The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Murphy): Order please!

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the continuation of the Social Services Estimates Review Committee; again this evening I want to welcome the Minister and his staff, and the committee members, the press and the public.

I do not know if there is any need to re-introduce everybody, we have a carry over from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes okay, fine. At this time I want to quickly introduce the other committee members. The Vice-Chair, the Member for Humber East, Ms. Lynn Verge; the Member for St. John's East, Mr. Jack Harris; the Member for Bonavista South, Mr. Aubrey Gover; the Member for Trinity North, Mr. Douglas Oldford and the Member for Eagle River, Mr. Danny Dumaresque and again our secretary for this evening is the Deputy Clerk of the House of Assembly, Miss Elizabeth Murphy, and I would ask the Minister if he would be kind enough to introduce his staff, so that Hansard will know who is here.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my left is my Deputy Minister, Mr. Bruce Peckford; the Assistant Deputy Minister for Regional Operations on my right, Mr. David Roberts; Mr. Noel Browne, Assistant Deputy Minister for Social Assistance; Mr. Beaton Tulk, Assistant Deputy Minister for Child Welfare; Mr. Jim Strong, Financial Administrator for the Department of Social Services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister; I think we can move right into the questions. I will give an opportunity to the Vice-Chair, the Member for Humber East, but before I do that, I will ask for motion to move the minutes as circulated, moved by Mr. Harris and seconded by Mr. Gover.

Are there any errors or omissions?

MR. GOVER: (Inaudible), in place of Mr. Gover. Mr. Ramsay in place of Mr. Reid. What is the difference between `in place of and in lieu of'?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what it says, if I am reading the hon. Member right, is that the original Members who were on the Estimates Committee as read in the House of Assembly, were replaced by, and I think that is self-explanatory, Mr. Simms replaced Ms. Verge; Mr. Aylward replaced Mr. Gover and Mr. Ramsay replaced Mr. Reid.

Of course, the appropriate letters were in the hands of the secretary before we convened the meeting and I think that is the normal practice Mr. Gover; so, are there any other questions re the Minutes?

All those in favour?

Contrary? Carried.

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. When we last met as a Committee to consider the Social Services Estimates for this year, I reminded the Minister that two years ago, on June 8, 1989, he said that the social assistance caseload was 19,631, of which approximately 3,500 were single parents, mostly mothers.

I asked for the equivalent statistics as at our last meeting a week or so ago and the Minister replied that the current social assistant caseload is about 25,500, which would be more than a 25 per cent increase in two years.

He also said that the number of single parent families on the social assistance caseload has risen to 9,900; I later questioned one of the officials about the sharp increase in the caseload and in particular the dramatic rise from 3500 to 9900 in the number of single parent families on welfare. I would like to give the Minister an opportunity this evening to discuss those statistics, to talk about the rise in the social assistance caseload, to discuss the number of single parent families, mostly mothers, I assume, and children who have had to resort to social assistance. I would like the Minister to give as much information as possible about the increase in the number of people in the Province depending on welfare, the reasons for this, and a profile of the caseload? If these figures are really true, and there has been such an alarming rise in the number of people on social assistance, what has gone wrong? What has the Provincial Government been doing wrong to prompt such a terrible increase in the number of people having to draw social assistance? What is the Minister proposing to do to assist the thousands of families on social assistance who would prefer to be in school or in the workforce so that they can get out of the welfare trap?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: First of all let me correct the numbers of caseloads. As of March 1989 there were 19,600. I gave a figure the other night where in 1981, I think, there were approximately 25,500, but as of March 31 there were 23,466. As of March 1989 there were 6300 single parents in the Province depending on social assistance and out of those numbers there are different categories of social assistance. If I remember correctly back when we were talking about those numbers, the different number of single parents who are on social assistance, people who are in the work force, widows, and whatever, different categories, but the total single parents depending on social assistance in March 1989 was 6300 and in March of 1991 there are 7500. According to statistics provided to me today that is the total number. You also asked the question the other night: how many were male and how many were female? Approximately 80 per cent of the single parents, according to statistics we have at our disposal, have females as head of the family. You asked me why we have such high numbers. Why did we have 19,600 in March 31, 1989 and why do we now have 23,000? I suppose I could go back to what I have said about 150 times in the past two or three months in the House of Assembly. It is the result of seventeen years of mismanagement in this Province and no job creation, and no strong emphasis put on the education of the lower disadvantaged families in the Province. That is one of the main reasons why. One of the other reasons is the fact that we have had a large influx of refugees last year into the Province. You are well aware of the influx we had back in January to April of last year. We had to take some steps to try and encourage people who did not want to stay in the province to make it possible for those people to leave the Province. Then there were a number of refugees who wanted to stay because they had their first or second level hearings already scheduled so it was more advantageous for those people to stay in the Province. We had, in any given month, 300 to 400, and sometimes 500 refugees in the Province at any one time. There is a pretty steady moving around.

I think a little over 200 came in this year, and probably the same number has left the Province. As soon as they get the opportunity to leave, they do. Because in this Province we don't have opportunities for those individuals. Certainly most of them who leave the countries from where they originate, their homeland, pretty well have friends or families in Ontario, Quebec or a larger province where the job opportunities are very much greater. I do not know if they are much greater today but certainly their intention was there when they decided to come.

Another problem with the increase in the caseloads, is the heavy reliance on home support right now. The trend for people, seniors and the disabled, to move away from institutional living and stay within the community, within their own home environment, or apartment living or whatever, there is a lot more emphasis placed on that today. Therefore that certainly increases the number of people by a great deal on social assistance. Last year we spent approximately $11 million in home care for the seniors and disabled and the people within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This year we have budgeted approximately $13 million. Now that may go higher or lower depending on the caseloads as the year goes by. I do not expect it will lower. I expect it will probably increase, the demand will increase. But certainly we have $13 million budgeted.

You asked me what we are doing for single parents and for people on social assistance to get away from it and become independent. There is nobody in this Province who would like to see that any more than I would like to see it. I spent four years on the Opposition as a critic for social services. I identified and disagreed with a lot of the policies of the former administration. In fact in most cases there were no policies. There is $25 million spent each year on community development projects. And I always identified the fact that most of that money was spent to put people to work for ten weeks, so they would get UI benefits for the remainder of the year. In other words, they would not be dependent on the Provincial treasury, they would be dependent on Ottawa.

There will always be a need for that - there is no question about it - some of it. But I think we should take a lot of that money and place it into areas where we can provide incentives for people who want to get away from the system, who do want to get into education programmes whether it be Memorial University or a vocational institute or whatever, on-the-job training, sharing the cost of a job with the private sector.

So we are putting emphasis on that. We started that last year. It is not something new this year. We are hiring on now ten trained employment counsellors with the expertise in how to assess the needs of people. Because one of the things I have found is that we so often - and not only Provincially but Federally - when we bring in job development programmes or we try to get people job ready we do not look at the individual needs and the abilities of people. So these job counsellors will be able to do a full complete assessment on individuals to see exactly what those people should be trained for. It is no good training a person to be an airline pilot or an airline technician if there are no jobs around. So you try to bring the ability of the individual up to the job market which is available, and also try to teach people how to become entrepreneurs in their own way, into a small business development, where the opportunity arises.

So we are placing a lot of emphasis on those programmes starting with the basic life skills, self-esteem, motivation of individuals. Now, are we going to accomplish it overnight? Absolutely not. I have been Minister of Social Services now just two years just approximately two weeks ago. We have made a lot of inroads into helping and dealing and identifying the problems, and I think we are on the right road to working with people. We cannot, as a Department, do it alone. It has to be a cooperative venture between the individuals themselves who want to take on the initiative, all we can do is provide an opportunity and some incentives within the realm of our responsibility. That is the trend not only for single parents but all people who are on social assistance.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) revised statistics given tonight there has been over a 20 per cent increase in the number of families on social assistance over the past two years since the Liberals formed the Government, over a 20 per cent increase.

Now, sitting in the gallery are two single mothers attending Memorial University bearly staying in school, clinging by their fingernails, they are both on social assistance but because of the Minister's policy of deducting fully, student loans, money that the students get and have to pay back in full, they cannot afford to continue in school. The Minister announced on March 1, a committee to study this problem. Now, two and a half months have gone by, can the Minister not indicate that he is going to make changes before the next school year starts, well in advance of September, to allow social assistance recipients who want to go to school, who already are part way through education programs, to carry on with their academic work so they can qualify for jobs, so they can become productive. They do not want to continue to take from the welfare system. They want a chance, just a chance, to be productive and contributing members of society.

Will the Minister say there is a deadline for that committee? Will the Minister promise to have positive decisions to help single parents go to school and stay in school before September? Will he undertake to make public the report of the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Minister, if you would just singly respond to that question because I want to give equal time (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, there are hypocrites and there are hypocrites but when I have to sit here and listen to that sort of nonsense, when after seventeen years in power in the Government and they never made one positive step to help anybody on social assistance, especially the single parents, she sits down here and tries to tell me that I must implement that demand before a certain deadline. That is absolute nonsense. The one thing I am going to clearly tell you is that this Government - I do not care how much you play to the gallery - this Department and me as Minister does have the plight of single parents in mind. Not only the single parents at Memorial University, not only the single parents at Cabot Institute, but the 7,500 single parents across this Province. Now, it is not just enough to say: do we know the problems that single parents are incurring in their education? Yes. The Committee is not put together just to deal with the plight of single parents in the Province trying to purchase their books, their tuition, their rent, their day care, their transportation, we know that. But it is much more detailed than that and the hon. Member, if she has any knowledge of the system whatsoever, knows there are 15,000 to 16,000 other people going to Memorial University plus thousands going to other vocational institutions, single people.

Regardless of whether they are single parents or not, what happens under the Canada Assistance Plan if you allowed single parents as one specific group? You do have some knowledge of the Canada Assistance Plan. When we are ready to deal with the problem and the doors that could be opened up by allowing single parents to receive the maintenance income as a non-allowable income, the effect that it will or will not have on other groups of people going to educational institutions, then we will make the decision.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Our intent is to do it as soon as possible. We will do it when we are ready. We will hope to have it by the fall semester, when we are ready, when it is done properly. It will not be done in an ad hoc manner, but it will be done for the interest of single parents all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, understanding their dilemma, understanding the frustrations they are having, but done to protect them in the future, not just done in an ad hoc manner.

MS. VERGE: I hope so!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: You need not hope so! It will be done that way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I give the questions to Mr. Harris the Chair wants to make a couple of points. Number one, the questions are the questions; the answers of course are the answers. Now, some people may not like the questions and some people may not like the answers. But in saying that, that is exactly what the Chair must recognize. And we are not into debate as such here and we should not be into debate. I mean, if certain Committee Members pose questions, the Minister responds or he asks his staff to respond, and I would ask that format to stay in place.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, a very wise ruling. I would like to ask a simple and civilized question in regard to what the Member has just raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: (Inaudible) at least you do not have a record.

MR. HARRIS: I beg your pardon?

MR. GOVER: A record of seventeen years in power and doing nothing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

MR. GOVER: Or any other kind of record.

MR. HARRIS: I thought you were insulting the Member for Humber East for having a record. I did not know what the issue was. The issue, as I understand it, for the single parents, the one that the Minister has been asked to deal with, is a very specific and simple one, in relation to monies borrowed. That is, from the student loan programme. That if the loan portion of monies borrowed from the student loan programme, whether or not the Department should fairly consider that as income. Money that they have to pay back. I mean, no different in any real sense than money that they might borrow from a bank or some other source that they have to pay back.

Now that strikes me - now you call me naive if you wish - as a fairly simple matter. Now there may be bureaucratic interpretations in Ottawa from the Canada Student Loans programme. It strikes me also that it does not take a committee of five people to figure out whether or not there are other implications. It seems to me that there are bureaucrats in your Department, or within Canada Student Loans in Ottawa or in the Canada Assistance Programme in Ottawa, that could answer that question in a matter off hours. If not hours, days. By assigning someone to determine that question.

And I just wonder whether or not in fact what the Minister is doing is putting off the decision instead of taking the bull by the horns, coming up with an answer to the question, and telling people what is going on. Is that not a simple question?

MR. EFFORD: I will answer your first question, you are naive, if that is your own estimation or knowledge about the question.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, no, I will answer your question. Secondly, you are not the Minister of Social Services. You are a critic and you are asking questions, and we make the decisions on what is best for the single parents. If you have any idea or concept of what the Canada Assistance Plan is all about, everybody who is in need must be treated by the guidelines, rules and regulations, otherwise we could jeopardize the whole Canada Assistance Plan. Now a single person going to Memorial University in his own right as an adult individual, not being dependent on their parents or some members of their family for income - so in their own right they could qualify depending on the amount of money that is allowable by the Department of Social Services. So if we set up an income for single parents in this Province it could have an impact on the remainder of the people going to Memorial University or going to education institutions. So we have to be very careful.

So we are going to take our time. Not an unreasonable amount of time. If we did not put a committee in place we would be condemned for that. If we did not give people an opportunity to appear before that committee we would be condemned for that. Now the situation is, this was only done approximately a month, a month and half ago, let's say approximately two months ago. Now, I said at that time, and I asked the committee to try to do it in a reasonable period of time so that we could have a decision made one way or another before the fall semester; now that, in all fairness I expect will be done, but I will not commit to a deadline and I will not be pressured into making a rash decision; that is the advice I accepted on behalf of the officials in the Department.

The decision was not made solely by me as Minister. I accepted the advice of the officials in the Department and we have to have a reasonable amount of information to make a decision which is sensible, rational, logical and common sense, as long as we do not jeopardise the Canada Assistance Plan and we do not open up the flood gates where the whole 17,000 individuals going to Memorial University can apply for social assistance and receive it. Surely if I had done that, what kind of criticism would I get then?

So, what I am saying to the hon. Member for St. John's East is, that it is not something that you can jump into and make a rapid decision and make it the right decision, but we will. That is the estimation I can make this evening is that I can tell you from the advice of the five Members of the Committee, that they should be clued up when all the people across the Province, the different groups have an opportunity, if they want to make representation to the Committee, they have an opportunity to do by the fall semester.

If that is an unreasonable amount of time, then I apologize to the single parents, but they must have patience and the fall semester will not make or break anybody.

MR. HARRIS: Have you asked the Canada Assistance Plan people in Ottawa for an opinion?

MR. EFFORD: That is being done.

MR. HARRIS: That has been done.

MR. EFFORD: That is being done.

MR. HARRIS: But it has not yet been done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Mr. Harris has another question.

MR. HARRIS: I have another question I want to follow-up on from the last time as we ran out of time the last time I was asking the Minister about this. I felt that the Minister was not being totally forthcoming when I asked the number of secretaries in his office because when I was looking at -

MR. EFFORD: You what?

MR. HARRIS: When I was looking at the estimates-

MR. EFFORD: Oh, I thought you said you were talking to the secretaries in my office, because I would not agree with that.

MR. HARRIS: I did not hear what you said, but anyway, the Minister's office shows salaries in the Estimates of $155,500 and in the Minister's office under the Departmental Salary details, shows $144,000 so there is a difference of $11,000, which I will ask the Minister to explain. The second question has to do with the number of secretaries the Minister's office has and I understand from the answer the Minister gave the last time, that in fact, he has three secretaries.

One secretary to the Minister, one Departmental secretary to the Minister and one other and I will ask the Minister if he could tell us where that `other' secretary's salary is shown in the Estimates.

MR. EFFORD: Let me clear up any misunderstanding the hon. Member is having about the Minister's Office.

You know my name; my political secretary is Joan Efford. If you want to know who she is, she is my sister-in-law. Mary Eustace, is a secretary to the Minister who came with the Department from the former Minister; the other secretary is Robin Russell, a former President of the Student Union at Memorial University, just graduated with a degree in political science. She is a secretary in the Minister's office.

