May 3, 1994

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Roger

Fitzgerald, M.H.A. (Bonavista South) substitutes for Harvey Hodder, M.H.A.

(Waterford - Kenmount)

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): Order, please!

I will now welcome the Minister of Social Services

and his staff. We are going to examine the estimates of his department tonight.

Before I ask the minister to make his opening statement and introduce his staff

I have a couple of little formalities we have to go through. First of all, I

would ask that someone make a motion that we accept the minutes of the previous

meeting.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe some of your officials

don't know the members of the Committee so I will ask the Committee members to

introduce themselves. Starting off with me. My name is David Gilbert, and I'm

the MHA for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, Humber East.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, Fortune -

Hermitage.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, Port au Port.

MS. YOUNG: Kay Young, Terra Nova.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Minister, you can

introduce your officials. Under the rules of this Committee you have the right

to speak for fifteen minutes to outline your department's achievements and

results for the last year, or you can leave it open and let the Committee get

right into the questioning. So, Mr. Minister, if you would now introduce your

staff.

I would say to the staff that any time during the

night you are called upon to speak, give your name before you speak. Because the

people in recording know most of the people who are asking the questions but

they don't know your voices as well as they know ours. If you would, if the

minister indicates that you are to speak, introduce yourself first, so it will

make it easier for the people who are transcribing. Mr. Minister, over to you.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Introducing

the staff: to my immediate right is Mr. Bruce Peckford, the Deputy Minister;

then Mr. Noel Browne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Client Services; then Mr.

George Skinner, Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Development; Mr. Dave

Roberts, right behind me, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Support

Services; and Mr. Jim Strong, director of Financial Operations. These are the

people who will be able to provide technical information and other information

which I, if I sense a weakness or an inadequacy, will call on them, or if you

choose to direct a question to them.

I don't think I will give any introductory remarks.

I will leave it to the Committee to get right into whatever it is they want to

get into, rather than my taking up time at the beginning. We will just carry on

in whichever way you function after this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will

now recognize the Official Opposition critic who is going to be Ms. Verge, the

vice-chairperson tonight. You have ten minutes of give and take.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. Twenty minutes, isn't it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MS. VERGE: One of my perennial topics is social

assistance and maintenance and the problems faced by single parents and their

dependent children living in poverty. Problems which were made worse by the

Wells government in October of 1990 when the government began classifying

maintenance as non-allowable income. The Wells government drew up a master plan

for overhauling both federal and provincial social support programs, called the

ISP, and that document took a different approach.

That document called for people on social

assistance or whatever the new term would be who get maintenance from a

non-custodial parent or an absent spouse being able to benefit. In other words,

that document recognized the value of providing an incentive for somebody

dependent on the government for income to supplement that income by getting

maintenance.

I am wondering if the minister is willing to take

the necessary steps to change the regulations so that once again maintenance is

classified as allowable income so that single parents and children on social

assistance will be slightly better off thereby, and so that there is once again

an incentive for people on social assistance to try to get as much as possible

in the way of maintenance.

MR. LUSH: The hon. member is correct when she

says that under ISP maintenance was to be an allowable income, and that's as far

as the government has gone right now.

As the hon. member knows, presently the maintenance

is the reason why - it's one of the reasons why - the major reason why it's not

considered allowable income is because of CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, and

under it we are required to do what we're doing, but with respect to ISP that

was a broader program under which we were soliciting the support of the federal

government. The ISP could not have been brought in without the support of the

federal government, so it was our hope that we could come to some agreement with

them so that under this program we wouldn't be under the same regulations as we

are with CAP.

MS. VERGE: I have to contradict the minister.

There's nothing in the Canada Assistance Plan that says that maintenance cannot

be classified as allowable income. It was classified as allowable income until

October 1, 1990, and when the change was made without consultation, without even

warning to the people hurt, I personally checked with the federal government and

was assured that this was entirely a provincial decision and that there was

nothing in CAP that required such a change.

The minister's predecessor, John Efford, who was

minister at the time the change was made, didn't pretend that was the excuse.

Mr. Efford and the Premier always simply said fairness and balance; they should

basically lower everyone to the lowest common denominator. If some single

parents on social assistance are not getting any maintenance, why should the

ones who are getting it be better off? That was always the official line, but I

was somewhat encouraged to see a different approach taken in the ISP document,

and I thought perhaps with that apparent change of thinking that maybe now the

regulations would be restored to the way they were pre October 1, 1990 and

maintenance, once again, would be allowable income, because the people working

in the system for the Department of Justice support enforcement agency and for

legal aid will freely say that it's nuts to have it the way it is now because

all you are doing is inviting the social assistance clients whom you coerced to

go to court for child support to get a token order, because there's no incentive

for them to get a high award. If they get an order for $1, it's better for them.

Now last year we went into this in some detail, and

we talked about - I talked about it, anyway - the unfairness of subtracting,

dollar for dollar, maintenance from the meagre social assistance. We also talked

about how single parents getting maintenance are actually worse off because in

many cases there are gaps, and the deputy minister then said that there was a

pilot project in the St. John's area to try to improve `the interface between

social assistance and support enforcement that both the Departments of Social

Services and Justice were involved in'. Would the minister give the committee a

report of that pilot project and indicate how the interface is working now?

MR. LUSH: I just want to come back to the CAP

again. I'm not sure that requirement is the right word but my understanding is

that were we to allow maintenance as allowable income then CAP would not be

forthcoming.

MS. VERGE: Would the minister table a document

to verify that? Has the minister ever asked the Department of Health Canada?

MR. LUSH: Of course the minister asked.

MS. VERGE: Because I did, I asked Health Canada

back -

MR. LUSH: If the minister would like to hear

some official comment on it with respect to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. LUSH: Yes. What the hon. member has said is

that correct?

MS. VERGE: There's nothing under the Canada

Assistance Plan that prohibits the Province from classifying maintenance as

allowable income the way it was up to October 1, 1990.

MR. PECKFORD: The Canada Assistance Plan is an

agreement between the Province and the federal government that outlines the

manner in which eligible expenditures are cost-shared. In the case of the item

we are discussing now, maintenance payments, were the Province to change

maintenance from a non-allowed category to the allowed category, it would

eliminate the cost sharing for that portion, while the Province has the right to

decide what is allowable and what is not allowable. The Canada Assistance Plan

prescribes then on that basis which would be shared and which wouldn't. So if we

were to permit maintenance payments to not be considered as income, cost-sharing

for those clients would be lost under the Canada Assistance Plan.

MS. VERGE: Why then was there federal

cost-sharing under CAP up to October 1, 1990?

MR. PECKFORD: I don't think there was. We lost

that sharing.

MS. VERGE: Well would you table documents to

prove, number 1, that presently CAP would disallow sharing if maintenance were

categorized as non-allowable income and number 2, showing that there was not

cost-sharing before October 1, 1990? I personally checked in the late fall of

1990. The federal government has some mole working in the Confederation

Building, buried in some department enforcing CAP but he assured me that there

was nothing in CAP and the government was grilled on it at the time because the

change was quite controversial. The minister of the day, Mr. Efford and the

Premier didn't even give that as an excuse. That wasn't their reason for making

the change. Their reason for making the change was that everyone on social

assistance should be uniformly miserable. If some weren't getting maintenance

none should be better off because they were getting maintenance, fairness and

balance was the excuse.

MR. PECKFORD: It's my understanding that - as I

mentioned a moment ago - were we to allow maintenance payments, cost-sharing for

the increased portion of social assistance that the individuals would get,

cost-sharing of that amount would be lost.

MS. VERGE: Well I'll believe it when I see the

documents verifying it. What about the pilot project involving the interface

between social services and justice? Last year at the estimates committee the

deputy minister - it was Page 6 of Hansard where the committee said, `at the

present time the Department of Social Services, together with the Department of

Justice, is looking into the question that you posed and which we are very much

aware of. In particular, looking at it from not just the aspect of when there's

a delay in the forwarding of the maintenance payment but the other legal

procedural and administrative barriers associated with the whole maintenance and

social assistance interface.' We have a small pilot project here in St. John's

right now. I'm wondering what happened with the pilot project?

MR. LUSH: The pilot project still went ahead

but I don't think it dealt specifically with this matter of maintenance. It was

a matter of getting the maintenance. It wasn't a matter of seeing that it was an

allowable income.

MS. VERGE: No, it had to do with what happens

when a social assistance recipient who is entitled to maintenance under a court

order being enforced by the Justice agency doesn't receive the court order

payment on time, and with Social Services subtracting it in full obviously the

client is worse off because of the maintenance order and the agency. My

understanding of the pilot project into the interface is to improve the

interface so that there wouldn't be gaps. With everyone computerized Social

Services should know the same time Justice knows when a court order maintenance

payment is late.

MR. LUSH: That was its purpose but it wasn't to

MS. VERGE: What happened with the pilot

project?

MR. LUSH: As far as I know it is still ongoing.

MR. PECKFORD: The pilot project is still

ongoing. I don't have a current status on just how it is progressing right now.

I do know that a development of a few months ago in this area resulted in the

judges in, I guess it was the Provincial Court, agreeing to recognize social

workers as advocates on behalf of individuals who are seeking maintenance

orders. With that particular agreement there were quite a number of additional

maintenance payments, or court orders for maintenance payments, secured. It

orders. That is the most recent item on that project that I am aware of. I must

confess I haven't had a report on its status in the last month or so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Peckford, thank you

Ms. Verge.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. I wasn't here for the

introduction. I'm Jack Harris, St. John's East.

Mr. Minister, I'm looking at the budgeted items

that have to do with Services To Children and I'm looking here in general on

pages 304, 305 and 306. What I see under Child Welfare, the amount to be voted

is $5.9 million in total. In fact, a decrease of I suppose about $185,000 from

the amount spent last year for Residential Services and Support To Families in

the Child Welfare field. On the other hand I see a vote of $7.7 million, an

increase of $2.7 million, for Youth Corrections. I want to ask a general

question but I would like the minister to try and be a bit specific in his

answer.

My general question is: What are we doing wrong

here if the kind of services that we are providing for children in need is

apparently being decreased in emphasis, and the provision of secure custody and

community correctional services after something goes wrong - we are increasing

that budget by almost 50 per cent and we are decreasing the support to children

who need the protection of society. It seems to me that if we were doing more in

the prevention field and looking after the needs of children, providing services

to them and support to their families, that we wouldn't be doing, or wouldn't

have to do, the kinds of things that we are paying for with the 50 per cent

increase in spending on Youth Corrections.

Would the minister care to comment on that overview

that I perceive in looking at the child welfare budget versus the youth

corrections budget?

MR. LUSH: First, what the hon. member is

assuming is that the amount of money that one spends in child welfare will be

reflected in youth corrections. I am not going to argue with the hon. member

because I do not know. I am not sure there is always that type of correlation.

