Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Mr. Harvey Hodder, MHA for Waterford Valley, replaces Mr. Tom Hedderson, MHA for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

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

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Jones): If you are ready, I will call the meeting to order. I would like to welcome this evening, the minister and his staff. Before we start, I will ask the Committee if they would like to move the minutes of the last Social Services Committee.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MADAM CHAIR: We will start the first order of business this evening by certainly introducing the Committee members and then, Minister, I will ask you and your officials to introduce yourselves. Maybe we will start with Mr. Butler at the far end.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA, Port de Grave.

MR. ANDERSEN: Wally Andersen, MHA, Torngat Mountains.

MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, MHA, Humber East.

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

MR. MANNING: Fabian Manning, MHA, Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Ralph Wiseman, Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS RANDELL: Vivian Randell, Deputy Minister.

MR. ROBERTS: David Roberts, Assistant Deputy Minister.

MR. PENNEY: Wayne Penney, Assistant Deputy Minister.

MS GOVER: Judy Gover, Executive Assistant.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.

My name is Yvonne Jones, and I will be your Chair this evening. A couple of things before we start. First of all, I would like for all members to identify themselves when they speak into the microphone, just so that your name can be recorded for the House. Also, because we only have one camera, that one up there, and the people who control the microphones are in the basement, in order that they know who is speaking and know which microphone to turn on, it is important that you identify yourself.

I will start this evening by asking the Clerk to call the first head. Then, Minister, you will have some time for your opening remarks. After that time, we will go to questions to the Committee members.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Okay, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Whenever you are ready, Minister.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much.

First of all, I want to say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the Committee of the House today and provide my hon. colleagues with an overview of the programs and services of my department, as proposed expenditures for the fiscal year 2002-2003. My officials here with me this evening have already introduced themselves, but I would like to take a few moments just to provide a general outline of some of the major initiatives of my department.

When the Department of Human Resources and Employment was created in 1997, the mission of the department was to work collaboratively with social, community and development partners to provide people with income and employment support. To accomplish this, the Department of Human Resources and Employment has been redesigning its programs and services to assist people on social assistance achieve independence and to extend support to low income working families. Our goals have been to reduce the disincentives that exist in the social assistance program that make the transition to work difficult; to extend support to low income working families in addition to those who must rely on social assistance as a primary income source; and, three, reorganize the way we deliver social assistance so that we can concentrate additional staff resources in providing employment and career supports to assist persons who can participate in the labour market but who may face barriers.

While we are proud of these initiatives, the department recognizes that there are still economic and social changes we need to address. In fact, there are a number of positively received initiatives we have introduced just over the past year which have further helped in addressing the challenges faced by persons with low income.

In the fall of 2001, in conjunction with the federal-provincial early childhood development initiative, we introduced a $45 monthly Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement to assist all low income pregnant women and families with children under one year with the cost of healthy nutrition during the crucial period of early development. Approximately 1,350 families with children under one year old currently receive the supplement on a monthly basis.

This past fall, the department announced provisions for support trusts to be established by families on behalf of adults with disabilities without reducing their social assistance benefits and the level of related benefits and services. This announcement was met with enthusiasm and accolades from such key community advocates as the Association for Community Living and the Independent Living Resource Centre.

In February, the department announced measures to improve the responsiveness of social assistance programs to persons who are victims of violence, including the piloting that will start up allowance to assist the establishing of a new household.

Last month, the department also announced continued improvements to the income threshold used to determine eligibility for the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit. This change means an increase for about 4,000 families receiving the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, and that families near the top of the income scale will not lose their partial benefits as quickly. Another 600 additional families will now be eligible or remain eligible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit due to threshold increase. Along with these positive changes to our income support program, the department has made a major commitment to offering the people of our Province the support and services they need to succeed in the workforce.

Proven employment programs such as Newfound Jobs, Linkages, Linkages Youth Employment, Supported Employment and the Single Parent Employment Support Program offer opportunities for work experience and a variety of supports to help people find and maintain employment. In total, the department will spend over $14 million on its employment programs and services this fiscal year. These programs include the Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities -EAPD - an agreement which helps people with disabilities access the supports and services they need to enter the labour market. The program is valued at $6.6 million annually and is cost-shared with the Government of Canada and assists over 1,990 clients. Funding for approximately forty community-based organizations across the Province provide a range of employment related programs and services for clients of the department.

A recent and ongoing initiative is our social assistance legislative review. The social assistance legislation has not been reviewed since 1997 and no longer reflects the objectives and services of the department. To help with this process and to make sure new legislation reflects the priorities of the people of the Province who use our services, we are currently conducting a broad public consultation process involving focus group sessions with clients, advocacy groups, youth and staff. These sessions are being held in all regions of the Province and are scheduled to be completed early next month. Other avenues for input that have been established include a toll-free telephone number, mail and the Internet.

A full report on the consultation will be ready in the early summer and the results from this report will help to form the drafting of new legislation that I plan to table this fall, in 2002. This will be a very significant, important step for both the department and the people we serve. Our Province is currently experiencing positive employment growth, with the year 2001 a record-setting one for the Province. Employment grew by 3.3 per cent to a record high of 211,300, while unemployment rates dropped to16.1 per cent, the lowest rate since 1989.

This positive trend has continued in 2002, with March employment for this Province increased by 3 per cent, or approximately 5,700 jobs as compared to the same period last year. The improving economy is one factor contributing to the significant declines in social assistance caseloads. Since 1997, the caseload has declined from a high of 36,600 to its current standing of 28,371 cases. While I will acknowledge that a range of economic and demographic factors contribute to this decline, these are also positive indicators that initiatives from the Department of Human Resources and Employment are working. This, along with the overall direction of government outlining our Strategic Social Plan and the report on Jobs and Growth, is clearly making a difference in the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

As you see, there are many reasons why I am delighted to take on the role as Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Much has been accomplished to ensure the economic and social needs of all low income individuals and families in Newfoundland and Labrador are being met. The department is headed in a very exciting and productive direction, and the future promises to be one of further accomplishments and gains for both the department and the people that we serve.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Minister, for that very detailed overview.

I guess we will move to questions now. Who would like to start?

Mr. Manning.

MR. MANNING: I thank the minister and his staff for being here this evening, and I thank the minister for his opening remarks. I am going to just go through some details in the Estimates first. I have some questions on some different programs, and I am sure my colleague from Waterford Valley has a question or two. We will be joined later by the Member for Trinity North. He is on a call at the present time and he shall be joining us shortly. I am sure the Member for Humber East is delighted to hear that.

On page 199 of the Estimates, the Minister's Office, I just want to go through some financial statements here first. On Salaries, we had a budget of $221,100 in last year's budget and we revised that to $263,800. This year we are coming in at $254,900. The discrepancy, give or take, was $42,000. Were there extra staff hired? Why the difference there?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: There was a transfer of an existing position in government to the Minister's Office.

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: There was a transfer of an existing position within government to the Minister's Office.

MR. MANNING: What position would that be?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I am not certain what it was. It was probably a legislative assistant position.

MR. MANNING: From what office to your office, again?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: It was from another position in government. From Works, Services and Transportation, my deputy advises me.

MR. MANNING: Under 1.2.02., Administrative Support, again we had a budget of $2,295,600 and we went to $2,591,400, and again we have an estimate this year of $2,258,900. Again we have a difference of almost $300,00 in your Budget and your Revised last year on Salaries. Could you elaborate on that?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That was a projected revised budget that reflects the savings due to the short-term vacancies. Is that correct, Madam Deputy?

MS RANDELL: Mr. Manning, you are referring to the $2.5 million in Revised?

MR. MANNING: Yes.

MS RANDELL: That $2.5 million includes approximately $200,000 for staffing related to the redesign of our service delivery system, including the assignment of staff to our IT project. We had authority for those funds. They were placed in this budget area because this was the area that the staff were employed under.

MR. MANNING: Also, under Administrative Support, we have Professional Services, 05. It was budgeted $109,200, and it went to $64,200. Again, this year's budget is comparable to last year's revised expenditure of $64,200. Was there something budgeted that was not used? It is for professional services. What type of service would that be, and how come it went from $109,200 down to $64,200?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Go ahead.

MS RANDELL: That area includes funding for the Social Services Appeals Board, so the breakdown for the current year is $55,000 for per diems related to the Social Services Appeals Board. As well, it includes funding related to external audits and arbitrations. There have been reduced costs in that area which we think will continue, and the budget therefore was revised down this year to account for those changes.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Right under that we have Purchased Services. Again, we budgeted - I am just going to round these off - $1.5 million, revised $1.3 million, and this year up to $1.5 million. Again, what type of services would that be? We are talking about, give or take, almost a couple of hundred thousand dollars in the difference there. Could you elaborate on that for me, please?

MS RANDELL: Again, Minister?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, go ahead.

MS RANDELL: That area, Mr. Manning, includes, on a regular basis, office rentals, which for the year ahead is about $1.2 million. Included in there are costs related to the implementation of our new pay system, $125,000. Those are costs that were appearing in other subheads in previous years and we have consolidated it in this particular area for the year ahead. Printing and microfiche services, about $102,000; other services, $14,000; advertising and promotions, about $14,000; and, copier rentals, about $18,000. That makes up the $1.5 million.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Does your department share its pay system with any other department?

MS RANDELL: Currently the FACTS system which supports our social assistance pay is also being used to pay certain costs in Health and Community Services, for those services that were transferred over. So, the current system does serve both departments. The new system that is under development will also be a joint system in certain areas.

MR. MANNING: With Health and Community Services, the ones that flow over into -

MS RANDELL: With the Community Services component.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Again, just further down on 1.2.03., Program Development and Planning, you had a budget of $2,022,600 and we have a revised last year of $1,917,600, close to $100,000 in decrease, and this year we have around the same figure, $1,915,600. Again, what happened to cause that?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: In the Salaries there is actually a $105,000 savings which resulted from the early termination of the federal seconded project.

MR. MANNING: The federal - what department?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The federal seconded project, and short-term vacancies allotted for 67,200 of that.

MR. MANNING: These vacancies were not filled again?

