Social Services Committee — Department of Education's Estimates — 12 May 1998

1998-05-12

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 12, 1998

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

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

Confederation Building.

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Perry Canning, MHA

for Labrador West, substitutes for Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

We would like to convene this meeting of the Social

Services Committee. We are missing one member but I believe Mary is en route.

Just before we get started, I will ask the members

of the Committee, starting at my far left, to identify themselves.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name

is Perry Canning, and I am the Member for Labrador West. I am representing,

today, Wally Andersen from the mighty Torngats.

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

MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, District of Humber East

and Chair.

MR. SULLIVAN: Loyola Sullivan, Ferryland.

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

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

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, Harbour Main -

Whitbourne.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We will follow the usual procedures. We will ask

the minister to introduce her staff and to make some introductory comments. We

will then ask the Vice-Chair to lead off the questioning. We will then alternate

between the members until all the questions have been asked. I believe, Harvey,

you wish to leave at 8:00 p.m. or thereabouts?

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

CHAIR: Oh, well, in that case we will

definitely alternate.

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

CHAIR: Okay.

Before we start, perhaps I could ask for a motion

to approve the minutes of the May 5 meeting of the Committee. The Committee met

that evening to discuss the Department of Education's Estimates.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly. Minister?

MS BETTNEY: Well, in terms of introductions of

the officials who are here with me, to my immediate left is Dave Roberts, who is

our Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services; to his left is George

Skinner, our Assistant Deputy Minister for Regional Services and Transition; to

my right is Alison Earle, the ADM for Programmes and Planning. My deputy

minister is unfortunately not in the Province. She is away right now and was

unable to attend. Seated behind me - I am not quite sure in what order - we have

Don Kavanagh, who is the Director of Finance and General Operations; Wayne

Penney, the Director of Income Support; and Ray Franey, who is the Director of

Employment and Careers. These represent the major functional areas in my

department. So that is who we are.

In terms of opening comments, Mr. Chair, I would

like to proceed. I will make my opening comments rather brief and leave the time

really for some questions and discussion in terms of responses.

As everybody is aware, this has been a year of

transition for the staff of the Department of Human Resources and Employment. On

April 1, the divisions of child welfare, community corrections, open custody and

family rehabilitative services, were integrated with the newly created

Department of Health and Community Services. That whole transition took place,

as was indicated in the previous year in the budget, with the intent of

integrating all of the services associated with children and families, and

general health and well-being under that Department of Health and Community

Services.

This department of Human Resources and Employment

is primarily focused, of course, on providing income support for those who

require supports for their most basic needs, and require help in getting into

the labour market. The whole intention of the department is to take an active

approach towards supporting people towards employment, and to use active

employment measures to support people towards making that move into the labour

market. We have a number of strategic goals but I think the most significant of

those is that we know that in this transition, and in reforming how we approach

income support, we need to break the dependency and encourage self-reliance in

our clients. We know that we have specific populations who have specific needs,

very special needs. Some of them I would categorize in terms of sectors. We are

looking at youth, we are looking at women, we are looking at people with

disabilities in particular, as three groups who have specific employment needs

and we know that we have to address those.

We are intent, as a goal right now in our

department, on reshaping and reforming our whole approach to income support so

that it does link income support and labour market policies in an active kind of

way. In addition to that, because of a lot of the consultation that has taken

place, we also know that we have to develop meaningful opportunities for people

in their communities. We have to provide some kind of employment strategies that

bridge both the private sector and the public or not-for-profit sectors as well,

and we cannot do it alone. We have to do it in partnership with those other

levels of government, with the volunteer community, and very much with the

private sector as well. Of course, the overall intent is tackling this issue,

which came up in the House today, which is one of our primary concerns in terms

of the level of particularly child poverty, and is a main goal that our

department is focused on.

A lot of the changes we are going through - me in

taking a different approach to our clients - if you were to look at our

department as it is today and as it has been, it is primarily focused on

providing support to people in the form of cheques. It is income support. I

would say that 95 per cent of our staff, as we exist today, is dedicated towards

really delivering that income support. Only a very small portion is devoted to

helping clients find jobs, really supporting them towards employment.

When we make the full transition within the next

three years, our goal is to have at least 70 per cent of our staff's time

directed at working with clients to help them identify what they can do to find

employment. We are talking about a major shift in emphasis and in the whole

orientation of our department and the staff who are working with them. I think

with that you will see our clients taking a different view too of what

government provides when they come for income support, and what the links with

employment are.

We are changing the program. Obviously you cannot

make that kind of real fundamental change without changing the program that

delivers income support, so we are in the process now of developing a new income

support system. It will be based on a real point of entry system for clients, it

will be much less obtrusive, that will enable people to access the basic

supports that they need, but also, in terms of finances, the services they

require. We see that happening, as I say, in a much less invasive and intrusive

manner that is much more respectful of people's dignity in the whole process.

Because we realize this is a continuing issue when you talk of social services,

as people know, the main service of this department in terms of income support.

We have a number of partnerships that we are

working towards and developing more fully, and of course one of our key partners

is the federal government. We have the private sector and also the community

agencies. When we look at the employment services and the resources that we use

in employment programs, in a large part the federal government is our main

partner there. We will continue to work with the federal government through, for

example, the Labour Market Development Agreement because of the active

employment measures that are involved in the funding that goes with the Labour

Market Development Agreement. That fund this year will provide in the order of

about $106 million for active employment measures to this Province for people

who have an attachment to the workforce. As I say, it is very complimentary to

the kinds of employment programs we have provincially.

Of course, another major piece of the partnership

is the National Child Benefit program. This year, because of the contribution in

the introduction of this program from the federal government, we will have

available to us what amounts to, and it is prorated out at $7.7 million in this

fiscal year, but in actuality on an annual basis is $10.15 million for programs

and services to take a preventive and an early intervention approach to

addressing some of the issues that affect poverty for children and their

families. As I indicated today, I think most people would recognize that the

best way out of poverty for children and their families is through employment.

Therefore, this national strategy focuses on strengthening the links for people

to move into employment and to move into the workforce.

The variety of programs that we have dedicated in

our National Child Benefit initiatives do two things. They try and support the

transition, but they also recognize, as a result of major studies that have been

done in the past - the Children's Interests Report, the Select Committee's

report from the House on children, and as well the Strategic Social Plan - that

there are some pieces of early childhood development and family services that

simply are not available in the Province today that have to be there if we are

going to eliminate some of the systemic and root problems that cause poverty in

this Province.

The money that is available, through the infusion

of resources by the federal government in the form of the National Child Benefit

program, gives us this opportunity to establish some of these programs that we

have wanted to establish and I think successive governments have wanted to put

in place for so many years but simply have not had the opportunity to do so.

I guess in terms of a concluding comment, the

common theme that runs through the changes - and there are very profound changes

taking place through my department on the social scene - is that we are taking a

proactive approach to trying to address issues that are associated with

employment, with income. We believe that this will be the answer and this will

provide some of the solutions to increasing and promoting people's self-reliance

and independence to building a real solid foundation for children and families

throughout this Province, and ultimately for reducing the levels of poverty that

concern all of us as people experience them in their communities and in their

daily lives.

Having said that as a kind of overview, I will stop

there and be available to respond to questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. I will now ask the

Clerk if she would call the first head and we will then view the discussions

under that one head. Then we will turn it over to Loyola. Harvey, out of

deference to the fact you are leaving at 8:00 p.m., you may go immediately after

the vice-chair.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: I am being very kind.

MR. H. HODDER: I know you are.

CHAIR: It is uncharacteristic.

MR. H. HODDER: I know, I'm surprised. There is

still hope for the rest of the Liberal Party.

CHAIR: Any time you want to join.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was intending, Mr. Chairman, to

defer to him, but seeing it is twenty after and he is going to get a chance to

go second I will not give him that courtesy. That way I will be able to limit

his time and serve our interests quite well.

MR. H. HODDER: These are my friends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He got selected for a

parliamentary trip today (inaudible) number of people here so I think he has

done well today.

Actually, I have a variety of questions there. I

will make sure that Harvey gets an opportunity, probably for twenty minutes,

before he leaves, the same that I could use at the beginning. I made a list. I

will just get to some of these basic changes and announcements here that

accompanied the Budget first of all, rather than just go to the specific head.

Would you prefer to move down under each head and move through it?

CHAIR: No. We called head 1.1.01 and all the

discussion will occur under that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, sure.

CHAIR: Anything is a go.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Reference was made to

providing, I guess, some funding through the Single Parent Association of

Newfoundland. I think we refer to them as SPAN. Would that money be in a direct

disbursement to them or would it be in conjunction and expended on a continuing

basis directly from the department?

MS BETTNEY: What we are looking at is

developing with them a pilot project to test out the concept of providing a wage

supplement for single parents. Because one of the key issues they have brought

to us is the fact that oftentimes single parents, when they are making the move

into the workforce or moving in to low-paying jobs, and because of the cost of

running a household and taking care of their children, they are unable to leave

social assistance and take one of the lower-income jobs, say the under $10 to

$15 jobs.

What we are exploring with this pilot project is

what effect providing a wage supplement to people in these circumstances would

have on increasing their employability and their long-term ability to get and

keep jobs, and move further into the workforce in a manner that they can sustain

themselves.

At this point, I do not think that it is fully

decided on the nature of the funding relationship. I think there is a

possibility that we could fund the Association directly to deliver the program,

but it is also possible that they will design the nature of the program, and the

actual funding for the supplement would still come directly from the department

to the individual clients. The key is that the way it will work will be designed

by the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland in consultation with our

officials, and then they will more or less direct how the fund should be

dispensed in order to test this concept to see how it will work. These are early

days yet.

MR. SULLIVAN: The reason for asking the

question is in terms of the accountability of how it is applied, and to make

sure that it is in line with the intended purpose and the criteria there, and

whether it would be in the hands of SPAN. Not that I have any problems with

that, to be honest with you, but to insure that the proper accountability

procedures are exercised.