The hon. member would like to see it the other way and so would I, where you

spend $7 million in child welfare and only spend half as much in -

MR. HARRIS: No, I am talking about the

increase. In one year the increase goes from $5 million to $7.7 which is over a

50 per cent increase on the one hand for youth corrections and the child welfare

budget has decreased from last year. We are talking about serious changes in

caseload. I have some stats here showing that in 1991-92 - now that is not the

year we are talking about, we are talking about 1993-94 - but I do not suppose

it is any different and if it is perhaps the minister can tell me.

There were 4538 reports of children in need of

protection in 1991-92. About one third, 1407, were for alleged sexual abuse, 953

for alleged physical abuse, 438 for emotional abuse, and 1700 and some odd cases

of neglect, so we have a considerable claim against the department asking for

assistance for children in need of protection. Anybody who has had any

familiarity with the court system as lawyers, judges or social workers can

probably tell you -and I am sure Mr. Browne and others who have been involved

directly in the social work field, and Mr. Peckford as well, that the people you

see in youth court and the people you see in the secure custody down below, or

wherever they end up, are people who have been, shall we say, clients of the

department a little earlier in their lives as children in need of protection, or

come from families in need of support, or have family problems that if proper

programs existed could perhaps save them the need of this kind of corrective

behaviour.

Are we doing it wrong, Mr. Minister? Have we got

the wrong end of the stick, as they say sometimes? Are we placing our emphasis

in the wrong place?

MR. LUSH: I do not think we are. The estimates

made on child welfare are estimates made taking into account the trends right

now and the estimate made there of the amount to be spent, the amount to be

voted, which is the more accurate figure of $10,950,000 in child welfare, is the

figure that the department thinks it will need this year. If we need more we

will certainly do it, but this is the figure that the government in its wisdom

figures it will need. The same thing applies to the youth corrections.

Now, the hon. gentleman is looking at the net

figures which discounts the federal transfers in a way, but the bottom line is

that the estimates are made on the basis of what the department assumes it is

going to need for this coming year. As I said with child welfare if more money

is needed it will be found there.

MR. HARRIS: That money, Mr. Minister, much of

it goes to support, in some cases, residential services, social workers

assisting and preventive action. I am looking here at the expenditures that the

department undertakes in prevention which quite often show up in a number of

social workers, for example, and as you know, and I presume that you not only

release these reports, Breaking the Cycle of Child Abuse, one written by a

former director of Child Welfare, and also the report of the Child Welfare

League of America. A proposal was made to deal with some of the problems

identified in the Child Welfare League of America's report. The proposal of Mr.

Stapleton, Terry Stapleton's proposed initiatives, in terms of helping families

to care for their children and safely look after them, the children who are in

need of protection.

Part of the strategy proposed and the initiatives

that were proposed to assist these families was to increase the number of social

workers, and the proposal included an additional twenty-five social workers in

1993-1994, and an additional fifteen social workers in 1994-1995, an additional

twelve in 1995-1996. This was a plan to over a period of three years try to

address that need for assistance to families with children in need of protection

and support by increasing the social workers available for that.

Federally-provincially cost-shared, the estimated cost in 1993-1994 being

$966,000 altogether with the provincial share being half of that, at $483,000,

and the estimated cost in 1994-1995 of the provincial share being $323,700.

Can the minister tell us whether any of those

actions were taken in 1993-1994 with respect to the suggested budgetary action

for 1993-1994? The twenty-five social workers. Is the minister proposing in

1994-1995 to address the need by adding an additional fifteen social workers at

a cost of $323,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris' time has expired but

I will give the minister....

MR. LUSH: First, just to comment on the

allocation for child welfare. The amounts we are talking about here under Child

Welfare are not the only monies that are spent in child welfare. In all of our

district offices we have social workers who would be doing child welfare work

where the monies would show up under different headings. This is just in this

specific heading. The monies that we are spending on child welfare here far

exceed than what is here, specifically under Child Welfare.

With respect to the Stapleton report the department

is in a restructuring mode and in that restructuring we are looking at the

maximum use of the personnel that we now have. We are limited in times of

restraint. I think people would realize the difficult economic times that we are

in. We are looking at the maximum utilization of the staff that we have,

collapsing offices throughout the Province so that we can bring together all of

our people in a specialty and offering the best services that we can.

This year because of the growth in the caseload it

was determined that FAOs were the concentration for this particular year -

financial assistance officers - and clerical people who, in their combined

effort, assist with child welfare in an indirect way. Because a lot of the

clerical people there now are quite overloaded. As we bring in these extra

clerical people, along with the financial assistance officers, that is going to

ease the situation. Because what we were having in many district offices is that

we would have social workers doing the work of financial assistance officers. I

think all hon. members would agree that that certainly was not a maximum

utilization of the personnel that we had.

That was the step that we took this year. It was

reacting to a crisis that came upon us because of the growth in the caseloads,

so that's where we determined where the greatest need was in this particular

fiscal year. As restructuring advances, I am sure that we're going to get into

the area the hon. member refers to with respect to social workers for child

welfare, and it's certainly an aim of the department to do this.

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

Verge?

MS. VERGE: Five years ago the Liberals, on

taking office, promised a new daycare act. Considerable work had been done on

drafting a new daycare act before that. The Premier specifically made that

promise when he campaigned for election in 1989.

Also on taking office the government, specifically

the first Liberal minister, John Efford, promised that he was working on getting

a new child welfare act before the House of Assembly in the fall of 1989. Five

years later neither one has seen the light of day.

When I asked Minister Eric Gullage two years ago,

he said that he had a Cabinet paper in the system on the new child welfare act,

and that he was expecting the bill to come before the House of Assembly that

fall - that was 1992 - and that somebody in the system was working on a Cabinet

paper for the new daycare act. What happened, and how much longer are we going

to have to wait for (

a) the new child welfare act, and (

b) the new daycare

legislation?

MR. LUSH: Both are being worked upon and, as

the hon. member would appreciate -

MS. VERGE: Are you paying people by the hour to

work on these new bills?

MR. LUSH: I think they're under a monthly

salary, like the member and like myself, but it is being worked upon. I hesitate

to get into times, but I would certainly hope that -

MS. VERGE: The next five years? Not the first

five years, but maybe the second five years.

MR. LUSH: I would hope to be able to see it

during my time as minister.

MS. VERGE: Do you have any hope at all that it

might come to the House of Assembly in 1994, either one of them?

MR. LUSH: Yes, that's my hope, but I don't know

what obstacles we will run into. I think we are very close, but it's just one of

those things. I am hoping, certainly, that -

MS. VERGE: Has the Legislative Council drafted

a new child welfare act?

MR. LUSH: I'm just trying to think now which

one is likely to come first.

AN HON. MEMBER: Daycare.

MR. LUSH: Daycare, that's the most likely one.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Has Legislative Council

drafted a new daycare act?

MR. LUSH: I think it's been drafted and

redrafted.

MS. VERGE: Has Cabinet approved the redraft for

submission to the House?

MR. LUSH: No.

MS. VERGE: Is it in the Cabinet system now?

MR. LUSH: I believe it was in the Cabinet

system and then referred back again. Since it was referred back again it hasn't

come the second time.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Has Legislative Council

drafted a new child welfare act?

MR. LUSH: I can't say whether they've gone that

far, no.

MS. VERGE: So there's no hope that will come to

the House.

MR. LUSH: No, I wouldn't say there's -

MS. VERGE: There are some glaring problems with

the child welfare act that some of us have been asking about year after year

after year. One of them is the gap in the provision of services for young people

between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. Why can't we just cooperate and plug

that gap? I ask about that every year, so... I am just asking the same questions

that I ask every year, because nothing seems to get - nothing improves;

everything just festers.

MR. LUSH: I'm glad the hon. member does it,

because I would like to see it, too. Every time there's a problem -

MS. VERGE: Well, you can do it and we in the

Opposition... It's a simple little amendment; we could write it up here tonight

and come in tomorrow and whip it through.

MR. LUSH: The hon. member knows it's a little

more than that. It's actively being pursued, that we bump up the age to

eighteen, but as the hon. member knows, there are budgetary considerations there

too, so that is a consideration. But it is being actively pursued and I would

hope that by the next time, if I have the opportunity to come before the

Estimates Committee, I will be able to say something more definitively than what

I'm saying now.

MS. VERGE: The social assistance caseload is

what, now about 36,000?

MR. LUSH: No. My latest figures were

thirty-four - we've got them here.... It is not 36,000, I don't think. Here we

are. As of the end of March, which is fairly accurate, it was 35,416, or -

MS. VERGE: That is an increase by the way of

over 15,000 since the change of government five years ago. Five years ago it was

19,700.

MR. LUSH: Yes, right.

MS. VERGE: I see that this year you are

budgeting only slightly more spending on social assistance than you ended up

spending last year. The department has consistently under-budgeted social

assistance requirements. I would suggest that history will repeat itself and

that you've under-budgeted again this year. I've heard the minister say that the

UI changes were factored into this projection. How can that be if you are

budgeting spending only a tiny amount more than last year? Only a 1.5 percentage

increase from last year. You wouldn't have known about TAGS when the Budget was

done up so those negative changes couldn't possibly have been figured into this.

Would you be willing to estimate now how much more you will have to get by way

of special warrants? Another $20 million or $40 million maybe?

MR. LUSH: Nobody is saying that. We are a bit

optimistic that things will change but nobody - when these estimates are done -

the hon. member is as aware as anybody how that is done. Take into consideration

the global picture and the economic trends at the time and the caseload at the

time, and make a projection. The department was aware, the government was aware,

of UI changes, although we weren't totally aware of the specifics. We were aware

of what was happening in UI. I think the department estimated $7 million for

changes - or a negative impact of UI.

With respect to TAGS the hon. member is correct.

That wasn't known at the time. All that was factored in was what was known of

the fisheries at the time, the downturn in the economy. But it is very difficult

speculating about all of this because one doesn't know what is going to happen.

We could be naysayers and prophets of gloom and doom and to suggest that all of

the people who are displaced from the fisheries are going to be on UI. That is a

bit unrealistic too, to think that all of the people on UI are going to be

there. What is the department to do?

We could take the very worst scenarios and put in

this figure which would be unrealistic, or we take a reasonable estimate in

terms of what we've done. At this point in time we see no necessity to revise

the figures upwards. Again social assistance is a statutory requirement, so we

have to provide social assistance when people establish the need. As of this

point in time, we don't see any need to revise the figures upwards.

With respect to the fisheries package, TAGS, the

major impact from that is going to come near the end of the year. That is quite

some time yet. A number of things can happen in that time.

