The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in Room 5083, Confederation Building.

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Perry Canning, MHA for Labrador West, substitutes for Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

We would like to convene this meeting of the Social Services Committee. We are missing one member but I believe Mary is en route.

Just before we get started, I will ask the members of the Committee, starting at my far left, to identify themselves.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Perry Canning, and I am the Member for Labrador West. I am representing, today, Wally Andersen from the mighty Torngats.

MR. G. REID: Gerry Reid, Twillingate - Fogo.

MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, District of Humber East and Chair.

MR. SULLIVAN: Loyola Sullivan, Ferryland.

MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, Waterford Valley.

MS S. OSBORNE: Sheila Osborne, St. John's West.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We will follow the usual procedures. We will ask the minister to introduce her staff and to make some introductory comments. We will then ask the Vice-Chair to lead off the questioning. We will then alternate between the members until all the questions have been asked. I believe, Harvey, you wish to leave at 8:00 p.m. or thereabouts?

MR. H. HODDER: If you are lucky I will.

CHAIR: Oh, well, in that case we will definitely alternate.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay.

Before we start, perhaps I could ask for a motion to approve the minutes of the May 5 meeting of the Committee. The Committee met that evening to discuss the Department of Education's Estimates.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly. Minister?

MS BETTNEY: Well, in terms of introductions of the officials who are here with me, to my immediate left is Dave Roberts, who is our Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services; to his left is George Skinner, our Assistant Deputy Minister for Regional Services and Transition; to my right is Alison Earle, the ADM for Programmes and Planning. My deputy minister is unfortunately not in the Province. She is away right now and was unable to attend. Seated behind me - I am not quite sure in what order - we have Don Kavanagh, who is the Director of Finance and General Operations; Wayne Penney, the Director of Income Support; and Ray Franey, who is the Director of Employment and Careers. These represent the major functional areas in my department. So that is who we are.

In terms of opening comments, Mr. Chair, I would like to proceed. I will make my opening comments rather brief and leave the time really for some questions and discussion in terms of responses.

As everybody is aware, this has been a year of transition for the staff of the Department of Human Resources and Employment. On April 1, the divisions of child welfare, community corrections, open custody and family rehabilitative services, were integrated with the newly created Department of Health and Community Services. That whole transition took place, as was indicated in the previous year in the budget, with the intent of integrating all of the services associated with children and families, and general health and well-being under that Department of Health and Community Services.

This department of Human Resources and Employment is primarily focused, of course, on providing income support for those who require supports for their most basic needs, and require help in getting into the labour market. The whole intention of the department is to take an active approach towards supporting people towards employment, and to use active employment measures to support people towards making that move into the labour market. We have a number of strategic goals but I think the most significant of those is that we know that in this transition, and in reforming how we approach income support, we need to break the dependency and encourage self-reliance in our clients. We know that we have specific populations who have specific needs, very special needs. Some of them I would categorize in terms of sectors. We are looking at youth, we are looking at women, we are looking at people with disabilities in particular, as three groups who have specific employment needs and we know that we have to address those.

We are intent, as a goal right now in our department, on reshaping and reforming our whole approach to income support so that it does link income support and labour market policies in an active kind of way. In addition to that, because of a lot of the consultation that has taken place, we also know that we have to develop meaningful opportunities for people in their communities. We have to provide some kind of employment strategies that bridge both the private sector and the public or not-for-profit sectors as well, and we cannot do it alone. We have to do it in partnership with those other levels of government, with the volunteer community, and very much with the private sector as well. Of course, the overall intent is tackling this issue, which came up in the House today, which is one of our primary concerns in terms of the level of particularly child poverty, and is a main goal that our department is focused on.

A lot of the changes we are going through - me in taking a different approach to our clients - if you were to look at our department as it is today and as it has been, it is primarily focused on providing support to people in the form of cheques. It is income support. I would say that 95 per cent of our staff, as we exist today, is dedicated towards really delivering that income support. Only a very small portion is devoted to helping clients find jobs, really supporting them towards employment.

When we make the full transition within the next three years, our goal is to have at least 70 per cent of our staff's time directed at working with clients to help them identify what they can do to find employment. We are talking about a major shift in emphasis and in the whole orientation of our department and the staff who are working with them. I think with that you will see our clients taking a different view too of what government provides when they come for income support, and what the links with employment are.

We are changing the program. Obviously you cannot make that kind of real fundamental change without changing the program that delivers income support, so we are in the process now of developing a new income support system. It will be based on a real point of entry system for clients, it will be much less obtrusive, that will enable people to access the basic supports that they need, but also, in terms of finances, the services they require. We see that happening, as I say, in a much less invasive and intrusive manner that is much more respectful of people's dignity in the whole process. Because we realize this is a continuing issue when you talk of social services, as people know, the main service of this department in terms of income support.

We have a number of partnerships that we are working towards and developing more fully, and of course one of our key partners is the federal government. We have the private sector and also the community agencies. When we look at the employment services and the resources that we use in employment programs, in a large part the federal government is our main partner there. We will continue to work with the federal government through, for example, the Labour Market Development Agreement because of the active employment measures that are involved in the funding that goes with the Labour Market Development Agreement. That fund this year will provide in the order of about $106 million for active employment measures to this Province for people who have an attachment to the workforce. As I say, it is very complimentary to the kinds of employment programs we have provincially.

Of course, another major piece of the partnership is the National Child Benefit program. This year, because of the contribution in the introduction of this program from the federal government, we will have available to us what amounts to, and it is prorated out at $7.7 million in this fiscal year, but in actuality on an annual basis is $10.15 million for programs and services to take a preventive and an early intervention approach to addressing some of the issues that affect poverty for children and their families. As I indicated today, I think most people would recognize that the best way out of poverty for children and their families is through employment. Therefore, this national strategy focuses on strengthening the links for people to move into employment and to move into the workforce.

The variety of programs that we have dedicated in our National Child Benefit initiatives do two things. They try and support the transition, but they also recognize, as a result of major studies that have been done in the past - the Children's Interests Report, the Select Committee's report from the House on children, and as well the Strategic Social Plan - that there are some pieces of early childhood development and family services that simply are not available in the Province today that have to be there if we are going to eliminate some of the systemic and root problems that cause poverty in this Province.

The money that is available, through the infusion of resources by the federal government in the form of the National Child Benefit program, gives us this opportunity to establish some of these programs that we have wanted to establish and I think successive governments have wanted to put in place for so many years but simply have not had the opportunity to do so.

I guess in terms of a concluding comment, the common theme that runs through the changes - and there are very profound changes taking place through my department on the social scene - is that we are taking a proactive approach to trying to address issues that are associated with employment, with income. We believe that this will be the answer and this will provide some of the solutions to increasing and promoting people's self-reliance and independence to building a real solid foundation for children and families throughout this Province, and ultimately for reducing the levels of poverty that concern all of us as people experience them in their communities and in their daily lives.

Having said that as a kind of overview, I will stop there and be available to respond to questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. I will now ask the Clerk if she would call the first head and we will then view the discussions under that one head. Then we will turn it over to Loyola. Harvey, out of deference to the fact you are leaving at 8:00 p.m., you may go immediately after the vice-chair.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: I am being very kind.

MR. H. HODDER: I know you are.

CHAIR: It is uncharacteristic.

MR. H. HODDER: I know, I'm surprised. There is still hope for the rest of the Liberal Party.

CHAIR: Any time you want to join.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was intending, Mr. Chairman, to defer to him, but seeing it is twenty after and he is going to get a chance to go second I will not give him that courtesy. That way I will be able to limit his time and serve our interests quite well.

MR. H. HODDER: These are my friends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He got selected for a parliamentary trip today (inaudible) number of people here so I think he has done well today.

Actually, I have a variety of questions there. I will make sure that Harvey gets an opportunity, probably for twenty minutes, before he leaves, the same that I could use at the beginning. I made a list. I will just get to some of these basic changes and announcements here that accompanied the Budget first of all, rather than just go to the specific head. Would you prefer to move down under each head and move through it?

CHAIR: No. We called head 1.1.01 and all the discussion will occur under that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, sure.

CHAIR: Anything is a go.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Reference was made to providing, I guess, some funding through the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland. I think we refer to them as SPAN. Would that money be in a direct disbursement to them or would it be in conjunction and expended on a continuing basis directly from the department?

MS BETTNEY: What we are looking at is developing with them a pilot project to test out the concept of providing a wage supplement for single parents. Because one of the key issues they have brought to us is the fact that oftentimes single parents, when they are making the move into the workforce or moving in to low-paying jobs, and because of the cost of running a household and taking care of their children, they are unable to leave social assistance and take one of the lower-income jobs, say the under $10 to $15 jobs.

What we are exploring with this pilot project is what effect providing a wage supplement to people in these circumstances would have on increasing their employability and their long-term ability to get and keep jobs, and move further into the workforce in a manner that they can sustain themselves.

At this point, I do not think that it is fully decided on the nature of the funding relationship. I think there is a possibility that we could fund the Association directly to deliver the program, but it is also possible that they will design the nature of the program, and the actual funding for the supplement would still come directly from the department to the individual clients. The key is that the way it will work will be designed by the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland in consultation with our officials, and then they will more or less direct how the fund should be dispensed in order to test this concept to see how it will work. These are early days yet.

MR. SULLIVAN: The reason for asking the question is in terms of the accountability of how it is applied, and to make sure that it is in line with the intended purpose and the criteria there, and whether it would be in the hands of SPAN. Not that I have any problems with that, to be honest with you, but to insure that the proper accountability procedures are exercised.

