HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Ms. Marilyn More (Chairman)

Hon. Ronald Chisholm

Hon. Leonard Goucher

Mr. Patrick Dunn

Mr. Gordon Gosse

Mr. Trevor Zinck

Mr. Keith Colwell

Mr. Leo Glavine

Mr. Manning MacDonald

[Ms. Diana Whalen was replaced by Mr. Wayne Gaudet.]

In Attendance:

Ms. Kim Leadley

Legislative Committee Clerk

WITNESSES

Abilities Foundation

Ms. Faye Joudrey - Program Coordinator

Brain Injury Association NS

Ms. Jane Warren - President

Canadian Paraplegic Association NS

Mr. Dave Shannon - Executive Director

CNIB

Mr. Duncan Williams - Director of Service & Operations NS/PEI Division

Independent Living Resource Centre

Ms. Lois Miller - Executive Director

Community Inc

Ms. Cynthia Bruce - Chair

Deafness Advocacy Association NS

Mr. Elliott Richman - President of Board of Directors

Disability Rights Coalition

Ms. Dorothy Kitchen - Communications

Nova Scotia Association for Community Living

Ms. Mary Rothman - Executive Director

Nova Scotia Community-based Transportation Association

Mr. David Mooney - Chair

Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities (NSLEO)

Ms. Joan Levack - Vice-Chair

People-First

Mr. John Cox - Development Coordinator

Provincial Autism Centre

Ms. Cynthia Carroll - Executive Director

TEAM Work Cooperative Ltd.

Mr. Murray Vandewater - Board of Directors

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SERVICES

1:30 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Marilyn More

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think we'll start by going around the table and once again introducing ourselves and who we represent. Could I ask for accuracy in terms of Hansard and our recording services - each time you speak, could you again give your name and the organization. I know it sounds a little time-consuming and tedious, but it really does save a lot of effort down the road and it makes sure that comments are attributed to the right person and the right organization.

What I'm going to try to do as we go around is, do a little bit of a table plan here so that I can keep straight on all the names as well.

[The committee members and witnesses introduced themselves.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. So again, just to remind everyone, don't talk until your light comes on and then give your name and organization each time.

I think you've all been primed that the main question we're going to discuss around the table this afternoon is based on your experiences and your organizations and your own personal life and your community, and also taking into account what we've heard this morning in terms of priorities and challenges - what could a provincial government do to implement changes that would have the most effective impact for persons with disabilities?

1

I'm going to start by throwing out a question. I was intrigued this morning by the reference to voluntary programs by the Department of Community Services. I had always assumed when the department threw out that term "voluntary" that they meant they were not required to provide the service, so if there was a waiting list and it was a voluntary program, then they would only provide the service to the extent of the funding that they had available that year, that persons with disabilities were not entitled or had rights to those services. So it was interesting to hear.

Another slant to that term "voluntary service" in that persons with disabilities aren't required to accept those programs and services, so they're voluntary from the client's point of view. I'm just wondering if anyone has any clarification on that or are both meanings of "voluntary" accepted in this province?

John - again wait for the light. We're going to practise with you, John. Wait for the light and then give your name and organization again, please.

MR. JOHN COX: John Cox, People First Nova Scotia. I was the one who brought up the voluntary and yes, it's a voluntary program in the sense that they don't require, but we know of people who have been offered what they would deem as inappropriate placements - i.e. institutions - and the department has said, well, we offered you this and you turned us down.

I'm thinking of one woman who was offered a group home, turned it down and ended up living on her own on the employment support side and is now married and living quite well. But as of five, six, seven years ago, she was offered 24-hour-a-day care and here she is living quite successfully on her own. So yes, it's a voluntary program like you described but if they offer people with disabilities what they deem as what is required - for example, institutions - there's very little choice between three hours a day and 24 hours a day, so there's nothing in between. So you either take it or you don't and that's the Catch-22.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Mary.

MS. MARY ROTHMAN: Mary Rothman. John's quite right, it's used in both senses of the word. But when the department speaks of voluntary programs, they do mean it's voluntary on behalf of the Nova Scotia Government; there is no entitlement legislation for disability supports. Income support there is, but not in terms of support to live in the community.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'm not sure, did you give your organization, Mary?

MS. ROTHMAN: The organization is the Nova Scotia Association for Community Living.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Lois, did you want to comment? No. So we're back to the original question, what can a - oh, sorry. David.

MR. DAVID MOONEY: When the word "voluntary" comes up, to me - and thinking about transportation - it brings to mind the mid-1990s transfer of services from the municipalities to the province. At that time there was transfer of Department of Community Services funds north, as I would say, to the province and the province delegated down things like roads and policing. Along with that document came the words regarding public transportation and transportation in particular and the government papers used the words "may provide".

I think that's a little bit weak for the municipalities and I think today they're making a stand on the fact that it's not their responsibility. Transportation needs to have a home and it doesn't need to be voluntary, it needs to have a home in the province.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Who would like to start the discussion on the question? David.

MR. DAVID SHANNON: David Shannon from the Canadian Paraplegic Association. Just to pick up on the question you first raised and then to move on to the second, literally what I'm hearing is a standard adopted in provinces across Canada, and generally by the United Nations, that taking, as a matter of principle, a minimal intrusion on one's liberties should be the guiding principle in order to provide independence for persons with a disability. Rather than promote the admission into an institution for a person when they only need perhaps three hours of attendant care in the day, or some other community-based option, that should always be paramount. A minimal intrusion test should always be in place in order to provide liberties for persons with a disability.

I really liked what I heard this morning from Nova Scotia LEO and we've seen these best-practice models developed. I heard the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities mentioned, of course there's the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, we've seen best-practice models in Australia, and also in the United Kingdom where essentially they develop either a disability Act or develop a comprehensive approach to policy development that has in it not just voluntary measures, but some meaningful enforcement so that persons with a disability have some guideposts toward creating an accessible and inclusive society, and it starts with government.

If, for example, each ministry in each department had to create an accessibility plan - and what I mean by that is not just physical accessibility, but a plan for inclusion of persons with a disability. If every second year - on an biennial basis - that department, and

also the transportation sector and other major sectors, had to provide an accessibility plan and demonstrate what they're doing to improve accessibility, I think we'd start seeing very measurable improvements and also the sharing or dissemination of information that could have best practices evolve through the discussions.

The question is so complicated that you're peeling back layers of an onion and this is, in effect, what you're going to have to do, so it's going to have to be bitten off one piece at a time. Literally, I'd rather start now than talk about it because since 1981, the United Nations International Year of Disabled Persons, we've been getting studies and we've got all the studies in the world, it's time to act.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Lois.

MS. LOIS MILLER: Lois Miller, Independent Living Nova Scotia. That's good practice, Marilyn, for me to say it, so thank you. By the end of the afternoon maybe I'll really know it.

What could Nova Scotia do, I guess you're asking right now, to get started? One of the themes, as people were talking I was jotting down some key messages that most people this morning and afternoon brought, and one theme seemed to be that Nova Scotia should develop a disability strategy, that we really need to move on that. I think, David, that was a direction you were going. Maybe that would mean a Nova Scotians with disabilities Act, I don't know.

I wasn't always in favour of that. I've heard of these and I've seen it in Ontario and read about it in the United States where I think it seems more - what's the word, David? - litigious, or something. I'm not a lawyer, it just seemed to lead to lots of law cases and appeals and so on, and maybe not too effective. I think having a Nova Scotians with disabilities Act would give people in the disability community something to look at, guidelines, something by which we could measure progress. I think that would be very useful.

The disability strategy might address some of the other issues that people were talking about today with my group, pushing for employment support and other programs for young adults with disabilities or the Autism Centre looking for appropriate supports for young adults with disabilities. A lot of these things could be stated clearly and we would know then what the government's goals were, I think that would be very helpful.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Lois. I have Duncan and then Jane.

MR. DUNCAN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Duncan Williams from CNIB. There's an old adage, of course, pay now or pay later. I think I'm with David in the sense that we

have, with all due respect to all of the people around this table - there are many familiar faces and we've talked about a lot of very similar things for a while.

I think one of the key things we need to be looking at from a provincial point of view is a move from a culture whereby people with disabilities are seen as a cost to our society, to one whereby investment in people's future is celebrated more than focused on cost. We could look at cost until the cows come home, the numbers are not going to change, they're still going to be there. In fact, they're going to get bigger as our population ages. So the more proactive we are now with innovative and creative programs, the better we're going to be in five years, 10 years and so on.

With regard to a disability Act, I don't agree or disagree with that. I think there's a place for ADA and OAD and all the other Acts that are out there. However, I think there's also a place for an economic discussion. A true way to get people's attention is when there's an economic factor associated with the lost opportunity of persons with disabilities who are, with all due respect, sitting home on their butts. If we were going to have a meaningful discussion about people with disabilities and the contributions that are lost by them sitting home, we would be talking in terms of people not purchasing, people not in the downtown shops, people not out and about, people not touring the province that they're in.

[1:45 p.m.]

More importantly, if you take the approach from a legislative and a policy point of view that you're going to build a province that's accessible from every point of view, everything from our Web site to our physical plant, the economic impact of those small changes is tremendous. I mean the estimates for the U.S. alone is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4 trillion a year spent by people with disabilities. If we could get 1 per cent of that in tourism here, where we're floundering right now, imagine the impact it would have on our economy and the quality of life of all Nova Scotians.

I'll make one final point. While I do appreciate being asked to sit at the table, with all due respect, I don't think it's a situation anymore whereby we should be graciously accepting our place at the table. We wouldn't have industry decisions made without industry at the table, we wouldn't have tourism decisions made without tourism at the table, so there should not be any decisions made about anybody with a disability without people with disabilities, and those who represent them, at the table as a given. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Duncan. Jane.

MS. JANE WARREN: Hello. I agree with Lois Miller. I'm Jane Warren from the Brain Injury Association - and I'll probably say BIANS from now on, the Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia.

I agree with Lois Miller about the disability Act, like Ontario's, but brain injury is not classified as a disability by the Department of Community Services in respect to getting provincial disability assistance. If you are brain injured and you apply for disability assistance, you are classified either as mentally challenged or mentally ill, and if an intake worker comes around, they decide which you should be classified as. I'm 100 per cent mentally incompetent, so disregard anything I have to say. (Laughter)

At that time I was a lot slower to process information, so it would appear that I didn't get your question but five minutes after you left I would come out with the answer and sort of give you examples and everything else, but I can do it more instantaneously now.

Brain injury is a physical disability. It's not classified by many provinces as that and it can have mental, physical or cognitive results to it, but it's a physical injury to the brain which causes a disability. So what the province can do is make it a legitimate disability rather than one that just - I mean it's like a platypus in Australia. When they were discovered, they had to be squeezed into a reptile or a mammal, and then they finally made up a new category for it, so brain injury should have a new category.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Joan.

MS. JOAN LEVACK: Joan Levack, NSLEO. One of the things I want to really focus on is that this is about citizenship - it's about full citizenship and about the rights and obligations of those things. So what we're asking Community Services for and what we're talking about are not things that we want you to do for people with disabilities, but with people with disabilities. I agree with Duncan completely, it really is about having all the people involved at the table and listened to, and that requires obligations on both sides.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Dorothy.

MS. DOROTHY KITCHEN: Dorothy Kitchen, Disability Rights Coalition. I'd just like to say there's a real disconnect between the Department of Community Services and what people with disabilities need. There have to be some real consultations and I don't mean like the new renewal because that was a farce, there was no real consultation with people with disabilities. I think that has to happen if we're going to get anywhere.

I've been around for about 30 years and sat around these tables so many times that it would be nice today if we could go home with something positive that we can work on and work on together, not people deeming what they think a disabled person needs but in consultation with the people who require the services.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Dorothy.

There's a couple of people who have spoken already who want to speak, so Cynthia hasn't spoken so she's next. Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken at the round table who would like to speak first, before I move on to other people who have spoken - if that makes sense? Okay, Cynthia.

MS. CYNTHIA BRUCE: Cynthia Bruce, Community Inc. There's a number of things that struck me as I listened to people this morning and the thought of the disability strategy came up in a number of areas. But what was abundantly clear to me, when I think another Cynthia spoke, from the Autism Centre, was the fact that our programs - and I think this speaks to the need for the strategy - the fact that our programs are so segmented and they are so incredibly inflexible, in terms of criteria to qualify to access them, what this government does and what this approach does is to pit one disability group against another and no good can ever come from that. We shouldn't have to fight for something that should be a right.

