Pursuant to Standing Order 87 Roger Fitzgerald, M.H.A., Bonavista South, replaces Harvey Hodder, M.H.A., Waterford-Kenmount; and William Ramsay, M.H.A., LaPoile replaces Percy Barrett, M.H.A., Bellevue.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (Oldford): Order, please!

We will get the meeting under way. Welcome, everyone, to the Social Services Estimates Committee. I am Doug Oldford, the Member for Trinity North and the Chair of the committee. We will start off by introducing the committee members, starting with the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, MHA for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. FITZGERALD: Roger Fitzgerald, MHA for Bonavista South, replacing Harvey Hodder.

MS. COWAN: Patricia Cowan, MHA for Conception Bay South.

MR. RAMSAY: Bill Ramsay, MHA for LaPoile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I welcome the minister and her officials. Minister, the rules we have set for our committee meetings are that you will be allowed ten minutes for an opening statement and the introduction of your officials. After that we will begin the questioning with the Vice-Chair, the Member for Bonavista South. If your officials are going to be answering some of the questions on the Estimates, I ask that they identify themselves each time they speak because we are being recorded by Hansard. These are the basic rules. Having said that, I ask you to proceed with your statement and the introduction of your officials.

Thank you.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to introduce my administrative staff. Mr. Bruce Peckford is the deputy minister. Then we have Mr. George Skinner; he is the Director of Program and Planning Development. Mr. Noel Brown is Assistant Deputy Minister, Client Services. Directly behind me, we have Mr. David Roberts, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and Support Services. As well, we have our Director of Finance, Mr. Jim Strong.

I would just like to say how pleased I am that my officials could accompany me this evening. I guess I should say they have been working very hard trying to groom me for the position way back in August when I was elected. My first reaction to this department when I was appointed minister was, `Oh, my gosh; what have I ever done to deserve that department?' However, I guess that is a reaction of a lot of people, but now that I have gotten into my duties as minister, I am extremely pleased with all the fine work that goes on in this department. It is quite different from anything I had ever anticipated.

This department touches so many lives, what can I say about it? I am sure a lot of it will come out this evening when you ask us questions, so I will leave it open now for questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we get into questions, I want to welcome Mr. Nick Careen, the Member for Placentia.

We will begin the questioning with Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, just to continue with the line of questioning that I started in the House today, there are very serious questions and I know that there is a great need out there and a grave concern with what is going to happen because now something has changed, and sometimes when a change takes place it is not always a positive change.

In the past, and correct me if I am wrong, it has been the procedure of the Department of Social Services if not to pay hydro bills, at least to help, and I know that several times hydro bills have been paid when people have fallen behind, have gotten into arrears, and deductions have been made from social service recipients' regular payments.

I am after having several calls from my own district, and the Member for Burin - Placentia West brought forward a case, I think, which touched everybody here the other day in the House and received front-line coverage in one of the newspapers as well, so it is a case that just about everybody knows about. I am wondering if your department is considering taking another look at the decision you have made in not paying hydro bills, and possibly bring it about over a period of time rather than say, as of today we are not responsible for those bills anymore.

MS. YOUNG: No, we have come to no decision to do that. The decision was made because we were asked to cut our Budget due to the financial requirements at the federal level. We looked at all of our options and we could have cut back, I guess, on the basic rate right across the board, however that might have caused severe hardships for some of the families out there, and that was certainly something we did not want to do.

We looked very carefully at what we could possibly do and we realized that we were paying arrears for some of our clients, and some of them, I guess, year after year, the same clients, were showing up in arrears; however, if they ran up expenses in other areas we were paying that. We issue an amount of money for basic rates. We provide money for housing and a number of things. The money was never meant to provide a life of luxury, it was for basic needs.

It was interesting when we looked over our statistics that in some district offices there has not been one cent paid out in arrears. In some district office it is $5,000 or less, and indeed some were paying out $100,000, so I guess that tells us something as well. Again, is it really the responsibility of the Department of Social Services to pay arrears for people? Is there not an agreement that can be worked out with Newfoundland Light and Power? After all, it is to them the money is owed.

I might also point out, too, that if we gave a period of time whereby people could adjust to this, what you could have is a lot of people coming forward asking Newfoundland Light and Power to cut their electricity, and that did happen on the 24th, people went up and asked to be cut so they could come in under the wire. Then there are a lot of people who never, ever fell into arrears, and what does that say to these people? We will pay off arrears for some people but you have managed within your Budget so you have no rewards.

MR. FITZGERALD: I thought you could have been a little more lenient in probably bringing about a time frame and letting people know it wasn't going to happen anymore, and I know you are 100 per cent right - sometimes: If I can get $600 should I pay it myself? I thought you could have been a little bit more lenient rather than having the Budget brought down one day, then say the next week, this option is not available to you anymore.

There have been some people out there who have been in arrears through no fault of their own, but through some very difficult situations, so I ask this question for a very simple answer. Are you saying there are no more hydro bills being paid, or are you saying that maybe we will look at an individual case and if circumstances warrant, we will consider it?

MS. YOUNG: It is interesting you say that if people had more time they could adjust to this. Well, if indeed they could adjust to it over a short period of time, how come they were in arrears then? I sort of question your question.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, in some cases, like in running your own home, you find that things get much more difficult in the wintertime than they are in the summertime. Some people have electric heat bills, and as you know, your light bill, your heat bill, or your hydro bill, in January is much greater than it is in June or July, and that is the reason why I say to you, if you could give them an option saying, this is going to happen and it is going to happen at such a time, then maybe you would be able to take the amount of money they are in arrears now over their regular payments in the summer months and say: `this is it', and that way they would know that they would have to be responsible. There are a lot of people who are going to fall into very difficult times because of this decision, and I am not saying it is wrong, what I am saying is they should be given a little more time probably, since it was there.

MS. YOUNG: Would you like them answered?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MS. YOUNG: Again, what I should like to point out as well is that there are three parties involved here. There is a client who receives a basic amount of money, plus winter allowance, plus you know, rent, mortgage, whatever and all of the other benefits. Then there is Department of Social Services which provides the funding and then there is Newfoundland Light and Power, so I mean, I don't think the whole emphasis should be on the Department of Social Services. Again, if it is a matter of a light bill being to the extreme like you are saying over $300, maybe -

MR. FITZGERALD: Over $600 actually.

MS. YOUNG: Pardon?

MR. FITZGERALD: The one to which I am referring is well over $600.

MS. YOUNG: A month?

MR. FITZGERALD: In arrears.

MS. YOUNG: No, no. I am thinking about a month. If you are looking at a heat bill being that high, I think there might be something wrong with the housing, so you know, there are more players than just social services involved here.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but Madam Minister, I can assure you that a $300-hydro bill is not a high bill, not a high bill at all.

MS. YOUNG: It depends on where you are living.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, wherever you are living in Newfoundland, it is not a high bill. I can assure you of that. Well anyway, thank you.

Madam Minister, have you had many complaints regarding people staying at the Naomi Centre here in St. John's?

MS. YOUNG: Complaints on what?

MR. FITZGERALD: Complaints about people going there and falling into trouble by not getting the proper supervision that they require while they are there?

MS. YOUNG: No, I have to admit, I have not heard any complaints there. I mean, they haven't come to me personally, I don't know if my staff could answer that.

MR. PECKFORD: We have had one complaint recently, that is the only one I am aware of.

MR. FITZGERALD: I think, Mr. Peckford, you are probably aware of the complaint that I am referring to. Does it bother you or, is your department planning to look into what is exactly going on there, to see that such events don't happen again? I think this particular situation is, not the fault of the Naomi Centre but probably the fault of society, for not providing a suitable place for a girl sixteen years old to go when she has nowhere else to find shelter or refuge.

MR. PECKFORD: At the present time we are aware of the one as in the case I indicated and we have heard from the complainant and we are looking into the other side of it right now. I haven't heard the other side of the story as yet, we are looking into that side now.

MR. FITZGERALD: So it is fair to say that you are going to check out the complaints that have been made and if there is a need to make changes or to do things differently, that you will?

MR. PECKFORD: That's correct. We have an ongoing dialogue and relationship with Naomi House and all other agencies which we fund. In fact, this past year, we created a position within the department to provide more continuous dialogue and liaison with the agencies which we fund, so we would hope that through having a specific person associated with this now, that will improve our communications with these organizations.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Minister, may I ask what the caseloads of your department are, as of today?

MS. YOUNG: I can't give them to you as of today but I can give you the last official information I have to the end of February. It's 35,472. I might be a few numbers out there but it is very close.

MR. FITZGERALD: So it would be fair to say that there are about 75,000 people who are availing of the services of the Department of Social Services?

MS. YOUNG: No, actually, it is less than 72,000.

MR. FITZGERALD: Less than 72,000?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Your budget has been cut by $10 million this year. What is your projection that the number of people, considering the state of the economy, are coming into your department and being considered in that case?

MS. YOUNG: It is very difficult to tell. As you are well aware, we never know what circumstances we are going to be hit with. One of the things we were concerned about was the number of people who might be coming over to us from TAGS because there is an estimation of about 1,000 and to the end of February I think it was about 460 who had actually come over. We are looking at probably a 5 per cent increase and as I said, it is very difficult to give you an exact figure.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Home Care program - and this is probably the wrong place to ask the question - the Home Care program is now taken from the Department of Social Services and put with the Department of Health. Am I correct in saying that there was $20 million transferred from your department to the Department of Health and that same program cost you $27 million last year?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, there has been a cut-back.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so that $7 million then is still in your department?

MS. YOUNG: No, actually about $2 million. The other part was cut, there was a cut in the budget.

MR. FITZGERALD: The youth centre out at Whitbourne, the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre - are there any problems there now, considering the problems that were there in the past? Does everything seem to be going okay?

MS. YOUNG: Well, of course, like in any facility such as that, there may be minor incidents but there has not been one of the magnitude of the incident to which you are referring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. We will go now to Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: I would like to ask a couple of questions - pursue a topic that Roger did earlier on the Newfoundland Power situation. Can you tell me how much the department paid out last year, in approximate dollars, to pay the built-up light bills? Do you have any idea?

MS. YOUNG: We are looking at a saving there of about $2.2 million. What was happening was that we were paying and trying to recover it again but it was always very difficult to do that because if people went off social services it is very difficult to recover that amount if they moved out of the Province and so on. So that is what we are hoping we will save there.