MS BETTNEY: In terms of accountabilities for

the overall pilot, this will be set up as a real test with stated objectives and

a specific plan developed for how the pilot should work and what we will be

testing. Then that will be evaluated. That will be part of the accountability

mechanism. As I say, I anticipate at this point, but I do not know for certain,

that the direct funding of the supplement would still go from the department to

our clients directly in the form of a supplement. I do not know if either of the

officials have any later information. It is still being discussed.

MR. SULLIVAN: So you should hope to have it up

and running in the next, what, month or so?

MS BETTNEY: That one is targeted to start up

when, Dave?

MR. ROBERTS: August or September.

MS BETTNEY: August or September for the actual

implementation date. We will test it from there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under 3.1.01, Social Assistance

heading, page 214 - there for a quick reference -, last year there was a

budgeted amount of $251,975,500, almost $252 million that is, and an expenditure

of $234,575,500. This year of course the estimate is showing a decrease. There

has been an anticipated decrease in the amount under Social Assistance.

I was just wondering about that with reference to

the TAGS program for example. I think around 24.9 per cent, a little less than

25 per cent, of the people coming off that program had to go under the social

assistance lines. I know there is economic growth projected too, but you are

showing a decrease of $6 million over last year. Would that be attributed to, I

guess, the people under twenty-one years old now, people in the single

(inaudible)? People not availing of it in the year? Because I think that was

implemented during the year, last year I believe. I am not sure if that was -

WITNESS: At the beginning of the year.

MR. SULLIVAN: In the beginning of the year? So

we had a full year with that being applied. Well, that should not be a factor

then. Why would you have a $6 million decrease if an estimated couple of

thousand people may have to go on the social assistance lines who are falling

off the TAGS program?

MS BETTNEY: The simple answer for the roughly

$6 million difference is the fact that because of the nature of the National

Child Benefit program, where we are recovering the National Child Benefit and

using that for the re-investment program, that actually decreases the total

amount of the line item that is associated with social assistance. We would look

at the actual dollars that we are now providing as being that much less.

Having said that, there are still increases and

decreases that have netted out. For example, one of the other key factors in

what you see as this major decrease is the actual caseload numbers. You will

note that in our recurring figures we have had for the past nine months since

last April, actually for the past year now, a month over month decrease in our

social assistance caseloads. We are running now at 1994 levels. We are back to

January of 1994, and we have actually 4,000 people less on our rolls today than

we had in April of last year. That is a significant decrease.

Part of it is the single able-bodied cases that you

referred to where a policy change said that in last year's Budget we would take

into account a family's circumstances for somebody eighteen to twenty-one years

old before determining if they are eligible. That took a significant number of

people off of our case-loads. In addition to that, there has been a decrease in

the number of families and other components of our caseload throughout. That is

likewise a factor that has contributed to the fact that this number is lower

both from what it was last year, what it was revised at in mid-year, and what it

continues to be right now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Basically too, the increase to

these people would equate to an extra $4.5 million in your budget, in that ball

park, the 2 per cent increase? In spite of that we are having a drop of $6

million.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, that is right, that is

(inaudible) right.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is technically a drop of $11

million over last year. First of all, how much money was it reduced by, by

eliminating the single able-bodied? What dollar value was applied to these

people? I guess that is the number one question.

MS BETTNEY: I would think that I would have to

follow up with an actual dollar value. In terms of cases, it amounted to

approximately 1,700, Dave?

MR. ROBERTS: I would think so, yes.

MS BETTNEY: Seventeen hundred single persons

who came off our caseloads as a result of that policy change, but in terms of

the cost per caseload they were at the very low end of our cost per caseload.

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

million really.

MS BETTNEY: Yes. As I say, that is a low figure

for that particular part of our cases. The more significant part was the

decrease that we also had in areas like the able-bodied families and the heads

of families. Those numbers also decreased consistently throughout the year and

those are more costly cases.

MR. SULLIVAN: So what would you project this

year now would be your actual caseload for 1998-1999, compared to 1997-1998?

MS BETTNEY: We are projecting our caseload at

32,300, which is roughly where we are right now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Versus last year?

MS BETTNEY: Yes. We have added into that, in

terms of our budget figures, a projected increase of 100 cases per month over

this fiscal year. We are starting from where we are at the 32,300, give or take,

and we have projected for an increase of 100 cases per month on top of that. We

have built the budget estimates on that basis.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I still find it difficult to

see why it would be down. I guess you are anticipating a slight increase in your

caseload.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: A 2 per cent increase over last

year, and we will still be down. Six million dollars.

MS BETTNEY: Yes. Part of it, as I say, is the

National Child Benefit, $7.7 million, that comes out of those figures

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but still, when you look at

putting in your the 2 per cent, that is roughly, what, $4.5 million

approximately?

MS BETTNEY: Three million dollars.

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

total.

MS BETTNEY: No, it is 2 per cent of the basic

rates. (Inaudible).

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

basic.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: So if someone is getting above

basic - that is right - for other add-on for various natures, whether medical or

whatever, it would not apply to that of course, just the basic rate.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Then the one we just

referred to there is that $7.7 million in the next section. In 4.1.01.01 there

was a $600,000 budget under Salaries, and an expenditure of $1.1 million, and

this year we are back to $667,800. Why was there a half-million dollar

expenditure over what was originally budgeted? What could that be attributed to?

MS BETTNEY: In this area, we made some shifts

in our programs, kind of collected our programs together and the staff

associated with them when we re-organized our employment development programs.

Now, I would ask my ADM to comment on the specifics of it, but it generally is a

re-organisation of people associated with the function of employment development

programs.

MR. SULLIVAN: So there will be a drop in

another area to correspond to that, I would assume. Would that be correct?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the figure is up a

half-a-million dollars, being revised for last year as you say. We readjusted

some of these main objects (inaudible). You will notice that the total figure

for this year is up about $700,000 over the revised. That half-a-million dollars

is now reflected down in Allowances and Assistance. You will notice that is up

from revised, from $3.9 million to $4.4 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: The money is all there. It is just

that in chartered accounts, Treasury Board calls it, they re-juggled some of

these things.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. The total amount at the

bottom there is very much the same anyway.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess we are factoring in an

extra 4 per cent for salaries with the extra pay period. That would be part of

the difference too.

MS BETTNEY: Yes. Those are the two factors that

tend to show a moderate differential between last year and this year in all of

the salary items that go through this budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: With 4.1.01.06, there is a

significant change from what was budgeted under Purchased Services. What would

account for that drastic reduction there?

MR. ROBERTS: From .01 to .07, that is really

the budget for our SAT Centre, the Skills Assessment and Training Centre, and

again we have reoriented some of this funding. If you go from the Salaries at

$667,800 and right down - $2,000, $36,000 and so on - to $6,000, they add up to

$781,800, which is the budget for our SAT Centre for this year.

MR. SULLIVAN: From which numbers, did you say?

Could you just repeat that?

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: .07, and including Property,

Furnishings and Equipment at $6,000. If you add those, they come to about

$781,800, which is the budget for our SAT Centre, the Skills Assessment and

Training Centre.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Last year it was roughly...

That is right, we have to knock off $400,000 to $500,000 in the upper line,

right?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Then Allowances and Assistance is

already allotted there, which brings it roughly to the same as last year

overall, when you do the re-juggling.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No particular Strategic

Employment Initiatives. That is because of what, because of a federal

withdrawal?

MS BETTNEY: This is a federal program that was,

I believe, a three year funded program from the federal government that expired

at the end of the last fiscal year. There is no funding available in that

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There are no initiatives to

replace or to compensate for that forthcoming.

MS BETTNEY: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Labour Market Adjustment

Programs, 4.1.03. I keep moving, seeing we are looking at each

section there as

we go. Under .10, Grants and Subsidies, this year we are looking at a little

over $6 million as opposed to about $7 million last year. Why would that be? Is

it that it has already done significant adjustments and you anticipate having

less -

MS BETTNEY: Which item are you referring to?

MR. SULLIVAN: 4.1.03, Labour Market Adjustment

Programs. There is only .10 there under that, Grants and Subsidies. It is down

about $1.940,000 budgeted.

MS BETTNEY: The Labour Market Adjustment

Programs that we are talking about are ones that were, again, like the older

worker program -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) and so on.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, which have now expired and we

are carrying certain individuals under that program, and we will continue. This

provides the continued funding for that support, but as people drop off of that

MR. SULLIVAN: Drop off as they get to the age

of sixty-five. It keeps going down.

MS BETTNEY: - it will continue to decline.

There is no new funding in this area. There is no provision for any increase in

growth here. It is simply continuing to support the people who have been placed

on this program over the years.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would NCARP, the northern cod

early retirement program and so on, show the Province's 30 per cent in this

category also?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no basic, I guess, in

this year, allocation this year showing for any future program. That would have

to be done at that particular time. I guess you weren't that presumptuous.

MS BETTNEY: As I say, the -

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, there was nothing

officially approved, so basically there is nothing you can do. You just -

MS BETTNEY: Right. These programs that were in

place expired, and the obligation is simply there to carry people through on the

commitments that were made in previous years. There is not an existing program

to move forward.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just have another question on

this particular one and then I will stop, Mr. Chairman. I know Harvey has a few

too before he goes. Under that total amount that is left there, how much would

be attributed to probably the two retirement programs. There was NCARP, I think

it was called, northern cod early retirement program under the NCARP program,

and under the TAGS program. There were the two basic programs. I guess there was

a variety of programs too, weren't there?

MS BETTNEY: Yes. Under the NCARP program we

have provided $3 million (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the total since 1992, the

two programs basically, or -

MS BETTNEY: No, that's for this fiscal year,

1998-1999.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but I mean the programs that

went under NCARP and under TAGS, all the fishery ones.

MS BETTNEY: I think the Atlantic fisheries

early retirement program would be the second, would it not?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there was AFERP, right, I

think it was called, and NCARP.

MS BETTNEY: Right. We have an additional $1.1

million that is estimated for that, and then we have a fish plant older worker

adjustment program. I think all three of those are perhaps included in what you

are thinking of, and the total of that allocation is $5.7 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the rest of them - most people

on the other programs have not been very recent, and they are pretty well all

dropped off.

