Social Services Committee — Department of Social Services; behind me is Mr — 1 May 1991

1991-05-01

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 1, 1991 SOCIAL

SERVICES ESTIMATES

SOCIAL SERVICES (UNEDITED)

Pursuant to S.O. 87, Mr. Larry Short, M.H.A., St.

George's, substitutes for Mr. Art Reid, M.H.A., Carbonear.

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

We are dealing with the Estimates of the Department

of Social Services and I welcome the Minister and his staff. I would also like

to introduce for the sake of the media, and I welcome the media, the members of

the Committee: to my immediate left the Member for Humber East, Ms. Lynn Verge;

the Member for St. John's East, Mr. Jack Harris; the Member for Bonavista South,

Mr. Aubrey Gover; the Member for Trinity North, Mr. Doug Oldford; and, we have

with us also the Social Service critic, the Member for Port au Port, Mr. Jim

Hodder. I would also like to introduce the secretary of our Committee who is the

Deputy Clerk of the House of Assembly, Miss Elizabeth Murphy.

At this time I would ask the Deputy Clerk if she

would be kind enough to take charge for a moment.

Miss Murphy (Deputy Clerk): Nomination for

Chairperson.

On motion, Mr. T. Murphy, elected Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Murphy): I now call for

nominations for the position of Vice-Chair.

On motion, Ms. L. Verge, elected Vice-Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Without any further ado I would

ask the Minister to introduce his staff to the Members of the Committee and then

give him the opportunity to have some opening remarks.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: On my left is Mr. Dave Roberts the

Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for Regional Operations; on my right is

Mr. Noel Brown, the newly appointed, I am very pleased to say, Assistant Deputy

Minister responsible for the Social Assistance and MR Program; my new Deputy

Minister, Mr. Bruce Peckford, I bring along his apologies as he is unable to be

here tonight, he is out of the Province carrying on the business of the

Department of Social Services; behind me is Mr. Jim Strong the Financial

Administrator for the Department of Social Services.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take too long in my

remarks this evening. I will start by saying to the Committee and Members

opposite this year has been a very, very difficult year as everybody is aware

and can well imagine for the officials and myself as Minister of the Department

of Social Services. We know the demands out in the Province and the ever growing

number of people who are dependent upon social assistance for many and varied

reasons. Not always are the people who are looking for social assistance

perceived as able bodied persons who receive monies they really do not need,

that is the wrong perception but nevertheless it is a reality that people

perceive out there. The number of people who depend upon the Department of

Social Services well, we start out with the MR, Mental Retardation Division, the

physically disabled, the socially disabled, the single parents which has been a

topic which has been carried on in the House and my Department for the last

several months, some 9900. But many, many other different types of people. We

have many different programs within the Department of Social Services. I think

there are eight major programs we are responsible for so I will highlight some

of them. The Community Development Program is one that we are placing a lot of

emphasis on within the Department. We spent approximately $25 million last year.

We have been making some major changes within that program because the officials

and myself believe that it is not just good enough to put people to work for ten

weeks and then on UI benefits for the remainder of the year. We think it is

important that we start with basic training. A lot of individuals within the

Province are under-educated in basic life skills so we will take it on up from

that into basic training of job search and self esteem so that they will be able

to do different basic jobs within the Province. We are placing a lot more

emphasis on training and trying to work with families to break the cycle and to

get people away from the dependency of social programs, especially social

assistance, and to instill some dignity and pride so that they will become more

independent. We seem to have lost a lot over the last quarter of a century, and

I do not think anybody is going to argue with that. Our goal is to have a new

direction in the Community Development Program. We are not going to do away with

the program, but to keep that program and focus on people so that they can get,

not only financial benefits, but education, training, and self esteem into basic

life skills and basic life management.

The other one that is very dear to me, as it was

during my days in Opposition, and which Mr. Brown is responsible for, is youth

corrections. Youth corrections have always been a major problem within the

Province. As far as developing a rehabilitation program, when you take young

people who find themselves in trouble with the law, for one reason or another,

you do not just look down and take them, as the court says, and put them in

secured custody for X number of days, or whatever the sentence may be, but you

genuinely take interest in the young people, understand their needs, understand

their problems, understand why they got themselves in trouble, the circumstances

surrounding it, and again, the same as with people on social assistance, do not

look down, but look at them as young men and young women with a future, and try,

with properly trained staff, to work with these young people and give them a

second chance at life, which we all need from time to time. None of us are

(inaudible) from trouble and I certainly am a model of that, and still am. We

treat young people with that sort of respect. The Youth Correction Division is

undergoing some major changes with respect to management and training programs.

A new facility which was started by the former

administration should be completed sometime this year, and we hope that the

future of young offenders will really focus on our ability to keep young

offenders who are in our secured custody system from entering the adult system.

We hope that we can make some changes in their lives so that we can make some

good men and women of them in the future.

There is another program within the Department that

is really a concern of everybody, not only officials, but every individual, and

that is the Child Welfare Department. There are many, many problems in there

that are very, very difficult to deal with. The number of cases of child abuse

that have been reported over the last several years have been ever increasing. I

think when we all talked about it last year that it had reached a plateau where

it might level off, because of the population size for one thing, but it has

not. It is still on the increase. In fact it is on a daily increase and that

really concerns us. We have initiated a number of programs this year, education

programs, where child abuse can be identified at an early age. We have sponsored

a program in joint co-operation with the St. John Ambulance to put the child

first, where they are going around the Province and training people on how to

identify child abuse. I suppose it is not a prevention method in which you are

going to prevent it from happening altogether, but if you can identify it at a

very early age you will prevent it from continuing on in the children's lives.

We will give you an example; what happens I find is that it goes on for five to

eight years before the child becomes old enough to tell somebody so that

somebody else will understand it. So if we can identify it through the

classrooms and through the professional people within the communities we could

probably stop it at an early age. So that is one prevention method that it

happening, and we are very thankful to the St. John Ambulance in working with

the Department and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the RCMP and many

other organizations right around the Province. It is becoming very, very

positive.

We have also taken steps within the Department to

initiate a number of training programmes to train not only people in the

community but special training for the staff, even the individuals who are

coming out of Memorial University with degrees. Because even though they go

through an academic process for four to six years, when they get out and get

involved on the street with incidents of abuse, whether it be sexual, physical,

mental or whatever, it is a different story. So we have initiated over the last

couple of years some good training programmes. It is not something that starts

and finishes at a certain time. It is going to be an ongoing thing Province

wide. We are not bringing the people in, we are taking the training to the

individuals within the Department of Social Services and all of the people who

are connected in that area.

We are very proud to talk about the child

protection unit that has been established here in St. John's because as you know

we have our largest concentration of population here. We have moved into the

Ashley Building on Pippy Place where the building is designed and laid out to

deal with people coming into a confidential and secure place. The staff has gone

through a number of training programmes, so there is a lot of good things

happening in that area: the MR and the Rehabilitation Division. I have a lot of

confidence in that division, in fact it is one of the divisions that I have had

very little problems with. The staff within the MR Division is second to none;

they are fantastic people. They are working closely with all of the people

across the Province: the group homes and the disabled within the homes, the

foster home care, and I can say beyond a doubt, and I have been out and I have

been in British Columbia and I have been on two conferences since I became

Minister, only two, and the two of them were to do with the Association of

Community Living across Canada; one in P.E.I. the year before last and one in

British Columbia, and Newfoundland was recognized as the leading Province in all

of Canada in institutionalization and working with the mentally and physically

disabled people in giving them the right to live within the community in their

home environment. So although this has been a negative year for us making Budget

decisions and there have been a lot of things we have not been able to do, we

have been doing a lot of good things that we do not get credit for.

I do not think I will take up anymore time. I am

sure there will be a lot of questions coming up because I could take an hour

without even drawing a breath in telling you all the other positive things that

are happening, but I will get an opportunity as time goes on tonight. So, Mr.

Chairman, with those remarks I will rest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.

Minister. Just so we have everything in order I would again want to remind you

that these hearings will be transcribed, so I would ask everybody to identify

themselves as you put questions to the Minister. And I would want to ensure that

all the Committee Members have a fair chance at asking the Minister and his

officials questions, and I would want you to consider other Members of the

Committee as you put questions forward. So without any further ado, I guess,

always as a courtesy I would ask the Vice-Chair to lead off the questions.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. By agreement

within our caucus I would like instead to have our critic -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes?

MR. HODDER: It was my understanding from the

committees that I had attended that the Minister would speak at first and then

the critic respond. I mean, that has been the tradition - I am not meaning to

take away any thunder or anything, but I was prepared to say a few words in

response to the Minister.