MS RANDELL: Mr. Manning, the federal secondment, that position was terminated. That was a position that was given to us for a period of time, working on labour market development issues. That position has since terminated consistent with the restraint process which began, as you know, in mid-year, mid-fiscal last year. We have been holding vacancies based on our needs.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Under the same heading, Transportation and Communications, budgeted was $184,500, revised $134,900, and down again this year. I am just wondering about the discrepancy, the difference in that amount, $50,000 on last year's budget versus the revised.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The salary (inaudible) due to the 5 per cent approved salary reduction. It was offset by funds provided for the approved salary increase of 2002-2003. It was due to the 5 per cent approved salary reductions.

MR. MANNING: Okay. Five per cent of $184,000 wouldn't be $50,000.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: David, do you want to -

MR. ROBERTS: I believe you are referring to the $184,500, Transportation and Communication.

MR. MANNING: It was revised to $134,900, Dave.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and then $119,500. That is because of restraint in operating. Last fall, government introduced restraint in salaries in operating, and also for this fiscal year. There was a 5 per cent reduction in salaries and 8 per cent in operating. We have to distribute the 8 per cent. The 8 per cent was a global figure for the whole department, and we had to go through and distribute the reductions.

MR. MANNING: Different parts of your department.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. MANNING: So you would have maybe more than 8 per cent in one part.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, that is right.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Again, in Purchased Services, you go from $112,300 down to $92,300. What types of services would those be, under Program Development and Planning? Exactly what type of services would be involved there?

MS RANDELL: Of Purchase Services, included in there is $34,000 for our department's component share of the co-ordinated services model for children and youth. It includes, in part, our contribution to the co-ordinated services model. Sorry, $34,600 for routine department requirements under Purchased Services. That would be for that particular area, our planning and research area, as well as other income support and employment and career services components. Fifty thousand also is for our contribution towards the co-ordinated services model for children and youth.

MR. MANNING: Is there anybody on contract with your department, Minister - for supply and services on contract?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: In terms of consulting?

MR. MANNING: Yes, research, consulting purposes, outside the people who are employed directly by your department.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, there are some contractual consultants used for specific areas.

MR. MANNING: Okay. Could you enlighten us on some of those?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Okay, the deputy will give you the details.

MS RANDELL: In the program and planning area, as I say, which includes both our program planning research area as well as our income support division and employment and career services, we do access funds under the Labour Market Development Agreement, and through that agreement we have been able to temporarily recruit a number of individuals, particularly in the research area, to assist us in carrying out analysis related to both our employment and career programs as well as research into our social assistance caseload program, so there are a number of temporary positions within the division of planning and research in particular related to funds that we receive under the Labour Market Development Agreement.

MR. MANNING: Say we never had some type of program to create - the employment initiative program that you may sponsor; the minister touched on a couple in the beginning - is there a follow-up on those programs after, to see, like, some type of training, especially for those with disabilities, for future employment opportunities in the workforce? Is there a specific person assigned to do the follow-up on those, or how is that done?

MS RANDELL: We are attempting to beef up our resources in the research area. We have accessed Labour Market Development monies to do that. As a consequence, we have carried out a number of research and evaluation studies looking at, for instance, Newfound Jobs, the success of Newfound Jobs, looking at our social assistance client population and trying to determine how much movement there is in the social assistance caseload, and for what reasons. We are also looking at things such as client satisfaction. We have conducted surveys around client satisfaction. We are in the process right now of concluding a study of the supported employment program which is operated under programs for persons with disabilities. We are in the processing of concluding a piece of research there and we hope to be in a position very shortly to release that document.

MR. MANNING: These will become public documents then?

MS RANDELL: Yes.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: There is no reason why we could not release the research that we are doing in terms of - there would be nothing there to identify anybody.

MR. MANNING: No, I am not looking for (inaudible). I was just wondering about the effectiveness of the program, and the benefits.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: It is all part of the program, I guess, redesign. I think there is no such word, they tell me, as redesign. We could better describe it as reorganization, I guess, of how we deliver the program. Part of all that would be fitted into all the information technology required to do so, because it is not so simple now when you are out around the Province delivering these different programs. That is all part of the reorganization process where we can bring everything together and can all feed into an information centre that can be deciphered by just the push of a computer button.

MR. MANNING: In regard to it not being a word, we have created a good many new words in this House so redesign does not fit too bad.

Getting back to the contractual agreements first, is it possible to get a list, maybe not tonight, of people who are on contract with the department, and the services they provide ,and the amounts they receive for that service?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, we will get that for you.

MR. MANNING: Under 2.1.01., Client Services, the budget figures are pretty dead on in regards to $16,042,500 to $15,597,800. It is a large amount but again there is difference of about $400,000 there. I am just wondering, from Client Services - that is, I am sure, an important part of the department, $400,000 - did we have some layoffs in that or were these temporary positions that were not filled on 01., Salaries, under Client Services.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That reflects a decrease due to 5 per cent approved salary reduction offset.

MR. MANNING: Right across the board, okay.

In regard to Client Services, and the delivery of that, I just want to ask a couple of questions around it. Maybe I am not in the correct category here. Maybe it falls under social assistance but if I am, we are moving from - even though the Chair has called the first subhead I think we have the freedom to move around the department. Is that correct?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, any area is open for discussion.

MR. MANNING: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your generosity.

MADAM CHAIR: You are certainly welcome.

MR. MANNING: I want to touch on, for a moment if I could, the collection agency; just to have my mind clear on it. If we have a single mother who is dependent upon income support from her former husband or boyfriend, or whatever you want to call him, and that is part of their financial agreement with your department and - I ran into some problems in my district where, I will just use a figure of $100 a month for simplicity sake, Mary Sue was supposed to get $100 a month from John but she does not get it. It goes on for six or seven or eight months and it seems sometimes - I run into problems in the collection of that. If they fail to pay the process then is that you try to collect from the collection agency, but the person is without that $100 because of the fact it is supposed to be coming from them. Can you explain that process to me somehow because -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I will ask Wayne who is ADM. He will explain the setup.

MR. PENNEY: If understand your question correctly - if I have not, forgive me - this lady is supposed to be receiving $100 a month support. In that case we would continue to provide her full social assistance. We would not deduct the $100 unless she actually received the $100. The case would then be followed up by the Support Enforcement Agency with the person who is supposed to be paying and they would try to collect from him.

MR. MANNING: So the Support Enforcement Agency would do, basically, the facts with this.

MR. PENNEY: That's right.

MR. MANNING: The particular situation that I am talking about, there was back money owed to them of around $1,300 or $1,400. It was over a period of a year and the lady hadn't really brought it forward. When she called me I put it forward to the Placentia office, where this happened to be; and, yes, she is receiving it now. This back money that she is owed, how does that reflect - if that person pays this $1,200 or $1,300 he owes now, but really she was supposed to have received that, right?

MR. PENNEY: Yes, but we have, in fact, replaced that. We have not deducted that from her social assistance. Basically, she has signed it over to the department. So when the Support Enforcement Agency does collect from him they will send that directly to us.

MR. MANNING: I am going to just finish up with a couple of financial ones I have here and then I will turn it over to my colleague and I will come back again, maybe.

Under Social Assistance, 3.1.01, the exact amount that was budgeted is revised to the same amount. Again, we have (inaudible) 5 per cent across the board reduction there?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: 3.1.01.09, Allowances and Assistance. We are down almost $5 million this year.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, we have budgeted for a caseload of 27,800 which we expect the caseload to be this year.

MR. MANNING: Okay. You are basing that on previous years, I guess, the reductions in previous years and just following through?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes.

MR. MANNING: Under 3.1.03.09, Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement, Allowances and Assistance, we have $160,000 last year up to $400,000. The minister made some comments in his opening remarks on that. Are there more people involved in that this year, more babies being born?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: No, we have extended it to low income families under a certain threshold, that they would automatically get that $45 supplement.

MR. MANNING: Okay. You extended it further than what it was before?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, because before it only applied to income support, people who had families on social assistance. We extended that to low income families who are -

MR. MANNING: So people who receive that this year are not necessarily those on social assistance? It would be people outside that circle -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: No, low income, working -

MR. MANNING: What is the threshold on that? Do you know the amount offhand?

MS RANDELL: The threshold, Mr. Manning, is the same as the threshold for the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit. The cutoff is approximately $22,000 of income. Any family with a child under one year, or a woman who is pregnant, within that range of income would be eligible now to receive the $45 monthly payment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Until the child is one year old.

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Up until the child is one year old.

MR. MANNING: Yes, okay.

Is there anybody, applying for that program, who does not get accepted? If you meet this exact criteria is there a cutoff on that in relation to - if I meet the criteria of $22,000 or under, I am wondering about the demand versus the allocation.

MS RANDELL: Mr. Manning, the criteria is an income criteria solely as well as obviously a child in that age range or pregnancy. If you are within that particular income range you would be eligible.

Mr. Penney may be able to assist me here, but if someone was of a higher income last year, above the $22,000, my understanding is that because it is done on the basis of your previous income tax file, we would have to wait until they filed for the current income tax year to adjust the allowance. In other words, someone may apply now because their current income, in fact, determines that they are eligible, but because their last year's income exceeded the $22,000 we would need to have them file for the current income tax year to confirm their current income level. Once that is done, then they will begin to receive the amount of money.

MR. MANNING: Under Labour Market Adjustment Programs - we discussed that already - 4.1.02. We had a budget amount last year - I believe that is a cost-shared agreement with the federal government, right? Yes, federal-provincial $6,057,000. We are down this year to $5.5 million, give or take. Is that program winding down or is it just a reduction? We have gone $500,000 less than last year's budget on Grants and Subsidies, under the Labour Market Adjustment Programs.

MS RANDELL: Mr. Manning, the amounts paid there are based on actuarial determinations. Individuals are leaving that program because of their eligibility for, for instance, old age security or as a consequence of death. The amount showing here are adjusted based on those actuarial statements.

MR. MANNING: The budget last year and the revised were identical. So this year is based on the fact that there may not be the same amount of people partaking the programs?

MS RANDELL: The same, right.

MR. MANNING: I have a question, and I don't know if it is the right place to ask it but I will ask it anyway. I am sure all members of the House get many calls from people who are receiving social assistance. I just need some clarification for my own sake. Years ago what the department would provide or could provide versus what they can provide now seems to be somewhat different in some cases. I know there is an appeal process, and I wanted to ask a couple of questions on that.