I agree wholeheartedly with Joan about full citizenship. I want to be a full citizen and I agree wholeheartedly that that requires some responsibility on my part, absolutely, but never was it so evident to me than in my own work life. I taught for six, seven years in a post-secondary institution, and I went to my employer to get assistive technology and I was told there was absolutely no money and that it would have to be downloaded to my already very stretched music departmental budget. So it didn't happen, I had to pay for it.

Then, when I went to have my textbooks scanned, so I could teach their students, I was told I wasn't eligible for the program because I wasn't a student, so the services were not available. So it was interesting to me when Cynthia pointed out that for other disabilities that they wouldn't be denied this or they wouldn't be denied that and, in fact, they are. It happens constantly and what happens with these programs is that because they are segmented and because their criteria are stringent and because there's a small pot of money allotted to each one of them, it just pits one disability group against another and nobody gets what they need.

If we could have a comprehensive, holistic strategy that works toward inclusion and that recognizes that people aren't segmented - there's not an employment portion of me and there's not a home portion of me and there's not a mother portion of me. I'm one person who happens to do all of those things. I think that the province has to start to recognize that we have to take a holistic approach and stop dividing people into small segments.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Cynthia. John and then Jane.

MR. JOHN COX: John Cox, People First, Nova Scotia. I just want to - thinking of the employability of people with disabilities and if the figures are right, that there are 20 per cent of people with disabilities in this province. That's a huge, untapped market

into the labour pool, which is a waste, as far as I am concerned. So I believe that there's an untapped market there.

One time I was asked by someone in the department, what if I got offered a $50,000 a year job and we were talking about supports being taken out of the income assistance program, out of the welfare model and into a separate category in and of itself, so that people don't have to be on social assistance in order to access disability supports. Someone asked me, what if I got offered a $50,000 a year job, and I said well if you're going to offer me a $50,000 a year job, I'm there, but the reality of most people is trying to find an entry level job for any amount like that. So what people maybe with attendant carers or some costs maybe like $2,000, and that, I believe, for some people is a low number a month for attendant care. So in order for me and you to work together and if I have to pay $2,000 a month and if our salaries are $2,000 a month, then I am basically working for nothing in order to get the attendant care.

So the disability needs to be separate from the income assistance, it needs to come out of there and into a separate - dare I say - department or separate funding, so that I don't have to be on income assistance or don't have to be on community supports for adults in order to access that funding.

It was just whispered in my ear that they do it in P.E.I. Just a little bit of a history lesson, in terms of deinstitutionalization - when the Children's Training Centre closed, families were offered $54 a month for in-home support and the In-Home Support Program grew and fostered and became what it is today, because of the closures of the Children's Training Centres. So as long as institutions are a viable option for some people, that the money for community supports will not be there. History has told us that and we need to look at that again and really believe in people's potential and people's worth, that's what it comes down to, believing in people. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, John. Jane.

MS. JANE WARREN: I've got five points for the Nova Scotia Government to do for the most effective impact: move from studying to developing and action or implementation plan with stakeholders, such as the disabled and community-based groups and actually implement the suggestions because everything has been studied to death and, along with these groups, think outside the box as how to best deliver what's needed.

I attended a deinstitutionalization workshop and they said a province - and I think it was Newfoundland and B.C. that started, were the first to deinstitutionalize everyone. They first started with, okay, who are our most difficult possible people to do this with and that's who they started with and they accomplished it, they have no institutions.

The third thing the Nova Scotia Government could do is dedicate the right amount of money to address the issue and decide how to effectively spend the money.

Fourth, have the courage to commit to actually doing something, rather than just studying the fact that we have poverty in this province and then taking several months to decide about what's going to be done about it, while food prices are rising, while fuel prices are rising and the people aren't just going from having trouble in the wintertime, they are going hungry right now, because of the rise in the price of bread and everything else.

The government should have the courage to see beyond the political cycle of the next election. That's going to improve the quality of life for the disabled, as well as everybody else in this province, with the extra production that people will be able to contribute.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Jane. Dorothy.

MS. DOROTHY KITCHEN: I just want to reiterate what John said because when our daughter graduated from university and was very eager to go find a job, she was told quite blankly by a caseworker, don't bother to look for work because you'll lose your attendants, you'll no longer receive funding to pay for your attendants. That's a real disincentive when someone has worked so hard.

It doesn't make sense, either. If a person was allowed at least to keep their assistants and go to work, they could earn money like anyone else, to pay for the rent and living allowances, food, et cetera. But if you're going to have your attendants taken away, then there's no way you can afford to pay for attendants and earn enough money, it just doesn't work that way.

[2:00 p.m.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dorothy. Duncan and then David.

MR. DUNCAN WILLIAMS: I realize that the last time I talked a little more about theory, here's a couple of concrete examples of what the Province of Nova Scotia could do to improve the lives of persons with vision loss. By way of example, one of my suggestions would be that using the infrastructure that's already in place, using the organizations, skills and expertise that are already in place - in most cases, I think we could safely wager that most non-profits do far more with far less than any corporation or government agency could ever do.

I'm going to give you one solid example - just recently, it was brought to my attention that one of our clients who needed textbooks to pursue post-secondary training

was quoted $18,000 for three textbooks to be converted to an audio format. That was paid to a private corporation. We service 5,000 people for $300,000. If I do the math really quickly, it works out to 16 people if I had to go by the quotes that were paid by the Province of Nova Scotia - not a good use of my tax dollars.

Secondly, we need sustainable, predictable core funding without all of the hoops and paperwork associated with it. I'll give another example - I love examples, if you haven't figured that out yet. We don't ask a heart surgeon, six months after the heart surgery happened, whether the patient survived or not - that's a cold example but it's very true. Yet we ask an agency like CNIB to jump through 15 hoops and prove that we've taught somebody to cross the street safely. How the heck do we prove that without videotaping it and sending in every one is beyond me. We don't have the time or resources or the desire to do that.

I guess my final example, and this may be an unpopular one in the room, would be that we do need to take a hard look at what is being done in the community and, where there is duplication, we need to get to the bottom of why there's a duplication and if it's unnecessary it really needs to go. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Duncan. Next I have David.

MR. DAVID MOONEY: David Mooney, Community-Based Transportation Association. I wanted to speak briefly about one of my other hats but it has to do with our disability forum here today. Murray had a good speech this afternoon about the Collaborative Partnership Network and the way that these organizations work. I want to stick up for just a moment for the disabled community.

The Collaborative Partnership Network is comprised of 11 organizations across the province and yes, they use federal funding but this is one of the devolution pieces that is coming down to the province, I believe in July. The Collaborative Partnership Network is not sitting at that table as of yet, and we certainly would love to do that.

What I wanted to mention about the disabled community is over the last year, 1,800 Nova Scotians with disabilities have gone back to work. Through this, there is over $3 million in taxes being paid by persons with disabilities. Ten years before that, over 10,000 disabled Nova Scotians have gone back to work so this is a very positive thing.

Another positive thing is, it was mentioned there are always clawbacks with any funds that an individual receives but through the wisdom of the government of today, there has been some support for the self-managed care initiatives through the Department of Health, where persons with disabilities or persons not able to readily get out of their home can get care for themselves which isn't deducted from their income tax or any of their other funds and they are able to go back to work. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, David. Joan.

MS. JOAN LAVACK: Joan Lavack, NSLEO. One of the things that I find interesting about today is we're sitting around and talking about what we would absolutely love to happen and all of these things take time, so what I've been sitting here trying to figure out is what we can do in the interim. What can we do right now?

It occurs to me that one of the things I've always wanted for Nova Scotians was a navigator system for persons with disabilities. You could set up a working group really quickly based on models that already exist and it would be a way to help persons with disabilities navigate through the system, it would also help the system learn to navigate persons with disabilities. That might be kind of a nice interim measure between what we have now, which is clearly only sort of working and the ideal that we have been talking about today which is, we all want as much money as every single person needs and I know that's difficult to deliver politically, so just a suggestion.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Joan. Jane.

MS. JANE WARREN: I'm a conversation or two behind. What I also wanted to say was a positive step that has been taken by the government was the passage of a private member's bill for skateboarding helmets having to be worn all over the place. Keith Colwell - it was his private member's bill and it was passed and people are not bashing their heads on the sidewalks anymore without the intervention of the helmet in between.

I'll get back to the CNIB fellow here. The only two organizations that don't seem to be getting any government money - Community Services money in particular - are the Autism Centre and the Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia. I know that BIANS has been struggling along, but it's 100 per cent public donations that we get, we don't get any provincial government money.

We need core funding to keep things going. We'll start up when we've had a great contribution or contributions in one year and then despite the fact that this education program we have for brain injured that teaches them how to read and write again, plus how to socialize and how to make a cup of coffee. It's a difficult situation to stand there and say, I need a cup of coffee, I just don't know how to sequence the events to make it and that's what happens to some people. I know there are other brain injured who can't wash dishes after they cook supper. They can still cook the supper, but they can't get the sequence of events to wash the dishes afterwards. So, like I said, we need core funding.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jane. I have Murray and then Cynthia.

MR. MURRAY VANDEWATER: Murray Vandewater, TEAM Work Cooperative. In the view of full disclosure I think I should also note that I'm a Director of Independent Living and as such, espouse a lot of the policies that Independent Living portrays and whatnot. The reason why I'm doing that is because in all the organizations I've been with as a volunteer over the last couple of years and it's to the point of core funding and as a director, working with staff, the amount of time the staff members I'm dealing with are continually writing proposals is astounding. As opposed to direct service to our clients, they're spending literally one-third or more of their time writing proposals. Not that proposals shouldn't be written and not that proposals shouldn't be justified and not that costs and benefits shouldn't be identified, that's valid. I'm a businessperson and you must cost, there has to be a profit, I understand that. But certainly in business, we don't do the triple hoops that I've seen the not-for-profits go through. I'm absolutely astounded when we again - in business, we go through, we make a proposal, we do again a profitability analysis, and a decision is made.

In the not-for-profit, a decision is not made as a decision is made that yes, it's a good idea, now you can develop a proposal. Then, having got the proposal to yes, that's a good idea, okay now you can go to funders to see if there's money. I mean it's nonsense, and this is to the point of core funding - I think it's an ineffective allocation of volunteer time and staff time. I think a method to look at that, and I think the corollary to that again looking as, if you will, a business person in that it is not unreasonable that we have performance review and audits. I have an income statement, I have a profitability analysis, my staff people must justify their existence, if you will. But I think a regular form of whether we have an external view - something through the Auditor General. I think maybe we should look at to the non-for-profits a system of perhaps randomized program audits, such that we know that the money for which we have been allocating, as a government and taxpayer, has been used for purposes for which it has been intended. We know that.

As a director, I get performance audits every board meeting. I get analyses, I get results, I get it coordinated, we get a cost-benefit analysis, every single penny - of course I'm a Treasurer with Lois - is accounted for and we double and triple check it. So I think it is reasonable that we look at how do we assist, as a government, the bureaucracy that we put our not-for-profits through and there's enough other exec directors - please stand up and tell me I'm wrong, maybe it's just the organizations with whom I'm working. I say again to the provincials, we can do something to ensure that our money is well spent, and it is well spent. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Murray. Cynthia.

MS. CYNTHIA BRUCE: Cynthia Bruce, Community Inc. I want to speak also to the incredible need for core funding that we don't have to justify on a daily basis. I echo your sentiments wholeheartedly. We, as a board of directors, are scrutinizing the budgets

and the expenditures all the time. Probably my staff would like to kill me when I call and say, how much have you spent on this? Or, what do we have left in this section of the budget?

Our staff spends a phenomenal amount of time writing proposals to bring in money. We have no reliable core funding; we actually do not have Department of Community Services funding either. We had it for two years and in spite of our incredible statistics, 410 per cent over target and the fact that we are finding employment for people who are deemed by Community Services to be unemployable, we've lost that funding so we don't have DCS funding. We spend so much time writing proposals that often what happens is that we are forced to write a proposal that fits into a box and often that's not what our community and our clients need.