MR. MURPHY: Well, if the Vice-Chair does not

mind. Last year Mr. Hodder we took the other format, but if the Vice-Chair does

not mind then that is certainly alright with the Chair.

MS. VERGE: Yes, that is just what I was saying.

I would like Mr. Hodder to speak first.

MR. MURPHY: Well, the only thing I would say to

that is if and when Mr. Hodder is finished then we would come back through the

other Committee Members rather than swing right back to the Vice-Chair. So if

that is okay with everybody, then fine. Go ahead, Mr. Hodder.

MR. HODDER: Well, Mr. Chairman, first I would

like to welcome the Minister and his officials. Just a few comments, I guess, I

do not intend to be long. I should ask where his other ADM, Mr. Tulk, is. It so

happens that Mr. Tulk and I attended the first committee meetings together and I

had expected to see him here in another role tonight.

I should say first that the Minister has a very

difficult Department. He has probably one of the hardest jobs in Government. He

has to deal with people and these people are very often the less fortunate, the

handicapped, the poor, to name some. And for that reason his Department is one

that I think has to be properly funded, particularly in hard times. And

certainly the recession and the problems that we are having in this Province at

the present time require a great deal of sensitivity towards people who are on

social assistance who are under the care of the Department of Social Services.

I want to say though that - and this is no

criticism of the Minister, I think I mean it as a criticism of the Government -

but there have been cutbacks in the Department of Social Services which I just

do not agree with. Now, I did not speak when the Minister spoke, and we all know

that things escalate each year, and we also know that the budget for last year

was $142,272,000 and it was revised up to $148 million. And this year it is

$144,114,000. Now I also know that we had a problem here last year with

refugees, but that is a difference of $4 million less than was spent last year.

Now I would say to the Minister, whether he agrees with me or not, and I think

he should, that his Department should have been the one that had a massive

increase this year rather than a decrease. Or a situation which is practically

standstill.

Now, another point that I want to make is a general

comment, and we will get to the specific ones afterwards, but that the Community

Development Projects are down from last year by $5 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Now, the Minister again - but

anybody who looks at the budget, which I just did a second ago to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) the subhead number.

MR. HODDER: No, Mr. Chairman, I certainly will

not. The Chairman should know that we will be taking the subheads and going down

through them. I do not intend to change what I am saying. We will be doing the

subheads, each single one, and the Chairman will be calling them.

Now, I will tell you something else about these

Community Development Projects. I happen to represent a district which has some

of the highest social assistance recipients in this Province. I doubt if there

is anywhere in the Province with a higher unemployment rate than the district of

Port au Port except for perhaps Bay d'Espoir, which is represented by the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and there are some other areas.

But for unfortunate and historical reasons there is a high rate of unemployment

in the district of Port au Port.

Since this Government has taken over the Community

Development Projects have lessened as to the number, and the Minister knows what

I say. And not only that but these projects, and a lot of projects that I

consider to be good but which had to be taken one step farther, were cancelled.

Now, we used to have - I will give one for example: We had a group of ladies who

used to make very beautiful blankets. If you go into the Department of Social

Services on the Port au Port peninsula there is one on the wall. It is a work of

art. Now, one of the problems with those projects was - they were thought to be

very good when they came in. But the problem with it was the fact that these

people came there year after year and they learned the first skill but they did

not learn the second skill. The other thing was that they had to be given away.

So therefore people sat there and their fingers got tired and they did not see

any purpose to what they were doing, even though they were creating beautiful

work.

The problem with this is that - and I might sound

like I am criticizing myself - but the problem with this was that people just

did not see an end to what they were doing. They were coming on for ten weeks

and it was basically a dependency and the same people were coming on. My feeling

was that if the Department of Social Services had been innovative and had worked

with the Department of Employment or - whatever we call it now, the Department

of Labour, Employment and whatever they are called - if they had done that and

taught these people marketing skills, had taught them to - and had helped them

once they got off the case load, if there had been an agency to work in

conjunction with Social Services. We had the people that could make the

blankets. And we had the product being produced. Now the Minister has come in

and he says: that is not training. So he has cancelled the whole thing.

But what I am saying is that this should never have

been cancelled. It should have been taken one step farther and these people

should have been taught to market them. Because right across the Gulf in

Baddeck, Nova Scotia, and in Halifax, these blankets, which were made for

practically $20 or $30 a piece, perhaps $40 or $50, are selling for $500, $600,

and $700. So what I am saying is that the Minister came in, he took this idea

which was starting to blossom, and killed it.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is single

parents. Twice this year, and the issue came up in the House of Assembly again

today, the Minister and his Government have put forth a policy which has hurt

single parents. Now, there was no reason in this world why the Minister had to

have a study to see about single parents at the University, or any sort of a

study as far as single parents. The Minister knew -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: There was absolutely no reason for

a study. The Minister knew exactly what had to be done, and instead of doing it

because it would cost some dollars, because it would cost his Department money,

it is under study. And now we find that the Government - which has upped the

social assistance help to single mothers with children, who upped it this year

from, I understand $60 to $65 - now we find that with the minimum wage having

been increased, or having been brought in for domestic workers or child care

workers, which are basically I suppose baby-sitters who come in and work for a

period of time, that since now - and if you look at this Province, you will see

that the minimum wage is a pretty good wage on the Port au Port Peninsula. The

minimum wage is what most people get in many areas of this Province. Now, for

example very often you had somebody who wanted to get on a social service

project, these projects which the Minister talks about, which are supposed to be

training projects, the Minister by the way should revert back to what I was

saying before, the projects we had before for instance I remember projects which

took people into the Bay St. George Community College and into community

colleges and trained them to do certain things and gave them life skills and job

readiness training as the Minister was mentioning there, that was not a new idea

by him, that was done for many years in my district before the Minister ever

became Minister of Social Services.

Mr. Chairman, any woman on the Port au Port

Peninsula now or down in Bay d'Espoir who wants to get on a community

development project or wants to take

part in as the Minister says, these new

revamped types of projects which he is talking about, if the projects pay little

more than the minimum wage how is that person going to get on the project and if

that person can only reclaim from the Department of Social Services $65, is that

not going to discriminate against single parents and women in particular.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: No, I think before the Government

came in with the minimum wage in that particular circumstance and the Premier

admitted today they fought over it long and hard but before they had done it

they certainly should have put in place - they should not have brought it in so

that it would have discriminated against some of the poorest people we know in

our population, single mothers and single parents who want to work.

Let us take a single mother who wants to get on

this fantastic project the Minister says he has brought in. Well, first of all

she has to think in terms of, I think, paying out about $700 a month before she

can go on the project. If the projects are thirty-seven hours to forty hours a

week -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: That is for child care, yes. If the

Minister thinks that is going to get women out of the home and into training or

into the universities when they have to pay out somewhere around $700 a month,

and I am not even sure they will not be required under law to pay out benefits

as well. I do not know that so I will not say it. But certainly that is

something that bothers me.

The Minister says that nothing has been cut back. A

little while ago there were fifteen respite care workers across this Province -

the Minister had admitted in this House at one point and I can get his words

from Hansard that this was a budgetary measure. I know that some areas of the

Province did not use respite care workers but certainly, I believe most people

who availed of the care of respite care workers would certainly rather have a

respite care worker who is on full time hired by the Department available for

training programs rather than have respite care workers who are ad hoc. It is

really a saving of money because these people had to be paid a proper wage. Now

the respite care workers can come from anywhere and for any length of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Lots wrong with it.

MS. VERGE: Nobody on the Committee interrupted

the Minister when he made his opening presentation and I do not think we should

tolerate interjections by the Minister when the Social Services Critic is trying

to make his presentation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is certainly a point to be

considered. I sense from the Chair that Mr. Hodder was satisfied to respond to

the Ministers interjections. If I sense that anybody asking a question is

disturbed with an interruption then I would obviously have to make a ruling on

that but I did not sense that Mr. Hodder was upset with the Minister so I will

leave it to Mr. Hodder's discretion.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I will just continue

and finish quickly because we will be getting into all those topics in more

detail and the Minister can have his back and forth all he wants.

Group homes are another topic I want to talk about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The statement from the critic

took the Minister right off his seat. If the Minister is okay I would ask Mr.

Hodder to continue.