In regard to furnishings, washers, dryers, beds and things like that, can you just - I make calls some days to my office in my district looking for a bed, I will use a bed as an example, looking for a bed for a certain (inaudible) lady, or whatever the case may be - a couple of weeks after that looking for a bed , one will get it and the other - now I know the circumstances sometimes differ but it seems like there are a fair amount of people under the impression that there is a uniform policy across the board but it is not necessarily like that. That is the way I take it, and maybe I am taking this wrong. There is not a uniform policy because lady A ends up with it and lady B does not, so it cannot be a uniform policy. Maybe someone could elaborate on that for me.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I will do part of it because I like this line, I am a new minister. My understanding is that - and you pretty well answered the question, in terms that every client is a different circumstance.

In terms of a washer, we do not supply washers to single individuals. We usually do an assessment of clients in terms of whether they are in close proximity to a laundromat or they could be in an apartment building with a laundromat downstairs. All these are done on an individual basis, but the short answer is yes, we do provide washers up to the value of $350. We do not provide them to single males, I guess, is more than accurate.

MR. MANNING: I will not comment on that.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Single males, I guess, and probably single females. Other than that, yes, we do provide washers, depending on the circumstance.

Now a bed, again, I think it depends on the circumstance. I think it may be one bed every ten years. I should defer it actually to the expert, which is Wayne Penney, the ADM.

MR. PENNEY: We have clear policies in place, but again, as our minister just outlined, there is a fair degree of discretion at the field staff level with the approval of the supervisor to deal with exceptional circumstances. We do not normally provide washers, but we do provide washers in circumstances that warrant it; families with young children that have no other options; for singles in exceptional circumstances where there are medical conditions. The policies are clear but there is room for discretion.

MR. MANNING: So if lady A looks for something or requests something of that nature and is turned down there is a three level process of appeal. The first level, at the local -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The supervisors level, the regional staff level, and then the third level is the regional appeal board which is an independent board that looks at the case and makes a determination.

MR. MANNING: Yes. Is there anywhere along that process that the client, herself or himself, can come forward?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, they can always make representation.

MR. MANNING: No, I mean if I am on the phone to a supervisor at the local level and that is turned down by he or she, then we go to another level. I never got the chance to sit down with the supervisor because in most cases you are dealing with the client at the local office. I am just wondering, when it goes to the independence review board - that is what I am trying to get at, when it goes there - is the client permitted to go before that board?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, and a lot of them now are done by telephone. So it makes it that much easier for them to present their side of the case.

MR. MANNING: Whose responsibility is it to advise the client of his or her rights in regards to that? I do not know if it is specified in letters that are sent out to them or not but it seems like there is always some discrepancy with calls I get, whether that person can appeal or not. I am just wondering, how is that -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: In the case of the external appeal board, the person can appear. My understanding is they can also talk to the supervisor, they can also talk to the regional supervisors. The thing is, it is a three-phase appeal that can be done fairly quickly actually. The response time back from the final appeal - well, not the final appeal. The final appeal is through the courts but in terms of the regional appeal board, the social services appeal board, they respond within a couple of days of their decision. Three days? Is that correct, Wayne?

MR. PENNEY: Three to five days.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Three to five days.

MR. MANNING: So if a person goes through the three levels of appeal and - well, they are not satisfied unless they get what they are looking for, but if they go through three levels of appeal, what happens then if they are turned down? You said a court but most of these people are receiving social assistance and legal aid and everything else that comes into it but, I mean, very few, I am sure, go to court over something - I am just wondering, is there ministerial discretion? Is there anywhere within the department - you know, rules? I am just trying to find out what happens with a persons - I have a situation, I am sure the minister is familiar with it, in my own district, without getting into detail. We spoke on it last week for a moment, of a person who has gone through the three levels of appeal and is still turned down. He still informs me he has no income. I have gone over the case with him in regard to the situation but he informs me that he has no income, period. I wonder what happens to that person? He has gone through three levels of appeal but -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Well, it is a good place to ask it, I guess, on the public record. I cannot - I am not talking about a specific individual but you did say that you did ask me, and yes you did. I am satisfied that the appeal board made a sound decision. I guess, from what you have said, he only has one option open to him. He probably did have two. One is the courts. The other is that he can reapply for assistance, but I am satisfied that it did get a thorough review. I looked at all the information and -

MR. MANNING: He can start that process again is what you are saying.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, he can reapply again.

MR. MANNING: Okay, because the circumstances may have changed somewhat.

Anyway, that is going to be it for me for now. Thank you for your indulgence on that and I pass (inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: I thank the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's for his questions.

I now call the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: I understand documentation has been in place for my attendance here on replacing Tom Hedderson, the MHA for Harbour Main area?

MADAM CHAIR: The Deputy Clerk assures me that it is indeed, so you may proceed.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, and I am also the critic for the area.

I want you to go back to the question that my colleague just finished up with. I will ask if the - this thing here that is supposed to give me sound over here isn't working all that well so I apologize if sometimes I do not hear you as well as I should.

On the issue of communications, which is what we were talking about with my colleague a few minutes ago, it seems to me that the calls I receive in my office as the critic, very often it comes down to the communications not being as clear as they might be between the client and the person who is doing the assessment in the local office. Very often, when we get into the details, we find out it is not that the policy has been inappropriately applied, it is that the policy has not been appropriately explained. That very often is the case.

I was wondering if there is an awareness of that and what steps the department might be taking to try to address that particular issue of communication between the policies that are laid out in the manual- they are very clear, I have them here with me- and, of course, the client. Very often I find that is an issue and I am wondering if there is an awareness of that and what the minister or his officials might be doing to try to correct that.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Since we started those consultations we have realized that exactly what you have said is happening. Sometimes the direction and the interaction between the client and our department is not that clear. We are reviewing that to look at how we can do things better, because our objective, as a department, has always been to try and deliver the basic needs of the individuals who have those needs.

I must say, from my own experience in my district, the system is working extremely well. I cannot recall - and I guess not because I am the minister - an incident in my district or in the whole Conception Bay South-Paradise area that I have had to deal with that has not been done to my satisfaction in terms, I believe, that they have done a good job. There may be some incidents. If you are dealing with some 28,000 clients, there are bound to be one or two or three or four that may have a problem. That is a very low percentage in terms of the number of people served. We do recognize that there are some things we need now to look at in how we communicate with clients, in terms of not just the communication but their understanding. It is a very difficult area to be in because we are dealing with human beings, and they have a need and need to have somebody try to help them with that need, even though they may not want to hear what they hear, that kind of thing.

There are some things that we can do. We are looking at it, we are reviewing it, and it is all part of the whole reorganization and redesign of the program delivery.

MR. H. HODDER: I think it is recognized that the communication that has occurred in recent times, particularly with my office by our officials, has been very, very good. I have nothing but compliments to say to all the people working, all of the various field officers; very professional, and I compliment them here in the Legislature. I find them to be very, very accommodating and very much aware of the fact - in my case, my role is often to enquire, to push, to seek answers, and I give the officials credit, wherever they may be across the Province, and say that I have found them to be very, very hospitable and very knowledgeable, whether that is at the managerial level or whether it is at the individual-

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Ministerial level. I know what you are trying to say here.

MR. H. HODDER: People who work at, what I call, the front end of the policy.

I want to go back again to the Support Enforcement Agency. When I was doing the study on children, some years ago, we did an extensive lot of work relative to the Support Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook, because it was all part of giving support to children. We found out that it worked quite well. At that time, we were in discussions with the Department of Justice and other departments, as well, but also looking at it from a national perspective so that wherever the other parent was living in Canada, at the point when they registered to have a job and they signed on with their social insurance number, that information would then be interfaced on a national basis. The last time I reviewed that, which was a couple of years ago, the federal government were still the reluctant partner, and until the federal government came on side and said, yes, we will interface with the provinces and we will facilitate the sharing of information - you cannot have somebody who is supposed to be paying income support to a Newfoundland mother or father or child or children, and then find that, as long as they keep on moving, they can keep on avoiding paying.

What is the progress being made in this particular sharing of information, and are we ready yet to say that we have a national comprehensive policy that addresses that issue?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I guess that question is more appropriately addressed to the Department of Justice that looks after the justice end of it. Maybe Mr. Penney can give us an overview of what we have done in terms of making that connection across the country.

MR. PENNEY: I cannot speak to the development or the national policy piece per se - and again the Department of Justice and the Support Enforcement Agency may be most aware of that - but I can tell you that on an individual case basis we have a solicitor working full-time to help our social workers, in fact, secure support from parents who are absent from the Province. So, if you have someone working in Alberta, we do have procedures in place, once we have an address - usually it is a him - and the courts have processes in place to deal with that, and we do have success stories every day.

Again we are looking at a number of different ways where we can work with the Department of Justice and community agencies. We do have a pilot project, for example, on the West Coast where we are looking at a kind of holistic approach to not only ensuring that we have child support and access to child support in place, but also mediation services, et cetera, all in one location. Again, not to speak on behalf of the Department of Justice, but I know there are ongoing discussions with federal officials around ways and means of moving that kind of an approach across the Province.

MR. H. HODDER: Why I bring it up here, and I am well aware of the fact of how the system is structured, is that it is well recognized, I think, that it is the line departments like the department we are dealing with now, Human Resources - these are the groups that have to advocate with the Department of Justice. From my research at the time, the Department of Justice is more likely to say why something cannot be done than try to facilitate, you know, the resolution through, shall we say, mediation and through other avenues.

I know that there was a very aggressive stand taken by a former Minister of Justice here, Ed Roberts. When he was here, he was very knowledgeable about this matter. Without giving Ed a lot of compliments, he was very knowledgeable about this particular issue and he had done a fair bit of work with it.

I was wondering if there had been anything done to make sure that we were not just sending our info off to Alberta, because we know that their people take it over and very often there is a perception or reality that our cases fall to the bottom of the pile. Why I bring it up here again is because I think that if your department doesn't push for these measures, then the other departments do not have the same commitment to resolution, because they do not often see the human face of the consequences when these enforcements are not done on a national basis.

MR. PENNEY: As I referenced, there are agreements in place that do, in fact, allow cases to be heard fairly expeditiously.

