CHAIR (Mr. R. Wiseman): We are ready to start.

First, Minister, I want to welcome you and your staff from four different divisions of your department. Not only do you have the longest title but you have the largest number of staff. Does this mean you have the greatest budget?

I want to thank you for gathering your staff and for joining us this evening. The process is - normally what we have done is allowed the minister an opportunity to make some opening comments. Then, at the same time, introduce your staff, and then to be able to open the floor for some questions.

There are a couple of things that, because of the numbers and how we would like to manage this tonight, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile only has a short period of time that he is going to be able to be with us. So what we will do first - he has some general questions in a number of areas so we will allow him to deal with those directly with you, minister. When he is through with his questions, we will move then and go directly to Womens' Policy, because the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair wants to ask some questions in that area and she has to leave. When that is done we will be finished with that particular area. If your staff want to leave, and they are not excited about staying all night and listening to everybody else, they can leave. Then we will move into the Labour Relations Agency and then we will do Housing. So those three parts of your department will be concluded. Then we will deal with the Employment and HR piece of your department as a separate piece at the end. Is that okay with you? We will do it that way.

If you would, what I would ask you to do as well, is when you - for the benefit of the person who is recording this downstairs and for the benefit of Hansard - when any of your staff start to speak, or go to speak, if you would just say your name first. That is what that list was for. It will help the recording people. If you would just identify yourself before you speak, that way we can capture it on record.

With that, minister, I open the floor to you for your opening comments.

MS BURKE: Would you like for me to introduce everyone before we start?

CHAIR: Whichever.

MS BURKE: I think I will stand to do this, so I can see everyone.

CHAIR: This is your first test, by the way, to see if you can introduce them.

MS BURKE: I will start down in the back. This is Tony Cornect with Human Resources, Labour and Employment. He is the constituency assistant. Next to Tony we have Carol Ruby, who is an Assistant Deputy Minister who deals with the Youth Services division of HRLE. Coming down the back row we have Mac Blundon, who is with the Labour Relations Agency. We have Wayne Penny, Assistant Deputy Minister with Human Resources, Labour and Employment. As well, Jennifer Jeans, who is also an Assistant Deputy Minister with Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

In the second row we have Heather MacLellan, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Womens' Policy Office. We have Jim Conway with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing; we have Joe O'Neill, who is the CEO of the Labour Relations Agency. Then we have Dave Roberts, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister with HRLE; we have Dave Denine who is the Parliamentary Secretary for the entire department in Housing and everything included. We have Jacquelyn Howard, who is the Director of Communications; we have Rebecca Roome, who is the Deputy Minister of HRLE; we have Les Dean, who is the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and Mary Marshall, who is also with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MS BURKE: I have opening comments, I guess, on two levels. One is on Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and the other is with HRLE. I do not know, are we going to do Housing or are we going to just do some general -

CHAIR: Well, we can do it if you want. If you have some opening comments that you wanted to make you could do that if you wanted to, or have a brief introduction of the department. Then we can move directly into the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile to deal with the questions he would like to discuss with you.

MS BURKE: Okay, I have some opening comments that I would like to make here. This is in relation to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

The provincial act respecting Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation enables the corporation to exercise its powers, as Crown agency, whose auditor is the provincial Auditor General. You will see from the 2004-2005 Estimates document that this year's provincial allocation to NLHC is $9,910,000. This represents the Province's grant towards the corporation's budgeted current account expenditures of $100,691,000. This amount reflects a net reduction of $1.2 million from last year's grant. The reduction is net of $350,000 additional funding required for negotiated salary increases and increased amortization expenses for the Mary's Harbour facility constructed last year and a $1.5 million reduction in operational costs that will be achieved by the corporation throughout 2004-2005. These savings in the main will be achieved through administrative efficiencies, self insuring the non-profit housing portfolio, a reduction in discretionary spending within the non-profit grant allocations, staff realignment and adjustments, and maximizing Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's contribution to administrative costs. I can get into the specific programs in speaking to those but I think I will wait until we actually get into some specific program areas there.

The other comments I want to make are, with the introductions here this evening, as you can see, there is indication that we have had some changes within the Department of Human Resources and Employment which is now the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I am pleased that the responsibility for Housing, Labour and Youth Services now falls within the department. I think it is a good fit with the HRLE's role and mandate.

This, of course, is my first meeting with a Budget Estimate Committee and I understand it is an opportunity to review the final figures put forward in the Budget for programming and services. However, these decisions, as you know, are about so much more than numbers and figures. They are about the people of our Province. As such, the process that has led us here tonight was characterized by debate. Every proposal considered from all perspectives, every effort made to be just and fair. Our decisions have been guided by a desire to maintain services to the best of our ability, to minimize impacts on our community partners, the people we employ and those we serve, and to address the government's financial challenges, a necessary step on the road to moving our Province forward.

This is a difficult Budget. Taking the kind of actions we have, such as the consolidation of twenty district offices, has not been easy. However, given the nature of my department and its lines of business, our choices were somewhat limited. We felt strongly, Mr. Chair, that funding for the Income Support Program had to be protected. The redesign initiative and a new service delivery system also makes good sense. Over the past several years the department has invested considerable dollars in updating our computer technology.

The pilot of the new computer pay system on the West Coast has been a great success. Now, Mr. Chair, it is time for us to take the next step. As I mentioned, it has involved some tough decisions but I am confident that our Income Support Program will be delivered in a more efficient manner. Most other jurisdictions across Canada have already implemented or are exploring the changes we are now putting in place. As a result of redesign, we can refocus our staff on the department's other primary line of business, the delivery of employment and career services. It is critical that we work with our clients to help them secure meaningful employment. At the same time, planning is underway on initiatives that will ensure our most vulnerable clients. Often those who cannot move off assistance will receive help in accessing the community programs and supports they require.

I believe, Mr. Chair, there is a clear understanding, within my department and across government, that the social fabric of our Province cannot be jeopardized by the need, however necessary, to correct our fiscal imbalance. Our decisions also focus on the well-being of our children and families, as well as those in our Province with disabilities. We have committed $500,000 for the Kids Eat Smart Foundation. We recognize the critical role nutrition plays on a child's development. Two hundred and fifty-thousand dollars will be spent on indexing the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit. Two hundred and thirty-thousand dollars has been invested to increase the first child rate of the NLCB. Another $108,000 will be invested to introduce a one-time benefit of $90 within the Mother-Baby Nutrition Supplement, payable when the baby is born. An additional $400,000 has been committed to the Supported Employment Program to facilitate full participation in the workforce for persons with disabilities. In addition, funding for the Income Support Program has been maintained and accurately reflects the number of people who will require this assistance in keeping with recent trends.

Mr. Chair, at first glance it may be difficult to see beyond the budget reductions our department had to make, but these Estimates are not just about reductions. They are also about using our funds and resources strategically to create, to the best of our ability, a balanced approach. I believe we are positioned to follow through on the groundwork that has been laid in recent years to benefit those we serve while, at the same time, making an appropriate contribution towards addressing the Province's fiscal challenges.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister, for your comments.

Now I will ask the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile if he would like to open the discussion.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS BURKE: Is that the question?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MS BURKE: I think that any front line positions that would affect client service delivery would need to be maintained. I think, specifically, I made a comment prior to the election regarding child protection caseloads. I also know there is a study regarding the amount of child protection workers in the Province, but I guess I will not be addressing child protection issues here this evening.

MR. PARSONS: I just wanted to point out, I guess, what position you hold or held previously. You are obviously in a different position now, but I would have thought the philosophy would be the same. If that was your position, that front line positions should be maintained, how do we rationalize the closure of twenty HRLE offices across this Province when many of the staff in those offices are front line workers and deal with people face to face, one on one, to provide services to them? You are obviously removing that front line element. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the fact that the government has made a policy decision to save some money. I have no problem and I accept fully your explanation that you had to make some tough decisions but I have great difficulty balancing that off against the fact that we say one thing, for example, we do this to save money and, on the other hand, we say we are trying to help people when your actions belie what your comments are because I am a firm believer that we should not just say things for the sake of saying them. For anyone to suggest that the closure of twenty HRLE offices in this Province is not going to impact the people who use your office, I think that belittles the thought processes of all of us who hears it.

I represent a rural district. Burgeo, for example, being one of the areas that closed. Your front line workers in Burgeo perform duties above and beyond just being front line office workers, secretarial, social workers, whatever. They handle everything from CPP to old age pension inquiries, to people who have housing needs, you name it, and to suggest that can be handled just as easily by a telephone call, I think that is not right to say. That is not what the facts are. That is not going to be true.

MS BURKE: Okay, I guess -

MR. PARSONS: Do you firmly believe that it is not going to have a negative impact on services?

MS BURKE: What I believe, or what I know is that since 1997 we have lost approximately nine thousand cases on income support. When I use the word cases, of course, that could mean - I would say probably somewhere in the vicinity of twenty-seven thousand men, women and children, individuals.

We have had to deal with the situation where many of our workers were in environments where the caseloads were not equitably distributed. What happened is that sometimes clients would have to deal with workers who were carrying very high caseloads and in other cases the caseloads were quite low. Basically, the work that is being done by our income support workers, who do the applications for support, are basically doing an administrative financial function. Sometimes when their caseloads were quite high, obviously the workers were not getting involved with other duties that were not necessarily within their job description for them to be doing. This move should actually help us be able to make a balance within the workplace for the workers who are representing the department of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have had 9,000 less cases. In addition to that, when the offices were set up originally - there were forty-six offices set up, maybe more. I do not historically how many we actually had across the Province over the years but we have had forty-six for quite some time.

At one point in time, up until the mid-1990s, in order for a person to qualify for income support a home visit was absolutely necessary, whether the person lived in a remote area or next to the office or in a neighbouring community. At that time, when a person went out to do these visits to determine if somebody was eligible for assistance, they actually had to make some case regarding the level of poverty within the home. I can remember back in the summer of 1985 when I worked doing income support applications in the Grand Falls-Windsor office in the Department of Social Services, we were told, at that time, to look in the fridge to see what kind of food a person had. That is a very degrading, belittling experience for a family and, equally, for the worker who had to go out and face that family and asked to do that type of work.

The Income Support Program and service delivery model has evolved over the years and in some ways, which I fully support, one being the necessity for home visits. If a person applies for income support, and whether or not they receive it, is an objective assessment. There is no subjectivity to it. It is not based on the size of their home. It is not based on the condition of their home or the vehicle they drive. It is an income-based assessment that they need to meet in order to qualify for income support. We do not need to go out into their homes and we do not need to be making value judgements against the people. Income support, like many other financial programs that are government sponsored - whether it is CPP, old age assistance, income tax returns, EI eligibility - is on an objective basis. We are into that type of analysis and that is the analysis that our workers, doing the administrative functions, need to do.

The other thing I think that needs to be pointed out right now is our workers are CSOs, who are engaged in income support, ensure that people who require financial assistance, for whatever reasons, that they have access to those funds and if they qualify for income support that they receive income support. It is an administrative function that they perform. The workers who do these income support applications and provide the financial assistance are not social workers. I think, at some point, when the split was made with social services, that went into Health and Community Services and HRE, that I have often heard sometimes that people still feel that the workers who do the assessments for income support in some way perform the work of social workers, which they do not. They are not qualified to do it and they are not registered as social workers nor is it in their job description.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, back to my question. We cannot get lost - everybody agrees there should be changes as time goes on, times change, people change, circumstances change. We can say they are not social workers, and we know they are not social workers. You and I know they are not social workers but to the people who live in a lot of areas in rural Newfoundland it is irrelevant what you call them. Social workers, call them administrative clerks, call them whatever you want, but they are the people, they are the front line, they are the service provider to these people in rural Newfoundland and that is the point I am trying to make. The fact that a government or bureaucrats, or any of us come up with fancy name policies and whatever we want to call it - I am talking about how it hits the person on the street who needs your service. That is the only point I am trying to make. I do not disagree even that whatever we can do that is of an administrative nature, if we can do it cheaper and more efficiently I have no problem with that. All I am saying is I think you went too far in the closure of these offices at this time and where you closed them.