MR. HODDER: To quickly finish, group home

closures: If the Minister would just let me speak. We on this side of the House

support the Minister as far as the closure of any group homes, but the only

thing I would say to him, and I have said this to him before, is that I think

group homes should close when there is no longer a need for them. Why would any

Government make an announcement that group homes are closing, which he did, he

made an announcement that group homes were closing, when there were still people

in those group homes? The Minister has taken backward steps from his first

announcement to his present stand. At first he announced that certain group

homes in the Province would close, and later he said they would not close until

everybody was out, because there was an outcry. All I am saying, Mr. Chairman,

is that there was no reason to say that group homes should close at all because

all of those people that are in the group homes are looked after, nobody is

going to kick up a fuss because a group home is closing. Those group homes only

exist for the five, six, or seven people who are in them, and when a group home

closes, and when these people are integrated back in the community you are never

going to get the people of Gander, or the people of Goose Bay, kicking up a fuss

about the closure of a group home, which they did each time, if there is no

longer a need for the group home, if those people who are in the group home have

been integrated back into the community. That is all I am saying to the

Minister. He did it backwards.

Is the Minister dense? The Minister announced that

group homes would close. He made that announcement, and he then back tracked -

MR. GOVER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. Gover on a point of order.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, the Standing Order

indicates that the person speaking in reply to the Minister has fifteen minutes.

It has now gone to sixteen minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to ask Mr. Hodder.

MR. GOVER: We are perfectly prepared to let Mr.

Hodder have a few more minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair respects the point of

order and I ask Mr. Hodder to conclude.

MR. HODDER: I did say that I would quickly

finish. I mentioned group homes and I went to make a comment about group homes,

and of course the Minister cannot sit still long enough to wait for his turn. I

will be here ready for the onslaught as soon as I finish, but there are a few

more things I had to say, but I abide by the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments, Mr.

Hodder. I would now ask Mr. Oldford if he has any questions of the Minister

and/or his staff.

MR. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order.

MR. HODDER: Is this the first meeting that we

have had?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it is a different format. I

can be quite honest with you, the format over the last couple of years was we

opened up with the Vice-Chair and questions and we moved it back and forth the

Committee, and because the Vice-Chair relinquished to you, the critic in the

House, then I have no problem with it. I think you have made your opening

remarks as the critic, and the Minister has made his opening remarks, so I would

think now we would move down into questions from the Committee to give the

Committee some time. We have been here forty minutes now and we have not asked

one question on the estimates yet.

MR. GOVER: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order, Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: My understanding from the way the

Standing Orders work is that the Minister makes an opening statement of which

there is no time allocation put on it. That has been done, and then the critic

or a Member for the Opposition has fifteen minutes to reply which has also been

done. Then the only other indication we have from Standing Orders is that no

Member shall speak in debate for longer than ten minutes at a time. So I would

assume now that the next procedure in keeping with the customs of the House in

Committee is that we now go to a Member on the Government's side of the House

for ten minutes and then alternate back to a Member of the Opposition for ten

minutes and back and forth like that, but there is no - in deference to the hon.

the Minister of Social Services - there is no place in the Standing Orders for

ministerial responses after each speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MS. VERGE: Although that, if I might,

Chairperson, the way this Committee -

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are speaking to the point of

order.

MS. VERGE: To the point of order, yes. The way

this Committee operated the last two years is that there were exchanges between

Committee Members plus visiting Members and the Minister. So, for example, if we

were to follow what we did last year and the year before then the Minister would

now have ten minutes to comment on Mr. Hodder's presentation. We would then

move, in turn, to other committee Members, for example, the Member for Trinity

North, the Minister, the Member for Bonavista South, the Minister, the Member

for St. John's East, the Minister, the Member for Humber East, the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The Chair does not want to

break away from format. The only thing the Chair wants to ensure is that

everybody has an opportunity. I think that we all agree that we are here to do

the Estimates with the Department of Social Services. But to that point of

order, and I make a ruling that there is not necessarily a point of order as

such -

MR. HARRIS: Can I speak to the point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly, Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: What we are really talking about is

the procedure of the Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. HODDER: If we could just discuss this

because I expect we are going to be here for a fair amount of time and, you

know, I am not talking about the Minister but we have a number, four or five I

suppose, the Committee will have, so it is just as well to discuss it out now.

But I agree. I expect the Minister to answer and I am looking forward to his

answer, but at the same time what I am wondering now is once the Minister

answers will we drop into short questions which was the normal thing, back and

forth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair wants to now hear from

the Member for St. John's East on the point of order raised by the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously

looking at the rules it looks like it is a Committee of the Whole type of

debate, ten minutes to a side and that sort of thing and I have not been

involved in one of these procedures before, but if preference is anything to go

by I think, you know, we have had opening comments. I do not particularly want

to make an opening speech, but I was hoping that perhaps if you had a ten minute

allocation to a certain person, if I wanted to ask the Minister during my ten

minutes questions back and forth, use my ten minutes in asking questions and

getting information then some other Member can have a turn and I will have a

turn again and go that way. If I want to use ten minutes to make a speech and

pillory the Minister, then I guess I can do that too, but I would prefer to ask

him questions and find out information so that we can decide whether we are

prepared to vote these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I think the Chair has

probably heard what needs to be heard. Now taking the advice from the Committee,

which I appreciate, I would turn it back to the Minister to respond to the

critic and then the format we will take would be to give a Government Member,

after the Minister responds, the same period of time, and then I could move on

to Mr. Harris and to Ms Verge and so forth and so on in a sense of fairness and

balance.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of

clarification. I have no problem with what Mr. Harris has suggested, but when it

comes to a particular Member's turn and they want to ask the Minister a question

and then the Minister responds, is the total allocation for that particular

segment ten minutes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is my understanding, yes.

MR. GOVER: Okay. Normally it is not always

taken, right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that is fine. And, you know,

I think the objective here is not to strap everybody on a very strict time frame

as such, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is to do the estimates in

a fair sensible way, and I would ask the Committee's leave that the Chair not be

constantly pushed with points of order dealing with minutes and/or seconds. So I

would now give the Minister the time to respond to Mr. Hodder and then I would

turn over to Mr. Gover, the senior Member of the Government's side of the House

and so forth and so on.

MR. HODDER: I hate to do this because I have

been on these committees before and have Chaired them as well, but isn't it so

that we get recognized according to when we put up our hand? I mean does this go

to the senior Government House Member and this and that? I mean we are all the

same in this Committee, whether you are Vice-Chairman or not, you know, we are

all Members of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While you were talking, Mr.

Hodder, Mr. Gover had both hands up on several occasions. Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell my hon. critic, there

are Tories and there are Liberals, so do not classify us as all the same. I can

assure you we are not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh, I do not pay any attention to

the NDP. I want to start down to the last part first and work my way up. I do

not understand what point the hon. Member is trying to make about the closure of

group homes. I am sure that he did not mean that we should leave residents in

the homes and close them. The only way I knew about how to do it was to find

alternative living arrangements within the community, and once those living

arrangements were found satisfactory to the Department of Social Services and

the people in the MR Division and the families and the residents themselves, the

placements were made for them. Then if that meant that the group homes were

being left vacant, there was no need for that number of group homes and they

would close.

MR. HODDER: Well why did you announce it before

you found alternative accommodations? That is all I asked.

MR. EFFORD: You just cannot take people without

anybody knowing about it and move them into the community. You will announce the

intended -

MR. HODDER: Sure you do. That is what you are

supposed to be doing all the time: trying to take people and move them into a

community. They should be moving out of the group homes all the time.

MR. EFFORD: The one thing I should remind the

hon. Member of is he had seventeen years over here to try to do the right

things. Now he is over on the Opposition and the expert on Government

Administration. So the seventeen years that he was over here I do not see much

improvements in things in which he did. So I am going to just listen to him as a

critic over there and not pay any credence to what he is saying whatsoever.

MS. VERGE: But you said they were the best in

Canada.

MR. EFFORD: We are very proud of the position

that we are in with the group homes. The Department of Social Services now finds

itself in a position where it is able to provide a service to the community

living environment where every man, woman, and child in this Province will have

the opportunity of living. The people who were born, through no fault of their

own, with a physical or mental disability will now have the opportunity to live

properly. And that is not because they have passed a certain test or a grade or

reached a certain stage, that is clearly because the Department of Social

Services in Newfoundland has now the expertise and are able to provide the

services in the manner in which those people need to live in a community

environment. The Department and the people in the MR Division can hold their

heads proud, and the people across the province. As a result of moving people in

the community we will leave a number of homes vacant - not all - within the

Province and that will mean, very clearly, if the homes are left vacant they

will no longer be used by the Department of Social Services. I am not saying

they will not be used by some other format but not by the Department of Social

Services. I suspect for some time to come there will be some group homes open in

the Province. I would like to see the day when there would be no need for any

group home in the Province, I would like to see the time when we would have no

disabled people but that is not a reality we can expect.

Respite care: First of all we did not lay off

fifteen people, we laid off twenty-seven, almost twice as many as the hon.

Member said. I think it was a very positive move. Last year we spent

approximately $750,000 in providing respite service to the Province through the

twenty-seven people, I think twenty-four of them were filled positions and three

of them were vacant positions, but approximately twenty-seven positions in

total.