MR. LANGDON: Again, I guess a technical question that somebody from the department might be able to answer - how many households do you have for social services and how many of these total households do you have problems with percentage-wise, five, six, ten, twenty or less than that, any idea?

MR. PECKFORD: I wouldn't have that kind of data.

MS. YOUNG: Excuse me, you mean trouble paying their bills?

MR. LANGDON: Yes, of the total number of households you have on social services how many - what percentage of the total number would have trouble paying their bill?

MR. PECKFORD: I wouldn't know.

MR. LANGDON: Would any of the officials know?

MR. PECKFORD: No, I wouldn't have - I would be afraid to guess.

MR. LANGDON: Does anyone else have any ideas here?

MR. PECKFORD: No, sorry.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, so you might be able to get that and share it with us sometime, the minister might. The other thing, has the department - and probably it is not the department's responsibility, I guess, as the individual household - how many of these people that you have on social services, households, how many of them have a budget plan with Newfoundland Power? I guess you wouldn't have that either because, I mean, that is a technical question outside of your jurisdiction.

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. PECKFORD: No, we don't monitor the individual activity of clients in that way with respect to their relationship with Newfoundland Power, nor in other ways - oil companies or other people they do business with. We tend to expect them to be able to manage. We don't intervene in their lives to the extent that we have that kind of data.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. I will leave that for now and I will come back to some others later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's carry on just for a second regarding what the other two members were saying previously. Minister, not everybody is (inaudible). Same as on this side here during the daytime and on the other side over there. You see people from all walks of life, that some are better managers than others. Those who deliberately try to screw the system eventually will do the job on themselves, but those who are poor managers probably should be given a hand. That is a different sort of human being. Only from my wife - I mean, myself and the queen part company pretty quickly, and she is a better manager than I will ever be. You have clients who fall in that sort of category and for my opinion, for what it is worth, they always should be looked at a little bit differently - my two cents worth.

I have a couple of small questions here, nothing big. Next year they are talking about changes, feds, social services, and the next year. What plans, precautions, negotiations have started with the feds to ease some of the impact of what we are supposed to believe is going to be happening over the next two years?

MS. YOUNG: I guess we are not even sure of the amount we will be asked to cut our budget by next year. However, it is an ongoing process with us. We are looking at ways of course of making ourselves more efficient within the department itself. We are looking at ways where we can deliver in a more efficient manner and probably save money that way.

With regard to what are we doing with the Federal Government, our Minister of Finance and Treasury Board - I guess you've heard him in the House - has always started his plan of action with the Federal Government. Because we find ourselves in an unique situation here in Newfoundland with the downturn in the fishery and all the other factors. There is a lot of seasonal employment here. We are quite different from some of the other provinces and we are treated as equals with them. So that is a matter that our Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is addressing with the Federal Government, and I remain optimistic.

MR. CAREEN: Page 190 - 3.1.01 - Residential Services: On behalf of children who reside in foster homes, special foster homes, special living arrangements...," et cetera, we see that there is a bump up in Allowances and Assistance. I know you are new to the department, but with regard to the higher unemployment rate that this Province has seen over this past couple of years and it seems like they are escalating, are we seeing more dysfunctional families?

MS. YOUNG: I don't know if there are more or there are more coming to light with us. There are certain factors that influence anything that happens with regard to families but we have seen an increase in the number of children who are going to foster homes and we are also seeing the special supports that they need as well because some of them are not necessarily younger children. Some of these are older children with problems. They are adolescents and teenagers who are going to foster care.

MR. CAREEN: Yes because some of us old hands here like myself - the things they get in trouble for today we were only considered idle boys at that time, some thirty or forty years ago.

MS. YOUNG: I cannot believe you were ever in trouble.

MR. CAREEN: On page 288, 1.2.02, Administrative Support, there is a small increase in salaries and a big increase in purchased services. Could you explain this, Minister, please?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, with purchase services, that is office leases. Some of our leases have run out and that is where we will see an increase there. With regard to salaries, there is an increase for this year. That would be due to more people coming on or more people moving up a step within their salary range. I don't know if any of the officials would like to comment further on that.

MR. CAREEN: The community correctional services, 3.2.02, page 291, the Alternate Measures Program. This seems to be a good program. Just a short while ago there was one approved out in Placentia. As I said there a while ago, our crowd were just considered idle youth, now authorities seem to take a dimmer view of it. Like Father Flanigan said: there is no such thing as a bad boy. How is it going across the Province?

MS. YOUNG: It is going like wildfire. I mean there are a lot of people out there who are very, very pleased to get involved with it. I think currently we have about twenty boards. It is a wonderful program whereby young kids don't end up with a record and they do a lot of community work. It is well received by the general public and many people are volunteering to be part of it. We also have approved in our budget salaries for an additional twelve social workers to help with this program.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Oh, I am sorry, I was thinking about the alternative to custody but the alternative measures, these are going very well.

MR. CAREEN: How many boards are there -

MS. YOUNG: Twenty.

MR. CAREEN: So that's twenty. So do they cover most regions of the Province or all regions of the Province now?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, and into Labrador as well.

MR. CAREEN: Then that is good. There is a lot of peer pressure on young people today. I have known girls who got caught shoplifting with shades of mascara and shades of lipstick that they could not use. I heard of boys stealing shirts that were way too big for them - peer pressure - and it happens. I used to be dared to steal plums and I was never caught.

MR. HARRIS: Not now.

MR. CAREEN: I don't mind lawyers.

I think it is a very good project, and besides being spread out do you see much of a change? When did it first start? When was the first pilot project?

MS. YOUNG: That one goes back to which date?

MR. PECKFORD: I am not quite sure when the first alternative measures board began. I suspect it was at the beginning when the Young Offenders Act came in, in the mid-eighties. It is provided for under the Young Offenders Act. I have been with the department now four years and I think there were around ten to twelve boards when I came, and it has gone up since then.

The district offices in the areas, the social workers assigned to the youth corrections program are usually the ones who test community interest and so forth and as a result bring about the formation of the boards. The boards are supported by the social workers in the district offices, and referrals are made through that source - you are probably aware of that - but it is a very successful program. I think we are probably up to - the last, I thought, I saw around 4,000 referrals to these boards in the run of a year. The St. John's board is by far the largest one but they exist, as the minister said, in Labrador and pretty well all across the Island.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Cowan.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much.

I feel more like giving speeches than asking questions because there are a couple of things that I want to say, and one is that it makes me mad when I hear the Social Services Department sort of being downgraded, and the minister kind of referred to that in the beginning when she said: My goodness, what have I done to deserve to be Minister of Social Services?

To me, you are one of the most important departments in the Province. We simply could not exist without you, and I think that the level of people - and first of all I learned this just through working through the Kelligrews office, but then I learned it when I started to meet with some of you people in context of the Chairperson of the Children's Interest Committee - the level of commitment is tremendous in the Social Services Department. It is unfortunate that the only times we ever hear anything is when some sort of little scandalous thing breaks out, because we all know what horrendous caseloads the social workers have, and yet they always seem to have time to try to help you out when you call up with some individual person. I think I would really like to comment on that. Of course we need more social workers, but you know that as well as I do so I will not ask you anything about that, but I think that you are the right person to be there at the moment Madam Minister, and your approach is an excellent one.

I also want to comment, having been a minister I immediately know where to look under all the Estimates to see what this year the minister has been able to maintain, because I know what the fighting points are in every department, so of course I quickly ran to transition houses, and I think those transition houses have really become part and parcel of our thinking. I want to say, because there is no other opportunity really to talk to you, Minister, as minister responsible for the status of women, I am pleased about the transition houses and I am extremely pleased that you were able to keep in place all the other services in other departments - we have a paltry few but they have all been maintained - that serve women because they are all so closely tied to social services.

When we were travelling across Canada talking about issues related to children, every place we went people said if we could solve the problem of poverty amongst single mothers, we would have solved the majority of problems in society; unfortunately, although we say that on one level, we are still not doing it, but anyway, that was just a bit of a speech which, I probably should not give but anyway I did.

Tell me a bit about the Brighter Futures Program, would you? No, the Right Future, I am getting it mixed up with the other one. Just what is that program, how is it working out and so on?

MS. YOUNG: Again, thank you very much.

This is a program that is just working out wonderfully well in this Province. It is a pilot project, it is funded by the federal government and it has a life of five years and there is a million dollars allocated to the program over a five-year period.

WITNESS: Ten million.

MS. YOUNG: Ten million, I am sorry.

MS. COWAN: Is the Brighter Futures part of this with the children?

MS. YOUNG: Yes. This is the Right Future Program and to date we have two units closed out at the Waterford Hospital and these people have gone out into the community. They live in a normal house and they have support staff with them; what's happening is that as they integrate - some of these people have been at the Waterford for many, many years and as they go out into the community, there could be, you know, six or more people working with one individual.

MS. COWAN: It could be a real culture shock.

MS. YOUNG: Absolutely, and I was just talking to a family the other day who had taken the wife's brother out of the Waterford and had him into a home environment, and they said they couldn't get over the improvement in him. I mean, his life has dramatically turned around and he is just doing wonderfully well, and it is good too, because these people go back into their communities all over the Island and along with improving their lives, it is also money that is going back into rural Newfoundland.

I was approached by somebody out in my district one day and they were questioning me, last year, in the Budget Estimates, or the year before, as to why we are spending all of this money, you know, on one individual, because you know, there is a lot of money being spent, and I explained to her how important this program was. Prior to that she said: well, why don't you have about six people out; you have six workers there, why don't you take six people out, and I said: but that will be defeating the purpose. You know, you are trying to integrate these people back into, I guess what we consider a normal way of life, and it takes a considerable amount of time for the adjustment; but as these people move back, the amount of support will dwindle off -

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MS. YOUNG: - and hopefully, they will be down to probably just one support person and the ultimate goal would be to be able to function independently.

MS. COWAN: So these are people who are just from the Waterford or are they people who are perhaps - I don't know what the word would be - potential residents of the Waterford, or are we just dealing with people who are there now?

MS. YOUNG: We are just dealing with the Waterford. To date we have about forty-one people out and we are looking to take out about thirty more this year, so hopefully, at the end of next year we might have all of the residents out, and we would have four units completely shut down at the Waterford, so it is a program that is federally funded but we administer the program.

MS. COWAN: Okay, and you have the funding you say, for five years?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, $10 million.

MS. COWAN: Okay; so it looks like you will have all the people out within the five-year period?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, that is the objective and we will meet that objective.