Number one, we can begin to see some of the effects

of the government's own Strategic Economic Plan, and hopefully the federal plan,

so we're hoping there are going to be some things happening in the economy in

the next eight or ten months that are going to relieve the burden somewhat that

all of these people aren't going to come to social services either with UI or

with the fisheries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge. I will now

recognize Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, first of all in your budget item

4.1.01, page 307, just a general comment with regard to daycare services. I

notice that you are projecting there a slight increase. I did have some

experience in my previous profession in working closely with the department in

trying to provide services, although ours were related more to a school setting,

in providing preschool programs, and I just wanted to take advantage of this

opportunity to point out that I really feel that the support assistance that

your department can provide in that area is certainly very beneficial, because

from our experience in Port au Port I would venture to say in all modesty that

the program we have operating there now, which is in it's fifth year, by the

way, could never have operated without the active support of the Department of

Social Services.

So I would like to commend the department, and

especially recognize the efforts of the people in the field, the local manager,

and some of the officials here. Certainly Mr. Browne would be quite familiar

with some of our earlier discussions and some of the difficulties that the

department felt in being able to get involved in this program, but with the

efforts of the people who are working at the local level we are able to bring

this about. So I just wanted to mention it for the record and to commend the

department and encourage that continued support, because I think that kind of

effort - and this is an example of cooperation between two departments, because

I think initially when we started looking at that it was from the point of view

that the response that we were getting was that this was really the

responsibility - should be - of the Department of Education. Of course, the

Department of Education refuses to recognize responsibility for it, so without

your department it could never have happened.

I just wanted to mention it, and certainly want to

encourage you, Mr. Minister, to see that this kind of support is continued, not

only in the Port au Port area, but I do know there are other areas in the

Province as well where this is happening.

MR. LUSH: If I just might comment, there are a

lot of things going on with respect to daycare and early childhood education. I

just this week opened a conference here - Friday, the weekend - the early

childhood educators, and it was a fantastic conference that they had, some 200

people in early childhood right throughout the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It's rather heart-warming, really, to know the kind of activity that's

going on around the Province. I tell you, as a person and as an individual, I

only wish that we could make a greater effort, but it's a new area and we're

developing it, and I think that within a few years we're going to have a level

of daycare that's on a par with anything else in the country. We realize that we

have some miles to travel, but we're moving.

MR. SMITH: Item 4.2.04, The Right Future, can

you give me some idea what that particular program is? I think I've heard it

referenced before.

MR. LUSH: The Right Future is the program

whereby in cooperation with the funding from the federal government we are

moving people from the Waterford out into a community, family environment. I

think there's some 100 people involved and a little over that. We've got

twenty-five moved now and hopefully by the end of the year I think we'll

probably have over sixty. So it's a five year program and it's totally funded by

the federal government, $10 million. What we see there now in the figures is

what would be spent by the end of this year. So the program is an excellent

program of moving people out of the Waterford, people who went there with

physical disabilities or mentally challenged. Under normal circumstances today

they wouldn't have been put there but for whatever circumstances they got put

there, placed there and with our humanitarian people today, somebody - I don't

know who it was, I guess somebody in the department - somebody saw the necessity

of doing this. This is what the program is and it's moving along very

satisfactorily with some excellent reports at this point in time of the way

residents are feeling about the moves and the quality of life. Already people

can see great changes in these people.

MR. SMITH: So these people who are being moved

out from these institutions, are they being moved back into an institutional

type environment within the community or is it back to the homes?

MR. LUSH: Back to the homes and not necessarily

to their families but in some cases they are. In some cases they're families,

some cases they're relatives and some cases it's just alternate families and

people who wanted to do this. So no institutionalization at all. It's every case

into a home, into a family or alternate families.

MR. SMITH: Thank you. 5.1.01 on Page 311,

community development projects. In this area, Mr. Minister, this again as well

in my own district is something that is certainly of interest. We have availed

of this over the years and I'm certainly pleased to see the allocation is there

for it. I'm just wondering, in terms of last years effort in this area, how many

projects would we have been talking about across the Province and how many

people in total would have been employed?

MR. LUSH: I should say to the hon. member, this

whole area of employment opportunities is an area in which we're making a major

change in emphasis this year, again in line with the governments Strategic

Economic Plan, that tied in with our economic social plan. The emphasis is on

training and creating a situation that will make people permanent members of the

labour force, in as much as that can be done, moving from dependence to

independence. That's the major thrust even though all other programs that we had

are still there but the major thrust is towards creating self-sufficiency. Now

last year, in the community development program specifically, we employed 3,768

people. So there were jobs for 3,768, no training, it was all jobs. This year

with the change the prediction is that there will be 4,042 jobs this year along

with 783 involved in training in community development.

MR. SMITH: How many projects would that

involve? Do you have those figures? You mentioned 3,768 people involved.

MR. LUSH: No, I do not have the number of

projects. I expect we should be able to get those but we do not have them now.

I will try and provide them for the hon. member.

MR. SMITH: I have another question with regard

to that. How are those funds allocated? Is that done on a regional basis? I

would assume there is some attempt made to try and distribute the funds

equitably across the Province?

MR. LUSH: There are regional budgets but as the

hon. member would know there are some areas would spent more of it than others

because of their need for it, so every region is given a budget but at the end

of the year when this region has money left over we will reallocate it to

another area, so it does not end up being an even distribution.

MR. SMITH: Are there controls placed on the

flow of these funds so they are not all expended within the first quarter? Is

there any attention given to that?

MR. LUSH: There were. That was not my

experience last year. As a matter of fact I said to my people that some reminded

me of a young boy, who, when his mother gave him his weekly allowance he spent

it all on Monday. My experience last year when I became minister was that almost

all the money was gone then. The reason for it, of course, was that there was a

backlog of applications. People have them waiting there now so as soon as the

money is let loose I suppose the projects are assigned.

Personally I do not know how we can do this. Number

one, it is not a lot of money to that extent but I would like to see it the way

that the member is suggesting, an even gradual distribution throughout the year,

but that is not the situation right now.

MR. SMITH: Do not get me wrong I am not

suggesting that you do it that way. I was just curious as to whether or not that

was happening in reality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Sir. You

want to be down again, do you? Okay. Before I recognize Mr Harris I want to

point out that Mr. Fitzgerald has now joined the committee. He is replacing Mr.

Hodder, and for the benefit of my colleagues on the committee his credentials

are in order and he can now speak as a regular member. He is a bona fide member

at this point, so I now recognize Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I want to go back and talk about

the issue of the protection of children and looking after children who are in

care. The minister has indicated that the department has chosen to place the

priority on the increase in financial assistance officers and clerical support,

but what I see fairly starkly in the report of the Child Welfare League of

America is the discrepancy between the caseloads that this report says are

compromising the department's ability to protect children. It says that the

Department of Social Service's caseloads are sometimes double, triple, or more

in some instances.

The Child Welfare League of America has recommended

minimum standards within the field of child welfare. It says in the report of

December 18, 1992 that it is not possible to determine the actual individual

work or caseload ratios in Newfoundland because of generic caseloads in child

welfare and the use of child welfare workers in conducting other business such

as processing social assistance claims. It says the department's own rough

analysis suggest 103 additional child welfare staff are necessary

department-wide.

First of all, I want to ask you whether or not that

is accurate, that the department's own analysis suggested at that time that 103

additional Child Welfare staff were necessary. If that is not accurate please

tell me. If it is not accurate please can you provide me with the report that

tells us what it actually is.

Because it strikes me that if the level of

operating - and I won't use the word efficiency, because we are not talking

about efficiency when it comes to children - but in terms of the operating

caseload, if it is that far off the kind of minimum standards that are needed to

protect children, then I've got a real concern. If this report says that the

department's own analysis suggests 103 Child Welfare staff are necessary then I

have a real question as to why the government, and the minister and his

department, is placing the emphasis where it is.

MR. LUSH: Well, when you see social assistance

caseload of 35,000 I think that pretty clearly tells you what the immediate

crisis is. We are not certain that the caseloads identified by the Child Welfare

League of America reflect the true situation because of the way in which the

caseloads are kept. In many cases a person can be off the caseload and it is not

eliminated, it is still there. Sometimes when a person comes in, for example,

like social assistance, and they've established their claim, there is no great

effort to that after that is done. The person is there and as long as they are

on the caseload it is not causing any great degree of frustration because it

just keeps on going.

MR. HARRIS: I'm talking, Mr. Minister, about

children in need of protection, not people who are receiving a cheque.

MR. LUSH: I'm pointing out to the -

MR. HARRIS: I guess the specific question was:

Is he correct, is this report correct in saying that the department's own

analysis showed a need for 103 additional workers in the Child Welfare area? If

that is correct I question why the minister's department is not addressing that.

If that is not correct could the minister provide the actual number that the

department's analysis feels is deficient in Child Welfare staff?

MR. LUSH: I'm not sure that the department has

its own analysis of precisely how many people we would need. We have added

seventy-five social workers to the system in the last two or three years. I say

to the hon. member again, because of the circumstances of this particular year

the department's priority was in the area of FAOs and clerical staff. Which I

suggest to the hon. member will be of great assistance in helping those social

workers in working on their cases. In many instances - and I think if the hon.

member reads the report as he is doing he will see references to the fact that

record keeping wasn't great. A part of that record keeping obviously reflects

upon the inadequacy of clerical staff. The clerical staff who we've added is

certainly going to help social workers. The FAOs who we've added to the staff

are going to free social workers to work in the area of Child Welfare.

So even though we did not have people specifically

assigned to Child Welfare the people we've added, particularly the clerical

staff, but I again say that the FAOs are going to help, because it is going to

free social workers to work primarily in the area for which they've been

trained, rather than working in the area of social assistance. It is not what we

wanted. I would be the first to admit that we could use several more social

workers right throughout the Province, but it is a matter of priorities, it is a

matter of what we can afford at this particular time.

MR. HARRIS: The seventy-five social workers who

you are talking about, the only ones I'm aware of are the ones who were put in

place several years ago when Mr. Efford was the Minister of Social Services,

several ministers ago. I believe it would have been in 1989 or 1990 that that

was done. This report was done in December of 1992 and at that time it suggested

that the department's own analysis said there was a need for 103 additional

staff in Child Welfare. The Director of Child Welfare in March of 1993 before he

resigned the position produced a plan which suggested that there be certain

administrative actions taken to look after risk assessment for children who are

in need of protection, amendments to the child welfare act to provide for the

provision of services to families to prevent the child from coming into care,

and to support the notion of the presentation of a case plan to the court to

ensure that children who do come into care have a plan either for return to that

home or for permanent care.

One of the weaknesses identified - part of it I

suppose was the lack of reporting - but in part of it, some of these reports

that we are talking about that were lacking - in other words in about 60 per

cent, 58 per cent of the cases, there was no case plan. No plan for what was

going to happen to a child who was in need of protection, already defined - and

these are the 4,500 we are talking about. Either children who were neglected or

who were sexually abused or emotionally abused. We are talking about serious

cases of children in need of protection. A plan was proposed by the former

Director of Child Welfare to provide for, over a three year period, fifty-two

additional social workers to deal with it.