Why do we have that amount of secretarial staff there? If the hon. Member would come over with me and spend one week from 7:30 in the morning until about sometimes eight, nine, ten o'clock in the evening, and then when I go back to my apartment or my home, which ever one I can get to that evening, and receive the number of calls we receive from around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on a weekly basis, we have a need for at least four to five more people within that office to deal with the requests and the calls which we get on a day to day basis.

There is nobody, and I am speaking from the Deputy Ministers, the Executive right down to the office in Nain, Labrador; all of the offices around, the fifty-five district offices, the five regional offices, and Confederation Building, with the number of requests and the number of things they have to deal with on a day to day basis, that nobody sits idle in the Department of Social Services, and there is no such thing as being over staffed.

MR. HARRIS: I did not mention anything about being over staffed, or whether they were necessary or not. I asked the Minister two questions, what is the explanation of the discrepancy between 144,000 in the detail Estimates and 155,500 in the 1991 Estimates book in Line 1.0.01? Where does the salary unit for the third secretary show? It does not show in the permanent staff so I guess it is not permanent staff complement. Perhaps the Minister could point that out?

MR. EFFORD: The only difference is I did not explain that Robin Russell's is a temporary position to deal with the workload we had last year. We do not know how much longer that is going to continue and we will probably need to hire somebody else. What you have in front of you just shows the permanent staffing. The difference in the amount of money you are talking about there, and you asked the same question the other evening of the Minister of Justice, and I think you will find it in pretty well every Minister's book as the $8000 car allowance.

MR. HARRIS: That would bring us up to $152,000.

MR. EFFORD: I have no other explanation unless I am getting a raise that I am not aware of.

MR. HARRIS: There is an $11,350 difference and the Minister has said there is a car allowance of $8000.

MR. EFFORD: The financial administrator Mr. Strong explained there are some extra monies there, I think which is normal, for some step increases in salaries to be paid the secretaries. They get a step increase.

MR. HARRIS: They get step increases during the year.

MR. EFFORD: Well, normally.

MR. HARRIS: Why would it be different? Why would the detail Estimates not contain the step increase and the other book contain the step increase? Is there some explanation as to when the Estimates are put together why one contains it and one does not? We are dealing with the same year here. We are not dealing with one year versus another year.

MR. EFFORD: You have to remember that when we do the Budget we do the Budget based on the salaries in place at that particular time, and the salary Estimates show the revised salaries. It is not done up by the Department of Social Services but it takes into consideration the step increases done up by the Hay Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: These are actual salaries and this makes allowance for step increases.

MR. HARRIS: So, this one here contains the actual salary levels, the current levels, I guess, at the time of printing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: And the Estimates includes what it would cost whenever the step increase kicks in. Is that the explanation? I am not hard to get along with. I just want to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) office and you see $144,174 and

$26,400 for temporary and other employees, $8000 which the Minister explained as a car allowance, you will see permanent and other adjustments at $23,074 for a total of $155,500 which is totally in line with the salaries in the Estimates themselves.

I am looking on Page 201 in your departmental salary details.

I do not want to be answering for the Minister but I do not know if we should prolong this. If you look you can see that the total at the end of the Minister's office is $155,500 and the salaries, as per 261 in the Estimates, are exactly the same.

MR. HARRIS: I want to thank the Chair and the Committee. I would have expected and hoped that the Minister and his staff would have been quite able to point that out when I asked them simple questions.

MR. EFFORD: I told you we had a temporary staff and I told you there was an $8,000 car allowance. So, that is the same thing there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) overtime and other earnings of $8,000.

MR. HARRIS: You must be very thankful to the Chair for explaining something that you were unable to.

What about the permanent and other adjustments? What is that $23,000? Perhaps that one can be explained because that seems to be the explanation that is necessary.

Well, the Minister does not have to answer questions that is perfectly plain. The $23,074 the permanent and other adjustments is the discrepancy between the three figures he has been talking about. The $26,400 I guess is the temporary staff figure, and the permanent and other adjustments is $23,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: I would like to refer the Minister to the Budget Speech. In the Budget Speech there is one item under Social Services, I will just read it and then the Minister can comment, I am sure the Minister is quite familiar with it. Actually, it is not in the Estimates but in the Budget Speech itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Oh, you have the Budget Speech. It is a separate booklet from the Estimates. I am sure you are aware of what I am going to raise. I will just point out what is here, `In addition the Government has decided to approve the social assistance programme response to single parents with dependent children by introducing a single-parents monthly supplement of $55. This allowance recognizes the special need of single-parent families and will bridge the gap between the amount paid to single-parent families and that paid to two parent families. These two measures' I believe it means the fuel supplement measure and the $55 `will cost $8 million in the next fiscal year.'

Just to focus on that $55 a month supplement, what is the gap between single-parent families and two parent families with the same number of children? How does the $55 address that gap? After the $55 is paid will a gap still remain or not?

MR. EFFORD: The reason why we did that is very clear. For example, a couple, two adults and a child in a family, the adult under social assistance would receive much more than you would get as an individual, a single parent with a child would only get one adult allowance from social assistance and the first child would be treated as a child. So what we wanted to do is treat the first child as an adult as far as the monthly allowance for social assistance is concerned, so that $55 would bring that single-parent family on the same scale as if there were two adults in the family because he/she incurs the same expenses in maintaining a household whether there are two adults or two children, the heat, lights, and the operation of that household would remain the same. So, we are treating the first child as an adult and that would bring the allowance up as if there were two parents and they would receive the same amount in that household, which was a very positive step for the single parents, by the way.

MR. GOVER: Let me get this straight in my own mind, the situation before this change was: a father, a mother and a child would get two adult allowances and a child allowance; and the single-parent family would get one adult allowance and a child's allowance.

MR. EFFORD: Exactly.

MR. GOVER: Now, the situation is that the single-parent family gets two adult allowances.

MR. EFFORD: That is correct.

MR. GOVER: So they are still behind the two parent family unit by one child allowance; is that correct?

MR. EFFORD: No, no. The extra fifty-five dollars would be what that adult male, the father, would receive on his monthly allowance cheque.

MR. GOVER: Yes. I am not quite sure -

MR. EFFORD: Well you see the child still receives the allowance per year he or she was receiving. We are giving an extra fifty-five dollars to bring that up, so they are receiving an extra fifty-five dollars so that the social assistance cheque that they receive on a monthly basis would be the same as if there were two adults and one child, instead of one adult and one child, they are now receiving the same as if there were two adults in the family.

MR. HARRIS: Ask him to give it to you in baby talk.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. GOVER: I do not want to ask him to give it to me in baby talk, I would just like to determine if there is a discrepancy between two parent families with a child on social assistance and a single parent with a child on social assistance?

MR. EFFORD: Not now, there would not be. There was.

MR. GOVER: There was, and the Minister has now rectified that particular discrepancy and I mean, if the Member for St. John's East would like to tell me how to ask the questions, then I might as well pack it in and go.

The purpose of the Estimates Committee is to obtain information and certainly with the number of people in my district on social assistance, and the number of calls I receive from people on social assistance, I am certainly going to take this opportunity to obtain whatever information I can, whether the Member for St. John's East likes it or not, and I certainly commend the Minister, as the Member for St. John's East should be doing, on correcting that discrimination, which obviously has existed for some eighteen years.

MR. HARRIS: That was an aside.

MR. GOVER: That was an aside; provoked. You see the Member for St. John's East wants me to use up my time without asking any pertinent questions to the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would ask him to move.

MR. GOVER: I beg your pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Member to move on.

MR. GOVER: You would ask the Member to move on? Thank you.

With respect to the issue that you raised about the Canada Assistance Plan, I noticed your total departmental budget is approximately $144 million and I noticed in the revenue estimates that the revenue from the Canada Assistance Plan is approximately $129,400,000; now does all the revenue from the Canada Assistance Plan flow into the Department of Social Services and is attributable to the $144 million departmental budget?

MR. EFFORD: Not directly. Everything that is spent under the Department of Social Services that is cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan is fifty-cent dollars that is returned, so if we spend $100 million in the Department of Social Services, we get $50 million returned to the general revenues, so that comes back to the Province and is budgeted different amounts each particular year-

AN HON. MEMBER: And it is over different sub-heads in the (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes. It is not just in social assistance; there are different sub-heads within the budget estimates, as I explained the other night, I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bonavista was here but when we were talking about the employment opportunities programme under four different headings.

On one heading we received fifty-cent dollars back from the

Federal Government, under another heading we do not receive any money back because of the type of project and on another one we would probably see 65/35 per cent, so that is the reason they were placed under different headings so that we would receive a maximum amount of money from the Canada Assistance Plan.

But, we do wherever possible take advantage of that, but under the social assistance plan, the direct social assistance, we would receive fifty-cent dollars back.

AN HON. MEMBER: It also includes (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, like the Department of Health; we would put in claims for other Departments because they have some cost-sharing under so many programmes also, so we do administer the Canada Assistance Plan through the Department of Social Services. So we have to send up a budget and - what is the right term? It would not be a budget. A claim, yes, a claim for the amount of money that is allowed to be claimed for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes. Monies like, for argument's sake, the Federal Government gives us special monies for the new systems, the computer projects that we are putting in different Departments like young offenders, child welfare. We are trying to computerize the whole Department and that is cost shared by the Federal Government.

The young offenders plan was capped two years ago. And now it's whatever money we spend over $8 million, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five million dollars.

MR. EFFORD: Five million dollars?

AN HON. MEMBER: Capped at $5 million.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, okay, capped at $5 million. So any money spent over that now the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for.

MR. GOVER: I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the other item in the Budget speech, the $50 a month fuel allowance, what percentage of the families on social assistance will receive that particular allowance, and how much of an increase will that be on their social assistance? Can the Minister advise us of that?

MR. EFFORD: Oh boy. I had that too. All the people on coastal Labrador were receiving a subsidy. Not all the people who occupy Newfoundland and Labrador housing units were receiving a heat subsidy. Those are the ones that we are giving that $50 to. I had the numbers, I can provide them for the hon. Member tomorrow - in fact they may be there in my desk - but I had the numbers available. But I just cannot tell you off the top of my head now the numbers of families that will affect. But it is (Inaudible) taking a guess, but it would be about 4,000 to 5,000 if I remember correctly. But I had better not guess because then I will get - you know, I will find and get you the information.

MR. GOVER: But what you are saying is that families who do not live in NLHC units around the coast of Labrador -

MR. EFFORD: Yes, because they were already receiving a heat subsidy.

MR. GOVER: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: So all the remainders will now receive the $50 a month.

MR. GOVER: I see. And do you have any idea - like on the basic family unit say of two parents and a child, or a single person and a child, how much of an increase that would be for those people who receive it?

MR. EFFORD: Oh, it will be $50 a month.

MR. GOVER: Yes, but on the basic amount of the assistance that they (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, for argument's sake, two parents and two children receive $605 a month now. That is the basic social assistance. So then they will receive $655.

MR. GOVER: So it is approximately - it is over an 8 percent increase.

MR. EFFORD: Well, depending on the numbers in the family, yes. Now, two people, a single parent and one child, if I remember correctly, $495 a month. Single parents and one child. Four hundred and ninety-five dollars a month, approximately, that would be the amount, and they would receive $50 a month for six months of the year.

MR. GOVER: For six months of the year.

MR. EFFORD: For six months of the year, in the winter months, the heat subsidy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Ten thousand people will receive that $50 a month.

MR. GOVER: Okay. So at least for those particular people then their social assistance levels are not frozen. There will be an increase in the payments they receive from the Department of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. They were treated unfairly because the people in coastal Labrador and people in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units were receiving that money, which left an unfair advantage for individuals who were not in those to pay their heat bill and it is difficult. It is very difficult. We all admit $605 a month for a family of four is not sufficient income. But the Province does not have enough money to provide a guaranteed essential income. That can only be implemented by the Federal Government. What we are trying to do is to provide some money to ease the strain and the frustrations on families.

But we have to deal with the larger problem and try to get people educated in some vocation of their choosing, to get them away from social assistance altogether. You are never going to get 54,000 people in the Province today off social assistance because some of them just cannot be trained for one reason or another and the job opportunities are not there for all individuals but we can try to help some of them. So, any step in the right direction towards self-sufficiency by individuals is certainly a positive step. You take a single parent that is an extra $105 a month they will be receiving for six months of the year and $55 for the remainder of the year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Mr. Oldford.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I have one question I wanted to ask you about and that was in the rehabilitation area of social services. Under section 4.3.02 you have a prevocational training centre listed, and under 5.2.04 you have vocational services. Now you have more than tripled the budget for vocational services, I wonder why does that appear under services to families rather than under the rehabilitation area in your Department?

MR. EFFORD: The prevocational training centre was in the old sanatorium on Topsail Road. What we did there was, we took a number of disabled or developmentally delayed people - it is a day programme - and approximately fifty people go out there every day for a day programme. The other one you are talking about in 4.3.02 that is the new programme under the community development out of the $25 million that I spoke about earlier, where we are giving individuals, using the example again of socially disabled or under-educated people dependent upon social assistance or single parents who want to avail of a training programme. We are putting that amount of money into the new training programmes because we believe 99.99 per cent of the people who are on social assistance would rather be independent and educated. Unfortunately, for one reason or another they were dropouts in school and never got an opportunity to get in on an education programme. That is what I was talking about earlier when I answered the question from the hon. Member for Humber East regarding what we are doing to help people on social assistance. That is one of the new programmes under the Employment Opportunities Programme that we are placing a lot of emphasis on. I would like to see as Minister and I think the officials in the Department and the Director, Mr. Franey of the Employment Opportunities Programme, would like to see that tripled but we have to start slow because we have to work with the community colleges and the educational programmes within the Province to provide opportunities for people and ensure that they are just not trained for the sake of training. Train them and give them an opportunity so they will get some benefits from it. We want to make sure that what we are doing we are doing for the right reasons and not just to do something for the sake of doing it.

MR. OLDFORD: I agree with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: The Minister has said about one-third of the families on social assistance are single-parent families mostly mother lead, many of those families qualify for court-ordered child support or maintenance. Now, up to last October 1 maintenance was considered under the social assistance regulations as allowable income, the same as earnings from a job. There was an incentive built into the rules for social assistance recipients seeking and getting maintenance or child support. They were allowed to benefit up to $115 a month. Similarly, there was an incentive for absent parents or spouses paying the support. Since May 1, 1989 for the last two years the Department of Justice has had an office enforcing court orders -

MR. EFFORD: What year did it start?

MS. VERGE: May 1, 1989, one of the tremendous accomplishments of the former administration.

MR. EFFORD: The only accomplishment.

MS. VERGE: One of many accomplishments of the former progressive administration. It has only been in the last two years that court orders for child support and maintenance have meant something. It has only been during the past two years that any number of them have been enforced, and single parents on social assistance and their children were only feeling the benefit of court orders for support for a few months when the Minister pulled the rug out from under them by suddenly reclassifying maintenance as non-allowable income. I have asked for the past seven and a half months how much money did the Government save as a result of that measure? How much money did the Government save on the backs of the single mothers and the children? The Minister has never yet given me an answer.

MR. EFFORD: None.

MS. VERGE: I do not believe it.

MR. EFFORD: Did we save money? Saving money means taking money and putting it into a bank and not using it. That is saving money.

MS. VERGE: Saving money means taking income out of the hands, and taking food out of the mouths of single mothers and their children. There were hundreds of single parent families in this Province who lost as much as $115 a month as of last October 1. What I want to know is how much did the reclassification of maintenance as non-allowable income cost the single parent families and how much did Government gain as a result of that measure?

MR. EFFORD: Let me quote the former Minister of Justice. I think it was in 1989 when that then Minister of Justice enforced the Maintenance Income which is now situated in the great district of Corner Brook. The reason why she brought it in is that single parents and spouses, should not get away from paying maintenance to their ex-wife or children and they should not be a burden on the taxpayers of the Province.

MS. VERGE: Needlessly.

MR. EFFORD: That is why you brought in the Maintenance Enforcement Agency.