We have taken the approach that not only do we want to provide services to our clients because it's incredibly important, but we feel like we need to provide a service to the community because the community, in many respects, would like to become inclusive but they don't know how to do it and they would like our support to do it but we can't do it. We are restricted by the activities of our projects to work only with the client. We cannot reach out to the community in any meaningful way. We can do it on a one-on-one basis sometimes but sometimes we just have to do it on our lunch hour.

We need core funding that is going to allow us to reach out to the community and facilitate them to do the things that I think they really like to do, but they don't know how to do it. They don't know what programs are actually available to them to facilitate accessible washrooms. Whether it's bricks and sticks and mortar and accessibility issues or library accessibility issues, access to print material - I think they'd like that support. We'd like to give it, we can't give it because our activities are restricted so severely through the terms and conditions of our contracts with the government.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Cynthia. Lois.

MS. MILLER: Lois Miller, Independent Living. Just a question, Madam Chairman - do we get transcripts of this, or will they be available? I'm just wondering - Kim's nodding. I'm just asking because I think I'll put a section of Murray's comments in my performance review file for next year. (Laughter)

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You can certainly ask for a written copy but they'll definitely be on the government Web site. If you go under the Standing Committee on Community Services, it lists all our meetings and the transcript is right there, so either way.

MS. MILLER: It's just a little bit of self-interest on my part but it's nice to hear one of my board members say those things, that's great.

[2:15 p.m.]

Just to follow a comment from Jane Warren - our organization does not receive any provincial core funding either. That is, for us, a huge barrier. I was just making notes here because as the previous speaker noted, when you have no core funding you have to get by with a lot of projects and with fundraising, and so on, at our organization. I now have about two days a week that I can actually work for the organization as E.D, the other three days of my working week I'm working on projects. So I've given one of my E.D. days today because I can't charge this time off to a project, so I'm now down to only one day this week that I can work on executive director things.

Those pose huge problems for us, as organizations - as Murray said, always writing the proposals, always doing those final reports, getting the documents ready for the government auditors and so on. I would do more of that for core funding, if I had to.

To get back to that question of yours - what can the Province of Nova Scotia do - I think one of the areas would be to start listening to the community. Your committee today has invited representatives from the disability community in to hear from them but consistently I do not find that approach throughout government, that program initiatives are introduced without hearing from the people who are most affected by that. I'm sure everyone in the room from the disability community would agree with that.

That doesn't mean that the program planners aren't caring or aren't doing their best, but they simply often miss getting input from the people who are most directed. You asked that question, I think, to my colleague, Dorothy, during her presentation, like why certain things weren't being done - and I think, Dorothy, you were quite polite in your answer - but it is lack of trust. They just don't seem to trust the people who are most affected by program changes to give them the input that they really need to make sure that the programs will work.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Lois. Duncan.

MR. WILLIAMS: People are really going to be tired of hearing from me today. If you are, please tell me. I may not listen but tell me anyway.

It's Duncan again, from CNIB. I've had the privilege of working with a group of experts in New Brunswick, wearing my other hat, and with Madame Claudette Bradshaw who undertook a review of disability supports in New Brunswick and I think there's a lot of money that can be saved by having a look at that document and applying a lot of the principles here, without having to do it over a two-year period as she did. They did phenomenal work there, everything from innovative ways of looking at tax credits, right through to shared resources and so on, so I just put that out there.

One of the key factors that I did take away from that whole process as well - there are a lot of people in the industry who are very tired of working 14-hour days for usually pretty poor money and little or no benefits, if any at all. We're going through a generational shift right now. There are fewer and fewer people who are going to put that kind of time and those kinds of hours in and receive that kind of compensation. There is still, of course, the warm and fuzzy compensation that we all take away from the not-for-profit. None of us are in it for the pay but there has to be the ability for people to pay their mortgage.

The fear and what I see in trying to recruit people for my boards, for example, is that people don't have the time and they're not willing to give as much time. Therefore, we're running around doing more activities with more people, trying to keep the dollars flowing. I think that's something we have to be looking at from the point of view that there has to be an incentive for people to enter the non-profit from a staffing point of view, as well as a voluntary point of view, because without that we're going to have, in my opinion, a mass collapse in the non-profit sector, which is going to mean a serious set of gaps that are going to re-emerge where they have already been filled, especially in our rural communities.

One of the other suggestions I would make, and I'm trying to stay concrete - CNIB has been fortunate, through my predecessors, to have set up a business that has operated quite successfully for a number of years. It's Cater Plan, it's a food-service company. This is not an advertisement but I just wanted to put it out there.

We had help from various levels of government to set up businesses over the years but those initiatives, that seed money, has disappeared. Yet, if I wanted to start up a call centre tomorrow in any part of this province, I could start one in a heartbeat and the government would hand out millions and I would fold up my doors in 12 months and walk away and nobody would blink an eye.

If we took a similar approach and invested even one-tenth of that amount of money in our charity sector, gave them the expertise that already exists in our communities, gave them the seed money to help them become self-sufficient so that we're not coming back constantly looking for money, because we know - I know anyway, I'm not going to speak for anybody else - that there isn't a magic pot with an unlimited amount of money in it. However, government does have a responsibility to provide, in our cradle-to-the-grave society, for services that are deemed essential. I would suggest that all of the services around this table that are provided are essential.

One final comment - even in the fundraising world, CNIB is not interested in being 100 per cent funded, mainly because we'd lose the ability then to be creative ourselves and to respond in kind. We'd love to have a lot more funding, obviously, but I

think there are also some very basic things that the province could do to help us become more self-sufficient and independent.

I'll give you one concrete, simple example that never ceases to amaze me. Every year we get applications from the province that say, would you like to hire a student? Sure, we'd love to hire 10 students - they can do everything but fund-raise. That's a big part of what we do; 83 per cent of our operating budget depends on our ability to self fund-raise. We can hire as many students as we want but I cannot ask them to help us fund-raise.

I think just by changing that simple rule, those students are going to get one hell of a work experience fundraising. They're going to learn what it is and how hard it is and an appreciation for what it is to run a non-profit and how hard it is to keep the doors open and meet the payroll every second Thursday, or whatever it is. That's a simple way that the province could help non-profits without costing one more dime but it's just about moving off a bureaucratic structure that is - I've yet to find an explanation as to why students can't fund-raise. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Duncan. David, you had your hand up next but Elliott hasn't spoken at all, so I'm going to come back to you and move to Elliott.

MR. ELLIOTT RICHMAN: My name is Elliott Richman and I'm from the Deafness Advocacy Association of Nova Scotia. I want to revisit what has taken place in the past in regard to the Dutch system and what their federal government does is provide each deaf person or deaf citizen with up to 200 hours of free interpreting services per year, and those hours are to be used in any way he or she sees fit. They could be used for buying a car, negotiations in the auto dealership, or it can be used to discuss with the landlord - anything, any avenue, there are no strings attached, period, end of discussion.

Now there are three Dutch cities that are truly adept at thinking out of the box. They recognize that people who are in wheelchairs, or use wheelchairs, do have sexual urges and a sexual drive, and community services there in those three cities provide money for people in wheelchairs to use with sex-trade workers. That is how futuristic and how out-of-the-box thinking and how liberal thinking they are in these three specific cities.

MS. WARREN: The number of interpreters in this province is very, very low. Would it be possible to give each person who asked for it, 200 hours a year?

MR. RICHMAN: That would be awesome if it could happen.

MS. WARREN: Like I say, the number of interpreters is very, very low - I think 80?

MR. RICHMAN: I would have to guesstimate that there are approximately 30 interpreters who only do educational interpreting, that would be from Primary through Grade 12, and then perhaps maybe I'd have to say less than 15 interpreters who provide interpreter services on a full-time basis, as a community interpreter. But in all honesty, really within the Province of Nova Scotia, we have a patchwork approach. If the interpreters go into a doctor's office or a hospital or a community college, post-secondary, then the interpreter's fee will be covered. But if you're talking about perhaps going to - me, being a parent, if I wanted an interpreter to meet with the teacher of one of my children, well, that's contingent upon the school because it's the school decision to decide whether to afford me an interpreter or not. I don't have that right to bring the interpreter with me.

So there are a lot of areas that are covered but, at the same time, there are major gaps also identified. So does that answer your question?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you, Elliott.

MR. RICHMAN: May I just continue on my original point? I guess what I'm trying to say is that within the Dutch system, by providing interpreting services, by providing monies for those individuals for the sex-trade industry, all of the gaps have been filled. We need that type of liberal, out-of-the-box thinking to start happening here.

One last comment, I know some of us may have asked me why am I here and not there, why am I not in the Dutch system and why am I still here? The answer is very simple - my wife is here and not there and that's it. (Laughter)

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Elliott. Okay, David and then John.

MR. MOONEY: Madam Chairman, David Mooney, Nova Scotia Community-based Transportation Association. I'm not sure if I heard the word "poverty" here today but persons with disabilities are 50 per cent more likely to be impoverished. The government of the day has started a new poverty strategy. I know it's very humbling and transportation seems to be on everybody's mind, but yet today we have many, many difficulties. I know that transportation is mentioned in the poverty strategy, along with many of these other things.

What can the government do? Last year in Newfoundland and Labrador, when their poverty strategy was tabled and accepted, there was a cheque for over $60 million written. I'm hoping that Nova Scotia, when they finally bring their poverty strategy to the forefront, that there will be a cheque coming with it, Madam Chairman.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and we've been joined by Wayne Gaudet, who is the member for Clare. Welcome, Wayne. John.

MR. COX: John Cox, People First Nova Scotia. I just first want to open up in referencing the Dutch model and thinking that people don't get enough money for food, so you know you're reaching for pie-in-the-sky and that leads me into - I know case managers have actually referred people, told people to go to food banks when they're starving at home and that's a real concern.

[2:30 p.m.]

People talked about the not-for-profit. I believe a lot of not-for-profits are becoming overworked, more so in this day and age than ever before, because they're being referred by case managers to them because community supports for adults is not equipped to provide those services and that's a sad state of affairs.

It's interesting to note that they're now called case managers and not social workers nowadays. When I was on the system I had a social worker, now they're all case managers and I'm not sure what the reason for that is. My belief is that they become glorified accountants in some ways because it all comes down to dollars and cents. Policies say that you're eligible for this, this and this if you get a doctor's certificate, if you get whatever. Then there's a little thing at the end that says "at the discretion of the case manager."

There are two problems with that. First of all, disability is not a medical need, in a lot of instances. There can be medical complications that come out of the disability but for the most part, it's not a medical need - things like phones and just standard stuff. But then you can have all the specialists and doctors and everyone crossing their t's and dotting their i's but then the case manager, for whatever reason, has that final decision of yes or no. That's a concern because there's some sort of assumption - in my mind there's an assumption that people are trying to get things. If I need a hearing aid, for example, that's not a frivolous thing or stuff like that.

We heard from the CNIB that 83 per cent goes into fundraising, which means that about 20 per cent of their efforts are actually direct services. I really don't want to step on your toes but that's - when four times as much effort goes into fundraising as it does to direct services, people are going to lose out. CNIB has a real role, but people are losing out when the majority of their efforts are just going into keeping the doors open.

We heard talk from David about transportation and I just want to point out that we saw this earlier when the Independent Living Resource Centre - I don't know your name, sorry - had to postpone their presentation because of the Access-A-Bus here and because of transportation needs. So there are real needs and those things need to be looked at in a real way.

Speaking of transportation, you know notwithstanding Access-A-Bus and other stuff, when you get outside of metro, transportation becomes a real issue. It was only since September of last year that Windsor, Nova Scotia, got a bus to go down the Valley. It's not an accessible bus but the transit system just got into place about a year ago and I know some members of People First are buying bus passes and are really latching on to that opportunity that opens the Valley to them, but there still needs to be more. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'm going to move along to Cynthia and then Duncan but I want to throw out an idea myself. As some of you know, my background is in the voluntary sector and I've been thinking as we've been listening and talking today about whether there are any things we can do to strengthen the disability sector. I'm just wondering, have there been any initiatives in the past to work more collaboratively, to speak with a strong, common voice on perhaps four or five common issues or directions that you think you should be included in on the consultations and the decision-making or whatnot?