The other point I make in terms of - and again with single parents, largely, who rely on social assistance, we have made great progress over the last seven or eight years in terms of providing direct support to those women in terms of securing child support. I recall a day in the Income Support Program where maybe 10 or 15 per cent of cases would be receiving child support. That is closer to 50 per cent today. From my point of view, it has meant, in many cases, single parents being provided the opportunity to move away from income support, because once you secure child support, they are less dependent and more likely and more able, in many circumstances, to be able to move on.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: For the record, in terms of collections, we collect some $2.1 million a year in support payments for clients. So, you know, there is a great effort underway. I think the more people become aware that you have a responsibility, if you shirk that responsibility there is going to be somebody after you to pay up. We believe that it is working and it is progressing quite well, actually.

MR. H. HODDER: When we were doing the study on children, the most reluctant of all the partners was the federal government that found reasons why they would not garnish and refused to garnish provinces and corporations who are generally very, very good. The federal government was the big obstacle. I suspect that is still the case today.

The office in Corner Brook does do some fairly good work and I am well aware of it. As a matter of fact, the number of cases I would have had five years ago compared to today has gone down dramatically. I would have been, in my district, doing maybe ten a year. In terms of really getting into cases now, I am probably doing three, four or five interactions with Corner Brook on an annual basis. It has basically been cut in half. Now that might reflect the nature of my district. For the record, when we did a study on children, Corner Brook's office stood up, on a par, with anything else that we have in the country. I say that here for the record because it is important sometimes to let these people know that what they do is appreciated.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I should, as minister of the department, thank you for all your kind remarks about the efficiency and effectiveness of the staff that work in Human Resources and Employment. It is not often people who are in the public service hear these kinds of remarks. It is important for us, who are out there working on behalf of clients, in your case, to call it as you see it. I will certainly relay your thoughts to them in terms of how you regard their performance of their duties as civil servants. So on their behalf I want to say thank you.

MR. H. HODDER: If they had more money they would do a better job, of course.

I want to get back to the washers and dryers - again my colleague brought the question up. I think it was Mr. Penney who said that there is some great deal of discretion given at the local district office level. I agree with that, but how do we make sure that then there is a consistent policy. Again, my commentary is based on some experience, where I found some inconsistences between one part of the Province, in terms of that application, compared to another part of the Province. I know the regulations say that if you have a laundromat that is seven kilometres - nobody is suggesting that we have people going up Park Avenue in Mount Pearl in a wheelchair with a load of laundry in their laps on a snowy day. There are cases where the policy does not - and I am not complaining about the flexibility. I am saying that within the flexibility there should also be some way in which we can measure consistency. How do we evaluate for consistency when we have such flexibility given at the local level?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That is a real challenge because, in a sense, again you are dealing with individuals with a multitude of circumstances that would compel a client service officer either to provide or not to provide. It depends again on all of the circumstances together. I cannot recall a situation, in my time of working with people in my district, where that kind of a thing was refused if it could be done. What I have found is that if there is any way to do it, in most cases they find a way if it is possible. Again it depends on the circumstance. I do not know if Mr. Penney has anything he can add to that.

MR. PENNEY: There is a delicate balance with respect to having clear and concise policies in place to provide direction to staff and at the same time allowing some required flexibility. One of the pieces that we have done, and I think we have done fairly successfully over the last few years, is at the regional level. Our regional managers will met with his or her management group on a fairly regular basis, and these are the kinds of discussions they will have; not that it will provide a 100 per cent solution, but again I believe having that group together as a full management group, they can have these discussions, they can go back and have those discussions with their field staff, and that happens regularly, perhaps more regularly today than it did in the past. It is that kind of communication. I want to emphasize- and I do not want to de-emphasize your point - there is a delicate balance between providing some very clear policies to staff and at the same time allowing flexibility.

The other point I would make is that - we have already talked about it - there are safeguards in place with respect to the appeals process, so that if someone doesn't feel they have been treated within policy fairly, they can apply directly to the supervisor to discuss the case with them, and if not satisfied they can go through the further two levels of appeal.

MR. H. HODDER: On the basis of the appeals process - following up from their comments - many of the people I deal with get discouraged with the appeals process because they feel that it does not work for them. In other words, they will go through all the process, they will get their local clergy, or whomever they want to talk to, to represent them, their MHA or some local official. They get very discouraged with the appeals process.

I am wondering if there are any stats available which would indicate to us how often the appeals process results in decisions being reversed or decisions being modified? The answer to that would, perhaps, either confirm what people say, that, what am I doing this for, I am only wasting my time, or they would be able to say, yes, there are stats available and the appeals process does function effectively.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes. We have kept stats of what has been done. On the Avalon region there were seventy-one decisions that were upheld, there were eleven overturned. There was a total of eighty-two and 87 per cent of them were upheld, the decision of the staff. In Central, 79 per cent of all the cases heard were upheld. In Western - I should give you the numbers actually - there were a total of sixty-six appeals. Forty-nine of those were upheld, seventeen were overturned, for 74 per cent. In Labrador, 86 per cent was upheld, keeping in mind that of the total cases there was only seven cases heard. Six were upheld and one was overturned in Labrador. Based on these numbers, I guess you are looking at 25 per cent in one case in Western that are being overturned, 20 per cent in Central, about 13 per cent on the Avalon overturned, and in Labrador you get 14 per cent.

The thing, I guess, is that it is an independent appeal tribunal that is unaffected by any force from the department. The individuals state their case, the department's position, and that kind of a thing. So, they are pretty independent and they make the decisions as they see the evidence. It is pretty neutral in that sense. Here is an exact number of cases that have been heard and the results of what were upheld and what were overturned.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you for having the information available readily. It is very helpful in information.

Again, back to communication. Sometimes, when you are talking to people about going to an appeal, it is always helpful if they can be relatively assured that the process works. If you are having a 20 to 25 per cent overturn or variance - and I would suggest to you, that not all of these were completely overturned, there were variances that would have occurred. That is not an indictment on the initial policy maker or initial person, the financial officer, but it certainly does show that maybe the process works better than - many of the people that I have talked to believe it works. Again, back to communications, I think that is something that we should keep in mind. That needs to be communicated to the people, that not only do they have the right to appeal, but that the appeal process, in 20 per cent of the cases, does result in changes or modifications, and I would suggest in most cases it would not be a complete reversal.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes. As I said, we are in the process of redesign. I guess, in a sense, we are reviewing all of what we do and how we do it. We are getting some great information now from the consultation that is on the go. We are getting people from all walks of life, in some cases clients or former clients, who are saying how they saw things and what they would like to see done. The whole objective here is to help people improve their status in life, people who are on - I refer to it, actually, Mr. Hodder, as income support as opposed to social assistance. I kind of like income support much better than using social assistance.

Over the next year or so, in that redesign will come out a kind of approach that, I guess, the staff and the department have also looked at themselves and have said: Well, here is how we should be doing things in terms of a standard code of ethics in the way in which we deal with the clients. They have set that themselves, how it should be done, the kind of approach that should be taken. Where we can improve and change, we will. That is important, because the whole purpose here is the client. That is why the department exists, to try and help clients. Where we can, where clients are able to move into meaningful employment, then that is where we want to target the most emphasis, in terms of able-bodied people who can be helped, whether it be through an assessment of what skills they have or what education they have and what we can do in terms of the employment programs that we have in place, like NewFoundJobs, to provide $3,000 to help somebody make that transition even if it means that we could help them, and we do, with their Adult Basic Education. They may need some short-term training, they may need some help with transportation, that kind of a thing. The whole idea here is help people better themselves, and I think we are working on getting this program in operation in the next few months, in terms of how we deliver it. So we are quite pleased, actually, with the approach that we are taking.

MR. H. HODDER: I think earlier Mr. Penney mentioned having a - I do not think he used the word comprehensive, but he mentioned a holistic approach to service delivery. While we could talk about the concept of the holistic approach for the rest of the evening, I think it is incumbent upon the department to make sure that people are given help to improve themselves, to restore their dignity, and when they sit in an office it is not intimidating. You know: I am the bureaucrat that is across from you and I can either help you or not help you, kind of thing.

The professionalism that I am seeing and have knowledge of is going a long way to communicate well, and I think that is part of what we should be encouraging in terms of professional development within our staff. That holistic approach will work only if it has a lot of respect that goes along with it, and the dignity is not taken away from people just because they do not have any money. They are still good people even though they might be unemployed, underemployed, have no skills or find themselves where the job they were trained for no longer exists; and that happens. Take for example our many, many fisherfolk.

One further question, and it deals with people who are in receipt of income support but find themselves with job opportunities in another province. While the guidelines say that they can pick up their income support payments - and, of course, that is good for fifteen days in advance. Then, of course, if they move immediately I guess they can use their fifteen days, the next two week's funds, to travel or whatever they want to do if they are going to get out of the Province. Is there a program whereby we can help those people who find employment elsewhere, out of Province, and that we can then help these people get to where the jobs are?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That is a good question, Mr. Hodder. There are people, as you know, since you have been involved, in a sense, with the clients that you represent, who have been helped in terms of transportation, depending on the destination. Again, it depends on the circumstance. From my perspective, I think we should take a look at where we are going in that sense, that people may not require a lot of help in some cases to get to where they are going. NewFoundJobs is one of the areas that we could look at, in a sense, again depending on the circumstances, the cost and whether or not the individual is going to long-term or seasonal employment. What is all of the information in terms of the job that they are going to: Is it for six months, is it for a year, is it permanent; these kinds of things?

I think we have to start thinking along the lines that: Number one, we are there to provide a service to people who, I guess, in this case, are less fortunate, who need us to help them in some way. If you take into consideration, depending on the circumstances, if there is a job that could give them a good living for six months, the cost of getting there may be insignificant in terms of what it may cost the taxpayers of the Province to keep the individual on income support for six months. I think these are the kinds of things that we have to take into consideration when we are reviewing a request like that; to try and help, if we can. Number one, if it is to the client's advantage, and we know that it is always better to have a good paying job. We are looking at these kind of things depending on the circumstances.

MR. H. HODDER: Is the flexibility that you are referring to now, and Mr. Penney referred to before, in terms of other items like furniture and washers and dryers, is that kind of flexibility applicable to the circumstances where a person has a job, that he is confirmed by the employer - not just by, I have a brother who works in Yellowknife and I am sure if I went up there he would get me a job, but where the employer is willing to communicate with the financial assistance office and say: Yes, we have knowledge of this person. If this person can get to, for example, Edmonton, Yellowknife, or wherever, that that person will have a job and it is guaranteed for x number of months providing the person is on good behaviour and applies himself diligently, all the usual conditions that would apply to any job, is that flexibility there and is it communicated?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Well, it is there in a sense, I guess. It is the client service officer who does the assessment of the situation.