MS BETTNEY: In terms of accountabilities for the overall pilot, this will be set up as a real test with stated objectives and a specific plan developed for how the pilot should work and what we will be testing. Then that will be evaluated. That will be part of the accountability mechanism. As I say, I anticipate at this point, but I do not know for certain, that the direct funding of the supplement would still go from the department to our clients directly in the form of a supplement. I do not know if either of the officials have any later information. It is still being discussed.

MR. SULLIVAN: So you should hope to have it up and running in the next, what, month or so?

MS BETTNEY: That one is targeted to start up when, Dave?

MR. ROBERTS: August or September.

MS BETTNEY: August or September for the actual implementation date. We will test it from there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under 3.1.01, Social Assistance heading, page 214 - there for a quick reference -, last year there was a budgeted amount of $251,975,500, almost $252 million that is, and an expenditure of $234,575,500. This year of course the estimate is showing a decrease. There has been an anticipated decrease in the amount under Social Assistance.

I was just wondering about that with reference to the TAGS program for example. I think around 24.9 per cent, a little less than 25 per cent, of the people coming off that program had to go under the social assistance lines. I know there is economic growth projected too, but you are showing a decrease of $6 million over last year. Would that be attributed to, I guess, the people under twenty-one years old now, people in the single (inaudible)? People not availing of it in the year? Because I think that was implemented during the year, last year I believe. I am not sure if that was -

WITNESS: At the beginning of the year.

MR. SULLIVAN: In the beginning of the year? So we had a full year with that being applied. Well, that should not be a factor then. Why would you have a $6 million decrease if an estimated couple of thousand people may have to go on the social assistance lines who are falling off the TAGS program?

MS BETTNEY: The simple answer for the roughly $6 million difference is the fact that because of the nature of the National Child Benefit program, where we are recovering the National Child Benefit and using that for the re-investment program, that actually decreases the total amount of the line item that is associated with social assistance. We would look at the actual dollars that we are now providing as being that much less.

Having said that, there are still increases and decreases that have netted out. For example, one of the other key factors in what you see as this major decrease is the actual caseload numbers. You will note that in our recurring figures we have had for the past nine months since last April, actually for the past year now, a month over month decrease in our social assistance caseloads. We are running now at 1994 levels. We are back to January of 1994, and we have actually 4,000 people less on our rolls today than we had in April of last year. That is a significant decrease.

Part of it is the single able-bodied cases that you referred to where a policy change said that in last year's Budget we would take into account a family's circumstances for somebody eighteen to twenty-one years old before determining if they are eligible. That took a significant number of people off of our case-loads. In addition to that, there has been a decrease in the number of families and other components of our caseload throughout. That is likewise a factor that has contributed to the fact that this number is lower both from what it was last year, what it was revised at in mid-year, and what it continues to be right now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Basically too, the increase to these people would equate to an extra $4.5 million in your budget, in that ball park, the 2 per cent increase? In spite of that we are having a drop of $6 million.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, that is right, that is (inaudible) right.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is technically a drop of $11 million over last year. First of all, how much money was it reduced by, by eliminating the single able-bodied? What dollar value was applied to these people? I guess that is the number one question.

MS BETTNEY: I would think that I would have to follow up with an actual dollar value. In terms of cases, it amounted to approximately 1,700, Dave?

MR. ROBERTS: I would think so, yes.

MS BETTNEY: Seventeen hundred single persons who came off our caseloads as a result of that policy change, but in terms of the cost per caseload they were at the very low end of our cost per caseload.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is only about less than $2 million really.

MS BETTNEY: Yes. As I say, that is a low figure for that particular part of our cases. The more significant part was the decrease that we also had in areas like the able-bodied families and the heads of families. Those numbers also decreased consistently throughout the year and those are more costly cases.

MR. SULLIVAN: So what would you project this year now would be your actual caseload for 1998-1999, compared to 1997-1998?

MS BETTNEY: We are projecting our caseload at 32,300, which is roughly where we are right now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Versus last year?

MS BETTNEY: Yes. We have added into that, in terms of our budget figures, a projected increase of 100 cases per month over this fiscal year. We are starting from where we are at the 32,300, give or take, and we have projected for an increase of 100 cases per month on top of that. We have built the budget estimates on that basis.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I still find it difficult to see why it would be down. I guess you are anticipating a slight increase in your caseload.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: A 2 per cent increase over last year, and we will still be down. Six million dollars.

MS BETTNEY: Yes. Part of it, as I say, is the National Child Benefit, $7.7 million, that comes out of those figures (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but still, when you look at putting in your the 2 per cent, that is roughly, what, $4.5 million approximately?

MS BETTNEY: Three million dollars.

MR. SULLIVAN: So that is not 2 per cent of the total.

MS BETTNEY: No, it is 2 per cent of the basic rates. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is only 2 per cent of the basic.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: So if someone is getting above basic - that is right - for other add-on for various natures, whether medical or whatever, it would not apply to that of course, just the basic rate.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Then the one we just referred to there is that $7.7 million in the next section. In 4.1.01.01 there was a $600,000 budget under Salaries, and an expenditure of $1.1 million, and this year we are back to $667,800. Why was there a half-million dollar expenditure over what was originally budgeted? What could that be attributed to?

MS BETTNEY: In this area, we made some shifts in our programs, kind of collected our programs together and the staff associated with them when we re-organized our employment development programs. Now, I would ask my ADM to comment on the specifics of it, but it generally is a re-organisation of people associated with the function of employment development programs.

MR. SULLIVAN: So there will be a drop in another area to correspond to that, I would assume. Would that be correct?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the figure is up a half-a-million dollars, being revised for last year as you say. We readjusted some of these main objects (inaudible). You will notice that the total figure for this year is up about $700,000 over the revised. That half-a-million dollars is now reflected down in Allowances and Assistance. You will notice that is up from revised, from $3.9 million to $4.4 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: The money is all there. It is just that in chartered accounts, Treasury Board calls it, they re-juggled some of these things.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. The total amount at the bottom there is very much the same anyway.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess we are factoring in an extra 4 per cent for salaries with the extra pay period. That would be part of the difference too.

MS BETTNEY: Yes. Those are the two factors that tend to show a moderate differential between last year and this year in all of the salary items that go through this budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: With 4.1.01.06, there is a significant change from what was budgeted under Purchased Services. What would account for that drastic reduction there?

MR. ROBERTS: From .01 to .07, that is really the budget for our SAT Centre, the Skills Assessment and Training Centre, and again we have reoriented some of this funding. If you go from the Salaries at $667,800 and right down - $2,000, $36,000 and so on - to $6,000, they add up to $781,800, which is the budget for our SAT Centre for this year.

MR. SULLIVAN: From which numbers, did you say? Could you just repeat that?

MR. ROBERTS: We start at Salaries, at is .01.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, .01 down to what?

MR. ROBERTS: .07, and including Property, Furnishings and Equipment at $6,000. If you add those, they come to about $781,800, which is the budget for our SAT Centre, the Skills Assessment and Training Centre.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Last year it was roughly... That is right, we have to knock off $400,000 to $500,000 in the upper line, right?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Then Allowances and Assistance is already allotted there, which brings it roughly to the same as last year overall, when you do the re-juggling.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No particular Strategic Employment Initiatives. That is because of what, because of a federal withdrawal?

MS BETTNEY: This is a federal program that was, I believe, a three year funded program from the federal government that expired at the end of the last fiscal year. There is no funding available in that (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There are no initiatives to replace or to compensate for that forthcoming.

MS BETTNEY: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Labour Market Adjustment Programs, 4.1.03. I keep moving, seeing we are looking at each section there as we go. Under .10, Grants and Subsidies, this year we are looking at a little over $6 million as opposed to about $7 million last year. Why would that be? Is it that it has already done significant adjustments and you anticipate having less -

MS BETTNEY: Which item are you referring to?

MR. SULLIVAN: 4.1.03, Labour Market Adjustment Programs. There is only .10 there under that, Grants and Subsidies. It is down about $1.940,000 budgeted.

MS BETTNEY: The Labour Market Adjustment Programs that we are talking about are ones that were, again, like the older worker program -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) and so on.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, which have now expired and we are carrying certain individuals under that program, and we will continue. This provides the continued funding for that support, but as people drop off of that -

MR. SULLIVAN: Drop off as they get to the age of sixty-five. It keeps going down.

MS BETTNEY: - it will continue to decline. There is no new funding in this area. There is no provision for any increase in growth here. It is simply continuing to support the people who have been placed on this program over the years.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would NCARP, the northern cod early retirement program and so on, show the Province's 30 per cent in this category also?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no basic, I guess, in this year, allocation this year showing for any future program. That would have to be done at that particular time. I guess you weren't that presumptuous.

MS BETTNEY: As I say, the -

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, there was nothing officially approved, so basically there is nothing you can do. You just -

MS BETTNEY: Right. These programs that were in place expired, and the obligation is simply there to carry people through on the commitments that were made in previous years. There is not an existing program to move forward.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just have another question on this particular one and then I will stop, Mr. Chairman. I know Harvey has a few too before he goes. Under that total amount that is left there, how much would be attributed to probably the two retirement programs. There was NCARP, I think it was called, northern cod early retirement program under the NCARP program, and under the TAGS program. There were the two basic programs. I guess there was a variety of programs too, weren't there?

MS BETTNEY: Yes. Under the NCARP program we have provided $3 million (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the total since 1992, the two programs basically, or -

MS BETTNEY: No, that's for this fiscal year, 1998-1999.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but I mean the programs that went under NCARP and under TAGS, all the fishery ones.

MS BETTNEY: I think the Atlantic fisheries early retirement program would be the second, would it not?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there was AFERP, right, I think it was called, and NCARP.