MS. COWAN: Tell me again now, you will have them all out by that time and are you anticipating that most of the support services that they need will have dwindled somewhat by that stage as well?

MS. YOUNG: Hopefully!

MS. COWAN: I just think that there is always this problem, these wonderful federal programs and then we are kind of left holding the bag.

MR. PECKFORD: Perhaps I could just mention who the population is. The population that are coming from the Waterford hospital are not mentally ill, they were never placed in the Waterford hospital because they are mentally ill or ever were mentally ill. These people are developmentally delayed so this is a population for which hospitalization was the only option at the time that they went there. Community supports to enable them to function in their normal families, who are not available.

PAT COWAN: So we hope that is a population in the Waterford we will never see again.

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct. Now the younger group in that population years ago lived at Exon house and children's home and these two facilities were closed by the department as you are aware years ago. So the department has been in a process of de-institutionalization, de-institutionalizing individuals with developmental delays. The Waterford hospital is the last population which is institutionalized right now. So these individuals are moving back to sometimes their own families, sometimes mostly their own communities anyway, with the required supports to function daily. We would anticipate that some of them will over time require less support than they will need initially.

However, our knowledge of the population would indicate that there will be quite a few of them who will still need, and perhaps forever, a certain level of support. The funding from the federal government is meant to bridge the fact that during the time that these people are coming out of the hospital the government of the province will be supporting two facilities, the Waterford because it will not be closed and the community. So the funding that the federal government is giving us is in lieu of the fact that we will be for the five year period operating a dual system. Then the financial supports that they will require after that will be part of the social assistance program as they always were.

MS. COWAN: Are any of these individuals involved in many of your other programs? Like are any of them so severely delayed that they are not able to become involved in some of your pre-employment programs or that type of thing? Would most of them need 24 hour a day attention?

MR. PECKFORD: There is a full range of disability. Some people perhaps will be able to work, yes. Some already work at the Waterford there now and for others the nature of their disability is such that it is not expected they would be able to work.

MS. COWAN: I commend you on your involvement with that, that is great.

MR. PECKFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you Ms. Cowan. Now we go to Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Minister I indicated to you earlier that probably the first question I was going to ask you was why your executive assistant was paid more than you and I looked in the Departmental Salary Details and Estimates and found out that your executive assistant in fact is paid more than you - according to page 185 of the Department Salary Details the ministers' salary is $39,800 and the executive assistant's salary is $45,900. I'm not sure what that tells us about how government operates but -

MS. YOUNG: He is worth more than me.

MR. HARRIS: Last night they had difficulty explaining why that was. I was told at the end of the Estimates Committee that the Minister of Environment's executive assistant, even though the Estimates showed the salary of $47,000, was actually only getting $40,000. I'm assuming that in this case that is correct. How is that determined, normally? I know the ministerial salary is the same for all ministers. Is there a scale for executive assistants?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Depending on your number of years of service and -

MS. YOUNG: Yes there is.

MR. HARRIS: - step increases. That is where that comes from?

MS. YOUNG: That is correct.

MR. HARRIS: I didn't mean to be facetious about that, but just to follow up on my earlier comment. In the case of the minister last night there was a new minister and a new EA. The amount of the salary seemed out of proportion to that, but I understand that in your situation the executive assistant has been there for some time and is in a different place on the scale.

I would like to get on to something that I've raised with you, minister, privately and by letter, and I've had occasion to talk to some constituents about, and that is the method by which individuals who are in receipt of or who are supposed to be in receipt of income from sources other than social assistance, in the form of maintenance orders that are ordered by the court, that are lodged or filed at the support enforcement agency, and the very difficult problem. I know the minister in her letter indicates that this may be 2 per cent of the cases. It may be 2 per cent of the cases on a monthly basis but the individual who I've talked to seemed to have the problem on an ongoing basis.

That is the situation whereby if an individual is for example supposed to receive $200 a month from a spouse, in the form of spouse or child support that is to be paid through the support enforcement agency, that if that money comes when it is supposed to, well and good. If it doesn't it is a hardship. In our economy - and I frankly don't accept the minister's figures of 1 per cent or 2 per cent - it just seems to me to be totally inconsistent with what I hear and the anecdotal information that you hear around, and the knowledge about the uncertainty in the economy. Nevertheless, even if it were that low, this money does not come by clockwork. If the person is working and working steady and if there is a garnishee order in and the money actually goes and flows and the bureaucracy works well, the person may get a cheque.

I spoke to a woman today at great length because she had called me and written me on this issue, and I sent her a copy of the letter I sent to you and your reply. We talked about it today at length. Just to put some flesh and blood if you will onto it, this is a woman who lives with her fourteen-year old son.

She receives a cheque on the 15th of the month for $380.00 of which she has to put $250 aside for her rent, so she has $130.00 left over from that cheque; she is supposed to get an amount from her spouse for child support of $150.00 and last month that cheque didn't come. It was supposed to come on the 15th of the month, it didn't come on the 15th of the month, in fact it didn't come at all to the point where she eventually had to get a replacement cheque from the Department of Social Services, which she got readily enough, you know, because they check with the support enforcement agency and her story of course was legitimate and they sent her out a replacement cheque which she got on the 29th or 30th of the month for $150.00. But she had to do without that $150.00 for two weeks and she had $130.00 to do her from the 15th to the end of the month with her and her one child, a fourteen-year old boy - and teenagers are fairly aware of circumstances, they are aware of what's missing and what they need.

She then, as it happened the next day or a couple of days later got the cheque from the support enforcement agency. Now, this woman happens to be a particularly - I won't use the word responsible because she is going to be held responsible for it any way - but she is particularly aware of her own circumstances, she is an educated woman and she said: well, I better do something with this cheque or else I am going to be in trouble. She would not cash it, she said: I will take this cheque and I will bring it down, sign the back of it and pass it over to the social worker because I know what will happen if I don't, because if I spend it, even though I have needs, if I spend it, it will obviously be an overpayment, it will come off my next cheque and I will be in the same trouble afterwards.

What I suggested to you by my letter and which I am told by your response it would cause too many problems, but maybe you can explain that for everybody. Why can't a woman in that circumstance, say to the social worker or say to the Department of Social Services: Look, I am on long-term assistance, I am going to be on it for a year or two, hopefully I won't be but if something else happens, well and good; I will assign to the Department of Social Services, very voluntarily, no requirement, no nothing, but if this woman could say: I hereby ask support enforcement to pay my maintenance upon receipt to the Department of Social Services, not to me.

Why could not that woman, instead of getting her cheque for $380.00 on the 15th of the month, get a cheque that would cover what she would be entitled to under social services, and have it up to the additional $150.00 and then the Department of Social Services would collect the $150.00 when support enforcement is paid, and there will be no need for the intervention of a social worker to receive the request, perhaps except a visit, do an investigation, contact support enforcement, issue a cheque, have that go out, set up an overpayment, follow it up and track it down and then, try and recoup it and make sure it is repaid.

It strikes me that there are a lot of hardships caused here, unnecessary hardships, and I realize that in the grand scheme of things when we are talking about issues today of families losing electricity and perhaps kids being taken from them this is not, in this particular circumstance, the worst problem, but it may be one that can be fixed without too much difficulty. I know the department does that going in the other way and did for years with Newfoundland Light and Power. If the department ended up paying the arrears because someone got behind because they did not have enough to pay their light bill, the department only paid the arrears once - they would pay it once - and then they would say to the individual: This is not going to happen again. We worked with Newfoundland Light and Power, and we put you on a budget plan. If your light bill is $150 a month on the average for the year we will take $150 off your cheque and give it directly to Newfoundland Light and Power.

Anybody who has ever had their arrears paid, I am told, went on that system going the other way and it only happened once. Now maybe it happened once to everybody and that is where the cost comes in, but perhaps the department, recognizing some of these problems up front, can avoid these problems in the future. That is a different issue and I am not going to ask you about that in this question, but I wanted to explain the circumstances to see whether the ministry can consider something as apparently straightforward from a legal point of view of an assignment, something in the age of computers and information technology that we hear so much rhetoric about ought to be easily accomplished from a communication point of view. It would seem to me not to require additional staff, but in fact would reduce staff time to accomplish and would save hardship for single parents who all too often find themselves in circumstances where the husband is either working irregularly, changes his status from employed to unemployed, leaves a job or whatever, and the individual suffers; is that not possible?

MS. YOUNG: To get back to one of the first statements you made, you felt that the figure of 2 per cent is rather low. These figures - I was looking back at Mr. Strong there - I am sure these figures are accurate.

MR. HARRIS: It may be 2 per cent on every month asked for additional cheques; that may be. That is fifty people a month, which is significant.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, I can certainly recognize -

MR. HARRIS: There may be a lot of others who do not ask for the cheques because they do without it, you know.

MS. YOUNG: Well that could very well be. There are some people who probably would not come forward; they would wait, or they might have a little on reserve that they could live on for a few weeks.

It does cause hardship, I certainly agree with you, but you are suggesting, then, that we would not put everybody on, just the women who are having difficulties.

MR. HARRIS: Upon request.

MS. YOUNG: Upon request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't know if she wants to answer the question. She was clarifying it there for a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) answer.

MS. YOUNG: I was just commenting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going in ten minute segments and I think we are up to thirteen minutes now on this one.

MS. YOUNG: Okay, we can come back.

MR. HARRIS: Do I understand that I would ask the question again to get the answer, or is the minister going to be allowed to answer the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: I will have my time later, the minister can answer.

MS. YOUNG: I am hearing what you are saying and it would cause some extra, I guess, accounting on the part of our department.

I would like to tell you as well that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has also brought that to my attention in both my capacity as minister responsible for the Status of Women and Minister of Social Services. I cannot tell you that yes, we will do that, but everything is always up for consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay, I have a couple of things. One is, knowing that we will have an increased caseload in your department within this fiscal year. I suppose it is somewhat mistaken to say that the Budget is being cut; it is just to which extent is it being funded, because in my estimation the Budget of the Department of Social Services, although it makes for good, political rhetoric for opposition to say that the Budget has been cut, in essence, has been increased, as opposed to being increased by the full amount that we would need to maintain everything based on the status quo, it has been increased by a figure to account for the anticipated extra caseload, and based on that, it is just that it hasn't been increased by that $10 million amount of which we are speaking, where we are seeking economies in the department. Is that a correct statement?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay, so that the Budget last year was $179,679,000 this year, the Budget is $198,173,000, a difference of approximately $19 million so it is approximately a $20 million increase. Some of that, may be accounted for I suppose, with federal revenues and different programs; I am looking through all of the different subheads, there was a cut also that you did mention coming out of that so if you take that cut out of it as well, it is really $21 million or so of an increase in the overall departmental budget.

