on amalgamation, with more than 600 representatives of the community-based social services sector was conducted by Metropolitan Toronto and the Social Planning Council over the summer and fall of 1997. The result of this consultation, a report, entitled "The New City: More than Bricks and Mortar," contained a series of policy recommendations premised on the primary role the City now has in sustaining and developing a social infrastructure that is responsive to local communities and residents' needs. Chief among these are the need to form a "civic alliance" between the City and the community sector; to maintain a stable funding base for the community-based service system; and to ensure equitable and acceptable service levels and service quality across the Municipality.

Purpose and Objectives:

The ultimate purpose of a social development strategy for the new City is to contribute to the maintenance of a strong social infrastructure that meets the diverse needs of communities and residents. The social development strategy will provide the necessary framework for co-ordinating, and integrating the new responsibilities for community, social and health services in the City of Toronto.

The specific objectives of a social development strategy must be to:

(a) establish a social development vision;

(b) articulate values and principles;

(c) establish broad goals and objectives for social infrastructure planning and service provision; and

(d) establish broad outcomes to assist in assessing the effectiveness of programs and services in meeting social and health needs.

To achieve these objectives, a social development strategy with the following components is proposed:

(1) A New Social Vision:

With its new and expanded mandate for social infrastructure, the City Council, in partnership with the community, has the opportunity to articulate its vision for the future, and to provide leadership in social infrastructure planning and social development in the City of Toronto. This is an appropriate and necessary role for the new City and one that requires clear political leadership. There is a strong precedent on which to build. The past social development initiatives in the former area municipalities and Metro provide a good starting point from which to develop a new social vision.

The community-based services sector has recommended that one of the first priorities for the new Council should be to draft a Social Charter. A social charter is a good vehicle through which to communicate the City's vision and the values and principles underpinning it.

(2) A Social Infrastructure Plan:

Through a social infrastructure plan the City will establish the broad strategic framework for the provision of the community social and health services and programs provided by the City. The strategic goals and priorities established through the framework form the basis for service planning, management and delivery within the Community and Neighbourhood Services cluster.

Social infrastructure planning also provides a strategic framework within which service delivery options can be assessed. A challenge for the new City will be ensuring that service delivery is as efficient, effective and co-ordinated as possible. An integrated planning approach that focuses on outcomes for communities and residents is a valuable tool to assess how services are best organized, co-ordinated and delivered.

(3) A Social Monitoring and Reporting System:

A key element of a social development strategy is monitoring and reporting on social conditions in communities, setting targets for improvement, and reporting on social progress. The community-based sector recommends forming a new civic alliance between the City and community sectors to begin to define new standards for health and social well-being in communities. These standards, or outcomes, will support decision-making regarding policy directions, and resource allocation, and provide one basis from which to assess the effectiveness of service delivery across the community and neighbourhood services cluster.

Process Considerations:

Community Partnership:

A consistent message emerging from the community-based sector is the need for a civic partnership for social development. The social development strategy forms the basis for that partnership. It is recommended that a community development approach, that recognizes and legitimizes this partnership be adopted in developing this strategy, and that each element of the strategy include community participation.

Linkages With Other Initiatives:

City Council has already identified priority areas that require immediate attention. Toronto City Council has appointed a Children's Advocate to create an agenda for children and lead the development of a children's strategy; a Task Force on Homelessness and a Task Force on Seniors are anticipated; and a Summit on Youth Employment is being developed. Linkages between these initiatives and the social development strategy will be critical.

The social development strategy must also be linked with the Official Plan, economic development, cultural, land use, infrastructure and environmental planning in the new City and ultimately be incorporated into the Strategic Plan.

Timelines:

It is proposed that key stakeholders be consulted over the next two months with respect to the approach and elements for developing a social development strategy. It is critical that representatives from the community-based service sectors, the local social planning organizations, the business community and ratepayers have an opportunity to provide input into developing the plan for a social development strategy.

Following this consultation phase, a report recommending a consultation strategy, process, timetable and budget will be submitted to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for consideration and approval. It is anticipated that the priority for 1998 will be to establish a new social vision for the City. In 1999 and 2000, the priority will be developing a social infrastructure plan that incorporates the vision and principles, and implements ongoing social monitoring and reporting, based on outcomes.

Conclusion:

It is now commonly recognized that a strong social infrastructure is a key element in ensuring economic competitiveness and a high quality of life in large cities. The international reputation of Toronto as a good place to live and do business is a testament to the strength of its social infrastructure. The creation of this infrastructure over the past several decades is the result of the past commitment and resources from senior and local governments. The initial impacts of the cut-backs by senior governments and the downloading of funding responsibility are already evident within local communities.