MS BETTNEY: Right. We have an additional $1.1 million that is estimated for that, and then we have a fish plant older worker adjustment program. I think all three of those are perhaps included in what you are thinking of, and the total of that allocation is $5.7 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the rest of them - most people on the other programs have not been very recent, and they are pretty well all dropped off.

MS BETTNEY: Right, it is very modest. Yes, this is the bulk of it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will just stop there, Mr. Chairman. When everybody else gets a chance I will -

CHAIR: We can come back to you.

MR. SULLIVAN: If there are any of my questions unanswered, I will get back to it.

CHAIR: So from Harvey we will go back to Perry. Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Last year there was considerable discussion on the support arrangements that would be for people who were in receipt of social services but who were going to go to post-secondary. In recent days I've had a number of people call me about the number of people who entered into training in September, began to access student loans. Because of the arrangements that were there, and the fact that they had to access all the student loans, the way that that arrangement was structured a fair number of them, I'm told, have dropped out of post-secondary institutions.

Have you been monitoring that? Is there any data available on the number of people who have dropped out of programs because of the way that the system was structured between your department and let's say, the student aid division?

MS BETTNEY: We have been monitoring it as closely as we can. We have been looking at that particular aspect of it to see what the impact has been. I don't have the specific figures here right now and I would certainly have to follow up to give you any kind of specifics, but my recollection of the extent of the drop off that would have been associated with the recovery, in terms of the shelter component, was that it was very modest.

The real problem that we experienced was in the very early application of the program when, in fact, we did not have an arrangement with the banks or with the Department of Education to have the deduction made at source. You will recall that in the first term after the policy was applied, when people actually received the money and had to return the money, that that caused some difficulty. People found themselves in a position where they had difficulty returning the money. They had spent it on other things or whatever.

After we got to the point where we had worked out an arrangement between the banks and the Department of Education where the money could be deducted at source, the actual impact in terms of the difficulty that it posed for clients seemed to be reduced. We did not have the same problems with it. What we tended to do was to try and work individually with the cases that were left over from the first term application of it to try and prorate out the payback so that they were able to continue. In the majority of cases, I would suggest to you, people were able to continue with their education and gradually pay back the shelter component from the first term, and then work through in subsequent terms having it deducted at source.

Right now it is an issue, as I say, that clients for the most part seem to have adjusted to, in the sense that once their tuition and their books are paid and once the shelter component is deducted at source, there is still some of the student aid, in the vast majority of cases, that is left over. Plus people continue to receive their social assistance. They are getting by, and I'm not aware of any significant number of people who have had to leave their courses as a result of this.

Now I will ask my Director of Income Support, who is probably the closest to it, to indicate whether we have any specific figures to respond to this. Wayne, if you can contribute anything to this?

MR. PENNEY: No, as you say, (inaudible) quite well. In the first semester a lot of these women were not deducting at source. The students received the money, and obviously some of them had some difficulty repaying or paying the money to us regularly. This semester, to my knowledge, most students have accommodated the policy quite well.

MR. H. HODDER: Have you kept any stats on, for example, the number of dropouts that would have occurred between, let's say, the middle of October and the end of December, and compared it to the second semester dropout?

MR. PENNEY: There were a number of cases, a small number, and I don't recall the exact (inaudible) but I have it written. There were a small number last semester who indicated as one of the reasons - and they might have went on for any number of reasons - but one of the reasons why they had some difficulty was our policy. This semester, again, to my knowledge, no individual cases have come to my attention with respect to that.

MR. H. HODDER: That particular policy and how that is structured, is that consistent with the practices in Atlantic Canada and across the country? Has that been built in into the student aid federal-provincial agreements?

MR. PENNEY: About a month ago (inaudible) take some time. One of my staff is actually doing a province-by-province comparison. At this point it is not completed, but it should be completed in the next couple of weeks or so.

MS BETTNEY: Do you have any early indication even whether others are doing it the same or is it too soon to say?

MR. PENNEY: The early indication that I have is that our policy is in fact fairly favourable compared to others.

MR. H. HODDER: When you get that kind of data, is it possible to make a note and have it shared?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: It does permit other MHAs to be able to answer client based questions that arise through telephone calls or whatever. We want to be able to give them reassurances, and also give them encouragement. The whole point is to get these people into post-secondary.

In your Information Technology I notice that you have allocated $2.7 million again this year. That follows on the $2.8 million last year. What new initiatives are you undertaking, or is this going to be the standard amount that is needed to support information technology programs for the department?

MS BETTNEY: Much of it is the operation of our existing computerized systems. We do have a significant operation there to run our income support program in particular. There is that element to it. We have, as you say, $2.7 million, but we also have the development of new systems provided for in that allocation.

We have the year 2000 issue, as Dave points out to me, that is facing us as a department in a really big way. We have to make adjustments in our whole computer system and all of our programs in order to ensure that people will continue to receive income support when that particular unique factor kicks into the whole system. Those are the main things that you see in that $2.7 million allocation. It is primarily the ongoing maintenance, ongoing operation, with the addition of the changes to the system for the year 2000.

MR. H. HODDER: I have a couple of other questions. One deals with the pilot that you were doing relative to the payment of social service benefits, direct deposit initiatives. I want to get some idea as to how that is going, how it has been received. Is there any intention in this Province to make it more of a global methodology?

MS BETTNEY: That is part of our overall income support reform, that is just one piece. We are looking at, as I say, a direct client entry system that is as unobtrusive as we can possibly make it. One of the things we know is that for the majority of our clients they fit into a very simple income support system, in the sense that their needs do not change. Once you have determined what they are and what people are entitled to, they are likely to be able to continue with a moderate amount of checking. We know for those people that as long as we get the accurate information up front and determine what their eligibility is then we can administer that system pretty simply. There is another whole category of clients who are in the minority whose needs change consistently, and they are the more difficult one. That is why you see a policy book right now in my department that is in the order of hundreds of policies to try and accommodate all of the complexities of those exceptions.

What we believe is that if we can design a new income support system that is built on the fact that the majority can be accommodated very easily, that people can sort of self-identify what their circumstances are, that we can make the most use of technology to determine what information we need to know - whether it is from the federal government, from vital statistics, from wherever - and then get what they are entitled to and get it out to them in an efficient manner, we think that direct deposit may be one aspect of getting it out to them that would be efficient.

We know that if you take that and say: We are going to go to direct deposit in every community, for every case, for every family in this Province, we would have a nightmare on our hands. That is not the intent, but it is to say that this is a way that people can get their payments easily and efficiently, and things like postal strikes do not make a difference to it so it can have some real advantages to it.

It will not be for everybody because a lot of people will not be comfortable with the technology in the beginning and it may be that they will have to grow into that. There is a really large public information piece, and information and education with our clients, that have to take place as well. I think that this is a component of the new system which will reduce our costs. We will be able to make that shift. It will give us the ability to make that shift from having 90 per cent of the people focused on getting the right amount on a cheque to a person, to having the majority of people helping people get their needs met towards employment. It means taking use of existing technology. Direct deposit and ATMs are part of the answer. and where it is appropriate in communities around the Province, and where they exist, we will be making as much use of them as we possibly can, and encouraging our clients to go in that direction.

MR. H. HODDER: Just a couple of more questions. This one follows from a question Sheila asked in the House on Friday. It has to do with the internship programs in the school system, when we have a program that is working that helps students be able to identify their own skills to let them have some experience in the workplace and a meaningful role model in that kind of relationships.

As you know, the federal government has withdrawn its funding. It is one of those cases where the federal government, having initiated very worthwhile programs, and having a view today on a mandate to do that, then, when the program works they drop it and say to the provinces: This was our idea. We have all of the public relation benefits that we need to get out of this now. Now we will just throw it in your lap and you can go with it.

This idea that the federal government can just do that kind of stuff bothers me greatly. What are we going to do as a province? Because this is a very successful program. It follows in line with the initiative that you have talked about in terms of making sure that people have the skills. Yet I get called on a regular basis, including today, from a school asking: What have you heard? When is the Minister of Human Resources and Employment going to have dialogue with Roger Grimes, and when can we hear something on this? Any answers I can give to these people?

MS BETTNEY: We don't have the answers yet. As you have indicated in your comments, this was a federal program and it was a program, I would add, though, that was quite unique to this Province. I think there was probably only one other province where the federal government was funding these kinds of programs in high schools. Typically the dividing line between jurisdictions has been at the post-secondary level.

This was not a program that ran in all of the provinces. I think over the years the federal government has had to be convinced on many occasions that it was appropriate for them to be funding a high school program, to all intents and purposes, here in the Province. Unfortunately, I think, over the past year the policy level decision in the federal government has been that no, they should completely withdraw even in these areas from any involvement in high school programming.

I think the challenge to us now is to convince the federal government that we need to find a way to be able to continue funding these things. Because I think both the federal government officials who we have talked with and ourselves agree that in terms of early intervention in employment related issues on bridging young people from school to work this has been a very successful program. While it takes place within the confines of the school and in terms of education, I would say it is more of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education than it is, for example, of myself, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

Having said all of that, knowing what the outcomes are, it is very important that we try to sustain those. With the Minister of Education we are pursuing this with the federal minister of HRDC where the funding has come from in the past. Our officials are trying to pursue this at their level as well. We do not have a change of position at this point. Right now there is a policy position taken by the federal government to say no, they are not going to do this any more. We have not successfully changed that position at this point but our efforts continue.

I think the avenue that presents some opportunity, some potential for us to explore, is in the youth employment strategy that we are developing cooperatively with the federal government. I would make the case that when we look at a federal-provincial youth employment strategy, a very viable and valid piece it for this Province - not to say that it would work anywhere else in the country; I don't know that - but for this Province I would make the argument that a very solid youth employment strategy is to use some kind of internship cooperative type program in the schools because of the success that we have seen with it to date.