MS. VERGE: That was not the purpose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. We are here to ask Estimate questions and when the Member poses a question we should not get into debate or dialogue. If the Member does not agree with the Minister's answer then the Chair has to protect the answer as well as it must protect the question. I ask the Member to let the Minister respond and then the Member can respond rather than intrusions that do nothing for the answers we all need.

Thank you.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection. I need that.

Very clearly, I have a great deal of interest in providing opportunities for single parents. We just brought in a new program, as was so ably brought up by the hon. Member for Bonavista, where we just gave $50.00 and treated the first child as an adult, plus the $50.00 each subsidy and we are now looking at new incentives for opportunities for education, plus $175 a month for people who are going into the work force, for single parents to take care of their first months rent. I think that $175 is an incentive for individuals, so we are not closing, and not listening to the needs of single parents. Yes, we disallowed the maintenance income of $115 a month but we are providing many other opportunities for single parents. Do we save money in the Department of Social Services? Absolutely not. Last year we had to go for a special warrant at the end of the year for $10 million. We have a Budget this year of $257 million in the Department of Social Services and I have no doubt with the needs of the individuals in this Province now, we will probably have to come back for more money later on. One of the drains that we had here last year in the Department was something like $7 million or $8 million we had spent on refugees. I would have liked to have had that money to spend on the needs of individuals within the Province. We do not save money. No Government and no Department is in administration to save money. But we have to try to spend the money where it better fits the people and individuals in the Province. And there will never be enough, no matter how much money we spend.

But what we have to try to do is provide opportunities so those individuals can become self-reliant, independent, and get away from dependence on the measly amount of money that they receive from social assistance. Restore some dignity, independence and pride back into individuals. And that is my goal and the administration of the Department of Social Services today. Not like the former administration which never brought in any incentives for individuals on social assistance whatsoever except to put them to work for fifteen weeks so they could draw UI benefits for forty weeks. And that was the total object of what the former administration did.

So I am not going to sit here and be totally criticised for all of the positive things we are doing. We make a decision, we stand by the decision. I do not hide behind any closed doors or closet doors and hide my head away from it. You have heard me, I have answered that question in the House of Assembly a hundred times, and I will answer it again: there will be no change in the maintenance income.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I have asked this Minister for the last seven and a half months to tell the House the impact on his Department's budget of the October 1, 1990 decision to reclassify maintenance as non-allowable income under the social assistance regulations. He steadfastly refused to answer the question. Obviously that change in policy cost hundreds of single parent families up to $115 a month, which for some of them amounted to 20 per cent of their family income. Obviously, conversely, it saved the Department money. Yes, the Department paid more than it forecast last year because the social assistance caseload has gone up dramatically. The Minister himself has told us that the number of families in this Province drawing welfare has risen by more than 20 per cent since the Government changed, since the `real change' Liberals took office two years ago.

The Minister himself has said that the number of single parent families on welfare has risen by over 20 per cent. I say to the Minister that hundreds if not thousands of those single parent families are getting court ordered maintenance. And if it had not been for his regressive change last October they would be benefiting by up to $115 a month by virtue of getting that court ordered maintenance. Now there is no benefit to the judgement debtors, to the men for the most part paying, or to the judgement creditors. The Government is simply taking the money and subtracting it dollar for dollar from social assistance.

And that is inevitably going to discourage people from going to court to even try to get a court order, or encourage them to get as low orders as possible. I mean, why would people bother when the maintenance is simply going to be subtracted dollar for dollar?

MR. EFFORD: Is that a question or a speech?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Obviously, obviously.

MS. VERGE: It's both.

MR. EFFORD: Okay. Are you ready for an answer?

MS. VERGE: I am repeating the question that the Minister has never answered, which is the impact on his Department's budget -

MR. EFFORD: Do you want an answer? If you don't be quiet I won't answer it at all!

MS. VERGE: - of the October 1 change in social assistance policy involving treating maintenance as non-allowable income.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! You know the obvious is that we would like Members of the Committee to put questions to the Minister. The hon. Member herself says that this question has been posed to the Minister for the last seven or eight months and she still has not had a satisfactory answer.

It has been posed twice now in the Estimates, so the Chair does not want to belabour it and will not belabour it. I think the Minister has responded, obviously not to the satisfaction of the Member, and the Member, I am sure will pursue the question at some other time-

MS. VERGE: But, Chairperson, I am not satisfied with that. It is a perfectly simple, straightforward budgetary question-

MR. EFFORD: What was the question?

MS. VERGE: - and the Minister has consistently evaded it, but I think it is because he is ashamed and embarrassed to admit that the Government saved only a paltry amount of money at the expense of hundreds of single parents and thousands of children.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Now, the Chair is not going to let constant debate go on on this particular subject; it proves absolutely nothing, it draws nothing on the Estimates from the hon. the Minister's department, it does not satisfy obviously, the hon. Member, and in saying that I would recognize the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out many times in the Committee, there are several Members to the Committee, not just the Vice-Chairman and it is obvious that whenever a Member asks a question, the answer may not be satisfactory to the Member, as often occurs in Question Period when a question is asked, the answer may not be satisfactory. I suppose in Question Period though, we have the late show, where, there is another opportunity to debate the question and the answer and I suppose in the House, there is ample opportunity for debate of questions and answers.

But, the Estimates Committee cannot be a committee whereby a Member can ask the same question to the Minister, over and over again until the Minster gives the answer that the Member expects to receive, and in this particular instance, I mean, the Member is making an assertion that monies have been saved as a result of this particular move and I am sure the Minister, who has not been permitted in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, to answer the question yet, the Minister can, I would suggest demonstrate that there may in fact be no savings to the Department as a result of this measure, because the expenditure by the Department for single parent families and for dual parent families if we like, may be exactly the same and no savings have accrued to the Department.

I mean, it is an assumption on the Member's part that there are savings and I think the Minister should be allowed to address the question and my second point is, we cannot be questioning, questioning, questioning because we are not satisfied with the answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think what the hon. Member has just said is an extension to what the Chair has already said and I would give the hon. Minister one short comment, at his discretion to answer the question, then I would move on to Mr. Harris.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I used the same analogy as the hon. Member for Humber East, then every family within this Province would decide not to pay for the support of their children whether they are living with their wives or husbands or not and say: well, I am not going to pay for them because social assistance is going to take care of them. That is utter nonsense.

A man or a parent, has the responsibility for the support of his children and he should provide that support wherever possible; if he cannot provide that support, then it is the responsibility of the Department of Social Services, you cannot get away from that responsibility. But, if we make it easy for individuals to get away from that responsibility then that is certainly going to be the outcome.

The obligation for any single parent to apply for maintenance income if he or she does not receive maintenance income from their ex spouses, at any given time, or if they receive it for one month and do not receive it next month, then the Department of Social Service will help them with that cost.

We just brought in fifty dollars for an extra child in the family to be treated as an adult, $55 for a special fuel allowance for six months of the year, that is $105 extra there. Providing educational opportunities for individuals is another new plan on behalf of the Department of Social Services for single parents.

Did we save any money? How could we save money when we had to go for a special warrant of $10 million to help single parents, to help people on social assistance to go and help seniors receive home care and help the physically disabled, developmentally delayed, group homes, young offenders, child welfare, day care, 8,000 children last year on the child protection caseload in this Province. One thousand new cases of child abuse last year, 547 of those were sexual abuse cases who need counselling on a day to day basis. You do not save any money in the Department of Social Services. I wish we could but I have to go back to Treasury Board and Cabinet this year and ask for more money again. I am going to get kicked around by those officials because they will say well, what are you doing with the money Efford. We do not save any money in our Department that is ludicrous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MS. VERGE: There is a $4 million cut in your budget from last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. EFFORD: Not that again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Now, I may be foolish to do this but I am going to ask the same question that I asked before, and it is a pretty common sense question and thank you to the Chair for pointing out the right place in the Estimates to go with this. I am going to ask a very simple question and perhaps if the Minister does not wish to answer it one of his financial wizards to his right or his Deputy to his left could answer this common sense question with a common sense answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he did not mean it with any disparity.

MR. HARRIS: No, the word wizard, I thought it was a compliment to Mr. Roberts.

On page 201 of the detailed Estimates, the Minister's Office has $144,000 for permanent employees which are listed in the following, $26,400 for temporary and other employees - which I assume is the extra secretary of which we spoke - and $8,000 in overtime and other earnings which is the Minister's car allowance. That adds up to approximately, leaving out the hundreds, $178,000 from which is subtracted as an adjustment $23,000 and some odd leaving a total of $155,500 which is what appears on the salary line in the Estimates on 1.1.01. Now, the question is how do we come up with the $155,500, we have had a couple of different explanations. It strikes me, and I am going to ask a simple question, that $23,000 is an amount subtracted from $178,000 as a permanent or other adjustment. This cannot be a step increase because it is a subtraction unless there are step increases and other subtractions from it. So, there must be some other common sense explanation which is not a political explanation, which is not an attempt to avoid an explanation, but there must be some explanation that the Minister or his staff can give for what this adjustment is. Is there somebody not working throughout the whole year? Or, is there some explanation of which I am not aware?

MR. EFFORD: I am going to have to answer the hon. Member because he will not sleep tonight if I do not and I do not want him to lose a night's sleep.

When we prepared our salary budgets for this year we had to make some decisions within the Department of Social Services and especially in the Minister's office. I had to look at where we probably could not use an employee or let an employee go. One of the decisions I made was that if the need is not there, and the number of calls and things that come in on a day to day basis is not there, we possibly could let one of those employees go. Thus, that is the reason why that was put in there. To date that has not taken place because the workload is steadily increasing and this is the reason you see that amount of money there in the brackets. I explained the other amount, the $8000 for the luxurious car I am driving, and the remainder of the money is for the Department secretaries in the Minister's office.

MR. HARRIS: It is an interesting explanation and I assume that this must have come up since the Budget on March 6, the time the detailed estimates were produced. I am assuming that the Minister's earlier comments about needing more and more people because of all of the calls was not operative at the time that the detailed salary estimates were tabled in the House about a week or so ago. I accept that the Minister is saying that he thought there would be an adjustment of $23,000 by letting a person go for the full year but now the salary estimate of $155,500 itself is no longer operative and that figure ought to be $178,000. Can I assume that is correct, that figure of $155,500 under salary votes for the Minister's office ought to be $178,000? Is that the new estimate?

MR. EFFORD: If you want to come back the end of next month and ask me if she is still there I will then give you that month. We will play it month by month, but I am not going to tell you now that she is going to be there next year at this time.

MR. HARRIS: So, it is a month to month decision but you are not estimating that you will need $178,000, you are still estimating $155,000?

MR. EFFORD: Month by month.

MR. HARRIS: Let me move to another topic. Perhaps the Minister is now in a position to provide the information he was unable to provide in Question Period yesterday on the services that he is inviting proposals on for the Child Welfare Program, the 1600 hours of administrative case management, 1400 hours of social work services, 600 hours of psychological or other counselling, and 800 hours of support of services over a six month period. Could the Minister perhaps give the estimated cost of this program and tell us where in the Estimates we might find that amount?

MR. EFFORD: It is not in the Estimates and it is not going to be any cost to the numbers that the individual just read out except possibly psychiatric treatment for these individuals.

MR. HARRIS: That begs the next question, how can this be purchased without costs, and if there is no cost, of course, it could not be in the Estimates because there is no cost of it?

MR. EFFORD: Very clearly, we are not going to purchase all those hours that are there.

MR. HARRIS: Not purchase any of them?

MR. EFFORD: The only hours we will possibly purchase -

MR. HARRIS: Do you want to answer any questions, Mr. Minister?

MR. EFFORD: The psychology counselling and probably psychiatric services. The 1600 hours of administrative may not be purchase, nor will the 1400 hours of social work be purchased.

MR. HARRIS: Why are you asking for proposals on these?

MR. EFFORD: From time to time when you have approximately 900 people working in the Department some information does get misinterpreted. I apologize to anybody in the general public who is going to submit a proposal on that but there was an error in this being sent out. I take full responsibility as Minister for that error, but there was no commitment nor any contract signed. The proposal was on a pilot project to be asked to be submitted and I do not think to date we have received a proposal, but if we did we will certainly explain it when we receive it, but there will be no purchase of 1600, nor the 1400 hours. There was no cost incurred by those. When, and if, we receive the proposals for the other services then those people who submit a proposal, I would assume, the normal thing to do would be to submit a cost of what they will be charging for their services. If we decide to go with that pilot project, then we will be able to say what this would cost, but it would come out of the budget of the department of child welfare within the Department of Social Services.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. So -

MR. EFFORD: You provide counselling on the day to day basis for individuals, for children.

MR. HARRIS: So am I given to understand then that the Minister's answer in the House yesterday, that you are going to do this case management service which had not been done before, that is also - I have before me the terms of reference - but the Minister is saying that part of it is in error. You are not looking for proposals on (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The case management will be done but not by -

MR. HARRIS: It will be done internally.

MR. EFFORD: Internally, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. And the only thing that the Minister is calling for proposals on is 600 hours of counselling services and 800 hours of supportive services. Is that it? Am I right?

MR. EFFORD: The one thing that we are lacking in this Province is (Inaudible) -

MR. HARRIS: I just want to know if that is right, that is all. I mean, I can understand that it may well be needed and it may well be needed wherever the Minister is going to put it. (Inaudible) -

MR. EFFORD: Do you want me to answer the question or don't you?

MR. HARRIS: - (Inaudible) - can you ask, am I now right? If the Minister puts out things that are wrong, and I am entitled to ask whether he has corrected them and whether the corrections now is that there are 600 hours of counselling service and 800 hours of supportive service, that the Minister is looking for proposals on. Is that correct?

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell the hon. Member for St. John's East one thing. I know he is only a junior in the House of Assembly. He has some experience in the House of Commons in Ottawa. But you see fit to ask a question how you want to ask it; I see fit to answer it how I want to answer it. And I am not going to sit here and have you tell me how to answer a question. Now you either want me to answer it or you do not.

MR. HARRIS: Well, either you answer it or you don't, Mr. Minister. If you do not want to answer it then that is perfectly up to you. But I just asked you - your Department has issued a call for proposals which includes errors. You have corrected the errors. My assumption is that the rest of it, the 600 hours of psychological or counselling services and 800 hours supportive services, are still going to be required or requested, at least have proposals on them. And how much is that likely to cost and how are you intending to allocate them around the Province? Is it by division or district?

MR. EFFORD: In answer to the first part of the question: possibly. Second part: where the need arises. And whenever the submission is made by the individual proposals, whatever cost they put on that, the Department will then make a decision if they are going to accept that cost. We cannot cost it. They have to submit the proposal themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Yes. I would like to just get back to the single parent issue again and the maintenance income and the $55 a month supplement. Did you indicate earlier that the basic assistance for two parents and a child is $605 a month?

MR. EFFORD: Two parents and two children.

MR. GOVER: Two parents -

MR. EFFORD: Four member family.

MR. GOVER: Would you have any idea what the basic assistance is for two parents and one child?

MR. EFFORD: Approximately $565 a month. Now that may be out $5 or $10 one way or another, but I do not have the exact figures.

MR. GOVER: Okay, $565. That is what it is right now. And right now a family with one parent and one child would receive $565.

MR. EFFORD: No, one parent and one child would not, no. One parent and two children. One parent and one child, you know, remembering all of those different numbers off the top of my head.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about one and one?

MR. EFFORD: One and one. Do you have it there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rate is $474.

MR. EFFORD: Four hundred and seventy-four dollars - I said $475 - $474 for one parent and one child.

MR. GOVER: Four hundred and seventy-four dollars, one parent and one child. What about two parents and one child?

AN HON. MEMBER: It would be $568.

MR. EFFORD: Five hundred and sixty-eight dollars. I said $565. So I was not out too much, $3.

MR. GOVER: So there is still a difference in those family units?