With the continuing devolution of responsibilities for social and public health programs, the City of Toronto now has unprecedented management and funding responsibilities for key community social and public health programs and services that comprise the social infrastructure in this urban area. To effectively meet its residents' needs, Council must find ways to maintain and improve the provision of services to City residents. This requires strong Council leadership and a strategy to support the integration and co-ordination of new service responsibilities.

This report proposes initiating the process of developing a social development strategy for the new City and recommends the Commissioner begin by consulting with key stakeholders on a process, timeline and budget.

Contact Name:

Eric Gam: 392-8238

________

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (February12,1998) from Mr. Peter Clutterbuck and Ms. Karen Liberman, Co-Directors, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, in support of the initiative referred to in the aforementioned report and expressing a willingness to participate in the consultation.

4

Restructuring of the Supportive

Housing Program, Homes for the Aged Division

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the Municipal Grants Review Committee for information.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To seek authority for the Homes for the Aged Division to maintain its Supportive Housing Program, through renewing annual agreements with identified supportive housing sites to provide a full range of personal support and homemaking services for frail and/or cognitively impaired seniors.

To seek authority from the City of Toronto to implement a three-year transition process to restructure the Supportive Housing Program, as outlined in the body of this report, in order to comply with recently confirmed provincial policy. Implementation of the three-year transition process will be contingent upon Ministry of Health endorsement.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no net impact as a result of the recommendations in this report. The personal support services provided under provincial supportive housing policy are now funded 100 percent by the Ministry of Health.

However, discontinuation of the current client co-payment system will mean that a maximum of 276clients will receive service under the program (in comparison to a previous maximum of over 300clients).

If the Ministry of Health is able to provide enhanced funding as requested in the transition plan, the number of clients will not reduce as outlined above.

There is a positive impact on the majority of individual clients enrolled in the supportive housing program, in that removal of the client co-payment requirement will provide additional disposable income, for use related to personal needs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Homes for the Aged Division be authorized to implement the three-year transition plan for restructuring the Supportive Housing Program, as outlined in this report, contingent upon Ministry of Health approval;

(2) subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health as outlined in Recommendation No. (1), the per diem rates paid to supportive housing operators be revised effective April1, 1998, or as soon as is practicable thereafter;

(3) the Homes for the Aged Division be authorized to renew the current agreements for the provision of supportive housing services with the supportive housing site operators and community service agencies outlined in the body of this report;

(4) the Homes for the Aged Division be authorized to enter into an agreement with The Meadowcroft Group, as the new owner of Livingston Lodge, for the purpose of continuing supportive housing services at that site;

(5) the agreements with the supportive housing operators be in form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

(6) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Prior to 1993, the Homes for the Aged Division operated a Satellite Home Program under the authority of the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act, whereby the Division entered into contractual agreements with a number of for-profit and non-profit residential care facilities to provide light, residential care in a facility or group-home setting, to eligible seniors who did not require the full services of a home for the aged. The program was decentralized so that each satellite home was linked to one of the municipal Homes for the Aged, or "parent home". This provided a framework for admissions, monitoring of care and services provided to residents in the satellite home, and discharge planning when the scope of the satellite home program no longer met residents' needs.

Payment to the operators of the satellite home was made on a negotiated per diem rate for a specified number of residents in each site, to provide accommodation, nursing services, meals, housekeeping and personal care such as bathing and dressing. The per diem was constituted from three funding sources, i.e., provincial subsidy, resident co-payment, and municipal subsidy. The total per diem was considerably less than the per diem of nursing homes or homes for the aged.

Subsequent to the July 1993 proclamation of Bill 101, "The Long Term Care Statute Law Amendment Act", the Ministry of Health discontinued the Satellite Home Program and replaced it with a community-based program, entitled "Supportive Housing", as an integral part of the long-term care reform process. Any municipality who delivered a satellite home program prior to 1993 was given the option to restructure its existing program into the new Supportive Housing Program, as a prerequisite to the receipt of continued provincial funding under the Supportive Housing Program.

The Ministry of Health defined long-term care supportive housing as "providing personal support (e.g., assistance with the activities of daily living such as bathing, dressing, toileting) and essential homemaking services in community residential settings, for frail and/or cognitively impaired elderly persons where their service requirements justify the need for the availability of 24-hour on-site assistance."

Most of the satellite homes contracted with the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at the time accepted this program change. Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No.9 of Report No.5 of The Metropolitan Executive Committee, approved an extension of the 1993 contracts. In consideration of the significant impacts of Bill 101 on the Satellite Home Program, the Ministry's Long-Term Care Division verbally approved an initial three-year transition plan during which time Metro would undertake a reconfiguration of the Satellite Home Program to comply with the values, principles and policies of the Province's Supportive Housing Program.