Now, the hon. Member does not understand the

delivery of respite care. If you have one respite care worker, let us use the

example of the Port au Port Peninsula, where he is employed by the Department of

Social Services in that particular area. Let us use this example so the hon.

Member will understand as it is close to his home territory. I know he does not

understand what happened although he was over here and he is now the critic.

If we had four families and on a Saturday evening

the man and his wife in each of these families wanted to go out and get a break

after all week with a developmentally delayed child or physically disabled child

or whatever, a person within their family, and there is only one respite care

worker employed by the Department of Social Services, that individual cannot go

and provide the services for four families. But if you go out and purchase

respite care services on an hourly basis you could do four times or a number of

times more than you could do with one person. So it makes more sense to purchase

the respite services for (inaudible) people who are capable for providing that

sitting service or whatever is needed in the community than to employ those

individuals across the Province.

It is not very often I make a mistake but I made an

error, I overestimated it was $540,000 last year my officials tell me instead of

$740,000.

So the point of purchasing the respite services

versus hiring on respite workers to work within the community is much more

sensible and advantageous to the people who require the care because we can

provide a lot more respite care for the same number of dollars than we did last

year.

MR. HODDER: (Inaudible) sometimes they helped

people who were not on social services but who were on the borderline who now

have to look after their own services, is he aware of that? I just throw that in

because it is a fact.

MR. EFFORD: That has nothing to do with the

hiring of respite care workers compared to purchasing the service. I was clearly

explaining the benefits of why we are purchasing the services versus hiring a

number of workers around the Province.

MR. HODDER: But when you are purchasing service

you are purchasing service for a short period of time or for as needed. You are

not going to get the consistency of service, a consistency of training when you

are picking up persons. The Minister knows that a lot of these persons come from

the caseload who may go somewhere else and get a job or something like that so

you do not have the consistency of service to these people. Some of these

severely handicapped people are people who really need understanding and need

someone who knows them and their situation.

MR. EFFORD: It goes to show that the hon.

Member still does not understand what the respite service offers versus the

one-on-one that a physically handicapped person would have to have to live on a

twenty-four hour basis. But people who require twenty-four hour (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: No, I am not talking about

one-on-one (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: No, no, Mr. Chairman, he cannot

misrepresent what I say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but let the Minister respond

you will have an opportunity to respond later.

MR. EFFORD: One of the other points he was

making there was very clearly about the single parents and the study, and he

said there is no need to have a study. Now, that again goes to show you how the

former Administration really operated the Department and why this Province is

$5.8 billion in debt. We have got a Canada Assistance Plan, $147 million I think

this year we will spend, net?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Approximately $145 million. Now,

let's take Memorial University here in St. John's. Approximately 15,000

students. Out of those 15,000 students attending Memorial University let's say -

use the numbers and I cannot tell you off the top of my head - but let's say

there are 200 single parents. And under the Canada Assistance Plan criteria, if

we allow a special service to them under the Canada Assistance Plan, a social

assistance programme, we could open up the doors where every single individual

going to the Department of Social Services could make a special case and we

would have to give them, possibly, social assistance. Because once they reach

the age of nineteen they are solely dependent on themselves, they are no longer

the responsibility of their mothers and fathers. And if they cannot find

themselves in a financial position we could very well possibly have to do that.

So the purpose of the study is not to see if single

parents need extra money. God darn it, we know that, you'd have to be a jackass

if you didn't know that! But what impact will it have under the social

assistance programme? It may skyrocket, we may have to give every individual

going to vocational school or Memorial University, who are no longer dependent

on their mothers and fathers, social assistance. So that is the purpose of the

committee, to study the impact under the Canada Assistance Plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why should student aid be

classed as income?

MR. EFFORD: Why should it be? You people did

it! Damn it, we are looking at that! It was you people who did it. We now have a

committee in place to look at it.

MR. HODDER: But I mean, you people have now

been asked to fix it, and that is the main bone of contention. Is that a poor

mother goes to University, she has a couple of small children, and she is

getting social assistance. So she gets a student loan to pay for her books and

her tuition and one thing and the other and it is classed as income by the

Department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Look, the hon. Member again really

does not understand. First of all, we agree, single parents need assistance in

order to further their education, whether it be in Memorial University or what.

The former administration implemented the fact to treat the loan portion as

income, and would be (Inaudible). We have put a committee in place to study the

correcting of that unfortunate thing that the former administration did. We know

that single parents have a difficult time. But we also have to take and realize

that it may have a major impact on all of the other people going into vocational

or educational programmes. And we have to be very careful that we do not

interfere with the guidelines and the criteria set down by the Canada Assistance

Plan. We may open it up, and they may cut it back on us. So we have to be very

careful.

You honestly do not want us to be stupid and make

an irrational decision that could cost the Province hundreds of millions of

dollars? No, it is not the fact that single parents need it, it is the fact that

we have to be very careful, and we are going to do a proper study. And when that

study is done the Department of Social Services, under the leadership of the

Minister of Social Services, will make the decision, will put it before

Government, and we will make the recommendation. Government will make the

decision with the best interest of the single parents taken in to consideration

as long as it fits the guidelines -

MR. HODDER: How long is this study going to

take?

MR. EFFORD: As long as is necessary.

MR. HODDER: Well, that could be two years. I

mean, that is the whole point of it.

MR. EFFORD: It will not take seventeen, I can

assure you of that.

MR. HODDER: As long as is necessary.

MR. EFFORD: Two years is not seventeen. The

next thing we talked about were the Community Development programmes. Let me

tell the hon. Member and the Vice-Chairman and the hon. Member for St. John's

East and my hon. Members opposite: we spent $25 million last year in Community

Development programmes.

MS. VERGE: Where is it in the Budget? It says

$20 million here in the Budget.

MR. EFFORD: Will you please let me answer the

question? I will tell you where it is. The biggest problem is that after

seventeen years you still do not know how to read that book! It is the same

book, the same process, the same printing as went on for seventeen years and now

two years. It is there! Now I will -

MS. VERGE: Show us.

MR. EFFORD: Let me finish.

MS. VERGE: Show us the page.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The question has been posed to the Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Let me finish! You want to let me

finish, I will show you! We spent last year $28 million, we are spending this

year $25 million. But $3.5 million is under a special project, the brush

cutting, which I got accused of when I killed a moose with my car and

implementing a new program, so fine, I do not mind taking credit for good

things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: You are about the only individual

in the Province who did not agree with it then. Let me tell hon. Members again

where it is. On Page 264, Item 2103, $6,199,200.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The third

section down, Mr.

Gover.

MS. VERGE: How are we suppose to know what

special services are?

MR. EFFORD: You were the Government for

seventeen years.

MS. VERGE: We did not have a social program

called special services.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, you did. On Page 272, Item

5202, $9,077,000 under community development projects.

MS. VERGE: Where is that?

MR. EFFORD: Page 272.

MR. HODDER: I am not talking about the pages, I

am asking, where are the projects?

MR. EFFORD: First of all, you told me earlier

we were spending less money on community development this year than we did last

year, you quoted the figures, and I am telling you, no, we spent the same money.

Do you know where it is?

MR. HODDER: Yes, I see it.

MR. EFFORD: Well, tell me where the rest of it

is?

MS. VERGE: Page 272.

MR. EFFORD: Tell me where the rest of it is?

MS. VERGE: I do not know.

MR. EFFORD: Do you want to know, or do you not?

AN HON. MEMBER: I would like to know.

MR. EFFORD: Okay, listen and I will tell you,

because obviously you do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you go back?

MR. EFFORD: Page 264, special services,

$6,199,000. Do you see that there?

MR. HODDER: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: That is under the Community

Development Program. Now, go to Page 272.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Minister.

The Chair is asking the courtesy of Committee

Members. If we are going to bounce around and shoot in the dark from all

directions, then the transcript of this Estimate Committee will never come out,

so I am asking you to contain yourselves. The Chair does not want to bring total

parliamentary procedure down on this meaningful Estimates Committee Meeting so I

would ask you to let the Minister respond and then there is no problem with

coming back with other questions. Let us not jump all over the place.

MR. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hodder.

MR. HODDER: I sympathize with the Chair. It is

too bad that this Minister had to be the first Minister to come before this

Department. Had it been any other Minister it would have been just back and

forth and no problem. But the Chairman being a new Chairman, I really sympathize

with him. The Minister is such a provocative person he just gets those responses

from people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to you, Mr.