It is fine to close the one in Stephenville Crossing or Deer Lake where the people have to go twenty kilometres to the next office. That is an inconvenience in and of itself, but asking someone to go from Deer Lake to Corner Brook to the next office is a far different cry than asking a person who is in Grey River to get on a ferry to go to Burgeo - all of which your department is probably going to pay anyway. They have to get on a ferry, they have to go to Burgeo, they have to overnight, they have to get up from Burgeo to get up to Stephenville, which is the nearest office, get whatever it is they need done because they cannot do it, minister. For whatever reason they cannot do it, and you telling them to pick up a phone and do it don't cut it. That person then has to get the service, get back down that road, get on that ferry again, probably overnight it again in Burgeo to get back to Grey River. All I am saying is I think you went too far with the locations that you closed, and I am not just concerned with the Burgeo one. There are other areas in this Province, I think, where you did not consider the geographics of it.

Now, I do not know about anybody else over there, and I do not know who was involved in the decision, but I would like for anyone of you, between January and mid-March, to come down the Burgeo road and tell me that you had an easy time or you have to come up from down that way to get some service. You have not accepted reality in that decision. You are from the West Coast, I know you are familiar with the area and surely you must recognize that that decision in that particular location cannot be justified. It cannot even be justified monetarily when you talk about all of these people who have to move that distance to get the service. That is what is frustrating, and I guess my frustration is showing because when you have these concerns and you bring them forward, and somebody gives you these pat little answers in press releases and so on, it does not cut it with Joe and Martha in rural Newfoundland who need your help.

Has anyone done a cost analysis on what it is going to cost in those types of situations, Burgeo down on the South Coast and people who access the service? Forget about the fact that they do not have the service available to them. Has anybody even factored out what it is going to cost?

MS BURKE: The office closures this year, the savings should be $1 million with an annualized cost saving of $2 million.

MR. PARSONS: In that one office with three employees?

MS BURKE: No, that is the office closures.

MR. PARSONS: There are twenty offices.

MS BURKE: Yes, that is part of the provincial -

MS BURKE: The cost analysis that we had done is on a provincial basis. We do not have it broken down into the individual offices. We could talk about, I suppose, the lease for the offices or whatever but we did not break it down specifically. There should not be any increased cost to the client.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, are you suggesting that you have made a decision to close the Burgeo office and you did not do the cost analysis? How could you pick Burgeo as an example and include it in the twenty when you did not have the cost analysis done?

MS BURKE: Well, we did break down the statistics for each office in a number of ways actually, in the long-term assistance caseload, the short-term assistance caseload, the employment and career services caseload. So, we broke down the statistics for each office. We did not do it without analyzing each office.

MR. PARSONS: Again, I am back to my point and you are making my point. How does a strict statistical model, that you used with your Administration's desire to save dollars, justify the closure in a remote area of Newfoundland of a service that is essential to those people? It seems to be done for the wrong motivations. That is the whole point I have been trying to make religiously since it has been announced. There is nothing wrong with your decision. Nothing whatsoever wrong, nothing wrong with your justifications for your decision but you have gone too far in certain areas without justification, and you admit yourself now that all you have is statistics. You do not have any cost analysis done to justify why you even closed Burgeo.

Anyway, minister, I will move on. I think my point is made. It is just that we rarely get an opportunity to make these concerns known in this type of forum where, not only yourself - you are just a political figurehead and representative who has to take this when we come to these types of meetings and in the media - but I say this, in all seriousness, there are a lot of people behind you over here tonight who made this decision, were part of these analysis and these discussions, who, I would suggest, know very little when it comes to some of these areas in rural Newfoundland and the impacts that their decisions have. There is never anything wrong, ever anything wrong, with admitting that you might have made a mistake and go back and evaluate it and do what is right. That is what I sense we are missing here. Do not try to justify the complete package if it is not justifiable.

Minister, moving on to the Estimates - and I will probably save some of the other members some lengthy questions. It begins on page 206 of the Estimates - or 205, actually, where it starts with the Minister's Office. Maybe in a nutshell - and what we have done with the other departments, you will notice in the various headings, starting on page 205, in 1.1.01 it says Salaries, for example, under the Minister's Office. Then you go down further on the page, 1.2.01, there are Salaries under the Executive Support, and that is the same throughout the whole section. Administrative Support, Program Development and Planning, all of these headings have salary components to them. What we have done in earlier Estimates Committees to save time, and rather than have the minister get into the nitty-gritty details of each of these salary components in why they might be up or might be down, what we did is - everybody has a package on the Departmental Salary Details. In this section, for example, in the case of your department it starts on page 145. It actually lists everyone of the jobs relating to this salary for all of these subheadings in the Estimates book.

What we have done is we have asked the minister to undertake - and this would save a lot of time. Could you provide us with the complete list of all positions noted in the Departmental Salary Details for all of the subheadings that involve salaries with the details of which of these positions are permanent, which of these positions are temporaries, which of these positions are currently filled, which of these positions are currently vacant? Furthermore, the ones that are vacant, if you could advise whether you feel they will be filled at anytime during the year because most of ministers acknowledge that there are positions in all of their departments that are not filled at the present time and they suspect they might go all year and not have to fill them but they also indicated, which is quite reasonable as well, that if the need arose they would indeed have to fill it, and that is quite understandable. But, if we could get that level of detail for each and everyone of these positions, the same as we got from Justice, we got from Health and Community Services and so on, that saves us the trouble of having to get into all the details here tonight as to what is up, what is down and why is it up and why is it down, because we could be here until the cows come home if we have to get into that kind of detail here. I just wonder, is that okay?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: The other comment, in that regard, is we would need the information prior to May 31. The reason we would need the information before that date is we are currently into the Budget Debate. This process of what we are going through here tonight on the Estimates - we are doing the Estimates for your department, just for the purpose of the people wondering why we might need it by that time line. Doing the Estimates for a department is only one piece of the Budget process. The Budget is done in the House as well as with these Estimates Committees, and we have to come back to the House to do what they call Concurrence Debate. Any questions that anyone asks here tonight, that you are going to provide answers to - such as the one we just talked about, the Salary components and so on - if we do not have it by May 31 it is no good to us at all because we cannot use it then in our Concurrence Debate that will take place here in the House. That is why we have a problem, in terms of getting the information prior to then. We suspect, according to my conversations with the Government House Leader, that the House will be open at least up to and including the week of May 31. That will allow opportunity, if we have it before that time, to have it for the Concurrence Debate that will take place during that week. The other ministers have no problem with that issue. I just wanted to explain why we were asking for it in that time fashion.

The other issue, minister, and that is all I have to say, is can you also provide us with a list of who is not in your Estimates anymore? For example, what layoffs there have been versus last year versus now, because this obviously only reflects - and these positions in the Salary Details only reflect who you have now. Can we also be given a list of what positions no longer exist in your department? We know the twenty office closures and so on has been done, but a list of each and every position that no longer exists, that have been terminated, and whether they, in fact, have been abolished, terminated, declared redundant and so on.

MS BURKE: Just for clarification, I guess, you want this information - we have no problem providing it - by the end of May. Do you want what has taken place up to that point or what will be taking place?

MR. PARSONS: Well, if you give the complete details on the salary piece you will be able to tell me each and everyone of these positions in this book, and that is a good guide to use actually when you provide the information, I would suggest. Is the position filled now? Do you anticipate that it will be filled all year? If you do not, and you think it is only going to be lasting six months, well, it should be noted. If there are vacancies, it can be noted which ones are vacant. Do you intend to fill it throughout this fiscal year? If you do, tell us. If you do not intend to fill it, you know, that can be noted. We will end up with a comprehensive list then of exactly where we should be going in your department in terms of employees. In addition to that, we would like to have some yardstick as to what was there before you did your budget. You may have had 1,200 employees in the fiscal year 2003-04 and maybe as a result of the office closures and other things you have done in your department, we may be down to 1,150 here. If that is the case, we would like to know what fifty positions were cut and where. That way we get a true representation of the human resources issue of the department. I take it there is no problem with that?

MS BURKE: No, there is no problem with that.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: I thank you. You have concluded now (inaudible)?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

CHAIR: Thanks very much.

As we had commented on earlier, after the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile was finished, we are going now directly to the Women's Policy piece and -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay. Just let me know when you are through with the questions on the HRE piece, then we will go directly to the Women's Policy.

MS JONES: Okay, sure.

Thank you -

MR. COLLINS: Before you start, I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair just said she wanted to ask a couple of questions on HRE and then you were going to move to Women's Policy. I am just wondering, are we finished with HRE at that time?

CHAIR: No, the intent was - just to go back to my opening comment. My intent was to try to accommodate the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair who had some time restraints on tonight. They wanted to get some questions in so they could leave, which the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile has already done, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was the critic for Women's Policy. So, she wanted to have her questions in after that so she could leave.

MR. COLLINS: Okay, right.

CHAIR: So, you will get more than your ample opportunity to any and all issues you want to deal with, to be sure.

MR. COLLINS: I do not have a lot. I just, you know, have a couple.

CHAIR: Is that okay?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Minister, and officials. I welcome you to the Estimates Committee. I am going to start by apologizing to Heather MacLellan because I had met her only a couple of hours ago and told her I probably was not going to make the Estimates tonight. Anyway, my plans changed rather suddenly. I had an opportunity to meet the Deputy Minister for the Status of Women as well, federally, and I appreciated that opportunity.

I have a couple of questions under HRE and very quickly I will move into the Status of Women. Some of my questions will overlap both departments simply because some decisions taken in HRE are having an impact on women within the Province.

First of all, Minister, I have to express my displeasure with your decision to close twenty HRE offices in the Province; two of which were in my district of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, one in the Labrador Straits in Forteau and the other one in Cartwright.

Minister, I heard you quite clearly when you defended the closure of those two offices saying that the number of clients on the caseloads in these offices had declined. In fact, I know that you are right and I know there has been a steady decline in the caseloads in those offices over the past number of years, four to five years. I would like to outline for the record why that is. It is because there has been a very aggressive campaign to grow the economy in that region of the Province, undertaken by the previous Administration that I was a part of. There was a significant amount of money invested in that rural area of the Province to look at new economic growth and new opportunities. The people in that area were able to avail of a new start in the tourism industry, as well as appreciate the jobs that could derive from massive construction of highways. Then, with regard to the marine services being moved from Lewisporte to Cartwright, all of this combined to generate a lot of new business opportunity and to create a lot of new jobs in that area.

Over that four to five year period, your stats, I am sure, will show that there was a steady decline in the number of clients who were depending upon social assistance. I cannot remember now, but I know from 1996, which is when we started to do the investments up until 2003 - I cannot remember what the exact decline was and maybe you can tell me in just a minute - but I know there was a fair percentage. My fear is that decisions your government has made in the past six to eight months will see a reversal of that downward dependency on social assistance benefits and what we will see is a growing list again of clients that will be added to your caseload. I say that because of decisions your government has made to relocate marine services back to Lewisporte, jeopardizing a number of businesses in my district and over 120 jobs this year that may be lost because of that move.

We have also seen a significant downturn in the fishery, in that area, last year and again this year, where we have had massive cuts in crab allocations affecting plants and plant workers. All of these things will have an impact. I am thinking that your decision to close those two offices may have been somewhat premature, especially when you look at - first of all, Cartwright is quite a distance from Mary's Harbour and most people in my district who are clients of your department do not have the ways and means to be able to travel, own vehicles or be able to access the services of that particular office. So, they are quite a distance away. Even though it was more of a clerical position there, it was a point of contact and it was someone to assist them when they needed that assistance.

In the case of Forteau, I have not been able to rationalize that one at all because my understanding is that the person who was based in the Forteau office is, in fact, an investigator for the department who does investigations in all regions of Labrador. My understanding is that this individual has been told that their job is still there, they may keep their job but they must move two or three hours up the road to another community, uproot their family, their children and look for somewhere else to live in another community, although they are serving all of Labrador. That makes absolutely no sense to me. In that same community, that same region, the department of forestry has offices, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Department of Health, and the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Why you would tell this person, who is serving all of Labrador, that they cannot live in this particular community but they have to uproot their family, their children and move to another community a couple of hundred kilometres away to do the same job they are doing today makes absolutely no sense to me. I think that if you were somewhat creative you may have been able to find a way to fit this one staff person in with another provincial government office in that area, saving them the aggravation and the stress on them and their family with having to deal with that.