During the transition between 1993 and 1996, Metro staff worked closely with the site operators, clients and their families to implement major program changes, based on the Ministry of Health's initial vision and principles for restructuring. These changes included eliminating the municipal subsidy component, separating accommodation costs from service packages for clients, creating a landlord and tenant relationship between the site operators and the clients, providing funding that more closely reflected the level of services being provided to the clients, and eliminating the continuum of care arrangements between the sites and the parent home for the aged.

By 1997, the Ministry of Health had refined and finetuned its vision of supportive housing, and released a document entitled "Planning, Funding, and Accountability", setting out service requirements. The Ministry also communicated a requirement for funded supportive organizations to file a written three-year transition plan, outlining how they intended to further restructure to comply with the provincial requirements, as set out in the abovementioned document.

At its meeting on June 19, 1996, through the adoption of Clause No. 6 of Report No. 8 of The Human Services Committee, Metropolitan Council authorized the Homes for the Aged Division to restructure the Municipality's Supportive Housing Program, to comply with provincial legislation, policy, and implementation guidelines.

With respect to the size and scope of the current Supportive Housing Program, the Homes for the Aged Division directly employs 6.0 FTE in case management and administrative functions. In terms of service delivery, the Division currently contracts with a number of retirement and/or group home sites and one community support service agency. With respect to retirement and/or group homes, the Homes for the Aged Division has had long-standing contracts with:

(1) Beach Arms Lodge, 505 Kingston Road, Toronto;

(2) Cedarbrook Lodge, 520 Markham Road, Scarborough;

(3) Greenview Lodge, 880 Lawrence Avenue East, Don Mills;

(4) Harold and Grace Baker Centre, 1 Northwestern Avenue, Toronto;

(5) Livingston Lodge, 65 Livingston Road, Scarborough;

(6) Magdalena's Rest Home, 379 Lake Promenade, Etobicoke; and

(7) New Horizons Tower, 1140 Bloor Street West, Toronto.

The community agency contracted in the Supportive Housing Program is St. Elizabeth Health Care, which provides supportive housing services to clients residing at Willowdale Manor, a building which is owned and operated by The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited.

On May 8, 1996, Livingston Lodge, 65 Livingston Road, Scarborough, a privately owned retirement setting, which has held a contract with the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto since December 1, 1989, was purchased by The Meadowcroft Group, and the new owner requested a continuation of the contract for the Supportive Housing Program for the site. On October 23, 1996, Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 13 of The Human Services Committee, approved the continuation of the agreement of supportive housing services at this site, subject to the outcome of a formal evaluation, to occur after six months of the change of ownership. The evaluation was to be conducted jointly by representatives of the Ministry of Health, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, The Meadowcroft Group, and clients and their families, and has been completed as required. The Report of Findings resulting from this evaluation identified several opportunities for improvement in both care and service provision and in compliance with the requirements of the contract with the municipality. The Meadowcroft Group has responded very positively to the recommendations in the report and have now implemented appropriate systems and procedures to address the issues identified. In early January 1998, Supportive Housing Program staff completed another on-site review of The Meadowcroft Group's responses and are satisfied with their commitment to deliver the services required by contract and by supportive housing policy.

The total gross budget for the supportive housing program is $2,671,830.00, which is 100 percent funded by the Ministry of Health.

The Supportive Housing Program is one of the programs delivered by the Homes for the Aged Division, in its mandate to provide a continuum of care and services to eligible adults, in both facility and community settings. Appendix I outlines the Division's various programs.

Comments:

Since 1993, the Homes for the Aged Division has made payments to the contracted supportive housing operators on the basis of a per diem rate, for the "full service package" of professional nursing services, meals, housekeeping, and personal care services. Clients of the program have been assessed for eligibility on the basis of both functional and financial assessments, and have paid a co-payment for the aforementioned services, at a level as determined by their personal income and assets. In addition to the co-payment for services, clients have paid rent for their units, as set by the individual site, and have signed tenancy agreements with the sites.

The per diem rate paid to each site has not been increased since 1994, and has ranged from $12.11per day (all inclusive, for all services) to $26.37 per day (all inclusive, for all services). In all cases, operators have asked for an enhanced payment system; to date, no increases have been authorized. Revenue directly received by the sites from clients, as a result of their tenancy agreements, is separate and apart from the aforementioned per diem rates.

In the Ministry of Health's "Planning, Funding, and Accountability" manual (Section 4), clarification was provided that provincial supportive housing funding will be limited to funding the following services:

(1) personal care services;

(2) food planning and food preparation; and

(3) home help services (e.g., housekeeping and laundry).