We are continuing to pursue it. We do not have an answer. The same people are calling me and I cannot tell them any more than that today. I know that the clock it ticking in terms of being able to allocate schedules to schools and insure that the programs are able to continue. The point that the school representatives and the school board representatives have made to me is that the programs that are most at risk are the ones that have only been started for one year. Those are the newest ones. They feel the ones that have been established for a number of years can sustain themselves and can survive. What they are asking for is some way to address the programs which have only been there for a year to insure that they can get the two or three years that they need to really become sustainable. That is the area we are focusing on most in addressing this issue.

MR. H. HODDER: In terms of, for example, development of partnerships with the community, there is a tremendous benefit here. Because it lets the community have some participatory function in education -

MS BETTNEY: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: - and lets them get into the mind-set of being, shall we say, responsible for the raising of the total child. It has tremendous benefits. As someone said one time: One thing you have to think about when you develop programs is what if they work? In this particular case they seem to have worked. Of course, I should also point out that my research tells me that this decision is not an Ottawa based decision, but an Atlantic Provinces decision of the federal group, that this was not a decision which was directed by policy from Ottawa, but was made with the group of Atlantic Provinces, people who work with Human Resources Canada. They did have options at the local level but they chose to go in other directions.

I will leave it there because I do understand my colleague here has all kinds of questions on the National Child Benefit. I will leave all those for the good member for St. John's West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Harvey. Perry, and then perhaps we could go to Mary before we come back to Sheila.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of comments to make. First of all, Minister, I want to express my appreciation for the work that you and your officials in your department did on the Labour Mobility Agreement. For those who do not know, the Labour Mobility Agreement is a new agreement between our Province and the Province of Quebec to allow free labour movement. The Government of Quebec had that opportunity all along. It was a single gate. People from Quebec could come, in particular into my area, and work, and we could not go there to work. We had examples, for instance, of cement trucks going to Fermont to dump out their load of cement, and they were not allowed to use a labourer to pull the chutes on the back of the truck.

I am happy to say that is fixed. As a matter of fact, I talked to William Elson the other day, who is chair of the youth unemployed committee in Labrador West, and he is very pleased. He is saying to me that there are new jobs opening up in Fermont with Quebec Cartier Mining that he and others will be applying for. For the first time they will be able to apply for jobs in the mining companies in Quebec, and that is a tremendous advantage for our people.

The other thing I would like to say is, on behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living, specifically the group in Labrador West, I just wanted to pass along their deep appreciation for the efforts of you and, again, others in your staff, the kind of support that has been provided through the year. I don't say this just to be patronizing. I say it because they really believe that there has been some important progressive social things done in terms of their group and their advocacy position. I was very pleased today to have read their quarterly report where they talked about how much they appreciate you going into their homes in Labrador West and talking to them about their own issues. That is an issue that I will continue to be working with you on, and I am sure that your support when you can will be there.

The other thing I would like to do is just mention for a second something else. Because one of the most active women's centres in this Province happens to be in Western Labrador. They have a very strong office there, they have a very strong advocacy group. Because I and others know that not only are you the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, but you are also the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. The monies that were provided this year for the maintaining of those offices allowed for the continuance of their ability to affect social change.

We ought not to forget that they provide tremendous assistance to women and children, especially from challenged homes and from settings that are rougher than most of us can contemplate. Those investments in those offices were very important. They give an access to women and children when they have troubled families that they otherwise would not have. Because sometimes it is easier to go in and talk to a neighbour you know than it is to go talk to somebody representing the Crown, an official, or even a politician. It is easier for somebody in a condition like that to go and talk to a friendly face, and those offices are very important.

I wanted to just mention those three things. Because as much as sometimes we like to look at some of the issues that we quite haven't hit the top line, there are many things that we have accomplished. I think that, all in all, for the three things that I have mentioned with respect to my riding, I am very appreciative of the role and work of your office in Wabush and the support from Goose Bay, and in the office here.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Perry. Mary, and then we will go to Sheila.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you very much. I don't have any questions for the minister this evening, but I am glad to have the opportunity to meet some officials from the department, and to say thank you to the people who I have not had an opportunity to meet in person, although you have been there for me on many occasions to solve many problems that come up on an individual basis each day. I sincerely thank you for that.

On the transition home on the Burin Peninsula, I spoke with Cheryl Mallard again today, and things are going very nicely. They are getting the board together, and hopefully we will see something very positive (inaudible) in a very short while.

So again, thank you to everyone. I'm the voice on the phone but haven't met everyone. There are not too many I have not spoken to in the department.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mary. Sheila.

MS S. OSBORNE: I am going to start with the National Child Benefit fund. As I have said (inaudible) in the House of Assembly, I do commend the program. One of my concerns is that they will not reach all the people that they should reach. In other words, the claw backs from it will be universal or to programs deemed not necessarily universal. I am thinking of the National Council on Welfare report that was released today, or (inaudible) today.

One of the things they refer to is that one of the problems for people (inaudible) small communities to obtain employment. When they were living in the smaller communities I guess they had farming and things that were able to sustain them. Of course, once they got into a larger community they found this wasn't the case. I mean, one of (inaudible) jobs where it was temporary, the end result was poverty. I guess my question is: In the very small communities in this Province, how universal will your programs be?

MS BETTNEY: I think what everybody needs to understand with the National Child Benefit program is that this is a very strategically oriented program and it does not solve every problem that exists with poverty across this country. It is not going to fix everything, and everybody knew that in the beginning. When the program was designed it was intended to address this issue of helping people bridge from dependency from social assistance into employment. That was the primary intent of the program, knowing that a lot of the first jobs that people take are going to be on the lower end of the income scale.

There is a real gap. People have coined a term for it, the social researchers have called it the welfare wall. It says that you are better off being inside, on this side of the wall, dependent, getting support, because of all of the other benefits that go with it, that are basic protections for you and your family, than you are breaching that wall and taking the risk of going it on your own.

That is the main focus of the National Child Benefit program. It does not presume that it will address all of the other issues associated with rates and the income of people on social assistance across the country. What it is intended to do is provide provinces with the resources by freeing up the funds that become available, through providing social assistance really, by providing this benefit to all families, to allow provinces to have the resources to design programs and services to assist with this aspect of the problem.

In this Province we (inaudible) had a particular problem because we had, I would have to say, some of the largest gaps in early childhood programs and services of any province in this country. Beyond a doubt we did not have and we do not have the level of services for young children in this Province that exist elsewhere. Whenever you talk about families moving into employment, there is a basic requirement that they are going to need. It is going to be child care. Apart from anything else, apart from the people who require it for other reasons, it is going to be a primary requirement, particularly of single parents. We know that there is something like 8,000 single parents on social assistance today.

In terms of the overall development of children, these early childhood services are so important. We did not have any programming, any services, or any legislative authority over children who are zero to two years old. There is a cost to putting that in place. I would have to say that without the $10 million that the National Child Benefit provides us with, the resources and the access to it, we would not be able to instate and put these kinds of necessary early childhood programs and services in place. In addition to that, we have looked at the family services, the family resource centres, which provide a real support service to families. We see successes with those. We are basing it on the model of the family resource centres that were funded federally under the CAPC.

We have had a full evaluation of the program. It was just completed earlier in the fall. Tremendously positive results with those in terms of the results that it had for children, for families. I visited the MacMorran Community Centre here talking to the director there about the results they have seen with something like the nutrition program for pregnant mothers. Where they have completely reversed the problem of the low birth rate with infants. They have gone from a rate that was really disturbing in terms of the number of low birth weight children in that particular area that the resource centre serves, to where they have had fifty healthy, full weight, full-term babies there at Christmas time. This is a huge success story. That is the kind of services we will be able to now fan out and extend across the Province in all the areas where they do not exist today.

The other area that we are focusing on is the youth, and the twelve to eighteen-year-olds. We know that if we can somehow engage those young people who just have not had the exposure - they are at risk of dropping out of school, they are at risk of not developing their skills so that they will go on to be employable. They are also at risk from some of the things that young people do when they get off course, whether it is associated with their health, with drugs, with other dependencies and so on, or their general mental health. Through our youth networks, this will provide us with an avenue to really deploy all of the resources that are already out there in the community with the existing agencies, and more fully be able to respond to the needs of young people in this age category.

Without going too long, I would have to say to you that I recognize that there are areas - when you look at the National Child Benefit program, it does not address the issue of the rates of social assistance and the difficulty and the inadequacy that exist in the current rates. Our applying and putting in place a three-year phased in increase is one response to that particular issue. As I said in the House today, if you told a lot of (inaudible) the 7 per cent over the time that it will be implemented, it is going to comprise a $30-million increase in funding that will go in place. It is $3 million this year. You add on to that. Next year it gets up to be $11 million, and then it just compounds, and that is the reality of the cost of social assistance in this Province.

Something as simple as a 2 per cent rate increase this year and a 3 per cent rate increase next year adds up to those kinds of millions of dollars. That is not the full answer, but I do believe that the step we have made in putting these programs and services now in place is the most profound social policy shift that we have made in this Province in decades.

I think you will see the results of that ten years out. I just absolutely believe in the value of what we are doing here, but I will never say that it is the answer to everything. It is not. We still have to continue, and as more resources become available we will have to be able to respond and provide more resources as well.

MS S. OSBORNE: The work incentive program, which will be for the working poor, will be able to take (inaudible) -

MS BETTNEY: Yes, that is a good piece of it.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, that is a good piece of it. I think that is wonderful, especially as it pertains to the drug card. I have to say that if I were in a position of being dependent on the security blanket of a drug card and I had children, that is the route I would take. My main concern, and I keep saying this, is the little people out in the little community who will not be able to take advantage of any of these programs.