MS. YOUNG: That's correct.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay. I just wanted that clear and for that to be noted in the record. It is not anything that we are, I suppose, especially proud of to say that we have had the increase to social services budget, but the government has, in spite of the fact that it has balanced its Budget, committed extra resources to cover off the requirements that are there.

I did want to ask though, a couple of questions. One, concerned the situation as you are trying to find economies in the department, what process is it that you will undertake in order to determine what you are going to have to do, because if the social wheel of the country is going to be reinvented, if we are going to reinvent the wheel the way we fund social programs, then you are going to have to change the way in which you deliver them, so essentially it has fallen on us to deliver the programs in such a way that you have to account for less money potentially coming in; so I am wondering what you have planned departmentally in the way of consultation, in the way of line department staff providing information on how they feel you can best come up with solutions. Is there a plan developed now to consult and develop a strategy for this?

MS. YOUNG: Well, we are still getting over the $10 million one and we are certainly, almost on a daily basis, trying to make sure that we are headed in the right direction to take the hit if it comes next year, so we must be prepared and we are looking for about eight months down the road when we start to prepare for the budget for the following year.

We also have to realize the capping of CAP and all these things and what effect it will have upon us. I think one of the things we have to look at, Bill, is the fact that we have a high number of young, single, able-bodied people on our records, and what we are finding is that quite a number of these have not finished high school, and even if we pumped money into them it would be just a Band-Aid solution, so what we have to do is, I guess, get to the crux of the matter. If you have no education and you have no skills, wherever you live, your chances of ever being employed in a permanent position, making any amount of money, are practically nil because even in today's economy these people are out there competing with people with degrees for employment.

MR. RAMSAY: Sometimes for the same exact jobs.

MS. YOUNG: I beg your pardon?

MR. RAMSAY: Sometimes for the same exact jobs.

MS. YOUNG: Oh, absolutely. So we have to look at programs whereby we can get these people into, I guess, basic education courses, into some skills training, some of them may be able to go to university, but I don't think the whole responsibility of that should rest on the shoulders of this department. There are other partners involved as well. We have to look to our friends in the Department of Education. We have to look to our friends in the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, and do some partnering there as well as with the federal government.

There are a number of programs that we have been involved in which are rather successful, for example the SWASP program. As you know we have moved away from the community development projects where you were moving rocks from one place to the other, and the projects that we have approved in our department have been on the main with some skills enhancement for the clients. It was very unfair to put them in positions where they were doing meaningless work. At the end of the day they just went from one program to the other and came back to us again, so the people were flip-flopping from program to program with no real direction in their lives.

MR. RAMSAY: I guess the only ones in that specific area that were a problem - not the only ones, but ones that were not necessarily disabled but probably socially delayed by virtue of situations such as individuals who had been incarcerated at one time. I know of certain cases in my own district where they depended on that as an income type situation. They were fully capable of working on these programs but it was used then more as an income supplementation and not as a genuine situation that gets them skills they could marketably utilize.

MS. YOUNG: Then again you had people who, once they got on the system it was even more difficult to get off of it. Even their children - I had a situation in my own district where this young gentleman grew up in a family that relied on Social Services to exist, and he was one of the first in his family to graduate from high school, and there was a stigma attached to him that he found it very difficult, even in a cost-shared program, to avail of employment. So a lot of these people become victims of circumstances and it is perpetuated one generation after the other.

MR. RAMSAY: I have just a couple of other things.

In the area of abuse, and to understand, I suppose, the interest in social services, as you know, as an MHA we probably spend as much time as social workers dealing with some social assistance cases, so it is something we all become intimately familiar with. It is a shame that is the way it is. I wish we could spend more of our time working on business initiatives on behalf of constituents and that sort of thing. Hopefully one of these days that is the way it will be. But in the course of work we have to do, I am always coming across allegations of abuse and, of course, everyone I suppose, because it gets exploded in the community, the jungle grapevine creates a situation that may not exist, it is exaggerated at times, and sometimes you don't get the full story until you call a social worker to find out exactly what is going on.

I hesitate, but I feel that I should mention it; there was a case recently where I was approached about the payment for dental services and the occasional time when the department pays for the provision of false teeth and dental services and I found it extremely hard at times to be able get anywhere with this particular thing. I knew that the subhead under which people on occasion and very rarely were funded for this, had been exhausted at this point, and on doing some investigation into it I was told by someone in the dental community whom I knew, that this year, in fact in the past twelve months, there was a very significant time, part way through the year or something, when, it was almost like teeth were going crazy; there was a ton of teeth being paid for really, and it was almost as if certain people were aware of it.

I did hear allegations of dentists who knew of this lining up a lot of patients, and as soon as they knew the money was approved, bang, they started cranking out dentures like there was no tomorrow and then, all of a sudden the money was exhausted and there was no more left for people like the constituent whom I had, who was left holding the bag. I don't know if you know anything about that, I think it happened before you became minister. I don't know if any of the officials might be able to either check into it or elaborate on it.

MS. YOUNG: What I would like to say to you is that, unfortunately, we can't provide dentures for all of the people who require them. But there are situations where people are seeking employment and they have an opportunity to go out into the workforce and to enhance their appearances, and for training and to enhance their prospects in this environment, we have provided money for dentures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, the Right Future Program to which you referred, that does not necessarily mean that those mentally challenged people are put back in their own community, does it?

MS. YOUNG: Not necessarily, no. We try to get them as close as we can to their own communities.

MR. FITZGERALD: Is there follow-up done from either the Waterford Hospital or with some social worker after that to make sure that people are adjusting and that there are no problems, they are not put there and -

MS. YOUNG: No, no, no. It's monitored.

MR. FITZGERALD: It's monitored as well, after.

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Minister, I would like you to tell me what a subsidized home means with regards to the Department of Social Services. When I think of a subsidized home, I am thinking of a rest home, where you would have your clients placed. I am thinking about what you pay for the cost per bed, what other services are performed and what criteria you have to meet in order to be considered as a subsidized home?

MS. YOUNG: I think the questions you are asking, are they related to seniors?

MR. FITZGERALD: Not necessarily. In many cases, the Department of Social Services had people placed in those homes who are not seniors. One case, in your own district is probably the Greenwood Rest Home, and there is another one in Jamestown in your own district and they are not all seniors, no.

MS. YOUNG: They are probably not necessarily developmentally delayed but -

MR. FITZGERALD: Some of them are.

MS. YOUNG: - some are socially disadvantaged people. No, I can't give you figures on that but maybe some of my officials could.

MR. PECKFORD: I think you may be referring to what is known in government as personal care homes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. PECKFORD: Personal care homes, I am not fully conversant on it because they come under the Department of Health jurisdiction, and there are some subsidized homes and there are some non-subsidized homes as well. The amount of subsidies, and which ones and how many, I just do not have the numbers but we in the Department of Social Services are not directly responsible for these homes or the subsidies to the homes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Are you saying that your department does not pay a subsidy to the owners of those homes?

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct; the Department of Health does.

MR. FITZGERALD: It comes under the Department of Health?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes.

Now, at the same time I would just add - it is not directly related to your question, though - that social work intervention services that may be needed by some of the residents are provided by our social workers through the district office in the area, so if there are issues that the residents would have that would require social work services we do provide those, but the subsidy to the home is provided by the Department of Health.

MR. FITZGERALD: How about drugs and supplies by people who are there, that people at your department are responsible for?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, that is the Department of Health also.

MR. FITZGERALD: So you don't pay any drug costs, any personal care costs.

MR. PECKFORD: The drug plan is sort of a combined plan between us and the Department of Health, and they would be, I suspect, seen eligible for a drug card like other persons and then the actual drugs are billed through the Department of Heath. We determine eligibility for a drug and issue the card, and Health then provides the drugs on the basis of that.

MR. FITZGERALD: Getting back to the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre in Whitbourne, I understand there were fourteen workers hired there a couple of weeks ago. Is that correct? Fourteen additional front-line workers hired March 20-something, within the last month?

MR. PECKFORD: I am not aware of that number. I am aware of the fact that we have a recall list of workers in the area, and the number of workers fluctuates with the population at the youth centre, but I am not aware of that number or that date.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, there were fourteen workers hired there from what I understand, and also that those fourteen workers normally were supposed to be given a three week training program to familiarize them with the youth centre and the care that they are expected to give and what have you, I suppose, going into such an environment.

Does it bother the minister that those people were hired and within six days were working on units there, looking after ten people that many of them had very, very little knowledge about, or what to expect?

MS. YOUNG: Are you talking about -

MR. FITZGERALD: I am talking about front-line workers at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre at Whitbourne.

MS. YOUNG: Were they taken on a temporary basis?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, those were new people, never worked there before, hired sometime around the middle of March. They were supposed to be doing three weeks training before they were even considered, because I think the way it works there, there is a call-in list where people come in as people are off sick or on annual leave. Those people were hired and after six days of training, because the department would have had to pay overtime to regular workers - it was not one case in point, it was several cases - that those people came in and went to work without the three-week training and without the proper training in order to do the job that you people would consider normal.

MS. YOUNG: This is certainly news to me. I'm not on a daily basis about who is hired and who is not. I can certainly look into that and get the information for you. I would like to think that anybody who is going into a position for which there is special training required would have received that training. However, if there were extenuating circumstances I would like to know about that as well. I will certainly look into it.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is my understanding. From what I understand, the extenuating circumstance was the difference in paying overtime or taking those people there and paying them straight time.

MS. YOUNG: I can't comment (inaudible) -

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Does it concern the minister as well that even the front-line workers there who are regular call-ins, regular casuals, sometimes are off as much as a month or two months at a time, and come to work sometimes, two of them looking after a particular unit, and within five minutes of them arriving on the job the other regular workers have departed and they are to look after this whole particular unit without having any knowledge of the people who are there, the people who they are looking after, the type of crime or whatever that they are in for? Does the minister have any concern about that?

MS. YOUNG: I have concerns about everything that is part of my department. If these things are going on and they are brought to our attention, certainly they are dealt with.

MR. FITZGERALD: Because there is -

MS. YOUNG: But on a day to day basis anything could be going on with 1,300 staff in this Province all directly responsible to the head office here.