Either there is 103 necessary or there is fifty-two

necessary. I want to know whether the minister has seriously examined the need

for additional social workers to conduct the services that are required to

protect children in this Province who are, for one reason or another, in need of

protection. It breaks down that about one-third are neglected children, about

one-third are sexually abused children and the other third are either

emotionally abused or for other reasons are in need of protection. Someone has

to look after the needs of these children, I say to the minister. I recognize

you have other problems in terms of handling the bureaucracy and in dealing with

welfare claims or social assistance claims. These needs have been identified as

serious needs which are going to affect these children now and in the future,

and potentially for their whole lives if something is not done at this early

stage to provide for their needs.

I want to ask the minister again. If the minister

says that this figure of 103 is not necessarily accurate because there are some

Child Welfare workers doing FAO work that is now being taken over, what is the

new number? If it is down from 103 what is it now? What does the minister's

analysis say about that?

MR. LUSH: We never ever said it was 103. We

didn't say it was anything.

MR. HARRIS: Is this report inaccurate then?

MR. LUSH: I'm not saying the report is

inaccurate, but what you have there is a report that is suggesting ideal

situations. We've never been able to get to ideal situations in this Province in

terms of ratios, be it in health, be it in education. That is not to say that we

couldn't do with more social workers. What I've said to the hon. members, in

these times of economic malaise that the government has been taking steps

towards the maximum use of the personnel that we have in this Province. I want

to just say that the people in Social Services, the workers in the field, have

been providing yeoman service and we are aware of that.

But we have done things. The hon. member mentions

risk assessments and case planning. I can tell the hon. member, all that is

happening right now as a result of that report. We've taken the initiative and

risk assessment is in place, planning is in place. There is a tremendous amount

of training going on throughout the Province. Hardly a time you can visit any

Social Service office in this Province as I've done but three or four of the

staff are out somewhere on a training session. There is a great coordinated

effort right throughout the Province. I think we've done those things because we

realize that achievement of the numbers that has been recommended is probably a

little out of reach at this particular time. We believe if we can maximize the

effort of the people that we have that we can go a long ways towards dealing

with this problem, offering children the best protection possible.

One other thing I wanted to say that we've done is

the consolidation of our offices, where we've closed out small offices with

probably just an FAO there or an FAO and a social assistant and brought that

under a bigger umbrella where we can offer a more effective and a more efficient

service. These are some of the steps that we have taken. Yes, we realize that

there have been some weaknesses in this area, but we believe we've taken some

real large strides towards improving the situation. I would suggest that if the

Child Welfare League of America were to do a study today that they would find

many of the things that they addressed are corrected as of this moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris?

MR. HARRIS: Is the minister prepared to invite

them back for a review of progress to date?

MR. LUSH: I'm prepared to invite them back,

yes, any time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. This is the fifth

anniversary of the change of government. I've got here the estimates for

1989-1990 and Hansard for the Estimates Committee's examination of that first

'real change` Budget. What I see is that when the Liberal government took over

the social assistance caseload was 19,600, which the first minister called

shameful and promised that it wouldn't be that much next year. Government's

total spending on social assistance then in 1988-1989, the last PC year, was

$104 million. Total government spending on employment opportunities in that last

PC year was $18.7 million. For the last PC year the caseload was $19,600, by the

way, of whom the minister, Mr. Efford, said: 4,100 are able-bodied people. Total

spending on social assistance was $104 million; total Social Services spending

on employment opportunities was $18.7 million. In that last PC year 18 per cent

of what was spent on social assistance went for employment opportunities, and at

that time 4,100 people on the social assistance caseload were considered by the

minister to be able-bodied.

Now the caseload, according to the current

minister, is 35,000. That is more than 15,000 more. The minister is

acknowledging that that caseload is going to swell this year because of the UI

changes and because of TAGS. The government is estimating spending of $204

million this year on social assistance. That is $100 million or almost double

what was actually spent in the last PC year. The government is estimating

spending $14.9 million on employment opportunities.

The employment opportunities effort estimated for

the year ahead is $4 million less than what was actually spent in 1988-1989 and

in percentage terms of the outlay on welfare it's less than half. Presumably,

most of the people who've joined the welfare roles in the last five years are

able-bodied and they've had to resort to social assistance because of the

collapse of the economy. How can we possibly justify cutting, so terribly, the

effort for employment opportunities? I mean wouldn't it be better to spend money

for able-bodied people to do useful needy projects rather than simply send them

welfare cheques and give them no opportunity to work, contribute, serve their

communities or train. How does that make any sense?

MR. LUSH: Let me see all the comparisons that

the member made there. We could take any comparisons in that period of time with

respect to the economy and it would be proof positive of deterioration in the

whole of the Canadian economy. The hon. member would do well to look at the

unemployment statistics at that particular time and compare them to what they

are now. I think the analogy the hon. member was making in the meantime with the

effort put into job creating -

MS. VERGE: To employment opportunities by

social services.

MR. LUSH: - to employment opportunities by

social services to what it is now. I think the hon. member has made some

allusion to the able-bodied figures. Now the able-bodied figures at that time -

was it four?

MS. VERGE: 4100 out of a caseload of 19,600.

MR. LUSH: Out of 20,000 - okay 20,000 which is

a fifth.

MS. VERGE: About 20 per cent, yes.

MR. LUSH: Now it's a third, roughly, that's

what the able-bodied figures would be if you take a third of thirty-five and -

that's not right, probably closer to 28 per cent but we're talking about I

believe about 11,000 would be the able-bodied. Now in terms of what's happened

to the economy, the total collapse of the fishery and as I said, the tremendous

economic malaise we're in I don't think that's an unreasonable percentage - we

wish we didn't have them at all but in terms of the growth that a third - not

quite, about 30 per cent more likely, between thirty and thirty-three per cent

of the able-bodied -

MS. VERGE: But why are you spending so much

less for employment opportunities when you've got 11,000 able-bodied people on

social assistance then was spent in 1988-89 when we had only 4100 able-bodied

people on social assistance?

MR. LUSH: Because the thrust of this government

- the philosophical approach of this government is different. This government

doesn't believe that it should be the sole creator of jobs, that this should be

left to private enterprise and anything that we're into -

MS. VERGE: But the reality of what you're doing

is that you're sending welfare cheques to way more able-bodied people without

assisting them to work in service sectors. I mean there are lots of social

service operations who desperately need more people and many people who are

healthy on social assistance would dearly love to work there but they don't have

a chance because the community development funding doesn't stretch far enough.

MR. LUSH: Again it's a matter of a

philosophical approach. This government doesn't believe that it should be the

one creating jobs, that that's the job of private enterprise.

MS. VERGE: Well I know you're not creating jobs

and I know that the economy has gone down the tubes but why can't you just

switch money from social assistance to community development? You've got all

these healthy, able-bodied people drawing social assistance. Most of them would

be happier -

MR. LUSH: So the hon. member must like our ISP

plan. That's what all of that was about. The philosophy of this government is to

provide incentives, but -

MS. VERGE: That's not going to be implemented.

Why don't you do what you can with the power that you've got in the meantime?

MR. LUSH: Because I think that we probably

thought that in conjunction with the federal government we might be a little bit

more advanced into the federal government's social plan, so we were working in

conjunction with them in many of the things we wanted to do. We had to get their

cooperation, so rather than -

MS. VERGE: Now that you know that's not going

to fly in the short term, why don't you transfer $20 million from your social

assistance vote and put it in your employment opportunities vote, and work in

conjunction with a whole host of social agencies -

MR. LUSH: To do what? You just can't pull out

$20 million. There's got to be a plan, and we have a plan here. It might not be

as much as we would like to see, but at least it's a plan that we now have.

MS. VERGE: But the plan obviously involves

paying most of the healthy, able-bodied people on social assistance money

without giving them any opportunity to serve or work where they can and where

they're needed.

There have been cuts in schools in teacher aides or

student assistants, and for many years they were funded by social services. Why

can't social services do that again in conjunction with the Department of

Education to augment the staff they have?

MR. LUSH: Because we have a plan and we are

waiting for that plan to become a reality. We didn't have two plans. We had a

major plan, and a good one, I should think, with respect to income security. The

hon. member would like to see us with a backup plan, and we didn't have a backup

plan other than our regular.

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

Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for being late, and if I ask a question

and the answer has already been given maybe you can let me know that and I'll

just move on.

The first question I would like to ask, Mr.

Minister, is a question on the VRDP program, Vocational Rehabilitation of

Disabled Persons. From what I understand, the agreement is a federal\provincial

cost-shared program designed to assist disabled persons become employable.

I have a case which has been brought before me just

recently, and I think you are familiar with the case, the situation where a

registered nurse who had gone and paid for her training and got her Bachelor of

Nursing was working as a registered nurse and was injured in a car accident, and

visited your office some time ago looking for funding to complete her Master of

Nursing. I understand that she's had a very limited time in order to complete

that, and that some of the courses are only offered every four to eight years.

She has indicated to me, and I think she has

brought the case forward to you, that she's not looking for a hand-out as such.

She's looking for the loan of money, to borrow money through the VRDP program.

She's injured now, unable to go back and practice her profession, but with her

Masters Degree can make herself employable and go back and get a job as a

lecturer or a teacher of nursing.

I am wondering why the Department of Social

Services hasn't responded to that request.

MR. LUSH: I believe we've responded. I remember

MR. FITZGERALD: Positively - responded

positively to that request?

MR. LUSH: Oh, the hon. member didn't put a

qualifier in there.

It's a sad situation. Governments and government

policy, unfortunately, doesn't always meet every need there is. They're usually

blanket policies, and as much as we wanted to help this young lady, I'm afraid

that we couldn't do it.

The VRDP, the community itself decided on the way

that money was going to be spent, and decided on who would qualify. It wasn't

the department that drew up those regulations. The community itself made these

regulations, so they're quite happy with what they have.

The hon. member mentioned she wanted a loan. Well,

unfortunately, we are not in the business of lending money. Whether we should be

is a different matter, but I can tell the hon. member that there was nobody in

the department who spoke to that lady who wasn't moved by the situation, and we

did everything we could to see if we could assist her, but I'm afraid it was

just one of those situations where the person fell through the cracks, and

unfortunately we were not able to assist her, but I can tell the hon. member

that her case was researched thoroughly and done with empathy, with sympathy,

and with concern. We all felt rather badly that there was nothing we could do

about it. Coming at the end of the year, too, it sort of pushed us all, but in

the meantime I am not sure had we six or seven months to work on it could we

have done any better than what we did. It was one of those situations where

there will always be some people who fall through the cracks, and I can tell the

hon. member she is not the only one. I can think now of two others who came to

me before she did, so you might think there is only one and say there is

something you can do, but when it ends up it will be a very unusual situation if

there is only one. There is usually a goodly number of them, but that does not

address her situation.

I just want to tell the hon. member that I am quite

familiar with it. We have dealt with it and unfortunately that was the

situation. She did not qualify under the program rules. Sometimes you wish there

was some flexibility. I am sure there is, but sometimes you cannot go beyond a

certain point without changing the regulations entirely.