I have no problem with any of the programs, they are all needed and they are all very welcome. My main concern has been, from the beginning, with people in the very rural areas who are being clawed back and will not get to take advantage of these types of programs. That is the only problem I have with it.

MS BETTNEY: I see that the family resource centres - for example, we are putting money into the family resource centres and that is going to really benefit rural Newfoundland. Right now there are, I think the number is twenty-nine family resource centres. Some of them are core centres and others are just outreach type centres across the Province. We know that the urban areas are taken care of. The whole intent of expanding this program is to insure that that resource benefits the social assistance family as well as the low income family.

Because this is a site people come to, where they can really get the kind of support and development to insure good parenting practices, good nutrition practices, just plain somebody to talk to. Sometimes a peer counselling group has far more advantage than a medical service or a medical counselling service will ever have. The family resource centres I see as being one of the key services that will really benefit social assistance clients in rural Newfoundland who, you are right, will not take advantage or be able to take advantage of the employment side of this.

The other piece is the expansion of the licensed day care. The move to be able to licence family home day care to me is a major step in making quality day care available in rural Newfoundland. Up to this point you have to have a centre. That, by its nature, happens in an urban or a quasi-urban area where there is a concentration of kids and family. With the family home day care, we know it is going on all over the Province. What this does is give us a means, as a government, to be able to regulate it and insure that that service can be a quality service. That parent can know if they are putting their child in a family home day care that it meets certain standards and that their children are going to be safe there and will get a quality environment while they are there.

That particular expansion and improvement of the licensed day care is going to cost us $4.6 million. I would suggest to you that social assistance families and children - because of the nature and the way we provide subsidies when children need it, whether their families are working or not, if we determine that a young child needs to have a day care environment for their development or for their protection, then they can benefit from that. Now there will be an expanded level of service available to those children all across the Province. The youth network, in the same way, I see as being an asset to children and young people who live in social assistance families equally as it is an asset to children who live in low income families.

So no, they will not take the employment part of it, but if you look at the $10.10 million, only $1.6 million of it is employment incentives. All of the remainder of the money in the National Child Benefit is the other programs and services that social assistance families will have the same opportunity to benefit from. I feel fairly good that while social assistance families do not get the monetary benefit that working families get, by the same token the value of their social assistance is greater than what a low income working family gets. We have done the statistics on it. What we know is that you would have to be earning over $8 per hour before you even start to equate with the benefits that a social assistance family receives by virtue of their actual income, other benefits. That does not deal with the other services like the drug card that they have access too. That is pretty significant, you know.

MS S. OSBORNE: Let me just go back, if I could. Will there be any communities in very rural Newfoundland on the Coast of Labrador and on the southwest coast, etc., that will not be able to take advantage of any of the programs? These are the people that I am thinking about. They will still pay.

MS BETTNEY: Not to my knowledge. The other thing that you have to remember is that, for example on the Coast of Labrador, the example you gave, again, part of the budget that we built in recognizing this was the $150 a month increase to families living on the Coast. Because we know that their cost of living is so much greater than the cost of living for people on the Island and in other parts of the Province. Just by its sheer location I cannot see that being an issue.

There will be an issue of community capacity, in the sense that much of the programs and services, in order for them to be successful, have to have an element of community ownership. There is a building process that has to go on here. The family resource centres work because people in the community are involved with them. They drive them, they own them, they dictate what goes on in them, they are community centres in a sense, and the youth networks will be established in much the same way. There will have to be that kind of (a) leadership and (b) ownership that will have to take place in communities for them to be able to get these things operational there. Where there is the desire, location would not be a restriction. I cannot see that being an issue.

MS S. OSBORNE: You own Goss Gilroy. I thought it was Joan Marie the other night. You still (inaudible) own Goss Gilroy.

MS BETTNEY: I own Goss Gilroy.

MS S. OSBORNE: I have some problems with the Goss Gilroy report, with all due respects to the Association for Community Living -

MS BETTNEY: And others.

MS S. OSBORNE: - and others. One of the things is the cost per capita of keeping a person in the Perlin Training Centre. That is on page seventeen. I don't know if you have that (inaudible). On page seventeen of the Goss Gilroy report it says that it costs $11,195 per capita. That is just to keep them there. That is not reflective of their home care and other things that happen outside of that. Just to keep them in the centre.

If the centre closes or if the centre is phased out, what are the plans for the clients there who don't either (a) want to or (b) are unable to work? The reason I am asking this is if we give thirty-five hours of respite at approximately $6 an hour - it says $5.41 here, but it is gone up to $5.84, and then there is the little employment expense for EI and CPP (inaudible). To keep them for thirty-five hours a week is $10,900 respite, if they are not in the Perlin Training Centre. Can you see where I am going with this?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MS S. OSBORNE: The Perlin Training Centre is a good bang for the buck respite-wise. I'm speaking from first-hand (inaudible) care. The person I take care of is thirty-eight years old, and she is a client at the Perlin Training Centre, and has been for quite some time. I am caring for her because her mother is unable to, she is a senior, etc.

I know of another man around fifty years of age who was also a client. It was his choice to go work, and he made out really well in the workplace, but that does not work for all of them. Some of them either can't or don't want to. The Association for Community Living, with all due respects, gives them a choice to integrate, but they should have a choice not to integrate either. I am talking of social stimulation that they receive from their peers at the Perlin.

The girl who stays with me who I take care of, this is her right. I could not conceive of a place that I would rather have her. In other words, if the Perlin closes I will not be able to take care of her for that thirty-five hours a week. Somebody will have to do the day respite. I cannot think of any place in this world where she would get a better quality of care, social interaction, etc., than the Perlin. I am asking you now: What are the long-term plans, or what are the (inaudible)?

MS BETTNEY: Again, this whole area is in transition, both within the department, within the funding that we have available. Because of course, as I indicated earlier, the funding that we have used in this area has been 50-50 cost-shared funding with the federal government. It was formally the Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons program. It covered a multitude of services, employment related being some, but also with these types of programs which were day programs, sheltered workshops. It covers things like assistance supports, technical training aids, and a whole host of things. In the change that is taking place in the federal funding with the new agreement, where this is being focused primarily on assistance for people towards employment -

MS S. OSBORNE: Going to work.

MS BETTNEY: Again, and that is the focus of the funding that the federal government is providing here. We are, by necessity, as well as by principal, making a change here and a transition. It is going to take, I would suggest to you, the next three years or so, and the federal government have allowed for that in their funding. They will be giving us sort of a three-year period to make the transition to determine how we want to restructure our programs and services for disabled people so that we can take the best advantage of the federal funding that is available for this purpose.

Now that suggests some change in our current approaches, and that's why we have a stakeholder committee which is working on developing an implementation plan for the Goss Gilroy Report. In essence, what you are aware of, is that all of the stakeholders have agreed with the overall direction and thrust. Now they are trying to work out the details of: What does this mean for the Vera Perlin School? What does this mean for the pre-vocational school? What does this mean for the supportive employment programs and for other interventions that we have in this area? I think there are six subcommittees who are currently putting together a plan which I expect they will give to me by the end of the summer.

I cannot say to you today what will happen because it is the stakeholders themselves who are shaping how they want to see this structured. One of the critical issues they are dealing with, that kind of drove this early report - you saw it in the statistics there - was the fact that for the people, for example, who are at Vera Perlin, nobody questions the quality of the experience they have there, the value that it has for them and their families. They are probably one-tenth of the population who are being served. With the services full, with no movement, then it is kind of like you win the lottery. If you are in there, you are in. Then you have the service, perfect.

MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: For all of the other people who could benefit perhaps from some service similar to this, they do not have access to it. If you ask me what I think will happen, I think you will see some kind of a change. I do not anticipate that the Vera Perlin School, as an organization, will disappear from the landscape here. I think you will see a clearer focus on: What is its function, what role does it serve? Then a more equitable access for disabled people to be able to get in there.

MS S. OSBORNE: Or make another one.

MS BETTNEY: Again, you would have to question whether providing some elements of that, combined with some employment, combined with some other things, might be the best answer. That is the challenge that we have really put to the stakeholders (inaudible) -

MS S. OSBORNE: They will not go out to work because they are afraid they will not get back in.

MS BETTNEY: Exactly, yes. What I heard, even from the people who I spoke to there who are disabled, is very much that. It is not a question that they do not want to work, but again it is a question of risks. It is like that welfare wall: If I go out of here tomorrow and lose my place -

MS S. OSBORNE: Who will take care of me?

MS BETTNEY: - and the work does not work out, what is going to happen to me then? Am I going to be stuck home? Their families are saying: What is going to happen to us then? We have to make that system better. As I say, I do not expect that the Vera Perlin School will close, to be honest with you. Right now it is with the stakeholders, and I will receive what they give me and then take it into consideration in terms of the big picture.

Very much the federal funding that is going to be provided to us will provide us with a means of resourcing, supporting people towards employment, and we have to take that into consideration in terms of all of the resources we have available and how can we best serve the needs of the disabled people in the context of their full lives, and living quality lives. I think Vera Perlin will continue to be there, but I think it will have a different role, to be honest with you.

MS S. OSBORNE: I guess in my case, and I am just using my - this is not to be self-serving, because I take this (inaudible). In the case of, once again, the person I take care of, if Vera Perlin changed focus even, if she was only able to stay there for another year or so, when she went out the back door of it then we are dealing with respite, which would cost the government or your department or whoever has that responsibility more per month for the same hours than it would keeping her at the Perlin. I have people who come for respite, but I cannot see that they could possibly come close enough (inaudible), not a millionth of the quality that she gets there because of interaction with her peers.