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

is the bulk of it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will just stop there, Mr.

Chairman. When everybody else gets a chance I will -

CHAIR: We can come back to you.

MR. SULLIVAN: If there are any of my questions

unanswered, I will get back to it.

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

Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you. I have a couple of

questions. Last year there was considerable discussion on the support

arrangements that would be for people who were in receipt of social services but

who were going to go to post-secondary. In recent days I've had a number of

people call me about the number of people who entered into training in

September, began to access student loans. Because of the arrangements that were

there, and the fact that they had to access all the student loans, the way that

that arrangement was structured a fair number of them, I'm told, have dropped

out of post-secondary institutions.

Have you been monitoring that? Is there any data

available on the number of people who have dropped out of programs because of

the way that the system was structured between your department and let's say,

the student aid division?

MS BETTNEY: We have been monitoring it as

closely as we can. We have been looking at that particular aspect of it to see

what the impact has been. I don't have the specific figures here right now and I

would certainly have to follow up to give you any kind of specifics, but my

recollection of the extent of the drop off that would have been associated with

the recovery, in terms of the shelter component, was that it was very modest.

The real problem that we experienced was in the

very early application of the program when, in fact, we did not have an

arrangement with the banks or with the Department of Education to have the

deduction made at source. You will recall that in the first term after the

policy was applied, when people actually received the money and had to return

the money, that that caused some difficulty. People found themselves in a

position where they had difficulty returning the money. They had spent it on

other things or whatever.

After we got to the point where we had worked out

an arrangement between the banks and the Department of Education where the money

could be deducted at source, the actual impact in terms of the difficulty that

it posed for clients seemed to be reduced. We did not have the same problems

with it. What we tended to do was to try and work individually with the cases

that were left over from the first term application of it to try and prorate out

the payback so that they were able to continue. In the majority of cases, I

would suggest to you, people were able to continue with their education and

gradually pay back the shelter component from the first term, and then work

through in subsequent terms having it deducted at source.

Right now it is an issue, as I say, that clients

for the most part seem to have adjusted to, in the sense that once their tuition

and their books are paid and once the shelter component is deducted at source,

there is still some of the student aid, in the vast majority of cases, that is

left over. Plus people continue to receive their social assistance. They are

getting by, and I'm not aware of any significant number of people who have had

to leave their courses as a result of this.

Now I will ask my Director of Income Support, who

is probably the closest to it, to indicate whether we have any specific figures

to respond to this. Wayne, if you can contribute anything to this?

MR. PENNEY: No, as you say, (inaudible) quite

well. In the first semester a lot of these women were not deducting at source.

The students received the money, and obviously some of them had some difficulty

repaying or paying the money to us regularly. This semester, to my knowledge,

most students have accommodated the policy quite well.

MR. H. HODDER: Have you kept any stats on, for

example, the number of dropouts that would have occurred between, let's say, the

middle of October and the end of December, and compared it to the second

semester dropout?

MR. PENNEY: There were a number of cases, a

small number, and I don't recall the exact (inaudible) but I have it written.

There were a small number last semester who indicated as one of the reasons -

and they might have went on for any number of reasons - but one of the reasons

why they had some difficulty was our policy. This semester, again, to my

knowledge, no individual cases have come to my attention with respect to that.

MR. H. HODDER: That particular policy and how

that is structured, is that consistent with the practices in Atlantic Canada and

across the country? Has that been built in into the student aid

federal-provincial agreements?

MR. PENNEY: About a month ago (inaudible) take

some time. One of my staff is actually doing a province-by-province comparison.

At this point it is not completed, but it should be completed in the next couple

of weeks or so.

MS BETTNEY: Do you have any early indication

even whether others are doing it the same or is it too soon to say?

MR. PENNEY: The early indication that I have is

that our policy is in fact fairly favourable compared to others.

MR. H. HODDER: When you get that kind of data,

is it possible to make a note and have it shared?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: It does permit other MHAs to be

able to answer client based questions that arise through telephone calls or

whatever. We want to be able to give them reassurances, and also give them

encouragement. The whole point is to get these people into post-secondary.

In your Information Technology I notice that you

have allocated $2.7 million again this year. That follows on the $2.8 million

last year. What new initiatives are you undertaking, or is this going to be the

standard amount that is needed to support information technology programs for

the department?

MS BETTNEY: Much of it is the operation of our

existing computerized systems. We do have a significant operation there to run

our income support program in particular. There is that element to it. We have,

as you say, $2.7 million, but we also have the development of new systems

provided for in that allocation.

We have the year 2000 issue, as Dave points out to

me, that is facing us as a department in a really big way. We have to make

adjustments in our whole computer system and all of our programs in order to

ensure that people will continue to receive income support when that particular

unique factor kicks into the whole system. Those are the main things that you

see in that $2.7 million allocation. It is primarily the ongoing maintenance,

ongoing operation, with the addition of the changes to the system for the year

MR. H. HODDER: I have a couple of other

questions. One deals with the pilot that you were doing relative to the payment

of social service benefits, direct deposit initiatives. I want to get some idea

as to how that is going, how it has been received. Is there any intention in

this Province to make it more of a global methodology?

MS BETTNEY: That is part of our overall income

support reform, that is just one piece. We are looking at, as I say, a direct

client entry system that is as unobtrusive as we can possibly make it. One of

the things we know is that for the majority of our clients they fit into a very

simple income support system, in the sense that their needs do not change. Once

you have determined what they are and what people are entitled to, they are

likely to be able to continue with a moderate amount of checking. We know for

those people that as long as we get the accurate information up front and

determine what their eligibility is then we can administer that system pretty

simply. There is another whole category of clients who are in the minority whose

needs change consistently, and they are the more difficult one. That is why you

see a policy book right now in my department that is in the order of hundreds of

policies to try and accommodate all of the complexities of those exceptions.

What we believe is that if we can design a new

income support system that is built on the fact that the majority can be

accommodated very easily, that people can sort of self-identify what their

circumstances are, that we can make the most use of technology to determine what

information we need to know - whether it is from the federal government, from

vital statistics, from wherever - and then get what they are entitled to and get

it out to them in an efficient manner, we think that direct deposit may be one

aspect of getting it out to them that would be efficient.

We know that if you take that and say: We are going

to go to direct deposit in every community, for every case, for every family in

this Province, we would have a nightmare on our hands. That is not the intent,

but it is to say that this is a way that people can get their payments easily

and efficiently, and things like postal strikes do not make a difference to it

so it can have some real advantages to it.

It will not be for everybody because a lot of

people will not be comfortable with the technology in the beginning and it may

be that they will have to grow into that. There is a really large public

information piece, and information and education with our clients, that have to

take place as well. I think that this is a component of the new system which

will reduce our costs. We will be able to make that shift. It will give us the

ability to make that shift from having 90 per cent of the people focused on

getting the right amount on a cheque to a person, to having the majority of

people helping people get their needs met towards employment. It means taking

use of existing technology. Direct deposit and ATMs are part of the answer. and

where it is appropriate in communities around the Province, and where they

exist, we will be making as much use of them as we possibly can, and encouraging

our clients to go in that direction.

MR. H. HODDER: Just a couple of more questions.

This one follows from a question Sheila asked in the House on Friday. It has to

do with the internship programs in the school system, when we have a program

that is working that helps students be able to identify their own skills to let

them have some experience in the workplace and a meaningful role model in that

kind of relationships.

As you know, the federal government has withdrawn

its funding. It is one of those cases where the federal government, having

initiated very worthwhile programs, and having a view today on a mandate to do

that, then, when the program works they drop it and say to the provinces: This

was our idea. We have all of the public relation benefits that we need to get

out of this now. Now we will just throw it in your lap and you can go with it.

This idea that the federal government can just do

that kind of stuff bothers me greatly. What are we going to do as a province?

Because this is a very successful program. It follows in line with the

initiative that you have talked about in terms of making sure that people have

the skills. Yet I get called on a regular basis, including today, from a school

asking: What have you heard? When is the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment going to have dialogue with Roger Grimes, and when can we hear

something on this? Any answers I can give to these people?

MS BETTNEY: We don't have the answers yet. As

you have indicated in your comments, this was a federal program and it was a

program, I would add, though, that was quite unique to this Province. I think

there was probably only one other province where the federal government was

funding these kinds of programs in high schools. Typically the dividing line

between jurisdictions has been at the post-secondary level.

This was not a program that ran in all of the

provinces. I think over the years the federal government has had to be convinced

on many occasions that it was appropriate for them to be funding a high school

program, to all intents and purposes, here in the Province. Unfortunately, I

think, over the past year the policy level decision in the federal government

has been that no, they should completely withdraw even in these areas from any

involvement in high school programming.

I think the challenge to us now is to convince the

federal government that we need to find a way to be able to continue funding

these things. Because I think both the federal government officials who we have

talked with and ourselves agree that in terms of early intervention in

employment related issues on bridging young people from school to work this has

been a very successful program. While it takes place within the confines of the

school and in terms of education, I would say it is more of the jurisdiction of

the Minister of Education than it is, for example, of myself, the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

Having said all of that, knowing what the outcomes

are, it is very important that we try to sustain those. With the Minister of

Education we are pursuing this with the federal minister of HRDC where the

funding has come from in the past. Our officials are trying to pursue this at

their level as well. We do not have a change of position at this point. Right

now there is a policy position taken by the federal government to say no, they

are not going to do this any more. We have not successfully changed that

position at this point but our efforts continue.

I think the avenue that presents some opportunity,

some potential for us to explore, is in the youth employment strategy that we

are developing cooperatively with the federal government. I would make the case

that when we look at a federal-provincial youth employment strategy, a very

viable and valid piece it for this Province - not to say that it would work

anywhere else in the country; I don't know that - but for this Province I would

make the argument that a very solid youth employment strategy is to use some

kind of internship cooperative type program in the schools because of the

success that we have seen with it to date.