As we all know, sometimes it's divide and conquer. I mean we all have our particular mandates and you know organizations are busy working in those directions and trying to survive and whatnot. But I'm just wondering if there's any overlap where people and organizations could coordinate their efforts and work together a little bit more.

So let's move on. Cynthia, I'm going to go next to you because you haven't spoken this afternoon.

MS. CYNTHIA CARROLL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I've been listening a lot today and there are themes that you discussed that are coming up. We're all committed here to the solution. Now we've all offered - there's an incredible amount of skill and knowledge at this table. Duncan, for the CNIB has brought up some real, larger issues even beyond organizations. He has talked about generational trends, the bigger wave that's coming, in addition to the issues that we're facing every day.

As Executive Director of the Provincial Autism Centre, am I worried about long-term sustainability? Absolutely. I keep in my mind every day that we have a 50-month burn rate and the programs that we're offering, with literally two full-time employees to sustain those, is incredible. It's overtime hours, absolutely. I can attest to working some late hours myself.

But, in addition to that, the Disability Rights Coalition noted that she has been sitting around this table for 30 years and that we've been talking about this for a long time but now it's a time for action. We need the creative solutions but we need the action plan.

A lot of working groups put out recommendations that are often shelved. We've committed to investing our time but we need to have the follow-through. If we've invested our time, can government follow through with the action plan? I hate to say this but we seem to be really good at reacting in times of crisis.

The one thing I want to mention - which is not related to autism but it reminds me of the non-profit sector - is that a few years ago a young boy killed a woman, Theresa McEvoy. An inquiry and a working group was struck and a list of recommendations were made in that report. If you look at the recommendations and you look at the non-profit organizations, the community-based organizations that were in the community that have been advocating for government for supports and services in place so things like that would not happen. It was nothing new, it was there the whole time.

The non-profit organizations are saying over and over again, they are listening to the people with disabilities, with needs in the community, and if we don't do something soon so that we can have the sustainable funding for our community, those generational trends that Duncan talked about, they're not optimistic. That new wave that's coming through is not going to be willing to devote hundreds of volunteer hours to make those - to make minimal salary and absolutely, the warm and fuzzy thing will always win out to some degree in the end, but we also have families that we need to support, people with disabilities have families they need to support and we need to start listening to their needs. That certainly was part of my speech from the Provincial Autism Centre, part of kind of my call to action.

Now we do have people with autism who do want to contribute to society, who do want to contribute to the labour shortage that is happening not just here in Nova Scotia but across North America. There are lots of examples of models that are effective. I'm thinking of one off the top of my head. Duncan, you talked about the business that the CNIB runs for profit which I am sure helps with your operational budget on a yearly basis, but there are other organizations that can actually assist people with disabilities back into the workforce. But with that there is the penalty if you return to the workforce and that clawback, right?

What about a transition program? Why aren't we putting incentives in there for people with disabilities to move into the workforce and that there's a transition and an incentive. I mean we give incentives to corporations to come to Nova Scotia, why don't we give incentives to people with disabilities to actually contribute to their own community? Those are the main points that I hear from everyone.

There are themes present here, absolutely there are themes present. You know for autism, I could think of probably 100 individuals across Nova Scotia who would love to be contributing - adults - to this process, from coast to coast. So it's really important that we listen and it's the call to action.

The working groups are great, the recommendations are wonderful and we need that but we need the action on the other end.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Cynthia. Duncan, then Dorothy and Mary.

MR. DUNCAN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's Duncan from CNIB again. I'm going to have to stop saying that, I guess.

Just as a point of clarification, when I stated 83 per cent of our operating budget is self-raised, not 83 per cent of our budget dedicated to fundraising. So we raise 83 per cent of our own money, I just wanted to make sure that is clear in the minutes.

One of the other things, and this may be bad form to keep referencing New Brunswick but I've spent five years working very successfully with the Province of New Brunswick and they deserve a lot of recognition for the work that they've done on a very proactive basis. One of the successful working groups that I was part of was the Minister's Employability Group. It was a group of about five executive directors, several senior staff, the minister, deputy minister and assistant deputy minister within that department. Over about a year and a half we accomplished an extremely outcome-oriented agenda and I think everybody around the table walked away feeling that it was very, very productive.

Again, I would suggest that may be a model we want to look at here because one of the points that the minister heard loud and clear - at that point it was a "her" - when she had asked the group to come together was we don't want to sit around and talk about what should be, so if you're offering us an opportunity to do what can be, we're more than willing but otherwise, we're really too busy. We said it with a great deal of respect but we were very serious because we did not want to spend upwards of three to five hours a month working on this each, when we had so many other things to do.

That message was heard and respected and again, I think the outcomes speak for themselves, that group is still working.

Going back to the labour issue, there is one other point I'd like to add. Within our area there is a sub-specialty and there are very few colleges in Canada that graduate the people we hire with the specialties that we need. We are in a situation right now where we require four specialists that we just can't hire. We can't hire them because (a) there is not enough money in our field; (b) there are not enough people trained and (c) there is no desire for people to go into the field where they may or may not be around after the contract ends after a year.

Sorry, one other final point, and we lost one of those four people to the Province of New Brunswick, not Nova Scotia, because they paid higher for the same service and

we were unable to compete with that particular government department for the same specialty. I raised it with the minister who was as shocked as I was, but the point of the matter is that we have to look at paying people in this area with respect to their expertise. These are highly trained people with the equivalent of a master's degree and in the United States, the same positions would start at about $65,000 U.S. Here we would be lucky if we could offer them $35,000.

One final point, and this goes back to employability and Community Services and our collective efforts - we're placing a tremendous amount of focus right now on the emerging labour shortage and one of the solutions is increased immigration. While I do not disagree that immigration is necessary, we have a pool of very talented people who, with a little help, could help be part of that coming labour shortage but there's going to be a window that we're going to miss if we don't take advantage of that group now, get them skilled up, trained up and ready to go.

So I would really encourage the province to take a hard look at the pool of talent that we have right now, readily available or can be readily available within a short period of time, with a few dollars and some assistance from the services around this table, that pool can be tapped for greater wealth within the province and reduction in burden on our systems. Thank you.

[2:45 p.m.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Duncan.

Okay, the speaking list now is; Mary, Dorothy and then David.

MS. MARY ROTHMAN: Mary Rothman, Nova Scotia Association for Community Living. You had asked, Madam Chair, if there were any examples of groups working together and I can give you several. One is that People First Nova Scotia, Directions Nova Scotia Council, Disabled Persons Commission, and ourselves are working with the assistance of the Department of Community Services - and quite generous assistance, we're very grateful - and we're working on some employment issues.

We have already had two employment conferences about the employment of people with intellectual disability in real jobs in the community. We're going to be putting on another conference in March of next year, with assistance from the department, and we also have assistance from the department to do some prior research and have been able to hire really competent researchers to actually go out and talk to people with intellectual disabilities, to service providers and to family members. We did research around employers last year so that what we get back from those groups about what they want to hear at the conference, it will be reflected in the content of the conference. So

despite me not always agreeing with the department, the department does do some good things and we're very grateful for that one.

We also often work in coalitions with other groups - we talk a lot. Some of those reports indicate that service providers and groups in the community work in silos - well, I beg to differ. We talk a lot and we know each other very well, for the most part, and if we meet someone new in the field, from another part of the province, we've very quick to share information and keep in contact.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Mary. Dorothy.

MS. DOROTHY KITCHEN: Dorothy Kitchen, Disability Rights Coalition. I would just like to ask, we've been sitting around this table speaking to the committee, would it be possible for the committee members to give some feedback on what they've heard today?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I'm sure there is so I'll just finish the speaker's list from the presenter's side and then I'll open it up to the standing committee members. Thank you for that suggestion. Did you want to add anything more while you have a chance to?

MS. KITCHEN: No, a little part was a bit of a criticism, not of this but I've been told by some people - I haven't been in the office - but the Minister of Community Services office is not wheelchair accessible and I think that would be nice if it could be changed.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. David and then Lois.

MR. DAVID MOONEY: Madam Chairman, David Mooney, NSCBTA. Very good question, up front. I just have a couple of quick questions. I was also coming here expecting to field some hard questions to all our organizations and we would certainly appreciate that.

First off, I had an opportunity last Friday to sit in on some of the UNSM afternoon session in Yarmouth where they were hosting the conference. Friday afternoon, I believe there were maybe up to nine ministers there from the province of the day and there seemed to be a lot of back patting going on and there weren't any real hard questions.

The issue I had was NSCBTA has requested a podium at that conference and we requested it back as far back as February and we didn't manage to be able to speak at that conference. Would it be possible that this committee would have an opportunity to help push the province to listen and maybe stimulate the municipalities to help in the area that I'm here on and that is transportation. So that is one question, could you possibly do that?

The next question is that I came here expecting to receive some questions and that's why I brought my stainless steel hooks instead of my soft ones. I figured it might get a little bit tough around here. I appreciate the fact that it's happened - I already had this written down, you brought it up - could the committee ask some questions of us and that would really be appreciated. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much, David. Lois.

MS. LOIS MILLER: Lois Miller, Independent Living Nova Scotia. We were just going down the line here and I guess I'd say ditto to Mary, ditto to Dorothy. In fact, Madam Chairman, I think the disability community in Nova Scotia does work collaboratively together and amazingly well. Around the room this morning, I think there were about half a dozen of my current and/or former board members, some of whom are now members of other organizations, speaking on behalf of other organizations. That, of course, was one of the reasons they had been on our board, because they brought that strong knowledge.

I see one Kevin Murphy, who I know is here - not sadly around this table, but with the James McGregor Stewart Society. Kevin was on our board, Murray on our board, just so many who have been strongly involved in our organization. I think that just shows some of the ways we share skills and experience.

A couple of years ago, my organization worked on a research project and I think I put it in the blue kits that we handed out and some of you have there. We conducted research into two models of consumer-based care, self-management and supported decision-making. There were about five organizations, I think. Cathy Crouse was involved at that time with the Mount, Community Living, Disability Rights Coalition - I'm going to forget the others - but many of us worked together to do some very good research.

We're a member of TEAM Work Cooperative on whose board Murray sits, there's another 30. My board just agreed at our meeting last week that we'd be joining the Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities, so we can make good connections with those groups. We're looking at joining the Spinal Cord Injuries Network, we've had discussions about that with CPA and others. All of these are going on, it's not unique to my organization, all groups are doing that and service providers are meeting trying to coordinate what they're doing and to make sure they're not duplicating each other. So I think there is a great deal of collaboration and that's why I hope government can take recommendations that come from that kind of collaborative effort and see those as being well-grounded and well-representative of the community. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Well I think I'll start the hard questions, and I'll concede that your sector seems to be well organized. I know I've certainly taken part

in a number of events that have been sponsored by various coalitions and networks and whatnot. So I guess my question is, why are you not being listened to, then? Elliott.

MR. ELLIOTT RICHMAN: The government is not listening to us for one simple reason - there's no money. There's no political willpower. That's it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Jane and then Dorothy.

MS. JANE WARREN: Elliott says there's no money but what about the votes that we have behind us? I mean, if I say I've got 2,000 or 3,000 brain injury members who are all going to vote for the Cactus Party and every other disability group says okay, we're going to encourage our members to vote for the Cactus Party and we might have a new government.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, Dorothy, and then I'm going to open it up. I have Dorothy down and then I'm going to revert back - you asked to hear from some of the other committee members. So Dorothy, you had your hand up.

MS. DOROTHY KITCHEN: I think that Community Services always think that they know what's best, that's why we're not listened to. They determine what they think is best for the people who require the services, instead of being the other way around.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to Leo and then Duncan.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Marilyn. Just a couple of comments first and then I will ask a question. I know part of the answer but I need to get a bit more detail.

First of all, today has been a wonderful learning opportunity and I don't think any MLA can operate in the province - unless they're in an absolute bubble - without knowing some of the issues and the concerns that you brought forward today. It does confirm and it does bring some new views and perspective and I do really appreciate that.

Over the last few years, I would have to say - and I don't say this in any pretentious or self-righteous point of view - our Party has brought forth a few helpful pieces. The self-managed attendant care; the Poverty Reduction Working Group Act, which needs to be acted on and brought forward to a greater degree than what we had first picked up during the summer; also asking for a review of a disability Act, to see what could be put in place in the province.

