ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: July 18, 1995
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Social Planning
SUBJECT: Bill C76 Budget Implementation Act
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council submit a resolution for the October 1995 UBCM
requesting that the Province consult municipal
representatives in planning for changes in welfare and
social programs resulting from the passage of Bill C76 and
the reduction in federal funding for these programs.
B. THAT the proposed resolution read as follows:
WHEREAS municipalities in British Columbia have a
direct interest in the welfare of their residents;
WHEREAS social and economic changes affect many
systems, services and communities within each
municipality;
WHEREAS the passage of Bill C76 may affect both
programs providing direct assistance to persons in
need, and community-based social services including
childcare, supports to families with children, and
other programs;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities urge the Province to include
municipal representatives in the discussion of and
planning for changes to existing welfare and social
services in British Columbia.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
A and B.COUNCIL POLICY
There is no applicable Council policy.
SUMMARY
On May 16, 1995, Council requested the Social Planning Department to
report on the impact of Bill C76 on the City of Vancouver, and the
issues which will be raised. We have obtained general information on
the federal funding changes proposed, and various points of view on
the implications. Specifics are scarce: much still seems to be under
negotiation. One of the most critical but unanswered questions
concerns how the Province intends to respond to reduced federal
support. For 1996-1997, the Province anticipates that it will receive
a total of $1,760.6 Million for medicare, post-secondary educa-tion,
and welfare and social programs -- $451.2 Million less than this year.
The Province's choices in where and how it makes reductions will
significantly shape the impact on the City.
At this point in time, the only positive action that appears open to
the City is to ask to be part of the process. Given that planning for
health care is proceeding under the New Directions process, and that
post-secondary education is completely out of City jurisdiction, we
suggest that the City focus its efforts on welfare and social
programs, and submit an appropriate resolution to the UBCM.
The normal UBCM deadline is in June but we understand that because of
the potential effects of Bill C76 and the fact that it passed third
reading on June 6th, UBCM will accept a late resolution.
PURPOSE
This report provides a very preliminary response to Council's request
for a report on the impact of Bill C76 on the City. It recommends
that the City submit a resolution via the UBCM, requesting that the
Province involve municipal representatives in discussing and planning
changes to existing welfare and social service programs.
BACKGROUND
Bill C76
Bill C76 received third reading on June 6, 1995. It combines the
previously existing Established Program Financing (EPF) block funding
for Medicare and Post-Secondary Education and funding for Welfare and
Social Services, which used to come under CAP, into one block fund
called the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST).
Medicare and post-secondary education have been block-funded under EPF
since 1977, partly in cash and partly in "tax points", or taxing
powers given to provinces. The Canada Health and Social Transfer
incorporates the three program areas but, according to federal
calculations, will provide a total of $2.5 billion less nationally in
1996/97 than in the current year.
The key changes are:
- there will be less money in the total package;
- funds go into general revenue for each province and are not
earmarked for medicare, education or welfare/social programs; and
- the federal requirements for CAP-sharing were eliminated, except
to say that provinces cannot put residency requirements on
welfare. The provinces no longer have to deliver welfare programs
that include:
- the "right" to income when a person is in need;
- an amount of income that takes into account budgetary
requirements;
- the "right" to appeal decisions about welfare; and
- the "right" not to have to work or train for welfare.
There were never any federal requirements placed on the block
funding for post-secondary education. The existing medicare
requirements for public health insurance programs that are
universal, comprehensive, accessible, portable, and publicly
administered, remain.
- funding for welfare and social programs is no longer based on
federal/provincial sharing of the actual eligible amounts spent.
Instead, it is to be calculated in a way similar to the EPF
entitlements for medicare and educa-tion, on a formula which
relates increases to economic growth/GDP. This is of concern
because the need for welfare fluctuates much more than the
requirements for health and education, and may be high precisely
when economic growth is low.
Financial Implications
According to a Senior Policy Advisor for the Province of B.C., the
anticipated financial implications are as follows:
Year Cash Transfer Entitlements to BC in Millions $
CAP Health Education Total Diff.
1994-5 882.2 345.0 1010.6 2237.8
1995-6 882.2 334.3 995.3 2211.8
1996-7 1760.6 451.2
1997-8* 1413.5 347.1
Total cash reduction over coming 2 years 798.3
* projection
Please note that the above figures are from the Province. When
figures are available from the federal government, they may differ.
The CAP amount shown in the BC figures for 1995-96 represents the
reduced level of funding, or the "cap on CAP" which was imposed in
1990. BC will spend $2,630 Million on CAP-eligible programs in 1995-
96. Under the old 50/50 formula, it would have received $1,315
Million. Under the "cap on CAP", it receives $882.2 Million.
For 1996-97, BC anticipates receiving $1,760.6 Million under the new
Canada Health and Social Transfer funding. This transfer goes to the
Central Revenue Account and is not tied to program spending. The
reduction of $451.2 Million in 1996-97 will presumably affect programs
in all three areas: health, post-secondary education, and welfare and
social programs.
Welfare and Social Programs
As reported to Council earlier this year, we know how much CAP funding
the City has received directly, and where it goes. However, there
appears to be no way to determine precisely what other existing
Vancouver programs receive CAP funding, or even to get an outline of
the total amount the Province spends on various social programs in
Vancouver.
In general, according to a 1995 National Council of Welfare report,
nearly 2/3 of CAP, on a national basis, goes to welfare programs ie.
basic assistance programs such as GAIN, assistance to people with
disabilities (HPIA), and legal aid to non-criminal cases. The other
1/3 goes to a range of social programs including:
. childcare subsidies;
. adoption services;
. casework, counselling, assessment and referral;
. community development;
. consulting, research and evaluation on welfare
programs;
. homemaker and home support programs to seniors and
people with disabilities;
. rehabilitation, life skills training, job referral
for chronically unemployed; and
. administration services for delivery of welfare/
social services.
We know that Vancouver has 43,000 people over 19 on welfare and that
the City has a range of social programs in the above-noted areas. The
City contributes to some of these, but most are Provincially funded.
However it is easy to see, thinking about the people who receive
income assistance and the range of programs now supported by
federal/provincial cost sharing, that the changes and funding
reductions federally could signifi-cantly affect Vancouver's existing
welfare system and social services; and have spin-off effects in other
sectors and systems.
DISCUSSION
This report provides only preliminary information. We hope to provide
a report to Council discussing the implications later this year.
* * * * *