MR. FITZGERALD: It appeared to me that she

might be a prime candidate for this program. You mentioned that you were not in

the business of loaning money, but I think her approach in the beginning was a

situation where she came to look for funding and the final approach for help

was, look, if you can allow we funding then I would be more than willing to

repay it after I get back to work or once the insurance settlement is made. Are

you saying the department has made a final decision and there will be no help

coming forward for this lady, Mr. Minister?

MR. LUSH: I say to the hon. member, yes, but

another point I had forgotten in this, another important issue, quite apart from

qualifying in her own right, but one of the requirements in the program, the

stringent requirements, is that people not be funded for a second degree and I

think that is for a very good reason. People get a degree and that puts them in

a position, it gives them an advantage and sets them on a par with everybody

else, so to sponsor them for another degree would be discriminatory to the other

section of the population. So, again it was the community itself, the disabled

community itself that decided they should only be sponsored for one degree so

this lady already had a degree.

MR. SMITH: But I do not think it was a

situation where your department sponsored her for that degree.

MR. LUSH: Oh, no, it wasn't.

MR. SMITH: So you are not sponsoring her for

another degree. What you are doing is looking at making her more employable by

helping her with the second degree. You made it sound as if you had sponsored

her for the first degree.

MR. LUSH: I did not mean to.

MR. SMITH: Getting back to an issue that the

vice-chairman raised on able-bodied people on social assistance. Mr. Minister

has there been any indications that the Department of Social Services may look

at mobility funding to help some of those people move to other places to access

employment? I know a lot of cases, and I am sure other members do as well, where

we have able-bodied people on social services right now who can identify a place

where they could probably go to work but because of funding they are unable to

travel to attend work and find themselves stuck on the social services roles

much longer than they would probably like to be there.

MR. LUSH: It is something that the department

is actively pursuing. Like him I know of all kinds of situations where people

could very well do with that kind of assistance but it is not actively in

pursuit at this moment.

MR. SMITH: It is not part of the policy of the

Department of Social Services?

MR. LUSH: No.

MR. SMITH: The Newfoundland and Labrador

Correctional Centre at Whitbourne. Is it an ordinary situation where we sentence

youth and intermingle them with people on remand. Is that an ordinary situation?

MR. LUSH: I don't know what the hon. member -

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, maybe I should clarify

it. Is it an ordinary situation where we - sometimes when the remand centre, and

I understand the remand centre in Pleasantville is capable of handling ten

individuals, if I recall correctly, is it an ordinary situation where sometimes

sentenced youth are taken from the Newfoundland Labrador Youth Centre in

Whitbourne and transferred to the remand centre in Pleasantville when there's no

need to bring extra people into the Whitbourne Youth Centre. I am wondering the

reasons why they are being transferred.

MR. LUSH: I'll let the deputy address that.

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, we have ten beds here in St.

John's and occasionally there is a need to transfer a youth from Whitbourne here

to St. John's. That usually occurs when the youth is accessing services here in

the St. John's area, so rather than transport the individuals back and forth to

Whitbourne on a daily basis, or something like that, maybe medical services,

psychiatric services, or some other services, they are often placed in the

remand centre here in St. John's for a short period of time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Mr.

Fitzgerald, so I think it's possibly a good time to have a break. There is

coffee in the government members common room. The officials are welcome to take

part and socialize over a coffee with members of the committee. We won't have

any burning questions for you during the coffee break, so with that we will

adjourn until 8:45 a.m.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I will now

call this meeting back to order, and I will recognize Ms. Young.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The question is for the minister regarding client

services. There is some concern, I guess, about regionalizing the social

services offices. How many centres will be considered?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: You say that under client services,

2.1.01, page 303, there is a network of fifty-three offices situated throughout

the Province. Are you planning on reducing that number, and to what level?

MR. LUSH: There are scattered throughout the

Province probably three or four or five smaller offices that in today's society

are not able to carry out the full range of services offered by the department.

I indicated a little earlier this evening that some of them may just have an FAO

and one social worker, and a clerical person, and that is not designed to carry

out the job effectively the way it should be today in terms of giving the full

range of services, so where that is the case the department, in its

restructuring, has decided for the maximum use of the staff, and for a more

effective delivery of the service, to bring the smaller units together with a

bigger unit. Consolidation, I suppose, is the broad umbrella term that we can

use.

Right now we are doing that in three communities, as

of this particular point in time. I think there's only three. There are some

that would have to stay, for example, because of geography - the Coast of

Labrador, in particular, wouldn't make any sense - but where we can consolidate,

that's the plan.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you. My next question is

regarding transition houses - that's 4.1.02, Page 307 - there's counselling

referral services to battered women and their children, is there any

consideration being given to counselling for the offenders?

MR. LUSH: I'm not sure whether there is a

deliberate plan by the department for offenders. I know that we've considerate

it in other areas but I don't think there's a deliberate plan for the offenders

at the moment.

MS. YOUNG: I was involved, at a national level, in

developing a video with a study guide that deals with family violence. One of

the things that we were looking at there was using the whole community and the

study guide and video was not meant to resolve the problems. It was meant more

to involve all of the people out there as an awareness and to bring together all

the services that are available, all the expertise that's out there. It's

something that your department might be interested in obtaining a copy. It was

produced by Birdsong Communications out of Saskatchewan and was produced with

funding from Health and Welfare Canada with the cooperation of the Canadian Farm

Womens' Network. It was an excellent piece of work and we've had rave reviews on

it from the people who have used it.

The employment support services; you talk about

developmentally delayed adults and they go through job training and job

placement, how successful have the trainees been in obtaining employment?

MR. LUSH: I think it's been fairly successful,

probably more successful within the groups themselves. There are agencies that

work in this area, I'm thinking for example of an agency like The HUB, which

would give a priority to hiring somebody that's disabled but I think that as the

business community becomes more inclined to take these people - these programs

are certainly being proven to be successful but I don't know that we've actually

done a study kind of thing to analyze how successful it is. In terms of the

programs themselves, just visiting the people and talking to the people

involved, it's a great program for them in terms of gaining dignity and self

esteem. Without any clear statistics off-hand, I can tell the member that it is

successful.

MS. YOUNG: I was sort of interested in the

vice-chairs comments regarding some of her ideas on how the social services

program should operate and I'm surprised that none of these programs were

implemented in her government's reign. I understand too that some of the

programs that are coming out through your department may not be just painting

the fence sort of thing, there would probably be more meaningful employment and

I'm very pleased to hear that. Will you be involving the business community and

organizations, both or -

MR. LUSH: Basically the structure in the past is

remaining the same. Now we're not dismantling everything, the change is more in

emphasis, the kind of work that's done. So the main components of the program

are still in effect. If I could just give a list to the hon. member for example

of the different types of things we're into here. We're into the community

development projects; under this program, the Community Development Projects,

there will be three sub-programs. One is linkage and that will be administered

by the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, because they've been very

effective in working in this program. Working with youth at risk, troubled

youth, from ages fifteen to twenty-five, or somewhere in that area.

The second group will be private sector programs.

Under that there are three programs. Subsidized employment initiative - a lot of

members will be familiar with that one, that is the thirty-two week thing, I

think it is thirty-two, twelve, ten, ten. On the job work experience, training

on the job. Then the third one under the Community Development is called

community development, and under it will be economic development initiatives,

community support services, volunteer profit organizations, short-term funds.

These are the areas that will be done under Community Development.

Under the Community Services, under that particular

program, which is the one on the next page, page 312, these are the kinds of

programs. They are divided into three sub-programs. The first one is a

refurbishment program: basic repairs to group homes. The second one is home

support services: training work placements in the field of home support. The

third one is support staff. That is community organizations.

Basically all of the components of the program are

still in effect but the thing that will change is the emphasis on the type of

work and training. Two things, training and the type of work. The work would

have to fit in with the Strategic Economic Plan. Work that is going to

contribute to the economy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The

member's time has expired.

MS. YOUNG: I thank the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister

has already referenced a couple of things I wanted to touch on.

Item 5.1.02. I notice under this item that there is a

reduction in Salaries and an increase in Professional Services. Maybe if you

could just speak to that.

MR. LUSH: Again, this reflects the training and

the change in the direct emphasis on training. This program was always training,

in the meantime, the Employment Enhancement Initiatives. I think what is

happening here, and I will stumble through it, and then if I haven't done it

accurately I will ask one of my officials to address it.

I think this is where in the area of training that we

are hiring professional people to do the training. People coming to a classroom.

We've got groups out there, companies, that are into training. Rather than

classify it as a salary it is that amount of money. For example, you would have

some in Clarenville, people involved in training, teaching, upgrading, this kind

of thing, so they are companies. We would be paying for their services. You can

see that it is a big discrepancy really between the salary there and the $2

million.

I don't know, Mr. Peckford, whether I've done that

adequately. If not, if you would like to add a word....

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, Mr. Minister, that is

essentially correct. There is a shift in emphasis from just straight employment

there to an employment which has a much larger training component to it. Clients

for this particular program are selected with greater consideration given to

their potential and their motivation and things like that. They are provided

with a fairly complete assessment initially to ascertain just what their levels

of skills and education are right now, and then routed into upgrading, ADE, that

type of thing, and then on into other training programs.

There is a continuing shift in emphasis on training

versus just straight employment. Some of the individuals would become involved

in, as you can see by the amount - $965,000 in Salaries. That would be largely

training allowances, but it would also include payment of wages while an

individual would be working with an employer to get work experience and that

sort of thing. You are very correct. As you can see, over the last year or two

there has been a shift from straight employment-related to more

training-related, with the hope that the investment in training will lead to a

more secure, long-term placement rather than a short-term one.

MR. SMITH: Thank you. Mr. Minister, just three

questions about the general operations of your department, and if you could just

respond.

First of all, the social service investigators. There

was quite a debate about this when these positions were created and this program

was introduced. I wonder if you could make a comment or two as to how this

program is working out in terms of the success of the program to this point in

time. Maybe a number of charges that have been laid, or any information that you

might have with regards to this particular program. In your estimation, is the

program working?

MR. LUSH: Yes. I can tell the hon. member that the

program is working and living up to all of the expectations which we had of it.

The latest statistic that I saw which was for the end of February, and the

actual savings to that point in time was - the Deputy Minister whispered a

figure in my ear -the figure at that point in time at the end of February was

$1.7 million, I believe.

That was to the end of February.

MR. PECKFORD: The end of March.

MR. LUSH: End of March, okay. The Deputy Minister

tells me that to the end of March the figure is $2.1 million that we have saved.

It is broken down into another category it also includes overpayments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes. Overpayments is $800,000, so the

total up to the end of March, year-end, is $2.1 million. We should say that that

is not the full year, because these people didn't start working until October.

That is when they were put out in the field. Probably it was more like November

before they -

MR. SMITH: How many positions are we talking here?

MR. LUSH: Thirteen.

MR. SMITH: Thirteen positions.

MR. LUSH: Thirteen positions.