MR. EFFORD: But that is the old, those figures do not reflect the $55 for the single parent. I do not think. That would not be the new figures. No, it is not. Now, when you put on the $55 for the single parent then you increase - that is last year's rates - when you put the new rates, now you put $55 wherever there is a single parent family there.

MR. GOVER: You get $55 more.

MR. EFFORD: Extra.

MR. GOVER: Okay.

MR. EFFORD: The first child will be treated as an adult. So there will be $55 put on top of that child's allowance that they are now receiving. So in the case of $475 put $55 on that.

MR. GOVER: Okay. So that is ten, that is $530. Okay. So after the change comes into effect one parent and one child will receive $530 a month, whereas two parents and one child will receive $568 a month.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, okay, that is right.

You must remember now, do not confuse the issue with two parents. It is only the single parents who are availing of the extra $55.

MR. GOVER: Right. What will happen is when the $55 a month rate increase goes into effect one parent and one child will receive $530 a month, and two parents and one child will receive $568 a month.

MR. EFFORD: There is something wrong there, somebody is not quoting the right figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: See, the first child is being treated as an adult. So if we have a single parent and a child now today, 1990 figures -

MR. GOVER: A single parent and a child, okay.

MR. EFFORD: Now, in the 1991 figures, they will receive the same amount as two adults would receive. Not two adults and one child.

MR. GOVER: Okay.

MR. EFFORD: See? Or not the same as one and one. The child and the parent would be treated as two adults.

MR. GOVER: Okay then. Well, let's just take that - I am just trying to get it straight in my own head, because we are confusing the family units. How much do two adults receive?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Two adults? The old rate here... one received $385 a month; one and one receives $474; one and two.... Two adults, $529 under the old rate.

MR. GOVER: Five hundred and twenty-nine dollars.

MR. EFFORD: Under the old rate, yes.

MR. GOVER: Okay. So basically, when the $55 a month comes in one parent and one child will receive the same as two adults.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. GOVER: Okay. And two parents and one child will receive $568.

MR. EFFORD: Five hundred and sixty-eight dollars, under the old rates.

MR. GOVER: Under the old rates.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Sure I had this here too.

MR. GOVER: Okay. So now here we go. Under the new rates one parent, one child, $530 a month; two parents and no children, $530; two parents, one child, $568.

MR. EFFORD: Two parents, one child, $568, under the old rates, plus $55.

MR. GOVER: Yes, well I am adding that -

MR. EFFORD: Oh no, I am sorry. That is two parents. No, it does not make any difference that it is two parents. We are only talking about the single parent family in the increase. Never mind the two adults. The two adults are getting their regular allowance anyhow. We are only increasing for single parents.

MR. GOVER: Alright. They are getting $530 a month. Thirty-eight bucks for the child.

MR. HARRIS: Is that right?

MR. GOVER: I mean, after the increase goes into effect, a single parent and a child will get $530 a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Plus $55. Five hundred and (Inaudible) plus $55.

MR. GOVER: Four hundred and seventy-four dollars plus $55, $530 a month. Two parents with zero children, $530 a month.

MR. EFFORD: Exactly. Now we have it.

MR. GOVER: Two parents, one child, $568.

MR. EFFORD: Five hundred and sixty-eight dollars.

MR. GOVER: I understand. Okay. We have that straightened away. So basically -

MR. HARRIS: That is $38 for the child. Is that right?

MR. GOVER: Well, that is what he is telling me. I mean, you know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Just $38 for the child, is that right? With two parents and one child there is an extra $38 for the child, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. EFFORD: That is the Tory Administration who brought that in, a dollar a day, and we are increasing it.

MR. GOVER: Just let me run this by you then, under the old scheme a single parent and a child who received no maintenance income would get $474 a month?

MR. EFFORD: You are talking about the maintenance income of $115 allowable, if they received the $115 it would be $475 plus $115, if they received it from the maintenance (inaudible).

MR. GOVER: No, if they received no maintenance income -

MR. EFFORD: Oh, they would get $474.

MR. GOVER: They would get $474. If they received say $100 maintenance income before the change, they would get $574.

MR. EFFORD: That is right.

MR. GOVER: Now, whether the family receives maintenance income or not, the single parent and the child receives maintenance income or not, they get $530.

MR. EFFORD: Exactly.

MR. GOVER: So, the people who benefit by these changes are the single parent with a child who has no maintenance income.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. GOVER: So, basically when the Member for Humber East says there are savings, there are no savings. Money is being redirected from maintenance let us say, to those family units of a single parent and a child who for whatever reason cannot collect maintenance income. They are being equalized with the people who can get maintenance income.

MR. EFFORD: Plus six months during the year they receive $50 a month fuel allowance.

MR. GOVER: Right.

So that is the objective to put everyone on a level playing field because why should a family who cannot get maintenance income be worse off than the family who can?

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Well, from being a lawyer myself I can tell you enforcement is a very difficult thing. I do not see why we should penalize families who cannot collect it because the husband quits work, does not want to work, or absconds from the jurisdiction, I do not see any point in penalizing those particular families.

Anyway, I have the matter straightened out in my own mind and I want to thank the Minister and his staff. I certainly commend them for putting all single parents with children in this Province on a level playing field. I think that is a very positive move.

With that Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the subheads 1.1.01 through 5.4.02.

MS. VERGE: I have not finished questioning. There are several important questions that I have yet to ask. Some of them have to do with the social assistance caseload. For example, I would like the Minister who said that the current number of families on social assistance is about 25,000 -

MR. EFFORD: No, 23,000, get your figures right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I am giving the Vice-Chair some room but I want to be totally firm and honest. We have dealt for some four and a half hours with the Department of Social Services Estimates. We have digressed many, many times, of course, that is I suppose -

MR. EFFORD: Provoked by the hon. Member for Humber East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I think we have lost a lot of time in asking the Minister questions and what have you. However, the Chair wants to remind the Committee that the motion that is before us is obviously in order No. 1; but I just want to remind the Vice-Chair that we have other departments and there must be other questions to the Department of Education. Tomorrow, we have to use the time that is allotted to do estimates for the departments and the Chair wants to make sure that every Member, and I have tried exceptionally hard to give every Member a chance, and I would remind the Vice-Chairperson, that we do one or the other.

We stay with the Department of Social Services and we ignore the Department of Education and the Department of Health, or we stay here until daylight tomorrow morning. Now the Chair does not mind, but I say to you that we have extended ourselves, the Chair has been more than courteous I think, and the Committee understands that, I have a motion to move inclusively; heading 1.1.01 to 5.40.2 -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I have not finished questioning the Minister of Social Services. I realize that our time is limited; I realize the time for examining the Estimates of the Social Departments expires tomorrow night; I also know that when I was a Minister of Education, I answered questions of Estimates Committees for as much as nine, ten hours.

It is up to the Committee to apportion the time available and I said to the Chairperson privately this afternoon, that this evening I felt the Committee would need more than one hour to finish Social Services, and if the Chair will allow, I will get on with my questioning. We do not need to waste time in procedural arguments; I am trying to find out the number of individuals, women, men and children in this Province who are now on social assistance.

The Minister earlier gave us the number of families and I noted it as 24,000 something, he said it too quickly, I did not get the exact figure, now I would like to-

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to remind the Vice-chair once more, that I have a motion before me that I have to entertain. If you want to raise a point of order on the motion or you want to speak to the motion, then fine. I understand where the Vice-chair is coming from; you want to continue questioning the Minister of Social Services.

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to give the Member for St. John's East an opportunity for a short comment.

MR. HARRIS: I want to speak to the motion that is before the Committee now, but I too, have other questions for the Minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: We need more time with this Minister because he takes a lot of time and he is a very contentious man and we need more time to ask questions, I have more questions and I do not think we should pass through these estimates; if we have another Minister waiting, then I am sorry that the Chair has scheduled these things, but he has done it with the expectations that we will be through but we are obviously not.

I mean we could be out-voted if the Liberal majority on this Committee wants to rush through the Estimates and tell the people of this Province that they do not want the Minister of Social Services to answer any more questions, if they want to do that, well then they can go ahead and do it but I would suggest to them that is not a very wise idea, when two Members of the Committee have further questions to ask the Minister and we would like to do it.

I do not think we are going to be here all night; I have a couple of issues that I want to go into and you know, we had this Member for Bonavista asking detailed questions that are probably in a policy manual, which the Minister I am sure can give him, then surely we can ask some questions about other matters.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Minister. I think that I have given the Vice-chair an opportunity to speak against the motion; I have given the Member for St. John's East an opportunity to speak against the motion and the Chair has no other alternative, but to ask the question-

MS. VERGE: Well Chairperson, I -

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I would like to raise a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order.

MS. VERGE: In all my years of serving in this Legislature I have never witnessed an estimates committee cutting off questioning of a Minister. Now we have until midnight tomorrow night to examine the estimates of the five social Departments. The Government chose to give us five Departments this year instead of the usual four. Not only has the number of Departments been increased but the Departments we are scrutinizing are the big spending Departments of the Government. The Departments that together spend about 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the Government's expenditures. And it is only reasonable that we take more than three hours per Department to go through huge Departments such as Social Services, Health and Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair respects the opinion of the Vice-Chair, the Member for Humber East. But I have a motion in front of me that is duly moved and duly seconded.

MS. VERGE: Well, Chairperson, I have raised a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you have spoken to it.

MS. VERGE: I have raised a point of order. My point of order is that it is quite wrong -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot rule on your point of order in a positive sense when I have a motion before me that is duly moved, duly seconded. You spoke to the motion, the Member for St. John's East has spoken to the motion. The Chair has no other alternative but to ask the question.

MS. VERGE: But a point of order is in order at any time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. VERGE: And my point of order is that it is quite wrong for a motion to be put through by the Liberal majority to cut off two Members of a committee who have not finished asking the Minister questions. Now if we had been here for nine or twelve hours questioning the Minister of Social Services people might accept terminating the questioning. We have actually had four and a half hours, much of which has been wasted, frittered away, by silly procedural wrangling. And I have several pointed, serious questions about important issues such as: social assistance, such as measures to assist recipients to become productive contributing members of society, about child care, child protection, abused children, about transition houses for battered women and children, about group homes for handicapped people, about the plans to phase out group homes, about foster care, about -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has absolutely no problem - and I want to remind the Vice-Chair - whatsoever in dealing with the questions that the hon. Member has to ask. I just want to remind the hon. Member that the Chair does not have an option. As a Chairperson, when a Member of the Committee moves, after four and half hours of questioning - and I will take advice from the Table - the Chair looks for guidance here. But I do not see how I can deal with a motion that has been duly discussed and moved. And if I give the opportunity to the Vice-Chair to discuss the motion - and understanding that, and understanding the point of order - and I give the Member for St. John's East the opportunity to discuss the motion, then I still must call the question. I am left with no other alternative.

MS. VERGE: Well, Chairperson, what is going on here is that one of the Liberal Members on the Committee is trying to protect -

MR. GOVER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MS. VERGE: - the Minister, is trying to shield the Minister, is trying to prevent -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Mr. Gover on a point of order.

MR. GOVER: Okay. Point of order. I resent the accusation. Now I moved the motion, and the Member for Humber East already indicated that there were preliminary discussions between herself and the Chairman today. What they are I have no idea. I am one Member of the Committee. I do know that there were three Departments scheduled for this evening, and I took it that at 8:00 we would have the Department of Education, at 9:00 we would have the Department of Health, and then at 10:00 we would go and adjourn.

So it being 8:30, and basically everybody I suppose having two rounds on the Committee, and the fact we had the other Department to do, I moved the motion. But the Member makes an assumption that merely because I moved the motion my colleagues on the Government side are going to support the motion and the estimates are going to be passed, and that I am in some way endeavouring to stifle the activities of this Committee. Now I may have erroneously assumed that given the scheduling and given that we had two rounds of questions that people had satisfied their examination of the Minister. That may be an erroneous assumption on my part, in part from the scheduling and the fact that we had two rounds of questioning.

Now the Member talks about procedural wrangling. The last time that we had estimates, procedural wrangling was largely taken up with a question over how much time the Vice-Chair should have to ask questions. And she certainly had more time than any other Member on this particular Committee.

Now, here is my point. If I have erroneously assumed that the Members of the Committee have exhausted the questions they want to ask the Minister, I am prepared to defer the motion. So there is no attempt to silence, stifle or protect anybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order. If the hon. Member wants to defer the motion then with permission of the seconder the Chair would obviously have to bow to that wish and the motion would be removed. So it is totally up to the seconder, Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: To that point of order. Do we have some idea then, or are we just going to go all night, or what is it (Inaudible)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, just as a point of information. When the Vice-Chair discussed that she had talked to the Chairperson today, we talked about the three Departments coming and we both agreed that that was probably sensible due to the time frame. And the Member said that she would probably want to spend some more time than an hour with the Minister of Social Services, and I said: fine, but I do not know how the Member for St. John's East would feel about that. And she said also - and I do not mind saying now that the hon. Vice-Chair has brought it up - that she would have very little time with the Department of Education, and hopefully we could get through and clue up the estimates for the three Departments this evening.

Now I want to keep before all the Members of the Committee that we are running out of time. And I would have thought that we would have had - hoped, I guess - good sharp questions and good sharp answers and we would have been able to satisfy the estimates. And other questions that have been asked this evening the Chair would think they could be asked in the House of Assembly and/or at other times. Because they were more overtones rather than direct dollar questions. And the Chair does not want to interfere with any Member and try to direct Members in what type of questions, or what they should or should not ask.

So I just want to give that advice to the Committee. And it is a pity - and for me I have no problem with staying around and giving all Members equal opportunity to ask questions of the Minister and his staff. The only thing I say is that at midnight tomorrow night the estimates would fall into limbo, I suppose, for the want of another word. And for expediency I was hoping that we could - and maybe it was a wish that the Chair had that could not be fulfilled because of the dialogue that has ensued due to the questions.

So I advise the hon. Member for Eagle River that if he wants to withdraw his second -

MR. DUMARESQUE: What I would say, Chairperson, is that I find it a little bit amazing that - I know since the House has been open the opportunities have been there. I think you can count on one hand the questions that the hon. Member has asked the Minister of Socials Services on many pressing issues that she says cannot go beyond tonight, that there have to be answers to. I find that a little bit unbelievable, that all this has been building up and the world out there is falling down. But you could raise it in Question Period or table it for questions in the House. And that would be the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair respects your comments the only thing I ask you - the Member for Bonavista South withdrew the motion to move all the subheadings inclusive and the Member for Eagle River seconded that and the Chair would ask the hon. Member if he wants to withdraw his second.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Sure. Obviously, if he is willing to withdraw the motion then I withdraw the seconding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In saying that, I want to thank the hon. Member for Bonavista South for his - and what has happened here is that we have lost ten or eleven minutes over again, and again the wranglings - and the Chair has been put in awkward positions in the last five to six evenings totally unnecessarily and the Chair is trying, as I have already said, to be conciliatory and fair to everybody. I have been more than fair with the Member for Humber East in every sitting of the Estimates Committee in dealing with all Departments and she well knows that. I have tried to be equally fair to the Member for St. John's East. The time allocation has not been spread fairly throughout the Committee and that is understandable because it would lead to giving the Opposition people a better opportunity to ask the Minister about his estimates. But in saying that, and it is now 8:40 p.m., the Chair is prepared to hear whatever the Committee wants to do. The only thing I say to you is that at midnight tomorrow night the Estimates go into limbo and not at the fault of this Chair I can assure you and I am sure the hon. Members of the Committee understand.

Are there any other questions from Mr. Oldford or Mr. Dumaresque?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I fully understand under the rules of the House the time for examining estimates of the departments runs out midnight tomorrow night. I would like to say that I was not consulted about the plan for this evening. I, presumably the same as the other Members of the Committee, received a notice saying that the three departments that we had not finished would be continued tonight. I said to the Chair this evening that I felt that I as one Member of the Committee would require more time on Social Services than Education or Health.