On, I guess, a personal note as an MLA - I haven't been able to operate without the critical view of Joan and Cynthia in my area of the world, in the Valley. They have

been wonderful teachers of the needs of the disabled and bring lots of areas to my office on a pretty regular basis.

As I look at Cynthia, one of the big initiatives that we did take back four years ago, and while it was our Party that brought forth the motion, it was an all-Party, again - an endorsement to support, in a budgetary item, funding for autism in Nova Scotia which was an outstanding initiative. Perhaps that's where we need to be going now, in terms of disabilities, something along that same idea where, again, all the Parties need to join together and put forth a budgetary item as a core funding initiative for disabilities. I think that can bring an enormous amount of positive action, if that is done.

So today there's no question, core funding, a disability Act, and while you work together, some of the groups work together, there's still a great need for a collaborative approach to disabilities and, in my view, a disability Act can, indeed, be an umbrella piece for all of the different groups that we've heard from today and I think can move forward with a great deal more positive action. There's no question that we're still really just dealing with that one-ninth of the iceberg that's above the water. It's the eight-ninths in the lives of people with disabilities that we still have to meet those kinds of needs.

So I appreciate what has been brought forward around the table today but I agree with many of you here that the time for study is over. If we don't have the studies here in the province now, then I can assure you they are available in other jurisdictions.

[3:00 p.m.]

Over the last number of months, however, perhaps one of the areas brought to my attention and our Party's attention has been People First and the independent living piece. When we look at the fact that we were a leader at one point, we were going down the path of creating the climate and the opportunity for greater independent living in this province and we put the brakes on - we not only put the brakes on but we actually reversed and we've gone in the opposite direction.

We know that in those facilities, yes, we have for the most part wonderfully caring staff. But as we look at the true dignity of what people need, I think it's an area that does require some immediate attention in this province. In fact, to see a new facility actually opened in 2008 is against every trend developing in western society. In the western world this is not where jurisdictions are going.

So I'd like to ask, and somebody else can answer, I mean why do you really think that is happening when - and I know, yes, it's the support model that we need so therefore, if government is saying that the support model is not in place and we have to institutionalize people, what is the deficiency here in this province that is causing us to be

the true laggard right here in Canada in something that I believe needs to be reversed to a much greater extent. I'd like to have somebody pick up on that theme a little bit.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Leo, I'm going to go back to Duncan and then John. So hold that thought in terms of Leo's question, John. Duncan.

MR. DUNCAN WILLIAMS: It's Duncan again from CNIB. I'm not going to try to answer the question of why government doesn't listen. I think there are political careers built around that question so I'm not going to be pretentious enough to think that I can answer it in 30 seconds.

What I can speak to, though, are the outcomes of a process whereby there is trust and there is genuine interest in listening. I'm going to reference New Brunswick one more time, and I'll reference Ontario because I've worked and lived and played in four provinces now. I've had the benefit of working with several committees, as I've already alluded to, and we've been very, very successful. We have now a relationship with several departments in New Brunswick, for example, where before a report or before a set of recommendations goes to Communications New Brunswick, it comes to the group of charities or group of organizations first to vet, because we've been part of the discussion, part of the planning and part of the solution-building from the get-go.

I guess it was a simple message that we delivered a number of years ago - we can either wait for you to come out the door with the report and beat you up then, or you can include us as part of the process and then we're partnering and we're going to celebrate it with you. It's a very simple concept, in my mind, and I think the latter is a lot cheaper, it's a lot easier on people and it's going to be a better strategy in the end for the people who are ultimately going to be the receiver and/or user of a particular program or service. Thanks.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks Duncan. John.

MR. JOHN COX: Yes, John Cox, People First Nova Scotia. To answer the question, it has been a real struggle with me why we're not listened to and I just, in many ways, don't understand but I want to - when I was part of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Working Group we had a meeting with the Finance Department. They actually came in and, trust me, I have no idea of finances - finances are not my strong suit - but one thing, the only thing, that I got out of that was when they said what the 1 per cent reduction in HST would cost the province. It got me thinking that sort of that way of thinking is what will disability cost this province - not about investment.

We've got 20 per cent of our population in Nova Scotia with disabilities. What an investment that would be if those disability supports - and I know people who refuse to work, not because they don't want to work but because they lose the disability supports

and it's tied into the income system, so what an investment that would be if we were able to keep our supports yet still pay into the income. It would cost this government, by investing in people's lives, it would be a benefit in that regard and how much cost-savings that would be when we reach that untapped job market.

I remember the Disability Rights Coalition once brought in Mark Kingwell, who is a philosopher and the one thing that struck me with him was he talked about dialogue and dialogue isn't about being listened to, dialogue isn't about having your own way - it's about being listened to and appearing to be listened to and we're not appearing to be listened to in this day and age. Why? I don't know.

There seems to be some sort of perception that I'm asking for the sky. I'm not asking for the sky but I would at least like to lift the manhole cover so I can see the street. That's the bottom line, that dialogue needs to be a two-way street and that's not happening. We now speak for the disability community, if I may, want to open a dialogue and we need to open that we recognize that. I know that by sitting on the Disability Rights Coalition. I know that from People First's perspective, that we want to start this dialogue. So that question you need to ask is - you need to ask the department and the bureaucrats because we very much, I believe, we're all sitting here today and when we listened this morning, for the most part the messages were all the same. There were some that were different, because of organizations, but for the most part the messages today, the 15 organizations you listened to today, all said the same thing around disability supports as a right, not a privilege.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, John. There was a flurry of hands here earlier and I just want to make sure that I got everybody's name down. So right now I have Dorothy, Jane and Cynthia. Was there anyone else that I missed? Sorry, Mary. Okay, Dorothy.

MS. DOROTHY KITCHEN: Dorothy Kitchen, Disability Rights Coalition. The question you asked about - why are we having institutions - I think one is that the people who are planning or making policies, I don't think they realize how simple it is for someone to live in the community. It's not as complicated.

I think the second thing is that people with disabilities, and particularly people who have an intellectual or really physical disability, don't have any value. If you don't value someone then you feel that you can make decisions for them, make decisions that you wouldn't do for anyone else. I don't think there's anyone sitting around this table who would allow someone to come into their home and say, tomorrow you're being moved to a large building outside the city. You'll no longer have any privacy, you don't know the people you're going to live with and if you don't agree with what we say, you'll be put in a time-out room and after that the door is locked, from then on they're no longer a part of society.

That's what's happening when people go and move into these large institutions - they have no more say in society. The reason, and yes, if there's a reason, and I don't think there is one except that they're not valued and people feel that they can use them and decide for them what's best for them and think it might be economically cheaper, but I don't think it is.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Dorothy. Right now I have Jane, Cynthia, Mary and Elliott. Then I'm going to revert back in case any of the standing committee members want to speak. Then I thought we might actually do a round table, just each person, because some people I think have been doing a lot of thinking but haven't spoken, so we'll give everyone a chance to have a few final remarks. Okay, Jane.

MS. JANE WARREN: I have a reason why we - and I'm going to be broad and talk about disability organizations overall - are not being listened to. That's when the focus is on our membership, clients, or whatever you call them, of the disabled community to enable them to live, not well and not extravagantly; to fight the stigma that a disabled person has to put up with; to continue with the education of others of the general public about the disability, whatever disability it is; and to focus on fundraising in order to raise money for non-profits to provide the services that are not being provided already, or by government, for lack of. There's no energy left to raise our voices. Social assistance rates break 11 out of the 12 determinants of health, and I'm not sure about the twelfth one.

What the non-profits do is raise or enable the disabled to get over the barriers that are in place in this province, so they don't have any energy or time left to raise voices.

I'm going to argue with John about the 20 per cent disabled in this province. Okay, the statistic is fine but the impact of disability is more than just the 20 per cent of the population because when you factor in families - if you have two wage-earners and someone becomes disabled through an accident, say, they're in a wheelchair or whatever, one person has to stop working to look after that disabled person. So the financial well-being of the family sort of is in half or greater - I can't read my own handwriting - and impacts of caring for a person with a disability when there aren't programs or services for them. The family often does not have any training. How many of you who do not have somebody in a wheelchair in your family - do you know how to transfer somebody? You have to learn that rather quickly if you don't have an attendant to do it, and I'll stop.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Jane. Cynthia.

MS. CYNTHIA BRUCE: Cynthia Bruce, Community Inc. I think there's probably in my mind a couple of reasons that (a) perhaps we feel like we're not being listened to and (b) that perhaps we're taking some backward steps in this province. One of them goes back to trust and I think that maybe Duncan mentioned the issue of trust and Dorothy as

well. I think there's a real inability in government to trust that we really actually know what we're talking about, that we really actually know what we're capable of and actually grasp what we're not capable of.

Trust me, I've done this for 40 years. I really know what I can do and I really know what I can't do and I'm really okay with the fact that I will never drive a truck for a living. It's fine, but I think there's a real inability to trust that we really know what we're talking about. So the paternalistic notions kick in - father knows best, government knows best, we know what's best for you so we're going to tell you what to do. It's really not that way, we know what's best for us.

I think we all want to take a collaborative approach because I think we all realize that there's something to learn from the community who doesn't live with disability, absolutely. But it needs to be a collaborative approach, we need to know that people are hearing what we have to say and that they are actually taking it into account when they're making decisions "for us" because that's still what happens, decisions are still made for us. I had a second point, which has completely left my mind at the moment.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, if you think of it, we'll come back to you, how's that? Mary.

MS. MARY ROTHMAN: Mary Rothman, Nova Scotia Association for Community Living. Several people around this table have talked about trust being broken and I'm going to give you a very concrete example of when trust was broken. When the Department of Community Services started the renewal process for supports to people with disabilities, they announced that they were setting up a Community Committee and they invited several of us in this room - our organizations - to put forward a list of names of people who might be appropriate to sit on the Community Committee.

I have to tell you there were some organizations that said we're not going to bother, we're not going to do that, they won't listen to us, it'll just be the same old, same old. I was one of the people who said if you're invited to the dance, you go; if you don't like it, you can leave. But when you're invited to the table, we must go and we must collaborate.

[3:15 p.m.]

The whole process was very laid out and complicated. There were information sessions for our boards, individually. My board members came in from various places in the province to have an orientation of how this was going to work and this was given by staff of the Department of Community Services. We got a binder of how it was going to work. It had little charts about how things were going to come to the Community Committee and our opinion was going to be asked and it would go back into other

working groups, it would come back to the Community Committee and we would be told, you know we can do what you recommended, because we can't do it tomorrow we'll put it on the five-year plan, or no, we thought about it and we don't agree with you, which is fine.

This was the plan, there was going to be dialogue and we would really feel part of it. We had three or four meetings and at the third meeting the members of the Community Committee said, we are prepared to meet every Friday on these issues, that's how committed we are, whether we were there as staff or volunteers - the staff were there as volunteers anyway because it just meant we had to make up the work that we weren't doing in our offices.

One thing was actually brought to the Community Committee for us to have a look at. We discussed it, we made recommendations. The next meeting, half the staff, who had been seconded from Community Services to work on it, were gone. New faces were at the table - we were told it was going to be different now. When I asked the question, so are we going to get the feedback on what we had to say at the last meeting, the answer was no. When I asked the question, does that mean we are now simply going to be a focus group of the department and you can fly things by us and whatever, there was a very long pause and then the answer was yes. That committee never met again.

We learned of recommendations coming out of that work when the press called us to ask us what we thought about it. So that's where trust was broken and it's hard to get it back. There were a lot of people who were really hurt by that process, personally hurt, people with disabilities who were absolutely told that their opinion was not welcome. I guess that's all I have to say.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mary. Elliott.

MR. RICHMAN: Elliott Richman, Deafness Advocacy Association Nova Scotia. I wanted to repeat something I said earlier this morning about something regarding what the Alberta Premier had talked about, Premier Ed Stelmach. He had said that the voluntary organizations identify need much better than a government can, that they also deliver those services much more effectively and efficiently. Really, that's all I wanted to say again for now, I just really wanted to repeat that and if I could be blunt, if it were not for my wife I would go to Ottawa, I really would - no, no, I'm not finished actually with that comment. I would go to Ottawa and go into the Dutch Embassy and apply for political asylum. Thanks.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any other members - sorry. Yes, Cynthia.