MR. SMITH: Thank you. Mr. Minister, this is a

question as well with regards to - one of the major concerns in my District as

you would be aware is housing and your urgent repair program that is being

administered by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. It is my

understanding that in the not-too-distant past the housing was handled directly

by the Department of Social Services. I know from talking to some of the people

in your department, depending on who you talk to, that the reviews are mixed as

to how presently the program and the relationship with NLHC is working out. I'm

just wondering from your perspective and that of your officials: Are you

satisfied with the way this program is presently being delivered or are you

receiving a large number of complaints with regards to the administration of

this program?

MR. LUSH: The hon. member asked a question I'm

sure that many of us have to deal with from time to time. I can't say that the

department has encountered any real problems with the program since we - under

the new arrangement, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. At least, nothing really

comes to mind. I don't know again whether my officials would like to make a

comment on it, whether they have anything new to add to the situation.

MR. PECKFORD: Previously before becoming involved

with the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in the administration of this program

the department experienced a lot of difficulty in administering this particular

area.

As you can appreciate, the offices of the department

do not necessarily contain people who have a good or any expertise in the

provision of repairs, the provision of estimates, supervision of the work and so

forth. So we were very unprepared to be able to undertake what is largely the

estimation and monitoring of construction projects such as that. So our staff in

the departments, unless they happened to possess a good understanding of that

area, generally had a lot of problems coping with it. So when we decided then to

work with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, what we feel there is now we have a

group of people who will understand the housing market, are able to provide

adequate assessments and supervision of the projects.

Initially up front when we began working with them we

did encounter some difficulties in the interface between ourselves and the

Housing Corporation, who got referred and who didn't get referred and so forth.

I think we've since worked those out and given the fact that the program is

designed to provide for urgent repairs - this program is not at all intended to

take over from the RAP program or other such programs that provide for more

major upgrading and refurbishment of homes. This is to make a house -

essentially the rule of thumb is, weathertight, where you have windows out and

that sort of thing. So in a word, yes, we are quite happy with the arrangement

right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Peckford. Now, Mr.

Smith you said you had three questions. You've got two questions answered. Maybe

by leave of the committee you can ask the third.

MR. SMITH: Yes, it will only take a second and

I'll be finished, that's it for me.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the other thing with

regards to that, how long has this particular arrangement been in place now? Two

years?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: It might be in order to just do a

review of that because I did find in my own situation this past year that it was

necessary to convene a meeting with the officials of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation and the managers of two of the district offices

that serve my district. Subsequently, we found the meeting to be very productive

in bringing all of the players together there to have a discussion. In light of

that, it might be in order to just forward a letter from your officials down to

the regional office to request information as to how the arrangement is working

out and if there are any concerns, just a suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to commend the minister on his commitment to

invite the Child Welfare League of America to revisit the issues that they've

discussed in its December 18, 1992 report. As the minister indicated, I think he

said that he thought that the child welfare league would be impressed with the

changes that have been made and I'm delighted that he's prepared to be so open

about the progress that he has achieved since this report was released. I do

say, I think after some delay by previous ministers, I think perhaps

cautiousness on the part of previous ministers and maybe officials - this is the

first minister who had agreed publicly and has made available the policy manuals

of the department, the Child Welfare League of America report, the internal

report of Mr. Stapleton and has now expressed his willingness to invite the

Child Welfare League of America to come back again. So I commend him for that

and I look forward to following up on that.

I know that I ask a lot of questions here that perhaps

the minister doesn't know all of the answers to and no doubt has to defend the

department but I think it's even better to have someone with an objective

viewpoint, such as the Child Welfare League, to come. I want to say that I'm

delighted that the minister is prepared to extend that invitation.

Can I ask the minister: Are there any women in senior

positions within the department? This is the first committee that we've had here

where you look over across the way and the Department of Health had three or

four senior executives who are women, and the other departments who we have had

the pleasure of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

MS. VERGE: Education had one.

MR. HARRIS: The Department of Education had one. I

wasn't here for that meeting.

MS. VERGE: Justice had one.

MR. HARRIS: Justice had one. There were two or

three here from the Department of Health. Environment and Lands had a senior

executive who was the assistant deputy minister. I thought we had some sort of

policy of promoting gender equity and appointments to senior positions in the

public service? Is that policy enacted in your department as well, minister?

MR. LUSH: If there weren't a policy we would do

it, of course. As I am looking at the management of the department, for example

the programming planning and planning activity of the department is into five

separate administrative units, and I will just take a quick glance here. Out of

the five separate units three are female. Strategic and social planning, the

director of that is female; child welfare administration, the director of that

is a female; and youth corrections, the director of that is a female.

I should comment with respect to the members talking

about the Child Welfare League of America. I can only add to that by saying we

have a very close relationship with the Child Welfare League of America. The

representative for Canada, I don't know what her position would be - is it

vice-president of the Child Welfare League? Whatever the position, the head

person in Canada for the Child Welfare League of America has a very close

relationship with the Department of Social Services. As a matter of fact, she's

a frequent visitor to our offices, so we feel very good with the relationship we

have with the Child Welfare League of America.

We did run into a problem with the American

representative, but we sort of discarded that and we have a good relationship

with the Canadian, and I think the American representation will improve as a

result of some of the actions we've taken.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

There are a lot of detailed recommendations here that

obviously have to do with professional aspects of child protection and child

welfare and are not really appropriate for this kind of forum, although this

seems to be the best forum that we as opposition members have in dealing with

policy as well as financial issues other than questions in the House.

I note that one of the areas that the Child Welfare

League of America report deals with is, I guess, recommendation number 12. In

order to strengthen services to families and support children in their own

homes, family support services and family preservation programming should be

expanded. That is one of the recommendations and is consistent with the theme of

my first question, which is: Are we doing enough to prevent things from

happening? Mr. Minister, you've found an extra $2.7 million to lock children up,

if I may be so crude as to say, on the correctional services side of things, and

yet at the same time in the area of preventive services one of the action steps

recommended here is that the social services should explore the development of

formal contracts with service providers such as child daycare, mental health,

family resource centres and other community services, to establish priority for

services to child welfare clients.

I note that at least two agencies operating in St.

John's, the working group on child sexual abuse and the Family Resource Centre

here on Harvey Road in St. John's, two groups, one working on the sexual abuse

issues which, as we know, represents about one-third of the child protection

referrals to your department, and another which has placed emphasis on

developing ways of working with families before problems come about, and

providing resource to families, one which has been very well respected by the

families that are here. In fact, I have received a number of letters on that

supporting it, and I think I wrote the minister two months ago but I have not

heard from him yet, asking him to support that organization.

In light of the apparent discrepancy between being

able to find money to deal with people after they get into trouble, and not the

other way around, can the minister tell us what efforts have been made by the

department to deal with these problems? Outside of the correction side what new

initiatives has the department undertaken in trying to develop supports in the

community and work with the supports that are there? Why has the minister not

been able to find some money to help support the organizations such as the

working group on child sexual abuse and the family resource centre?

MR. LUSH: First of all I want to comment on the

hon. member's reference to the fact that we are spending a lot of money on

locking them up. Well, I do not know whether the hon. member has visited the

youth centre at Whitbourne but I think if he did, and I am not suggesting he

didn't, but if he did he would have to agree that there is a lot more to that

particular facility than just a lockup. As a matter of fact it is probably one

of the better facilities of its kind in the whole of the country. There is a lot

of money being spend there on treatment and rehabilitation. As a matter of fact

I would think that in the sense that we have to have a unit like that we ought

to be very proud that it is one that is operating very effectively and very

efficiently with a wide range of treatment programs there for the residents.

I tell the hon. member that if he had attended some of

the events that we have he would be absolutely pleased with what is happening

there and the tremendous staff that we have there. We attended a closing program

in June almost resembling a closing program in any other school. I can tell you

the activities of that day were excellent.

With respect to training in the area of prevention we

are into a number of activities. The hon. member mentions two groups

specifically that we did not fund and I only wish we were able to fund them. The

working group on sexual abuse was never funded, that is core funding, by the

Department of Social Services. This group got going back three or four years ago

following the Mount Cashel affair. They got funded basically by federal funds

and probably by private funding, I do not know, but the Department of Social

Services involvement was to provide them with workers for certain projects. We

never ever gave them any direct funding

The problem this year, again, in the difficult

economic times was to try and fund what we had already been funding, and I felt

very proud that through a major effort on the part of the department we were

able to keep the status quo with all of the groups we had a history of funding.

As a matter of an expenditure control the policy of government was that we take

on no new funding and the same applied to the family resource centre. Because it

was an area of new funding we just could not get into it but we had several

others that were every bit as practical and as worthwhile as the family resource

centre and the working group on sexual abuse.

I visited the family resource centre and there is no

question that they were performing great work, but there is a limit on what we

can fund. Unfortunately, as worthy as both these organizations were, we found

ourselves in the position of not being able to fund them in this particular

fiscal year.

Which begs the question: When the federal government

gets into funding things it puts the Province in an awkward position. When they

come up with these short-term funding projects of funding this and that, and

then when they decide to pull the rug, invariably these people will come after

the Province. We do all we can to ensure that we don't get into any of these

funding arrangements. We get into something with the federal government; we want

to ensure that it is an ongoing funding. It is not going to be something that is

going to be here for a few years and then the rug pulled out from under these

people.

This is the problem and we only hope that certainly

the Family Resource Centre can continue and I would hope that the working group

can as well. If it were possible that we would have found the money for both

groups but it was - I believe we were looking for something in the order of

probably $400,000 for both groups. I say to the hon. member that sometimes we

are restricted by the financial limits of the Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now recognize Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: I have some questions about daycare.

Daycare is an area where the Department of Social Services should be working in

close cooperation with the Departments of Health and Education but there never

has been the kind of coordination or cooperation that is ideal.

Within the past few months I've heard from people

working for the Department of Health in the field of education in the Corner

Brook area who are extremely upset at the shortage of Social Services daycare

subsidies for children with special needs. These include children identified by

the public health nurses and the regional medical health officer as having

definite need of daycare because of severe problems in the home or because of

disabilities. In some cases even after the involvement of public health the

daycare subsidy wasn't forthcoming. I've heard complaints from people teaching

in the field of early childhood education in the Corner Brook area that Social

Services has pulled back subsidization for children with special needs.

On the other hand the Department of Education is

embarking on universal full day kindergarten. When you consider the fact that

teachers are paid way higher than daycare workers it seems to me the government

is making an extremely inefficient use of very scarce resources. How can the

government find the money necessary to have full day kindergarten throughout the

whole Province, even for families whose parents are protesting full day

kindergarten, when Social Services can't find enough money to pay the meagre

subsidies for daycare for children identified by public health as having special

needs? Why wouldn't there be a coordinated government effort to direct whatever

money is available for children who are under five targeted at the children who

need it the most, or the families who need it the most.