MR. FITZGERALD: Because there is very little record kept there, and that was one of the things that I found there. I'm not a penal institution expert or anything like that, I can assure you, but I have worked at a similar site at one time. It was always something that you did there. Before you left work you always wrote up a chart of what people were and what their actions were and how they reacted and the type of day they had and all this kind of thing. Does the minister think that might be a good thing to be done out there? Because there are absolutely no records kept at all out there on what happens on a day to day basis by the front-line workers. The only thing that is written in a log book there is a point system where it gives them certain privileges to do something. That is all that is written there, numbers. I think there is some number there where there are privileges lost or whatever. What happens, what those people do - never recorded.

MS. YOUNG: You are suggesting that an (inaudible) record be kept on each resident -

MR. FITZGERALD: Unit, yes.

MS. YOUNG: - at the end of the day. Maybe Mr. Skinner would like to respond to your question.

MR. SKINNER: Certainly I'm aware of some of the procedures there. In terms of specifics that you make here I would like to follow up and try and get back to you to ensure that the concerns that you have are addressed.

MR. FITZGERALD: I think it is something that should be followed up. I think that would also give the front-line workers - especially the people who've been away for as many as two months. Sometimes when they come back - they may have worked there for two weeks, but when they come back there might be eight different people on that particular unit than was there before. Unless people are used to going and looking and seeing who they are dealing with it could be a cause for some problems.

Another issue that has been brought to my attention out there - and I think the minister should be made aware of this as well - is a situation where some of those front-line workers are working steady, I suppose you would, or permanent jobs at the home, and other people are casuals, are leaving - they work twelve-hour shifts I think at the home there. Some of them work twelve hours at the Youth Centre and then go and work at another home sponsored by the Department of Social Services another twelve hours and that's going back and forth. Is the minister aware of that?

MS. YOUNG: Somebody is working twenty-four hours?

MR. FITZGERALD: Not only twenty-four hours, but probably, when that's over, they will go and do another twelve hours. I am not saying they are working but they are getting paid, they are employed by your department for many, many more than twenty-four hours at a time.

MS. YOUNG: Well, I would think at the end of thirty-six hours a person must be exhausted whether they -

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I am not saying they are staying awake Minister, and I am not saying they are active, but this is why I am raising the concern and the concern has been raised to me and at the places that they are working, some of them are at the Youth Centre in Whitbourne - and that is at Lakeview?

MS. YOUNG: At the open custody?

MR. FITZGERALD: At the open custody units? I think it is the Lakeview at Whitbourne as well and some of them go out to - there is another couple of places where they find themselves going is out at Topsail, so you know, I have a real concern about that. I know what I feel like after working twelve hours a day and I know what I have to do, so some of those people - and it is a concern; I don't know if it has ever been raised by some of the permanent staff there but it has been raised to me and that's why I thought it would be important to bring it forward and make you aware of it and check into it.

MS. YOUNG: They are raising their concerns certainly, the workers have every right to bring it forward to their union and then of course, you know, you take the proper steps and it ends up to me as a last resort; so if there are issues like that, I don't get involved in it myself at that level, we would wait for the union to deal with it and then if they are not satisfied with the whole thing, it goes to the management and then the last resort as I said, would be to the ministerial level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: No questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No questions? We go to Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Minister, 292, that youth correction facility, the new remand facility, where is that going to be placed?

MS. YOUNG: There will be an announcement made on that shortly. I had planned on putting out some information to the media on that.

MR. HARRIS: Tell us now.

MS. YOUNG: I can't do that. We wouldn't get the coverage tonight.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Justice made an announcement the other night.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) go to Port Rexton.

MS. YOUNG: Well, it probably may go to Morley's Siding. It's not going to Placentia, I can guarantee you.

MR. CAREEN: There is no need for it out there.

MS. YOUNG: No, that's (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: We have enough buildings out in Argentia. The Americans still left their gates there.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) spend the money.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, that's right, when she has it, the minister may have spent some. The $25,000 that you spent last year, Minister, the Budget allocated $400,000 they spent $25,000; what was that $25,000 spent on?

MS. YOUNG: That went into design, I think; the initial stages of design probably?

MR. CAREEN: Properties weren't purchased?

MS. YOUNG: I beg your pardon?

MR. CAREEN: It wasn't the purchase of property?

MS. YOUNG: No, it wasn't.

MR. CAREEN: I could always ask where the property was?

MS. YOUNG: No, properties are worth more than that out in Morley's Siding.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: If you wanted to be like Shanahan, yes.

The Right Future, exactly what is the Right Future? I heard the Member for Bonavista South mention it earlier but what is the Right Future?

MS. YOUNG: You can't be going out and having a cigarette, you missed it. We talked about that earlier.

MR. CAREEN: I can always ask but just give me a quick -

MS. YOUNG: Okay.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

WITNESS: There were no cigarettes involved.

MS. YOUNG: Oh gosh, and how would you know?

MR. CAREEN: Well, there were no cigarettes involved with him either.

MS. YOUNG: Well if there were no cigarettes it had to be booze.

I'm only kidding.

With the Right Future, yes, it's a wonderful program and it is a pilot project that is sponsored by the federal government and we administer it. The objective is to close out four units at the Waterford Hospital. I think you probably -

MR. CAREEN: Oh, okay. I know what it is, I just didn't know the name of it.

MS. YOUNG: Yes. It is a very good program and there is information on it on page 295, and if you would like more information on it, I would be glad to -

MR. CAREEN: No. I know what it is. Thank you very much.

MS. YOUNG: This is a good news one.

MR. CAREEN: It was just the name that threw me because when you see it in the papers it always refers to some neighbours who do not want this in their backyard, that's the one, is it?

MS. YOUNG: No, it has been met favourably in most communities. This is where you take a Waterford resident out and you integrate him into the community.

MR. CAREEN: Into society, yes.

MS. YOUNG: Probably four to six workers are working with this person on a twenty-four-hour day basis and gradually the person is integrated and the amount of support will lessen. Anyway, that is one of the many good news stories in our department, but you only hear the bad news.

MR. CAREEN: The Employment Enhancement Initiatives, your professional services has increased this year substantially.

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: Page 297, 5.1.02.

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. CAREEN: You are hiring more?

MS. YOUNG: Some of this will be for training opportunities, like people getting into Adult Basic Education courses, skills training. It could also be on-the-job training, I guess, and cost-shared programs with employers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Oh, yes, my officials just pointed out to me there is additional training besides Adult Basic Education. There are skills training as well.

This is a positive step for us because we are recognizing the fact that there are quite a number of people out there relying on our services who have not finished high school and, as I said, have no skills.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

In 5.1.01 there is a substantial reduction in Community Development Projects.

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: That wasn't a part of the SAR package, was it?

MS. YOUNG: I am sorry?

MR. CAREEN: The SAR projects, that wasn't a part of that - no - social assistance recipients.

MS. YOUNG: That is SAR, and it covered the employment enhancement program.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. You were very good over the year, so you have substantially reduced that amount of money from $10 million allotted last year where you only spent $4.2 million, to nearly $2.6 million this year.

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. CAREEN: So while it was a cost-shared basis, was that a 50/50, 60/40, 70/30?

MS. YOUNG: 50/50, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: No, not all of them.

MR. CAREEN: Because you have joint boards; there are federal representatives who sit on it, and the Province sits on theirs as well, or that is the way it used to go.

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct, Sir. The employment enhancement area, the one that you referred to first, is cost matched with the federal government up to $4 million. We are putting $6 million in this year, as you can see, and we are hoping that they will extend their matching beyond the four, but we have a commitment from them now, for every up to $4 million they will match $4 million in the same general areas as we do.

The community development, 5.1.01, is not federally supported in any way.

MR. CAREEN: Okay, thank you.

MS. YOUNG: And because the $4 million is cost matched it is not showing up here in our budget.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Minister, the numbers that we have heard in terms of income support would be that there would be a reduction of $10 million in the overall allocation or amount going for income support, and I know it is partly because of an increased caseload but not an equal amount of money to meet that caseload. I have been told, and I do not recall exactly whether it is a public figure or someone told me privately, that the expectation is that your change in policy with respect to electrical arrears expects to save the department $2 million. Is that figure accurate?

MS. YOUNG: It is as accurate as we can project.

MR. HARRIS: Where is the other $8 million coming from?

MS. YOUNG: Some of it will come out of furnishings.

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

MS. YOUNG: Some of it will come from furnishings. That would include appliances as well. Some more will come from refugees. The number of refugees has gone down. Transportation, we have a hefty transportation budget. We are trying to rein that in somewhat; however, we still want to provide essential services to people who are requiring transportation. I pointed out as well that when the home support program went to the Department of Health there was $5 million lost there.

MR. HARRIS: The figures on that are a bit confusing. In the Budget lock-up we were told by the Department of Finance and Treasury Board officials - and you can see by looking at the Department of Health Estimates, in fact, on page 229. I realize, Minister, you are not expected to be an expert on the Department of Health Estimates, but if you look at Grants and Subsidies in 2.2.02 for Community Based Services, we were told that the $29 million revised figure for 1994-1995, up from $23 million going into an amount for 1995-1996 of $22.8 million, amounts to an actual reduction of about $6 million in home care services. That is $6 million that the department spent last year in the Department of Social Services that the Department of Health isn't going to spend, but how does that affect the reduction in your budget?

MS. YOUNG: It reflects $5 million.

MR. HARRIS: How so?

MS. YOUNG: Well -

MR. HARRIS: If the vote is being transferred to another department then it is not even -

MS. YOUNG: But you notice it is not being transferred entirely. There is $22 million being transferred. That means there was a cutback of about $7 million according to this.

MR. HARRIS: Are you keeping that?

MS. YOUNG: No, we've lost it, it is lost.

MR. HARRIS: So it is gone.

MS. YOUNG: It is gone.

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MS. YOUNG: It is gone, but we do have I think it is approximately two point some odd million dollars that we still have in our budget for.... Four point three.

MR. HARRIS: Let's go back to the $10 million again because we discovered that there was a $2 million reduction in the cost of light bills. The furniture and appliances, how much do you expect to save on that?

MS. YOUNG: We are looking at over $1 million.

MR. RAMSAY: That won't be cut out completely -

MS. YOUNG: No, no.

MR. RAMSAY: - but it will be cut back by $1 million. What is the expense? What is the total subhead for that?

MS. YOUNG: We will still have over $2 million left.