Hodder, that politicians tend to make political statements, as the Vice-Chair

just made a political statement of a slush fund, or what have you, so I would

ask the respect of the Committee members, and the respect of everybody at this

particular hearing, to be kind and considerate of one another.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that after seventeen years the Member

for Humber East is a bit embarrassed at not being able to read the budgetary

book but I will show you, and I will talk slow, because I know you cannot

understand my Port de Grave accent sometimes. Page 272, the top of the page.

MS. VERGE: Oh, excuse me, now. Before you leave

page 264 would you acknowledge that the Provincial spending in this special

category is actually going down from what was -

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

MS. VERGE: Under Special Services, head 2.1.03.

When you take out the Federal contribution and look at the Provincial spending

on Special Services, last year it was $3.5 million, and you have budgeted $3.1

million for this year. So that is a $400,000 decrease. A $400,000 cut.

MR. EFFORD: No, no, no. If you look at the

gross, the gross amount of money that we spent there last year is $6,199,200 - I

am sorry, we will spend this year. Last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That was in the Budget.

MR. EFFORD: Yes but, - no, no. That is cost

shared. That is a total.

MS. VERGE: Yes, but the Provincial -

MR. EFFORD: That is not Federal, that's Federal

and Provincial.

MS. VERGE: But the Federal share is increasing

and the Provincial share is decreasing. Provincially you spent $3.5 million last

year and you are budgeting to spend Provincially only $3.1 million this year. So

you have budgeted for a $400,000 cut.

MR. EFFORD: You can play with figures all you

like. The fact is that the -

MS. VERGE: They are right here in black and

white!

MR. EFFORD: Now just listen. Now the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order, Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are

getting nowhere like this in my humble opinion. Now, Mr. Hodder asked legitimate

questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this a point of order?

MR. GOVER: Yes, it is a point of order.

MR. HODDER: (Inaudible) we do not call each

other by our names in the House of Assembly, do we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have already cleared that with

the Chair. It is very normal to call one another by our names in estimates

committees.

MR. HODDER: I thought that meant you had to get

out of the House, you were kicked out.

MR. GOVER: The Member for Port au Port asked a

legitimate question about the $25 million for Community Development funds. He

said that it was less this year. Now the Minister is trying to explain why it is

not less and I for one am very interested in his explanation. And unless we give

him a chance to give the explanation we are not going to find out what the

explanation is. Now, once he gives it, if Members on the Committee do not agree

with the explanation or want to make points about the explanation, then they are

certainly free to use their time to do that. But I for one would like to have

the Minister explain why the $25 million has either increased, decreased or

remained the same. And the only way I am going to find that out is to give him

an opportunity to get through it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Gover. Your point

is well taken. Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Do we want to go back and start

again, or do...?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You have the page, 264. I will

explain the other one to the hon. Member for Humber East afterwards. Page 272,

the top of the page, Community Development Projects, $9,077,000, under heading

5.2.02. You have that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Okay. The next one, Employment

Enhancement Initiatives, $4 million, 5.2.03. The next one down at the bottom,

5.2.04, Vocational Services, $3,473,000. And the last one is over under Social

Assistance salaries, 5.3.02, on page 273, $2,554,000. Now, and a clear

explanation why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: Page 273.

MR. CHAIRMAN: John, page 273,

Section 5.3.02,

salaries, $2,554,000.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Now you total that up, that

should total pretty close to $25,519,700. Community Development. And you say you

do not agree with it? Last year we spent $28,512,000(Inaudible), but $3.5

million was a special warrant brought in after I killed the moose, so we could

clear the brush right across Newfoundland so I would not kill another moose.

That is what I was accused of. So you understand. So we spent $25 million last

year and we are spending $25 million this year. There has been no decrease in

social assistance, in Community Development programmes.

Now why is there a little difference in the amount

of money on page 264? Different amounts of money are cost shared under the

Federal Government under Community Development. It is not 50-50 as in the social

assistance programme that Mr. Browne is responsible for. Some projects could be

60-40, some could be 70-30. It depends on the type of project.

So, the overall top of the Budget you will see

there for 1991-1992 is $5.9 million but last year we budgeted $4.6 million, we

revised it at $5.8 million but we have an actual increase in the total Budget

this year, so you base it on how you get your cost-shared dollars with the

Federal Government and you take advantage. The more money we can get from our

good Tory friends in Ottawa, then that is what we should do under the Canada

Assistance Plan. So, simply now that you know how to read the budget the money

is the same as last year and the community development programs are going to go

full steam ahead.

Very quickly I will answer the other two or three

other questions. No cutbacks in the Department of Social Services overall budget

this year. In fact, last year we spent $248 million, this year we have budgeted

approximately $259 million, so that is an increase of $11 million when every

other department in Government got cut. Now, is that not a good Department of

Social Services with $11 million increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is gross. Surely goodness I do

not have to take the hon. Member and show him how to find that in the Budget.

What were you doing for seventeen years?

MR. HODDER: I should say to the Minister that

on page 274 bottom line, total department.

MR. EFFORD: That is net. You have to understand

the cost-sharing program with the Federal Government.

MR. HODDER: It is one of the few departments

that has been reduced whether you are talking about net or not.

MS. VERGE: The provincial spending is

(inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Yes, and the provincial spending is

less.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee Members may not

like the answers.

MR. HODDER: The bottom line is that there is a

reduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. And the Chair will give the

hon. Member every consideration in the world to respond.

MR. EFFORD: May I make a recommendation, Mr.

Chairman, to the hon. Member for Humber East, when you go back to your caucus

tomorrow would you get someone in there to explain to him how to read the

Budget. My goodness, you know different than that.

MS. VERGE: If I may reply. We are all quite

capable of reading and quite clearly provincial spending on social services in

the new budget year is forecast to go down by over $4 million from what was

spent last year. It is right here in black and white, bottom line, double

underline.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: -or the Member for Bonavista South

depending upon what degree of formality we intend to use.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it is my understanding from

the Table that it is quite proper in Estimates to refer to Committee Members by

their surnames. Now you may want to call them other names and then the Chair

will have to chastise you.

Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

That was an interesting point that was raised there

at the end and perhaps we will come back to that so that the Minister will get

an opportunity to explain why the total expenditure has not gone down because it

was certainly an interesting and informative explanation on the community

development projects.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Yes, because I myself could fall

into that trap not being as experienced as the Member for Port au Port in

looking at that in 5.2.02 to see a decrease. I could fall into that trap very

easily, being inexperienced.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: It is only a fact, I have to

concede, I have no where near the experience as the Member for Port au Port on

either side of the House or in either party but putting that aside, it was a

very interesting explanation so perhaps we will come back to -

MS. VERGE: Did you follow him?

MR. GOVER: Yes, I followed it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, Mr. Hodder.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon.

Member, when the entire thing is looked at and it is all over will find that the

Member for Port au Port is not far off.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Yes, and I will certainly look

forward to the Member for Port au Port shredding that analysis that the Minister

of Social Services put forward, if he can. But I will certainly be interested in

that when his opportunity comes around again to do that. But I would just like

to ask the Minister some questions.

I was rather surprised about the layoff that the

Member for Port au Port raised about respite care workers. Because I went

through the Departmental salary details today and when one looks at the bottom

line in that, Total Approved Positions - I take it that this is permanent

positions for the Department - is 801 positions this year, and I believe, if I

am not incorrect, the total approved salary positions last year in the

Departmental salary details was 801. So, notwithstanding that we are in these

severe times of restraint, it seems like the Department of Social Services - and

I am sure due to the diligent efforts of the Minister around the Cabinet table -

retained his permanent staff complement to the man or woman, as the case may be.

And I wish to commend him on that particular performance. In fact, it seems that

MR. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order, Mr. Hodder.

MR. HODDER: I am not going to be misinterpreted

here. I had never said that there were not the same number of respite care

workers. I said the Minister laid off the respite care workers, and he

contracted out the services. I mean, that has been known from the first day that

he ever did it. So we were always aware that there would be just as many people

- perhaps more. That was not the point that the Opposition was making about the

respite care workers. We were making points about continuity of service, about

training, about that sort of thing. But certainly we have never said that there

would not be just as many people, because the Minister had satisfied us on that

some time ago. It was the type of care that we were talking about, not the

number or the amount of money. Although the Minister did say in the House of

Assembly that it was a budgetary thing that he did. And I would suggest that it

will give him more options as to be able to play around with the numbers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that -

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, to that point of

order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Obviously it is not a point of

order, it is a disagreement between two hon. Members as to facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Exactly, yes. And speaking to

that - and I do not want to cut you off - but we are running on time here and we

can be here a lot of time really solving nothing. If we are going to get on with

constant points of order of, again, what we sense that the other person said or

did not say. And by example the Member for Port au Port used the fifteen respite

care workers, and then the Minister said twenty-nine, I think. And it is very

difficult for the Chair to constantly remember what was said in the House with

the Department on one thing or another. So I would ask the courtesy of hon.