MR. LUSH: I don't really refute what the hon.

member is saying. There is no question that there can be more co-ordination and

I would hope that that would happen in the future. The hon. member would

certainly know about the difficulty of co-ordinating things in various levels of

government and this is one of those things I guess, but I certainly hope that we

can do that.

In terms of the reduction in subsidies, we haven't

reduced any subsidies and we haven't increased any, as a matter of fact, this

again was a very difficult task trying to keep these areas at the level of

funding where we previously had them when we are living in a time of cutbacks

and restraints, and we had to do some real fine- tuning to make sure that we

didn't reduce the subsidy, and if the hon. member looks, she will see that the

same level of funding is there; although we can say that there should have been

an increase and I fully agree.

MS. VERGE: That's what I saw but at the same time

I had a report that in the past few months I have heard from public health

officials and early childhood education educators in the Corner Brook area, who

have called me and written me long, detailed letters with all kinds of

references pointing out the woeful inadequacy of social services subsidization

of children with identified special needs, children identified by public health

as needing daycare but whose families can't afford to get them into daycare, and

apparently what they characterize as a freeze or a cut back in special needs

subsidies is jeopardizing the viability of some daycare centres, which have

depended on a certain amount of revenue from social services funded children,

and that, alongside the Department of Education launching an expensive expansion

of Kindergarten, to me, indicates wrong priorities.

I mean, how does it make sense for the government to

expand Kindergarten from half-day to full-day, necessitating more teachers for

kindergarten, teachers, whose average salaries must be over $40,000 a year, when

social services can't afford the comparative pittance required to get the

children identified by public health as needing daycare in the daycare? It just

doesn't make sense, I have berated the Minister of Education about this the

other day, but he doesn't seem to appreciate the social services situation, and

once again the appearance of two ministers and two departments operating without

really understanding each other or without being integrated or co-operating the

way they should. Both departments are mandated to serve the same children and

the same families.

MR. LUSH: I can appreciate what the hon. member is

saying. We are talking about a relatively new area in the meantime, but it's

progressing and no doubt in time we will achieve the things the hon. member is

suggesting with respect to more co-ordination and integration between what's

happening in education, but what she is almost suggestion I suppose is a full

takeover by the government of daycare and in terms of operating the same way we

are operating day schools.

MS. VERGE: That is not what I'm suggesting at all.

I'm suggesting spending whatever resources the provincial government has on the

young children who need it the most. Yes, have full day kindergarten with all

the necessary teachers, if you are rolling in money and you've looked after the

daycare needs of younger children with identified special needs, but you can't

afford to do all that. We don't have that much money. Spend whatever is

available first on those small children and their families with serious special

needs.

MR. LUSH: That is the emphasis of the Department

of Social Services, to spend the money on those most in need. We've made every

effort this year particularly in terms of the resources that we have to do just

that. When the member talks about subsidies, I don't know - we have this

year.... I just want to see how I should say this. We have stopped giving

start-up grants and we have put that directly into subsidies for children.

Rather than take money away from them and to address the need we have taken away

the start-up grants and this kind of thing and we've directed that into direct

subsidies for the children, for the clients, so that we could optimize the use

of the money that we had in the system.

MS. VERGE: What will be available for subsidy in

the new year compared to the old year?

MR. LUSH: There has been no change.

MS. VERGE: But I thought you said you had switched

some money from start-up grants to -

MR. LUSH: That money has gone into subsidies.

MS. VERGE: Oh, that was done last year, okay.

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired. We are

reaching a stage where we soon have to make a decision as to whether this

Committee is going to conclude its business tonight. If you are able to clue up

with another question or so we might ask the leave of the Committee and then to

carry on.

MS. VERGE: I've just got a couple of quick

questions. The next one is youth corrections. When the Salvation Army decided to

shut down the closed custody group home in Little Rapids in the Humber Valley

the minister said it tied in with a new Social Services policy of accommodating

young offenders' sentences to open custody in foster homes or in some other -

MR. LUSH: Euphemism.

MS. VERGE: - unnamed community arrangement. What

exactly is going on and where are the displaced open custody young offenders in

the Corner Brook area now?

MR. LUSH: Let me just go back to the early

childhood education and make one reference I should for the hon. member that I

failed to do. That is the presence of Brighter Futures. We hope that is going to

fill a gap in our system. I'm sure she would be familiar with that.

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. LUSH: With respect to the closure of the

Little Rapids group home, the hon. member is right. The department has changed

its philosophy with respect to institutions, not only in youth corrections but

in the whole area where we have group homes. We think that the client is better

served, be it a youth who has broken the law, a youth in trouble, or whether it

is in some other circumstance. The physically disabled, the mentally challenged.

That is the philosophy all the way through with the department, to place people

into a situation that is more like the family home.

With respect to the Corner Brook area we have no

indication that there are any problems there with respect to dispositions given

by the courts. We have absolutely no problems at all since we've closed out the

Salvation Army group home there. I don't know whether the hon. member has heard

of any but we certainly haven't.

MS. VERGE: No, I haven't, actually.

Are there open custody young offenders in Western

Newfoundland in foster homes now?

MR. LUSH: The hon. member is asking: Are there any

there now?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. LUSH: I can't address that at the moment.

MR. PECKFORD: We feel that there will continue to

be a need for some time for open custody group homes all across the Island. In

fact, there are two on the West Coast. There's one in Corner Brook still, and

there's one on the West Coast which is now having a new -

MS. VERGE: Stephenville.

MR. PECKFORD: In Stephenville - having a new

building being built; however, there are a certain number of youth who come to

our attention who probably would function best in a foster type arrangement, and

we have been experimenting to some extent - I am not sure experimenting is the

right word - but we have enough experience to know that with the proper

selection of a foster home, and the proper training, social worker support and

the like, that these arrangements often provide much better facilities for the

young offender than a group home environment. So we have young offenders in open

custody, foster-like arrangements throughout the Province.

MS. VERGE: Is there any alternative to foster

homes? When the minister was talking about the new policy there was some vague

phrase suggesting that there was something other than foster homes?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) custody homes.

MS. VERGE: What does that mean?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a foster home.

MR. LUSH: That's a foster home.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

Page 313 of the Estimates, the last page, home support

services, I noticed last year $13 million was budgeted and $20,700,000 was

spent, which is a huge increase. Why the increase? What did that cover?

MR. LUSH: Why the increase from the $13 million to

the $20 million?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. LUSH: There are a number of factors as to why

the increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) must have been that.

MS. VERGE: Well, that would be a first; something

I said actually made a difference?

MR. LUSH: I am having problems getting my audio

working here, but the reasons for the growth in this particular area, I suppose,

one, it's a relatively new program. I believe it started in 1986. When it

started in 1986 - again, I wouldn't want members to rely totally on these

figures, but I believe when it started in 1986 there was something like between

$300,000 and $400,000 spent in this area, and it just escalated until now we're

at the $20 million.

There are number of reasons. One can be awareness of

the program. Now everybody is aware of the program, so that certainly creates a

demand. The other one - we have three groups of people who access these

programs; it's the seniors, the physically disabled, and the mentally

challenged. These three groups of people access the program, so one is the

awareness, and probably the biggest one is the change in direction that I

mentioned earlier with the department with respect to moving from institutions

to the home, and giving the support in the home, so these two factors would

certainly contribute towards the growth in the figure.

MS. VERGE: Okay. I guess there are other questions

I could ask there.

The Department of Health funds some home-maker

services, too, in some cases through hospitals. For example, in the Corner Brook

area the hospital has a contract with the V.O.N. to do home-maker services. Is

there any kind of integration between social services and health?

MR. LUSH: I am going to ask Mr. Peckford to

comment on that.

MR. PECKFORD: The funding provided by the

Department of Health for home-maker services is, in my understanding, provided

to individuals who are released from hospital and to support them for a period

of time after release from hospital, so it facilitates an early release from

hospital but continues to provide the necessary supports that an individual will

need at home.

As the minister indicated, our home support services

are not linked in any particular way to release from a hospital or admission to

a hospital and are not medically oriented whatsoever. They're non-medical

support services to individuals to enable them to live in their own homes, to

stay in their own homes. In the case of seniors, to offset the requirement for

the movement into nursing homes and that sort of thing and in the case of

developmentally delayed and physically handicapped individuals, to enable them

as well to live in their own homes. As Mr. Lush indicated, we have closed a

number of group homes for the developmentally delayed and the supports that they

receive to live in the community are provided through this program.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. On Page 305, 3.2.02,

Community Correctional Services, which refers to open custody and alternative

measures. I notice that the projected provincial total spending for the new year

is about the same as the old year but there's a massive drop in federal revenue.

The federal revenue is estimated to be going down from $3.7 million received

last year to $1.5 million this year. So it's more than $2 million being lost in

federal revenue, why is that?

MR. LUSH: That's a technical matter and I'd like

for Mr. Peckford to explain it.

MR. PECKFORD: In fact that's not a reduction in

federal revenue at all. What it is, is last year we were able to get a

correction of previous years cost-sharing arrangements which enabled us to get a

readjustment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, so we were able to achieve,

last year, a cost-sharing associated with previous years that we weren't able to

get before. So we have an ongoing relationship with the federal government, not

only in this cost-shared program but in all our cost-shared programs and I think

you'll notice in some of the other areas there was also a correction of previous

years claims that were positively affected. In fact, if I could just mention,

Mr. Strong behind me here, as a result of some of his efforts, has enabled us in

the last year to get a $4 million cost-sharing of services provided by the

Department of Finance to the Department of Social Services. We received it last

year and we'll receive the $4 million continuing in future years.

MS. VERGE: Just one last question. Last year in

the Budget one of the low lights or high lights, depending on your point of

view, was cuts to a whole list of third party organizations, many of which were

social services grant cuts and I think they were strung along through the

election for the first three months of the year but where are they now? How much

is Big Brothers, Big Sisters getting now for example?

MR. LUSH: I mentioned earlier that we maintained

the status quo with all of these organizations. All of them got the same funding

as they did last year with the exclusion of three that were - I think there were

three that were dropped last year. Three church groups, the -

MS. VERGE: Counselling centres in St. John's?

MR. LUSH: Yes, there were three dropped and in the

review that ensued - as the hon. member mentioned, after there was a review set-

up and after that review we decided to maintain the original position that these

three groups would not receive any funding. They got the funding for the first

quarter of the year but they got no other funding. All other groups remained at

the same level of funding as they did last year and no new groups.

MS. VERGE: But last year they were told in the

beginning that they were going to be cut. So are they getting now what they got

two years ago or are they getting now the reduced amount that was in the

original March 1993 Budget?

MR. LUSH: The latter, yes.

MS. VERGE: Okay, so they were cut?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: They were just strung along through the

election and then they were cut -

MR. LUSH: Yes, this year they got the same as last

year.

MS. VERGE: - because there was no election this

year?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned that the social service

investigators had realized $2.1 million. I am not sure if I understood you

correctly; are you saying that they have collected $2.1 million or they have

identified $2.1 million that are there to be collected? Could you expand on that

please?