Minister, I would like to ask you this evening if you will reconsider your decision to ask the person, who you are maintaining as part of your staff in Forteau, if you will reconsider your decision to have them relocated. It serves absolutely no purpose. I cannot see what it would save, other than maybe $300 a month to the department, which is the going rate for office space. I checked it out myself this weekend. I am asking you to reconsider your decision and allow that person to live in the area where they have lived for the last seventeen years with their family and children and not be moved and continue with their responsibilities as an investigator in your department.

MS BURKE: I just want to make some comments about the Forteau and the Cartwright decisions that we have made. You asked about the declining cases. Cartwright, actually, had an increase of cases since 1998; an increase 1.5 per cent. However, in 1999 the Income Support Program and employment and career services was moved out of Cartwright and has been in the Mary's Harbour district office since 1999. In addition to that, in 2001 the income support and employment and career services were removed from Forteau.

The person who remains in Forteau is the investigator position. There have been times when we have had to send work up from other parts of the Province to justify keeping the position in Forteau. We have had difficulty having sufficient work to justify the position, so we have been creative in trying to maintain that position over time. I will continue to investigate options for that investigator position but the caseload from Cartwright and Forteau for income support and employment and career services has not been done from those sites now with the last one having been moved in 2001. In saying that, I commented on Cartwright that there has been, actually, an increase in people on income support; an increase of 1.5 per cent since 1998. On the flip side of that, in Forteau there has been a decrease of 40 per cent since 1998.

When we divide our cases and look at the cases that are more, I guess, time-consuming for workers, in a combined caseload of Cartwright and Forteau there are approximately fifteen cases on what we call short-term assistance. So they are the cases that require more intensive work. Basically, this came down to a decision where the work was not being done at those sites. We were maintaining the offices without performing their functions of income support and employment and career services and the caseloads, in all seriousness, were quite low in those areas, certainly not justifying moving staff back there to do those functions.

MS JONES: Can I assume, from your remarks, that you are going to look at the worker in Forteau again and re-evaluate your decision on whether that person will have to move or not?

MS BURKE: I will look at the functions that person does and I will make a decision based on the work that person does and where that can be done.

MS JONES: Okay.

I would also like to ask if you could table for me the stats on your client loads, client cases throughout the Province for each office, including the ones that are closing.

MS BURKE: Do you mean tonight?

MS JONES: Whenever you can table it, but it has to be before the Concurrence of the Budget.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Did you want to call the heads for the Women's Policy Office before I start?

CHAIR: I will.

Heads 2.7.01, found on page 20 of the Estimates.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, recently you stood in the House of Assembly and supported legislation to legislate women in the public sector back to work. You also supported legislation that, I guess, legislated concessions, such as sick leave for new women, new entrants into the workforce. I guess my question to you is: How do you feel that your decision to support legislation of this nature would help promote the cause of women in the workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS BURKE: Overall or within the government offices?

MS JONES: Women have a long time fought for equal rights, equity within the workforce and so on. I am not saying that it was inequitable but I am saying that, I guess, a lot of the benefits that women have in the public sector, they have achieved them through exercising their right to protest, right to strike and so on. You, as the Minister for the Status of Women for this Province, stood in the House of Assembly and supported legislation that not only legislated women back to work but also legislated concessions for new women coming into the public service with regard to sick leave.

MS BURKE: I guess, in all fairness, I really cannot speak for the unions or for Treasury Board but I was not aware of any deals that would have been taken off the table or put on the table which would have given women, I guess, different rights that we took away in that legislation. Unless there is something I am not aware of that you are asking?

MS JONES: Well, I am asking your opinion: Do you think this shows respect for the rights of women in the Province, the fact that you, as the minister, stood and supported that legislation?

MS BURKE: Well, we could only deal with the collective bargaining that was going on, and I am not aware that we took away anything that was on the table which was specifically going to put women in a different category or different benefits than what would have been in for the whole bargaining unit.

MS JONES: It is not a question of inequity. It is a question of principle and I am asking you, as the Minister for the Status of Women, do you think it showed disrespect to women in this Province that you, as the minister, could stand and support legislation that not only legislated them back to work but legislated concessions, such as a different sick leave policy for new women entering the workforce?

MS BURKE: That policy and that legislation I voted on did not distinguish that the sick leave privileges would be anything different for women than it would be for any other person in that bargaining unit.

MS JONES: There has been a campaign ongoing in the Province called the Feminist Fits. It is a campaign that has been launched by the St. John's Status of Women Council. Apparently - and I am quoting from newspaper articles because I have not talked to Mrs. Zigler about this but I have read her commentary and I have listened to her in the media. She indicates that on April 8 there were sixty-five e-mails sent to your office talking about funding for women's centres and how they were requesting more funding. Have you responded to any of those e-mails?

MS BURKE: I have received some e-mails. I am not sure of the number. I consider e-mails when I get the standard letter, the same letter as a petition, a lobbying-type effort, and I do take those messages and use them when we are dealing with issues in relation to the Provincial Advisory Council when I am dealing with the Women's Policy Office. In saying that, I often get other letters and lobbying requests, as I guess all politicians do, in a petition-type format where you get the same letter on numerous occasions. But, yes, I will be addressing those issues throughout the year and through policies. Obviously, the issues that come to my attention are not necessarily related to the department that I represent.

MS JONES: So, you will not be responding to those e-mails that were sent to you on April 8?

MS BURKE: Not on an individual basis.

MS JONES: What about the e-mails that were sent to you on May 8 which talked about their discontent, I guess, with budget decisions made by your government, including the elimination of the 4,000 public sector jobs over four years and the restructuring within health care and education? Do you intend to respond to those e-mails?

MS BURKE: I intend to represent women's issues through my role as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women by ensuring that all our policies and all our decisions certainly take in the needs of women and include a gender inclusive analysis.

MS JONES: Any woman who e-mails you on any particular issue will not be responded to?

MS BURKE: No, that is not what I am saying. When I receive a number in a political lobby effort, the same letter that comes in probably ten or twelve times, no, I will not be sitting down and writing individual responses. If any individual has some questions or concerns and wants to e-mail me, wants to phone me or wants to write me, I will respond to all of them, but as a politician we get many lobbying efforts, whether it is where to locate the health care services, either in Grand Falls or Gander. I have had more letters in relation to that than I have had in women's issues. Whether it is on abortion, or abortion legislation or rights, I get stuff on the daily gospel that comes into me everyday. I often get many lobbying efforts, where I get the same message many times. I take that as a petition. I take those seriously but I do not necessarily respond individually to a lobbying effort.

MS JONES: One of the issues that they have e-mailed you on is with regard to the funding for the women's centres. I will ask you the questions now. You guys increased the budget for women's centres; $5,000 per centre in the Budget, that is my understanding?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay.

How did you calculate the $5,000? What was your rationale for increasing $5,000 as opposed to $10,000 or $20,000 or $15,000? Do you feel that was sufficient in addressing the demands that women have our there in the centres today?

MS BURKE: When we did up our budget, of course, we were at a time where the fiscal reality, certainly, led to many decisions that resulted in cuts to budgets. This was one area where we were able to make some increases; although modest, they were increases. We were allotted an extra $80,000 in the budgeting process to address these issues. What we decided to do - we had to decide how we would divide that money. What we did was give each women's centre - and there are eight in the Province - an increase of 10 per cent. They had $50,000 last year, so we gave them an increase of 10 per cent. Then we used the additional $40,000 to go towards the Provincial Advisory Council for the Status of Women.

MS JONES: I listened to Joyce Hancock on the radio a little while ago. She was talking with regard to the HRE offices closing. She obviously felt quite strongly that you had made the wrong decision. She talked about the fact that government was closing these offices, and that in fact they were closing the door to the face of poverty in our Province so that you do not have to see the clients in their respective areas, like the area of Burgeo - like my colleague talked about earlier - or in other areas of the Province. Then soon government forgets the issues that families who are dependent upon the programs are faced with, and primarily a lot of those people are women and children.

How does the minister respond to her comments? Joyce Hancock being the President of the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador, how do you respond to those comments?

MS BURKE: I certainly feel that although we are reducing our number of offices that we will maintain service to the clients. Anyone who is eligible for financial assistance will receive assistance, or any special request certainly will be assessed and they will receive the funding if they are eligible for it.

We have not been out into the homes for a number of years - since the mid-1990s - doing assessments of whether or not people are eligible for income support. We have not been out doing the traditional home visits, I guess, dating back to the 1960s when that happened. We will continue to do objective assessments. If people meet the qualifications for income support, they will continue to receive that benefit.

MS JONES: You do not think there will be any gaps in the service whatsoever by this reduction in offices throughout the Province?

MS BURKE: We will continue to provide income support. The same policies will be in place and the eligibility requirements and the amount of assistance that a person is entitled to, that has not changed and will not be changing.

MS JONES: Just to rephrase it a different way: You do not think the decisions that you have made will affect women and children in the Province?

MS BURKE: I did not get that.

MS JONES: You do not think your decision will have a negative impact upon women or children in the Province?

MS BURKE: The amount of income that a single-parent family receives right now will not change based on these decisions. What they can achieve through their financial assistance now, I guess, will be the same. They will achieve after - the level of income, the financial support, will not change.

MS JONES: I understand that, but do you think this decision will have a negative impact upon women and children?

MS BURKE: We do not provide counseling for women or children as a direct service within our department, so we are not actually changing that function.

MS JONES: I will ask you one more time: Do you think the closure of twenty HRE offices in the Province will have a negative impact upon women or children who are being served through those offices?

MS BURKE: I feel that the services that we provide -

MS JONES: Just a yes or no will be fine. Yes or no?

MS BURKE: - will continue to be maintained.

MS JONES: Minister, what is your strategy to address the issue of poverty in the Province?

MS BURKE: What we would like to do, as the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, is to be able to realistically assist people in moving from income support into the labour force in a meaningful way.

MS JONES: How do you plan to do that?

MS BURKE: We plan to address the employment and career services to assist people who are on income support and who request employment and career services to have access to these services to be able to work with these people. We provide an assessment and a referral service, a lot of times, to existing services to help people move into the labour force in a meaningful way. We also plan to increase the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Tax Benefit for low-income families. We also have been able to address poverty through the Mother-Baby Nutrition Supplement program and, as well, the $500,000 grant to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation is also an effort to help us address poverty.

MS JONES: First of all, isn't the grant to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation just a continuation of a program that has been ongoing for five years in the Province?

MS BURKE: The grant to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation is a one-time payment that is not actually budgeted as a program that extends from year to year.

MS JONES: It is not a new program though, is it, minister?

MS BURKE: No, last year it was budgeted for just the one year, and as well the same thing this year. The budgeting is still considered a one-year program.

MS JONES: It is not a new program though, is it, minister? It isn't a new program, is it, minister?

MS BURKE: No, but it is not an ongoing budget item from year to year.

MS JONES: The funding was not increased in that program this year over last year or the year before, was it?

MS BURKE: No, the grant maintains the same.

MS JONES: Just before I get back to my original question that I asked you about poverty, just one more thing you mentioned, the Mother-Baby Nutritional Supplement. The eligibility, I think, is $90. Is that an increase from last year?

MS BURKE: That is a brand new initiative.

MS JONES: It is a brand new initiative. Okay. Wasn't there a supplement program in place last year though?

MS BURKE: Yes, but this is an add-on to the program.

MS JONES: It is a different program or an add-on to a program?

MS BURKE: No, it is an add-on to that. This program that was in place is continuing, with this in addition.

MS JONES: They are eligible now for two supplements?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay.

MS BURKE: The one the person would have been receiving prior to this decision, in addition a $90 payment when the baby is born.

MS JONES: Okay. So the other one was a supplement they received while they were pregnant, was it?

MS BURKE: And for the first year.

MS JONES: And the first year. This is an additional $90 they will receive upon the birth of their child?

MS BURKE: Right.

MS JONES: Okay.