Now, here we are, and I will get on with it, how many of the approximately 24,000 families now on social assistance in the Province - the Minister can give me the precise number - how many individuals are there and of them how many adults and children?

MR. EFFORD: You are not serious. Twenty-three thousand, four hundred and sixty-six cases represents approximately 50,000 people. But there is no way that I am going to ask people in my department to breakdown how many of those are children and how many are adults.

MS. VERGE: Why?

MR. EFFORD: Why? They do not have those statistics and I am not going to get them.

MS. VERGE: I am amazed at the Minister's attitude Chairperson because one of the crises in Canada today is that there is an appallingly high number of children in poverty -

MR. EFFORD: There is.

MS. VERGE: - and, of course, our future rests with children. Children who belong to families getting $500 or $550 a month cannot be getting the kind of food they need to develop healthy bodies or healthy minds. Chances are they are not getting the kind of emotional stimulation they need to do well in school or to grow up and become productive members of society.

As a society we have to recognize that a great number of children in our midst are living in poverty and do not have a fair chance to get an education and get good jobs as adults. We have to devise policies and strategies to break this cycle of poverty and to support children so that they can grow up healthy, get good schooling, and have a chance to contribute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the hon. Member please ask the Minister a question?

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I would like the Minister, when he has a chance, to give me those figures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It does not look like he is going to give them to you.

MS. VERGE: Would one of the staff of the Department happen to know how many of the 50,000 individuals on welfare are children as opposed to adults?

MR. EFFORD: Do you know something, you can really wear somebody's patience down, there is no question about that, and I am about ready to lose what little bit of patience I do have with you. What we have here now in the Department of Social Services, or what I had a year or a year and a half ago, I inherited from an administration who were in power seventeen years and who never brought in one positive policy to deal with children in hunger.

Last year we implemented a school lunch program in several schools here in St. John's to help children in need who were going to school without food. We are increasing the educational opportunities for not only single parents in the Province but for all people who are depending on social assistance. The 50,000 people we have on social assistance today make up a whole complement of different types of individuals, physically disabled, mentally disabled, able- bodied individuals, and single able-bodied. Do I have a breakdown here this evening of how many are male, how many are female, how many are children, and how many are female children? Absolutely, not, but I suppose we could take the time and somebody in the Department will get that, but that has nothing to do with the new policies and the non-policy implemented by the former administration. The hon. Member for Humber East was a Minister in that particular Government who sat around the Cabinet table and knew that there were 20,000 clients in this Province that represented approximately 50,000 people, and it is only now, since she got on the Opposition, that she sees the needs of those individuals. I can't believe how hypocritical one individual could possibly be. I have stated the number of new initiatives time after time and what we are doing for people in this Province who are on social assistance and who need to get away from it. If you want to take up the time of the Committee the rest of the night asking those foolish questions then I have lots of insulin and I can stay here a week if the hon. Member wants to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: You indicated in response to my question that the monies for counselling services and supportive services would come from the child welfare budget. I am looking through the Estimates, beginning on page 265, listed as services to children, and I cannot see there a vote which might include such an item. Could the Minister identify which vote we are talking about as a source of funds for this program?

MR. EFFORD: You would not see that under that heading under that particular name that you see on the proposal. That would come under the child welfare allowances and in the child welfare allowances there are other allowances, 3.1.05.

MR. HARRIS: Allowances and assistance.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. They come under that heading.

MR. HARRIS: So, these are not allowances to individuals, these are votes that the Department can use for whatever it wants.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. You see, in the Child Welfare Department you have many different types of needs of individuals and children. I gave you some statistics on abuse earlier. There are approximately a little over 8000 children under child protection and some of those are in the area of physical and sexual abuse, but we have a specific number of individuals with severe behaviour problems, fourteen or fifteen individuals, and they vary from month to month and from year to year, and that proposal that you have in your hand was sent out to deal with those children who have psychiatric behaviour problems.

We are trying to build a case management plan on how to deal with those individuals on a long-term, not an ad hoc basis. In other words not to do something today and not tomorrow, but to look at the circumstances in the family, find out what the problems are and the environment in that particular family, then what caused the problems, build a case around that and above all try and keep the child and the family together. That was the purpose of that. It never did get the approval of the executive of the Department but one of the individuals in the region sent it out and very clearly thought they were doing the right thing. When it was identified that it had gone out without approval we had to take a second look at it. Building the case management around it is the responsibility of the director or the people within the region and the Department of Child Welfare. But there are some services there that the department does not have, for example, psychological services and psychiatrists. We do not have psychiatrists within the department so we have to contract their services. Let me also tell the hon. Member there are very few in the Province, believe me, we do not have enough psychiatrists. So, that is what we are trying to do.

MR. HARRIS: You do not have to contract out psychiatric services that's paid for out of medicare, et cetera.

MR. EFFORD: Well, we need special people to come and work with these individuals. So, that is the idea.

MR. HARRIS: But you are saying that people who are already under the social services caseload, it is like a special allowance that is made to pay the costs of counselling and it comes out of that vote.

MR. EFFORD: That is one of the vote areas that it comes out of.

MR. HARRIS: But there is no actual estimate for this program.

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. HARRIS: You have no ideas of how much it might cost. No projections.

MR. EFFORD: Not until we get the proposals.

MR. HARRIS: You have a caseload of forty to fifty people and you have an idea that there is a need but you have no idea whether it is $50,000 or $500,000.

MR. EFFORD: That is why we asked for proposals.

Let me give you an example and probably you will understand a little better. Right now the Department of Public Works is asking for proposals for accommodations for the social services office that was on Harvey Road. We do not know what the cost of renting the new accommodation will be until we get the proposals in. It is the same here when the proposals are submitted to the Department, let us say there could be two, four or six, then we will have an idea of what it is going to cost. But that money comes out of the budget for the Division of Child Welfare, and if that total budget is X number of millions of dollars - in Child Welfare the budget is $2,100,000 -

MR. HARRIS: I understand the Minister's view on this and I think I should move on to something else.

The Minister said that he is encouraging people to go to work and that sort of stuff - and I just want to ask him a couple of questions on how the Minister's policies might aid that. Let us take for example the case of a single parent who is the sole support of children and is on social assistance and wants to go to work and gets a job. The child care expenses that might be incurred in a situation like that, is that allowed before any income is taken from the individual? Is there a program that builds in an incentive, for example, to go to work? Now the Member for Humber East mentions that the first $115 you are allowed to keep, is that over and above child care expenses?

MR. EFFORD: When we realize the problem with individuals going into the workforce, we have a special incentive, by the way, of $175 a month for people.

MR. HARRIS: The first $175 a persons earns can they put that in their pocket?

MR. EFFORD: No, what we do is give them $175 over and above their regular social assistance amount they receive. We also have an incentive to pay the first month's rent. Now, when it comes to the day care or child care allowances we assess that on the amount of income the individual will be making and if it is allowable under the social assistance regulations then we will pay for the child care.

MR. HARRIS: Can I use an example, and like the Member for Bonavista South, just get down to numbers here rather than talk about giving people money when we do not know who they are. Let us say you have a single parent with one child who is receiving on social assistance, with the increase as a result of the policy, receiving $530 per month of income, and that person gets a part-time job making $200 a month. How much of that income is the person entitled to keep?

MR. EFFORD: Well, under different circumstances the $200 would normally be deducted. They are allowed to earn $105 before any deduction is made so deduct the $105 off that.

MR. HARRIS: So if an individual gets a part-time job earning $200 the person can keep $105 of that and the other $95.00 gets deducted from the $530. Is that right?

MR. EFFORD: You have to remember one thing. Dealing with the Department of Social Services every individual case is assessed on its own needs. One parent and one child may have special needs, special food allowances and all that.

MR. HARRIS: No, no.

MR. EFFORD: What I am trying to tell the hon. Member is, do not get confused and say that every individual who goes to work will get that $105 deductible because it is not so. It depends on the circumstances around that particular case.

MR. HARRIS: So, some people will be allowed to keep it and other people will not?

MR. EFFORD: Depending on the assessment.

MR. HARRIS: This is a very simple example and we do not need to complicate it. The first $105 they can keep?

MR. EFFORD: Under the example you use, yes.

MR. HARRIS: I do not want any complications. No matter what the circumstances you can keep $105. This is what my friend here tells me. Now, what if in order to earn this $200 the individual incurs another $50.00 or $60.00 in child care expenses. Is that also deductible as well or does that have to be paid out of the $95.00 that the person is allowed to keep?

MR. EFFORD: No, that is allowable.

MR. HARRIS: So, if a person has to hire a baby sitter to take a part-time job in the evening they can deduct that as well?

MR. EFFORD: The Assistant Deputy Minister says that we have approximately $600,000 in the Budget to take care of special needs and things like that. Let us assume that a family is receiving $475 a month. Now, they would be receiving that on social assistance, and when they go out into the workforce the first $105 they earn is not deductible. They are allowed to earn that, and if they earn another $75.00 that is taken off, so now they have $400 plus the $105, so once they apply for child care the amount they are receiving comes into play, the amount of child care they are receiving, so in this instance they would receive total child care. Now, if they earn $300 a month they are going to receive $200 less on social assistance until they work themselves right out of the social assistance allowance altogether, so it is based on the amount of subsidy we have to give them, plus the amount of income, depends on the child welfare. The day care allowance would be over and above the regular monthly allowances, so that would have to come altogether.

MR. HARRIS: So, is it fair enough to say that the overall incentive is really $105 a month and anything you earn over and above that you lose, or your lose from your social services?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: And, child care is done on a case by case basis?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: It is not automatic, so if I am a single parent and I have to hire a baby sitter to go and work it is not automatic because I am going to work?

MR. EFFORD: Because you are a single parent?

MR. HARRIS: No, because I am going to work.

MR. EFFORD: Well it depends on your income the Hon. Member must realize if I am a single parent and I am earning $100,000 a year, I am not going to get social assistance to pay my child care.

MR. HARRIS: Well you are not going to be on social assistance anyway, but tell me -

MR. EFFORD: But if you are on social assistance you would qualify for child care, yes.

MR. HARRIS: So if you earn $200 and you get the first $105 and if you have to pay sixty dollars for child care to earn that $200, then you do not automatically get it?

MR. EFFORD: No, no. Look, if you are receiving $475 a month social assistance, you go to work on a part-time basis and you receive $200, $105 is allowed, the remainder is not allowed, but you do not have to pay your child care because you are still not up to the amount that you would be receiving on social assistance, so your child care, in that particular case, would be extra.

Now, as your income increases, then your child care decreases by the Department of Social Services, but every case is on its own merits.

MR. HARRIS: I understand that, but I gave you a case, not a case on its own merits, a case of $200, so if you had sixty dollars child care expenses and you earn $200, you would end up being able to keep the full ninety-five dollars, because the Department will give you an extra sixty, is that in fact, correct?

MR. EFFORD: The Department will give you an extra sixty for what?

MR. HARRIS: To pay the child care expenses.

MR. EFFORD: Oh your child care, but that is not paid to you, that is paid to daycare -

MR. HARRIS: Paid to whomever is providing the service.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A lenient man; I am sure the Member appreciates it.

MR. HARRIS: I was not counting, Mr. Chairman, but it always seems that my own time expires much more rapidly than that of the Member for Humber East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How true, how true. I think that is one exercise we could all learn. The actor always figures that it takes a lot less time to speak his lines than anybody else's.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, it being nine, I wonder could we have a ten minute break?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think it might be an idea. I apologize to the Minister of Education. We will get ourselves back here at nine if we can. Let us have a five minute break here.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ladies and Gentlemen. At this time I would like to reconvene and hopefully we can be a little more direct and precise and maybe we will have an opportunity to get to the Department of Education.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I would like to come back to the subject of single parents and their children on welfare, and the reason I am emphasizing this subject is that, in my years of experience as an MHA, the most needy people I hear from are single mothers in Corner Brook and single mothers in St. John's, who are living on their own away from their extended families, with a paltry amount of social assistance that is provided, and the Minister acknowledges that; and I acknowledge that the fifty-five dollar a month supplement as of May 1, is a help, these women and their children cannot live properly. It is that simple.

Now, many of these single mothers, two are sitting in the gallery, are young, they are bright, they are intelligent, they do not want to be on welfare; they are just dying for the chance to break out of the cycle and get a job.

A great number have to go to school to university or college to train for the job market and the rules are such now that it is extremely difficult to do that. There is a powerful disincentive to go to school because of the cost of child care, because of the low amount of the child care allowance, because of the fact that all student loans have to be subtracted from assistance even though, of course, the loans have to be repaid in full later, and the result is that single mothers who have tried, who have bucked the system, find that after awhile they just cannot keep it up, they get worn down and they have to give up. Now, I know the Minister has a committee that has been in place for two and a half months and I would urge him to get on with bringing in some improvements because people are being lost in the cracks in the meantime. Now, many of these single mothers were hit last Fall when maintenance and child support were reclassified as non-allowable income. I would like to ask the Minister if maintenance and child support were still considered allowable income, the same as earnings from a job, how much more would he have had to budget for social assistance in the 1991-92 fiscal year? According to the calculation of one single mother's group the difference is probably between $4 million and $7 million a year, since the amount that single parents getting maintenance were able to retain was $115 a month maximum, times twelve months, that is $1380 a year, and of the 7500 single parent families on welfare, if you assume that 3000 are getting some maintenance, that would come to over $4 million, if you assume that two thirds are getting some maintenance that would come to close to $7 million. So, my question clear and crisp is, if maintenance were still treated as allowable income how much more would have to be in the Budget for social assistance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Humber East started off talking about the single parents in Corner Brook and the plight and difficulty they are going through. I agree with her, the single parents in Corner Brook, the single parents in Labrador, in Western Newfoundland, and throughout the Province are going through a difficult time. In fact I will take it to the 50,000 people on social assistance, especially the physically and mentally disabled people who are going through even a more frustrating time. The money on social assistance is just not enough for people to receive the basic essentials they require to live normally as we do. We take things for granted. When we get up in the morning for breakfast we have eggs, cereal, or whatever we wish, but unfortunately most people on social assistance, for one reason or another, are not able to do that. Even in the able-bodied families, for whatever the reason, if they are socially disabled they find themselves on social assistance so they cannot enjoy the same things that a person in a working category find themselves in. I understand what the hon. Member is saying, but what disgusts me most of all is that she is playing a political game. She is playing to an audience, which I have no problems with, but what really bothers me most of all is that she was in Government for X number of years. She was a Cabinet Minister. I know she held Minister of Education, and she was Minister of Justice. She sat around the Cabinet table where decisions were made for single parents and all people on social assistance, and those people who are having those frustrations and problems today

had them two years ago, had them for the seventeen years that administration was in power. I cannot think of one positive thing they did for those individuals to help them get out of their dilemma except to provide social assistance.

Now, she sits in her place trying to put on the sincerity, which is coming through pretty loud and clear as being pretty false, and playing to the political field. We are dealing with the plight of single parents; we are dealing with the plight of all the people on social assistance in this Province. I would love to be able to wake up tomorrow morning and see all people into the workforce but that is an impossible dream. It took me about six or eight months to get into the Department of Social Services and to get to know the executive, the regulations and the programmes, since that time we have been working very hard and diligently in dealing with the different groups of people on social assistance. You can sit here tonight, tomorrow night, and twenty-four hours or forty-eighty hours around the clock, I have no problems with working, you have asked the same question four or five different ways tonight but that is not going to change my answer. My answer remains the same, we are dealing with the social problems of people on social assistance including single parents. If anybody has a particular problem they should approach their social worker or come into the Department of Social Services. As far as saving money, we do not and we shall not save any money in the Department of Social Services this year. In fact we expect, even though we got a moderate increase in our budget this year, to have to go back for more money before the year is out. I hope we have not. But if we get a large influx of refugees like we did last year, which we are expecting at any time and have been expecting for the last two or three months, then we shall in all probability have to go back for more money. But, we do not do things in the Department to save money. I am sick and tired of the Member for Humber East trying to make that accusation when it is false, it is totally untrue, it is misrepresenting what the facts are and she came out of an administration which never dealt with the plight of the single parents or anybody else in this Province. Now, we are doing something about it and she is trying to jump on the bandwagon. Jump on it if you like, I do not care one iota what you want to do.