MR. LUSH: No. When I say they saved the Province

$2.1 million, that is from people who were receiving social assistance and

should not be receiving it so that was suspended. Claim - not claim suspended -

what do they call them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: The annual value of what they would have

received had the investigators not been there, would have amounted to $2.1

million, so that's the savings.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes, and $800,000 to be recovered,

that's in overpayments by the time we got them.

MR. FITZGERALD: The $800,000 overpayment, what

amount of that realistically can be collected?

MR. LUSH: I don't know.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is great to identify it but can

we collect it?

AN HON. MEMBER: As long as they are on assistance

we will collect it.

MR. LUSH: Yes, when they are on assistance we will

get them; if they get off assistance, I don't know what would happen then. When

they are on assistance we claim the overpayment.

MR. FITZGERALD: The other $1.2 or $1.3 million, is

that because of fraud or, where does the extra money come from?

MR. LUSH: In some cases it is fraud.

MR. FITZGERALD: How many people have been charged

with fraud?

MR. LUSH: Seventeen.

MR. FITZGERALD: Seventeen, and we have thirteen

investigators?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: So it is approximately a little

over one charge per investigator so far?

MR. LUSH: Well, the main emphasis is not charging.

The main emphasis is to try and spot any irregularities, people receiving social

assistance when they don't qualify but the effort is not towards charging shall

I say. It is difficult to explain but what we want to make sure of is that

everybody receiving social assistance is receiving it properly, and the last

thing we do, that's the very last thing we do, is charge. Two things; one, find

it out, two, get back the money where we can. In most cases it is not fraud,

really.

MR. FITZGERALD: Part of it are honest mistakes

that have been made by overworked front line social workers and other people.

MR. LUSH: Yes, that's right, and the last thing we

will do is - we are anxious, number one to find it out so the Province is not

spending money unnecessarily and secondly to get it back. The case is a pretty

bad case when we take it to the courts.

MR. FITZGERALD: Getting back to the Newfoundland

and Labrador correctional centre in Whitbourne. Unit 7 and 8 of the old part of

the boys home there, I am of the understanding that the only people who staff

those two units are people who are on call-in duty only, when there is an

oversupply in the correctional centre then they are put out into Unit 7 and 8

and this staff is called in as need be. I am wondering why the manager is kept

on full-time when everybody else is on call-in duty only? Why would the manager

be kept on with nobody staying at those units?

MR. PECKFORD: The old facility in Whitbourne is

used as an overflow facility when the population goes above sixty. Really what

we have there are two physical buildings but one overall facility. The staffing

of that whole area is one integrated staffing so people get called in. We have

on-call workers that come into both facilities. There isn't a differentiation

between the staffing of the old one and the staffing of the new one. It is all

one integrated group of staff. On-call workers get called dependent on the

fluctuation in the populations that come in, so there is no distinction between

one and the other.

MR. FITZGERALD: So when the manager is not working

from units seven and eight plays an active role in the correctional centre?

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct.

MR. FITZGERALD: Temporary positions at the same

centre. Am I correct in saying that after sixteen weeks those positions, even

though they are temporary, should be advertised?

MR. PECKFORD: The collective agreement governs the

manner in which the positions are advertised and so forth so as far as I am

aware we are maintaining what the collective agreement requires.

MR. FITZGERALD: Can you tell me why the recreation

co-ordinator and the resident unit supervisor positions have not been advertised

and they have been in existence for much longer than sixteen weeks?

MR. PECKFORD: Not right now. No, I can't.

MR. FITZGERALD: Are they union positions?

MR. PECKFORD: I do not know.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, in response to a

question a few days ago in the House regarding open custody community homes, I

think I understood you correctly when you said that social workers did some

inspections on those homes to see if they were up to par as far as admitting

young offenders? Can you tell me if some of those people are trained in the

inspection of those homes as far as building code inspections and other areas

where they might look at responsibly to see if such a thing as an insurance

policy is in effect to make sure those young offenders are protected? Are those

people trained in that regard?

MR. LUSH: Again, I have to defer to my officials

on that.

MR. PECKFORD: The inspection of community custody

homes does not extend to the physical facility in the same way as it would for

an institution. Certainly the physical condition of the house that the resident

has been placed in would be considered as part of the overall assessment of the

capacity of the individuals in the home to accept the individual, but specific

requirements around the size and the condition of the home in the same sense as

it would be applied in an institution is not used in that case.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am also of the understanding

that some of the operators of those community homes get paid holidays and days

off with pay while others don't?

MR. PECKFORD: Individual arrangements are made

with individual homes which includes respite holiday time and so forth, so each

home would have its own contract with us as to the amount of respite that would

be required, etc. This would depend upon the number of individuals in the home,

the length of time the resident is there, and so forth.

MR. FITZGERALD: Transportation to and from schools

or hospitals, etc. Who decides what mode of transportation is used, the social

worker or the home care parent?

MR. PECKFORD: It varies. It can be both. It

depends upon the circumstances. If a particular resident, for example, has a

requirement on a regular basis to visit a hospital or visit a doctor the parent

may be given the authorization to go ahead and do that on a recurring basis. If

it is one of, or special transportation for long distances, or something like

that, that may require approval of the social worker. So a general answer to

that is not possible. It would depend upon the circumstances in each individual

case.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, did you state that

the Social Services policy manual is a manual that is available to me if I

requested it?

MR. LUSH: I certainly thought it was.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired. Right on

time. Before I recognize Mr. Harris I must point out that according to the rules

this Committee has to clue up in three minutes time, but we've been giving

leave. So if Mr. Harris could clue up within a reasonable period of time, say

fifteen or twenty minutes, I've asked the Committee to give leave so we could

clue up this tonight. As I don't have any other speakers other than Mr. Harris,

so if he could indicate how long he would take?

MR. HARRIS: I'm sure I could clue up in a

reasonable period of time and be quite happy to proceed to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A reasonable period. Is that a legal

word, or is it? I'm wary of them so I would like to know.

MR. HARRIS: It was your word and I accept your

word and your definition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright then, we will say fifteen

minutes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson. I was

interested in the questions that the Member for Bonavista North was asking about

MR. FITZGERALD: Bonavista South.

MR. HARRIS: Bonavista South. Actually, I must say,

my geography must be terribly off because I could never figure out why Bonavista

South was called South and North was called North. I will try and figure that

out another time.

The Member for Bonavista South was curious about

employment practices at Whitbourne. I'm just wondering whether the minister has

been following the practice that has been in vogue in Whitbourne for a number of

years of hiring only people from Port de Grave District whenever there was an

opportunity to hire someone outside the collective agreement. Is that still the

practice of the department or have you opened the field to residents of other

districts?

MR. LUSH: I never ever knew that was the practice

but I can assure you that if it were that it is not now. People are hired

according to the rules of the collective bargaining, and outside of that by

merit, regardless of where they come from.

MR. HARRIS: Do I take that to mean that outside of

recall provisions and posting requirements in the collective agreement that all

hiring even for temporary positions is through the Public Service Commission?

MR. PECKFORD: In some cases the hiring of

non-bargaining unit employees are hired by the department under delegated

authority from the Public Service Commission, whereby we must observe the rules

as set down by the Public Service Commission and are subject to audit by them

that we are following the procedures as they outline. In effect, all hiring is

done in accordance with the collective agreement or in accordance with

procedures of the Public Service Commission, albeit on occasion the Public

Service Commission staff don't participate directly in the selection.

MR. HARRIS: That is for all positions, including

temporary positions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Including temporary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: The -

MR. PECKFORD: Permanent positions throughout the

department usually, almost in all cases I think, include the Public Service

Commission in the interview process. Temporary positions are often delegated to

us.

MR. HARRIS: The minister indicated that it is done

under the merit principle, could the department then have its own internal

procedures such as in use by the Public Service Commission to have interviews

and questions and that sort of thing? Is that practice followed?

MR. PECKFORD: That's correct.

MR. HARRIS: Well, things have changed. They must

have changed a great deal since the new minister has taken over. I'm surprised

that he hadn't heard of the previous practices of the department. Everybody else

in the Opposition and the public seem to know about them.

I am looking, Mr. Minister, at pages 311 and 312 of

the social services estimates, and I find it curious in light of the minister's

comments about the federal government funding certain agencies and then the

Province not being able to provide money because they don't have the fiscal

capacity, or at least that's the excuse that's put out for this, but when I look

at the employment opportunities budget as a whole, the $14.8 million in the

three subheads that are listed there, what I see is under the community services

head, 5.1.03, a decrease in that budget from one point - well, looking at the

program itself, I suppose, the budget for 1993-'94 was $3.8 million. You only

spent $3 million, and you are estimating for 1994-'95, $1.2 million for salaries

for employment projects that are cost-shared with the federal government under

the Canada Assistance Plan.

Basically we are talking fifty cent dollars here, and

the so-called bang for the buck, as it were. The provincial dollar is enhanced

and yet we see a decrease of more than half, from $3.1 million total amount of

the vote down to $1.3 million, and obviously a decreased contribution from the

federal government down to one-third of what was budgeted last year. Where last

year was budgeted $2 million from the feds, and next year the estimates are for

$633,000 and almost one-third - a little bit better than one-third - of the

federal contribution budgeted for last year.

Can the minister tell us why he's cut that budget more

than in half and caused a loss, if you want to call it that, of $1.4 million

contribution from the federal government for a program providing employment

projects, employment opportunities for people under the Canada Assistance Plan?

MR. LUSH: Firstly, that particular program, as the

hon. member has pointed out, it's a 50\50 program, but it's a specific

requirement such that you've got to be providing a service to a client, and to

illustrate: For some time this is where we've taken our housing program, doing

repairs to houses, and home support, because we have to be providing a service

to a client.

We weren't satisfied that this was a good program. I

mentioned to the hon. member that the emphasis today is towards training, and we

weren't really into training. I suppose the main objective in this one was to

give somebody a job to get stamps. That was almost, really, the main motive, so

MR. HARRIS: It seems to be a sin now, according to

The Globe and Mail , for people to actually get work and get stamps and be

able to collect unemployment insurance.

MR. LUSH: No, not when it's the main motive. So

the hon. member can see that last year we didn't go very far towards spending

our money. We left a good bit of it, because we were reevaluating where we were

going in this particular program. So we weren't satisfied, exactly, with the

direction in which we were going, that we weren't giving sufficient thought to

the kinds of jobs we were into, providing people with jobs that were ongoing,

more lasting, and in training. We were more or less just into it for the job,

for the sake of getting U.I.

We also felt that it was affecting our Home Support

program. That is the one that appears over on the next page, which is the one

that was more properly organized under the enriched needs program. People were

confusing them. It was giving the Home Support Services a sort of a negative

connotation, if you will, because people were associating the other, this

program here. We were just sending people in to, people who had any kind of

problem, send them in to work with the sole aim, almost, of qualifying for UI.

That was the emphasis changing, changing to tr