My original question had to do with poverty. You said that you were going to address poverty by moving people from income support into the labour force. Then you said that you were going to look at employment and career services. I guess my question is: How are you going to guarantee women have the opportunity to access employment and career services for retraining or whatever the case may be? Are there going to be supplements provided? Are there going to be additional supports provided? Will there be funding for women who want to seek other career opportunities or retrained in a public institution in our Province?

MS BURKE: There are actually a number of initiatives to assist women and there are different programs in place across the Province. We have also been able to provide some supports to address some of the barriers, whether it is child care or other issues, that women can address as they are trying to move into the labour market, and that could be from the income support program to help out with child care. We also have women in resource development - the committee - to help women, to assist women to move from, I guess, income support into resource based employment into the skilled trades. We also are working with Voisey's Bay to develop a plan for women to move women into the workforce. So there are a number of initiatives, I guess, that have been ongoing that we will continue to support to help move women into the labour force.

MS JONES: You would be aware that I was one of the people who worked with Voisey's Bay Nickel to negotiate that opportunity for women. My question is: Women who want to seek these services, what new programs are you bringing in to help them? I know what is out there in the system now. What are you going to do? Because you seem to be telling me in the House, and you have told me here again this evening, that your agenda to eliminate poverty or reduce the level of poverty is the focus on employment and career services. Most women that I know, if they want to go back to school in order to retrain so they can get off assistance and look for a job, they need to have more supports than is presently being provided. I am asking: Are there any new programs, any new initiatives, anything new that you are doing in that context other than in hiring employment and career service workers?

MS BURKE: There are a number of ongoing initiatives that we will be continuing, whether it is the wage subsidy program or grants to help them go to school or address some of the barriers. We are not eliminating those services and we do have programs available, and then we have specific programs for people with disabilities that would move them into the workforce. So whether it is the wage subsidy program or some of the grants to community agencies or educational supports, there are a variety of programs that are available.

MS JONES: You talked about moving them from income support into the labour force. Has your department looked at where the opportunities are in the labour force in the Province today and what fields women should be training for and moving into?

MS BURKE: We monitor the labour market through various means. A lot of it is kind of national-provincial information and it breaks down into sectors. We monitor what the trends are in employment and we also monitor where there are going to be deficits in the future. So we do, through the Labour Market Strategy, monitor what types of jobs are available or the trend will be where they will become available.

MS JONES: The fact that you are laying off 4,000 - well, I should not say laying off - eliminating 4,000 jobs in the public sector, do you think that is a deterrent for women to want to train, to look for employment in this Province?

MS BURKE: No, I think that as we move ahead with economic development and other initiatives, that the opportunities for women will be there and that they need to be aware of what opportunities lie ahead and combine that with their own personal interests.

MS JONES: You talked about that this year you increased the Child Tax Benefit. That benefit does not come into play until 2006. Is that true? Is that accurate?

MS BURKE: No, July 1.

MS JONES: Of this year?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: How much is the benefit?

MS BURKE: It is based on $1 per first child and then indexed to the CPI with the increases.

MS JONES: I don't know how that works. Can you explain that to me because I do not understand how that is calculated, please?

While somebody is looking for that, I will just continue on, minister, if that is okay.

MS BURKE: You are looking for the specifics of the Newfoundland Child Tax Benefit?

MS JONES: Yes, I want to know what the increase was for the Child Tax Benefit. All I got was $1 and a formula, so I do not know how it is calculated. I would like to know how it is calculated, or at least tell me what the amount is so I know what numbers I am dealing with.

MS BURKE: Okay.

MS JONES: I am just going to move on to a couple of other questions now. Minimum wage in the Province, a lot of women in this Province still work at jobs that pay very low wages, most of them in minimum wage jobs. What is your position on minimum wage? Do you think it is too low, too high? Do you think it should be increased or decreased?

MS BURKE: I do not think it should be decreased. I think it needs to be reviewed. It has to be reviewed on a regular basis and that review will be happening and we will be making a decision on it. I cannot say, at this time, what is going to happen but I can most certainly say it will not be decreased.

MS JONES: When will you do the review? This year?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Do you have a time frame on it?

MS BURKE: Not a specific time frame but it is something that I want to address in the very near future with regards to consultation.

MS JONES: Is that a statutory review?

MS BURKE: There is a statutory review every two years that the minimum wage has to be reviewed.

MS JONES: Is that the review that you are talking about?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay. Will that be done internally or externally with government?

MS BURKE: The decision will be made by this department.

MS JONES: Oh, yes, I know that. Will the review be done internally in your department or will it be contracted services?

MS BURKE: It will be done internally.

MS JONES: Okay.

Minister, there are a lot of women who are employed by large chain stores, Wal-Mart being one of them. At the risk of coming on - one that is unionized, I know Dominion is, but Wal-Mart, I guess, Canadian Tire, some of these stores are non-unionized chain operations. Many of them employ women. It is my understanding in talking to a lot of women who work in these department stores, especially Wal-Mart, which is where I have talked to a number of them, their working conditions, their working hours, I should say, are very conservative by their employer. They are limited in how many hours they can work a week simply because if they go over a certain number of hours then the employer has to pay them out certain benefits and so on. Is this one of the issues that you will look at within your department? Has it been raised to you as a concern?

MS BURKE: No, it has not been raised to me as a concern.

MS JONES: Okay.

I want to talk about women in the fishery for a moment. Most women in the fishing industry in this Province are seasonal workers. With the reductions in allocations and the quotas for a lot of areas of the Province the hours of work and the weeks of work that they are getting in fish processing facilities have been declining on a year-to-year basis. Recently the federal government had a task force on seasonal employment. They held their hearings here in St. John's. Did you go before that task force, minister, to represent women in seasonal industries in the Province?

MS BURKE: Our plan, from the department's perspective, is once we get the interim report we will be involved in the consultation process at that time.

MS JONES: Are you telling me that you did not make a presentation to the task force on seasonal employment for women in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS BURKE: Yes, but I believe that happened during the labour dispute.

MS JONES: You could have provided written submissions as well.

MS BURKE: We will be once we get the interim report.

MS JONES: After the decision is made you will provide a written submission?

MS BURKE: No, following the interim report we will be making our submission, once we receive that report.

MS JONES: When is the interim report due?

MS BURKE: The end of this month or early June.

MS JONES: Recently, Memorial University did a study on the financial constraints that cancer patients are faced with in the Province. Are you aware of that study?

MS BURKE: No.

MS JONES: In the Estimates, I wanted to look at section 2.7.01 under Salaries, page 20.

Salaries have declined in your department by $34,000 this year. Do you want to tell me why that is?

MS BURKE: We have eliminated a policy analyst position in the Women's Policy Office.

MS JONES: Is that position currently filled?

MS BURKE: That position had been vacant.

MS JONES: Are there any positions in the Women's Policy Office that are budgeted for here that are not filled at the present time?

MS BURKE: They are all filled. There is one person on maternity leave, so there is a person backfilling there. There is somebody off but there is somebody in that position during that leave.

MS JONES: Line 2.7.01.05, Professional Services have decreased by $25,000. Why was there a cut in Professional Services this year, and what professional services would your office be using?

MS BURKE: The money for those services - we have a federal-provincial-territorial meeting coming up hosted by this Province and we realigned some money from these different areas to assist in hosting that meeting.

MS JONES: So, other provinces are paying the $25,000.

MS BURKE: I do not understand.

MS JONES: You have decreased your professional services by $25,000 but you are telling me you are hosting the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting.

MS BURKE: We will be cost-sharing the federal-provincial-territorial meetings and we have also had to realign some money in another line there of Supplies to help cover the cost for that meeting.

MS JONES: Under Grants and Subsidies; what is covered under Grants and Subsidies, under that heading?

MS BURKE: Yes, my official will speak to that.

MS MACLELLAN: That would include the Grants and Subsidies for the eight women's centres in the Province. It would also include Grants and Subsidies for the regional co-ordinating committees under the violence prevention initiative. I would have to check, but I also think in that line object we provide small grants to the Provincial Association Against Family Violence in Newfoundland and Labrador sexual assault crisis. It will probably come out of that line item as well.

MS JONES: Are the transition houses in there as well?

MS MACLELLAN: No, the transition houses are funded through Health.

MS JONES: The Department of Health, okay.

The 10 per cent increase, I guess that is why the Grants and Subsidies went up in the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women?

MS BURKE: Why, was there an increase in the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women? Is that your question?

MS JONES: Yes. Last year there was $257,600 budgeted, this year it is $297,600.

MS BURKE: We gave an additional $40,000 to the Provincial Advisory Council. Some of that had to go into the salary of the President who was receiving a salary of $59,360. They were not following the step that they had to follow according to the classification of the job. So, the salary now pays $78,070. There was $20,000 that was given to the President for the discrepancy in what the salary was being paid and what it should have been, and the additional $20,000 to the Advisory Council.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, and your officials for answering those questions. I appreciate your time.

Unfortunately, I have to go, Mr. Chair, so it is all back to you.

CHAIR: Thank you, to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and I trust you are not late for your meeting.

MS JONES: Just by half an hour. I think they will still let me in.

CHAIR: You were so excited that you could not leave.

MS JONES: Try and carry on without me now.

CHAIR: What we have been doing, just so you do not get too tired, we normally delegate about three hours for the debates and about halfway through we take a ten minute break. If you want, before the other two gentlemen follow through with some of their questions, we can take a ten minute break.

MS BURKE: Can I just - before we take the break, to prepare for the next part, are we going to do Housing, Women's Policy Office, Labour Relations agency followed by HRE, in that order? Why I ask that is some of them are not as detailed or as massive, I guess, as some of the others. We have a lot of staff here, so if we could break it down and do some of the others first. Is that -

MR. COLLINS: Whatever works for you. It does not matter to me.

MS BURKE: Okay.

CHAIR: I think it was, as we said - well, we are finished with Women's Policy now, so Heather is the first to go.

MS BURKE: Are we finished with Women's Policy?

MR. COLLINS: I did not have any questions, other than what was asked.

MS BURKE: Okay.

CHAIR: And I cleared it with Roland, that is not an issue. The intent was to do Women's Policy and that is now done, although it was not intended to go as long as we have. We thought we would get the Labour Relations and Housing pieces out of the way as well before we broke but that -

MR. COLLINS: Whatever order that you want to go in is fine with me.

MS BURKE: Okay. We will do Housing when we come back, followed by Labour, followed by HRLE.

CHAIR: Okay, we will do it that way.

We will just take a ten minute break. It is 8:37 p.m. now, let's come back at 8:47 p.m., ten minutes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Thank you very much for returning promptly.

When we left off we said we were going to come back and pick up - I think, Minister, you suggested we pick up - Women's Policy is done. You suggested we pick up Housing, I think was your comment. Housing is found on page 247 of the Estimates. It is in a separate piece by itself called Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. We are dealing with one page, which is on page 247. It is not an indication of the significance of that department but it is one big line item.

Go ahead, the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I just have a couple of quick questions on Housing. I wonder if the minister could update us on the backlog now on the wait list for housing repairs? I know the list at one time was quite lengthy. I am not sure what the status is today.

MS BURKE: Can I clarify that question, Randy? Are you talking about the Provincial Home Repair Program or maintenance to our existing units?

MR. COLLINS: Maintenance for -

MS BURKE: Our existing units or the Provincial Home Repair Program?

MR. COLLINS: No, the Provincial Home Repair Program.

MS BURKE: There are approximately 4,000 on the wait list. It takes about two years, I guess, from the time of application to get the repairs completed. There are still provisions that if there is an emergency they would be done on an emergency basis.

MR. COLLINS: Is that the only criteria, emergency, in order to get ahead on the list? For example, I know some people in the Province who have had - not in my district - their name in and they are probably eighty-one or eighty-two years old. To be on a list that - a little while ago it was four years, realistically -

MS BURKE: No, it is based on an emergency only and age would not be a factor in determining. It would be on the date of the application, not on age.

The budgets are on a regional basis. So, as well, the wait list could actually be different for different parts of the region. When I use that two-year, that is an average, I guess. It is variable based on the region.

MR. COLLINS: That is the only question I have on Housing.