We are continuing to pursue it. We do not have an

answer. The same people are calling me and I cannot tell them any more than that

today. I know that the clock it ticking in terms of being able to allocate

schedules to schools and insure that the programs are able to continue. The

point that the school representatives and the school board representatives have

made to me is that the programs that are most at risk are the ones that have

only been started for one year. Those are the newest ones. They feel the ones

that have been established for a number of years can sustain themselves and can

survive. What they are asking for is some way to address the programs which have

only been there for a year to insure that they can get the two or three years

that they need to really become sustainable. That is the area we are focusing on

most in addressing this issue.

MR. H. HODDER: In terms of, for example,

development of partnerships with the community, there is a tremendous benefit

here. Because it lets the community have some participatory function in

education -

MS BETTNEY: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: - and lets them get into the

mind-set of being, shall we say, responsible for the raising of the total child.

It has tremendous benefits. As someone said one time: One thing you have to

think about when you develop programs is what if they work? In this particular

case they seem to have worked. Of course, I should also point out that my

research tells me that this decision is not an Ottawa based decision, but an

Atlantic Provinces decision of the federal group, that this was not a decision

which was directed by policy from Ottawa, but was made with the group of

Atlantic Provinces, people who work with Human Resources Canada. They did have

options at the local level but they chose to go in other directions.

I will leave it there because I do understand my

colleague here has all kinds of questions on the National Child Benefit. I will

leave all those for the good member for St. John's West. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Harvey. Perry, and then

perhaps we could go to Mary before we come back to Sheila.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just

have a couple of comments to make. First of all, Minister, I want to express my

appreciation for the work that you and your officials in your department did on

the Labour Mobility Agreement. For those who do not know, the Labour Mobility

Agreement is a new agreement between our Province and the Province of Quebec to

allow free labour movement. The Government of Quebec had that opportunity all

along. It was a single gate. People from Quebec could come, in particular into

my area, and work, and we could not go there to work. We had examples, for

instance, of cement trucks going to Fermont to dump out their load of cement,

and they were not allowed to use a labourer to pull the chutes on the back of

the truck.

I am happy to say that is fixed. As a matter of

fact, I talked to William Elson the other day, who is chair of the youth

unemployed committee in Labrador West, and he is very pleased. He is saying to

me that there are new jobs opening up in Fermont with Quebec Cartier Mining that

he and others will be applying for. For the first time they will be able to

apply for jobs in the mining companies in Quebec, and that is a tremendous

advantage for our people.

The other thing I would like to say is, on behalf

of the Canadian Association for Community Living, specifically the group in

Labrador West, I just wanted to pass along their deep appreciation for the

efforts of you and, again, others in your staff, the kind of support that has

been provided through the year. I don't say this just to be patronizing. I say

it because they really believe that there has been some important progressive

social things done in terms of their group and their advocacy position. I was

very pleased today to have read their quarterly report where they talked about

how much they appreciate you going into their homes in Labrador West and talking

to them about their own issues. That is an issue that I will continue to be

working with you on, and I am sure that your support when you can will be there.

The other thing I would like to do is just mention

for a second something else. Because one of the most active women's centres in

this Province happens to be in Western Labrador. They have a very strong office

there, they have a very strong advocacy group. Because I and others know that

not only are you the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, but you are

also the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. The monies that were

provided this year for the maintaining of those offices allowed for the

continuance of their ability to affect social change.

We ought not to forget that they provide tremendous

assistance to women and children, especially from challenged homes and from

settings that are rougher than most of us can contemplate. Those investments in

those offices were very important. They give an access to women and children

when they have troubled families that they otherwise would not have. Because

sometimes it is easier to go in and talk to a neighbour you know than it is to

go talk to somebody representing the Crown, an official, or even a politician.

It is easier for somebody in a condition like that to go and talk to a friendly

face, and those offices are very important.

I wanted to just mention those three things.

Because as much as sometimes we like to look at some of the issues that we quite

haven't hit the top line, there are many things that we have accomplished. I

think that, all in all, for the three things that I have mentioned with respect

to my riding, I am very appreciative of the role and work of your office in

Wabush and the support from Goose Bay, and in the office here.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you.

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

go to Sheila.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you very much. I don't have

any questions for the minister this evening, but I am glad to have the

opportunity to meet some officials from the department, and to say thank you to

the people who I have not had an opportunity to meet in person, although you

have been there for me on many occasions to solve many problems that come up on

an individual basis each day. I sincerely thank you for that.

On the transition home on the Burin Peninsula, I

spoke with Cheryl Mallard again today, and things are going very nicely. They

are getting the board together, and hopefully we will see something very

positive (inaudible) in a very short while.

So again, thank you to everyone. I'm the voice on

the phone but haven't met everyone. There are not too many I have not spoken to

in the department.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mary. Sheila.

MS S. OSBORNE: I am going to start with the

National Child Benefit fund. As I have said (inaudible) in the House of

Assembly, I do commend the program. One of my concerns is that they will not

reach all the people that they should reach. In other words, the claw backs from

it will be universal or to programs deemed not necessarily universal. I am

thinking of the National Council on Welfare report that was released today, or

(inaudible) today.

One of the things they refer to is that one of the

problems for people (inaudible) small communities to obtain employment. When

they were living in the smaller communities I guess they had farming and things

that were able to sustain them. Of course, once they got into a larger community

they found this wasn't the case. I mean, one of (inaudible) jobs where it was

temporary, the end result was poverty. I guess my question is: In the very small

communities in this Province, how universal will your programs be?

MS BETTNEY: I think what everybody needs to

understand with the National Child Benefit program is that this is a very

strategically oriented program and it does not solve every problem that exists

with poverty across this country. It is not going to fix everything, and

everybody knew that in the beginning. When the program was designed it was

intended to address this issue of helping people bridge from dependency from

social assistance into employment. That was the primary intent of the program,

knowing that a lot of the first jobs that people take are going to be on the

lower end of the income scale.

There is a real gap. People have coined a term for

it, the social researchers have called it the welfare wall. It says that you are

better off being inside, on this side of the wall, dependent, getting support,

because of all of the other benefits that go with it, that are basic protections

for you and your family, than you are breaching that wall and taking the risk of

going it on your own.

That is the main focus of the National Child

Benefit program. It does not presume that it will address all of the other

issues associated with rates and the income of people on social assistance

across the country. What it is intended to do is provide provinces with the

resources by freeing up the funds that become available, through providing

social assistance really, by providing this benefit to all families, to allow

provinces to have the resources to design programs and services to assist with

this aspect of the problem.

In this Province we (inaudible) had a particular

problem because we had, I would have to say, some of the largest gaps in early

childhood programs and services of any province in this country. Beyond a doubt

we did not have and we do not have the level of services for young children in

this Province that exist elsewhere. Whenever you talk about families moving into

employment, there is a basic requirement that they are going to need. It is

going to be child care. Apart from anything else, apart from the people who

require it for other reasons, it is going to be a primary requirement,

particularly of single parents. We know that there is something like 8,000

single parents on social assistance today.

In terms of the overall development of children,

these early childhood services are so important. We did not have any

programming, any services, or any legislative authority over children who are

zero to two years old. There is a cost to putting that in place. I would have to

say that without the $10 million that the National Child Benefit provides us

with, the resources and the access to it, we would not be able to instate and

put these kinds of necessary early childhood programs and services in place. In

addition to that, we have looked at the family services, the family resource

centres, which provide a real support service to families. We see successes with

those. We are basing it on the model of the family resource centres that were

funded federally under the CAPC.

We have had a full evaluation of the program. It

was just completed earlier in the fall. Tremendously positive results with those

in terms of the results that it had for children, for families. I visited the

MacMorran Community Centre here talking to the director there about the results

they have seen with something like the nutrition program for pregnant mothers.

Where they have completely reversed the problem of the low birth rate with

infants. They have gone from a rate that was really disturbing in terms of the

number of low birth weight children in that particular area that the resource

centre serves, to where they have had fifty healthy, full weight, full-term

babies there at Christmas time. This is a huge success story. That is the kind

of services we will be able to now fan out and extend across the Province in all

the areas where they do not exist today.

The other area that we are focusing on is the

youth, and the twelve to eighteen-year-olds. We know that if we can somehow

engage those young people who just have not had the exposure - they are at risk

of dropping out of school, they are at risk of not developing their skills so

that they will go on to be employable. They are also at risk from some of the

things that young people do when they get off course, whether it is associated

with their health, with drugs, with other dependencies and so on, or their

general mental health. Through our youth networks, this will provide us with an

avenue to really deploy all of the resources that are already out there in the

community with the existing agencies, and more fully be able to respond to the

needs of young people in this age category.

Without going too long, I would have to say to you

that I recognize that there are areas - when you look at the National Child

Benefit program, it does not address the issue of the rates of social assistance

and the difficulty and the inadequacy that exist in the current rates. Our

applying and putting in place a three-year phased in increase is one response to

that particular issue. As I said in the House today, if you told a lot of

(inaudible) the 7 per cent over the time that it will be implemented, it is

going to comprise a $30-million increase in funding that will go in place. It is

$3 million this year. You add on to that. Next year it gets up to be $11

million, and then it just compounds, and that is the reality of the cost of

social assistance in this Province.

Something as simple as a 2 per cent rate increase

this year and a 3 per cent rate increase next year adds up to those kinds of

millions of dollars. That is not the full answer, but I do believe that the step

we have made in putting these programs and services now in place is the most

profound social policy shift that we have made in this Province in decades.

I think you will see the results of that ten years

out. I just absolutely believe in the value of what we are doing here, but I

will never say that it is the answer to everything. It is not. We still have to

continue, and as more resources become available we will have to be able to

respond and provide more resources as well.

MS S. OSBORNE: The work incentive program,

which will be for the working poor, will be able to take (inaudible) -

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

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

I think that is wonderful, especially as it pertains to the drug card. I have to

say that if I were in a position of being dependent on the security blanket of a

drug card and I had children, that is the route I would take. My main concern,

and I keep saying this, is the little people out in the little community who

will not be able to take advantage of any of these programs.