MR. HARRIS: I notice that there is a significant reduction in the amount of refugee costs year over year, about $2 million less. So you think that would count for another $2 million. Transportation changes, how much do you expect to cut back there?

MS. YOUNG: We are cutting back $500,000 there, and we still have $4.3 million left.

MR. HARRIS: That leaves about another $5 million.

MS. YOUNG: That is correct.

MR. HARRIS: Where is that coming from?

MS. YOUNG: The Department of Health.

MR. HARRIS: That comes from the Department of Health?

MS. YOUNG: The home support, when it was passed over.

MR. HARRIS: I have a difficulty with that, I have to be honest because if you look at the 229, it was only $23 million budgeted and of the $23 million budgeted last year $23 million is transferred over to health. Now granted you spent more than that last year, you went over the budget?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, went way over.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, and you are not going to spend it this year. But you are not going to spend any of it so whatever is being spent is being spent by another department. I don't understand how that saves the Department of Social Services $5 million?

MS. YOUNG: It doesn't really -

MR. HARRIS: No, I don't think it does at all. I don't understand.

MS. YOUNG: It is gone but it came out of our budget initially.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, but the figures we are given is that there is a reduction of $10 million in income support amounts going out, alright?

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. HARRIS: And of the social services allocation, now either that is right or it is wrong?

MS. YOUNG: Well if it were left in our department we would have had to absorb that loss but - does anybody want to help me out on this because it is confusing?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, it is confusing. What the $10 million reduction is, is a $10 million reduction in the areas that were CAP funded which included the areas that the minister has referred to. So the Canada Assistance Plan funding includes expenditures out of Social Services and the Department of Health. Now some expenditures that were in Social Services last year are now going to be moved over to Health but there was a $10 million reduction in the amounts that were eligible for sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan which goes across both departments, Social Services and Health.

MR. HARRIS: Well that is interesting to hear. I am surprised that the minister is taking responsibility for a $10 million reduction. She should say I am only reducing it $5 million you can blame the Minister of Health for the other $5 million.

MS. YOUNG: We get blamed for everything so I may as well take it Jack.

MR. HARRIS: The question again dealing with the kind of caseloads you are struck with and looking at the appendix to the report tabled in the House today, Appendix A, the caseload - and I won't go back to 1989 like the Member for Humber East did last year and go from a caseload 19,000 up to now 35,000 but even in the two years report in that appendix there is an increase in the caseload in the past two years, up to March of last year, of 25 per cent over that two year period. What is your caseload currently in March of 1995?

MS. YOUNG: Unfortunately these figures are not all in yet. It takes a few weeks for them to all get in from the district offices and get compiled.

MR. HARRIS: Well what about February then?

MS. YOUNG: In February the caseload was 35,472.

MR. HARRIS: So it has not changed at all in the last year? Last March, according to this table, the caseload was 35,416.

MS. YOUNG: Let me explain to you, the caseload here is actually the administrative caseload, it is calculated administratively. When somebody comes to us for assistance it is recorded. Then when they go and get their first cheques it is almost like double recording for the first month. So there is some confusion because that is administrative figures.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, well straighten me out. Has there been an increase in social assistance recipients in the last year of 10 per cent which we have been told time and again or has there not?

MS. YOUNG: Well if you looked at the double figures, they would be up to about 37,000. So you are safe to say they are up by about 2,000.

MR. HARRIS: From last year?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Which is not quite 10 per cent. I don't understand your explanation and I am not going to ask you to explain it again but -

MS. YOUNG: February's figures are actually down and there are a couple of things that come to play with February's figures. I was pleasantly surprised that our numbers were down a little bit in February, but because the month is shorter, there may have been a pay period that was not calculated in there that normally would have on a thirty-one day month. The other thing as well is that -

MR. HARRIS: That doesn't change the caseload.

MS. YOUNG: Oh yes, it would. It wouldn't change the caseload but it would change the numbers -

MR. HARRIS: Isn't the caseload the number of people receiving social assistance?

MS. YOUNG: The number of people that we had in our February figures, without any double counting, straightforward figures, the number is 35,472.

WITNESS: Based on the number of transactions (inaudible)?

MS. YOUNG: That's based on the number of transactions - not transactions, based on the number of individuals, because the transactions would have been entered in twice -

WITNESS: (Inaudible) hired.

MR. HARRIS: But surely it doesn't matter whether you pay him once, twice or five times, it is only one person on social assistance, your caseload doesn't increase, does it? Anyway, I won't get into that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your ten minutes are up but there is one thing I want to mention. Normally we break at 8:30 for coffee, if the indication is that we are not going on until 10:00, we could probably forego the coffee break and carry on, that's one suggestion that I might make to you.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Let's have a coffee break.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will break for ten minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

We will get back to our meeting and will go to Mr. Fitzgerald.

Mr. Fitzgerald, it is your turn.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have three, quick questions and then I am going to do an exit.

I would just like to follow up on what the Member for St. John's East was saying. I am not sure if I completely understood the minister when she said that, depending on the number of days in the month, it would change the caseload? I can't understand how that can happen. I can understand how it can happen as far as change pay periods and change monies and that kind of thing but I can't understand how it would change the number of caseloads.

MS. YOUNG: I am going to ask one of my officials to answer that.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

MR. PECKFORD: We record, in a given month, the number of cases on social assistance. Now, there is a fluctuation in the cases on social assistance every month for a whole variety of reasons. People come and go and in a given year - well, in 1994, there were actually 51,000 families who received social assistance at one time or another during the year, so the total number of different families for the year of '94 was 51,000; so in a given month, depending upon the length of the month, when we take the count at the end of that month, if it is February like it was recently, in twenty-eight days, that shows that at the end of February, the caseload was lower than if February had been three days longer, because there would be three additional days for people to start coming under the caseload.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is totally confusing to me anyway. I won't take up time with it. 5.1.03, Minister, page 298; at the bottom of 5.1.03 it shows federal revenue, $633,000, that was budgeted in 1994-1995. It was revised to $452,000, and this year it is $352,500. Does that mean that we didn't spend just about $200,000 of monies that was directed from the federal government for community services?

MS. YOUNG: I'm going to pass that to one of my officials to give you the answer. That is page 298, 5.1.03. Federal revenue went down from the budget of $633,000 to $452,000. That was in salaries. The drop there was in salaries, transportation and communication, supplies.

MR. FITZGERALD: The question I'm asking is -

MS. YOUNG: Yes, I know -

MR. FITZGERALD: - since this is federal money, why would we have allowed, or did we allow, $200,000 not to be spent when there is a great need out there as we all know for salaries and whatever.

MR. PECKFORD: I apologize for the delay there, I wasn't paying attention at first. I understand your question now, I think. Monies expended in this particular area, some are cost-shared and some aren't. Some are eligible under the Canada Assistance Plan and some aren't. The allocation that we get from the federal government is based upon how much we spend. They don't provide an allocation from which we spend. We spend and then claim back. There are no federal monies lapsed as such. They share 50-50 in the eligible expenses under that area, eligible costs under that area. If we spend $100 eligible they will refund us $50; if we spend $200 eligible they will refund us $100. The amount of federal revenue is directly related to what we spend.

MR. FITZGERALD: So actually we lost $100,000 there instead of approximately $200,000, is what you are saying?

MS. YOUNG: Not lost. In the -

MR. FITZGERALD: Or we didn't spend.

MS. YOUNG: No. Again, as Mr. Peckford has indicated to you, if we had budgeted for $5 million and we had spent the full $5 million they would have refunded $2.5 million to us.

MR. FITZGERALD: But the $633,000 was directed from the federal government?

MS. YOUNG: No, it wasn't directed, it was just estimated that if we spent $1,344,900 and half of that - because not all of the items there were eligible under the cost-shared program - if we had spent all that then they would have given us that much. But we only spent - we don't go out and try to spend money.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is still going to cost you money because it is not an outright dollar for dollar, is it?

MS. YOUNG: No, no. They don't refund the total amount to us. They would only give us 50 per cent. So the more we spend -

MR. FITZGERALD: The more it is going to cost you.

MS. YOUNG: - it is still an expense to us.

MR. FITZGERALD: One other question before I do have to leave, Madam Minister. There is a fair amount of money still there in your budget to encourage people to go to work and do meaningful things, to get them off Social Services and back in the workforce.

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. FITZGERALD: Then, as everybody knows they go on - instead of 50-50 federal-provincial as they do on Social Services, they go on 100 per cent federal funding.

There was one project, and I think it was a very good project, that was approved in my district this past - well, it was three or four months ago. The project was granted, the document was signed by the Minister of Natural Resources and by the sponsor of the project. The people were hired, but at the time that they were hired weather conditions dictated that it wouldn't be feasible to go ahead and do the silviculture project that they had planned to do.

A couple of days ago they received information that the funding was cut in half. Instead of the $63,000 that had been directed and the contract signed and people hired, instead of that money being there now, and the people were hired through the Department of Social Services, now the rural development coordinator informs me that they've received notification that funding is now down to $31,000, and nobody seems to know where it came from or why.

MS. YOUNG: If you will look on page 297 under Community Development Projects, under Grants and Subsidies, 5.1.01.10, you will see $1 million. That was the amount that we turned over to the forestry silviculture project. I can't answer anything to that. It was an outright grant from one department to another. It is another minister.

MR. FITZGERALD: So Social Services did not cut that in half is what you are saying.

MS. YOUNG: No.

MR. FITZGERALD: Because Natural Resources says that the labour portion was funded by Social Services and that it was Social Services that cut the funding. I think it was Mr. Roberts who I talked to on this the other day? You indicated sir at that time that you were going to check it out. I think you indicated to me at that time that you weren't aware of any funding being cut by your department.

MR. ROBERTS: No. You may recall I called you back -

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: - after I checked on it. As we had said, we did not cut the money. It is with the forestry branch of Natural Resources. We weren't sure at the time what they had done, but if the grant was cut it wasn't because of our department.

MR. FITZGERALD: I wonder why Natural Resources would take it away.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know.

MS. YOUNG: An issue for another day, yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: An issue for tomorrow. Okay, thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

MS. YOUNG: I'm very pleased that you were able to come along this evening and join us for the questions. They were very good questions you asked. Any information you've asked for we can certainly get it for you. Thank you for your input.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. First of all I want to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the actual unduplicated non-administrative real person caseload as opposed to the one that was in what was tabled in the House today. Maybe I can suggest to your officials, Madam Minister, that next year they put the real people on the report and save the administrative ones for telling Treasury Board how much staff you need to handle all these transactions that your staff is expected to do. That way at least it wouldn't confuse people like me and the Member for LaPoile trying to figure out where we are going.