MR. BUTLER: First of all, Minister, I would like to welcome you and your staff. I have quite a few questions but there will be no long preambles. There are going to be questions and short answers and we will be out of this pretty fast.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple. With regards to subhead 1.1.01 for the Housing, I noticed that the budget for last year was $11,125,000 and this year it is estimated at $9,910,000. I was wondering - I think that is a cutoff of $1,215,000 - how will this hurt all of the operations of the Housing program?

MS BURKE: The reduction will not result in any reduction of services, how we deliver the program or the stock. The reduction will probably address some efficiencies within the system. It is not going to reduce the number of housing units we have.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. So, there will be no reduction in the number of houses that will be done this year as compared to another year?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other thing, I guess - and this is not a question, just a short comment. One of the things I find sometimes - and by the way, I want to thank the staff at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing because if there is any name over there they know, it is Roland Butler. There are always e-mails or messages going back and forth. I have to say that I get good response back and forth. It is not always what you want but that is beside the point.

One of the things I will mention - and sometimes, I guess, what you classify as an emergency through the Housing and what individuals think might be an emergency are two different situations. I have one case now that is being reviewed over there, where a lady is blind in her home and the floor is really bad. They did get money a little while ago to help hook up their water and sewer, but this particular - there is money left in the fund for them but it was not classified as an emergency. Now maybe that will take care of itself, but that is one of the things I find confusing, what is sometimes classified as an emergency in cases when you really think it is not an emergency. That is just a comment. I do not expect you to respond to that because it was not a question.

MS BURKE: I will comment, although I do not usually comment unless I am asked a question.

Sometimes what can happen, I would think, is from the time of application through the wait list that a situation could change and develop into an emergency. The other thing is, if we are asked to review a case to see if it qualifies as an emergency we do respond to those requests and we try to treat everyone fairly in relation to that.

MR. BUTLER: I have to agree with you on that part.

The only other question I have, I guess, is with - now, I do not know the exact name of the agreement, maybe there is none, but it was between CMHC and NLHC. I think it was signed off on by the former minister last year or the year before, or whatever. It is the one with reference to, I think it was 50-50 funding; 50 per cent - I will call it cash - from the federal people and 50 per cent could be a variation of what it was in the Province. I understand there were proposals that went out but there were only a few received on the Avalon. I was just wondering if you could give me a report on that and maybe explain to me why - maybe there has been some back from rural Newfoundland now. I believe there is some action taking place now on the Labrador Coast with regard to this program. I am just wondering, if there is none, what do you think the problem is; why there were no proposals coming in from rural Newfoundland where I know the housing needs are probably just as crucial for low income families as what they would be in the city?

MS BURKE: We did have that request from outside the Avalon.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, you did?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. How is that program progressing now?

MS BURKE: The information has been received but the decisions have not yet been made on what projects will be approved.

MR. COLLINS: I do not have a question but one thing I would like to make a comment on is the way that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units have been built in the past. I think that it is totally wrong. I think in some ways it is outright outrageous, where you go into a community and you build housing and rather than integrating the housing into the community, it is sort of built in a position where it is singled out and there is a certain amount of -

MS BURKE: Stigmatism?

MR. COLLINS: - stigma attached to the people who live there. I think that is very unfair and very inappropriate. I think that is a mistake which was made in the past, and I certainly hope that if this government, at any time in the future, decides to construct units that they would certainly take that into consideration because it is not very nice.

MS BURKE: I do agree with what you are saying. I fully agree, and I think integration into the community is very important for people and to remove that stigma - and that can happen in many ways. The housing units built in the cluster is certainly an example of segregating within the community, and I certainly agree with what you are saying.

MR. COLLINS: That is all I have.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chairman, something came to my mind when I passed over to Randy. With regards to that program I just referenced, the CMHC-NLHC program - and probably Mr. Dean and others are familiar with the situation I am going to bring up. I am not going to bring any names into it, but I know one individual whose house was dilapidated to the point where they could not get any funding and, rightly so, the money was not there to repair it and he had to be moved out of the community. I guess, not knowing the individual, he did move into a unit and they helped, wherever possible, to move him. I was wondering, with this program, would that be possible to help someone in his situation? Because he moved out of his own community - he did not move that far away but it was just as well as if they took him and moved him to a foreign country. He is totally lost. He has gone downhill, both him and his wife, over the situation. I know we were even trying, at one point in time - I will call them portable units, for a better word, they use to move them from community to community. I was wondering if this program could be something to help a family in a similar situation?

MS BURKE: I do not know if I am answering it to the degree you want. The program that we are talking about would provide affordable rental units wherever, I guess, they are built. It is not for home ownership.

The other thing is, I would think that the program - if we have individuals who are at a disadvantage because they had to move out of their community, I would assume we would work with them to try to help place them appropriately if it is causing stress and issues like that.

MR. BUTLER: When I said there were proposals received from the St. John's area but not outside, but now you have confirmed there have been. When you say proposals, what is that? Someone who will build so many units and put a price in on them to do them in different communities or in one packaged area?

MS BURKE: Yes, it would be a proposal for units in whatever particular area they tender. They would put in a proposal of what that would cost to set up x number of units, which would be affordable rental units.

MR. BUTLER: That is it, Mr. Chairman, on that expenditure.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

With that, we have now concluded the discussion on Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Minister, you indicated that you would like to deal with the Labour Relations Agency next. Those Estimates are contained within the body of those that are characterized as Human Resources, Labour and Employment, which starts on page 205.

I will ask the Clerk to call the Estimates dealing with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

CLERK (Murphy): 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

OFFICIAL: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

OFFICIAL: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

Shall I now report that the Estimates for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation will carry without amendment?

OFFICIAL: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: We will now go over to the section identified as Human Resources, Labour and Employment. We are going to - minister, at your request, we will deal with the piece dealing with the Labour Relations Agency, which starts on page 214 of the Estimates and starts off as 6.1.01 and follows through. So, we will deal with that piece next.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: First of all, welcome. I would like to start off by saying to the minister that the Department of Labour is a department of government that I have had a long-standing working relationship with, long prior to becoming involved in politics. I have to say that the people in the department - like Joe, Wayne, Yvonne and others, and the Labour Standards people - are extremely qualified people who have earned the respect of both labour and management in both the private and public sector throughout the Province. I commend them for the role they play and the great work that they do because I have been benefactor of that work on many occasions; they say (inaudible). I would just like to say welcome.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

MR. COLLINS: We talked about the minimum wage, which was raised earlier. I just wonder if there has ever been any thought put into - I know one of the things we have advocated is an $8 an hour minimum wage that could be viewed as a living wage. Another proposal that I have been part of advocating for a long time is to have the minimum wage tied to the average industrial wage in the Province so that as that moves up the minimum wage would automatically track it, therefore there would be no requirement for a statutory review. I think it used to be every five years at one point, if I remember correctly. Now it is every two, but if it was tied as a percentage of the average industrial wage in the Province then that would automatically go up as the average industrial wage. Has there been any consideration given to something like that?

MS BURKE: We are in the process of reviewing the minimum wage, as I have indicated. We will be doing a consultation process and we will be open to suggestions and ideas as to how we can address the minimum wage issue here in the Province. There is no decision made yet and I am not closing any doors on the discussion and the consultation.

MR. COLLINS: That would be the public tribunal travelling around the Province?

MS BURKE: It will be departmental officials and we will have - I do not know how many consultations, but I will say at a minimum, East Coast-West Coast, with stakeholders in the community invited into a forum for a discussion.

MR. COLLINS: Under the same format that took place in previous years, the same schedule type of thing?

MS BURKE: I will have to check on what happened in previous years. It may not necessarily be the same consultation process because they used external reviews in the past. So, it will be an internal process. I would imagine the consultation process will -

MR. COLLINS: Be the same.

MS BURKE: - because of that. Well, it will be somewhat different, I was going to say. I have not been part of the previous one, so I am not sure of the differences there.

MR. COLLINS: In the area of Occupational, Health and Safety, the requirement for joint committees to file safety meeting reports, what percentage the workplaces actually comply with that requirement now?

MS BURKE: When we did the realignment of the department in February the Occupational, Health and Safety responsibilities went to Government Services, so that question would be to that department.

MR. COLLINS: Okay. So that is no longer under your jurisdiction?

MS BURKE: No. Maybe I should start with some explanation, I guess, as to the Department of Labour and the change that took place in February. I guess I should have done it to preface the discussions here this evening.

When the Department of Labour joined Human Resources and Employment we established a Labour Relations Agency which looks at labour relations, labour standards and then, at an arm's-length, Workers' Compensation, but the Occupational, Health and Safety division moved into Government Services.

MR. COLLINS: What was the justification for doing that? Because from my background Occupational, Health and Safety was one of the most critical parts of the Labour portfolio.

MS BURKE: It was based on the inspections that the officers do, and Government Services basically provided that role in other areas. So now they have the inspections in that department along with, I guess, other inspections they do from that department.

MR. COLLINS: Okay.

Do you want to go for a bit there, Roland?

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I will be going through some of the headings here, 6.1.01. Just a few general questions down through, nothing major. The one under 6.1.01, Salaries, there are cuts listed there of $125,200. Could you explain how and if this affects the government's stance towards negotiations with the unions in the Province by that reduction of $125,000?

MS BURKE: That does not affect the number of mediators we have. That reduction addressed the elimination of an ADM position and a half-time Director of Communications position.

MR. BUTLER: 6.1.02, I take notice there that IT has been cut by $31,100, yet the division's mandate involves a focus on IT. I was just wondering if you could explain that?

MS BURKE: The IT budget comes from Treasury Board and last year there were three new IT Web-based programs that were put in, that are in now, so that the funding is no longer needed. They are in and set up.

MR. BUTLER: The other one, Purchased Services has increased by $61,000. I was just wondering if you could explain what that might be?

MS BURKE: Purchased Services has increased?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, the revised was $140,000 and now it is up to $201,000.

MS BURKE: I am on a different -

MR. BUTLER: 6.1.02.06.

MR. BLUNDON: The reason why the Purchased Services went down, if you note up in 6.1.02, Purchased Services went up and it had to do with advertising within the department. We use most of the advertising budgets. For the whole department it was budgeted - not budgeted but actually expended in the Executive area. If you look at it, there is just a reallocation. There is a $25,000 increase just in advertising up in Administration in the Executive Support section. There was money used as well for the purchase of IT equipment. It is just a reallocation within the department.

MR. BUTLER: Subhead 6.1.03, probably a lot of those are going to be the same answer, really.

Professional Services there again are up by $65,000 from last year. I was just wondering: Is this the case of contracting something out or is there another explanation for it?

MS BURKE: That figure is based on a projected budget for the negotiations in relation to the fishery. That number is estimated each year. If you look, $30,000 was used last year. Again, that is an estimate of what they may need in relation to that service.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, minister, Revenue - Provincial; $70,000, under 6.1.03, the Revenue - Provincial, what would that -

MS BURKE: That is in relation to the clearance certificates for Labour Standards, which are $25.

MR. BUTLER: Under 6.1.04, the same thing I guess. That is probably what that is. The revenue there, that would be revenue coming in from similar certificates or what have you?

MS BURKE: That would be in relation to the fees for the board conference.

MR. BUTLER: What was that again, minister?

MS BURKE: Registration fees.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

That is all I have under that, Randy. Do you have something else there, sir?

MR. COLLINS: I just have a couple of questions that I am curious about.

The Preventive Mediation Program, is there much of a demand in the Province for that now?

MS BURKE: Yes, the demand is growing, especially in grievance mediation.

MR. COLLINS: How many people do we have in place now, staff, to deal with it?

MS BURKE: Five.

MR. COLLINS: Five. Are conciliation officers used for that purpose now?

Labour Standards, do you have any idea as to the number of complaints received, on average, per year by the Labour Standards officers?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes, what we do is when we get a case we usually invoke an early resolution. In other words, we try and settle it without doing an actual investigation.

In 2003, we had 309 early resolutions, which meant they would have been cases coming in that we resolved. We had seventy-four cases assigned for investigation. So, approximately 400 cases a year.

MR. COLLINS: How many people are involved in that process (inaudible) staff?

MR. O'NEILL: Seven officers in total.