I have no problem with any of the programs, they

are all needed and they are all very welcome. My main concern has been, from the

beginning, with people in the very rural areas who are being clawed back and

will not get to take advantage of these types of programs. That is the only

problem I have with it.

MS BETTNEY: I see that the family resource

centres - for example, we are putting money into the family resource centres and

that is going to really benefit rural Newfoundland. Right now there are, I think

the number is twenty-nine family resource centres. Some of them are core centres

and others are just outreach type centres across the Province. We know that the

urban areas are taken care of. The whole intent of expanding this program is to

insure that that resource benefits the social assistance family as well as the

low income family.

Because this is a site people come to, where they

can really get the kind of support and development to insure good parenting

practices, good nutrition practices, just plain somebody to talk to. Sometimes a

peer counselling group has far more advantage than a medical service or a

medical counselling service will ever have. The family resource centres I see as

being one of the key services that will really benefit social assistance clients

in rural Newfoundland who, you are right, will not take advantage or be able to

take advantage of the employment side of this.

The other piece is the expansion of the licensed

day care. The move to be able to licence family home day care to me is a major

step in making quality day care available in rural Newfoundland. Up to this

point you have to have a centre. That, by its nature, happens in an urban or a

quasi-urban area where there is a concentration of kids and family. With the

family home day care, we know it is going on all over the Province. What this

does is give us a means, as a government, to be able to regulate it and insure

that that service can be a quality service. That parent can know if they are

putting their child in a family home day care that it meets certain standards

and that their children are going to be safe there and will get a quality

environment while they are there.

That particular expansion and improvement of the

licensed day care is going to cost us $4.6 million. I would suggest to you that

social assistance families and children - because of the nature and the way we

provide subsidies when children need it, whether their families are working or

not, if we determine that a young child needs to have a day care environment for

their development or for their protection, then they can benefit from that. Now

there will be an expanded level of service available to those children all

across the Province. The youth network, in the same way, I see as being an asset

to children and young people who live in social assistance families equally as

it is an asset to children who live in low income families.

So no, they will not take the employment part of

it, but if you look at the $10.10 million, only $1.6 million of it is employment

incentives. All of the remainder of the money in the National Child Benefit is

the other programs and services that social assistance families will have the

same opportunity to benefit from. I feel fairly good that while social

assistance families do not get the monetary benefit that working families get,

by the same token the value of their social assistance is greater than what a

low income working family gets. We have done the statistics on it. What we know

is that you would have to be earning over $8 per hour before you even start to

equate with the benefits that a social assistance family receives by virtue of

their actual income, other benefits. That does not deal with the other services

like the drug card that they have access too. That is pretty significant, you

know.

MS S. OSBORNE: Let me just go back, if I could.

Will there be any communities in very rural Newfoundland on the Coast of

Labrador and on the southwest coast, etc., that will not be able to take

advantage of any of the programs? These are the people that I am thinking about.

They will still pay.

MS BETTNEY: Not to my knowledge. The other

thing that you have to remember is that, for example on the Coast of Labrador,

the example you gave, again, part of the budget that we built in recognizing

this was the $150 a month increase to families living on the Coast. Because we

know that their cost of living is so much greater than the cost of living for

people on the Island and in other parts of the Province. Just by its sheer

location I cannot see that being an issue.

There will be an issue of community capacity, in

the sense that much of the programs and services, in order for them to be

successful, have to have an element of community ownership. There is a building

process that has to go on here. The family resource centres work because people

in the community are involved with them. They drive them, they own them, they

dictate what goes on in them, they are community centres in a sense, and the

youth networks will be established in much the same way. There will have to be

that kind of (

a) leadership and (

b) ownership that will have to take place in

communities for them to be able to get these things operational there. Where

there is the desire, location would not be a restriction. I cannot see that

being an issue.

MS S. OSBORNE: You own Goss Gilroy. I thought

it was Joan Marie the other night. You still (inaudible) own Goss Gilroy.

MS BETTNEY: I own Goss Gilroy.

MS S. OSBORNE: I have some problems with the

Goss Gilroy report, with all due respects to the Association for Community

Living -

MS BETTNEY: And others.

MS S. OSBORNE: - and others. One of the things

is the cost per capita of keeping a person in the Perlin Training Centre. That

is on page seventeen. I don't know if you have that (inaudible). On page

seventeen of the Goss Gilroy report it says that it costs $11,195 per capita.

That is just to keep them there. That is not reflective of their home care and

other things that happen outside of that. Just to keep them in the centre.

If the centre closes or if the centre is phased

out, what are the plans for the clients there who don't either (

a) want to or

(

b) are unable to work? The reason I am asking this is if we give thirty-five

hours of respite at approximately $6 an hour - it says $5.41 here, but it is

gone up to $5.84, and then there is the little employment expense for EI and CPP

(inaudible). To keep them for thirty-five hours a week is $10,900 respite, if

they are not in the Perlin Training Centre. Can you see where I am going with

this?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MS S. OSBORNE: The Perlin Training Centre is a

good bang for the buck respite-wise. I'm speaking from first-hand (inaudible)

care. The person I take care of is thirty-eight years old, and she is a client

at the Perlin Training Centre, and has been for quite some time. I am caring for

her because her mother is unable to, she is a senior, etc.

I know of another man around fifty years of age who

was also a client. It was his choice to go work, and he made out really well in

the workplace, but that does not work for all of them. Some of them either can't

or don't want to. The Association for Community Living, with all due respects,

gives them a choice to integrate, but they should have a choice not to integrate

either. I am talking of social stimulation that they receive from their peers at

the Perlin.

The girl who stays with me who I take care of, this

is her right. I could not conceive of a place that I would rather have her. In

other words, if the Perlin closes I will not be able to take care of her for

that thirty-five hours a week. Somebody will have to do the day respite. I

cannot think of any place in this world where she would get a better quality of

care, social interaction, etc., than the Perlin. I am asking you now: What are

the long-term plans, or what are the (inaudible)?

MS BETTNEY: Again, this whole area is in

transition, both within the department, within the funding that we have

available. Because of course, as I indicated earlier, the funding that we have

used in this area has been 50-50 cost-shared funding with the federal

government. It was formally the Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons

program. It covered a multitude of services, employment related being some, but

also with these types of programs which were day programs, sheltered workshops.

It covers things like assistance supports, technical training aids, and a whole

host of things. In the change that is taking place in the federal funding with

the new agreement, where this is being focused primarily on assistance for

people towards employment -

MS S. OSBORNE: Going to work.

MS BETTNEY: Again, and that is the focus of the

funding that the federal government is providing here. We are, by necessity, as

well as by principal, making a change here and a transition. It is going to

take, I would suggest to you, the next three years or so, and the federal

government have allowed for that in their funding. They will be giving us sort

of a three-year period to make the transition to determine how we want to

restructure our programs and services for disabled people so that we can take

the best advantage of the federal funding that is available for this purpose.

Now that suggests some change in our current

approaches, and that's why we have a stakeholder committee which is working on

developing an implementation plan for the Goss Gilroy Report. In essence, what

you are aware of, is that all of the stakeholders have agreed with the overall

direction and thrust. Now they are trying to work out the details of: What does

this mean for the Vera Perlin School? What does this mean for the pre-vocational

school? What does this mean for the supportive employment programs and for other

interventions that we have in this area? I think there are six subcommittees who

are currently putting together a plan which I expect they will give to me by the

end of the summer.

I cannot say to you today what will happen because

it is the stakeholders themselves who are shaping how they want to see this

structured. One of the critical issues they are dealing with, that kind of drove

this early report - you saw it in the statistics there - was the fact that for

the people, for example, who are at Vera Perlin, nobody questions the quality of

the experience they have there, the value that it has for them and their

families. They are probably one-tenth of the population who are being served.

With the services full, with no movement, then it is kind of like you win the

lottery. If you are in there, you are in. Then you have the service, perfect.

MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: For all of the other people who

could benefit perhaps from some service similar to this, they do not have access

to it. If you ask me what I think will happen, I think you will see some kind of

a change. I do not anticipate that the Vera Perlin School, as an organization,

will disappear from the landscape here. I think you will see a clearer focus on:

What is its function, what role does it serve? Then a more equitable access for

disabled people to be able to get in there.

MS S. OSBORNE: Or make another one.

MS BETTNEY: Again, you would have to question

whether providing some elements of that, combined with some employment, combined

with some other things, might be the best answer. That is the challenge that we

have really put to the stakeholders (inaudible) -

MS S. OSBORNE: They will not go out to work

because they are afraid they will not get back in.

MS BETTNEY: Exactly, yes. What I heard, even

from the people who I spoke to there who are disabled, is very much that. It is

not a question that they do not want to work, but again it is a question of

risks. It is like that welfare wall: If I go out of here tomorrow and lose my

place -

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

MS BETTNEY: - and the work does not work out,

what is going to happen to me then? Am I going to be stuck home? Their families

are saying: What is going to happen to us then? We have to make that system

better. As I say, I do not expect that the Vera Perlin School will close, to be

honest with you. Right now it is with the stakeholders, and I will receive what

they give me and then take it into consideration in terms of the big picture.

Very much the federal funding that is going to be

provided to us will provide us with a means of resourcing, supporting people

towards employment, and we have to take that into consideration in terms of all

of the resources we have available and how can we best serve the needs of the

disabled people in the context of their full lives, and living quality lives. I

think Vera Perlin will continue to be there, but I think it will have a

different role, to be honest with you.

MS S. OSBORNE: I guess in my case, and I am

just using my - this is not to be self-serving, because I take this (inaudible).

In the case of, once again, the person I take care of, if Vera Perlin changed

focus even, if she was only able to stay there for another year or so, when she

went out the back door of it then we are dealing with respite, which would cost

the government or your department or whoever has that responsibility more per

month for the same hours than it would keeping her at the Perlin. I have people

who come for respite, but I cannot see that they could possibly come close

enough (inaudible), not a millionth of the quality that she gets there because

of interaction with her peers.

I have had this argument around other tables when I

was on other committees. In a effort to normalize - she is thirty-eight -, would

I insist that she sit and play scrabble with me and my son? That is normal.