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask a question.

If it had not been for the Minister's October 1, 1990 decision to classify maintenance and child support as non-allowable income how much more would he and his Department have had to budget for social assistance in the 1991-1992 fiscal year?

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, probably it is my Port de Grave accent, maybe people do not understand my answer, perhaps I talk too fast, we have $257 million budgeted for the Department of Social Services a substantial increase over last year. We will probably have to go back this year before the year terminates depending upon the economic circumstances within the Province, depending upon the arrival of X number of refugees at one particular time, depending upon a lot of factors, we may be able to deal with the budget we have.

One of the other factors that we have is that we are trying to deal with home care increasing from day to day in the Department of Social Services. Now, we are finding out that the unions are stepping in and unionizing most of the people who work in the field of home care. If that happens our $13 million budget is going to have either a 30 per cent or 40 per cent reduction or we are going to have to go for a 30 per cent or 40 per cent increase. There are a lot of factors playing within the budget of the Department of Social Services. You can sit down and go through every heading within the Department and it could increase or decrease, the programmes, except for the grants that were structured at the beginning of the year. The same goes for the group homes, depending upon the number of individuals going into these group homes, the amount of money required will change from year to year.

So, what will happen? How many single parents will receive maintenance income? How many single parents will not receive maintenance income? You cannot tell from week to week or from month to month, so it is an estimation that we do and $257 million is budgeted for. If the single parents were not receiving maintenance income as an non-allowable amount when they -

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Chairperson.

The Budget Estimates clearly show, on the bottom line with double underlining, that the total estimated spending of the Department of Social Services from provincial sources this year is $144 million, down by $4 million from the $148 million actually spent last year.

MR. EFFORD: I told her last time that is net but she does not understand that.

MS. VERGE: That is provincial spending, and that is what we are here examining. The federal contributions are up but the provincial contribution is down by $4 million.

MR. EFFORD: Let me explain. The hon. Member should know. You were there. There was in excess of $3 million less in capital on the boy's home in Whitbourne this year than there was last year, so we are not going to spent money that has already been spent there, so that is a little over $3 million there. That building is just about completed so are we going to spend that extra money now and every year for the next ten years? Once that capital construction is done the more is done the less money is in next year's Budget. My God the hon. Member was a Minister in Government and her Government started that building out there.

MS. VERGE: You did not have to postpone the youth closed custody facility in Corner Brook.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you Ms Verge.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to ask the Minister if he could, and I was trying to get this straight privately, the new regime, as we say, regarding a single parent with a child, one and one, in the same category as if they were two adults. That comes into effect on what specific date?

MR. EFFORD: The directive was sent out as of May 1 and it should show up on the next cheque.

MR. HARRIS: So, the allowance, or the money for the month of May, in other words, there may be a retroactive adjustment or whatever, but as of May 1 these allowances are payable, so anybody who has a cheque already there may be an adjustment in the next cheque to cover May month?

MR. EFFORD: If it is not in it, yes.

MR. HARRIS: If it is not already in it?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: So, a single parent with one child should expect to receive, during the month of May, $529?

MR. EFFORD: Yes. I do not see any variation there. It was $474 for one on one, plus a $55 increase.

MR. HARRIS: Plus a $55 increase, so that would be $529 for the month of May and that is anyone who is on long-term assistance.

The Minister mentioned food programs for schools. Could the Minister indicate what contribution the Department is now making to the school food programs? What is the actual contribution and how is it administered?

MR. EFFORD: Initially we provided the start-up money for the school lunch programme but what we are doing this year, now that it is successful and now that individuals are getting enough money

through fund raising and through the monies they receive for the lunches from kids who can pay, is we provide the staff through the Employment Opportunities Programme.

MR. HARRIS: So, initially you provided start-up money on a per school basis?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that was last year. There were two schools initially, yes.

MR. HARRIS: And was there a grant of some kind for each school?

MR. EFFORD: It was under the one system. The Gower Street United Church Group sponsored it, but the amount was in last year's budget, I have forgotten the amount of money that we gave them; it was funded under a special project, employment opportunities was the basic start, and monies to get started plus the fund raising to get some more monies plus-

MR. HARRIS: So how much did the Government through the Department of Social Services spend on the school lunch programme last year for those two schools?

MR. EFFORD: I will find that out and I will provide an answer to the question through the House of Assembly.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, that is the number for last year; this year that programme you say, you are not involved with that now as that is operating on its own?

MR. EFFORD: Except for providing the staff to do the serving of the food and in some cases, the preparation.

MR. HARRIS: And can you get the numbers on that existing programme - it is only the one programme now in two schools, is this -

MR. EFFORD: No, no; it is in more schools than that; four schools now.

MR. HARRIS: Well you mentioned two schools for start-up money-

MR. EFFORD: That was the start-up last year.

MR. HARRIS: -yes, the start-up money, but the start-up money-

MR. EFFORD: no, that expense was for the four schools.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. But is it the same programme, the same people operating it bringing the food to different schools, is that what is happening?

MR. EFFORD: We are providing the staff in each one of the schools to prepare the food.

MR. HARRIS: And last year that was two schools?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: That was Bishop Field, was it?

MR. EFFORD: And Holy Cross, if I remember correctly.

MR. HARRIS: And Holy Cross?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: And this year there is more than two?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, there are four.

MR. HARRIS: Four; and how does the Minister allocate staff and monies for that, is it-

MR. EFFORD: No monies. Just staff.

MR. HARRIS: Staff; and how does the Minister decide which programmes he will support and which ones he will not?

MR. EFFORD: I will support them all when ever the request comes in; we have only received four requests.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, so the only contribution now, you do not give start-up money for any of these programmes any more-

MR. EFFORD: They did not ask for it, they had sufficient.

MR. HARRIS: No one asked for it; so you are just dealing with this on a per request basis, there is no actual programme that you have; is there?

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell you very clearly, that the Department of Social Services has not and will not get into the lead of doing this; this is working very well by the community groups taking the lead role; we are supplying support network and we will continue to do that, but we will not go out as a Department of Social Services to implement school lunch programmes all over the Province.

It is done jointly. The initial start-up I might add, was done jointly and co-operatively between the Department of Education and the Department of Social Services; and that is what we have been trying to do over the last couple of years since we assumed administration is, both departments working together where the needs arise and affects the lives of individuals, and social programmes that can be jointly fostered and supported by the Department of Education. I must commend the hon. Minister of Education because he was very supportive in the initial start up of that particular programme and if I remember correctly, he has visited four schools and found it to be very successful; and the staff: I must also talk about the staff within the school system; the teachers themselves, the Administrative staff, they play a very important role-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: A joint committee, that is right.

MR. HARRIS: Can the Minister say that he is committed to providing staff from the social service employment programme for these school programmes as they come on stream?

MR. EFFORD: That is a broad, wide open question. We can provide staff through the employment opportunities programme when we have sufficient monies and staff to do so. But I cannot commit to you this evening that we can provide staff for every school within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are certainly willing to look at and support a school lunch programme wherever it is feasible under the employment opportunities programme. That is the policy of the Government and the Department.

MR. HARRIS: And the ones that are being provided now, you are committed to providing them on an ongoing basis?

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes. We will not cancel the school lunch programme unless the system goes bankrupt, and with the debt that was incurred by the former administration of $7 billion I suppose anything is possible. We are trying to deal with that debt in a very responsible manner. Now if I had some of the $600 million that we pay in interest every year I would put in an awful lot of school lunch programmes and help an awful lot of single parents in this Province. Six hundred million dollars in interest.

MR. HARRIS: I have one final question, Mr. Minister. Just looking at the Child Welfare -

MR. EFFORD: Which page? Which subhead?

MR. HARRIS: This would be in the detailed salary estimates for permanent staff and I am curious. I am making a comparison here between page 205 and page 206. In the Child Welfare division the top three positions are the Director of Child Welfare at $65,000, the Assistant Director at $54,844 and Social Work Supervisor at $35,500.

Now the Social Work Supervisor there, that is a single position in that division at $35,500. And I compare that with the - on a regional operations or client services on page 205. There are twenty-one social work supervisors there and these would be presumably spread out throughout the various branches. But I note that the average salary for social work supervisors under that subhead - there are twenty-one at $867,000 - is around $41,000. And the salary for the Social Work Supervisor in Child Welfare is $35,500, which is a significant difference, about $6,000.

Now, is it that the other people are more experienced or - one would think that you would want in the Child Welfare division the most qualified, most experienced, highest level of qualifications that would usually expect a higher salary. And I wonder why it is so significantly lower than the average.

MR. EFFORD: Well, first of all, comparing the average of twenty-one individuals to one is certainly not a fair analysis. I would have to go back and look at how many of those twenty-one, how long they have been there, how many steps they have progressed over a number of years of service, compared to this one individual here. The Department of Social Services does not determine the salary set down to a social works supervisor, whether he or she be in Child Welfare or whether they be in the field office or whether they be in regional. That is determined by the classification and the collective agreement and the steps over a number of years of service and experience. So that is not something that we have any control over. If I had my way I would double the salaries of everybody for the work load that they maintain, but we do not have any (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am not sure these would be covered by a collective agreement since they are management positions.

MR. EFFORD: Well, management positions would be determined by classification and the - is it the HAY? What do you call it, the HAY Commission or the HAY Committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) it was an equivalent salary.

MR. EFFORD: An equivalent salary that is set down. But the Department, the Minister or the Minister's office or the executive do not determine that, we put in the request and it is determined by the step progression within the Hay system if it is management, if it is union then it is in the collective agreement. But that is usually classified by Treasury Board.

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps this is a new person to the public service, is that the answer, this is a new individual?

MR. EFFORD: One of the people there went to the regional administrative ability and that is a new person to the job within the last fiscal year. Therefore, she would start off at a lower step. The other twenty-one are working out in the different offices around the Province and have been there for a number of years.

MR. HARRIS: They have been there for many years, okay.

Thank you.

MR. GOVER: Capital Expenditure for the Department, subhead 5.4.02, Support to Family-Related Organizations, Grants and Subsidies $200,000, it is the last subhead in the Budget.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) the new building for the HUB. We gave them $1 million to build a new building. The $200,000 on the other subhead is our contribution towards the new day care centre at Memorial University.

MR. GOVER: Okay.

With respect to the youth centres in the Province, in going through the salary details I see, I believe this is the case, there is a new classification in the Whitbourne Youth Centre and the St. John's Youth Centre, Facility Operations Manager. I believe there were none there in the last year and there were four positions at the Whitbourne Youth Centre for Facility Operations Manager and four positions at the St. John's Youth Centre in the same classification. I do not think that classification existed last year. I just wonder what was the nature of that classification.

MR. EFFORD: One of the major problems we have with the youth centres is that it is a twenty-four ongoing service that has to be provided. It would be unreal to expect the administration required in that particular centre to work any longer than a normal days work whether that be eight, ten hours or whatever. So, what we were finding, and we discussed this at great length with the Executive, was that for the remainder of that twenty-four hours, once the administration had gone home, there was no management present in the facility. What we decided to do was have a facility operation manager for different shifts and then for the twenty-four hours each day there would be a manager present in the centres. Therefore, the four facility operation managers in each centre would take care of the four different shifts and that would be for seven days a week.

MR. GOVER: Twenty-four hour service for seven days a week.

MR. EFFORD: Twenty-four hours with management present because you are dealing with twenty to twenty-five youths in each centre and from time to time you get many different problems and you need a manager present at that centre at all times. That is one of the problems that we found out over the years that was not there, so we are trying to correct that and it is provided for in this year's budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, assuming that the Members of the Committee have no further questions I would like to move the headings from -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not assume that now. We could carry on with more questions all night, but I think we agreed that we would - I certainly agreed - that I would (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Well, I will not assume anything. I am sure the Members have thousands of questions which they could ask, all of which are very legitimate and which, I must confess, I find very edifying. So I am prepared to stay here all night but in the interests of time allocation and in view of the fact that these estimates, the deadline runs out tomorrow at twelve, and we have other Departments to examine, I would like now to put the motion on the floor which I put earlier, which is to move all the subheads from 1.1.01 to 5.2.04, inclusive.

MS. VERGE: You mean 5.4.02?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.4.02, yes.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.4.02, carried.

On motion, Department of Social Services, total heads, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, thank you again for your patience and endurance, and to your staff again for being here this evening. It is always an ordeal I am sure, more of an ordeal sometimes I am sure for your staff than it is for the political wing of this endeavour.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to express my appreciation to the staff. This is two evenings now that we have been here. Under strenuous conditions, I must say. But I want to make one comment. I notice whenever the two single parents left the gallery the hon. Member for Humber East stopped asking questions. And I find that very surprising.

MS. VERGE: Now, now, now, now. I would like to interject that my many questions and speeches on the plight of single parents are all on the record. And while the Chair thanked the Minister for suffering through this ordeal, I want to thank myself and the Member for St. John's East and the other Members for suffering through the Minister's long-winded evasive answers.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Bonavista South.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question there. It was originally scheduled for three Departments tonight. Is it now the Committee's intention to move on to the Department of Education?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. GOVER: It is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Minister, Education. And I am wondering somewhere in the bowels of the Confederation Building if the Minister of Health is listening to these enlightened endeavours, it will probably be - and I am only being suggestive - nigh to impossible to deal with your estimates this evening, Mr. Minister. And I will discuss with you tomorrow the plight of trying to - [technical problem; some words missing]

offer the same comment to your staff. Plans of mice and men I guess sometimes go awry. And again the Chair would want to apologize too for bringing you here an hour and a half ago and having to wait. But in the name of fairness and balance I wanted to give the opportunity to all Members of the Committee to have ample time to ask questions of the Minister of Social Services, and I am sure you heard the deliberations and would agree. Again I would hope that we may be able to go through the estimates of the Department of Education this evening and clue up. And that is a hope that the Chair has.

Perhaps what I should do now is just for everybody's information ask the Minister if he would be kind enough to reintroduce his staff. I do not think we have anybody new from the last evening. But just for Hansard.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Winter here on my right, Deputy Minister; Robert Smart on my left, Assistant Deputy Minister; Dr. Turpin-Downey, Assistant Deputy Minister behind me; and Aubrey Halfyard, who is Director of Administration in the Department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. And for the information of Hansard again, this evening we have one new person in the person of the hon. Member for Eagle River. Of course the Vice-Chair to my immediate left, the Member for Humber East, Ms. Verge. The Member for St. John's East, Mr. Harris; the Member for Bonavista South, Mr. Gover; the Member for Trinity North, Mr. Oldford; and the Member for Eagle River, Mr. Dumaresque. And again I want to welcome the reporter from the St. John's Evening Telegram who is sitting by making copious notes. And of course, Miss Murphy, who is the secretary for the Committee, the Deputy Clerk of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak to the Minister about hungry children and child poverty, because it is something that we have just talked to the Minister of Social Services about, and he has, let's say, a reactive view of the issue. And I am hoping that the Minister will have perhaps a more pro-active view of the issue. We do know that the extent of child poverty in this Province is enormous. The figures that have been produced by the Canadian Teachers Federation study, of which the current Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was a part in 1989, showed child poverty in this Province as the highest in the country, similar to Quebec. In this Province it is very high.

We had last week the very graphic statements to the Royal Commission on Education by a parent who sends her own children to school hungry and has done some research on it, and also the statements of Alice Furlong, a member of the RC School Board for St. John's, who indicated that one-half of thirty schools under the jurisdiction have children without enough to eat. And also talked of a primary school teacher who had a small class, most of whom came to school hungry. Younger children crying when they say they are hungry, and that is a very heartrending, serious problem, and one that needs to be addressed. I want to ask the Minister - I know he has a committee studying it - can he tell us what plans he has and where they are at the moment?