I have had this argument around other tables when I was on other committees. In a effort to normalize - she is thirty-eight -, would I insist that she sit and play scrabble with me and my son? That is normal. Where is normal. Whereas she would rather be doing things with people who present a little challenge, but not a great challenge to her. Because she enjoyed being in the lip sync concert that was on a couple of weeks ago. That is a perfect example. One of the little girls came over after and said: Tell the government not to close us. They should have been here tonight. Because that thing, that is one of the highlights of the year. They are in bowling, summer games, they are in all sorts of things that they feel very secure and very comfortable in.

MS BETTNEY: This is a classic kind of discussion or debate around the whole issue of integration and normalization and quality -

MS S. OSBORNE: And choice.

MS BETTNEY: Choice, yes.

MS S. OSBORNE: If they choose not to integrate because they are happy where they are, then maybe we should have a look at leaving them that choice as well.

MS BETTNEY: I think the department, at least when family and rehabilitative services was part of this department - it is no longer part of this department - when we are talking the full aspect of people's lives here, clearly the department and the government have taken a strong position on integration. It is one that I support and have in all of my (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I do too, if they want to.

MS BETTNEY: Part of the choice then is having realistic choices and having choices that, yes, people can make that they know will be there in the future. They can look at it and say: Yes, this will be something that I want to do and it is something that is good for me in the long run. Simply forcing people into situations where because of uncertainty they stay with the known is not a good choice either.

This is an ongoing issue, but I think in terms of the structure of employment services I am confident that the people who are around the table working on those sub-committees will come to a consensus and give us a path that we can follow here that will be a good course of action for government in this area. The main thing is we have to insure that we will be in a position to access the full extent of the federal dollar that will be available through the employment program for people with disabilities. Because unless it fits we will not be able to access the funding. I think we have to insure that we have enough employment programs for persons with disabilities that are valuable, supportive of the employment programs that fit the criteria to draw down on resources that are allocated to this Province. Because we are going to need them. They are only fifty to fifty-cent dollars, and we still have a very large need in that area that we know of. We cannot afford to turn away any dollars.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Sheila. Gerry, and then back to Don.

MR. G. REID: I just have a couple of questions and they are on the same topic. It on page 216 under the Labour Market Adjustment Programs, 4.1.03. You say most of that $6 million was taken up with the fallout of the fishery back in 1992 under NCARP and in 1994 under TAGS, under the plant worker - was it PWAP?

MS BETTNEY: Yes, POWA power.

MR. G. REID: Any idea of what that cost originally, what the Province was (inaudible)? That is a 70-30 program with the federal government, right?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. G. REID: Any idea of how many clients are on that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-eight hundred clients, isn't it?

MS BETTNEY: I am going to ask one of my staff. This (inaudible) pre-dates me a fair bit so I am not certain of the numbers here. I don't know if any of the staff will have that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is here in the package that accompanied the budget there, I do believe. The number 2,800 clients rings a bell.

MR. G. REID: This year?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is total on the program that is -

MR. G. REID: No. What I mean is that is what we are paying this year. Some of them have gone on to sixty-five years old now and dropped off.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Over 90 per cent are, as the result of fishery programs, I think still left, based on the figure that... (Inaudible) over $5 million out of the $6 million? I will find it here now anyway.

MS BETTNEY: In terms of some of the figures that I have here in the details, I will just try and scan down through them. Under the Plant Worker Adjustment Program, the program was signed in 1991, and approximately 200 clients are receiving benefits there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Nineteen ninety-one?

MS BETTNEY: Yes, that's what my notes say for the Plant Worker Adjustment Program.

WITNESS: That's not POWA.

MS BETTNEY: No, that's a specific one. Under the NCARP one, that was signed in 1993 and we have approximately 1,400 clients receiving benefits there. The Atlantic Fisheries Early Retirement Program was signed in 1995 and we have approximately 900 clients receiving benefits under this program. The POWA one was signed in 1989, revised again in 1993, and we have approximately 300 clients receiving benefits under that. I think if you do the tabulation it will probably come to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-eight hundred clients it says here, yes. I found it. It says 2,800 clients.

MR. G. REID: That was fifty-five years and under, pretty well, wasn't it?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. G. REID: What I am trying to determine is basically how much we are paying roughly per - I know it was based on their income I think, wasn't it, a percentage of their income?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes it was.

MR. G. REID: Have you done any estimates on how many we would take and what it would cost if the federal government brings in a retirement program for plant workers now?

MS BETTNEY: That is all being done under the committee that has been structured to deal with the TAGS issue. That analysis I know has been done because I'm on the committee, but it is not kind of resident in this department. It is being done under the auspices of the rural revitalization plan.

MR. G. REID: Were any of you people with the department when it came in in 1990 with NCARP and TAGS? Do you remember what we originally (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: I have been with the department several years, but my excuse as to why I don't know this is (inaudible). This is part of the labour market division and program, and that was originally with Development and Rural Renewal. It came with our department in April 1997, a year ago last April.

MR. G. REID: I was surprised to see it. I did not think it was in this department. I was just wondering what it would cost us to take out x number of people under that program.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is $4 million or $5 million a year, beginning initially, I would think. Dave Lewis is in your department right?

MS BETTNEY: Not any more.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, he was.

MS BETTNEY: He is with Health and Community Services. Moved again, Fisheries and Aquaculture now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh right, yes. I was not sure because I did speak with him recently and with the department, like where Gerry is coming from. I just did my own little calculations. I am just wondering in terms of where we might be with it, based on how many people might be in that category right now. I had estimates of the figures of age. I did not have the specifics. I just did estimates.

What you estimate the average person to now be receiving on the program as a plant worker, as a fisherperson, I had to project how many may take the program. The plant workers are lower paid. Fisherpeople are getting a higher income under it. I think it can be done for several million dollars, based on 30 per cent. If you probably dipped down a bit lower than fifty-five, because there is a big chunk of people who have gone out of the program who were on the upper end of the scale. You are going to hit new people coming in at the lower end now that are going to be on a program for a longer period of time. There will be a payout over a longer period on it, because most people now who were up there took it. We are going to have probably almost ten year and eight year payouts under the program.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what number did you come up with?

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say off hand they could be refined. I said to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal that I would need some more specific figures from the department, but I would say in the $4 million or $5 million range would certainly be about right. If you take that as 30 per cent of the total, we are looking at a program that is going to be looking at even only a - you can pay out $15 million to $20 million a year, in that range.

That could be it. Because there are a lot of people who are not going to adjust out because they are just not in the age bracket, and there are a lot of people who would fall short of a fifty-five program. If it dips to fifty-three as it was talked about before, federally, or down to a fifty, then we are talking about a whole new ball game right there.

MR. CANNING: These people are under POWA, right? How many of these people are actually taking the actuarial reduced Canada Pension at sixty? Do we know that?

MS BETTNEY: I could not tell you, I do not know.

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible) I know at the time that it came in under NCARP and TAGS, (inaudible) 1994 the Province said no to fifty. I noticed the Premier said the other day that he would be interested in looking at the fifty and above. I was just wondering if anyone had calculated how many were in that age group. I would assume that back in 1994 those fifty-five and older, most of them took it and walked, are out there now on this $6 million that you have. I just wanted to find out how many. I have 2,000 TAGS clients in my district.

MS BETTNEY: All I can say to you is I know all of the figures have been worked out and a demographic profile has been done of the whole industry. The answers are there, it is just I do not have them.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are working on it. I met actually with Dave Lewis and John Scott just briefly on an aspect of it. I have not discussed with them the figures at all, any follow up at all, but I would imagine they have done their figures, they have done their work on it. The question I asked - the Province has not got back to the point yet where they have looked at the dollar value from their perspective, and even gone to Cabinet or anything of that nature, as to what they might do on the program.

MR. G. REID: Are there any fishermen under that program? There are no fishermen in that program, retirement package.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. When people took retirement under the program they did not distinguish them as fishermen or plant workers. They were all eligible for the program, I understand, regardless of -

MR. G. REID: I thought it would be under the license buy-out (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. People could have taken early retirement and sold their license and kept their personal fishing license. There are different categories under NCARP and you could have gone out completely, and still you could have qualified for early retirement even with a license buy-out. That was available. So there are people in that category.

MR. G. REID: The other one is on the (inaudible). Actually, I said they were both on the same thing first. Under that National Child Benefit, if I were eligible for that benefit, what do you actually get in terms of the benefit for a child?

MS BETTNEY: The benefit for a low income family is graduated. It is $605 for the first child, $405 for the second child, and $325 - I am guessing now, it is in that order - for the third, and then there is a subsequent piece as well. That is on top of the payment of Child Tax Benefit which is -

MR. G. REID: Everyone gets right now?

MS BETTNEY: Everybody gets, and social assistance clients will continue to receive. The only portion that we will recover to create the investment fund is that increase that will be implemented on July 1. The point is that families today will not be receiving any less as a result of the National Child Benefit. In fact, as a result of the 2 per cent they are getting a little bit more than they were prior to the Budget.

MR. G. REID: So a family with two kids would basically be getting $1,000 for the year.

MS BETTNEY: Roughly, yes.

MR. G. REID: Ninety dollars a month.

MR. SULLIVAN: Six hundred and five dollars, $405, and $330 are the figures.

MS BETTNEY: Three hundred and thirty dollars, is it?

MR. G. REID: That is all I have. I don't envy your department, it is not an easy one to work in.

MS BETTNEY: No, it is difficult to deal with individuals on it, but one of the things we are finding thought the calls we are taking, the hot line which we put in place, we are trying to give people as much information as possible and to communicate with them directly as much as we can.

One of the things we are finding is that people have a certain comfort level with the idea that they are not going to be worse off. One of the first alarms that went off was: You are taking something from us. They especially were fearing that they were going to lose the Canada Child Tax Benefit that they are getting today. Once we resolved that people started to get a different comfort level with it.