As a result, professional nursing services, historically funded to the contracted operators through the old all-inclusive per diem rate, will need to be accessed, in the future, through the recently established Community Care Access Centres (CCAC). CCACs were established by the Ministry of Health to organize, administer, and fund purchased community long-term care services, including nursing visits. There are six CCACs in the City of Toronto.

Also as a result of the funding changes, all costs associated with independent living, such as food costs and personal hygiene products will be the responsibility of individual clients.

This shift in provincial vision and policy provided the impetus and opportunity for the Homes for the Aged Division to work collaboratively with the contracted supportive housing operators to restructure the current program, and to develop the requisite three-year transition plan. Consensus has been reached on the proposed changes and timeframes, and all the contracted operators have provided written endorsement of the plan, which has been communicated to the Ministry of Health.

The main elements of the restructuring plan are as follows:

(1) elimination of the requirement for client co-payment for services;

(2) establishment of a standard client fee, to cover the costs related to raw food, at the rate of $133.33 per month; this rate will be reviewed by the parties at the latest, by the end of the three-year transition period;

(3) establishment of a standard per diem, for the payment of personal care, home help, and food preparation services, at the rate of $22.01 per client per day;

(4) establishment of regular administrative reporting, in order to comply with the Ministry of Health requirement for reporting on "units of service" provided to supportive housing clients; and

(5) elimination of the direct provision of professional nursing services; professional nursing services will be accessed by the sites (on their clients' behalf) from the CCACs.

The restructuring plan will result in all contracted sites receiving at least a minor increase in revenue for service provision, when considering combined the revenue received from the Ministry of Health and clients' payment for food. In addition, some sites have indicated that they will be attempting to secure funding from the CCACs, for the provision of professional services. Last, some sites plan to further increase revenue by increasing rental costs, by the percentage allowable under current legislation.

Although significant planning has gone into the development of the transition plan, there are a number of risks to the plan's success and/or ultimate approval.

First, the elimination of the co-payment for service provision will markedly decrease the total number of clients served at any one time from over 300 to 276. Although the Homes for the Aged Division has requested enhanced provincial funding to maintain the current service level (i.e., 300), there is no guarantee that this will be approved.

Next, there are a small number of current clients who will be unable to afford the client fee for raw food, in addition to their rental payment. The transition plan makes provision to subsidize these costs, with Ministry of Health approval, for up to three years. However, as a result of directing provincial funding at food costs for an interim period, the total number of clients served will further reduce marginally over the same period of time.

Next, it is possible that the Ministry of Health will reject the proposed continuation of a per diem payment system. Accurate implementation of the full provincial policy would require payment strictly on a "unit of service" system, i.e., assessing a specific number of hours/minutes of service per client per day, and paying only for the actual service delivered, as would happen in a visiting homemaker program. Because the Homes for the Aged Division contracts with a variety of for-profit and not-for-profit retirement and/or group homes, it is impossible for them to organize their staff response around a community visitation model. The Homes for the Aged Division understands the infrastructure costs realized by the contracted operators, and supports their request for continued per diem funding.

However, if the Ministry of Health insists on the strict implementation of a "unit of service" approach, it is possible that some contracted sites will withdraw from the program, as this decision would impact negatively on the sustainability of their businesses. If the sites withdraw from the program, it will create risk to current clients, who may not be able to access an appropriate, affordable alternative. In the event that this happens, the Division would collaborate with the sites and the Ministry of Health, to develop an exit strategy that minimized risk to the degree possible.

Next, it is acknowledged that the rents at some sites will discourage low income applicants and negatively impact on accessibility to affordable housing. The Homes for the Aged Division will continue to work with the contracted sites over the period of the transition to find a long-term solution that ensures a range of affordable options to individuals requiring supportive housing.

Last, it is acknowledged that the profile of clients in the Homes for the Aged Division's supportive housing program is different from many other supportive housing programs; clients tend to be frailer and/or have more cognitive impairment. The Division will continue to have a strong involvement in case management and quality monitoring, in order to ensure public accountability, quality of service, and the maintenance of long-standing and valuable strategic alliances with community partners.

Conclusions:

Approval of this report will permit the Homes for the Aged Division to renew contractual agreements with the eight existing supportive housing providers and enter into contractual agreement with The Meadowcroft Group, to continue the provision of supportive housing services at Livingston Lodge. As noted above, all supportive housing sites are committed to continuing their partnership with the Supportive Housing Program and are supportive of the transition plan being proposed. Pending approval of the transition plan by the Ministry of Health, the program changes outlined in the transition plan will be implemented and will result in improved conformity with Ministry of Health direction and policy requirements. If the plan is not approved by the Ministry of Health, staff will report back to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, outlining issues and options.