Members to let the other Committee Member finish, and if there is rebuttal then

we will give that Committee Member a chance to rebut. But if we are going to

constantly interrupt then we are only going to make our time longer.

MR. HODDER: No, Mr. Chairman, no sir. I am not

going to sit in this House and listen to somebody say something that I did not

say. And that is all I pointed out.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, (Inaudible) -

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

MR. GOVER: Yes, there is no point of order, but

I would just like to clear the matter up to the satisfaction of the Member for

Port au Port. He said that there were fifteen respite care workers laid off. The

Minister of Social Services has confirmed that in fact there are twenty-seven

laid off. So there is no disagreement!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask Mr. Gover to

continue.

MR. GOVER: All I am trying to do is to say that

I was surprised at that. Because when I went through here I see that the

permanent staff complement has remained stable. Now as to the fact of the

matter, the Minister has freely admitted that they are all gone! They are all

laid off! So there is no dispute on it, there is no hiding it. Right?

Now I would just like to turn to a fact which there

is also no hiding. And perhaps the Minister could confirm it. I see that

in client services the number of social workers -

permanent positions - this year is 265. I believe, perhaps the Minister could

confirm this, that this number has increased thirty-six over the number of

permanent social workers in that particular designation last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: Last year (inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Okay, so obviously then thirty-six

of those social workers must have went to this particular division, client

services. So again in times of restraint I must say where everybody else seems

to be taking cuts, the Minister has obviously increased the number of social

workers available to deliver services to the people who require those services

in the field. I must say that in my dealings with the Minister with community

development projects in my District I have found no shortage of funds. I do not

know what the problem is in other districts, if there is one, but I certainly

have found no shortage of funds for community development projects in my

District. But that is a sad thing because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: No. That is a sad thing. I would

love to see the day when I had not a single project in my District, when there

was not a single person on social assistance in my district. And I believe the

changes the Minister has instituted will break the cycle of dependency

eventually and lead to that particular scenario.

Publicly I wish to acknowledge that when I started

to represent the District of Bonavista South and before that when I was a lawyer

practising out of Clarenville, the Department of Social Services in Bonavista

operated out of the basement and the first floor of the old court house in

Bonavista in woefully inadequate offices that would depress moral, and impede

the delivery of services to recipients and clients in that particular catchment

area. And thanks to the Minister, I am pleased to say, we now have a brand new

structure, well lit, state of the art with all sorts of modern equipment which

has enhanced moral. The people in that particular office have written the

Minister and congratulated him on the enhanced delivery of services to the

particular people in that particular catchment area.

So while other people might want to paint this as a

picture of doom and gloom, I cannot say in my district that it is a picture of

doom and gloom. The Minister has made significant improvements to the services

in my particular region and the people at the offices and the people in general

congratulate him for it. Also the Minister says that he hired fifty additional

social workers. The Minister also approved a child management specialist in the

District of Bonavista South which was never there before in the seventeen years

the Conservatives were in power. So I wish to thank him and commend him on his

major initiative in that regard. I must say, not to cast aspersions on the

former Member or on the former administration, but since I have been elected I

have really seen significant improvements in the delivery of social services in

my particular district.

Having said that, that there have been significant

improvements: a new child management specialist, new facilities, which were

desperately needed and brought to bear by the Minister. Having seen him maintain

his staff complement, increase the number of social workers by fifty, that is

not in my district but across the Province, in my opinion the Minister is doing

an excellent job. I have some more questions for him, but I see that my ten

minutes have elapsed and I will now turn it over to somebody else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Gover.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: I appreciate the kind words that

the hon. Member from Bonavista South has passed along. I cannot take all the

credit, as much as I would like to, but I have to pass along that Mr. Roberts,

who is the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for regional operations, was

very instrumental in getting the new building down there, the new facility, into

Bonavista which was, quite correctly, very badly needed. It is too bad the

former administration had not seen the need for that building and placed it down

there, nevertheless there have been some good things happening within the

Department of Social Services but unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Port au

Port spoke about earlier, it is a very difficult Department. You are dealing

with human problems on a day to day basis and you very seldom get a positive

note on the good things that are happening in the Department. One of the

difficulties we have had within the Department is trying to get good public

relations and create a good positive perception within the community. We did get

fifty new workers. There are thirty-six, as you see, in delivering client

services but you have to remember that in hiring on a number of those

individuals most of them went into the Child Welfare Division and because you

are hiring that many you need some supervisory positions, so the thirty-six were

actually out into the client services and the remainder would be the supervisory

staff to improve the Child Welfare Department, which is the part of the

Department of Social Services which need the additional workers. I am very

pleased that we did maintain the number of people we did over the last couple of

years and again this year. You have to work very, very hard within the

Department of Social Services, and while the needs of individuals within the

community go up the dependency on the Department of Social Services increases. I

want to point out, and this is not something to be taken very lightly, but the

community development projects that the Department get, and everybody together

understand the need for improvements, but occasionally, and I keep a scrap book

of just about everything I receive, not all the good things but some of the

negative things, too, this is a letter that we received from a person who went

through a training program. I do not want to read all the letter but it says,

'Just a little note to thank you for your hard work and perseverance in

achieving a placement for me,' now she got trained, 'but most of all it has

given back my dignity and my self esteem. The training program cannot say enough

about the staff of St. Lawrence College.' That is all I can read as it is very

difficult to read, but the point this person is making is that she had the

opportunity to go back to school to be retrained and to be on a worthwhile

program and get their self esteem and their dignity restored so they can become

independent and not now, or in the future, be dependent on social assistance

handouts. That is what we are trying to do in the Community Development Program.

We are spending a lot of money. I notice the expression on the face of the

Member for St. John' s East and I have to say that $25 million is a lot of money

and if we are going to spend that kind of money it has to be put to some good

use and restore some educational programs and put self esteem and dignity back

into individuals. That is the new direction. I know the hon. Member for Port au

Port is sincere when he talks about making blankets but believe me there have

been an awful lot of blankets made in the last twenty-five years in this

Province and I know that people are genuine when they sit down to do it but

there are a lot more greater needs out there and this letter, and I do not know

if it is my eyesight or the writing, but this letter very clearly states how

important it is to an individual. If you could only take one individual and

restore that kind of self esteem and dignity back in their life then the money

you spend, in my estimation, is well worth it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HARRIS: I noted at the outset that the

exchange, the comments of the Member and the Minister together, were about

fifteen minutes and since I am going to be asking questions of the Minister I

would hope that similar leeway can be given to me for this portion of the

meeting. I have a number of questions because I am kind of interested in using

this as an opportunity to get information about the Department's projects and

spending. I am looking at Subhead 5202 which is in a category called, Employment

Opportunities, and I would heve expected that any of these programs that were

related to employment opportunities would be in that total head, but obviously

the Minister is using a different term for community development projects than

the Budget Estimates documents do themselves, so I am going to confine myself to

the ones that are here. I see under Subhead 5202 a decrease from what was spent

in 1991 of $5.7 million. I want to ask the Minister what the explanation is for

the - under salaries there is a decrease of $5.7 million. Everything else seems

to be relatively the same except a small decrease in professional services, and

a small increase in purchase services. Everything else seems to be more or less

the same except salaries which are down by $5.7 million, and I wonder if you can

explain that.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, the hon. Member is quite

right. There is less money in 5.2.02 than there is in this year from last year,

and the purpose of that -

MR. HARRIS: What is the difference?

MR. EFFORD: The reason is the money is taken

and put into another area of community development, the training programmes. So

the overall total budget is the same, but the re-allocation in different areas

is we are placing more emphasis on training and vocational services than we are

on actual community development projects, and that is the point that I was

trying to make earlier. Also the special warrant of $3.5 million, as we joked

about earlier about the brush cutting, that was a special warrant that was

implemented sometime late in the fall if I am correct, in October month, and

that is there in that amount also.

MR. HARRIS: I see that $2.4 million is added to

vocational services. This would be salaries paid to people undertaking

vocational training I take it?

MR. EFFORD: Well the cost of the training

programme would be paid to people.

MR. HARRIS: I am looking at salaries here.

5.2.04, the vote for salaries 01, is that salaries paid to recipients of social

services, or undertaking training programmes as opposed to paying them to work

in projects?

MR. EFFORD: That is right.

MR. HARRIS: And the professional services down

there, is that people who are hired to give the vocational training, or is that

something else?