The other piece that people responded really positively to is the $150 a month increase under earnings exemption. For a lot of families that is a real asset because they do have an ability to get some income. When they realize that where previously they could only earn up to $100 and then it was taken -

MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty-fifty, was it?

MS BETTNEY: Fifty-fifty. Now the implication of being able to have $150 of what they earn, completely exempt and able to keep, is really money on a monthly basis that they can see where they will be able to get a real financial benefit from that to kind of make up some of the difference here too.

Those two things have been very helpful in creating a level of comfort for people, but you are never going to get past the fact that yes, the federal government is providing a benefit here which, by design and by their intention, social assistance clients were not to keep. The unfortunate part of it is that the province is on the end of having to make the direct recovery, so we get mostly connected with it.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Yes. It is just like on the shelter component. When we were giving it on the one hand and asking them to pay it back it was a whole lot more different than when we were able to deduct it at source. Unfortunately, we don't have that capacity to be able to do it right now.

The overall intent of the federal government, and I think this is really positive, is if they are able to move this to the point where the federal government is actually taking responsibility for supporting children, then you have a National Child Benefit that is of such an amount that we will be able to take social assistance for children right out of our social assistance design. I would not be surprised if when we ultimately redesign our income support, assuming that the federal government continues on the track that it is on and it's already committed now two next instalments to the Child Benefit, we will be able to say that the amount for children is coming from the federal government. It comes in your social benefit -

MR. G. REID: Exactly. It is only the husband and the wife who would qualify for it.

MS BETTNEY: Right, so anything that we design for income support need only take care of adults. When we do that we will get away from this recovery piece. Now it is a ways out, and we have to live with the difficulties of managing the current system, but I think when we get to that point we will have a very tangible benefit for children which will break down that welfare wall. Because then it will not matter whether your family circumstances are such that you are receiving social assistance or you are working. Your children will still have the same benefit that can move back and forth with the children. It will make a tremendous difference in the long term. I think it is worth the immediate pain that we are going to feel in implementing this to try and get to that point, and that is why I am so convinced that this is the right thing to do.

MR. G. REID: The money that we are going to get from the claw back, has all of it been already committed?

MS BETTNEY: Yes. In the way that we have described it in the budget for the day care services, the family resource centres, the youth networks and the active employment measures. (Inaudible).

MR. G. REID: What I mean is -

MS BETTNEY: In terms of has it now been assigned right out?

MR. G. REID: Yes.

MS BETTNEY: No.

MR. G. REID: Okay.

MS BETTNEY: No. These are in program form right now that have to be developed.

MR. G. REID: So if a group in some of my communities were to try to access some of that funding -

MS BETTNEY: There is ample time.

MR. G. REID: - some may still be available?

MS BETTNEY: Oh, the programs are only in the development stage right now so there is no money. I should not say none, there may be some of it that is dedicated because of the nature of, say, the licensed day care services. We know that $4.6 million is needed for it and we know how that will be distributed to subsidize spaces and so on, but in terms of the family resource centres and the youth networks, no, that has not been allocated. We will be working with community groups to develop the models and decide where it will be expanded.

Of course the other thing that you need to keep in mind is next year when the federal government brings in the next $850 million there will be another increase, not to the same extent because of our rates, but we will have an additional $3 million we are estimating to be able to reinvest and expand these programs and services even further as they get developed in communities.

MR. G. REID: To alleviate Sheila's fears, is your department doing anything to encourage programs in rural Newfoundland?

MS BETTNEY: Absolutely.

MR. G. REID: Because I have one I think that may qualify on Fogo Island. They do everything on a regional basis, and they have the only regional council in the Province on Fogo Island. They have a program there that I think may be eligible for funding.

MS BETTNEY: I think you are right too. I had some contact with it before that side of my department moved and we were looking at it as something that -

MR. G. REID: So I guess it is up to your department and us to make sure that people are aware of (inaudible) program.

MS BETTNEY: Also Health and Community Services.

MR. G. REID: Yes, that is good. Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Gerry. Don?

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Minister, I just wanted to get some further information with regard to the training programs your department is sponsoring. The Member for Waterford Valley touched on it earlier but I just wanted to sort of get an idea as to how extensive the training program is; specifically, how many people have availed of it who had been formerly on social services, or still are social service recipients.

MS BETTNEY: When you are saying creating programs, what are you referring to specifically? The employment program?

MR. WHELAN: Not exactly the employment program. Because I understand there is a program within your department that (inaudible) finance people who are on social services to further their education, to become employable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: When people attend post-secondary training, if you do not have dependents, then we simply direct you to the student aid division in the Department of Education and you draw down a student loan the same as anybody else in society and you live off it. If you come off of social assistance we do not continue to provide social assistance to anybody who does not have dependents.

If you have dependents, we recognize that there is an additional difficulty and responsibility. As I say, focusing on assisting children and the whole issue of child poverty and getting families out of that kind of situation, we make provision for families to be able to stay on social assistance while they access the student loan and attend post-secondary training, whatever that may be.

In order to do that, we say you have to draw down your full student loan the same as anybody else and you have to return a portion of your living expenses, because the department is providing your living expenses. If you do that then you can continue with your social assistance, you can continue to have your drug card and your vision care and all the rest that go with it, and your normal social assistance rates.

MR. WHELAN: I think that is the type of thing I was trying to zero in on. I am wondering with regard to -

MS BETTNEY: The numbers that we would have, the number of cases -

MR. WHELAN: That would fit into that category.

WITNESS: Do you mean on student aid, for example?

MR. WHELAN: Student aid. Single mothers, single fathers for that matter.

MS BETTNEY: Again Wayne, in terms of income support, do you have the (inaudible) numbers there?

MR. PENNEY: The last amount that we had is approximately 880 this semester (inaudible).

MR. WHELAN: That is Province-wide?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: The people who are availing of these programs, whether it be this type of program or student loans, are trying to make a transition obviously from the welfare cycle. Have you been able to monitor the success of this particular effort with regard to the people who have been on social services trying to break out of the system and move on to a more normal lifestyle in society? Is there any way to determine how many people are actually breaking out of the cycle? I guess it would be difficult to monitor.

MS BETTNEY: It is very difficult to know, especially with the kind of information system that we have today. Our whole data management and information management is really focused on that issuing of cheques that I mentioned earlier. It does not serve us well in terms of capturing other aspects of information related to people who are on or off or coming back into social assistance. I would guess at this point that we do not have accurate information to respond to what you are asking, what is the linkage between our clients who go on to pursue their education in terms of their success in breaking out of the system.

Intuitively we know that it is a major factor. With the single parents for example, and I have met with many of them over the past year, they see this as their way out. They know from others who they have spoken to that this is their best chance. Most times it will work for them, it gets them out, if they get their post-secondary training. It is very much intuitive type information.

The other thing we know is for the population as a whole, the best indicator and the best move that somebody can make to increase their employability is to get that post-secondary training. That is the strongest link, and that applies not only here but right across the country. If you go on to that post-secondary education your chances of getting employment start to rise rather dramatically. We just know. The numbers of young people that we have on our case loads, the, say, youth that fall into the under twenty-five category, over 65 per cent of them do not have high school. That just tells you of the link between education and going on social assistance. If we have them on social assistance for that period, the odds are they are going to be there for quite a while, unless we do something very different from what we have done in the past.

MR. WHELAN: Julie, I think if you looked at the figures in the fisheries you will find that they are even lower, education (inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. WHELAN: The various programs that you have, to be quite honest, I find it a little strange that there is x number of dollars, a lot of dollars, millions of dollars, being spent on loans and subsidization of educational programs. It is almost like you are proceeding in the dark, spending money and not being able to determine whether it is being spent in an effective way or whether the returns on the money that is being spent are great or small or insignificant or nil. Is there any effort being made to -

MS BETTNEY: Yes. In redesigning our computer system and in redesigning our income support system we are building in the capacity to be able to attract those kinds of factors. Our computers that we have today, and the programs we have, just cannot cope. They do not have the information we need. As Dave was saying, it is twenty years old, it is (inaudible), and it is just barely getting alone. If it gets us through to the point where we have the new program we will have to have new computers and new systems in order to implement it. We are just barely going to make it now with the stuff that we have today.

I do not think it is too much of a risk to suggest that by supporting our clients in their educational pursuits that we are helping them break out of the system. I think it is pretty good odds that that is the case because it works for everybody else, so I am fairly comfortable with that. We have done a better job, I think, of tracking the results with our employment programs. We know things for example with the Graduate Employment Program. That is one where we target young graduates and try and subsidize their employment in the private sector, with the hope that if they get into a job in the private sector for a year at a subsidized cost to the employer, that the employer will find a way to keep them on. We have had tremendous success with that and in tracking it. What is the figure, 85 per cent or 75 per cent?

WITNESS: Seventy-nine per cent.

MS BETTNEY: Somewhere in between. Seventy-nine per cent of the graduates that we have subsidized under this program have maintained their employment, up to how many years?

WITNESS: Up to one year after subsidy and -

MS BETTNEY: - and counting. I mean that says that is working. It is money well spent. We put in the maximum of $10,000, but if a year later that person is still working, they have two years of experience now on their resume and they probably have as permanent a position as anybody has in today's working world.

WITNESS: And they have paid back some taxes.

MS BETTNEY: And they have paid back some taxes, yes.

MR. WHELAN: That is basically it for me, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the minister on her grasp (inaudible) in her department.

CHAIR: Thank you, Don. Before we clue up I think Loyola has a couple of questions he would like to redirect, but he is not going to ask too many because Montreal is playing tonight and he wants to get home to see that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a question to make sure I am clear on it first of all. With reference to family resource centres, is that funding, the $1.15 million, being spent through your department?