MR. COLLINS: Has there ever been any consideration given, or has it ever been discussed - because right now under the existing Labour Standards legislation an officer can go in to investigate a complaint and not find - if an employee lodges a complaint against the employer for, say, dismissal, and other than giving the one or two weeks pay to which they are entitled, that is far as the officer can go. Has there ever been any consideration given to making the Labour Standards division or the officers with more power to order different remedies?

MR. O'NEILL: One of the issues that has been discussed in a couple of round tables has been the issue of the reason for termination. As you know, of course, in our Labour Standards legislation, as in some other legislation across the country, there is no just cause for termination in our legislation. So, that is an issue that I think, in review of the Labour Standards Act, which we will also be doing this year. It is something that should be up for consideration, in terms of whether or not more authority should be given to the officers through either regulation or in the act itself to address issues of unjust dismissal.

MR. COLLINS: So, a lot of times that is most of what, I guess, a lot of the cases there would be on - would be on that issue?

MR. O'NEILL: What we find is in a lot of cases the people already leave, as you know, then they go to the Labour Standards Division and file a complaint of loss of wages, not properly being paid for statutory holidays and that sort of thing, but that is really after they have severed their employment relationship. There is no question that one of the reasons we moved to an early resolution program four or five years ago was, in fact, to try and take away the investigatory role and see if we could work with the employer and the employee in question, to see whether or not, in fact, their position could be saved. There could kind of a softer accommodation.

MR. COLLINS: Do you have any idea as to the number of employers in the Province who have the Labour Standards regulations posted at their workplace?

MR. O'NEILL: No, I do not. Of course it is a requirement, as you know, but we would not have done that kind of an investigation, in terms of how many are actually posted.

MR. COLLINS: Do you have the number - since the first agreement provisions came into play - of how many times that there has been an imposed first agreement?

MR. O'NEILL: Very rare, by the Labour Relations Board. You could probably count them on both hands since the inception of that legislation. What has been found, as you know, when first agreements come in they generally do not last. The board usually imposes a one-year deal and we find that the relationship then gets severed shortly after that.

MR. COLLINS: I think, from my experience, it has worked. Even the fact that it is there causes, sometimes, to reach a deal by virtue of it being there.

MR. O'NEILL: Yes, absolutely.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Minister, as we agreed, we would deal with this particular piece. If your staff wanted to leave, I think we are through. There are no other questions on this particular piece of Labour Relations.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

CHAIR: I thank your staff for their contribution and participation. For the rest of you, you have to stay until the end. There is no one else leaving. You are barred in now until it is done.

Having already called this section, yourself or the Member for Labrador West or Port de Grave, whichever one of you wants to start now, the floor is yours.

MR. BUTLER: We can go anywhere now, can we, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: We will call all the heads after, so you have five minutes to go where you want now and then we will wrap it up.

MR. BUTLER: Did you say five minutes?

CHAIR: Yes.

MS BURKE: Are we taking five minutes?

CHAIR: I gave him five minutes.

MR. BUTLER: No, he gave me five minutes.

I will go through some of those and then I will go back to some of the heads.

Minister, I know in the budget there was $400,000 for supported employment to assist persons with disabilities to enter the workforce. I am wondering, will all of this money go into hiring additional individuals? Because I believe in the - I do not have the right page here now, but I think in the Estimates it shows $300,000 or something.

MS BURKE: Are you referring to line 4.1.04, Employment Assistance Programs for Persons with Disabilities? - because the increase is $400,000.

MR. BUTLER: Four-hundred thousand, right?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: My question was: Is the full $400,000 to go to hire people? Because apparently there was a committee, through that division, to be set up, a provincial committee or something, where the ones from the different - I was wondering, would any of that money from the $400,000 go to help to set up the board or was the full $400,000 to hire people?

MS BURKE: I believe you may be referring to the establishment of an advisory committee but, in the meantime, this $400,000 will go into that program to assist people with disabilities to go to work.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. It has nothing to do with the advisory committee?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BUTLER: The other question right here - now, what page is that on? I cannot find it. I have down here $400,000 is in the budget for the Employment Assistance Programs for Persons with Disabilities, but this division shows $300,000. What page is that on? 4.1.01? But you clarified it anyway, you are saying the $400,000.

MS BURKE: Pardon?

MR. BUTLER: You are saying the full $400,000 goes into the hiring of people with disabilities.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I know a couple of my colleagues - I guess they expressed the feelings of a lot of people with regards to the closure of some of the offices around the Province. I am not going to go into that. They expressed themselves and covered off on, I guess, most of it.

With this restructuring - and I do not want to use too heavy a word on it - do you think it will open it up, where the offices are not in the areas close by a lot of the people? I will just use an example. I am going to reference this one, not in particular over any other area of the Province. In St. Mary's, for instance, they have to come to Bay Roberts now, and in September it will be Carbonear and so on. Do you think areas in the Province, it will open it up for more abuse when people are not in their immediate areas and they have to more or less - I am not going back to hands on. Like you said before, you had to check their fridges to see what was in them. I do not mean that, but when they move farther away, do you think it would probably open up more abuse in the system by this new technology that you are referencing?

MS BURKE: I tend to think that the technology will probably assist us in helping to identify abuse. I also preface that by saying sometimes no matter what program we set up there is somebody who is going to find a way around it, will tell a lie, or will mislead us and that makes us then have to investigate those circumstances. The advanced technology allows us to do a number of interfaces to check income, which is far more effective than asking an individual, especially somebody who is not prepared to give us the full information. We can do electronic interfaces to check whether or not somebody in the household - again, if we know who is in the household - if people deliberately deceive us it puts up challenges. We can do electronic interfaces to see if they are receiving money from student loans, from EI, CPP, OAS and CCRA. There are a number of ways that we can determine if there is income coming into the household.

MR. BUTLER: I also noted - I had the letter or the correspondence with me but I failed to bring it down with me, but I believe it was announced this year there would be funding to hire three additional collection officers and they would be stationed in St. John's. I was wondering - and this is why I asked that question, I suppose - do you anticipate that there are going to be more problems from the changeover or is there that big of an overpayment out there to be collected in that we have to hire three more additional people on?

MS BURKE: The reason for hiring three more additional, or to establish these positions, was an attempt by the department to increase revenue. If there are avenues and ways that we need to collect money, we want to make sure that the emphasis is put on it. Especially if people owe us money, we need to be able to look at that. There will be three new positions established and it has never been said from me or from anyone in the department, that I am aware of, that these positions will be in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: I cannot say where the source came from now because I do not have it here in front of me, but I think it is listed in the same book that we are referencing here everyday and I do not want to get into that again.

MS BURKE: The present collectors are here in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: No, this is three new additionals.

MS BURKE: Three new additional positions that I have not said will be in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. What it said in this - you know the book I am referring to, I forget what the title is on it now.

MS BURKE: I know, and I really do not want to have to get into this question tomorrow about whether or not I -

MR. BUTLER: No.

MS BURKE: If there is something there that made you feel those positions were going to be in St. John's, well, you have clarified that you saw that and you read that into it. I am going to further clarify that I have not said those positions are going in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: Because they continue on to say that they would be travelling. It did not say they were going to stay in St. John's. They would be based in St. John's, however, they would travel to other areas of the Province too.

MS BURKE: I have not even said they were going to be based in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS BURKE: But the present collectors are in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, okay.

Since we are on that one now, because I will come to that here shortly I am sure. When you talk about the collectors as one end of it, the investigators that are out there now - I am not referring, I mean we know they are out there. Do you think that probably to help the system there should have been more people in the investigation side of it? I know from - not from experience myself - speaking to other people that some of those inspectors do come up with a lot of abuse in the system. They have massive areas that they have to cover. I am wondering if there was more along that line. Is it possible - I am trying to tie all of this together about the three new ones that are possibly coming on for the collection end of it, if you have people who are out there investigating and coming up with the means where there has been abuse?

MS BURKE: A lot of the investigations that we conduct can center around some of our technology and being able to check sources of income or additional income through that. We use, obviously, both methods, where we have to go out and do an actual investigation in someone's home or question them, but we rely a lot on the technology.

The amount of abuse that is in the system, a lot of times people throw antidotal information at me and it can be anywhere from 75 per cent of the cases to 40 per cent, to whatever. I seem to feel the values that guide this department are certainly values that I share. I think, on average, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who receive income support are honest people who deserve that income. It is a very modest income that they receive. I think that, overall, we will investigate when we have reason to believe, but I still think that most people who receive income support are people who are deserving of that income.

MR. BUTLER: You are not going to get an argument on that.

The only thing - what I am trying to tie it back to, I guess - and I can only speak for my own area. In Bay Roberts there is an office, at the present time, until September. I know the workers who are there and I know how committed they are, not only when they are inside the four walls. Lots of times I know workers seen individuals who were on assistance and probably they saw them somewhere doing something they should not have been doing. I mean they do not mind dealing with it when they go back to the office. I am not saying they are investigators but I mean - I will give you an example. Someone may be out on the side of the road selling vegetable hampers and they know they are on assistance. Well, they are going to say: Look, are you making money? Are you being paid weekly?

By moving it all to one centre I think we are going to lose that personal contact. That is what I said before, probably more abuse in the system. Maybe that is not the right word, abuse, but that was the concern that I had with it. By moving - you say St. Mary's, Whitbourne, Placentia, Bay Roberts, they are all gone to Carbonear. All of that area is there left wide open. That is the concern that I have with it, not that there is anything wrong with what you are doing, like Mr. Parsons said earlier. You lose the personal touch with the people, not that you have to be in checking their fridges. I do not mean that way either.

MS BURKE: I still tend to think that if people are earning income, whether it is through selling vegetable hampers, that most people, basically, are honest people who will report their income and get the exemption that they qualify for. I really do not think that we are chasing around income support recipients because of their dishonesty in the community. They do have the opportunity to report income to their workers. I still would believe that most people will be honest when they are dealing with their workers.

MR. BUTLER: I know you mentioned earlier, minister, that you did not know exactly what the breakdown or the savings would be from one office versus another. I know, for instance, for my area, some of the clients have to travel to St. John's for medical reasons. I do not know the exact - but they do get so much to come in, whether they have their own vehicle, whether they have to get someone to bring them in or whether they come with public transportation. Would those people now - a lot of this they have to go to the office to receive that, or to sign off on something or what have you. I still go back - my hon. colleague is gone from Placentia & St. Mary's, but you take it, if you have someone up there - I will give you another example. Maybe their lights are going to be cut and to stop that they have to come into an office, they have to sign off. Your office won't pay for it but they sign off so much in funds from their cheques. They have sign that, and with an office gone in St. Mary's and Placentia and that immediate area, they have to travel all the way to Carbonear for it. Will there be any reimbursement to help them do that type of thing? Lots of them, maybe, would not have a car to travel that distance.

MS BURKE: We are going to focus that people will have equal access to the service, no matter where they live, and we will not be requiring clients to come into the office. We will be providing the same basic services to them. In saying that, I want to highlight, particularly in the district that I represent, there are many people who live in Bay St. George South, in the Highlands, in the St. Fintan's-St. David's area, who are nowhere close to the HRLE office, and Buchans is another example. There are many communities. We are closing twenty offices and we are leaving twenty-six open, but that is a total of forty-six and there are far more communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there are many people who live in extremely remote areas who have had to depend on services over the years that have been provided to them without necessarily having to visit the office, even when probably the policies were different.

We are very well aware and we will be very cognizant of our policies as we move into this change to ensure that the clients do not fall into that situation where they have to travel to the office for services.

MR. BUTLER: I know in one of your statements, Minister, I think you more or less said, where the Province's population has shifted, the service delivery network should reflect where people currently live. I am talking about my own area again. I do not think too many people have moved out of that area, but I am also cognizant of the fact that we do not have to travel very far to get to Carbonear, or, if the shoe were on the other foot, from Carbonear to Bay Roberts, but I do not think a lot of the areas where the offices are closing - and I think Mr. Parsons made a good point with Burgeo. Is that the only reason, or is it for the sake of saving money? Because when you look at that area, I do not even live there, but if you have nothing where you can go into an office and cover all that area - Whitbourne, Placentia, St. Mary's, all the way up there, about an hour-and-a-half to two hours drive to Carbonear - it is impossible to do everything over that telephone. There are times when they will have to come into the offices.

MS BURKE: There will be an office in Placentia remaining open.