I do see from what we have here - maybe you should have given the stuff to me today Bruce, on the way over - I do see an actual increase of almost precisely 10 per cent year over year, 1994 to 1995, February month, on the caseload, and another 10 per cent in 1993-1994. We do see a consistency over the last couple of years. Am I right in assuming that the projection for next year is an additional 10 per cent? Is that correct?

MS. YOUNG: We've budgeted an additional 5 per cent -

MR. HARRIS: You are very optimistic.

MS. YOUNG: - within our budget for the increased caseload. However, we are never certain what the numbers will turn out to be.

MR. HARRIS: So you anticipate that there is a possibility that 10 per cent is correct? I mean 10 per cent is good, looking back over the last three years because in '92-'93, the difference was well in excess of 10 per cent. You have a degree of optimism about the provincial economy that does not seem to be shared by many others but I take it, from what you are saying is that if there is more money necessary, it won't be achieved by reduction in benefits but it would be achieved by obtaining more money from other sources.

MS. YOUNG: Well again, you have to look at as well, the number of investigators we have and we are hiring five additional investigators and the amount that we are looking at, the savings, related to special investigators will be about $4.5 million. I am sure Mr. Peckford would like to add something to this one as well.

MR. PECKFORD: We expect as well to incur additional savings on social assistance in the maintenance area. A project that we, together with the western region provincial courts, have had this past year, whereby individuals who wished to secure maintenance order, were permitted to be represented in court by officials of our department, and was held in the western region area, including I think, Stephenville, Corner Brook, Deer Lake area. The experience that we had there resulted in a savings of social assistance in that area around $800,000 last year, and it's planned now to expand and we will be hiring five additional persons who will receive training by the Department of Justice and so forth, to expand that project in other parts of Newfoundland. It has been very successful in obtaining a lot more maintenance so we are factoring that into account. In addition, we are hiring six more investigators and based on their performance in reducing cases of abuse, we also expect to have additional savings this year above last year, by perhaps another $2 million.

MR. HARRIS: In listening to that figure, and I accept the department's figures, I would just like to say that if we are looking at a rate of $2 million saving by having what would appear to be a fairly extensive investigative system, $2 million in a budget allocation for social assistance or income support of nearly 200,000 is a very minuscule amount of abuse; and I say that because I want to be on the record as saying that I don't believe that our costs of social assistance are running wild because of abuse of the system. I suspect, if anybody had a serious look at income tax abusers, if you could find less than 2 per cent abuse in the income tax system you would be fired immediately, so I just want to go on record as saying that that that is a remarkably efficient system by having a large number of I think, say fourteen now, is it, investigators?

MS. YOUNG: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

MS. YOUNG: Thirteen plus five.

MR. HARRIS: Thirteen plus five, eighteen and you are anticipating an additional $2 million. While it may lead to a more efficient system, it is not, to me, indicative of a system involving wide-scale abuse.

MS. YOUNG: However, I should point out to you that there is quite a backlog of cases reported to us that we need to have our investigators check out. I agree with you that looking at the numbers, certainly there is not as much abuse as some people would like to think. To hear some people talk on the streets, it is running rampant; however, as managers of this department it is our obligation to the taxpayers of this Province to ensure that the cases of fraudulent activities decrease within (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I hope the department does not get into - I have a concern that with some of the attitudes being engendered, in particular by the press and sometimes by Open Line programs and others, that the reporting anonymously of people to get them into trouble and have investigators track them down - a lot of that seems to be going on - I hope that the minister's officials and investigators are following up on legitimate complaints about realistic problems and not just involved in agents for the harassment of others by people who have nothing better to do than to cause trouble for their neighbours. That is just a comment.

Can I ask the minister, with respect to the caseload, your report tabled in the House today, and I am glad the minister tabled it today and not tomorrow so that we will have a chance to go through it this evening - don't make a note for next year, now.

MS. YOUNG: Could I just interrupt for a second?

MR. HARRIS: Sure.

MS. YOUNG: I would like for Mr. Strong to address the issue I was raising about the 5 per cent increase in our budget, if you would allow him to do that.

MR. HARRIS: Sure.

MS. YOUNG: It might clarify things for you. He is better at figures and the finances than I am.

MR. HARRIS: It always comes out of the Chairman, the ten minutes. I am only kidding; go ahead.

MR. STRONG: The 5 per cent increase in the caseload that is assumed is an average caseload for the year, so the whole 5 per cent would not come on, obviously, April 1, at the beginning of a fiscal year, so there is some room for additional growth in the caseload if you were looking at it say February, 1996.

MR. HARRIS: It might be 10 per cent over the whole year, but you do not have to pay for that 10 per cent for the whole year?

MR. STRONG: Exactly.

MR. HARRIS: It is like paying off a loan or something, if you are paying off a loan over a period of a year, you are only paying interest on half of it for the full year.

MR. STRONG: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, I understand that; that makes perfect sense.

In looking at the change in caseload from last year, the year to year caseload, you report today that there was a 23 per cent increase in the number of single, able-bodied persons receiving social assistance at the end of March compared with the previous fiscal year, and obviously this is partly the result of people being thrown from the UI roles to the social assistance roles. That seems to me to be a very significant increase, and rather indicative of very serious problems in the economy. Can you tell us what percentage of the current caseload of approximately 35,000 would be the single, able-bodied category, or what percentage or how many, what number?

MS. YOUNG: Right off the cuff I would say 7,000 or 8,000; however, I would have to go and dig out some figures here. Yes, single able-bodied persons, it is over 6,000; into February it is 12,000. Now is that duplicated?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MS. YOUNG: Okay. It is 12,067 and that is quite high.

MR. HARRIS: It is remarkably high, yes.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Peckford just pointed out, it is the fastest growing component of our caseload.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, that doesn't surprise me. I would assume also that a single able-bodied person would be also the last person to knock on your door, if you know what I mean, without work and without resources, they would have to be in pretty bad shape to come knocking on your door looking for assistance.

I do note as well that under the regulations section 9(2) says: Before an officer of the department may grant social assistance to single able-bodied adults or childless able-bodied couples the minister shall approve the types and amounts of assistance to be granted. I understand that while the regulations set the maximum rate for adults at - one adult with no children at $393 - that the minister, or previous ministers at least, have not approved amounts to that extent for single able-bodied adults. Could the minister indicate what the amounts are currently authorized by her to be paid to single able-bodied persons on social assistance?

MS. YOUNG: I think we are looking at about $88. Then again, as Mr. Peckford rightfully pointed out, it varies with the type of living arrangements, the amount of money that we would make available for -

MR. HARRIS: Leaving out the living arrangements for now, but the amounts for food, clothing, personal care and household maintenance, et cetera, the $88 would be the lowest figure, I take it. That would be someone living with a relative I would say.

MS. YOUNG: Yes. I can give you some figures here. Single able-bodied, board and lodging with relatives, would be $89. Board and lodging with non-relatives would be $130. These are monthly rates.

MR. HARRIS: Does the minister find that board and lodging are available at that rate?

MS. YOUNG: I can assure you that a lot of these people may find it very difficult to avail of board and lodging at that price, but those are the rates we have set.

MR. HARRIS: Those rates haven't changed then, I take it, from when these matters were raised in the House in the last couple of years. Can the minister advise why these rates would be paid to people because they are able-bodied, as it were, as opposed to having some disability? Is the expectation that by paying this low a rate that there would be an incentive for them to work or find a job? Is that the idea?

MS. YOUNG: There are a number of factors, I guess, financial restrictions being one. The other is that these people are more mobile than people who have dependants, so the opportunities for these people to move and seek seasonal employment in other parts of the country, or indeed anywhere in the world, are probably more of a possibility than somebody who has a family, a spouse and children.

MR. HARRIS: So this is a deterrent to people staying in Newfoundland. It is potentially so.

MS. YOUNG: No, it is not and -

MR. HARRIS: You don't want to make things too comfortable for them.

MS. YOUNG: I beg your pardon?

MR. HARRIS: You don't want to make things too comfortable for them here.

MS. YOUNG: It doesn't matter where you live, there is only a certain amount of money to go around. These people are able to move from one part of the Province to another. Not necessarily move out of the Province, but they are mobile and can move anywhere.

MR. HARRIS: The assumption of course being that you can move somewhere where there is work, either within or without the Province. The fact that there are now 12,000 as opposed to - if that is an increase of 20 per cent, that means there were only 8,000 last year, or is my math wrong on that. Maybe 9,000 this time last year, 9,000 or 10,000. The fact that people are so desperate that they would come and knock on your door, your workers' doors, to receive these pittances of money that they can't possibly survive on, must mean that they are very desperate. Would you agree?

MS. YOUNG: I would have to say to you that I guess each one who comes is an individual and his or her circumstances may be different. Some may live in families where the parents or siblings or whatnot can provide an additional amount for them to live on. As well, these people have an allowable income of I think it is $91 a month in addition to this. If they go out and they work and make $91 there is no claw back.

MR. HARRIS: That applies to the single able-bodieds, does it?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. How does that work when you work your way up the system? A single able-bodied who receives either one of these allowances can earn an additional $91 without losing any of that. What happens to the ninety-second dollar? Does he lose the whole dollar or - he loses the whole dollar, not half of it, the whole dollar.

MS. YOUNG: Not fifty cents, he loses a dollar.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. What about others? What are the formulas for others on social assistance?

MS. YOUNG: If you are looking at a childless couple...?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, well....

MS. YOUNG: Do you want to take that?

MR. HARRIS: Are there different formulas for different categories?

MS. YOUNG: Single able-bodied and childless couples, there is board and lodging with relatives, $183.

MR. HARRIS: No, I'm not looking for the rates, I'm just looking for the formula for additional income.

MS. YOUNG: Oh yes, okay. If you have two adults I think the amount is somewhere about $181 a month.

MR. HARRIS: So that $91 figure is throughout the system. If you were on social assistance for reasons other than unemployment you still might be able to get a job and earn a few dollars.

MS. YOUNG: Oh yes.

MR. HARRIS: Is that $91 figure the figure throughout the range?

MS. YOUNG: Approximately.

MR. HARRIS: I don't have very many more questions, Minister. I take it there is no hope of increasing those amounts. You don't anticipate increasing those amounts this year?