From my perspective as minister, I certainly would like to see all opportunities that present themselves to clients explored. If we can help them stay off income support for six to eight months then we should, by all means, do it keeping in mind two things: One is that we do not have unlimited funds in terms of trying to help people make that transportation move and the cost, not knowing what the cost would be. The other thing is - and this is where you are going to come in - this fall we will look at bringing in a legislative framework to allow governments to do these kinds of things. My understanding is that the whole legislation has been there since 1977, and it is pretty prescriptive in how you do things. So that is what we are doing now in terms of the public consultation out there, hearing what people have to say, to rewrite the income support legislation for the twenty-first Century.

MR. H. HODDER: In that regard, the last time that I looked at that issue, on a national scale, there was the issue that some provinces had a very narrowly defined, very rigid interpretation of legislation and essentially prohibited a province like Newfoundland - where there is a high unemployment level - from assisting. It is almost like an unfriendly thing to do, for Newfoundland to give any assistance to unemployed people in Newfoundland to move to a province like Alberta or British Columbia. Now, I am well aware of the difficulties that existed between Alberta and British Columbia when it comes to people moving to gain access to higher rates of social assistance and the difficulty that caused between those two provinces, where the people flowed from one to the other wherever the income support assistance was better.

Have we, in your discussions with other ministers across the country - has that particular issue of having a common approach to this particular problem of giving help to people who are on low income - because people who have money, they get help. They get it through the income tax system, where you can write off your travel expenses. Some part of your travel expenses - if you have a new job elsewhere either your employer writes it off or you can write it off directly yourself. There is some provision for that. The people who have no income, they are substantially disadvantaged because the structure does not work so well for them. I am wondering if there has been any discussion on a broader aspect of this with other provinces?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: First of all I should say - nothing to do with your question. I should say to you that there is a consultation process ongoing in terms of the legislation.

MR. H. HODDER: Okay.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Knowing where you come from and where you have been and what you have said and what you have done, I would appreciate it very much, as minister, that you would take the initiative to make representation to the committee because you do have a very broad understanding of how the systems works and your involvement with the Child Protection legislation, that kind of a thing and where you have been. I would appreciate it very much if you did that prior to us bringing the legislation into the House, just to hear what you have to say so that you will know - I will know at least where you are coming from in terms of what you would like to see the legislation saying.

Now, back to the help for people making the transition from income support to a job. I want to make it clear that our first priority, in terms of transition, are jobs within the Province. We want to make sure that we help those who are here in the Province. If by chance people have an opportunity to go outside the Province for employment - we are not promoting it. Our first commitment is to work within the Province to build our own economy, to train our own people to meet our own needs.

Now, to get to your question, as a new minister I will refer to my Deputy Minister who has been here a lot longer than I have.

MS RANDELL: Mr. Hodder, the issue of social assistance requirements varying from province to province and entrants moving from one province to another, we have been working through the table of social service ministers to address mobility issues as part of the social union framework. That was a requirement of provinces. The commitment that was made was to eliminate barriers to mobility so that individuals who moved from one province to another were not barred from accessing the social service supports of a particular province because of mobility barriers.

Having said that, and again I look to Mr. Penney, it is not uncommon, I guess, that the response of provinces may well be to provide funds to the individual to help repatriate them to the province from which they came. That is still not an uncommon response. I look to Mr. Penney to confirm that.

MR. PENNEY: Again, the deputy's point around income support programs; all ten provinces and territories have different programs with different eligibility rules but for most, or based on my experience, if we are dealing with a client and we provide assistance or the client gets to Ontario, for example, on their own and may need to apply for assistance for a number of weeks or a month while they are waiting for employment, to my knowledge the income support program would provide that assistance. I know that would be the case in Newfoundland. If someone came here from another province, once they land in the Province they are free to apply. There is no residency requirement. Most provinces, as I understand, or most programs would take that same approach.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, and again, our legislation is very clear.

MR. PENNEY: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Once they arrive they can apply immediately and likewise, once they arrive elsewhere. Again, I am glad the minister made the point that while we recognize many of our unemployed people or underemployed people have to move out of the Province to find employment, and that is regrettable, the question is whether they are better off to have a job elsewhere or be unemployed in their hometown within the Province.

Mobility within the Province, getting from one part of the Province to another, is there some way in which we can assist people, who find employment within the Province, to get to their new place of employment, to move their families, and that kind of assistance? What is the department's general practice on that matter?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The general practice - I do not know if it is a general practice. The approach has always been that a client service officer would do - I am talking about in terms of the monies that I know of in terms of, for example, new found jobs. The client service officer would do an assessment of a client and determine what their needs are and look at where they would want to go or where they would like to see themselves go but to advise them also of where they might want to go. They could use up to a maximum of $3,000 in the new found jobs to help a client reach that goal; whether it be transportation, whether it would be some training or some textbooks or some registration, that kind of a thing.

Looking at it in a broader sense, I guess, if we have an individual who already has some skills that would make them employable, I do not see a lot of difference in trying to - depending on the circumstance and what the job entails, how long (inaudible) for location costs, that kind of thing. What are the probabilities of the individual upgrading their own skills in terms of what opportunities they would get. From where I sit, if an individual has a job that he needs some help to get to, and it can be verified and is reasonable and it is going to provide him with a new opportunity, a new hope - I think like we talked about today - then I think that is the flexibility that we can apply, keeping in mind that there are some people out there who - I guess you are looking at the individual who already has some skills and has the ability to get employment and is already employable. Our big problem is, I guess in a sense, that we have a lot of clients who, whether they are undereducated, they have no skills, they are pretty difficult to employ, these are the kinds of people that we want targeted in terms of the income support program that we have and the type of programs that we have put in place. I think that was the main objective of the whole reorganization of the department in a sense.

Plant service officers now spend a lot of time filling out applications. With all the information technology that we have available today we are looking at changing how that process is done in terms of - there are three ways that they can apply for income support now. One is by telephone, walk-in or - What is the other one?

WITNESS: Application.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mail application. One person could basically do that from anywhere in the Province on a 1-800 line which would free up our client service officers to work face to face with clients who need help in that area.

That is how we are going to try to refocus, I guess in a sense. I do not know if saying refocus is the right word. I think that is what the department has been working towards in terms of how they have been operating. Now it is just a matter of putting the technology in place, the proper program into the computer to accommodate what we need to do so that we can get out there and work directly with clients to help them make it better for themselves.

Now I do not know if I have answered your question but I hope I have in terms of what our priorities might be, in terms of getting to those people who actually need our help as opposed to people who already have a skill that they can apply. But we do help, depending on the situation.

MR. H. HODDER: There are some line things I might get back to later on but I want to bring up one more issue, and I am somewhat reluctant to bring it up. It has to deal with the lack of counselling that occurs when people who are on income support find themselves facing the prospect of a death in the family. Part of life deals with the reality of death. I have had some cases where - because of lack of communication, or because of poor decision making and because people are emotionally traumatized by events that are occurring within their family, even though these events are very predictable, and even though they are known by some of our social workers. I had to deal with a number of instances where the expenditures that have occurred following the death in terms of the people wanting to do what they think is best, find themselves at the end - with a set amount coming from the department - in some cases, with a problem where they have used up all of the applicable Canada Pension benefits and still have substantive responsibilities arising from the death of a family member. While reluctant to bring it up, I bring it up because it is a reality. I am wondering if there is something we can do better about communication and consultation. Again, communicating so that people do not find themselves with a deficit of $6,000 and $7,000 to a funeral home with no ability to be able to ever pay it. The consequence sometimes is tremendous stress and often a further dependence by way of medications and by way of interactions through other departments.

Again, coming back to communications, which I started off with, I wonder if you could comment on - again, I am not blaming anybody. I am just simply saying: Is there some way in which we can become a little more cognizant and a little more willing to offer counselling in circumstances where these health problems are leading to foreseeable problems in terms of the arrangements which have to be made in the event of the death of a family member?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I am trying to determine where you are coming from. If I understand you correctly, I think your concern is with the - number one, I guess, the set amount that is provided by the department as opposed to the amount that some bereaved individual may acquire, I guess, in trying to give their loved one a respectable funeral. To my knowledge, my understanding is that in most cases the funeral homes will advise - in a lot of cases, if the individual does not make contact with the department - how much the department pays. I understand it is a pretty traumatic time and a very difficult circumstance to handle. I think people generally know, if they are on income support, what is being provided by government. I guess there is no good way of trying to communicate it, but that is my understanding. Can we do more? There are so many demands in terms of the few dollars that we do have, it is a big, big challenge.

The same answer, I guess, would apply to your second concern which would be with the counseling. It is very difficult for the taxpayers, I guess is the best way to put it, to provide everything that would be required in today's society. We have to work, I guess, within our means in terms of what we do provide, even though what you are raising is an issue that is very difficult to deal with.

I do not know if Vivian has anything that she would like to add to it.

MS RANDELL: Mr. Hodder, I do understand the issue and I guess I could only reiterate the minister's comments. We generally do have a good relationship with funeral home operators and they are aware. We have the capacity to communicate with funeral homes when an individual has deceased to discuss the arrangements. Sometimes it happens though that individuals make choices that may not necessarily be the best choices given the stress that they are under.

Certainly - and Mr. Penney can comment here - if we were aware of a particular circumstance where someone made a really difficult decision, then I think we would certainly be prepared to have a discussion with the funeral home. As the minister has indicated, our capacity to cover costs is really set by our own rules and regulations. I can appreciate how these things happen but it is very difficult sometimes for us to intervene in those circumstances. I would not be adverse certainly to having a discussion with the funeral home if we feel something has really gone amiss.

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to ask one more question. I just did not want my session to end on that particular note.

I want to go back to item 1.2.02.12, Administrative Support, Information Technology, $3,715,100. It was $4,028,900 last year. I am not discussing the amount here. I wanted the minister, if he could - this is on page 200, subhead 12 - to explain to me the manner in which the department has now been totally computerized, how that is working on a province-wide system, and what we are paying for, if you want to put it that way, with that $3,715,100

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: You are asking me what was provided for the $3.7 million?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I do not have-

MR. H. HODDER: I assume it is not salaries because that is covered elsewhere.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Roberts has the details, I think, on what was provided.