MR. BUTLER: You have me shocked now.

MS BURKE: Yes, Placentia will remain open.

MR. BUTLER: Placentia is not closing?

MS BURKE: No. Whitbourne, St. Mary's.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right? Oh, I thought Placentia was listed in the ones the other day. No?

MS BURKE: I will just clarify that. The five in the Avalon region that are closing are: Bay Roberts, Conception Bay South, Ferryland, St. Mary's and Whitbourne.

MR. BUTLER: So, why are the people in St. Mary's now dealing with the office in Bay Roberts?

MS BURKE: The situation in St. Mary's is that the client services worker is on extended sick leave. She is not able to work, so their work has been redirected to another office.

MR. BUTLER: Why would they pass Placentia to come to Bay Roberts? That is my question. The staff at Bay Roberts are presently dealing - I am not saying they are dealing with every issue in St. Mary's, but I do know, unless it is a specific issue, they do deal with the office in Bay Roberts.

MS BURKE: The work, in cases, depends a lot on whether we have somebody on long-term assistance or short-term assistance. We are dealing with approximately eight cases from the St. Mary's office that are receiving short-term assistance. They were assigned to the workers in the Bay Roberts office. I really cannot answer why it went to Bay Roberts versus Placentia, but those eight cases - there is a higher number of long-term assistance but, of course, the level of intervention for long-term assistance is not near what it is for short-term assistance, so those eight cases are being processed in Bay Roberts.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other thing, Minister, I notice in one of your articles - I do not know which paper it was in, now, probably the Georgian - about the office out in Stephenville, where there would be an extension to the office to accommodate the additional workers that will be coming in there. I am wondering why that was not the plan for Carbonear, when the twelve people from Bay Roberts moved to Carbonear, rather than double up in an office, and some of them, my understanding is, may even have to use a boardroom. Is there another alternative or is there another plan in place for that office in Carbonear, that I am not aware of?

MS BURKE: Decisions on specific office space have not been finalized, but I will comment on the Stephenville office in particular, because the present office space is not sufficient for the staff that are there now. I can even give an example of how I was in there one day and went to meet with one of the workers, and the only place to sit was on the desk. The space there in Stephenville is pronounced and, with or without the consolidation, we had to address that issue with space.

With regard to the other offices, we will be doing a review of each site to ensure that we have adequate space for the staff. That has not been finalized for every site, as to if we will be seeking alternate accommodations.

MR. BUTLER: My understanding was, they have been advised that they will be doubling up in offices, but what you are saying is that when they move to Carbonear there will be adequate space for them.

MS BURKE: We will be assessing all our sites to ensure that we can accommodate the staff.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

When my time is up, you can cut over to these gentlemen, because I have quite a few here.

I know the announcement was made that in Newfoundland and Labrador the government is hoping, at least, to have poverty eliminated by the year - I should not say eliminated - to be the lowest in the country, by 2014. I know that is quite a ways away; it is ten years.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is supposed to be eliminated in the country by 2000.

MR. BUTLER: I won't go into that one.

Minister, I know that I have read in some of the articles that a two-parent low income family requires a average of $10,200 - an additional $10,200 - to get up to what they would classify as being on par with the poverty level. I am wondering what plan is in place. I mean, to me it is going to have to be a masterful plan to get that amount of money over a ten-year period, to say that a family of two has reached a point where they are up to the $10,000, and a single-parent family, $8,886. I was just wondering what they plan is that, hopefully, that this goal can be achieved. I am not hoping that you are not going to achieve it; I am just wondering, what are the...?

MS BURKE: As we address the issues of poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is going to be a more comprehensive approach to it as opposed to just being the HRLE office and our existing policies. We will play a role in the poverty reduction measures, and our efforts are going to be in trying to help people move from income support into the labour market. That is one of the overall goals of the department. The other is to provide the assistance that people with disabilities will need to help them move into the labour force.

When we tackle poverty, as a government, we have to bring together many different departments, and economic and social policy come into play there, as do many of our other departments, whether it is Health and Community Services, or Education or Innovation and Rural Development. We need to bring together a comprehensive plan that does not necessarily put the emphasis on one particular department.

Our department, of course, deals with people who have no income and rely on income support, so we will play a role, a very significant role, in poverty reduction; but, overall, the whole area of poverty reduction does not lie primarily with this department.

MR. BUTLER: My understanding, Minister, is that back in February of 2002 there was $935 million in the federal child care fund. It was set aside in that federal budget, to be spent over a five-year period; however, the information that I have, by November of 2003 only $25 million had been made available nationwide. I was wondering, since you became minister, or the officials of your department, have you been in touch with the people in Ottawa to see if any of this funding would be coming our way to help alleviate, wherever possible, through that program? I know it is a lot of money.

MS BURKE: Are you talking about child care or the National Child Benefit?

MR. BUTLER: What I have listed here is the federal child care fund. The federal government announced $935 million in 2002, to be spent over five years.

MS BURKE: I hope I am answering this correctly. I think what you are probably getting at, child care initiatives, would fall under Health and Community Services. We do not have a program for child care.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, I am sorry. My apologies.

MS BURKE: Not that I have heard of.

MR. BUTLER: My apologies.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, maybe if you could probably rotate through to your colleague from Labrador West -

MR. BUTLER: Not a problem.

CHAIR: I was just looking at the time. We will let the Member for Labrador West - if you want to pursue a line of questioning, then we will get a handle on where we are. Then you can pursue your line of questioning after that. Does that sound okay to you?

MR. BUTLER: Not a problem. Go right ahead, Sir.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

I do not have a lot of questions on specifics, or the headings or the numbers, but I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions, sort of a general nature, as to how the Income Support Program works and how people fit into it.

One of the frustrating things that I find from time to time is, as recently as last week, we had a young single mother who is on income support, wanting to get off, and, being a young single mother, she is not in a position to go to school full time in order to do credits from a recognized college. Obviously, with the responsibilities that she has in her personal life, she is not eligible for student loans because she cannot take enough courses to qualify for student loans, and, on the other hand, there is no support for her to do it any other way. It is almost like you are trapped into a system from which there is no escape.

MS BURKE: I guess I do not want to comment on that individual case, because I am -

MR. COLLINS: It is not really individual.

MS BURKE: I will speak to that in general terms.

We do recognize some barriers that keep people from making that move from income support into the labour force, and we have set up a number of initiatives to assist people in that movement. Depending on their educational needs, we do provide some funding for tuition based on ABE programming, or programs for which they would not qualify for student loans. We also provide support to help with child care while they are in school, and we also provide initiatives like extending the drug card, to help them move from income support to the labour force. There are some measures that we do bring in to help people make that attachment.

In particular, I guess, when people come on income support, if they request, or if they wish, they can have access to our employment and career services in which that worker would help address some of the barriers that individual, or any individual, would be experiencing, because our aim would be to try and deal with those issues to help the person move from income support into the workforce, and the measures that may be needed in the interim to get from one to the other.

MR. COLLINS: But, for a person who finds themselves in the unfortunate position, I guess, where they are probably a high school graduate and they want to do, either by distance learning or some other format, rather than be able to move to a city or to a major area where colleges are located, if they want to start off by doing, say, two courses a semester, there are barriers in place that prevent people from doing that.

MS BURKE: Any individual who has barriers that prevent them from addressing their education, moving into the workforce, really, that would have to be looked at on an individual basis as to what is available. I cannot comment specifically on a particular case, but each person on income support would have a worker that they could address these barriers with, with the goal in mind that we are going to help them move from income support into the labour force.

I guess there is certain criteria as to which courses and programs we can fund, versus which would fall under the student loan mandate, and there would have to be an individual case plan done up for anyone who is requesting those services.

MR. COLLINS: Many times that fails. I do not want to get into, like you say, the specifics of individual cases, but many times.... If you are living in a larger centre maybe it is easier to do, where the centre of learning might be.

MS BURKE: In all fairness to that, whatever barriers are there that we need to address, as we move ahead and we see the barriers and what it is that is stopping people, I would think that, as a department, we could evaluate the barriers and try to address them.

I do not see that our policy set up now - yes, it is set up the way it is and that is what we are working with today, but I am certainly not adverse to addressing real issues out there that are barriers, that our policies are not able to -

MR. COLLINS: I think that needs to be done. It needs to be looked at and addressed from time to time.

MS BURKE: I will just comment on that in general.

We have a group in Bay St. George that are addressing barriers to women who cannot get from income support to the workforce - probably very similar issues to what you are discussing - and there is a community effort where they are addressing these issues. They will be examining them and probably coming forward with some recommendations and presenting them at some point down the road as to what the barriers are and what they think we could do to address them. We will take that type of information and see what is realistic that we can incorporate into our policies.

In saying that, I want to make the point that I am not adverse to changing a policy if we are able to do so and we are able to address some real concerns with that. I think, in dealing with any type of human service, we always have to have policies that we have to enforce because that guides the way we do work, but we also have to be open and receptive to change as well.

MR. COLLINS: Be flexible at cases.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: One of the other concerns that I had, too, and I just want to put this out to you, is that many times when we have family breakups - and I have had this happen from time to time. It sort of happens in other areas as well, and I even have had members of the clergy approach me and express concern. It has to do with the whole process of how things work.

We have had cases where a man and his wife separate, or divorce, and they have kids. There have been soccer tournaments, hockey games, birthday parties, where both parents have good relationships with each other, particularly for the benefit of their children. When they are seen at functions together, when people have been seen at functions together, they are reported as being together and the woman's benefits have been cut.

Another example of that is in cases where a person - the woman in particular, because this affects women more so than men - where women, their husbands could not afford a phone, they ran up the phone bill, had the phone cut, could not pay the bill, their ex-husband or the person they are separated from, because of the children and the necessity of having a phone in an emergency, have said: Okay, I will put a phone in my name. I will get a phone installed in my name.

The minute someone finds out that there is a phone installed in their name, all of a sudden that person is living there again, there is a connection there, and it is cut.

The danger, when you are cut - you may be able to disprove all of the allegations after, but in the meantime you are cut, with no income, until you go through the appeal process. I just think that is wrong. It is like being sent to jail and going to court to prove your innocence to get out.

These are policies that -

MS BURKE: I would like to comment on that, actually.

I understand what you are saying, and the issues in relation to that. It is something that I think we could probably improve on there with regard to how we handle some of those situations. Again, it goes back to helping clients, I guess, sometimes be more proactive in addressing some of the concerns that may be going on. Sometimes, rather than getting caught, it is an issue of advising. I guess that is what happens. I would think some clients probably handle the situation more effectively by probably informing the office that the phone was cut off; however, my ex-husband - for the children - will be putting this in, so this is going to be happening, letting you know, versus someone finding out.

Again, the issues are there. When somebody gets cut off assistance, it is like going to jail without having been convicted. The information that you are saying on that this evening, and the issues you see with that, I will certainly take under advisement.

MR. COLLINS: I am not saying that to be critical of you -

MS BURKE: No, but I understand -

MR. COLLINS: - because this has been going on for years and years. You are a new minister, and the reason I am putting this out to you is to give you some things to think about, that in the future, in forming policies and rules and regulations, it is something for you to consider that is a problem.

MS BURKE: I take it just as that. I do take it as a very fair criticism and I will take it under advisement.

MR. COLLINS: That is about all I have, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave. The show is all yours and you can wrap it up.

MR. BUTLER: Just a few more questions.

Minister, I think it was in an interview with CBC Radio the other morning - and probably this doesn't have a lot to do with the Estimates meeting but it goes back to the closure of the offices again - I think the question was asked: How do you expect people to apply for benefits or what have you, if they do not have a phone? You referenced possibly something to do with a payphone or go to a neighbour's house and so on.

I am just wondering, do you have any concerns about confidentiality if an individual has to come into somebody else's house, or go to a payphone which is not all they easily accessible in a lot of the rural communities, knowing full well that the application, in total, I think, has pretty close to 120 questions? There are maybe only fifty or sixty questions numbered, but some of them have Part A and Part B for the spouse, and so on. Do you have any concerns? I think you do, but maybe you have an answer for this, a way around it, so that it does not seem as bad as what I am thinking it is: that if I wanted to apply for assistance and I have to go, whether it is into a neighbour's house or to a payphone to complete this application, to have it compiled at the office, and then it would be mailed back to me for my signature.