The supportive housing program will continue to operate on the basis of 100 percent provincial funding for the actual supportive housing services.

The municipality will continue its role in advocacy, case management, and monitoring of the care and service provided by the contractors, to ensure that frail and/or cognitively impaired seniors in the City have access to high quality services in a variety of residential settings. These settings, on their own, would not be eligible to directly receive Ministry of Health supportive housing funding.

Contact Name:

Sandra Pitters,

General Manager, Homes for the Aged Division:

Tel: 392-8907/Fax: 392-4180:

E-mail: Sandra_Pitters@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Appendix I

Homes for the Aged Division

Scope of Services

Services:

- 10 Homes for the Aged (2,641 residents).

- Supportive Housing (approximately 300 clients).

- Homemakers and Nurses Services (approximately 25,000 clients per year).

- 5 Adult Day Centres (approximately 300 clients per year).

- Specialty Medical and Dental Services provided through community partnerships.

Resources:

- 2,929 staff, full and part-time (1,927 FTE).

- 1,585 volunteers (126,000 volunteer hours per year).

- Involvement of 69 service clubs.

- Alliances with multiple community organizations.

5

General Welfare Assistance Regulation Changes

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Minister of Community and Social Services be requested to provide City Council with clear estimates of the number of children who will be requiring day care and of the Minister's understanding of the phasing-in of the program under the Ontario Works Act.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the report dated February 4, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services; and having directed that it be forwarded to Council for information.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to provide a further report to the Committee with respect to the impacts on:

(a) children, due to the proposed changes to the Ontario Works regulations;

(b) transportation costs for welfare recipients; and

(c) the homeless.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits, for information, the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to describe the provincial changes to regulations announced on February2, 1998, and to review the impacts on clients and on the Social Services Division.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate direct financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On February 2, 1998, the Minister of Community and Social Services announced a number of changes to the social assistance system as part of the introduction of new regulations under Ontario Works. The changes, to be implemented April 1, 1998, primarily involve benefit levels and deductions. Also included are policies to ensure prisoners do not receive social assistance, and changes to eligibility for health benefits.

As part of the implementation of the new Social Assistance Reform Act (S.A.R.A), the Ontario Works legislation and regulations are also tentatively scheduled to take effect April 1, 1998. Details are not yet known. If the Province's timetable is met, a report will be forwarded to Council in April discussing the overall changes and assessing the implications for Toronto.

The Minister's statement also referred to previously announced changes that will affect single parents. Single parent cases are currently managed by the Province. However, as of April 1, 1998, in conjunction with the implementation of the new Ontario Works legislation, all single parents will be required to enroll in the Ontario Works program as part of the overall changes in the delivery system. To facilitate this transition, responsibility for managing single parent clients (and foster children) will be devolved to municipalities. It is anticipated that a report to Council will be tabled in March which discusses the plan and process for transferring single led cases to the municipality.

This report discusses the impacts of the changes announced to date on clients, in the context of the circumstances faced by social assistance recipients in Toronto. The report also identifies a number of key concerns related to the implications these changes will have for the management and delivery of Ontario Works in Toronto.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(I) Impacts on Clients:

As noted above, most of the changes relate to benefit levels and income deductions, and will reduce the actual benefits that clients receive. The specific details regarding the new regulations are contained in the Minister's announcement, which is appended (Appendix A).

Client impacts must be assessed in the context of the circumstances facing those who will be affected by the changes. In Toronto, homelessness and housing affordability are key concerns. A number of the changes proposed will reduce benefit levels for people who are already homeless, or who maybe coping with circumstances which are not highly stable, such as those who are living in rooming houses.

Another important issue involves the provision of drug cards to individuals or families who have high drug costs, or who require prescription drugs on a frequent basis. Certain clients will no longer be eligible for drug cards through social assistance. The potential implications are significant for those affected.

A. Homelessness and Housing:

Homelessness and housing affordability are key issues facing Toronto, and particularly facing low income residents. The City, through the establishment of the Homelessness Action Task Force, has made a commitment to address these problems. Recently, the Province launched its own task force to investigate homelessness across Ontario.

Through the 1990s, the number of homeless people has grown steadily. Hostels usage has more than doubled over the past four years, and there has been a steady increase in the number of individuals using drop-ins and the Out of the Cold program. Seven to eight hundred people per month who receive General Welfare Assistance cheques do not have a fixed address; a significant proportion of these people may be at risk of being homeless at any given time. At the same time, very low vacancy rates, a lack of affordable shelter and minimal construction of new low cost-housing stock make it difficult for many low income people to find housing.