Where is normal.

Whereas she would rather be doing things with people who

present a little challenge, but not a great challenge to her. Because she

enjoyed being in the lip sync concert that was on a couple of weeks ago. That is

a perfect example. One of the little girls came over after and said: Tell the

government not to close us. They should have been here tonight. Because that

thing, that is one of the highlights of the year. They are in bowling, summer

games, they are in all sorts of things that they feel very secure and very

comfortable in.

MS BETTNEY: This is a classic kind of

discussion or debate around the whole issue of integration and normalization and

quality -

MS S. OSBORNE: And choice.

MS BETTNEY: Choice, yes.

MS S. OSBORNE: If they choose not to integrate

because they are happy where they are, then maybe we should have a look at

leaving them that choice as well.

MS BETTNEY: I think the department, at least

when family and rehabilitative services was part of this department - it is no

longer part of this department - when we are talking the full aspect of people's

lives here, clearly the department and the government have taken a strong

position on integration. It is one that I support and have in all of my

(inaudible).

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

MS BETTNEY: Part of the choice then is having

realistic choices and having choices that, yes, people can make that they know

will be there in the future. They can look at it and say: Yes, this will be

something that I want to do and it is something that is good for me in the long

run. Simply forcing people into situations where because of uncertainty they

stay with the known is not a good choice either.

This is an ongoing issue, but I think in terms of

the structure of employment services I am confident that the people who are

around the table working on those sub-committees will come to a consensus and

give us a path that we can follow here that will be a good course of action for

government in this area. The main thing is we have to insure that we will be in

a position to access the full extent of the federal dollar that will be

available through the employment program for people with disabilities. Because

unless it fits we will not be able to access the funding. I think we have to

insure that we have enough employment programs for persons with disabilities

that are valuable, supportive of the employment programs that fit the criteria

to draw down on resources that are allocated to this Province. Because we are

going to need them. They are only fifty to fifty-cent dollars, and we still have

a very large need in that area that we know of. We cannot afford to turn away

any dollars.

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

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

to Don.

MR. G. REID: I just have a couple of questions

and they are on the same topic. It on page 216 under the Labour Market

Adjustment Programs, 4.1.03. You say most of that $6 million was taken up with

the fallout of the fishery back in 1992 under NCARP and in 1994 under TAGS,

under the plant worker - was it PWAP?

MS BETTNEY: Yes, POWA power.

MR. G. REID: Any idea of what that cost

originally, what the Province was (inaudible)? That is a 70-30 program with the

federal government, right?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

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

on that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-eight hundred clients,

isn't it?

MS BETTNEY: I am going to ask one of my staff.

This (inaudible) pre-dates me a fair bit so I am not certain of the numbers

here. I don't know if any of the staff will have that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is here in the package

that accompanied the budget there, I do believe. The number 2,800 clients rings

a bell.

MR. G. REID: This year?

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

that is -

MR. G. REID: No. What I mean is that is what we

are paying this year. Some of them have gone on to sixty-five years old now and

dropped off.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Over 90 per cent are, as the

result of fishery programs, I think still left, based on the figure that...

(Inaudible) over $5 million out of the $6 million? I will find it here now

anyway.

MS BETTNEY: In terms of some of the figures

that I have here in the details, I will just try and scan down through them.

Under the Plant Worker Adjustment Program, the program was signed in 1991, and

approximately 200 clients are receiving benefits there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Nineteen ninety-one?

MS BETTNEY: Yes, that's what my notes say for

the Plant Worker Adjustment Program.

WITNESS: That's not POWA.

MS BETTNEY: No, that's a specific one. Under

the NCARP one, that was signed in 1993 and we have approximately 1,400 clients

receiving benefits there. The Atlantic Fisheries Early Retirement Program was

signed in 1995 and we have approximately 900 clients receiving benefits under

this program. The POWA one was signed in 1989, revised again in 1993, and we

have approximately 300 clients receiving benefits under that. I think if you do

the tabulation it will probably come to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-eight hundred clients it

says here, yes. I found it. It says 2,800 clients.

MR. G. REID: That was fifty-five years and

under, pretty well, wasn't it?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. G. REID: What I am trying to determine is

basically how much we are paying roughly per - I know it was based on their

income I think, wasn't it, a percentage of their income?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes it was.

MR. G. REID: Have you done any estimates on how

many we would take and what it would cost if the federal government brings in a

retirement program for plant workers now?

MS BETTNEY: That is all being done under the

committee that has been structured to deal with the TAGS issue. That analysis I

know has been done because I'm on the committee, but it is not kind of resident

in this department. It is being done under the auspices of the rural

revitalization plan.

MR. G. REID: Were any of you people with the

department when it came in in 1990 with NCARP and TAGS? Do you remember what we

originally (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: I have been with the department

several years, but my excuse as to why I don't know this is (inaudible). This is

part of the labour market division and program, and that was originally with

Development and Rural Renewal. It came with our department in April 1997, a year

ago last April.

MR. G. REID: I was surprised to see it. I did

not think it was in this department. I was just wondering what it would cost us

to take out x number of people under that program.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is $4 million or $5

million a year, beginning initially, I would think. Dave Lewis is in your

department right?

MS BETTNEY: Not any more.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, he was.

MS BETTNEY: He is with Health and Community

Services. Moved again, Fisheries and Aquaculture now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh right, yes. I was not sure

because I did speak with him recently and with the department, like where Gerry

is coming from. I just did my own little calculations. I am just wondering in

terms of where we might be with it, based on how many people might be in that

category right now. I had estimates of the figures of age. I did not have the

specifics. I just did estimates.

What you estimate the average person to now be

receiving on the program as a plant worker, as a fisherperson, I had to project

how many may take the program. The plant workers are lower paid. Fisherpeople

are getting a higher income under it. I think it can be done for several million

dollars, based on 30 per cent. If you probably dipped down a bit lower than

fifty-five, because there is a big chunk of people who have gone out of the

program who were on the upper end of the scale. You are going to hit new people

coming in at the lower end now that are going to be on a program for a longer

period of time. There will be a payout over a longer period on it, because most

people now who were up there took it. We are going to have probably almost ten

year and eight year payouts under the program.

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

with?

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say off hand they could

be refined. I said to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal that I would

need some more specific figures from the department, but I would say in the $4

million or $5 million range would certainly be about right. If you take that as

30 per cent of the total, we are looking at a program that is going to be

looking at even only a - you can pay out $15 million to $20 million a year, in

that range.

That could be it. Because there are a lot of people

who are not going to adjust out because they are just not in the age bracket,

and there are a lot of people who would fall short of a fifty-five program. If

it dips to fifty-three as it was talked about before, federally, or down to a

fifty, then we are talking about a whole new ball game right there.

MR. CANNING: These people are under POWA,

right? How many of these people are actually taking the actuarial reduced Canada

Pension at sixty? Do we know that?

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

know.

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible) I know at the time

that it came in under NCARP and TAGS, (inaudible) 1994 the Province said no to

fifty. I noticed the Premier said the other day that he would be interested in

looking at the fifty and above. I was just wondering if anyone had calculated

how many were in that age group. I would assume that back in 1994 those

fifty-five and older, most of them took it and walked, are out there now on this

$6 million that you have. I just wanted to find out how many. I have 2,000 TAGS

clients in my district.

MS BETTNEY: All I can say to you is I know all

of the figures have been worked out and a demographic profile has been done of

the whole industry. The answers are there, it is just I do not have them.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are working on it. I

met actually with Dave Lewis and John Scott just briefly on an aspect of it. I

have not discussed with them the figures at all, any follow up at all, but I

would imagine they have done their figures, they have done their work on it. The

question I asked - the Province has not got back to the point yet where they

have looked at the dollar value from their perspective, and even gone to Cabinet

or anything of that nature, as to what they might do on the program.

MR. G. REID: Are there any fishermen under that

program? There are no fishermen in that program, retirement package.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. When people took retirement

under the program they did not distinguish them as fishermen or plant workers.

They were all eligible for the program, I understand, regardless of -

MR. G. REID: I thought it would be under the

license buy-out (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. People could have taken early

retirement and sold their license and kept their personal fishing license. There

are different categories under NCARP and you could have gone out completely, and

still you could have qualified for early retirement even with a license buy-out.

That was available. So there are people in that category.

MR. G. REID: The other one is on the

(inaudible). Actually, I said they were both on the same thing first. Under that

National Child Benefit, if I were eligible for that benefit, what do you

actually get in terms of the benefit for a child?

MS BETTNEY: The benefit for a low income family

is graduated. It is $605 for the first child, $405 for the second child, and

$325 - I am guessing now, it is in that order - for the third, and then there is

a subsequent piece as well. That is on top of the payment of Child Tax Benefit

which is -

MR. G. REID: Everyone gets right now?

MS BETTNEY: Everybody gets, and social

assistance clients will continue to receive. The only portion that we will

recover to create the investment fund is that increase that will be implemented

on July 1. The point is that families today will not be receiving any less as a

result of the National Child Benefit. In fact, as a result of the 2 per cent

they are getting a little bit more than they were prior to the Budget.

MR. G. REID: So a family with two kids would

basically be getting $1,000 for the year.

MS BETTNEY: Roughly, yes.

MR. G. REID: Ninety dollars a month.

MR. SULLIVAN: Six hundred and five dollars,

$405, and $330 are the figures.

MS BETTNEY: Three hundred and thirty dollars,

is it?

MR. G. REID: That is all I have. I don't envy

your department, it is not an easy one to work in.

MS BETTNEY: No, it is difficult to deal with

individuals on it, but one of the things we are finding thought the calls we are

taking, the hot line which we put in place, we are trying to give people as much

information as possible and to communicate with them directly as much as we can.

One of the things we are finding is that people

have a certain comfort level with the idea that they are not going to be worse

off. One of the first alarms that went off was: You are taking something from

us. They especially were fearing that they were going to lose the Canada Child

Tax Benefit that they are getting today. Once we resolved that people started to

get a different comfort level with it.