MS. CYNTHIA CARROLL: Cynthia Carroll from the Provincial Autism Centre. LEO commented earlier that about four years ago there was money allocated in the budget for autism - that money, just to clarify, went to the Early Intervention Program in Nova Scotia, which was a huge win for the autism community and for the parents, for early diagnosis for autism. That program, although so valued - and thank you - in the community, it currently only reaches 50 per cent of families in Nova Scotia. In addition to that, there is no continuation in services beyond that Early Intervention Program, and that is a significant deficit and a mis-justice to the autism community. That one win was amazing, but where do we go from here?

I do want to also comment - because in the media they have a tendency to always bring those issues to the forefront, especially to the political forefront - that a surgeon recently left Nova Scotia and moved out West because the program out West offered 36 hours of support for his son with autism, where in Nova Scotia there was 10 to 12 hours of support per week and there was a significant waiting list and a lottery system in place. I guess my comment to that is, every program is very different and sometimes it's not about quantity, it's about quality, just like it's all about quality of life.

I also know that the Early Intervention Program that we have in Nova Scotia , not that everybody would know this, is actually getting from a research perspective - I think is going to get international awareness. It is a program that although it doesn't necessarily have perhaps the number of hours that is attractive to families, but the results, it's the quality of the program that seems to be effective. Do we need to do better? Absolutely, but I think it's a very first step in showing that we do have the ability and skills to put good quality programs that have long-term impacts, if the right programs and services are in place to follow that.

You talked about, why are we moving back to institutions? You know, sometimes I wonder, is that what we know? We see all kinds of cycles in government and Community Services that seem to come full circle - we're cutting our arts program, we're reinstating our arts program. It's that out-of-the-box thinking, but when we do it to do it well. I agree with you also that it is a collaborative process and I agree that we all collaborate around this table because we have to. We are invested in not just quantity, we're invested in the quality of life. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Cynthia. So I'll now open it up - do any of the members of the standing committee want to speak? Trevor.

MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. A few years back - I'm sure you guys have some recollection of this - there was a single mother in Guysborough County who had gone to the department to inquire about receiving post-secondary education. She was thus denied, had an organization take up her case and went to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled in favour of the Department of Community Services, thus the young lady and her advocates went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The judge of the Supreme Court of Canada decided that it was of no obligation of any provincial government department to see an individual beyond a certain point, but only bring them to a certain point. The disability doesn't end because you become more employable, your ability to earn more income does not render you no longer disabled. It's a mindset that has to be changed.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, and I think that's what we've done here in this province. We have an aging population, the largest disabled population and we've accepted it and, guys, I think we're 10 years behind at least in this province to where we should be.

Duncan, you had talked about tourism, absolutely, but if you look at what we've done as a government with tourism, we don't even debate tourism, it's not a priority. It's kind of like a token ministerial position, we don't go out and we don't explore and endeavour into new possibilities. I guess maybe I'm being brutally honest, but that has been my opinion for a number of years and I guess that's why I became a politician in 2006, because I hope to bring some change.

I think some of you know, Jane, I do know how to do a transfer, some of the best lessons I've learned in life have been by being a home care attendant. Actually, many of the people who know Scott - some of you met him today - I tell people that I've learned more from Scott than I've done for him. It's about being humble, and it's about seeing somebody else living a whole different complete life but not be acknowledged for the efforts that someone puts forward. I think as governments we have to be stronger, all members have to be stronger in the House when we're looking at legislation, the effects it has on people, on individuals, but I think we have to be a whole lot louder.

Duncan - I'm going to go back to Duncan from CNIB - it's time, it really is. LEO, I agree with you, I mean, guys, we're so far behind now we have no choice.

The Minister of Health came out back in early June and stated that by 2025, if we don't reconfigure the direction that the health care system is going in there's going to be no more money for any other department. Well, we have a lot of individuals who are on disability, social assistance, that we don't even permit them enough money to eat in the run of a month - that's a health issue. We don't allow an individual to have access to funding for certain devices that would enhance and improve their quality of life that they deserve, that's a health issue.

I think it's time to really take it to a hold and way beyond political stripe, and this is a good start. We had the Poverty Reduction Strategy come out and that came out of a

couple poverty forums that this committee had. But again, we're at a standstill with that, it's a report that's sitting there and nothing being acted on.

Autism, Cynthia - again, we need to be leaders in this province going to the federal government and saying, we have an issue here, because a number of us know and have met several families that are pretty much like Dorothy Kitchen, who have been fighting this fight for 30 years but now they're getting tired. They need to know that their children are going to have a rightful place in society and, Cynthia, it's about citizenship, it's absolutely about the entitlement of citizenship. Government has to take the lead. It shouldn't be just coming from all of you as individuals representing your groups, it has to be government recognizing the potential in every one of us. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Trevor. Anybody else from the committee want to speak? Yes, Ron.

HON. RONALD CHISHOLM: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I guess on behalf of the bad guys I'll say a few words. (Laughter)

MR. LEO GLAVINE: We didn't say that.

MR. CHISHOLM: Not in so many words, Leo, not in so many words. But anyway, I guess on behalf of the government - Pat Dunn and myself, as well as Len Goucher - I know I've taken a lot of notes today and certainly have had some concerns with some of the things that I've heard today. I'm sure Pat, Len and I will certainly be making our presentation to the minister, as well as to the Premier and all of our caucus, on the meeting that we've had here today.

Having said that, health care was mentioned and I think it was mentioned, too, by somebody that there's no money. Well, that may not be exactly true. We have a budget of something over $7 billion a year in this province, which about 50 per cent or very close to 50 per cent is going to health care. You come to education and there's very close to another $1 billion, if not a little more, that the taxpayers of Nova Scotia are putting into education. We go to Community Services and Community Services is $800 million to $1 billion a year, which takes in all aspects of Community Services, whether it be income assistance, whatever, all aspects of Community Services, which takes in the disabled in the province as well.

[3:30 p.m.]

I have a number of disabled people in my constituency who I deal with on a regular basis. They have a program in Guysborough, a daily workshop, for people with mental and physical disabilities. I think there are probably about 18 adults in that program, a very, very good program sponsored by Community Services, and there is

some money raised by the community as well. They have a dinner there every Friday afternoon at lunchtime. Anytime I'm in Guysborough, that's where I go to have my lunch, to support them.

One of the presentations that was made here this morning - I think it was by John Cox from People First Nova Scotia - was on deinstitutionalization. I have people I'm dealing with right now with disabilities who are trying to get into an institution, they want to be in an institution. I have dealt over the past nine years with a number of people who had to be placed in an institution and are very happy to be there. I have one guy who went into a nursing home for a week for respite care for his family, he wouldn't leave, he wanted to be in that place and is still in that place. There are programs, all kinds of good programs that are in place for these guys, so what are we going to do with the people who do want to be in these institutions or have to go to these institutions?

I'm not saying that everybody - and I look at the group, the Guysborough Options for Adaptive Living Society - that's what we call it, GOALS - and there are a number of people there who live in their own homes, they have intellectual disabilities, and they're doing fine. They have a program that they go to every day and are very happy to do that.

I think over the last number of years, there are always issues and there always will be issues as far as any government goes. It doesn't matter if we're the government in power or if it's the NDP who is in power or the Liberal Party that's in power, you're going to have the same issues. Until we all start working together - and I look around here today, there are 15 groups of people who made presentations here today and all basically different to a certain extent. If you're going to talk to government, 15 different organizations just in the Halifax area basically, with the group from the Valley and there may have been a few people from the Sydney area who were here as well.

If I'm a negotiator with the IBEW, which I was for a number of years, and I'm going to go talk to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, I don't take five other unions with me, I go and negotiate as one group. There are pressures, it doesn't matter what government is going to be there, there are pressures on government.

The Minister of Health was absolutely right when he said, by 2025, if something doesn't change with the way we operate the health care system there will be nothing else in the province but health care. Right now it's basically 50 per cent of the total tax dollars that the Government of Nova Scotia takes in, the Province of Nova Scotia takes in, that goes toward health care. As far as we don't consult with the different groups, I know there are a number of groups, - LEO to name one, and I know there are others - that have made presentations to our government. If a request comes in and it's a group that we feel should meet with the whole caucus, we meet. If it's a group that the minister should meet with, the Premier directs them to meet with that group. So I think if we're asked, as far as

consultation goes, we'll certainly respond either through the minister of whatever department it is or through our caucus.

Like I said earlier when I started, we do have some issues, we know that, but as a government I know the Premier and the Minister of Community Services want to do everything they can possibly do - and we haven't done nothing, I can assure you, we haven't done nothing. We have a wheelchair program we put in place a few years ago and there's a number of other programs that we've dealt with as a government, and we'll continue to do that as far as I'm concerned. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ron. Anyone else from the committee? Pat.

MR. PATRICK DUNN: Pat Dunn, MLA, Pictou Centre. My role here today was to listen, which I certainly have and it was certainly an educational experience for me, although I have spoken to some of the groups that spoke here today. If I could come up with one word to sum up the entire day it would be "consistency." There was certainly a consistency within the groups with regard to their concerns that they have been experiencing. Some of the key messages that I have leaving here: of course, the development of a disability strategy, start acting now as opposed to two years' time, a comprehensive holistic strategy; and a disconnect between Community Services and what people with disabilities really need, that was certainly another key thing I picked up - it's time to move from studying and reviewing to implementing some of your suggestions.

I believe Dennis hit the nerve centre with one thing he said - I believe it was Dennis - sustainable, predictable core funding is required and avoiding a lot of duplication of services, so a review of those services. Another thing that I wasn't aware of that CNIB mentioned was summer students are not allowed to fund-raise. I can't think of a single reason why that would be, but I'm very anxious to find out why. Finally, I guess, any type of strategy with regard to disabilities, you definitely should be part of the process. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Pat. Gordie.

MR. GORDON GOSSE: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Gordie Gosse, MLA for Cape Breton Nova. It was a very informative day today, all day. I've listened to many issues and as an executive director myself of a non-profit organization, I continually hear the same thing over and over again about core funding - 75 per cent of the time writing proposals instead of actually doing your job, that pretty well comes from the volunteer sector or a non-profit organization, not just for people with disabilities, but all across the Province of Nova Scotia, and I'm quite familiar in Cape Breton.

One thing I didn't hear today was affordable housing for persons with disabilities. In my area we have such a lack of housing for people with disabilities in Cape Breton,

and I didn't hear any issues around that today - we had a federal-Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Program of $56 million in 2003 and I didn't hear anything. I was hoping to hear today that there were so many units built across Nova Scotia, from the Valley to Cape Breton, how many units for people with disabilities, to make it easier for them. That's a big thing, having a home to start with and then active transportation, and transportation in general, for people with disabilities.

I know about the self-managed care, I know about in-home support, I know about - we have a small contingent of people in Cape Breton who are in the brain injury program, and there are all kinds of different organizations, but the one thing that I did hear today is that - you know, I don't know if it's in a crisis, the persons with disabilities or all organizations.

You know we have an agreement that we just signed, as a province, that's coming due on April 1, 2009, which is the LMDA. How is that going to affect the organizations that are here today - that's the Labour Market Development Agreement. How many organizations, as we're sitting around this table today, are going to be here this time next year? Those are things I was looking forward to hearing today that I didn't hear. This is what's coming down the pipe with the new agreement, the skills development funding and our criteria priority selections for different groups. Now, what organizations are going to be able to withstand what's coming down with this?

I heard the word "devolution" - it's in the federal budget speech. The word "devolution" is not to evolve, it's to go back, so are we going back to institutionalization? As the father of a child who was in the Nova Scotia Youth Training Centre, and knows what it's like to come out of an institution and shut down an institution and having that child, I do know those parts of it as an MLA. Those are some of the things today that I wanted to hear that I didn't quite hear about affordable housing and the Labour Market Development Agreement affecting non-profit organizations like yourselves in the province.