DR. WARREN: I thank the Member for the question. It is one of the perhaps more difficult, challenging questions that I face as a Minister of Education. Perhaps two or three general comments.

I do not think we can ignore the difficulties that hungry children face in our schools. I will not talk about outside of school, but you have asked me about schools. And I would suggest that without sustained intervention by someone, including Governments, poor children in schools face major risks of educational failure and lifelong dependency. That is rather a strong statement but I believe that. That statement can be backed up by the CTF study and by Senator Marsden and her studies at that level. I was very impressed with some of the comments in her report. I could go back to that but perhaps I will carry on.

Having said that I would say that the challenge of meeting the needs of these students must be shared, and is being shared. I want to tell the hon. Member that we have these four schools, which are pilots, and I visited three of the four, one on two occasions. We also have a lot of other things happening in the Province. Various organizations and clubs are now moving in to help schools and help students who have special needs with respect to school lunches. Some schools provide breakfast and some teacher groups, out of their own pockets, are providing funds for children who are hungry. Some parent groups are involved, so there are a number of initiatives underway, and I want to pay tribute to all of those who are coming to the assistance of children who need food during school, because, as I said, they are at major risk, they are not going to be able to receive the benefits of an education unless these needs are met. I think Government has a role to play, not only in attempting to meet this problem itself, but to co-ordinate and to encourage others to participate in meeting the needs of these children, and meeting them in an anonymous way so as not to identify students in school who need food. I think the Government in this Province, and indeed throughout Canada, but in this Province has to be pro-active and as a Minister I hope there are some things I can do in the next year or two to stimulate and encourage other groups to get involved, to extend the pilot projects that are now ongoing, to use community development workers where possible, and to encourage parishes. I would like to challenge the churches. If they want to serve education, as many of them do, I would like to challenge the parishes and the churches to get actively involved in helping hungry children, to work with the school, to work with parents, to work with Kiwanis clubs and all the other agencies to play a role. Now, I could go on talking about what needs to be done. We have a committee in place and that committee, hopefully, will give us a joint committee with social services, I think. I am hoping that committee will give us some plans, not to just expand the Community Development Programs, but to expand in areas throughout the Province and give us a strategy in helping school boards expand these programs and services, and do it on a provincial basis.

It is a major problem and I say Government alone cannot solve it. Government has a role to play and I think we are moving in that direction.

MR. HARRIS: I know the Minister is concerned about the issue and his concern is obvious in his voice, but I have a problem when the Minister says the role of Government is to co-ordinate and encourage others when most, if not all, of these children are in receipt of social assistance, and in fact the Government has taken the responsibility to provide a level of income for these families which turns out, by all studies which seem to have been done, inadequate to provide food for the children of these families despite the increases that the Minister has talked about. We always hear stories about the stomach being flexible, that the light and fuel bills have to be paid. If you do not pay the light bill they cut you off, and et cetera. But when it comes to providing food for the family then you can cut back there without it being - you know, you are not losing an arm or a service or whatever.

And I say to the Minister that given those circumstances the Government has a greater responsibility than just to coordinate. And I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to give direction to other groups and to school boards to in fact develop these programmes and provide some money to help the development of those programmes, instead of just playing a coordinating role. I want to urge the Minister to -

DR. WARREN: I did not say only coordinating. I think the Government has to be pro-active. I was focusing on the school. I think Government has a role in society generally to ensure that people are not hungry, period. But I thought you were asking about school lunches.

MR. HARRIS: No, this is what we are talking about.

DR. WARREN: Okay. Let's focus on that.

MR. HARRIS: Because we are talking about you as Minister of Education having children unable to learn because they do not have enough to eat. So that is (Inaudible) -

DR. WARREN: Government has to be pro-active. But child hunger can not be addressed in a school only by the schools themselves or by education itself. I think it is such a major undertaking that until we get the monies we need for everything we should reach out to the community and ask volunteer groups and others to get involved in the short term. And I think the Department has to give leadership. I would call it leadership. It is not just coordinating. It has to give leadership in identifying the problem, of getting others involved, putting whatever money it can as a Government into it, encouraging milk programmes - these are the kinds of things that I think the Government has to be involved in. And the Department should give leadership in this. But I do not think the Department of Education or the Government itself can solve these problems.

Now I would prefer also, I think Government should have to look at the Marsden plan, the Senate plan. Now I have not had a chance to explore it in great detail. I gather the Deputy Chair of the Committee here did meet with Senator Marsden. I could not meet with her that day although I know her, and I did have a short conversation with her. And some of my colleagues in Cabinet met with her. And think we have to look at this issue in the bigger context of what we are doing for the disadvantaged families in this country, single parent families, and children generally. But I was referring to the school.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. I understand the bigger concept. In terms of the schools, and identification of the problem, is the Minister doing anything to either study, which may be the word, or provide to a school board or a school the means of identifying the problem? To be able to say to a school board that in this classroom, in this school, there are x number of people who are hungry every day because we have done a study -

DR. WARREN: That is what is being done now.

MR. HARRIS: - we have carried this out and there is this number of people hungry every day, and we expect that in order to help the educational needs of these children something will have to be done about that specific problem in your school or in your school board. Is that being done right now?

DR. WARREN: That is being done right now, and it has been confirmed that we will have a report ready for Government in the early fall on the study of the needs. Now how it is to be solved, this is where I said that it has to be a shared responsibility, solving the problem. But identifying the problem and looking at mechanisms across the country of how it is done - I have myself looked at how other provinces are doing it. And maintaining the confidentiality and so on is a major challenge.

The Bishop Feild experiment has worked very successfully here, but there are a lot of models available across the country and this committee is looking at them, and I have looked at some of them. And early fall we hope to have something ready for Government on how this can be addressed. But I again say that it cannot be solved exclusively or entirely by Government. It must be a shared responsibility in solving the problem.

MR. HARRIS: I do not expect the Minister of Education to solve it all, but are you saying that you would be in a position by the fall, to be able to say to a school board or a school: look, we have identified that in your area, there is this size of a problem and something has to be done about that.

DR. WARREN: Yes. We probably would work with boards in identifying in their areas; there are twenty-nine school boards and they would have to assess it in their own community, but yes, this fall we will go beyond that I would hope and say: here are some of the approaches that may be used to help address this problem and here are some things that we, as a Government can do to help you. Am I right on that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes,

MR. HARRIS: So you are not doing it by board?

DR. WARREN: Could I refer (inaudible).

DR. TURPIN-DOWNEY: Okay, questionnaires have gone to every principal of every school and they are supposed to report back to an inter-departmental committee of Government; there are different departments represented on this committee plus community representatives and at this point we expect to have a final report. It is supposed to be ready for presentation for fall budget, but that is not absolutely definite at this point in time, but they hope to meet the fall deadline.

DR. WARREN: Thank you for raising this question because I do get fairly emotional about this issue..

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the Minister well knows, I have been lucky enough to have a school very close to me involved with this. Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Harris.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Just listening to the discussion - I have taken part in lots of discussions about these kinds of issues and I am always struck by the fact that the needs of women and children are often left to the charities and the volunteers. There is never a question about having a volunteer effort to run adult corrections in Justice or to run lottery licensing or to run many of our bureaucracies, but when it comes to serving the needs of battered women and children, the Transition Houses get only part funding from Government and they have to go out and hold community fund raising efforts to raise the balance just to meet their payrolls. I know it is not new, I am not making a political statement, but I am making a statement about our society and our values.

DR. WARREN: I know; I agree.

MS. VERGE: I have three questions: the first has to do with the Education Department's funding to school boards to employ teachers for mentally handicapped students; I am talking about teachers as opposed to student assistants.

One school district superintendent has told me that his district has been informed by the Department that the number of teacher salary units to be provided next year is only about half what it is now and this superintendent believes that the Department is cutting the number of what are called EMR and TMR to use education jargon, teaching units are going down right across the Province and I would like the Minister to set the records straight and explain what funding is built in to the Budget for employing teachers for mentally handicapped students next year, compared to this year.

DR. WARREN: The monies, to answer your last question first, whatever is needed will be provided, it is included in the salary budget of $425 million and if there is a need there, there is no cut in the amounts of money for these special needs students.

What has happened is that this past year we have - and I will ask Dr. Turpin-Downey back to add additional information - been assessing the needs and we are finding that some areas of the Province the need is greater than we had identified earlier; in other areas the need is less. We have a professional team, you will perhaps recall this, of people assessing and advising us on the needs of children and if the needs are there the Government will provide the extra units.

In some of the schools we found, for example, that some of the students have left the school system entirely, some have gone to other school districts so we have adjusted a number of special needs teachers on the basis of that fact. If the need is there and this team, a professional team of assessors, have been given no direction to cut, they have been given the direction to assess special needs and if the needs are there we will fund the extra units.

I would like for Dr. Turpin-Downey to add anything additional because this is a very specialized area that she knows well.

DR. TURPIN-DOWNEY: Actually, as part of the policy within the Special Education Division we are requiring documentation and boards were given a year and a half to submit the documentation. Unfortunately, some of them did not have the documentation submitted up to the end of April and automatically thought that because we required more documentation that they were automatically losing the units. That is not the case. If the documentation is submitted and the need is there then the unit will definitely be provided.

There are some misperceptions out there at the moment. We are waiting for further documentation. We have extended the deadline to the end of May and we have actually sent staff out to help them do the documentation.

MS. VERGE: I hope that clears up the situation.

DR. TURPIN-DOWNEY: Hopefully, we have sent out a memo as well.

MS. VERGE: What happens though when there is a difference of opinion between the Department and its assessment personnel on the one hand and the school board on the other. I can imagine a situation where a school board might say that it has ten seriously mentally handicapped students who need a low pupil- teacher ratio, who need these - I hate the acronym but it is probably still in use - TMR teachers, and the Department on the other hand may say that we think you only have eight students with that need. How are differences of opinion like that to be resolved?

DR. WARREN: Perhaps I can defer on that question as to what appeal mechanisms are there, so that people can appeal. I know that boards do appeal, schools do appeal. We feel that we have a very competent group of assessors in the special division that make decisions not based on the amount of monies because there is no cap on the amount of money for this group. I would hope that we could reach a consensus on these issues but in the case there is a difference of opinion after consultation perhaps Dr. Turpin-Downey could comment on how we resolve these conflicts.

DR. TURPIN-DOWNEY: Up to this point is has been an informal mechanism but when the new schools act is brought in there will be a formal mechanism put in place in a sense that there will be a formal appeals committee that can be set up by the Minister.

At the moment, we do it informally in that representatives of the Division within the Department and representatives from the school board and a person from the Department of Health and Social Services will sit as a committee and examine the situation. But for the most part that very seldom happens. We usually sit at the table with the board representative and our own staff and try to work it out among ourselves and for the most part we do not usually differ.

MS. VERGE: Thanks.

My other two questions are, first of all -

DR. WARREN: May I say that the numbers receiving regular special education services have gone up from 7,917 students in 1985 to 10,500 in 1990. It has gone up a little each year so we are, even though the enrolments are going down dramatically in this Province, as you are aware the enrolments have gone down from 162,000 in 1972 to 127,000 now, the number of special needs students being identified each year for special help has gone up every year.

MS. VERGE: Why is that? That is not one of the questions I had planned but it is an interesting point.

DR. WARREN: I would like to believe that teachers and parents now realize that there are more students with needs that are not visible. I think we started out years ago identifying students who had visible needs, physical handicaps and others and now we realize there are many learning disabilities, many of which will take special expertise to identify because they are not readily visible. So, I think we are helping more people to achieve the fullness of their potential; we have teachers who are more knowledgeable about gifted children and children who have special disadvantages for a variety of reasons. Let us pay a tribute to parents, parents are not sitting back and just leaving it to the school, they are rightfully demanding what is their right to their children's education.

MS. VERGE: You think the explanation lies in a better diagnosis.

DR. WARREN: Yes, a better diagnosis and greater demands by parents, more knowledge of learning needs and the fact that we are retaining many of our students. The retention rate has gone up dramatically, those students who had special problems and were prone to drop out, now are staying in school.

MS. VERGE: Okay, my two questions: I want to get my questions out fast because I am in danger of being cut off.

DR. WARREN: Yes and I am taking longer too.

MS. VERGE: One has to do with funding for substitute teachers. When I asked the Minister at our first session he said that the Government would provide funding to school boards for the same number of substitute teacher days next year as were funded this year. Of course, there were serious problems this year because it was not until part way into the budget year that the Department decreed to school boards that there was going to be a change from the past and a cut but, nevertheless, the same number of days next year as this year.

What about the rate of pay, will there be any change in the rate of pay for substitute teachers next year compared to what is being paid now?

DR. WARREN: With respect to your first question, we will be granting to boards this year the same level as last year less the number of teachers who left the system.

No, there will be no change in the rate of pay. This was an issue in the collective bargaining process. For the last three or four rounds of collective bargaining there had been proposals by the employer to pay a per diem, this has not been agreed to so the teachers will be paid on the regular scale as they were last year.

MS. VERGE: My final questions has to do with welders and the projected increase in demand on the part of employers including Hibernia related employers for welders with the fact that unions comprising welders say that there is now a shortage of qualified welders. Unions are accepting into their membership welders whereas they are refusing to take people with other trades and skills. The news from a delegation of women from the Province who just visited the North Sea area, was that in the North Sea area in Norway and Scotland there is a shortage of welders to meet the needs of the North Sea oil industry, why in the face of all that evidence is the Government cutting or eliminating the welding programme at the Fisher Institute in Corner Brook?

DR. WARREN: The welding needs of the Province have been relatively well assessed. We have a committee chaired by Mr. McCormack who could not be here tonight and with representatives from all the industries who are monitoring, and they have been for some time, the need for welders, and all the other personnel needed for Hibernia. We feel relatively confident that their figures are on and we are preparing people to meet the needs. Now, with respect to the Fisher Program what we have done over the last three years, and the former administration started it, was to identify five centres which would have the latest in welding technology. What we are going to do is focus the training on these five centres and provide funding.

MS. VERGE: Where are they?

DR. WARREN: Port aux Basques, Lewisporte, Placentia, Carbonear and Burin. We have centres all over the Province. We have put from $500,000 to $750,000 of the latest in welding technology in each of these centres so that the people will be ready for the new type of welding courses. We did not have the resources to offer the latest in welding technology at Cabot and Fisher. Do you want to add anything to that? Am I right on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

There very well may be a position for a welder in Clarenville after the weekend.

MS. VERGE: At Newfoundland Hardwoods.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At Newfoundland Hardwoods, yes.

DR. WARREN: Yes, that is right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can float a bond with that gentleman.

Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, it is 10.07 and the standard sitting hours are 7:00 to 10:00. I have no questions to ask so I would like to move adjournment at this particular time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a motion to adjourn. I do not want to stop the motion from being seconded but it would mean that we would have to bring the Minster and his staff back a third evening.

DR. WARREN: We would prefer to stay because I have a number of other things tomorrow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member might want to consider that?

MR. GOVER: I would not want to inconvenience the ministerial staff but I just noticed that it is the regular time and I brought it to the Chair's attention. Having heard the comments of the Chair, and the comments of the Minister, I withdraw the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Gover.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize if this was dealt with just a moment ago, but I was concerned about one of the consequences of the university budget and the loss of the diagnostic unit in the Department of Education which provided a very valuable service for learning disabilities, particular in reading and other areas. What has the Minister done to replace that service, or is it a loss to the system?

