Doug Woollard chaired the meeting, which was called to order approximately 9:15 am.   There were many members who were unable to attend due to storm and road conditions.

Doug had not received any feedback on the agenda, so the group went directly to the question of the Minister’s and the Deputy’s response to the Proposal. 

Doug Walls gave an update on the proposal and the government response to it:

·        The proposal went to Core Services Review on Dec 4/01

·        On Wednesday, Dec 12/01, it went to Cabinet

·        A governance model based on the Coalition proposal was approved by Cabinet

·        There is now discussion regarding “next steps” in terms of a transition process

·        The next Cabinet meeting is January (16 or 17), 2002.  The Minister sent the message that “there are still issues, but don’t focus on that – these are battles we can win”.

·        There was some disappointment regarding MLAs feeling intimidated to speak up about the cuts in Caucus discussions

·        We need to take a pause over the Season and be prepared to “go at it” in the New Year. 

·        NOW:  It is there if we want it!!  We need to be prepared.

·        There has been HUGE resistance inside the MCFD regarding keeping children and adults together; the reasoning is around the integration of all children within the ministry. 

·        This is an unalterable condition for our coalition however, and this is that we all support families in their demand that planning be “lifelong”.

There was discussion regarding the placement of DB2.  In a conversation with Laney the Minister credits Doug Walls with saying that the proposal from the Coalition included assuming responsibility for DB2. Doug did say that he has made no secret of his belief that DB2 should be part of the transformation of service and has told this to the Minister and the Deputy Minister on several occasions in the past but has not discussed this since the Coalition was formed. Doug Walls stated that he had not told the Minister the proposal included the responsibility for DB2.

One rumour is that MHR wants to cut 20,000 people from DB2.  There is an RFP for Alternate Service Delivery out regarding income support and disability benefits that has everyone very concerned. 

In terms of the single Provincial body for Governance – these principles were accepted without exception.

Doug Walls commented further that we still need to look at the structure of a “Part 2 Corporation” model to see if it is the best one for us.  It was clear that there will be no regionalization.

·        If MCFD can achieve the 20% cuts, then it is a political decision for them to will divert the savings back into service for “wait lists”.  This would be a cabinet decision.  The Minister continues to encourage us to not get hung up about the money. 

·        The MCFD Executive has been nagging the Minister to keep all children’s services together (an opposing theory to what families want).  We believe that families know what is needed. 

·        There is an issue, however, of Executive hammering away to keep children “integrated”.  We need to keep on top of this.  Some people, who have always wanted the children to be separate, are saying “maybe we should re-think this”.  It would be helpful to have conversations around this issue with MCFD Staffers, as the “other side” now have real reason to keep on trying. 

There was a brief discussion regarding criteria for eligibility and the problems inherent in the diagnosis of (for example) FAS.

BCACL has maintained a consistent position for a long time around what families want – namely a life long stream.

Some discussion around issues around Discretionary as well as non-discretionary Trusts: $1.4 billion that is a “waste” of an asset, as it is never used for the individuals it is meant to benefit.  This could be handled in a different fashion, so that the person who was meant to benefit, actually does. 

Some discussion regarding the fact those families are penalized for making a contribution. 

A suggestion was made that we ask the Minister for a letter stating the MCFD position around children and adults (remaining together).  Doug Walls stated that the Minister is not opposed to this, neither is the Deputy; it is only the Executive which is against it.  The REAL issue may simply be the money. 

The Minister is working with us.  Doug Walls relayed concern from the Minister that we don’t attach conditions that cannot even be defined yet.  Negotiations are still ongoing.

The Minister wants the details of the governance plan.  We must get going on this before we have all the answers, we cannot wait to get started.  The transition plan must begin now.

 The health regions are now known.  The previous “default” position was to be attached to health regions and this is NOT where we want to go.  We need to continue to help the Minister win the $$$ battle.  Remember that we could still be 15 months away from cuts.

Outcomes we want:

·        We want 20% cuts where the money goes back to service wait lists

·        Right now the gov’t’s position is that the cuts are greater than 20% and the money goes back to general revenues

·        Is there a worse scenario?

·        What constitutes a deal-breaker?