I must say thank you to everybody who came today, it was quite informative. I listened and I know myself that I will take it back to my caucus, as we're meeting tomorrow, and discuss some of the issues that we heard today and about the strategy, to come up with a strategy for persons with disabilities in the Province of Nova Scotia, the same way we did with the poverty strategy, the same that we did with the Child and Youth Strategy. So there is an avenue for us to come up with the same kind of strategy like we're doing in those two different - you know, the Child and Youth Strategy is well underway now with an executive director, the poverty strategy is still in the making, and there may be the possibility of a persons with disabilities strategy. So we'll just keep things going the way we can and hopefully we can do the best we can. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Gordie. Keith.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all I want to thank the organizations for taking the time to come today. I know it's very, very difficult and very expensive for you to come, and indeed you've lost some time, it's been indicated around the table here, coming to speak to us here today and I appreciate the time you've taken to come and express your concerns.

I've heard a pretty consistent theme around the table about core funding for the organizations. I work with many organizations in my community. It's the same thing, they're writing proposals three-quarters of the time, just so they can survive and do the work that they do so well. That must be very, very discouraging.

You know when you look at the results - and I can go by the people that I deal with every day - they're tremendous, the results are really tremendous. We have people in the community whose lives have been totally changed by the organizations and the way you work. I don't think government has ever been in tune with what really needs to be done with individuals.

I believe that each individual should be looked at as an individual that you're trying to help, rather than a big box that you try to cram everybody in, and your organizations are forced to cram them in that box. I think you can get a lot more done if you went, and in some cases I've seen - one person came to me one time and they said to me, I need $50 to get my car fixed and I can get a job, so we managed to get that done. That person is still working today and that was many years ago. So it just shows us so many simple things that need to be done. In some cases some things are very complex and your organizations know that fully.

We have to work with individuals and if we could get this power of the people that are here, willing to work in the province, I think our economy would improve. I know that anyone who isn't working now, who really can't work because they don't have the proper supports in place, would feel a lot better about themselves and, indeed, enjoy a much better lifestyle than possibly some of them have been. It's just a simple matter of some very basic things being put in place for them.

I think that Community Services needs to work more closely with your organizations. I don't have anything bad to say about the caseworkers who work for Community Services, they've been outstanding in our area when we contact them about an issue that a resident has but they're very limited to what they can do. They have a very close-knit box of things they can work with and if it goes outside that box, they really can't form a solution. I think that's where the organizations are so important, where you deal every day with the individuals and know exactly what the individuals need. I think you need to have a tighter connection there somehow with Community Services, so you can access maybe the special things that someone needs to make a difference in their life long-term.

There's a lot more I'd like to say. Again, I want to really thank you for coming today. I found it very informative. I look forward to working with your organizations, our caucus, I know we're very concerned about this issue in the future to see if we can't make it better for you to operate and ultimately make it better for the people that you serve all the time. Thank you so much.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Keith. I just want to tell you what's going to happen between now and 4:00 p.m. We'll do the go-around with the organizational representatives and if you don't want to speak, just say "pass" and that's fine. Then I'd like to suggest some possible next steps that the standing committee may take on the information that you provided to us today. Then I have a few thank you's before we adjourn. Yes, Ron.

[3:45 p.m.]

MR. CHISHOLM: I should have been gone by about 2:30 p.m. I have a commitment in my riding tonight so I'm going to have to abstain but, again, I want to thank everybody for their presentations. It was well worthwhile, it was a good day, an informative day for me. So anyway, keep up the good work and thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister, for coming today. Murray, if you don't mind being put on the spot, perhaps we'll start the go-around with you. Any reflections, surprises? Oh, you were waiting for the light, sorry.

MR. MURRAY VANDEWATER: Wow, I'm first. Murray Vandewater, TEAMWork Cooperative Ltd. I like the all-Party perspective that I hear today, notwithstanding a few little partisan jokes that didn't go over our heads (Interruption) They're inside jokes. It's nice to be part of the inside jokes.

I think the important issue for those of us who are involved in partisan politics and those who are not, is to ensure that issues of disability are not partisan, as much as possible. I think if we look at fundamental principles, that indeed is true and if anything that your committee could come out and suggest that we are very inclusive and supportive of, and I think sometimes those of us in our passion may sometimes take a partisan role but we try not to. I like the fact that it's been very collegial here today and that's the kind of thing that I'd like to continue on.

It goes down to the issue of voice. Yes, we are many people but we don't really know where our voice goes into. It goes into individual MLAs, it goes into Community Services because they're our funder. Yes, we're quite aware of the labour mobility fund and whatnot. For example, without putting Anne MacRae on the spot, it seems that there is an enhanced role that the Disabled Persons Commission can make within - Anne has so many bosses and reports to so many departments that one would expect it means it sort of

gets diffused. I'm not suggesting that it ought to but I think that a more direct, inclusive voice, rather than being cross-departmentalized - if I can use an activization of a noun - may be the issue.

I think the issue of a strategy and a disability Act are cogent and I think I, for one, can talk to that and say that we are all active and want to be participants and I would trust that some of the illustrations that occurred earlier, that it is a continuum and becomes real. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Murray. Cynthia.

MS. CARROLL: I'd like to thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the standing committee, for inviting us to the table. I think that there were many themes for us at the Provincial Autism Centre, sustainable core funding, which is echoed through all of the disability organizations and is obviously a huge priority for us.

I want to thank everybody for their comments and know that as this moves forward, we've all committed to the call to action. I just want to concur that the time for study is over. I think we've done that for a long time and it's time to get moving before it really is too late. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much. Elliott.

MR. ELLIOTT RICHMAN: Again, Elliott Richman from Deafness Advocacy Association of Nova Scotia. I would just like to thank everybody for inviting me to be here and hearing our presentation. It has been really inspiring from all the politicians here today who seem to be, shall I say, more prepared to come to action and be called to action and I'm looking forward to the next step. Thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Elliott.

MR. ELLIOTT RICHMAN: And I would also like to say I dropped the idea, I'm really not planning on going to Ottawa.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Good. Wayne, you haven't had a chance to make a comment. Do you want to take this opportunity?

MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Absolutely, Marilyn. Wayne Gaudet, I'm the MLA for Clare. I've been in provincial politics for 15 years. A good friend of mine, who most of you probably know, is Claredon Robicheau. Claredon and I were in school together, we grew up together and we basically talk at least once a day, if not more than once. Disability certainly has been at the forefront of many of our discussions along the way.

Elliott said something about call to action and that made me reflect on one thing. Many times in our discussions that I've had with Claredon, I've often asked, you know we hear about accessible, affordable housing, accessible transportation, in-home support, wheelchair program and the list goes on, but I've never been to a meeting where I can hear from an organized structure.

This is the request to government; government basically, and the minister is gone, but he is absolutely right. Just try it for a minute to be in government and try to answer this question - what will government do to help our disability community in Nova Scotia? Name one thing. Well I just threw a few out and I've often asked, what's your number one priority? Guess what, I've asked that question to many people and often I don't get the same answer. So maybe in your wrap-up, I would like to see a future meeting.

I think we need to try to get a better understanding. If government could find collectively with the Cactus Party and others, to try to deliver something toward the disabled community in Nova Scotia, what would that big ticket item be? I don't have the answer and I don't expect anyone to have it today but I would like to maybe have some discussion around maybe a short list in the future. So with that, I'll take my seat.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Wayne. Duncan.

MR. DUNCAN WILLIAMS: Hi, it's Duncan from CNIB again. I do have an answer for your direct question, Wayne. In terms of dollars, I can tell you that I need $550,000 now in order to sustain our services into the future. That's exactly what I would need and I need it for two sets of services - rehabilitation and library. It's that simple.

Do I need the government to tell me how to deliver the services? Good luck, to be honest with you because we've been doing it for 90 years and we consider ourselves experts and we're the first ones to admit that we don't know it all. So if anybody can duplicate it, be my guest. It would mean a lot more sleep-filled nights for me.

Going back, I guess, to the question of what would we do if we were in government - I guess I would reverse that question and say, what would government do without us? Essentially we are providing a service on behalf of the people of this province. We are not mandated to be here. We are here because there is a gap somewhere, there is a need somewhere, somebody needs a hand somehow and assistance to live a life that's filled with quality and so on.

I think that is the ultimate question that we have to really ponder - what is it we want as a society and how do we see that happening? I don't think it just means throwing money at it so I don't mean to be coy in my answer but I do think we have to start thinking differently. I wish Minister Ron Chisholm was here now because I do have a comment with regard to 2025 and how we reverse the burden on the health care system.

Maybe I'm simplistic but I have an M.B.A., an economics degree and am a social worker on top of it, so how does that bake your noodle, first off?

One of the things we have to come to grips with - we all know that pouring money into the health care system is not the answer, it hasn't been for a long time. Tommy Douglas never ever intended it to be that way. As a matter of fact, he originally said way back when that there would have to be a second wave in the health system - that that was the first step.

We're at the point now where we have to make critical decisions. Our health care system is in trouble, it's going to be in worse trouble, we know that. What I think you have also in front of you is an offer, at least this is what I'm offering, is a way for us to eliminate some of the burden. CNIB, I know we can take a huge burden off the taxpayers of the Province of Nova Scotia just by offering sustained, dependable, quality rehabilitation services. If we can take 1,000 people over the next 10 years out of long-term facilities, or keep them out of them, I should say, that's one hell of a savings for the taxpayers of Nova Scotia in my mind, at a cost of about $120,000 per person. If I do the math real quickly, we're into tens of millions of dollars.

So the solutions are there. What has to happen, though, is the creative will and the political will to see those solutions through to the point where agencies are trusted. You ask the question, why are we not being listened to? Again, I don't have the answer but I do find one reason why we're not being listened to in some respects is the fact that there's a perception that we are in this business - "we", and I'm speaking from having worked in about 10 different non-profits over the years - we are in this position because we can't find another job. Well I just told you my credentials. I could go down the street tomorrow and be an investment banker but I choose to do what I do, for my own personal reasons and others.

Having said that, we do have the expertise. What we are offering is an opportunity for the Province of Nova Scotia to take advantage of those expertise infrastructures and to really start to work together to come up with creative solutions so we don't face a crisis. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much, Duncan. David.

MR. DAVID MOONEY: David Mooney, NSCBTA. Madam Chairman, if you could believe it, I've changed my closing comments three times, as we left the room some of us. I think I'm going to use the word "poverty" and because your committee is an inclusive committee, dealing with all three Parties in Nova Scotia are represented, so inclusive is a very good term but I'm going to stick with the "poverty" at this point. I know it's not transportation but it certainly affects that.

MLA Gordie Gosse, you mentioned earlier that we hadn't talked about the LMAPD, the Labour Market Agreement for Persons with Disabilities but I kind of alluded to it a little bit when we talked about the Collaborative Partnership Network and the fact that the federal government has entrusted us, these 10 organizations, 11 organizations in the province for the last 10 years with millions of dollars to provide services for persons with disabilities, to get them back to work.

I use the number of 1,800 persons with disabilities in the province over the last year who have been back to work at a tune of about $3 million in tax money to the provincial government, which is a great thing.

MLA Wayne Gaudet - you mentioned what can the impoverished Government of Nova Scotia do? Well, persons with disabilities, on average, over 50 per cent are impoverished and that's a very high ratio of a person with disabilities.

The Honourable Mr. Chisholm, who you saw me chase out the door because I tore up that sheet I was going to present here - yes, we are impoverished for sure in this province, including the government of the day. I will tell you that I don't think I want to listen to the Minister of Health who says 2025 is the year that we will break the bank. I sit on a number of organizations in the province and at one time within the last six months we had an opportunity where the deputy minister spoke to one of our organizations and he assured me it will be less than 10 years, Madam Chairman.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much, David. John.

MR. JOHN COX: John Cox, People First Nova Scotia and I do want to respond to the comment that some people welcome institutions and I just wanted you to imagine that almost half the people on income assistance - there are two separate entities within the department, there is the Services for Persons with Disabilities and there's the Employment Support and Income Assistance. The ESIA is based on the old welfare model, so there's no supports attached, there's nothing there. People get $535 plus a little over $200 a month for everything, so $535 for rent, which includes power, household supplies and all of that stuff and the $200 would include food, clothes, everything that you would need to live in your community.

[4:00 p.m.]

Given the option of starvation, of living in poverty, as my colleague, David says, or living in a place where I'm getting at least nutritious meals three times a day, even I, as a strong advocate against institutions, would struggle with those choices. Those are the issues for people with disabilities in this province, is that there are no supports. I believe Trevor had said around health care and around the lack of proper nutrition, it's going to

be a drain on the health care system. All of those things factor into it, it's not just around do I want to go here or there, it's around the choices and the amount of supports.