MR. ROBERTS: The $3.7 million is made up primarily of our operations, our computer operations. You mentioned how extensive they are. Well, all our employees now throughout the Province have computers to help them deliver service. The operation and maintenance of them and the maintenance of our computer systems - for example, our biggest one is the FACTS system, as it is called, which delivers the actual cheques twice a month to our employees, some $1 million a year. The money is in there for that.

Also development of new systems: Our main one there is, as I believe our deputy referred to earlier, we are now in the process of developing a new system to replace FACTS, the existing one which is now twenty-five years old. In computer terms that is a very old system. It will also facilitate the new delivery services that the minister has referred to tonight in terms of redesign. That is a system that we started development on with xwave last year and should be completed, the development of it, in this fiscal year and be rolled out across the Province over the next fiscal year.

MR. H. HODDER: What proportion of Income Support is now paid by direct deposit to the individual's account?

MR. ROBERTS: It is a very low percentage. We started direct deposit, I think, about a year ago, somewhere around there, and we obviously made it voluntary for our clients. I am not sure what the percentage is, but it is a very low percent, probably 10 per cent or less. We continue to offer it as an option to existing clients and new clients. There are advantages, I guess, depending on how they look at it. They do not have to get a cheque and cash it or deposit it themselves, it goes directly into their accounts.

MR. H. HODDER: Certainly I do believe that in the urban centres - this might not be true in some of the rural communities - but in the urban centres direct deposit is to be much encouraged because it is direct for one thing and it does not depend on the mail system for another. I think in these centres we probably- I have been encouraging my constituents who are on Income Support to go and ask for direct deposit. Some of them, again, are not aware of the fact that they can do that. Not all of these people have bank accounts and this kind of thing, and that is part of your problem. If you have a direct deposit you have to have an established bank account and often there are other bills that might interact with the account and some things like that; personal matters. Under normal circumstances, direct deposit is a feature that I think is not adequately known and maybe not adequately encouraged within the department.

I ask the question: Are we doing more to encourage that, because I find that the people who do that say: Oh, yes, that works good. I know on next Wednesday morning or Thursday morning, whatever it is, that I can now go and work with that system. I also find, by the way, that sometimes the younger people are just as reluctant, perhaps more reluctant, to go to direct deposit than some of my fifty-year-old constituents. So, it is not something that the older people are backing away from, but it is not well known.

I am wondering if the minister might want to comment, because I think it is something that I am suggesting to you might be encouraged and adequately explained.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, I guess we could take a look at: Why hasn't it been more widely proclaimed that that option is available? We have to keep in mind that it is an option in terms of whether or not they take part in it, right.

MR. H. HODDER: Absolutely! Absolutely!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: So, I do not know. I guess it takes more than a couple of weeks to wrap my mind around the ministry and to know all the answers. We have heard what you have said and we will certainly take that into consideration and see what we can do to make it more known.

MR. H. HODDER: I want to thank you, Mr. Minister.

I recognize you have only been in the department for a couple of weeks. It is a sharp learning curve with the Estimates coming up and this kind of thing. I want to thank you for your commentaries and the free manner in which you have tried to answer all the questions.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Well, I want to thank you for recognizing that I am a new minister and sparing me, as such.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hodder. I will now ask the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Chair, we recognize that the speakers have been allotted about an hour each, so we all will not all take an hour. I will not take an hour or so to go through some questions here. So, Madam Chair, we will pass our time along to the hon. Member for Trinity North.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Andersen.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North. Do you have some questions?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I do.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains. I will not take an hour.

There are a couple of questions and, forgive me, I do not think I will overlap with any of the previous issues raised, but I just want to build on a couple of things that got raised, if you do not mind. I will kind of frame my questions in two different categories. One is the income support component. The other is the employment component, if that is okay?

Just a couple of things: Obviously, I based my questions and my comments on a couple of things. One is having a look at the Budget Estimates and the focus of your programs. The second is some of the experiences I have had as an MHA in dealing with constituents and the kinds of issues that have surfaced for me. I am trying to get some understanding of how you deliver that program and, hopefully, share with you then some of the things that I have run across, because this is going to be an experience where you are obviously answering questions and sharing information with us. Hopefully, through the manner in which we pose questions and the issues that we raise, it gives you some sense of what we are finding in dealing with your clients and our constituents to mutually focus on improving the program. So, take my comments in that perspective, please.

On the issue of income support: As I walked in, one of the things being talked about was allowances for appliances and furniture and so on. Let me ask you the question in terms of: I recognize that the field staff people are looking at the policy that exists and they are responding to requests within the context of that policy. But, the amounts that have been predetermined for some of these - I just take, particularly, the issue around appliances and washers and so on for $350; those kinds of amounts. When you establish those amounts - I know my colleague asked the question around covering the cost of funeral services and I understand that in that particular one what you are providing for is a service that can be provided within that dollar frame. Some of the other things that you talked about, and I take appliances as an example - the example very specifically would be a washer for $350. As a result of a very recent - and by recent I mean within the last four weeks - situation with a constituent, it is impossible to buy a washer for $350. I have not had any experience with other kinds of appliances that you might buy. That figure of $350, is it an arbitrary figure, is it something that reflects a budget reality or is it something that reflects a market survey that told you that you could buy that appliance for $350? How do you determine those amounts?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I am almost reluctant to answer it for you, but I have been told - and I have not talked to my officials about this - I have been told that you can buy a washer for $350. It depends on what type of washer you buy. Now, my guess is that an assessment has been done in terms of what can be provided for that amount of money. Rather than stick my neck out and guess, I am going to refer it now to Mr. Penney, who-

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Who can stick his neck out, eh.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I would much rather his neck to be on the line than mine.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: A minister of prerogative, right.

MR. PENNEY: The amounts that were decided upon were based on the reality that most people, a lot of people, purchase second-hand appliances, in fact. When we looked across the Province, and we did some - I do not want to give you the impression that we did a massive survey - but, when we did do some analysis and talked to our field staff that amount was felt to be a reasonable amount, in order to access second-hand appliances. There is also a recognition - and this is included in the assessment of cases - you know, that a lot of people have extended families, et cetera, in this Province and, again, when circumstances arise where someone has to replace a major appliance, in a lot of cases family members can help and do help. The amount is never intended to be able to purchase a brand new washer. You will not buy a brand new washer, in most cases, for $350. Again, it is intended to contribute towards the purchase of a second-hand appliance.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: So, it is an allowance, basically? The assumption would be that they would buy used. Is that the assumption?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Used.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Actually, that might be a little bit of a disadvantage.

I know one of the roommates that stayed with my son at the university this year went downtown and picked up a bed and a dresser and some chairs to help furnish the apartment from some place down there and it cost him $200. I assume that it might be easy to do that in St. John's. If you live in my district, or the adjacent - I will not speak for all the adjacent ones, but I can speak for Bonavista South - you will not find a used furniture or appliance store that you could buy furniture or appliances from. So, you would be relying on trying to buy it from a neighbour or something like that or a flea market.

I guess somewhat related to that then, because it is decisions like that - that just happens to be an example of one that I dealt with about a month ago. In that process, too, of making decisions that constituents or your clients are not happy with, the appeal process - I know it was discussed earlier in terms of the process and the three steps in that process. I have only been in this House for a couple of years, and upon first arriving I had a couple of situations where the appeal process moved very, very quickly. I just assumed that was the standard. In the last six months, those that I have had some experience with, have been much slower and significantly slower.

I am just wondering if that is an issue of workload or if it is an issue of change in procedure or, because we are having many more of these cases going through appeal, would there be some reason why a decision - I recognize that the decisions you are making are about someone who has an immediate need and therefore the turnaround time would need to be relatively soon. In the last six months, and I will not say I have had extensive numbers, but in a six-month period I have been involved in maybe four to five appeals. They have been noticeably longer in (a) getting a response from the regional staff people and (b) getting a response from the external appeal. In fact, just very recently, last week, last Thursday, I had a conversation trying to move up and see if we could speed up an external appeal process because of the urgency of the decision. I have been told that it is two to three weeks out, which is not what I experienced two years ago. I am just wondering if there has been some shift, some change, or something recent.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: No. I am being advised that these time frames are fixed in a sense of the regional appeal. I think it is sixty days. You then have another thirty days to get to the social services appeal tribunal.

It is difficult to answer in a sense, I guess, unless you know specifically what surrounded it. My understanding is that in sixty days it could be through the regional appeal. If you have a specific problem - and I understand where you are coming from - if a client has a problem that needs to be dealt with, then just bring it to our attention and we will track down, if there is some glitch here in the system then we will find out. Other than that it is difficult, because in my short stay as minister I have not received a complaint in terms of the inefficiency of the system that we have, although there may be instances where something happens that people want to say they are appealing, or they say they have appealed and they probably have not appealed. So it is difficult to determine unless we know the specifics of the case.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: To be honest with you, I was surprised that there was a sixty-day parameter around the regional appeal process, because sixty and thirty is ninety days. That would have been three months. The very favorable experiences I have had have been pretty fast. I guess my measure is my past experiences rather than what you have just cited.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I will ask Mr. Roberts if he can enlighten us more.

MR. ROBERTS: The sixty and thirty are maximum periods and we hope to turn them around in a lot less than that. I can say, that a few years ago the waiting time from the time a decision was made at the service review committee to the appeal board was more like five, six or seven weeks, because that was the system we had. Now we keep statistics on this minutely, and in the last few years we have turned them around within two to three weeks maximum. In fact, the average wait from the time we receive an appeal for the independent appeal board is fifteen days, and when the appeal is heard we get the decisions out within three to five days maximum. So, it has improved substantially. That is not to say it cannot or should not get better.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: We will take a look at your particular region, at the number of cases that are coming through there and the length of time it is taking. There may be a generic problem there. We will take a look at it.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I appreciate that because, as I said, my experience was obviously not based on sixty and ninety. I got spoiled probably, from a couple of years ago to now.