DR. WARREN: I would say the loss of any unit of that nature is a loss to the system somewhat, but I want to assure the Member that we now have in school board offices throughout the Province, a whole variety of expertise in assessment, and psychological testing. Psychiatric services are available. If you go to the school board offices in St. John's and throughout the Province there are available a whole range of assessment services that we hope will fill that gap. We never have enough. I would agree with the Member that the unit at Memorial served a very useful purpose, and I think increasingly we have made available, not only to the people of St. John's - because that unit served primarily the St. John's region - we are now making available throughout the Province similar services that will we hope fill that void. Secondly I would hope that in the next year when we get the Royal Commission report that that will further provide for all parts of Newfoundland the kind of diagnostic and shared services that we need. These specialized services are costly and I would like to see these kinds of services made available throughout the Province, not just in St. John's. This unit served basically the St. John's region.

And I am going to talk to, ask, if you want a brief comment again, am I right? Okay? Thank you. It has been confirmed that I was right in (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: While you were being confirmed that you were right the Member for Humber East indicated to me that she has had constituents that have made use of that service at (Inaudible) university.

DR. WARREN: Yes, some, some.

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps the Minister can advise what the caseload or the number of students who were served on an annual basis by the (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: I could get that for you, but they were a majority from the metropolitan St. John's region.

MR. HARRIS: I would expect so, yes.

DR. WARREN: Very much so. And I do not know the caseload. Perhaps Edna can provide a little more detail on this.

DR. TURPIN-DOWNEY: We can provide you with the annual report. The caseload was a little higher outside St. John's three or four years ago because we used to house these students at the School for the Deaf. We would bring them from the various parts of the Province but we have not been able to do that. And besides, we found it did not work. The kids were upset. Strange people testing them and the results were for the most part invalid. But we have provided educational psychologists to all of the school boards, we have provided educational therapists to the school boards. So really we feel that the children should be assessed as close to home as possible in their own school setting with the teacher involved.

So the numbers were definitely larger for St. John's, and the Roman Catholic School Board had the larger numbers. They definitely have the staff assigned to the Board to take care of those types of things.

MR. HARRIS: So is the Minister saying then that unit was redundant?

DR. WARREN: No, I would think - I do not want to be overly critical of the unit. I am just saying that many of the services provided by the unit we think should be made available throughout the Province closer to the student, closer to the teacher, and we hope that the elimination of that unit will not have a dramatic negative effect on students. I do not want to be critical. The unit served some very useful purposes. But we have tried to provide the service now through school board offices. Psychologists, therapists, educational specialists - we have all kinds of people. I can list the number of consultants we have at the central office. In fact I have received quite a bit of criticism as a Minister about the number of specialists we have. But we do have a large number of specialists available and they are moving in to provide the kinds of service that diagnostic units provided in the past.

MR. HARRIS: Another area, Mr. Minister, that you and I have discussed privately is the issue of school buildings around this Province, some of which are becoming less used, shall we say, as a result of declining enrolments and some of the consolidation of school operations through what the Minister likes to refer to as sharing. It is a nice, cooperative feely-touchy word. But it is taking place.

But one of the consequences of that is that we do have buildings - is the Minister going to let the school boards treat these as extra assets and sell them or get rid of them one way or the other? Or does the Minister have any ideas for making use of not only the surplus school buildings but also existing schools to make them more accessible to the community and more used by other parts of the community other than the educational system? And can he tell us whether he has more than ideas? I know he and I both have ideas, but he is the Minister and perhaps he must have plans. And can he tell us what they are?

DR. WARREN: Delighted to. When the Member asked this question he may recall my telling him that in the 1970s I received a grant from the then Minister of Education to go over to Norway and Sweden to study schools as community centres. Maybe the Vice-Chair was in Government then, but I received some money to go over to Europe and study the use of schools as community centres and I have done some research in Canada on that issue and I believe firmly that this must be the trend, especially in rural parts of this Province.

I do not think we can justify putting up a school to be opened five hours a day, six hours a day, five days a week, that is a 20/20 solution; twenty hours a week for 20 per cent of the population. As a Minister, I would like to have the resources, and we are doing some planning, to come up with a 100/100 solution, opening up the schools, especially in rural Newfoundland, full time, making them available to the public, serving 100 per cent of the population; for adult education, for recreation, for any kind of cultural activities and that is the direction we are going to go.

Now, as to what we have done; I guess it has been a difficult year, I have tried to promote it philosophically, I have tried to everywhere I have gone, even in Labrador over the weekend, last week when I visited with the hon. Member, we talked about the use of community schools and his schools are used in the evenings. I have tried to promote it.

But secondly, we asked the Royal Commission that is looking at the delivery of education to examine this issue and to report to Government, so within a year we will have a set of proposals I hope that would make it possible for us to adopt this as policy and to move forward.

I want to just add a caution. The schools are owned by the churches and by the school boards; in one or two cases the churches, the Episcopal corporations own the schools, it is their property. The school boards own the schools in the case of other denominational groups, so we would have to work with the churches to make these facilities available, and if a school is closed, then I would hope that this is one of the first functions, rather than selling the building or letting some industrial agency operate it, I would hope that we could put together the kind of policies that would see that building used for our community recreation and for cultural and all these activities that I mentioned.

I am very encouraged by this development in other parts of the country, I am encouraged by the willingness of Newfoundland people to look at it; I do not think we can build cultural centres, recreational centres in many parts of this Province, the school should be the centre, and if we need to expand the school with community use in mind, let us build a theatre adjacent to the school or build a gym to be used by everybody in the community.

I am enthusiastic about the whole concept and as a Government, as soon as we get that report, we will be hopefully adopting policies to promote it; in the meantime I am willing to meet with any group to talk about how we can move forward now, even in the interim of this issue.

MR. HARRIS: I thank the Minister, for the philosophical musings of academics of course are well appreciated and a great luxury. My question will be and will continue to be: where is the beef?

I know the Minister is going to wait for the Royal Commission, but I want to assure the Minister that I will be continuing to dog him on that issue and I know he will want this kind of (inaudible)-

DR. WARREN: You have a meeting with the parents. I invite you to invite me to a meeting with parents in your community and I will meet with them and explore ways of doing it now.

MR. HARRIS: I will, I will. Right on.

DR. WARREN: Okay, I challenge you to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris; thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. Is not the Royal Commission just a big stalling tactic? The deadline has been put back now to March of next year, that will be three years into the `real change' administration's mandate. By the time the report is sat on, looked at by the Cabinet, and finally released to the public we will be into the election campaign. So I suggest to the Minister that it is a perfect ploy to avoid suggesting new policies until the next election campaign.

DR. WARREN: I could go back to the former administration but I am not going to do that.

MS. VERGE: Well, we did not have a Royal Commission.

DR. WARREN: And talk about things that were not done. But I can assure the Member that we are moving forward. There are three possible replies to that question. It is a good question. One is that we are not waiting for the Commission to change things. There are many things happening in Newfoundland education, and if you want me to list all the things we are working on this year I could spend some time doing that. So we are not waiting until the Royal Commission report comes before promoting sharing, change, curriculum development, all of these things. Number one.

Number two: maybe the former administration did sit on reports for long periods of time. I am hoping that we will not do that. I would hope that we will get the report and move forward at the earliest possible date to implement what the Government believes are important or desirable directions

Number three: the Commission asked for the extra time and we had all kinds of requests that a year was too short. Now I had some experience with a commission of enquiry and the hon. Member was the Minister when the Department of Health set up a Royal Commission on Health. And one year was too short a period of time. Everybody concluded that. The Commission came back to the Department and asked them for an extension, and we found some additional funding for them. They are still going to be pressed to complete the studies they want to do by next March but it is our hope that they will.

So it was I feel a legitimate request by the Commission, and the public, asking for a little more time. They have received a thousand briefs. I am very pleased with how that Commission has evolved. I think it has initiated debate on education that was needed, and the reaction I am getting is that it is a very useful exercise as we approach the twenty-first century, as we enter the 'nineties, to have a good look at education. So I am very encouraged by what I hear coming from the Commission, and I am optimistic that they will suggest directions that the Government can adopt to take it into the twenty-first century in education. I think it is a good exercise.

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask the Minister for his reaction to yesterday's Federal Throne Speech announcing the intention of the Mulroney Government to set national goals for education. To set aims for educational achievement across Canada by the end of the 1990s. Does the Minister agree with this thrust by the Federal Government? And what positive outfall does he envisage for our Province?

DR. WARREN: Chairperson, I am somewhat encouraged. I think I said last time that I saw Mr. Mulroney's speech, his first speech on education, a year or so ago, and he had been down in the United States the previous week or so and he had met with President Bush. I saw in Mr. Mulroney's statement a reflection of what Bush said in the United States to the Governors in the western United States.

Bush is known as an education President. And I think Mr. Mulroney and his Government realize that if we are going to compete internationally that we must have a first class educational system. You cannot have a first class economy without a first class work force, and you cannot have a first class work force without a first class educational system. I believe that and I believe the Federal Government has come around to that. Now how it is being done

is another question. We have this autonomy, this provincial control of education and the Federal Government is going to be very cautious about intervening with respect to Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta. Perhaps they are less concerned about the have-not provinces because we need the money so badly that we take it under their conditions. I think the Federal Government is going to be very cautious but I am encouraged by their willingness to put education as a national priority. When it comes to standards the council Ministers are working on a program of trying to establish standards in the country, trying to assess how well we are doing. I have some real concerns about that program. I hope it is going to be used in a positive way to help provinces who have deficiencies, rectify them. The council Ministers are working on a national testing program which will, hopefully, help us assess our needs in math, science, and communication, and address them. Ontario has just pulled out. I was disappointed at Ontario. I think I can say as a Minister that I was disappointed that the new Minister in Ontario decided to, at least withdraw, suspend.

MS. VERGE: From the CMEC?

DR. WARREN: No, from this project. She withdrew. Ontario supported her at the last meeting, so I think the project is somewhat threatened.

MS. VERGE: Why did Ontario withdraw its support?

DR. WARREN: I think she had some genuine philosophical problems with this kind of national study. I will give her that benefit of the doubt. I think also she is reflecting, perhaps, the political situation in Ontario where the teachers have a fair amount of concern and have expressed it to the new Government, so when the new Government took over I think they were reflecting a political situation in Ontario with respect to the support the NDP got from teacher organizations. I might say the teacher organizations are concerned, as I am, about national standards and national testing. I want to be very cautious with those national indicators so we are moving forward cautiously. I, as a Minister, support however, some kind of national studies. Certainly we want the Federal Government to continue to fund education. You cannot quarantine ignorance in this country. The Federal Government is there and in the Constitution there is this Clause 36 which addresses the quality needs of this country and I would like to see the Federal Government put more money in. I think we are going to have some concerns expressed if provinces like Alberta do not have control over the spending. We need the money so badly, as you know, that we sometimes take the money with some controls attached rather than not have the federal money for Education, Health, and other services.

By the way as a bit of political advertising, we just did an indicator study, built on others that have been done for this Province, and we are encouraged by some of the things that are happening in the Province. This is the kind of thing that could have been done for the whole country if we got support from most of the provinces.

MS. VERGE: I would like to commend the Minister and his Department staff for that publication. Of course, it represents the results of many years of efforts on the part of parents, teachers, administrators, as well as the Department of Education, but I think it does show some encouraging trends in Education.

DR. WARREN: I think we need these nationally if we are going to compete as a country. I think we need to assess ourselves as we are competing with all kinds of other countries where math and science are the thing, and I think we have to look at that.

MS. VERGE: We have now the Canadian test of basic skills which tests as it suggests the basic math and reading and writing skills and I understand that is administered to students across Canada in Grades IV and VIII, is that right?

DR. WARREN: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Now, how would the possible new national tests that are being considered by the CMEC or that might be looked at by the Federal Government vary from the present Canadian test of basic skills?

DR. WARREN: I think the tests will be on numeracy and literacy and they will be designed especially for this; I think perhaps, it is higher, thirteen/sixteen years old I am told, so it is an especially designed test.

Quebec, by the way, I am pleased to say that Quebec has played a major role in this, giving leadership in this project, Quebec and Alberta are the two lead provinces and I must pay tribute to our officials. We have two or three people in our curriculum division who have given leadership as well in the design of these tests, but they are being specifically designed for these age groups and they are different.

MS. VERGE: The tests that we have now are given to Grade IV which would be about nine years old and Grade VIII which would be about thirteen.

DR. WARREN: Yes in the Province, but I do not think they are given all across the country; I am not sure they are given all across the country at any one grade level, and grades differ in the country, so that I think the CMEC is going to go with ages rather than grades.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister; thank you, Ms. Verge. I would like to welcome at this time, the Member for Stephenville, Mr. Aylward, and I am sure that Mr. Harris has a couple of other quick questions and then I want to move on to Mr. Gover.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to also ask the Minister about the Federal goals that were announced in the Budget Speech last night.

I find these particular projections or goals, standard setting by the Tory Government in Ottawa to be quite ironical in view of their position on transfer payments, established programme financing and that sort of thing, and it seems to be that we are going to be in the same boat as in Medicare, that the Federal Government is going to claim to such standards and goals and then is going to kick the provinces or supposedly try and kick the provinces into meeting them.

I do not find much encouragement in that and we may be into a Government by public relations, and the Minister used the term the Education Precedent, Government by cliche from Ottawa or from Washington, whatever; and I wonder if the Minister can see whether he has from the Ministerial meetings, from discussions with Ottawa, whether the Minister sees any change in the Federal Government's attitude towards the funding and support for Provinces like Newfoundland.

We are going to have much more difficulty than anybody else, whether we have national standards or whether you have some emphasis on education, how is Newfoundland going to participate and be able to keep up with any standards that might be set, unless the Federal Government changes its attitudes or, does the Minister know something I do not, has the Federal Government changed its attitude or is it still the same?

DR. WARREN: At the present time, that is the most disconcerting part of this whole exercise. Unless additional monies are made available, we are not going to be able to reach these goals.

Goal setting is important, but if you at the same time do not provide some additional resources, then it becomes a public relations exercise. I would agree with the Member on that. At the present time I do not see much evidence of a change of attitude or any additional funding.

But what I have sensed among Federal politicians is a concern about education in this country. I see at the national level the Federal Government's concern about youth programmes. And they put money through various mechanisms - through CEIC and various Federal-Provincial youth strategies and so on. They are beginning to put more money into these kinds of programmes. Often we do not have control of them. And we just take the money, we make application in many cases, and in some cases we sit down with the Federal Government and decide jointly on what projects will be funded.

But I do sense a concern by Federal public servants and Federal politicians about education in this country. And I think that is good. I would hope that it does not mean reallocating money from Health or other service programmes. Hopefully, perhaps politically, it might be a useful exercise for the Federal Government to allocate more funds as the economy improves to education, be it technical education, literacy. They are talking about literacy. I think we should set as a goal for the year 2,000 to approach literacy, perhaps 100 per cent literacy is a lot to expect, but that is the kind of goal I think provinces should set. And perhaps the Federal Government will do it. And participation: We have made tremendous strides in this Province in the last five years in stay in school programmes. The Federal Government has helped with its funding. Hopefully they will provide more monies for these stay in school projects.

So I am not totally discouraged. At the present time, yes. They are talking publicly about additional programmes but there is no additional money. In fact, EPF funding we have lost - if the rate of growth had continued for the last three or four years we would have gotten perhaps $70 million or $80 million for this Province. But I am optimistic that in the future education is going to be seen as a key to the future of this country. And we need technology, science, we need math and science in our schools. We need literacy if we are going to compete as a nation. So I am not as pessimistic as the Member about the present Government's desire to help in these areas. Perhaps there will be a change of Government, of course, and then we may have other Parties that would be even more enthusiastic than the present Prime Minister about education.

MR. HARRIS: We live in hope.

DR. WARREN: We can work together on that, can we?

MR. GOVER: The NDP certainly (Inaudible) a hope.

MR. HARRIS: The country lives in hope for a government other than this one we have in Canada.

MR. GOVER: They still speak for 17 per cent of the populace. Falling daily, though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move all the subheads from 1.1.01 to 3.5.02, inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.5.02, carried.

On motion, Department of Education, total heads, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, thank you. I am glad you do not have to come back.

The meeting now stands adjourned.