Also, I don't believe it was talked about, just the difference in regional supports, I guess, in the sense that I'm aware that Guysborough County has very little supports, Cape Breton has no small options homes, these are two different distinct regions. I have members of People First down in the Valley and in Halifax who moved from Guysborough County because the supports were not in place for them to remain in Guysborough County. Even within the regions, and I know it's getting better and I know there has been an effort to regionalize and try to unify the system, but there are still glitches. The fact that it took two years for a member to move from the Valley to Halifax because the supports are tied to the region not the person. If he leaves Kentville or Wolfville, the monies stay there and he has to find new dollars. I would argue that it comes from the high-up coffers anyway, one way or the other.

There are struggles around living in the community that need to be addressed. I would again refer you to the Children's Training Centre and the in-home support programs - going from $54 a month to the in-home support program when the Children's Training Centres closed down. I do have a couple - I can't leave these, these have my notes, but I can send them to you - of researches around deinstitutionalization and policy research. One is from the University of Minnesota and one is from James Conroy, on deinstitutionalization of people with developmental disabilities, a social policy. I can send them to you by e-mail so that you can have them to look at and realize that the research clearly states and is clearly consistent around supporting people in the community. Deinstitutionalization is not about closing institutions, it's about providing appropriate supports in the community for people with disabilities.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, John. I would like to suggest to you and any other groups, if you have additional information, if you send it to Kim, our committee clerk. She'll ensure that they are redistributed to the rest of the committee. Jane.

MS. JANE WARREN: I don't know where to start. What Duncan from CNIB said, ditto for brain injury. I agree with a disability strategy and a disability Act being developed in this province and also, core funding for sustainable, reliable money to work with. I'll allude to the presentation by Dr. Braha this morning, year four is coming and it's coming within months and that is with the Continuing Care Strategy. The needs of the brain injury community are mentioned in there and it says that brain injuries will be addressed in year four to year 10. I'm requesting that the Brain Injury Association come back and present you with the needs to help develop the community care strategy and present more detail, like a whole day's worth to the standing committee, a brain injury specific day. There's no continuum of care in this province for brain injured.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jane. Lois.

MS. LOIS MILLER: I guess like one of the other speakers, I made about three little sets of notes, but first of all, thank you for inviting us, it was good to be here. There were many common points that were raised and I think that shows that there is a lot of common ground. If I had my druthers and could pick one thing, I think I would like to see an emphasis on individualized community-based supports. I think that would speak to some of the particular gaps that people mentioned, whether it was ability for people with an intellectual disability to live in the community or people with a high level of physical disability being able to live in the community, young adults with autism being able to get the support that they need, youths with disabilities, people with disabilities who are aging and who want to stay in their home communities, self-managed supports, all of those. It's such an array, but the one common theme is that those are all different ways of letting people get whatever help it is that they need in their own communities, in the way that they need it. I think that would be my main wish.

One of the MLAs, Mr. Glavine, I think it was, said why are we stepping back? And I think the main reason we are is that right now there are so few of those community-based options that that is really all that the Department of Community Services can do, is put people into big institutions as a way of keeping them safe, or that's the perception. We'll be stuck in that if we do not have the supports available in the community that people need. As one goes down the other comes up and it's this balance and right now it's not a good balance from where I see it. Again, thank you very much, it has been a good process and I'm glad I gave a day. I'll work Saturday instead - it's true, I will. I have really enjoyed it and learned a lot, thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Lois. Dorothy.

MS. DOROTHY KITCHEN: Hi, Dorothy Kitchen from the Disability Rights Coalition. About 30 years ago when I first became a volunteer and became involved with issues on disability, one of the things they talked about then was that people with disabilities didn't like the medical model, they didn't like to be described as someone sick and needing nursing care and things. They wanted to have a disability but classed as anyone else is, but just for the supports for that. Then we went to the Community Services, which is a welfare model. Now we have a mishmash of both - some people are with Health, that's a medical model; some are with Community Services, that's a welfare model.

Why can't we have a disability model? That's what I would like to see - a department that deals with the issues on disabilities. It is a real mishmash and people, I mean for instance the young man in Truro, he had an intellectual disability. He lived in a small options home for 10 years, however, he developed ALS and went into hospital. When he came out, he then was under Health and so he could no longer live in the home he had lived in for 10 years, so he ended up in a nursing home and died there, simply because of this mishmash of departments and not knowing why, after 10 years, he

suddenly became a medical model. But his home should have been his home to go back to when he came out of the hospital.

I like this idea of a disability strategy. The only thing that frightens me about that is, who is going to develop the strategy? Is it going to be grassroots? Are there going to be people from organizations like ourselves, or is it the government that's going to develop it? If the government is going to develop it, then that scares me.

I would like to see people from this group today be invited to the table to develop that strategy. Thank you very much for inviting me here.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dorothy. Mary.

MS. ROTHMAN: Mary Rothman, Nova Scotia Association for Community Living. I'd like to start by thanking the standing committee for my presence here today. I'd also like to echo the fact that disability rights is not a partisan issue. I've worked in the field in Nova Scotia for 31 years with people with intellectual disabilities and I have seen some wonderful, courageous steps forward taken by Conservative Governments and Liberal Governments - no NDP Governments yet - and some backward steps taken. So it's not partisan, it is about citizenship rights.

I guess I would also like to say that certainly people with disabilities want to have a home. They don't want a home-like place, they want a home that's a real home. Home is where you go and you're safe and people love you and they put up with you no matter what you're doing that day.

People need independent - I don't know what term to call it, maybe lifestyle planners, who help them decide what kind of supports they need to live in their communities and be part of their communities and who are their natural supports that they already have, because sometimes natural supports are pushed out the door when other kinds of supports come in. Then start looking for the service provider, or who is going to fund it or are you going to manage it yourself, but first let's have the help to get a really good plan in place instead of placing people in little boxes - oh, you get to go and live with an alternative family, or you get up to 21 hours a week. I mean maybe the person needs 24 hours a week. So let's start the independent planning process. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Mary. Joan.

MS. JOAN LEVACK: I was expecting everybody else to speak. I have a lot to say, as usual, and I'm going to try to keep it down. What I think is important is that the disabled community represents a considerable cross-section of Nova Scotians, so how to answer Mr. Gaudet's question is very difficult for me because I am, in a way, a microcosm of that microcosm. I have a teenager with disabilities, I work in the disability

community, I volunteer in the disability community, and there are some weeks where I spend all of my time awash in righteous indignation over everything that's happening, what to do and how to fix it.

It's very difficult to answer that question simply but, simply put, I want my daughter to be a full citizen of Nova Scotia. I don't want her to be one of my clients, I don't want to volunteer on her behalf, I don't want her to be attached to DCS. I want her to be a citizen of Nova Scotia, it's that simple. So what she needs, the support she needs, when she needs and how she needs them - while it's simply put, it's very difficult to enact, I understand that.

I think one of the ways we get there is with sustainable core funding, with a strategy that is multi-party, that recognizes that this cross-section has multiple needs. Actually that's it, that's all I have to say. I thank you very much for letting us be here today.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Joan. Cynthia.

MS. CYNTHIA BRUCE: Cynthia Bruce, Community Inc. First of all, I would have loved nothing better than to come here today and tell you how the LMDA is going to affect us. We work in conjunction with the Collaborative Partnership Network and I have no idea how it's going to affect us. We're currently about to enter into contract negotiations for another contract. We will now negotiate with Service Canada because that's currently where the funding lies but we know that as of July 1^st, in fact, the funding won't be controlled by the province and we have no idea what it means for us.

[4:15 p.m.]

It has created a lot of instability for us. We want to make sure that we can still provide the services we want to provide to our clients and that our clients need. So I would love to have been able to say how it's going to affect us. I have no idea, and that's the only concrete answer I have at the moment.

To answer Mr. Gaudet's question, I guess I have one thing that I would like - I would like a comprehensive, holistic strategy for persons with disabilities in this province. I think it can be best accomplished either through creating a department of disability issues or by actually empowering the Disabled Persons Commission to do what it is they want to do and allowing them not to just research and do education, because we've said 100 times today, we're done talking, we don't need to research this anymore, we don't need to discuss it, we need to act.

The Disabled Persons' Commission then needs to be empowered to act and to create meaningful policies and implement them and oversee them, and this department

needs to hire people who are experts in this field, who live it and work it and who understand it and have understood it for 20 and 30 years.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Cynthia. So what's next? (Interruptions) Okay, but just keep in mind we're 10 minutes past and we're not finished yet.

MR. GLAVINE: I just wanted to really, I guess, sum up in some ways and that is when we look upon whether it be core funding or whatever we come up with down the road here, but when we make an investment, that's when real differences take place. We haven't been quick to invest in people with disabilities to the extent needed.

Two years ago a little boy came into my office with autism. He could speak 10 words. All Parties got together and voted on a budgetary item, especially primarily for the EIBI therapy. Just two weeks ago he came back to my office to read a book to me - powerful, very powerful stuff.

I think we can do the same kind of thing if all parties come together to make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities. I just wanted to add that, thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Leo. So you're probably wondering, what's next? I think that - I know that the information we've received today will be integrated into different levels of our operation, as MLAs, as a committee, and certainly by our caucuses.

What I can guarantee is that at our next meeting of the Standing Committee on Community Services, which is October 7^th, between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., we have it dedicated to Seniors' Pharmacare but I believe we can make time, at the end of the meeting, to discuss as a committee how we want to deal with this information. We have a number of options available to us that we've done in the past on other issues, as a follow-up to other forums.

For example, I suspect the next meeting we have will be our major organizational meeting where each caucus brings in a number of different suggestions for issues and organizations and government departments that they want to have as witnesses over the coming months. I have no doubt that some of the issues, some of the groups and themes that have been raised today will be pursued through those witnesses and those committee meetings. So we may end up making some recommendations to various departments and ministers as an outcome from this.

We probably will bring in the Department of Community Services and the Disabled Persons Commission, to pursue some of these issues. We could look at the

possibility of having a follow-up forum in a year's time to see what progress has been made and to hold certain groups and government departments accountable for moving forward on some of this. We may want to dedicate a whole meeting to funding issues and make sure that we're up to date on what's happening with the labour market agreements.

I know some of us have met with the minister and Stu Gourley, who is taking the lead in Nova Scotia on that devolution. They have made a commitment to bring in the voluntary sector groups that are going to be impacted by that as early as possible in the process, which I assume means this Fall, to talk about the process, the timetable and the criteria, so that they can be part of the consultation, if not some of the initial decision making. So these are all things that we can pursue as a standing committee.

Certainly I know our various caucuses will take some of this information and act on it. We know that the Fall session is going to start October 30^th, I'm sure some of this information will come forward as questions and issues during that session as well. Rest assured that just because we haven't come up with anything definite in terms of decisions or recommendations today that we are going to act on this. I encourage you to stay in touch with us and we'll certainly let you know how things are progressing. Gordie.

MR. GOSSE: I just wanted us to say thank you to the staff and Hansard today . . .

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I have that coming next.

MR. GOSSE: I thought you were finishing up, sorry.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the reminder, yes. So first of all I want to thank all of you, you've made a tremendous time commitment today and I'm sure others, like Lois, will be working overtime to make up the difference. So first of all, thank you, especially to those who have travelled a distance. I know we had people from Sydney, Clare, Yarmouth, so people invested a lot of time and travel, as well.

I particularly want to thank, on behalf of the committee and everyone here, our committee clerk, Kim Leadley. She has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into organizing this and I think she deserves a round of applause. (Applause) Also, the rest of the Committees Office - Darlene Henry, Sherri Mitchell and Jana Hodgson - have all been very supportive and have made contributions. Legislative Television - Paul Read, Matt Hemeon, Will Hirtle and Jim MacInnes; the Province House staff - Mike Laffin, Peter Theriault, and the Commissionaires and Pages who have been on today; Heather Ludlow from the Legislative Library produced the information binder for the committee members; certainly our interpreters - Tammy MacLean and Sandra Spears; also the caterers who provided the lunch; and Jeff White from Hansard.

So thank you one and all, I think it has been a very successful day and believe me, we will move to action on what we heard, so thank you very much.

[The forum adjourned at 4:23 p.m.]