MS BURKE: In all fairness to the clients, I think if they need to access a phone other than one that is in their own home, I guess there are ways that they could, in the other circumstance, especially if it is in a private residence, have some privacy. They could use the mail for privacy.

The other issue, I guess, I could think, is that when they go into an office and have to drive and park their car and walk in and sit in a waiting room, the confidentiality is - I know in some offices the HRE office is probably co-located with other government departments that probably use the same waiting room. I think of that in some circumstances.

I would hope that clients do have confidentiality, but whether they are in a waiting room or on a telephone, I guess, they would have to take some measures to deal with their privacy, or they could use the mail. I still think the phone would be a more effective service.

I think the clients would have to probably take some measures for their concerns for confidentiality. I do see it as an issue, but I still think it would be more confidential using the phone, possibly, than going into the waiting room of different places.

MR. BUTLER: I am thinking about the actual information. If they go in a waiting room, I know it is probably embarrassing for a lot of people to know that they have to go there. I can understand where you are coming from that way, but the information I was referring to was what they are going to provide on the application, which would be in the confines then of an office, probably, with a worker. That is fine.

The other thing I was going to mention earlier and I forgot about it, Minister, I know you referenced it when Mr. Parsons asked you a question about social workers not being with your department. I think what it is: 90 per cent of the people out there who deal with your department, I do not care where they are, they still classify them as social workers because they have to come to that department for what they classify as social assistance.

I think that is where the breakdown is coming. They still look at them as being social workers for the sake that I have to go there for social assistance. I think a lot of the people that you hear on Nightline, calling in, just cannot get it out of their system. I know you say that we do not have social workers, they are within another department and so on, but I think that is what a lot of the people - I know that is not a question, or anything like that.

MS BURKE: It may be a misunderstanding for those reasons but I guess, coming from a social work background.... It would be like a nurse having a nursing assistant; you draw the professional lines. I guess maybe people do not always see it but I am certainly quite sensitive to that distinction.

MR. BUTLER: Sure, I understand that.

Back some time ago - and maybe I can be corrected on this - I think the program was called Skills for Success. Was that program eliminated totally? I know there was some thought about it being discontinued. If it is discontinued, I am wondering where clients, similar to the ones that would have been in that program, what programs do they fall under now to receive the same training or advice and guidance?

MS BURKE: The Skills for Success program had been evaluated and, based on what we need to address employment and career services, and arrange the services that we need, we felt that the clients for that agency were not receiving the appropriate programming that would prepare them for the labour force.

MR. BUTLER: I am sorry; I missed the last part of it, but I am the loser of that.

The other one, Minister, this was a comment that was made to me some time ago. I know where you are coming from, and I hope everything is going to work out the way you see it being planned with the technology and the telephone system and so on.

I had an incident the other day where an individual, more or less, was waiting to go away for a transplant. It is fine when you live in Bay Roberts, it is only a hop, skip and a jump and you are down to Carbonear or whatever, but when you have people in outlying areas - and they had no choice; they could not do it over the phone - they had to come in to sign the papers to get the few dollars to buy this particular ticket, or the funding to help them. I know, like you said earlier, Minister, on the West Coast or wherever, there are lots of places in the Province, probably, where there are offices not very close, but, to me, the more we take away the more we are getting away from the personal touch and feelings for people.

I am not saying you do not have feelings for people, but with this new system coming in - and probably this all started with the former Administration, and that does not mean one row of beans to me, who started it or who got it on the go - I just feel that your department is a department that has to deal with personal people's lives, and by moving this out I think it is a major concern with a lot of people out there. I am just wondering, how can issues like that be dealt with, if someone has to come in? They get a call tonight: You have to be in Ontario tomorrow. You cannot give them the money up front - a week's time, waiting. I am wondering what kind of a process could be put in place to see something like that could happen fairly quickly with this new system?

MS BURKE: We have, as a department, always been able to respond to emergencies such as if somebody had to go for a transplant, whether or not the person lived in close proximity to an office. If it were somebody from Bay St. George South, Grey River, Conne River or Buchans, we have responded to those issues and we will continue to do so. If somebody is in an emergency and they need assistance, we do have ways that we can provide that assistance without them coming to the office, whether it is -

MR. BUTLER: There is someone on call, isn't there?

MS BURKE: Even on a workday, say, between nine and five, on call, we deal with stuff. Not every crisis happens between nine and five, Monday to Friday. Stuff happens Friday night and Saturday morning, and we have to either make arrangements through pharmacies to make sure the drugs are provided or medical transportation is provided.

In the case of a medical emergency that would require out-of-Province travel, we would be able to deal with that. Whether we make the arrangements through the airline, through the travel company, through the hotel or the hostel where they are going to be staying, we can do that and we will continue to do that. If it meant that somebody from Buchans was going to the Deer Lake airport to get a flight out of town, we would not require them to come into Grand Falls office and then turn around and go back to Deer Lake. We have been dealing with that and we will continue to deal with those issues.

MR. BUTLER: They would not have to come in and sign off on anything?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BUTLER: I just have a couple of more, some of the Estimate ones, subhead 1.1.01, page 205. Minister, I know this is in your office, but Salaries are up by $41,000. What is that, some new position that has been created?

MS BURKE: We have a Parliamentary Secretary with the department now.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: Of course, there is a secretarial position that went along with that.

MR. BUTLER: If I had known that was you, colleague, I would not have even asked the question.

MS BURKE: We thought we would pay him while he was performing that role.

MR. BUTLER: Under subhead 1.2.01, Executive Support, Salaries have decreased by $216,000. Could you just give a brief explanation on that one?

MS BURKE: Yes, we will be taking one of the ADM positions from the department.

MR. BUTLER: I have a lot of those, that I was going to ask questions on, but I think the question that Mr. Parsons asked earlier about all the jobs and salary ones, that will cover off on all of them, but there are a couple there.

Under subhead 2.1.01, Salaries, it shows they are down there by $704,000. Would that have anything to do with the closure of the offices? Would that be related to that, or is there something...?

MS BURKE: Yes, that would be related to the closure of the offices.

MR. BUTLER: Under Transportation and Communications, it shows there is an increase of $61,400. Would that be for communications based on the same scenario, the new system we are putting in, or would it be for transportation?

MS BURKE: Basically, that is the same amount that we had there last year; however, with some of the, I guess, restraints that we practiced in recent months, we did not spend the full amount but it is budgeted for the same amount as what it was last year.

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading, the one there IT, that one is down by $137,000. I was just wondering if you could give me a brief explanation on that one, Minister.

MS BURKE: That is the amount for IT that comes to the department from Treasury Board. That was what we were given this year.

MR. BUTLER: Just another couple, Minister.

I may not use the right titles here now, and forgive me if I do not, like whether it be a manager or a supervisor out in some of the district offices. Say, for instance, if there is a person in one office and they are also doing work or travelling from one office to another, do they have rent-a-cars to communicate from one office to the other? Like, for instance, say over a two-week period someone might spend one day a week in one office and have to travel somewhere else for the other three or four, do they have rent-a-cars for purposes like that?

MS BURKE: The primary way that we would reimburse for work travel would be on the per kilometre rate that is set for government.

MR. BUTLER: Using their own vehicles.

MS BURKE: Right.

MR. BUTLER: So, there would not be any rent-a-cars?

MS BURKE: I do not want to say never, because I do not know if somebody would not have access to their car or something and they need to get to another place. Maybe in extenuating circumstances, but it should not be on a routine basis. It would be the exception. We would pay per kilometer.

MR. BUTLER: I understand where you are coming from. I will have to check that one further, but it was not on an emergency basis or anything like that. My understanding was that it has been provided, or is being provided as we speak. That is my understanding.

MS BURKE: In some cases, I think the investigators use rented vehicles to carry out some investigations. Again, it would be the exception but I know I am aware of that at times.

MR. BUTLER: All right, Sir, if you are ready, or are you finished?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: You are finished? Okay. I thought you had another one or two. I was going to skip through them and see if I missed one.

Oh, yes, there is one here. The people are gone, but I will ask the question anyway. Maybe you can answer it. There are so many groups coming and going here tonight, I (inaudible) get this one.

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation have moved to new offices, with $3,000 listed there for furnishings, equipment and so on. Is that the appeal offices?

MS BURKE: Are you referring to subhead 6.1.02?

MR. BUTLER: No, subhead 4.1.04, I think, my friend here tells me.

MS BURKE: Subhead 6.1.04?

MR. BUTLER: Subhead 4.1.04.

MS BURKE: Subhead 4.1.04.

MR. BUTLER: Subhead 4.1.04.

No, you must be right, Minister; it is not subhead 4.1.04. It is subhead 6.1.04, is it?

MS BURKE: It is subhead 6.1.04?

MR. BUTLER: It would have to be under Labour, wouldn't it?

OFFICIAL: It is page 216, I think, that you might be talking about.

MS BURKE: Page 216?

MR. BUTLER: Page 216?

OFFICIAL: The Workplace Health, Safety -

MR. BUTLER: Yes, that it is the one. Thank you, Sir. Subhead 7.1.01, I am sorry. It showed $3,000 there.

MS BURKE: It was $3,000 in the budget last year. It looks like they spent more than their $3,000 but this year the budget resorted back to what was allocated last year at the $3,000. Is that the one you are speaking of?

MR. BUTLER: Yes. What I was wondering - because I think they moved their offices, the appeal process. I was wondering if that is what it was in reference to.

MS BURKE: I could confirm that a later time, but I would assume that is what it is in relation to, I would think.

MR. BUTLER: I think that is it, Mr. Chair, because a couple of the other people went into some of the questions I had and I do not want to go into the ones that Ms Jones or Mr. Parsons had there as well.

OFFICIAL: They did an adequate job of covering it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, you have a point?

MR. COLLINS: On the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review, how many external reviews were conducted last year in the Province? Do you have the number? When will the report for last year be published? They publish a yearly report, don't they, at year end?

MS BURKE: I do not have the particular stats on those number of reviews here with me this evening.

MR. COLLINS: Okay.

I will not say any more on that, because if we get on to deeming we will be here until 3 o'clock.

CHAIR: I thank the Member for Labrador West.

I apologize. At the beginning of the discussions I did not provide an opportunity for the members of the Committee to introduce themselves. Our colleagues from Humber Valley, Burin-Placentia West and Conception Bay South did not get a chance to introduce themselves.

OFFICIAL: And say goodbye.

CHAIR: I wonder if they want to - before we wrap up - make any comment.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much.

Terry French is my name, and I am from Conception Bay South. I want to thank the minister and her staff for being here. I end off with my hour-and-a-half of questions, but I sit next to the minister every day and if she will agree to allow me to quiz her on a daily basis then I certainly will not get into that litany tonight. Again, I just want to thank you very much for coming.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Before I have the Clerk call the subheads, members of the Committee, you have a copy of the minutes from the Committee hearings this morning dealing with the Department of Justice. I wonder, can I have a motion to be moved?

MR. BUTLER: So moved.

CHAIR: Seconded?

MR. JACKMAN: Seconded.

CHAIR: Okay, accepted as circulated.

Thank you.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: I will ask the Clerk if she will call the heads.

We did deal with the Status of Women's questions, and with respect to that we dealt with some of the Budget items under Executive Council. Executive Council will be dealt with in the House. I say to the Minister, when Executive Council comes up in the House, there may or may not be some questions repeated from what came out tonight.

MS BURKE: Yes.

CHAIR: The critic for the Status of Women was here tonight, so that is why we had the opportunity to have those questions. You may hear those repeated again when we deal with Executive Council.

We have dealt with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, so we are now calling the heads dealing with Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 through 7.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.1.01 through 7.1.01 inclusive carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 7.1.01 carried.

CLERK: The total?

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment carried, without amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

On motion, Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, total heads, carried, without amendment.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Well, Minister, thank you very much.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

CHAIR: You have well-prepared yourself, and I thank your staff for coming. It is quite an entourage you have with you.

I remind the members of the Committee that tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock we are here again to deal with Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in the House.

Tomorrow night, by the way, we have the Department of Education in the Committee room.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.