MINUTES – PUBLIC – RECREATION, SPORTS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CLSDC)

7. Reflection - Accessibility programs – Analysis, reflection, and consultation

The document Réflexion – Programmes d’accessibilités is presented. Members received it before the meeting. The objective of the presentation is to inform about current programs and to reflect on options to prioritize for the revision of the Accès loisirs and Accessibilité financière programs. An overview of current accessibility programs is provided as well as a summary review of the results of their evaluations (advantages and disadvantages). A reflection exercise is carried out with the members on:

1. The relevance of the program objectives, namely:

   • Reduce barriers to participation in leisure, sports, and cultural activities encountered by families in vulnerable situations;
   • Accompany families in a process of accessibility to activities offered on the territory of the city of Gatineau while respecting the autonomous management of their leisure. There are 17% of people living below the low-income threshold in Gatineau. The recent Quebec population health survey published in 2021 indicates that 59% of people living in the Outaouais are sedentary or inactive. The majority of members agree with the comment highlighting that this data clearly shows the need for programs promoting access to leisure activities.

2. Four potential options for the revision of the programs: Option No. 1

   • Improve certain benchmarks of current programs aimed at increasing the number of beneficiaries (increase available budgets, improve internal processes, and do more promotion). The points of view expressed on this option are:
     • This option is not the best in the long term; it would require periodic revision so that it best meets needs. However, it could constitute an interim option during the period of developing the terms of other options.
     • Options 3 or 4 would take a long time to develop while the first and second could be deployed more quickly.
     • For the Parc-de-la-Montagne-Saint-Raymond district, this option is not to be favored since there is a need for more activities reaching everyone.
     • Many social changes have occurred over the last six months; many families see their financial situations fluctuate. This poses a challenge for planning and adjusting rates and programming. Are the City's services ready to make a change in the current economic context? It is mentioned that the revision of the programs aims to make the programming of activities more accessible. Free participation activities such as those offered by Plaisir d’hiver and Profite de l’été generate neither schedules, nor registration, nor stigmatization. A reflection on increasing such activities is also part of the process.
     • It is important to serve newcomers well.
     • It is impossible to count the people who register. The figure of nine hundred registrations put forward can include multiple registrations by a single person, up to the $260 provided for in the Programme d’accessibilité financière.
     • The number of places offered annually is dependent on the budget allocated to the programs.
     • It would be important to determine the proportion of the population targeted by the programs. This would make it possible to establish if the City has the capacity to serve them well. The promotion of the programs would thus be better aligned with the offer. Option No. 2
   • Thoroughly revise current programs to create a single leisure accessibility program for people in poverty. The points of view expressed on this option are:
     • It is asked if budgets will be increased. It is emphasized that the goal of the exercise is to identify the two most appropriate options according to the members. An analysis of benefits and costs will be done with these. The results will be addressed during a subsequent presentation to the CLSDC.
     • The budgets allocated to the programs are spent in full annually. This is especially the case for places offered in day camps and aquatic activities. However, many places remain available for physical activities (for example, Zumba).
     • This option presents a problem of dignity for people. They must prove their income. Their financial situation can quickly change. Option No. 3
   • Implement municipal social pricing. The points of view expressed on this option are:
     • One of the advantages of this option is that it is less necessary to increase budgets; rates are adjusted. Thus, the general population pays more for an activity, which compensates for the pricing offered to more vulnerable people.
     • In response to the question of the complexity of this option regarding its deployment, it is indicated that a new system will have to be put in place. Analyses carried out by other services and partners are also required. Option No. 4
   • Implement municipal social pricing and mechanisms to reduce obstacles to registration and participation in activities. The points of view expressed on this option are:
     • The option is considered interesting and more equitable; it would generate fewer disparities.
     • A clarification is made regarding this option: few municipalities have implemented social pricing. The Écho program of the Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO) could serve as an example.
     • Transportation constitutes one of the main barriers to participation as well as access to equipment or infrastructure throughout the Gatineau territory.
     • There is no existing analysis of the obstacles to the participation of vulnerable people. The causes are multifactorial. Although it is difficult to respond to all participation issues, some improvements could be made through collaborations or agreements with partners (for example, the STO), or mechanisms facilitating participation (equipment loan center for low-income families, etc.).
     • It is suggested to push further the reflections on accessibility and participation issues for more vulnerable people. Moïse Mbikayi joins the meeting at 4:08 p.m.
     • The deployment of options 3 and 4 requires the same time. Option 4 includes an analysis of barriers to participation in activities. At the end of the exchanges, members are invited to favor two options. A majority of members pronounce themselves in favor of options 3 and 4. Some comments are made:
     • We want data and an objective to make the choices to be made clearer. It is difficult to choose an option because we do not know how many people are targeted. We must ensure that we meet the needs of all those targeted.
     • The school environment has a lot of data that could be useful for the development of these options.
     • Option 4 is the most viable in the long term; it brings a favorable change in the long term. It contributes to the destigmatization of the clientele.
     • It is necessary to deepen the question of obstacles to participation.
     • There are simple ways to prove the low income of people. For example, the address of people living in a low-rent building could be used.
     • The portrait of communities produced by the Observatoire du développement de l’Outaouais (ODO) allows for a better knowledge of our environment. It can be used to outline the components of real demand.
     • Neighborhood and local associations also contribute to making activities accessible.