MR. EFFORD: Are you talking -

MR. HARRIS: And in 5.2.04 there is a $690,000 -

MR. EFFORD: Yes, now what we do under that area

is we purchase equipment and we purchase service from the community colleges. So

if there is a new programme designed we would have to purchase equipment or the

programmes from the community colleges, which is very expensive. That would be

the cost there. And the purpose for that, as I have explained before, is that we

want to place more emphasis on training and give people the opportunities to

become educated or trained for different professions. So that is where that

money goes.

MR. HARRIS: I would like a better explanation

than that because I do see property, furnishings and equipment, purchased

services, and allowances and assistance there separately, but professional

services strikes me as you are paying somebody to provide a professional

service. Would that be -

MR. EFFORD: No, -

MR. HARRIS: Who is that? Is that payment to

individuals to teach programmes or is that payments to vocational schools?

MR. EFFORD: That would be (inaudible) to the

community colleges and it is there as professional services, not purchase

services.

MR. HARRIS: So we have an explanation here for

a decrease in $5.7 million. You say some of that, $2.4 million we see going to

vocational services. Where do we find the rest of that, the other $3.5 million.

Is that the brush cutting you are talking about?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: So you did not consider that

community development last year.

MR. EFFORD: Well that was not under the

community development project. That is what Government brought in late in the

year for a special work initiative. It was just Social Services, the Department

of Forestry and Agriculture and Employment and Labour.

MR. HARRIS: I am trying to get it straight now

because we have two sets of language here. We have the Minister's version of

community development which is different than the version in the Budget and it

seems to be different from year to year because, like last year, for example,

this money was spent and was called community development projects in the Budget

Estimates. The Minister is now saying it is not community development so that

you can then -

MR. EFFORD: Do you want me to explain it to

you?

MR. HARRIS: No I do not want you to explain it

because you are saying that last year it was not community development because

if it was community development you cannot explain the decrease. So where is the

other $3.5 million? We have found $2.4 million here.

MR. EFFORD: If you would slow down I would tell

you.

MR. HARRIS: Alright, I am waiting.

MR. EFFORD: Now very slowly, because again my

Port de Grave accent may be getting in the way, last year in the original

estimates done we had $25 million in community development projects.

MR. HARRIS: So, you are talking about the

Estimates not the actual -

MR. EFFORD: In the Budget last year.

MR. HARRIS: I understand now. Am I right in

saying that when the Minister says there is no decrease, what you are saying is

that there is no decrease from last year's Budget to this year's Estimates

regardless of what was spent last year?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I see. Okay, as long as we

understand the language. I do not want to get caught up in lingo here. We have

to translate the language because I think if last year you spent $14 million and

this year you are suggesting you will spend $9 million that to me is a decrease.

If we want to go by the Minister's lingo I am happy to do that at least for the

purpose of getting information because that is the purpose of the Committee in

my understanding.

Can the Minister tell us in the subhead 1.2.03,

Systems Support, page 262 of the Estimates, Executive Support Services, why

there is an increase of $400,000 in professional services?

MR. EFFORD: That is the new computer systems

that we are putting into the Department, that is pretty well totally paid for by

the Federal Government, 50/50 cost-shared by the Federal Government, because an

agreement was signed a few years ago that we would put in a complete new systems

support in the Department of Social Services, so that is the amount of money the

Federal Government allowed this year to be cost-shared by the Federal and

Provincial Government to finalize the continued implementation of those

computers.

MR. HARRIS: This programme has been going on

for the last, it looks like - 1990-91, for example, it was the same for the

estimates and the revised, and the year before.

MR. EFFORD: So it is just an increase this

year, and I think that is great. Is the hon. Member suggesting that it should

not be increased?

MR. HARRIS: I am just wondering why we need to

spend $400,000. This is paid to people who are implementing computer programmes

is it?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that is the development cost

and the actual cost of the computers.

MR. HARRIS: I am just trying to find out what

these expenditures are and whether they are necessary, that is all.

MR. EFFORD: Is it necessary to put computers in

or should we leave files and information stored in the system we have now to

probably not keep a good trace on things? One of the biggest problems that we

have in the department right now is the post adoption, and the adoption services

and the way their records have been kept for the last fifty years. God, the hon.

Member is not saying that we should go back to that route should we, especially

when the Federal Government is paying an equal portion of it? Let's suppose that

the Federal Government decides next year to cancel and we only have half of the

computers in, then the total cost is on the Province, so it very wise to take

advantage of the Federal cost-sharing.

MR. HARRIS: Well I am not aware of any study

that the Minister is referencing in terms of computer services so I do not know

whether it is wise or not. I am just asking the questions as to what this is

for. Obviously you could computerize everything in the world if you wanted to.

Whether it was necessary or not would be a management decision that presumably

somebody is able to advise you on. In any event, I will leave that.

Perhaps the Minister or maybe Mr. Roberts could

give an explanation on this if it is more technical. In 1.2.02, Administrative

Support, I see a big decrease in the federal revenue allocated to that

particular sub-head, like cut in half, although the expenses up above are all

exactly the same. Is there a technical explanation for that, why that is gone

back to a quarter of a million dollars from $600,000 that was received last year

under that sub-head, or allocated to that sub-head?

MR. EFFORD: Without giving you the accurate

dollar figure, but in previous years there was some overpayments made and they

had to adjust to the overpayments in previous years, and that is the reason why.

So it is Federal adjustments of money given to -

MR. HARRIS: So it is allocated to the

Minister's support for whatever reason.

MR. EFFORD: For claims and stuff.

MR. HARRIS: Moving to the Services to Families,

page 271. There appears to be a slight decrease overall in day care

expenditures, and I see the salaries under Administration down by $100,000. What

is the reason for that? There appears to have been a Budget figure similar from

this year and last year, but we spent last year an extra $100,000. Can you

explain why there was an additional $100,000 spent last year for salaries,

administration and day care?

MR. EFFORD: Well, what we have done this year

due to the layoffs, we have cut back in the number of staff within the day care

division so there will be less money spent this year than last year in salaries.

MR. HARRIS: So these were people who you

budgeted. You had a budgeted amount last year of $244,000. You spent $349,000.

Did you hire any people -

MR. EFFORD: Why we spent more money last year?

I am sorry, I thought you said -

MR. HARRIS: Well you laid people off, so you

must of hired them last year for a one year period and then laid them off. Is

that it?

MR. EFFORD: We are bringing in new legislation,

a complete new day care and homemakers act. I think the last time it was brought

in was 1972, again another fault of the former administration. So in order to do

that we had to bring someone in from the region, and because we have done that,

that salary then was charged to the Day Care Division. So we had an extra person

in there trying to bring in and draft new legislation, and for that reason you

will find more monies spent in the day care salary budget last year.

MR. HARRIS: Is that all for one person?

MR. EFFORD: No. I wish it were. That would be a

good salary for an individual, but we cannot afford to pay those salaries with

the debt we are carrying in this Province of $5.7 billion.

MR. HARRIS: Certain people get paid those

salaries though? Let us not be coy about this. There are certain people who do

get paid considerable salaries.

MR. EFFORD: Lawyers, especially.

Anyway we are now in the position of letting some

people go in the division. The Assistant Director is there. Mr. Cook who was

brought from the regional has gone back to the regional, so therefore we spent

less on salaries in the day care division this year. It is a very efficiently

run Department and that is another small area where we used individuals and they

can now go back to their different jobs within the region.

MR. HARRIS: The allowance and assistance for

day care service, is this money given to people to subsidize their day care?

MR. EFFORD: No, that is for grants that we give

to day care centres across the Province.

MR. HARRIS: The allowance and assistance that

is given to the centres?

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Grants and subsidies, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Have you made any allowances for

increases in salaries in these centres?

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: Have you made any allowances for

potential increases in salaries?

MR. EFFORD: Which one are you talking about

now?

MR. HARRIS: Number 5.1.02.

MR. EFFORD: Number 10?

MR. HARRIS: Number 9.

MR. EFFORD: Number 9, allowances and

assistance. Those are the ones we pay to the single parents and families

requiring day care services who qualify under the regulations of the financial

assessment carried out by the Department of Social Services.

MR. HARRIS: Can I ask about that? Have you made

any allowances for the increased costs as a result of the minimum wage changing?

MR. EFFORD: We cannot, until we find out right

across the Province what it is going to do. The people within the Department,

the Director of Social Assistance is doing that now and hopefully within the

next week I will be able to make a recommendation on what we can adjust, but it

is going to have an impact on some of those individuals. You have to remember

that only the people who bring people into their home have to pay the minimum

wage. If you bring your child out it does not cost you that amount of money.

MR. HARRIS: The allowance that is here under

09, is that paid directly to the individual and then they pay for the day care

service, or is that paid to the child care centre?

MR. EFFORD: It could be both.