Substantial evidence also exists that increasing numbers of people are at risk of losing their housing. As a result of the October 1995 social assistance rate cuts, a majority of the Division's clients have shelter costs in excess of their shelter allowance. Often, clients have only a few dollars a day left for meeting other basic needs after covering their housing costs. The recent Background Paper for the Homelessness Action Task Force provides a comprehensive overview of the housing issues facing low income people in Toronto.

Overall, the regulatory changes proposed will result in the majority of clients affected having their entitlements reduced, modestly in many cases. As well, those who are impacted are those who may face the greatest risk of being or becoming homeless.

Under the new regulations:

- the fixed shelter amount for homeless individuals will be eliminated, and replaced by repayment of actual shelter costs, where proof is provided, up to a maximum ceiling determined by family size;

- actual utility costs will be reimbursed. Now, below a minimum dollar amount, a set allowance is now paid for utilities based on family size (Appendix B lists the allowances). Currently, about 10 percent of the caseload is reimbursed for utility costs. About one-third of these cases now receive the set allowance;

- the minimum board and lodging payment ($207.00 per month for a single recipient) will be eliminated. As of April 1, 1998, actual room and board costs will be used to calculate entitlement up to the current maximum allowances, which vary according to family size.

The maximum entitlement for boarders living at home is also being reduced. Currently, boarders who live with their parents and other boarders receive the same allowances. As a result of this change, people who move in with, or remain with, their parents to reduce their costs, will be penalized. In addition, clients who receive income from boarders will have a greater proportion of this income deducted.

In many ways, these changes appear straightforward. Although they do not affect large numbers of clients, of paramount concern is how the impacts will be distributed. The changes will potentially reduce benefits for homeless people, people living in rooming houses, those with low utility payments, people living at home and those taking in boarders. Given the cuts in social assistance rates that were made in 1995, and the ongoing problems with housing affordability in Toronto, for many people even moderate reductions in benefits may increase the risk they will lose their housing, or make it that much more difficult for them to secure stable housing. Such outcomes often ultimately result in the need for more costly interventions.

B. Health Benefits:

Currently, a person or family with a low income, on the basis of a needs test, can obtain a drug card under G.W.A. For example, a low income family with very high drug costs may be in a position to have these costs covered. The drug card is issued through the Ontario Drug Benefit Program, administered by the Ministry of Health, and provides 100 percent coverage for the cost of prescription drugs and drug products. In 1997, approximately 300 people per month received drug cards who were in this situation, including people on fixed incomes who are in receipt of Old Age Security or Canada Pension Plan benefits.

Starting April 1, 1998, these clients will no longer be eligible for a drug card through G.W.A. Instead, they will be required to apply to the Provincial Trillium Drug Program (T.D.P.) which reimburses low income earners who qualify on the basis of a financial means test. However, the Trillium plan also has an annual deductible. For example, a single person with an income of less than $6,500.00 must cover the first $350.00 in drug costs. There is also a $2.00 co-payment for every prescription. Appendix B lists the deductibles for different family sizes and income ranges.

This change will create very real hardships for certain low income people, especially where individuals or families urgently require drugs to maintain their health. One obvious example is a diabetic who must take insulin every day. Under the Trillium Program, a person will have to cover the deductible ($350.00) before any subsidy is available. For people with low incomes who need certain drugs to live the financial stress could be severe. People may be forced to make extremely difficult choices between meeting other basic needs and purchasing prescriptions. Also, people in this situation might have to leave their jobs to retain access to necessary medicines.

(II) Program Management and Service Delivery Impacts:

The new regulations will have impacts from a program management perspective, out of proportion to the apparent simplicity of the actual changes. Many of the changes, especially those which involve verification of actual client expenses, will add to the already extensive amounts of documentation front-line workers review. Such changes will inevitably lengthen the eligibility determination process. They will also make it more difficult for the Division to pursue increased efficiencies by streamlining, and, wherever possible, automating procedures, which has been a central goal of its efforts to radically improve the administration and delivery of social assistance benefits to clients.

This last issue is critical from another standpoint. The Division's automation and restructuring initiatives have been key to redesigning the social assistance system to deliver the Ontario Works program, which the Province has clearly indicated is intended to focus on moving people back into the labour market. Under Ontario Works, front-line staff must be able to work more intensively with clients to assist them to return to work. Increased administration of income supports is counterproductive in an employment focused program.

Direct financial savings from the proposed changes will be modest, at best, as the Provincial Government has acknowledged. As indicated above, any savings will be more than offset by the upward pressures on administration costs.

Given that the new Ontario Works legislation will impact the delivery of Hostels and Children's Services in the future, as well as Social Services, each service area may face more prescriptive program management and service delivery conditions as a result of the changes being made by the Province. Obviously, the discretion local service managers have to shape their delivery systems to meet local community needs may be adversely impacted.