The other piece that people responded really

positively to is the $150 a month increase under earnings exemption. For a lot

of families that is a real asset because they do have an ability to get some

income. When they realize that where previously they could only earn up to $100

and then it was taken -

MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty-fifty, was it?

MS BETTNEY: Fifty-fifty. Now the implication of

being able to have $150 of what they earn, completely exempt and able to keep,

is really money on a monthly basis that they can see where they will be able to

get a real financial benefit from that to kind of make up some of the difference

here too.

Those two things have been very helpful in creating

a level of comfort for people, but you are never going to get past the fact that

yes, the federal government is providing a benefit here which, by design and by

their intention, social assistance clients were not to keep. The unfortunate

part of it is that the province is on the end of having to make the direct

recovery, so we get mostly connected with it.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Yes. It is just like on the shelter

component. When we were giving it on the one hand and asking them to pay it back

it was a whole lot more different than when we were able to deduct it at source.

Unfortunately, we don't have that capacity to be able to do it right now.

The overall intent of the federal government, and I

think this is really positive, is if they are able to move this to the point

where the federal government is actually taking responsibility for supporting

children, then you have a National Child Benefit that is of such an amount that

we will be able to take social assistance for children right out of our social

assistance design. I would not be surprised if when we ultimately redesign our

income support, assuming that the federal government continues on the track that

it is on and it's already committed now two next instalments to the Child

Benefit, we will be able to say that the amount for children is coming from the

federal government. It comes in your social benefit -

MR. G. REID: Exactly. It is only the husband

and the wife who would qualify for it.

MS BETTNEY: Right, so anything that we design

for income support need only take care of adults. When we do that we will get

away from this recovery piece. Now it is a ways out, and we have to live with

the difficulties of managing the current system, but I think when we get to that

point we will have a very tangible benefit for children which will break down

that welfare wall. Because then it will not matter whether your family

circumstances are such that you are receiving social assistance or you are

working. Your children will still have the same benefit that can move back and

forth with the children. It will make a tremendous difference in the long term.

I think it is worth the immediate pain that we are going to feel in implementing

this to try and get to that point, and that is why I am so convinced that this

is the right thing to do.

MR. G. REID: The money that we are going to get

from the claw back, has all of it been already committed?

MS BETTNEY: Yes. In the way that we have

described it in the budget for the day care services, the family resource

centres, the youth networks and the active employment measures. (Inaudible).

MR. G. REID: What I mean is -

MS BETTNEY: In terms of has it now been

assigned right out?

MR. G. REID: Yes.

MS BETTNEY: No.

MR. G. REID: Okay.

MS BETTNEY: No. These are in program form right

now that have to be developed.

MR. G. REID: So if a group in some of my

communities were to try to access some of that funding -

MS BETTNEY: There is ample time.

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

MS BETTNEY: Oh, the programs are only in the

development stage right now so there is no money. I should not say none, there

may be some of it that is dedicated because of the nature of, say, the licensed

day care services. We know that $4.6 million is needed for it and we know how

that will be distributed to subsidize spaces and so on, but in terms of the

family resource centres and the youth networks, no, that has not been allocated.

We will be working with community groups to develop the models and decide where

it will be expanded.

Of course the other thing that you need to keep in

mind is next year when the federal government brings in the next $850 million

there will be another increase, not to the same extent because of our rates, but

we will have an additional $3 million we are estimating to be able to reinvest

and expand these programs and services even further as they get developed in

communities.

MR. G. REID: To alleviate Sheila's fears, is

your department doing anything to encourage programs in rural Newfoundland?

MS BETTNEY: Absolutely.

MR. G. REID: Because I have one I think that

may qualify on Fogo Island. They do everything on a regional basis, and they

have the only regional council in the Province on Fogo Island. They have a

program there that I think may be eligible for funding.

MS BETTNEY: I think you are right too. I had

some contact with it before that side of my department moved and we were looking

at it as something that -

MR. G. REID: So I guess it is up to your

department and us to make sure that people are aware of (inaudible) program.

MS BETTNEY: Also Health and Community Services.

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

CHAIR: Thank you, Gerry. Don?

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam

Minister, I just wanted to get some further information with regard to the

training programs your department is sponsoring. The Member for Waterford Valley

touched on it earlier but I just wanted to sort of get an idea as to how

extensive the training program is; specifically, how many people have availed of

it who had been formerly on social services, or still are social service

recipients.

MS BETTNEY: When you are saying creating

programs, what are you referring to specifically? The employment program?

MR. WHELAN: Not exactly the employment program.

Because I understand there is a program within your department that (inaudible)

finance people who are on social services to further their education, to become

employable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: When people attend post-secondary

training, if you do not have dependents, then we simply direct you to the

student aid division in the Department of Education and you draw down a student

loan the same as anybody else in society and you live off it. If you come off of

social assistance we do not continue to provide social assistance to anybody who

does not have dependents.

If you have dependents, we recognize that there is

an additional difficulty and responsibility. As I say, focusing on assisting

children and the whole issue of child poverty and getting families out of that

kind of situation, we make provision for families to be able to stay on social

assistance while they access the student loan and attend post-secondary

training, whatever that may be.

In order to do that, we say you have to draw down

your full student loan the same as anybody else and you have to return a portion

of your living expenses, because the department is providing your living

expenses. If you do that then you can continue with your social assistance, you

can continue to have your drug card and your vision care and all the rest that

go with it, and your normal social assistance rates.

MR. WHELAN: I think that is the type of thing I

was trying to zero in on. I am wondering with regard to -

MS BETTNEY: The numbers that we would have, the

number of cases -

MR. WHELAN: That would fit into that category.

WITNESS: Do you mean on student aid, for

example?

MR. WHELAN: Student aid. Single mothers, single

fathers for that matter.

MS BETTNEY: Again Wayne, in terms of income

support, do you have the (inaudible) numbers there?

MR. PENNEY: The last amount that we had is

approximately 880 this semester (inaudible).

MR. WHELAN: That is Province-wide?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: The people who are availing of

these programs, whether it be this type of program or student loans, are trying

to make a transition obviously from the welfare cycle. Have you been able to

monitor the success of this particular effort with regard to the people who have

been on social services trying to break out of the system and move on to a more

normal lifestyle in society? Is there any way to determine how many people are

actually breaking out of the cycle? I guess it would be difficult to monitor.

MS BETTNEY: It is very difficult to know,

especially with the kind of information system that we have today. Our whole

data management and information management is really focused on that issuing of

cheques that I mentioned earlier. It does not serve us well in terms of

capturing other aspects of information related to people who are on or off or

coming back into social assistance. I would guess at this point that we do not

have accurate information to respond to what you are asking, what is the linkage

between our clients who go on to pursue their education in terms of their

success in breaking out of the system.

Intuitively we know that it is a major factor. With

the single parents for example, and I have met with many of them over the past

year, they see this as their way out. They know from others who they have spoken

to that this is their best chance. Most times it will work for them, it gets

them out, if they get their post-secondary training. It is very much intuitive

type information.

The other thing we know is for the population as a

whole, the best indicator and the best move that somebody can make to increase

their employability is to get that post-secondary training. That is the

strongest link, and that applies not only here but right across the country. If

you go on to that post-secondary education your chances of getting employment

start to rise rather dramatically. We just know. The numbers of young people

that we have on our case loads, the, say, youth that fall into the under

twenty-five category, over 65 per cent of them do not have high school. That

just tells you of the link between education and going on social assistance. If

we have them on social assistance for that period, the odds are they are going

to be there for quite a while, unless we do something very different from what

we have done in the past.

MR. WHELAN: Julie, I think if you looked at the

figures in the fisheries you will find that they are even lower, education

(inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. WHELAN: The various programs that you have,

to be quite honest, I find it a little strange that there is x number of

dollars, a lot of dollars, millions of dollars, being spent on loans and

subsidization of educational programs. It is almost like you are proceeding in

the dark, spending money and not being able to determine whether it is being

spent in an effective way or whether the returns on the money that is being

spent are great or small or insignificant or nil. Is there any effort being made

to -

MS BETTNEY: Yes. In redesigning our computer

system and in redesigning our income support system we are building in the

capacity to be able to attract those kinds of factors. Our computers that we

have today, and the programs we have, just cannot cope. They do not have the

information we need. As Dave was saying, it is twenty years old, it is

(inaudible), and it is just barely getting alone. If it gets us through to the

point where we have the new program we will have to have new computers and new

systems in order to implement it. We are just barely going to make it now with

the stuff that we have today.

I do not think it is too much of a risk to suggest

that by supporting our clients in their educational pursuits that we are helping

them break out of the system. I think it is pretty good odds that that is the

case because it works for everybody else, so I am fairly comfortable with that.

We have done a better job, I think, of tracking the results with our employment

programs. We know things for example with the Graduate Employment Program. That

is one where we target young graduates and try and subsidize their employment in

the private sector, with the hope that if they get into a job in the private

sector for a year at a subsidized cost to the employer, that the employer will

find a way to keep them on. We have had tremendous success with that and in

tracking it. What is the figure, 85 per cent or 75 per cent?

WITNESS: Seventy-nine per cent.

MS BETTNEY: Somewhere in between. Seventy-nine

per cent of the graduates that we have subsidized under this program have

maintained their employment, up to how many years?

WITNESS: Up to one year after subsidy and -

MS BETTNEY: - and counting. I mean that says

that is working. It is money well spent. We put in the maximum of $10,000, but

if a year later that person is still working, they have two years of experience

now on their resume and they probably have as permanent a position as anybody

has in today's working world.

WITNESS: And they have paid back some taxes.

MS BETTNEY: And they have paid back some taxes,

yes.

MR. WHELAN: That is basically it for me, Mr.

Chairman. I just want to thank the minister on her grasp (inaudible) in her

department.

CHAIR: Thank you, Don. Before we clue up I

think Loyola has a couple of questions he would like to redirect, but he is not

going to ask too many because Montreal is playing tonight and he wants to get

home to see that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a question to make sure I am

clear on it first of all. With reference to family resource centres, is that

funding, the $1.15 million, being spent through your department?