One of the other issues around Income Support - and I understand and appreciate it being a bit of challenge, how you deal with it - is single people under the age of fifty who find themselves, I will not say typically, but an example might be, and actually there are several examples, where a person in that age category who is living at home with elderly parents or is living with an extended family member but has not been working for some time and has no employable skills, very unlikely will find themselves employed in the foreseeable future and has been on continued Income Support for sometime. Is that figure, under the age of fifty and being single - my experience with the income levels that you provide for that is they will not allow that kind of person to find any degree of independence in being able to function unless they have the support of a family member or are living at home with parents or that kind of arrangement. Statistically, are there many people in that grouping that you find are clients of yours for Income Support?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That is a technical question, in terms of would I remember how much I have been briefed. I think Mr. Penney would probably be the most knowledgeable in terms of he is working with it directly.

MR. PENNEY: Up until October, 2000, if you were single, employable and less than fifty, we had a separate rate structure which meant that you would get less if you were living with relatives, if you fell into that age category and you were employable. We did a fair piece of work around this one and we made significant changes in October, 2000 which lowered that age down to twenty-nine, thirty which limited the number of clients that were impacted.

The policy today is, in fact, if you are less than thirty years of age we will do an assessment, have the discussion with the client with respect to employability. If they are living with family and they are employable and less than thirty, we do provide a lower rate of assistance. Again, I do not have the exact numbers in my head at the moment. I can certainly provide them to you. The numbers of individuals that fall into that category would be fairly limited today as compared to what it would have been prior to that policy change in October 2000.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I know you had this discussion with an earlier question around compensation for relocation. I was listening as you talked about the discretion that maybe rests with your field staff people. Just to share an example with you: A young lady, a single mother with three youngsters, had guaranteed employment out in Alberta, and at the time she originally approached your office for some support for the relocation, it was rejected. A little better than four months later, as a result of some efforts at my office, we were able to arrange - and it was more coincidence than anything else, that the person she was going to work with coincidently happened to be an old high school friend of mine who knew their family and he advanced her the money to get out there. In that four-and-a-half month period, your department supported her in terms of her accommodations and all the income she needed. That was very much a coincidence. That was more an accident than anything else. Ordinarily, I do not know what would have happened in that case, but it was an example where you could confirm the employment. It was a permanent position in a small scale manufacturing operation where there was a high turnover. So if a person wanted to stay, they could stay as long as they wanted. It was not one of these situations where there was a scarcity of jobs and they would probably be laid off tomorrow. As long as she was willing to work there and stay there, she could stay the rest of her life, theoretically.

That was an example of where that flexibility which you talked about, that judgement call - there was not a sense at the local level that the person had the ability to make that discretionary call because it fell outside the framework of the structured policies.

I raise that question again, if you do not mind, and use that as an example to illustrate a point. The question primarily becomes then: In terms of the degree to which discussions are held with the regional management people, around the discretion and latitude they actually have and how much you discuss that issue, how strongly do you feel that they really have that strong sense of flexibility?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That is a good question, actually. I understand that is one of the questions that is asked in the consultation document that we put out for the consultation. Basically, I think it is looking at a request to advance up to three months income support to that particular individual to become gainfully employed with the understanding that they would not be back in three months. So, that is the question that we have asked. It is a great opportunity now for you to make representation on the consultation. We certainly accept all the views. We are interested in seeing what kind of response we will get. Our thoughts are - I will put it to you this way - that we have provided income support in this Province since 1949, I guess. We have made some adjustments in terms of how it was done up to 1977. I am quite comfortable actually, and quite enthused, about the approach that we now want to take. It is very enlightening in terms of us being more open minded about what we do and try to direct all our energies to those who need help most. In this case, I guess, the ones that are ready, willing and able to be employed. We are prepared to work with them, knowing full well that there are some clients who are with us that will always be with us. Their condition does not allow them to be otherwise, whether it be physical or mental. That is the direction, as a department, we would like to pursue.

We appreciate your question and we look forward to your written response now on the consultation document.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: It is a challenge. I appreciate that obviously you just do not want to be sending people out Alberta or Ontario and having them back in six months time. I mean you have just paid for a holiday. There is a real balance you are trying to achieve here, and I appreciate that totally. I am glad to see, too, that you are very receptive to that kind of change and are looking at that with a positive view.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Just for a second here. Question number 15 and it is: Should legislation give authority to the minister to re-direct social assistance funds on an individual case bases to provide active employment support? This could mean that where a person is eligible to receive social assistance and identifies a desire for specific training or other employment related support, the social assistance funds could be re-directed to those purposes identified by the client for a specified period of time. Good question.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I must have read that out of the book.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That is my point exactly.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Are you are suggesting that the current legislation does not provide for that, can't be bound by the legislation?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The things we are doing now, I guess, are a matter of policy, of Cabinet directive, that kind of a thing.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: One of the others things - and I appreciate and understand that the very focus of tonight is talking about the budget and the estimates for next year, so we are talking about budgetary issues. I appreciate that we have to function within those budgets. In areas where there is eligibility for benefits - and there is a budget allocation for that line item within the department so it is not a question of eligibility. You got that out of the way. It is a question now of having the money there to do it. My experience is - there have not been a large number but there have been a few. It is an unusual issue; dentures. I am not sure if that is treated differently than other budget items. Ironically, and I know I say ironically, but it seems that it appears a half a dozen times or so in the last year, and has for me, where clients of yours have required dentures. It is not a question of eligibility. It is not a question of whether they need them, all the documentation is there. Your client-service response has been: We do not have any money yet, we are waiting for some money to be allocated, we have run out of that money for the year, or give us a little time and we will get some more. So, it is a budgetary decision about reallocation of resources.

Why is that item as restricted as that in terms of if it is eligible, if they are eligible for it, it is a fixed cost but we have run out of money. Can you shift money around like that? Do you have the flexibility to do that?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes. The point is, there is only so much money you can shift around. The money that we have we have to spend wisely, in a sense we pretty well know what to expect in terms of the amounts that we are going to spend. We do give dentures, by the way.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I know you do, but you just run out of money every now and then.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: As all the rest of the answers, it depends on the circumstance. As I said, if we had enough resources to do all the things that people would want - as the hon. member from Waterford Valley talked about, the consultation or advice to be given to those that are bereaved and that kind of a thing. I mean, there is as much as you can imagine to be done. We certainly would like to do all of these things - counselling for bereaved, that is what I am trying to get at. We just have to, I guess, you have heard the statement, cut the garment according to the cloth. You are the critic for health care. As you know, there are all kinds of demands. Income support is just one area. We are trying to do the best that we can with the resources that we have.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just to shift gears a little bit and move off the income support to some degree, I suppose, I just want to talk about a couple of things that came about as a result of the changes that have occurred in transferring some programs to Health and Community Services, that transition that you went through a few years ago. There are a couple of areas where there is still some overlap. I want to get some sense of how they work from your perspective. I have had reason to get involved in a number of cases where this has happened. One is the area of the prescription drug program and the second is the area of transportation for medical purposes.

Can you share with me your role, your department's role, in the prescription drug program; not so much in terms of deciding what is in the formulary, but in terms of eligibility for benefits and client applications and determining the best screening process? Can you share with me your role as a department in that program?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes. We provide a drug card for those on income support from our department.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: To those with low income, I think we do an assessment of people who are on low income to see if there is a possibility that we may be able to help with a certain amount of funding towards drugs in as much as the resources allow us.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Let me just share with you, very specifically, the point. A client comes in today, a client of yours - as an obvious - your financial service person is dealing with them and they are eligible for a drug card so they get it. Another client who is above that income threshold, but because of other expenses and the cost of living, maybe debts or whatever they have going on, they are not eligible for income support from you so they are not a client of yours, they are looking for a drug card because their list of drugs drives their total living costs all through the ceiling. They apply to you for a drug card. Your people say: Well, even if we consider the cost of all your drugs your income is not brought down to that ceiling we have here. The other kinds of stuff like the lease payment on your car, the fact that you are putting two kids through university and you have debts at x number of finance companies, we cannot factor that in, so you are not eligible for the card. Am I on the right track so far?

However, when the person walks out with that response they call me. I am having a chat with them: there must be something we can do. So I call your office and get the same answers the client got, I can understand that. However, if I call the Health and Community Service office, under a program called enriched needs, what I get told is: Yes, send him in, maybe we can do something for him. So I plug him into someone at the Health and Community Service office and they say: Okay, let's get the facts. I say: Well, they have already given all the facts to the office up the road. Then they say: Okay, I will call them and get them to fax it down to me. The person at Health and Community Services calls your office in Clarenville and says: Fax this stuff down to me on Mrs. X and let me have a look at it. The information comes down and sure enough, the person is now eligible for a drug card under that enriched needs program.

There is a bit of a disconnect here in terms of a client, or the patient who comes in looking for that service. I guess it is either one of two things, either the coordination, that something happened in the transference of that program, or that there are some issues that there are two separate programs and viewed as two separate programs by two separate departments. Because really, as a seamless system and an integration of health services - and that is what this is - the client, your client, when they walk into your office that should never happen. I should not get that call that says they just got told at HRE they are not qualified but I cannot still afford to have these drugs. Then I am the one, or my staff get involved in that process only to get the result at the end, but I had to take two or three days to facilitate the process. So there is a disconnect here.

I share that as an example because that is a real life case that has happened any number of times, and happens continuously. In fact, there is a case on my desk today just like that. The name is different, but it is the exact same one that happened two months ago.

Can you tell me a little bit about that transition that you went through with health and how, in fact, you are working with them now to coordinate that kind of stuff? More fundamentally, the question I asked one of your staff very recently, one of your regional managers: Why is it that that is still with your department? Why did not that move with Health and Community Services as a package, because it is a health program per se?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Okay, I will ask Mr. Penney since he seems to be on top of all these issues.

MR. PENNEY: Well, the minister covered, fairly concisely - if you are an income support client you automatically qualify for a drug card. If you have drug requirements and you are not on income support but your income is low, we will accept an application and include the cost of your drugs on a monthly basis in the assessment and determine whether you are eligible or not.

The program that you are referring to, the enriched needs program, is, in fact, managed through the Department of Health. It was transferred back in 1998. That enriched needs program is designed to provide financial assessments and support to those individuals who require home support services. In order to qualify for the enriched needs program you have to be assessed by Health and Community Services as requiring home support. So, the client that you described who came in to our department and applied for a drug card only, we would normally ask the question in that assessment: Are you or any member of your family receiving home support? If, in fact, the answer was yes, we would actually do the referral to Health and Community Services who would do the assessment and issue a drug card. The case that you referenced, obviously, that referral or that question or that assessment, perhaps was not carried out as correctly as it should have been. But, the difference between the two answers is, in fact, the client being eligible or not eligible for or receiving home support services from the Department of Health.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I can understand if someone asks: Are you now receiving home support? The answer is either yes or no.