MS BETTNEY: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Health and Community -

MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that's my understanding. Because I -

MS BETTNEY: It started here. It is (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Fine, I'm clear. Some of the conversation might have led me to believe otherwise, but it is in the (inaudible) Department of Health and Community Services. I have already dealt with a matter and I have dealt with the health department on it.

MS BETTNEY: The only aspect of the National Child Benefit funding that will actually reside in this department is the active employment measures, the $1.7 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure. The Opening Doors Program assists around twenty people. Is that included under 4.1.04? Is that where it is allocated? That's Vocational Training and Support Services for Persons with Disabilities.

MS BETTNEY: It is not under 4.1.04.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would it be under 4.1.01?

MS BETTNEY: No, it is under our regular employment programs -

MR. SULLIVAN: 4.1.01.

MS BETTNEY: - those that I was mentioning before, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, okay.

MS BETTNEY: It would be one of those.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. In terms of qualifying under the Opening Doors Program, who could be a qualifier under the program? How broad is it or how restrictive, either way?

MS BETTNEY: The Province, a number of years ago, established an inventory - I will put it that way - where anyone with a disability in the Province who wished to place their names sort of on this inventory as people who were available for consideration for employment with the provincial government could do so. That is wide open, in the sense that if anybody feels that they wish to have themselves considered for this, it is simply a question of contacting Jim McDonald with the Opening Doors project and they will have their name placed there.

It is not just a question of having their names placed there. What happens has really been that they go through a process of career counselling and career services, in the sense that they identify the kinds of things they have skills and aptitudes in. They get some counselling with respect to resumé writing and interview skills. Also, as part of the Opening Doors Program, the staff there identify opportunities with departments for positions that can be then funded through this program in departments in a developmental way, so that the people who go into the positions get an opportunity to spend a year kind of working and learning about a particular job and developing their job skills and developing their expertise in this area.

In that respect, through this amount of money that is allocated for the Opening Doors Program we provide the cost of keeping those positions in the department. It is with the intent that at the end of the developmental phase, however long that would be, the department would then fund the position as a regular position within the department.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would that be under .01 under that heading or .09 or .10? Where would it be placed? It is $500,000 a year, provincial and federal, right, over the next two years I think. Is it under Grants and Subsidies or under Allowances and Assistance? I guess it is under one of those two areas.

MS BETTNEY: We are pretty sure that it is under the Grants and Subsidies section of 4.1.01, as a grant to the project which then gets distributed through Salaries and so on.

MR. SULLIVAN: That would provide the salary of that person to get into the workforce basically.

MS BETTNEY: It provides the number of the salaries and it also, of course, provides the staff support to the project itself, the director and the various counsellors and support staff.

MR. SULLIVAN: So somebody who may have a certain disability, whatever the case may be, physical or otherwise, could still qualify in that program. Assistance, under Vocational Training and Support Services too, I guess could work concurrently with that, correct?

MS BETTNEY: Yes, exactly that. That is an entirely separate system of supports. The Opening Doors Program focuses on trying to develop job opportunities within the provincial government. There is another program that it has also been running which is called the JEEPS program which is a job experience program with the federal government. It also coordinates with the federal government in trying to provide placement for people with disabilities in federal government departments as well. That is purely internal to both levels of government. Any of the other vocational supports and employment supports are also available to these people, and to others of course.

MR. SULLIVAN: In 4.1.04, under Salaries there, .01, why would there have been a $200,000 drop in the revised versus the budgeted figure for 1997-1998? That's on page 216, 4.1.04.01, Salaries. I know it is back up again this year, but would there have been positions there that were not filled and they were vacant and they are now going to be filled next year?

MS BETTNEY: That is right. There were vacant positions throughout the year and we are anticipating full (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and you are budgeting for these. I just have a few others, similar ones like that. They are not pertaining to finances. We will just look at this particular one, 1.2.02, Administrative Support, under that heading. In Information Technology there was an expenditure of almost $1.2 million over what was budgeted. What might have necessitated that expenditure?

MS BETTNEY: Where are we?

MR. SULLIVAN: 1.2.02.12, Information Technology.

MS BETTNEY: We made a major purchase of new computers to replace those twenty year old ones. Really, in terms of the increase that you see in the revised budget, that is what it represents, approximately a $1 million purchase of hardware.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under 1.2.03, the next head there, Program Development and Planning, I know there is roughly a 4 per cent generally for the addition pay period, approximately, which probably takes up a part of that. Probably $60,000-some. There is a jump too. Are there some positions too that have been added in that area? Because last year there was over $100,000 difference in the budget of which only a portion of that would have been attributed to an extra pay period. Was there an extra position added?

MS BETTNEY: We have expanded the planning function within my department because of all the work that we are doing with the income support reform, with the National Child Benefit, and with all of these major social policy issues. We have increased our resources in the policy planning area.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under that same head there, 1.2.03.05, under Professional Services, and 1.2.03.10, Grants and Subsidies, there has been a significant increase in both of these. What might have accounted for that in the budget this year?

MS BETTNEY: I think under the Professional Services, again , it is some of the work we are doing to hire external expertise, some consulting expertise, with our redesign of the Income Support Program. We have had to bring in, for example, Dr. Fraser Mustard from Ontario, a nationally renowned expert in the area of early childhood issues, when we were dealing with some of the early issues around the National Child Benefit. We continue to have some contacts on a consultant basis with some other social researchers to help us in redesigning our Income Support Program as needed. We have just put a block of funds in that particular budget item to use for consulting purposes throughout the year.

MR. SULLIVAN: Grants and Subsidies. It has been $32,000. It might have traditionally been in that area, if it is $32,000 and you spent $32,000. There is an extra $40,000.

MS BETTNEY: The block of the $40,000 is for the women's centres. My department, Health and Community Services, and Justice each allocated a $40,000 block for the women's centre funding, and that is where ours got placed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. That is it, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Are there any other questions from committee members to redirect? Sheila.

MS S. OSBORNE: I have a couple. Will direct deposit be compulsory when it comes in?

MS BETTNEY: I do not see how it could be. I would have to say no at this point.

MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) would be more consistent.

MS BETTNEY: It would be our intent to have it as much as we could because I think it would be really efficient and it would work well for people, but I do not think the technology will exist even from the banking industry's point of view to make it compulsory when it is introduced.

MS S. OSBORNE: The drug card that people receive as part of the job incentive program (inaudible). Do they get to hold it for a year?

MS BETTNEY: No, we have not set a time limit on it. That was one of the choices we had to make in implementing it, so we are still working through that. What we anticipate is that depending on a person's needs, some of them maybe more exhaustive, more compelling then others, and for some people three months might be sufficient. For others it might take three years. While there are constraints obviously because of the amount of money that we have placed in the block funding, I did not want to set a period on it that might be artificial and counterproductive in something that we are testing.

We need to view this as a pilot in the same way that we are viewing some of the other things. We are trying to see what impact that it has. I was concerned that if we put an artificial limit on it of six months or a year that we might skew the results and really never find out if this piece does contribute something significant. We have left it open. As we further develop the pilot we will determine whether to put a ceiling on it or not, but my instinct is that we will end up with something that is flexible, that we will be able to use discretion based on a person's circumstances.

MS S. OSBORNE: In the training programs, (inaudible) in the student aid when you are single and you go to get your student loan, but at the end of your training period there is no job, I guess you can go back on social services.

MS BETTNEY: If you are still on.

MS S. OSBORNE: If you are still on.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, for of course single parents. Wait now, you are saying for single people.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, for single people.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, sorry.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I knew the single parents (inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: For people who come off the caseload, they are viewed in the same manner as anybody else. When they present themselves as having a particular need for support their needs will be assessed and their eligibility determined accordingly.

MS S. OSBORNE: The eighteen-and-over people who are employable who live with families, what is the cutoff for them not being able to qualify? What's the criteria?

MS BETTNEY: What's the income level? I would have to ask, I don't know.

MS S. OSBORNE: That's the income level of the house.

MS BETTNEY: Yes. Do any of the staff know that?

MR. PENNEY: I just want to clarify the question. In terms of an eighteen-year-old living with (inaudible) -

MS S. OSBORNE: With family.

MR. PENNEY: If the family is on social assistance, obviously the eighteen-year-old will continue on their assistance. We use the social assistance rate as a measure (inaudible) -

MS BETTNEY: Do you want to have him move up here?

MR. PENNEY: It is not an absolute cut-off. It is judged on an individual basis.

MS S. OSBORNE: So this will be probably more people working, as employed parents or (inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MS S. OSBORNE: In day care, people who are on social assistance who have gotten a student loan, and day care is provided as part of the support, what is the age cut-off for the children who are eligible (inaudible)?

MS BETTNEY: Under twelve?

MR. PENNEY: I am not absolutely sure, but I suspect that (inaudible) -

MS BETTNEY: I think it is around twelve, but again it might depend on the child, if the child has a particular need, in a child protection sense, that can be accommodated through a placement in a day care environment (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: The reason I asked is that I have a person now (inaudible) I will have to call your department because this is a specific case. A lady who left her twelve-year-old son alone and he was apprehended by child protection, but they will not give her day care (inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: I see.

MS S. OSBORNE: He will not go to a centre obviously, he is too old for that. I guess I will deal with that on that individual (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Loyola is telling me that I should say thank you.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I want to watch that game too.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the heads 1.1.01 to 4.1.05, inclusive without amendment.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.1.05, carried.

On motion, Department of Human Resources and Employment, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: The meeting is adjourned until next year at this time. All the Estimates have been concluded for this year.

Thank you, Minister, I appreciate you coming in.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you and your staff. Thank you for putting up with this rather warm evening.