MS BETTNEY: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Health and Community -

MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that's my understanding.

Because I -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Fine, I'm clear. Some of the

conversation might have led me to believe otherwise, but it is in the

(inaudible) Department of Health and Community Services. I have already dealt

with a matter and I have dealt with the health department on it.

MS BETTNEY: The only aspect of the National

Child Benefit funding that will actually reside in this department is the active

employment measures, the $1.7 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure. The Opening Doors

Program assists around twenty people. Is that included under 4.1.04? Is that

where it is allocated? That's Vocational Training and Support Services for

Persons with Disabilities.

MS BETTNEY: It is not under 4.1.04.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would it be under 4.1.01?

MS BETTNEY: No, it is under our regular

employment programs -

MR. SULLIVAN: 4.1.01.

MS BETTNEY: - those that I was mentioning

before, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, okay.

MS BETTNEY: It would be one of those.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. In terms of qualifying

under the Opening Doors Program, who could be a qualifier under the program? How

broad is it or how restrictive, either way?

MS BETTNEY: The Province, a number of years

ago, established an inventory - I will put it that way - where anyone with a

disability in the Province who wished to place their names sort of on this

inventory as people who were available for consideration for employment with the

provincial government could do so. That is wide open, in the sense that if

anybody feels that they wish to have themselves considered for this, it is

simply a question of contacting Jim McDonald with the Opening Doors project and

they will have their name placed there.

It is not just a question of having their names

placed there. What happens has really been that they go through a process of

career counselling and career services, in the sense that they identify the

kinds of things they have skills and aptitudes in. They get some counselling

with respect to resum writing and interview skills. Also, as part of the

Opening Doors Program, the staff there identify opportunities with departments

for positions that can be then funded through this program in departments in a

developmental way, so that the people who go into the positions get an

opportunity to spend a year kind of working and learning about a particular job

and developing their job skills and developing their expertise in this area.

In that respect, through this amount of money that

is allocated for the Opening Doors Program we provide the cost of keeping those

positions in the department. It is with the intent that at the end of the

developmental phase, however long that would be, the department would then fund

the position as a regular position within the department.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would that be under .01 under

that heading or .09 or .10? Where would it be placed? It is $500,000 a year,

provincial and federal, right, over the next two years I think. Is it under

Grants and Subsidies or under Allowances and Assistance? I guess it is under one

of those two areas.

MS BETTNEY: We are pretty sure that it is under

the Grants and Subsidies

section of 4.1.01, as a grant to the project which then

gets distributed through Salaries and so on.

MR. SULLIVAN: That would provide the salary of

that person to get into the workforce basically.

MS BETTNEY: It provides the number of the

salaries and it also, of course, provides the staff support to the project

itself, the director and the various counsellors and support staff.

MR. SULLIVAN: So somebody who may have a

certain disability, whatever the case may be, physical or otherwise, could still

qualify in that program. Assistance, under Vocational Training and Support

Services too, I guess could work concurrently with that, correct?

MS BETTNEY: Yes, exactly that. That is an

entirely separate system of supports. The Opening Doors Program focuses on

trying to develop job opportunities within the provincial government. There is

another program that it has also been running which is called the JEEPS program

which is a job experience program with the federal government. It also

coordinates with the federal government in trying to provide placement for

people with disabilities in federal government departments as well. That is

purely internal to both levels of government. Any of the other vocational

supports and employment supports are also available to these people, and to

others of course.

MR. SULLIVAN: In 4.1.04, under Salaries there,

.01, why would there have been a $200,000 drop in the revised versus the

budgeted figure for 1997-1998? That's on page 216, 4.1.04.01, Salaries. I know

it is back up again this year, but would there have been positions there that

were not filled and they were vacant and they are now going to be filled next

year?

MS BETTNEY: That is right. There were vacant

positions throughout the year and we are anticipating full (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and you are budgeting for

these. I just have a few others, similar ones like that. They are not pertaining

to finances. We will just look at this particular one, 1.2.02, Administrative

Support, under that heading. In Information Technology there was an expenditure

of almost $1.2 million over what was budgeted. What might have necessitated that

expenditure?

MS BETTNEY: Where are we?

MR. SULLIVAN: 1.2.02.12, Information

Technology.

MS BETTNEY: We made a major purchase of new

computers to replace those twenty year old ones. Really, in terms of the

increase that you see in the revised budget, that is what it represents,

approximately a $1 million purchase of hardware.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under 1.2.03, the next head

there, Program Development and Planning, I know there is roughly a 4 per cent

generally for the addition pay period, approximately, which probably takes up a

part of that. Probably $60,000-some. There is a jump too. Are there some

positions too that have been added in that area? Because last year there was

over $100,000 difference in the budget of which only a portion of that would

have been attributed to an extra pay period. Was there an extra position added?

MS BETTNEY: We have expanded the planning

function within my department because of all the work that we are doing with the

income support reform, with the National Child Benefit, and with all of these

major social policy issues. We have increased our resources in the policy

planning area.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under that same head there,

1.2.03.05, under Professional Services, and 1.2.03.10, Grants and Subsidies,

there has been a significant increase in both of these. What might have

accounted for that in the budget this year?

MS BETTNEY: I think under the Professional

Services, again , it is some of the work we are doing to hire external

expertise, some consulting expertise, with our redesign of the Income Support

Program. We have had to bring in, for example, Dr. Fraser Mustard from Ontario,

a nationally renowned expert in the area of early childhood issues, when we were

dealing with some of the early issues around the National Child Benefit. We

continue to have some contacts on a consultant basis with some other social

researchers to help us in redesigning our Income Support Program as needed. We

have just put a block of funds in that particular budget item to use for

consulting purposes throughout the year.

MR. SULLIVAN: Grants and Subsidies. It has been

$32,000. It might have traditionally been in that area, if it is $32,000 and you

spent $32,000. There is an extra $40,000.

MS BETTNEY: The block of the $40,000 is for the

women's centres. My department, Health and Community Services, and Justice each

allocated a $40,000 block for the women's centre funding, and that is where ours

got placed.

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

Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Are there any

other questions from committee members to redirect? Sheila.

MS S. OSBORNE: I have a couple. Will direct

deposit be compulsory when it comes in?

MS BETTNEY: I do not see how it could be. I

would have to say no at this point.

MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) would be more

consistent.

MS BETTNEY: It would be our intent to have it

as much as we could because I think it would be really efficient and it would

work well for people, but I do not think the technology will exist even from the

banking industry's point of view to make it compulsory when it is introduced.

MS S. OSBORNE: The drug card that people

receive as part of the job incentive program (inaudible). Do they get to hold it

for a year?

MS BETTNEY: No, we have not set a time limit on

it. That was one of the choices we had to make in implementing it, so we are

still working through that. What we anticipate is that depending on a person's

needs, some of them maybe more exhaustive, more compelling then others, and for

some people three months might be sufficient. For others it might take three

years. While there are constraints obviously because of the amount of money that

we have placed in the block funding, I did not want to set a period on it that

might be artificial and counterproductive in something that we are testing.

We need to view this as a pilot in the same way

that we are viewing some of the other things. We are trying to see what impact

that it has. I was concerned that if we put an artificial limit on it of six

months or a year that we might skew the results and really never find out if

this piece does contribute something significant. We have left it open. As we

further develop the pilot we will determine whether to put a ceiling on it or

not, but my instinct is that we will end up with something that is flexible,

that we will be able to use discretion based on a person's circumstances.

MS S. OSBORNE: In the training programs,

(inaudible) in the student aid when you are single and you go to get your

student loan, but at the end of your training period there is no job, I guess

you can go back on social services.

MS BETTNEY: If you are still on.

MS S. OSBORNE: If you are still on.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, for of course single parents.

Wait now, you are saying for single people.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, for single people.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, sorry.

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

(inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: For people who come off the

caseload, they are viewed in the same manner as anybody else. When they present

themselves as having a particular need for support their needs will be assessed

and their eligibility determined accordingly.

MS S. OSBORNE: The eighteen-and-over people who

are employable who live with families, what is the cutoff for them not being

able to qualify? What's the criteria?

MS BETTNEY: What's the income level? I would

have to ask, I don't know.

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

house.

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

MR. PENNEY: I just want to clarify the

question. In terms of an eighteen-year-old living with (inaudible) -

MS S. OSBORNE: With family.

MR. PENNEY: If the family is on social

assistance, obviously the eighteen-year-old will continue on their assistance.

We use the social assistance rate as a measure (inaudible) -

MS BETTNEY: Do you want to have him move up

here?

MR. PENNEY: It is not an absolute cut-off. It

is judged on an individual basis.

MS S. OSBORNE: So this will be probably more

people working, as employed parents or (inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MS S. OSBORNE: In day care, people who are on

social assistance who have gotten a student loan, and day care is provided as

part of the support, what is the age cut-off for the children who are eligible

(inaudible)?

MS BETTNEY: Under twelve?

MR. PENNEY: I am not absolutely sure, but I

suspect that (inaudible) -

MS BETTNEY: I think it is around twelve, but

again it might depend on the child, if the child has a particular need, in a

child protection sense, that can be accommodated through a placement in a day

care environment (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: The reason I asked is that I

have a person now (inaudible) I will have to call your department because this

is a specific case. A lady who left her twelve-year-old son alone and he was

apprehended by child protection, but they will not give her day care

(inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: I see.

MS S. OSBORNE: He will not go to a centre

obviously, he is too old for that. I guess I will deal with that on that

individual (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Loyola is telling me that I should say

thank you.

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

too.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move

the heads 1.1.01 to 4.1.05, inclusive without amendment.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.1.05, carried.

On motion, Department of Human Resources and

Employment, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: The meeting is adjourned until next year

at this time. All the Estimates have been concluded for this year.

Thank you, Minister, I appreciate you coming in.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you and your staff. Thank you for

putting up with this rather warm evening.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1998-05-12
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga43session3_1998-05-12_ssc-hre_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	31acb669ebb53e32e2fd83649d4abf8606959b4a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).