Conclusions:

This report details the changes in regulations proposed by the Province, and discusses key impacts on clients and on the management and delivery of social assistance.

Although the announced regulation changes will not affect large numbers of clients, the impacts may be felt most acutely by those who are already in very vulnerable positions regarding housing or health benefits. In Toronto, it is clear that an increasingly restrictive social assistance system will place greater pressures on other social and emergency services, notably hostels, at a time when these services are already under stress.

The new provincial regulations will have substantial program management implications, increasing the workload involved in administering eligibility determination and entitlement. The Social Services Division is concerned that the introduction of such changes will negatively affect staff's ability to undertake value added activities: namely helping clients find jobs.

Perhaps most importantly, it is likely that the changes announced to date are indicative of the prescriptive approach being taken by the Province regarding the establishment of new regulations governing eligibility and benefit determination under the Ontario Works Act. Potentially, the discretion available to local service managers to shape their delivery systems to respond to local community needs will be limited.

Upon the release of the new Ontario Works regulations, the Social Services Division will provide Council with an assessment of the impacts on clients, and on program management and service delivery in the affected service areas.

Contact Name:

Heather MacVicar: 392-8952

________

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (February2,1998) from The Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services, respecting the Ontario Works Act to be proclaimed in April 1998.

(A copy of each of the Appendices referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on February 12, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

6

Land Acquisition - Purchase of

No. 4 Wynnview Court, Scarborough

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 19, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Parks and Recreation, noting that the financing approval for the land acquisition was included in Clause No. 12 of Report No.2 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, entitled "1998 Capital Budget Capital Projects Requiring Urgent Financing Approval", adopted by City Council on February 4,5 and 6, 1998:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) financing in the amount of $250,000.00 be approved; this amount to be financed from the Parkland Acquisition Reserve;

(2) funding, to a maximum of $250,000.00, be made available to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the purchase of No. 4 Wynnview Court, subject to TRCA approval of the purchase; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Parkland Acquisition Reserve was established in 1980 to provide financing for the acquisition of parkland.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The owners of No. 4 Wynnview Court in Scarborough, William and Vera Brady, have recently finalized discussions with the TRCA regarding the purchase of their property. The TRCA has an option to purchase these lands which expires on April 2, 1998. The property is the last remaining privately-owned parcel located along the top of the bluffs between Rosetta McClain Gardens and Scarborough Heights Park.

The location of this property on the waterfront functions as a critical park connection between Rosetta McClain Gardens and Scarborough Heights Park. The TRCA also considers it a suitable acquisition in accordance with their greenspace objectives, hence, it is proposed that the TRCA acquire the property with funding assistance from the City of Toronto. The property would be owned by the TRCA and managed by our Department.

The TRCA has obtained appraisals of the property and established a purchase price of $500,000.00 inclusive of legal fees, land transfer fees, and disbursements that is acceptable to the owner. Staff of the Real Estate Division of Corporate Services have reviewed the appraisals and consider this price acceptable.

The City of Toronto's share of the acquisition, at 50 percent share of costs, will not exceed $250,000.00 based on the above-noted price. Funds are available in the Parkland Acquisition Reserve account.

On December 19, 1997, the TRCA approved a report recommending acquisition of the property on the terms outlined above.

Conclusions:

Sharing in the cost of the purchase of No. 4 Wynnview Court as outlined above will benefit the parks system and in achieving the realization of an integrated waterfront. This acquisition is complementary to the TRCA's approved master plan for acquisition along the Lake Ontario shoreline.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer agrees that the acquisition outlined in this report is consistent with the statement of purpose of the Parkland Acquisition Reserve and she concurs with the recommendations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Frank Kershaw: 392-8199

7

Amendment to Licence Agreement -

St. Andrew-by-the-Lake Church (Centre Island)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 19, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

To seek approval to amend the Licence Agreement respecting occupation of St. Andrew-by-the-Lake Church such that the Roman Catholic Church would be removed from the Licence Agreement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that, subject to any approvals required by the City of Toronto Act, 1997:

(1) the proposal by the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto to assume full entitlement, along with full obligations, under the Licence Agreement for the St. Andrew-by-the-Lake Church be approved, with the result that the Roman Catholic Church be relieved of its obligations with respect thereto;

(2) the Licence Agreement be amended to give effect to the foregoing subject to the terms and conditions being satisfactory to the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Culture and the City Solicitor; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In April 1983, the Metropolitan Council authorized a Licence of Occupation Agreement with the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Churches for their joint use of the recently restored St.Andrew-by-the-Lake Church on Centre Island for a 20-year period with a right of review for a further 20 years.

The Licensees are responsible for all maintenance and utility charges. The City's obligations are limited to exterior landscaping and pathways.