MS. YOUNG: Unfortunately that is the case. I think that each and every one of us here would be delighted if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board came and said: Look, you can increase the amount to families right across the board, and single able-bodied people included in that. However, throwing money at a situation is not the answer either. I think we have to work with people and try to get them into thinking of completing school, getting into training, and encouraging people to at least be prepared. I'm ever hopeful that the employment situation will improve and we will have more people working.

We also have to look at as well the CAP restrictions. The amount of money that people were able to make before there was a claw back was dictated to us by CAP regulations as well. I forgot to point that out to you. We could have said: Yes, you can make $500 but we couldn't because of CAP regulations.

MR. HARRIS: I want to move to vote 4.1.01 on page 293, Minister. The Estimates for Day Care Services show an amount very similar to that which was actually spent last year. I do note that the federal revenue has increased by nearly $300,000 over last year which is significant in the $3 million allocation but I don't see an increase in the total amount to be voted for that. Can you tell us why or how the federal amount increased by $300,000 and why the Province did not match that increase, an increase of the total vote for day care services?

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Strong is going to address that one.

MR. STRONG: The likely cause of that would be a (inaudible) adjustment.

MR. HARRIS: There is no change in the formula, the grant program or anything like that?

MR. STRONG: No, it would be a (inaudible) adjustment, that happens in a number of the activities. Sometimes when the particular vote is audited we find some things that might be shareable that we did not think were shareable and sometimes the deal goes the other way too.

MR. HARRIS: Just a follow up question on that minister - the minister repeated the rhetorical phrase about not throwing money at problems, people or things. This is one area, in terms of day care and family support services, where money can be very, very well spent to assist families to resolve problems for example or obtain training or other types of activities which improve their employability as well as make the transition - and I think this is a matter I would like to ask the minister to provide a general answer on - to make the transition from social assistance to the job market, if that is possible, despite the tough economy and the unemployment situation. Obviously there is a turnover in jobs, there are jobs available and people can make those moves.

One of the biggest problems that people have who are on social assistance, who would like to get off, is they cannot make that leap, if they earn more then ninety-one dollars they lose dollar for dollar. So there is not much of an incentive to work beyond ninety-one dollars, I guess. You have to earn a lot of money more then you are getting on social assistance to be able to make the jump and besides you lose part of the net. If you have kids you might lose your drug card. If you have day care expenses or child care expenses that is obviously an additional expense that you cannot afford. So you have to have a good job. It is no good having a minimum wage job. A minimum wage job will not earn you enough money to get you off welfare, it is as simple as that. It may call for an increase in the minimum wage and that is a different issue but what about programs that help people to make that step? Can you tell us what programs your department has that provide either an incentive, a cushion or some way of helping people make the transition from a social assistance recipient to a participant in the workforce?

MS. YOUNG: If you look under day care services it says that this subsidy is eligible to families requiring day care services for reasons related to employment/training in payment of day care service of the children in families on social assistance where child development needs exist. Unfortunately, I am not even sure what is going to happen with the federal level either. There were some thoughts that there would be some monies put in for child care and so forth and so on. Just today I was reading some correspondence and we are still wondering where that is in the federal scheme of things as well. I do agree with you that it is very difficult to make that transition from social services to employment, especially single parents, and even families with small children - I can relate to that - but unfortunately this is the amount of money that we have to spend.

MR. HARRIS: I realize that is all you have there, but do we have any other programs? If your department is going to continue to keep people on social assistance because they cannot make the jump, would it not make sense to develop programs that might cost a little bit of money now but if we get somebody into productive employment it would be worth that. I am just wondering, are there other programs? Do you have any plans? Are there any projects (inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: If you look under 5.1.02, Employment Enhancement Initiatives, there are some allowances there as well that we could help out in these situations.

MR. HARRIS: Any thought of changing your $91 formula to provide a little graduated situation so that there is a bit of an incentive to earn more than $91?

MS. YOUNG: Actually, I am glad you asked that because we are talking with the federal government with regard to the CAP regulations, because prior to this point in time what we did and the amount of dollars we could access back from the federal government that are cost shared dictated some of these things to us, and if we spent more, of course, we were expected to pick up 100 per cent if we went outside of their regulations. So I am very hopeful that some of the discussions we are having with the federal level would enable us to do that, and I think that would be a great step forward.

MR. HARRIS: Well, it certainly looks like the feds are prepared to be flexible. My concern is they are prepared to let go of the whole control of the thing and we may end up worse off.

MS. YOUNG: We also have $1.6 million on page 298 under Strategic Initiatives, and these are programs as well, like graduate employment and strategic self-employment initiatives as well, and we are very hopeful that these will provide meaningful training related work.

MR. HARRIS: How is that administered? I noticed that earlier and it is $1.6 million that is new; it was not in the budget last year. Is that administered through your department? How does it work? How do individuals participate? Is there a brochure on the program?

MS. YOUNG: Oh, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Can that be made available, some detail as to how that program works and how individuals can access it?

MS. YOUNG: Certainly, Terry Stapleton in our department -

MR. HARRIS: No, I wonder if the minister would undertake to obtain me something more significant on that.

MS. YOUNG: Sure.

MR. HARRIS: Similarly, and this will be my last question -

MS. YOUNG: Could I just point out, the Province has $10 million for strategic initiatives, and this is between our department, education, employment and labour, and also with HRDC.

MR. HARRIS: It is hard to tell from looking at this whether this is something that an individual can apply for or whether this is money that would help the department make plans for things, and I would like to know the answer to that.

MS. YOUNG: I will certainly get the information.

MR. HARRIS: Would the minister or your officials provide me with a list of the appropriations to community agencies spelled out for that are voted in 4.3.04 on page 296, grant funding to a number of agencies that serve the physically disabled?

MS. YOUNG: Certainly.

MR. HARRIS: And vote 4.2.03, "...grant funding to various agencies and volunteer organizations that provide services and support to developmentally delayed individuals."

MS. YOUNG: Certainly.

MR. HARRIS: Also, 4.1.03, "...community-based organizations... in... counselling and diversion services...."

MS. YOUNG: They are available in our report.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about we move the subheads?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we do that I have some -

AN HON. MEMBER: Subheads.

MR. CHAIRMAN: - housekeeping.

MR. RAMSAY: Before you do your housekeeping I have just one quick question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've heard that all night, just one quick question.

MR. RAMSAY: If you were a better chairman maybe we wouldn't have the problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: Anyway, I just want to know, and I want it on the record, what a family with two children can possibly receive in social assistance and all other sources. Namely the federal amount that they would receive in child allowance, or what has succeeded the family allowance. I just want to know what their monthly income would be in total including that. Because I know you are not allowed to use that in your calculations of social assistance but the family receives it. I would like to have it on the record, what the amount, the monthly income is for two children, a husband and wife, and they can receive drug cards et cetera, all the way, the whole thing.

MR. HARRIS: Below the poverty level though.

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Just on that, to what the hon. member says. According to Stats Canada figures an MHA's basic salary is below the poverty level, so it is irrelevant. Anyway, go ahead.

MS. YOUNG: I'm anxious to get to the housekeeping because if he does a good job I'm going to ask him to come down and clean up my apartment.

The regular amount, the basic amount, would be about $618. Then there would be an allowable amount of about $372 for either rent or mortgage.

MR. RAMSAY: That is on top of that, right?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, on top of that. Then you would look at a drug card. Now that would vary, how much money you would spend there. Again, if need arose, where you needed new furnishings or where an appliance gave out and it was an essential appliance, that could be provided. If there is need of transportation, like to get you to a specialist or whatever, that could be provided. As well, if the children are of school age the school books would be paid for. If an emergency arises we will -

MR. RAMSAY: Medical or otherwise?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, medical or otherwise, if something happens and there is an emergency. On top of that, if you are living on the Island, the fuel allowance.

MR. RAMSAY: An extra $50.

MS. YOUNG: An extra $51. I think $51, isn't that the correct figure? If you are living in Labrador it is $91.

MR. RAMSAY: Ninety-one dollars in Labrador.

MS. YOUNG: Let me just think now. Then there is the family allowance.

MR. RAMSAY: How much is that for a family -

MS. YOUNG: What would that be right now?

MR. RAMSAY: - with two children under the age of seven?

MS. YOUNG: We are all too old for this. Ask Jack.

MR. RAMSAY: No, I can tell you - I don't mind it being on the record, it is a matter of public - I receive, with four children, some $300-plus.

MS. YOUNG: Twelve hundred dollars a year per child.

MR. RAMSAY: Twelve hundred dollars per child.

MS. YOUNG: So you are looking at two children, $200.

MR. RAMSAY: So that is $200 more per month.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, $200 more a month.

MR. RAMSAY: So that is $1,190 a month plus the fuel allowance in the winter, so they receive $1,241 a month.

MS. YOUNG: And the GST rebate.

MR. RAMSAY: They get that back too.

MS. YOUNG: Sure.

MR. HARRIS: About one-quarter of an MHA's salary.

MR. RAMSAY: No, I wasn't saying that we make the same. What I was saying though is that if you use what they determine to be the poverty level -

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. RAMSAY: - in Canada poverty is considered anything under $52,000 I think it is for a family of four. Something like that.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: It depends on geographic locations.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) poverty don't work.

MR. RAMSAY: Alright, and I wasn't saying it is not. But I am just saying that is the amount that is available.

MS. YOUNG: I'm glad you asked that question, you know, because quite often the general public will say - for an average family, I think most people quote $500-and some odd dollars, so in actual fact it is a little bit more. It is still not a great amount, but if you look at somebody who is working for minimum wage -

MR. RAMSAY: A person working for minimum wage against that, compared to the person with a family of four would be making $4.75 an hour for forty hours -

MR. HARRIS: That argues in favour of an increase in the minimum wage, I am afraid.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, but if you look at it, it comes out to about, I think, take home for a single person would be probably about $190 -I made out cheques for summer students when I managed the books at the farm, and I think it comes out to less than $200.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay, that is all I have. I move that we adopt the minutes of the previous meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would somebody move last night's Minutes?

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.2.01, carried.

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

MS. YOUNG: I just want to say thank you very much to my officials. I have had them working with me over the past few days and into the evenings preparing for my first Budget Estimates, and I want to thank them very, very much. As well, it is certainly a pleasure having my own colleagues, even if they are of another party, it is still great.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister. If it wasn't for Mr. Ramsay's short question we would have been out of here by about 9:30 p.m.

On motion, Committee adjourned.