·        We want to reduce costs by “certain mechanisms” (that are  outlined in our proposal)

·        If there are 20% cuts, this cannot be at the expense of direct community-level services

·        The “nuances” must be clear, and the suggestion was made that we should wait until they are clear.

Doug Walls reminded us that we won’t have a definitive answer right away.  We currently have people on board with us.  It appears likely that gov’t will go more slowly in the first year with cuts.  Further cuts will come in years two and three but that is getting closer to an election and much more will be known then.  It would not be prudent to “freeze them into a position that they don’t even want” (but will have no option if we pressure them).  Look at the timing.  It may be a continuing battle in terms of a three year budget.  We have their three year target; we may not have the figures for next year.  We may not have this definitive answer.  The Ministers are pushing timelines back on any cuts, and the position may not be as politically desirable then.  If we push NOW to get an answer, this will NOT be to our advantage.  In the meantime, we need to work with them. 

Doug Woollard stated that we should be prepared to live with some uncertainty; take one step at a time.  Get a letter (re children and adults) and be prepared to work from that.

BCACL (Laney Bryenton) stated that the Minister believed that our proposal included MHR funding as part of the new governance model.  It is Laney’s belief that the Coalition Proposal does not include this funding.  The Minister appears to think that it does.  The Minister stated that Doug Walls had said this.

Doug Walls stated that he has never said this to the Minister in relation to the Coalition Proposal, that the proposal doesn’t mention it either and he believed the position was to have “no position”.   

In terms of DB2, Community Living accounts for approximately 30-40% - between 15 and 18 thousand – the balance are those who may have a physical disability or mental illness.   

There was concern expressed by parents regarding “threats” to DB2 and we should not abandon this issue.  Doug Walls suggested that if MCFD brought this forward then we could respond, or have an alternate proposal. 

Concerns were around the amount of assets that people could have, including owning their own home, or trust funds. 

Doug Walls – Why would we raise this as an issue right now?  Is it a “show-stopper”?  We may be hurting people we represent.

A desire to resolve this issue was expressed.  Do we need to go back to the Minister?  Laney thinks she has been told it went to Cabinet.  We need to have real information to react to. 

Pat F questioned how our position would affect the relationship with the rest of the disability community. 

We discussed the Communications Strategy

Doug Woollard showed the “public service announcements” that Henry Sunquist had sent.  These are being played locally, and some stations are picking them up.  The ACLs in Henry’s community are sponsoring running the video clips.

 The group expressed mixed reviews over both the style and content of the “message” that was being sent.  It appeared that enough people were negatively impacted that the suggestion was to ask Henry to stop running the clips, at least over Christmas and New Year’s.  That perhaps the issue could be re-visited in the New Year. 

 Jackie M. queried why we appeared to be getting “hung up” around cuts to programs or services, if the Individualized Funding was based on need?  She stated that we need to remember our GOAL.

 Maria G. asked the question “Now what?”  This is a question for families.  People need updates and we need to be sensitive to all kinds of pressures.   We need to give the families a “Coalition Update” and then suggest ways that families can continue to be active.

 We need to be ready to respond when it is “Let’s make a deal!” time.  We have had a good response but it was generally agreed that the public service ads did not convey the kind of message that we wanted to send.

 The question was raised as to why some group(s) did not want to be part of the Coalition.  It was suggested that some misinformation may be the reason.  For example, some believe that come April 1, 2002, everything will go to individualized funding – and that chaos will result. 

 Brian S. suggested he would prefer a much more positive approach than the public service announcements (ads) seemed to take.  The real message is that the community has thrown its support to families, and that this cannot be seen as a service provider issue. 

 There was some discussion regarding other venues to put pressure on government, including through school boards or chambers of commerce. 

 The Communications Strategy requires a committee which could get an update out to families; use of the website would be essential.

 Our unity is a strong factor; we should try to keep it from getting too difficult to deal with.  As people will begin to fade as we approach Christmas so there is little use in meeting until the week of January 7^th.  The message has to be more positive, not fear-based.

 Roberta asked how the family care network folks can help the families of people they support to be heard. 

 Tasks:

Pat Feindel to draft an update, which would be sent to Linda Perry and the Communications Committee

Laney to contact the Minister to ask for a written response to the brief.

 Next Meeting date January 18, 2002

 Respectfully submitted by

Jordan Thurston