The Church has since been used for regular services, as well as being a point of interest for visitors to the Island.

On November 27, 1997, a letter was received from Ann Wainwright, Secretary of Synod, confirming that The Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto (Anglican Church) would assume all future responsibilities for the St. Andrew-by-the-Lake Church, with the Roman Catholic Church withdrawing from the Licence Agreement.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

St. Andrew-by-the-Lake Church on Centre Island fulfils an important function and adds to the character of this waterfront park. The arrangement proposed by the Anglican Church will retain and preserve the Church in the future which is a positive initiative and should be supported.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Frank Kershaw: 392-8199

(Councillor Flint, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared her interest in the foregoing Clause, in that her husband is employed by the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto.)

8

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Briefing on Housing Issues.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report and presentation until a future meeting of the Committee:

(January 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services advising, for information, that the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee will be considering a range of housing-related reports over the next several months; outlining the upcoming issues; and suggesting that it might be useful to have a briefing presentation providing background to the issues referred to.

Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber, at the meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on February 12, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing matter, in that he is technically employed by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

(b) Proposed Composition and Mandate of the Children's Action Committee.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team the adoption of the following report and communication from the Children's Advocate:

(i) (January 28, 1998) from the Children's Advocate recommending that:

(1) the proposed composition and mandate of the Children's Action Committee be approved as outlined in this report and Appendix A;

(2) the Children's Action Committee develop and submit a detailed workplan, schedule and outline of its resource needs to the March meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee;

(3) a copy of this report be submitted to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(ii) (February 12, 1998) from the Children's Advocate advising of additions to the proposed membership of the Children's Action Committee; and

(iii) (February 12, 1998) from Mr. Peter Clutterbuck and Ms. Karen Liberman, Co-Directors, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, strongly endorsing the proposed mandate and composition of the Children's Action Committee.

(c) Ontario Works Program.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having:

(1) referred the following communication to:

(i) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report thereon to the next meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, such report to include:

(a) any information regarding potential private sector funding towards equivalent programs that might be in place; and

(b) the issue of eligibility under both Ontario Works and the Municipal Grants Program;

(ii) Councillors Bussin, Jakobek, McConnell and Walker, the delegation appointed by Council to meet with officials of the Ministry of Education and Training with respect to education costs that are no longer covered by Provincial funding, with a request that this issue also be raised with the Province; and further that they be requested to report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee; and

(2) directed that the Chair of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee request a meeting with the Minister of Education and Training to clarify why the Ministry believes the program offered by The Training Renewal Foundation should come under Ontario Works rather than the Ministry of Education and Training:

(January 14, 1998) from Dr. Dale E. Shuttleworth, Executive Director, The Training Renewal Foundation, advising that the Foundation received a letter dated December 23, 1997, indicating that it would not be considered for the Skill Development option of Ontario Works; that, as a result, the General Educational Development Preparation Centre was faced with closure as of December 31, 1997; and requesting the opportunity to meet with the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee to discuss the implications of this decision.

________

The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Dr. Dale E. Shuttleworth, Executive Director, The Training Renewal Foundation; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

- Mr. Dom Frasca, Vice-Principal, Monsignor Fraser College, Toronto Catholic School Board;

- Mr. Bryan Oxley, Board of Trade of Toronto and Ontario Chamber of Commerce;

- Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River; and

- Councillor Bill Saundercook, York-Humber.

(d) Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following communication; and further having directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the April 23, 1998, meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority issues:

(December 22, 1997) from The Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, responding to a communication dated November 3, 1997, forwarding Metropolitan Council's motion regarding the intention of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority to develop a proposal to expand its private management programs; clarifying recent media reports regarding this issue; and noting that the Government of Ontario has not yet made any decisions regarding the Ontario Housing Corporation and its local housing authorities after devolution.

Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber, at the meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on February 12, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing matter, in that he is technically employed by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

(e) Consolidation of City-Owned Art Collections.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee:

(January 26, 1998) from Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina, respecting the consolidation of City-owned art collections; requesting that the City of Toronto Culture Office report back to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on the process to bring the collections together; and suggesting that the monies presently used to lease art be consolidated into an acquisition fund.

(f) Fairbank Park Recreation Centre Project.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee:

(February 5, 1998) from Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton, requesting that staff report on the process for the completion of Phase II and Phase III of the Fairbank Park Recreation Centre project.

(Councillor Mammoliti, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in Item(a), headed "Briefing on Housing Issues," and Item(d), headed "Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority," embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he is technically employed by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.)

Respectfully submitted,

GORDON CHONG,

Chair

Toronto, February 12, 1998

(Report No. 2 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.)