MR. PENNEY: Yes.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: But it is a very difficult question for the person to answer: Are you eligible for or would you be entitled for that, because that is a very different question.

MR. PENNEY: Well no, normally the discussion would be with the client service officer and the client. If there is any indication that this client would, in fact, qualify for home support services, we would automatically encourage the client to contact Health and Community Services. In fact, we may make the referral and make the arrangements ourselves in an effort to have them access any services that they are eligible for.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: One of the things that is happening, and I am not sure - this is where the disconnect might exist. I can understand, your answer is very clear, if the client is eligible for or is receiving home support. However, since this left your shop it has obviously changed because you do not necessarily have to be receiving home support in order to get the drug card; that the piece is no longer an absolute criteria. It might be one of these areas where they are using some discretion, too. I do not know. But I do know that - because I have examples of it, where people have gotten drug cards, under the umbrella of that program, who are not receiving home support.

MR. PENNEY: I should have qualified my reference to home support.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

MR. PENNEY: It does not necessarily have to be paid home support. If you are receiving home support - in kind, from a family member for example - basically, Health and Community Services would in fact do a professional assessment of whether or not you require home support. It does not have to be paid home support. We do have cases that would qualify through that. That may be the piece that -

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The other somewhat related question - because it is in the same vein, its relationship to Health and Community Services - is in transportation. There are situations where, if it is a client of yours - again, it's pretty black and white. It is a client and they are eligible for certain benefits and you pay the medical transportation. People who are not clients of yours, again, the same scenario. Because of their cost of living, debts that they may have and other costs of their health services, they do not meet that income level that you need, but they cannot afford to have this travel. It is through your department which that assessment is done.

Now, there are a couple of - because there is an issue of discretion that the enriched needs program - again (inaudible) and I use that because that is the terminology being used by the Health and Community Services Board, this enriched needs program.

MR. PENNEY: Yes.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Sometimes they are able to provide support for transportation, either in the Province or out of the Province. Sometimes it is chemotherapy for a pediatric population, sometimes it is dialysis services, and there are some times when a person has to stay overnight or goes away for three or four weeks for dialysis services. You are picking up the tab for the accommodation. If they are, in fact, travelling back and forth, you are not picking up the tab for the travel. For example, someone could come - and this is an example - someone has just spent three months here in St. John's. You guys picked up the tab for the accommodations. The day they go home they are no longer eligible for your support and then they start coming back and forth to St. John's three days a week for dialysis services. Now they have to go back to HRE and say: Can I get some money because I can't afford travel and here is the story and they go through the whole thing over again.

There is a real disconnect here again between what is a health service. From a client's perspective this is not seamless anymore. So there is a disconnect, and these are - I, in my experiences and there might be others just that I have not run into them - where historically it was all in your shop and now parts of it are moved over to Health and Community Services. There is either a coordination issue here or, once again, it begs the question whether or not it is more appropriate to be all in Health and Community Services and not in your shop at all - forgetting for a moment where the Budget is and all that kind of stuff - in terms of the administration, and from a client's perspective of having a seamless health system. Where should it be?

On those two points, if you could probably comment for me, minister, or one of your staff, on those two programs and those two points. I guess I am raising the question for some clarification on how you see it. Secondly, I am raising a question around whether or not it should realistically and reasonably stay with you or should it go to Health and Community Services?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That question, I guess, was raised during the reorganization of both departments. I guess those who looked at all the pros and cons decided that we would do what we do and Health and Community Services would do what they do. What you are actually talking about is somebody who, in our particular cases on income support, would automatically get a drug card, and those who are on low income who would qualify for a drug card.

Then you moved on to an area of health where an individual is considered to have a health problem in terms of support from within his family or community and that kind of thing. We have made the distinction, I guess, basically by - you have already done it yourself, by pointing out the fact that you are using the case of whether they need income support for health reasons to be included into the criteria of whether or not they would be entitled to a drug card. Looking at it from where we made the separation, I guess it looks pretty valid.

I know where you are coming from in terms of having two different agencies decide whether or not you are entitled to a drug card, but one is based on income - well, they are all based on income but the other one is tied to the health part of it. I guess, six of one and half a dozen of the other.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: From an administration perspective, six of one and half a dozen of the other, I would agree with that. From a client perspective, not a (inaudible) in the system, and that is fundamentally what both departments - both your department and Health and Community Services need to look at how you deliver your programs from a client perspective.

We have talked this evening about income support areas, and I have been very pleased with the answers you have provided in terms of your focus on your client and recognizing that you need to be developing your programs in their best interests. I guess what I am pointing out is that there appears to be an anomaly here with those two areas, where there is a great coordination or should be a great coordination with the Department of Health and Community Services but it appears there is a disconnect. Given the focus of this program - it is predominantly a health issue - I guess it begs the question of whether that should not have gone as well with the other services that went to Health and Community Services.

I appreciate the issue around your clients automatically getting it and those sorts of things. I can see probably where there is some history here, and the historical attachment to your department made it an easier thing to continue with but I think in terms of the - one of the things, as I understand it, and we have had some discussion of this in the House of Assembly today in the Strategic Social Plan. It is a time where an inter-agency discussion and collaboration around delivery of programs and looking at seamless services to clients, in that kind of context and with that kind of direction for social programs in the Province. I just raise this question and ask the minister to give that some thought.

I know it is not a very specific question in the document you read from a moment ago, but it is an issue that I think you need to have some real discussion around. It is in that spirit of what you are talking about in the Strategic Social Plan, in that inter-agency collaboration. I guess I raise this, minister, as a point, not necessarily to prolong the debate, but just to raise it as something for you to give some consideration to because of some of the experiences I have had in those two issues.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Your point is well taken. We do have committees that work between the two departments. We will actually refer that question to them to see if there is any advantage, a better delivery of service by doing that. Keeping in mind, I guess, that most departments cross each other in one way or another.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: No question, they do. I understand that.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: It is not unusual to have this kind of (inaudible) but we will refer it to both committees so they can take a look and see how we can better do this.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: There is only one other question, Mr. Minister, that I would ask. I am not sure if - I assume it would come under 4.1.02, on page 204, Employment Assistance Programs for Persons With Disabilities. I guess the reason I am asking this question is that the Ability Employment Corporation particularly uses both your department and HRDC as sources of funding for their clients and their constituents. Lots of times they will pick and choose which department they are going to use, depending on the circumstance of the client, who a potential employer might be and those sorts of things.

Let me give you an example. If you have a person who has been unable to arrange employment with a non-profit organization, and they are a person who would be eligible under this program, if they were to get financial sponsorship from your department - there is a 60/40 split or 70/30 split or some such arrangement like that in terms of salary with some other preconditions; but if they were to get some funding from HRDC it is going to be potentially 100 per cent funding with the exception of employment benefits or some 90/10 kind of a split. I guess the question is: Have you looked at partnering with HRDC? I am thinking, for example - I have had examples, in fact I have had three. One that I am working on right now, today, where a non-profit organization is prepared to hire someone - a person who, by the way, is a client of yours, has been a client of yours for a number of years, who you assisted with some training to go back to a community college and do a two-year computer studies program. You have provided financial assistance for the computer studies program, he has been a client of yours for some eleven years, and now he has an opportunity to get valuable and gainful work experience where there is some potential for continued employment. He has not been able, in the vicinity of his home community, to be able to find a job where the sponsor-employer has the means to be able to support him, so we have made arrangements now for a volunteer body to hire him for a twelve-month period. HRDC says it is a 90/10 arrangement. What I have been able to do is convince this organization to provide the employment opportunity, but they have said: There are a lot of volunteer groups; I do not have the money.

Your department is in a position where, with an investment today of $3,000 - are you in a position to ensure that you do not pay any benefits to this person for the next twelve months and also -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: There is a question at the end.

There is an opportunity here to save twelve months of income support and potentially have this person get the work experience they need, having done a two-year program that you helped sponsor, and have them potentially off your client list for the duration. It would be a real success story, but there is not that flexibility in that fund to allow that to happen, as I have been told. Is that one of those opportunities where co-operation with another agency might be appropriate, or that the issue of discretion and flexibility could be given to the regional manager to make that decision?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I guess it is fair to say that we do work very co-operatively with HRDC, and we find it very beneficial, actually, doing that. What I will do is, I will ask my deputy minister to make some comments and maybe better enlighten us as to how the process works.

MS RANDELL: I have to say that I am not entirely clear what the differences are that caused the situation that you have brought to our attention. I can certainly check into it. We do work co-operatively with HRDC in many ways. For instance, with respect to the supported employment program, under employability assistance for persons with disabilities, we have a very good mutual relationship where HRDC covers the costs, the operating and administrative costs, of the agencies that have been established to provide supported employment and we use our funds, then, to support the actual job trainers that are assigned to clients to assist them to go into employment. So, we have worked out very mutual arrangements and I would be happy to take the details of the case that you are talking about and try and get a more specific explanation for the circumstance you have just described.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I would appreciate that very much. Thank you.

What I will probably do is give your office a call tomorrow , if you don't mind, and provide the information.

MS RANDELL: Sure, please do so.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I appreciate that.

That is all for me, Madam Chair. I thank the minister and his staff for the comments. As I said in the beginning, I hope my questions were taken in the spirit of an intent to actually seek information but also to hopefully share some thoughts as to what you might do to help improve some of the programs you provide to the clients, and particularly on those issues of the disconnect with Health and Community Services.

Thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Wiseman, for your questions.

If there are no further questions I would like to, at this time, thank the Committee for the patience they have shown in carrying forward the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources and Employment and their efforts to use due diligence in doing so.

I would also like to thank the minister and his officials this evening for their co-operation and the details that you have been able to provide here. I think it has no doubt been very enlightening for all members, and the explanations have been very factual and to the point. At this point I will now ask the Clerk to call the remaining heads.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 4.1.03., inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.1.03 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: I now ask for a motion to adjourn, please.

We will reconvene at 9:00 a.m. with the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services.

On motion, committee adjourned.