MR. HARRIS: On the page before that, Page 270,

there is certainly a decrease over last year's Budget overall for development

rehabilitative services, although not much of a decrease from the revisions of

last year, but I do see a substantial reduction in vote 4303, support to

organizations. It is down by $400,000. Could the Minister tell us which

organizations have lost their grant?

MR. EFFORD: Last year we were funding the

Orange Home which used to be the old cancer hostel on Forest Road and that is no

longer operated or funded by the Department of Social Services. Those

individuals who were residing in the Orange Home are now out in their own

apartment units, therefore that was approximately $350,000, that is one area

there, $355,000 to be exact.

MR. HARRIS: There must have been another

organization.

MR. EFFORD: There were a couple of small

organizations that we will not be funding this year. For argument sake one was

$5,200 to the Royal Canadian Legion that we will not be funding and there were a

couple of other small ones, integrated housing $46,000 -

MR. HARRIS: To which organization?

MR. EFFORD: The integrated housing. The other

one was under the Association for Community Living, a provincial organization,

we were also funding for Labrador, so what we did was combine the two grants and

gave it to the provincial organization and with approximately $20,000 left we

gave them approximately $100,000 a year and they will distribute the money

provincially instead of giving it to two organizations.

MR. HARRIS: Can you explain why the level of

support to the integrated housing group was removed?

MR. EFFORD: What we have done is the money

coming out of the social assistance program because it can be cost-shared under

the Canada Assistance Plan if we pay for that there, so we shifted it from that

there and over to the social assistance program so it comes out of the total

social assistance funding. That integrated housing is supported totally in

co-operation - I do not say supported totally in funding - but we do support the

integrated housing program here in St. John's.

MR. HARRIS: I will defer now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Just a quick comment, seventeen minutes and

seventeen seconds have elapsed since Mr. Harris began. It was appreciated by the

Chair that the questions were obviously very direct and the Minister and his

staff responded. That is my

interpretation of what an estimate committee is all

about. I want to thank Mr. Harris and that is why I did not cut him off.

And I thank the Minister.

MR. HODDER: A point of order.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding was it was going to

be ten minutes/ten minutes. The Chairman just said seventeen minutes. I enjoyed

the exchange myself but -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reason I let it go beyond

fifteen minutes and the Member for St. John's East requested the fifteen minutes

because I gave other people fifteen minutes namely the critic.

MR. HODDER: The reason I asked the question is

so that we will know what we are doing. But I understood it was fifteen

minutes/fifteen minutes, and each Member would have ten minutes to ask a short

question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to let the

Minister, Mr. Hodder, clean up the answer to the last question from the Member

for St. John's East and now I would give the same courtesy to the Vice-Chair.

After the Vice-Chair has finished her time allotment we should probably recess

for a coffee and when we come back we will go to Mr. Oldford.

MR. HODDER: Do we have the names down in order

because I have been trying to get the Chairman's attention for some time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you are after Mr. Oldford.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, I am proposing to use my

time the same as the Member for St. John's East. I will ask bite size questions

to the Minister and then wait for his response.

I will begin with the topic of single mothers and

their dependent children who live in poverty. Last October 1 the Department of

Social Services started treating maintenance and child support as non-allowable

income. The Government did not get around to adjusting the law to sanction this

until I pointed out they were doing it illegally five or six weeks later.

Nevertheless, I would like the Minister to tell the Committee how much money the

Government saved at the expense of those single parents, mostly single mothers

and children.

Before October 1, when maintenance was treated as

allowable income the beneficiaries were allowed to keep up to $115 a month

without any deduction from their regular social assistance. On October 1 without

any warning to these people they were cut, up to $115 a month, which for each of

the families affected amounted to as much as 15 per cent or 20 per cent of their

total income. A terrible blow to the families affected.

How much money has this saved the Provincial

Government from October 1 until March 31 1991, the end of the last fiscal year?

MR. EFFORD: Out of the mouths of babes. I do

not mind a person -

MS. VERGE: John Crosbie got in some trouble for

using that term in responding to Sheila Copps, I say to the Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, well I am not going to get

into any trouble with (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The problem is that if a question

is asked, and it is directed by the Member for St. John's East, then the

Minister should respond. So I would ask that the questions be as direct as the

Member for St. John's East makes his. Then I think it does not force the

Minister into verbiage other than the direct answer to the question.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: I do not care where members sit in

the House or what Party they represent - if you can really have confidence in

when they are being sincere and being really honest about the statement they are

making. But when I find an hon. Member sitting in this House of Assembly and

asking questions and making statements which she or he knows very well the

former administration that they represented for seventeen years did nothing only

to add turmoil and despair and poverty to the individuals in this Province. Now

I have to sit down and listen to the sanctimonious words coming out of her

mouth, that we are not doing anything for single parents in this Province, and

that we initiated and implemented a programme last year with no warning to the

single parents whatsoever? That is totally and absolutely false. And I am sick

and tired of sitting down in the House of Assembly and in public and listening

to the hon. Member trying to make political points when she knows she is

absolutely wrong.

Now, secondly, we did not take away that programme

and take away the maintenance income without looking at the implications it was

going to have on those individuals. Did we save any money? No. The Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, did not implement this new programme to

save money. There was no money saved in the Department of Social Services last

year. In fact, if I remember correctly, we had to go for a special warrant at

the end of the year of $10 million. Now we saved a lot of money in the

Department of Social Services last year.

Since doing that programme we have brought in two

new projects, two new programmes for the single parents. Number one, we have

treated the first child in the family as an adult. Nobody did that in the past.

I did not see the hon. Member, who was Minister of Justice and Minister of

Education and a Minister of Government, her government never brought that in.

Fifty-five dollars a month, the first child in the single parent family.

Secondly, all of the single parents who are occupying their own apartments and

their homes who have a heating cost in their house will be given $50 a month for

six months of the year for the heating subsidy. That is $105 a month right

there. Thirdly we are bringing in this new programme now under the education

programme to assist individuals in obtaining a better education and not treating

the loan portion of their income as an income. And that will not only be for

people going to Memorial University, that will be for single parents no matter

what education programme they go with in the Province.

So what we would like to do is restore some

dignity, self-esteem and independence to those individuals, and not hand them

out a few measly dollars every month. Because no matter how much money the

Province can afford to put into social assistance programmes, it will only be

demeaning, and it will never be enough to provide the essential needs and

services that these people need. So work with the people, do not throw goody

bags out to them. But let's be honest and let's be sincere about it.

Now yes, the maintenance income was taken away from

those people last year, the $115. We did the same thing as every other province

in Canada with the exception of British Columbia. And British Columbia, only

because they were going through an election last year, would have done the same

thing. And I spoke to the Deputy Minister myself and now they are looking at

putting the same programme in place out there. So all of the people in Canada

are being treated the same under the Canada Assistance Plan.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I asked a very pointed

question and I am going to ask it again. How much money did the Provincial

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador save from October 1, 1990 to March 31,

1991 as a result of changing the treatment of maintenance and child support from

allowable income to non-allowable income? The Minister has admitted to the

change and acknowledged that this resulted in a decrease in social assistance

paid out to some of his caseload. But he has not told us how much. That is my

question. How much?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: The Department of Social Services

did not save any money last year at all.

MS. VERGE: I will ask the question another way.

What is the difference between what the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

the Department of Social Services, paid in social assistance under the old

regulations which treated maintenance as allowable income, and what was actually

paid with the treatment of maintenance as a non-allowable income?

MR. EFFORD: I cannot give the hon. Member those

figures off the top of my head because it was late in the year when it was

brought in, it was about the last four or five months of the budgetary year.

Because from month to month you have people coming off maintenance income. So I

will get the officials to check that tomorrow and provide the figures if we

return here another day, or I can provide the hon. Member with those figures in

the House of Assembly. But we did not save any money because when you do not

spend money in one area in the Department of Social Services certainly you need

to spend it in another area.

MS. VERGE: The change took place on October 1

and it operated for six of the twelve months of the last fiscal year, that was

one half of the year. I have asked this question many times before and the

Minister has consistently avoided giving me an answer. I would suggest that the

Minister and his staff know the answer but they are embarrassed to disclose it

to the public of the Province.

MR. EFFORD: Don't let your pride run away with

you. I can assure you one thing. There is no question the hon. Member for Humber

East could ask the Minister of Social Services or his staff that they would find

embarrassing. Absolutely not. When I am ready to give the answer to the hon.

Member for Humber East I will give that answer, but I have stated very clearly

that we did not save any money in that programme. We do not save money in the

Department of Social Services. It is not our intent. Our intent is to treat

people equally and fair and provide service where it is necessary, and also to

give people the opportunity to get away from social assistance. That is the

intent wherever possible. Single parents are characterized in that particular

part of the program, and we are going to spend a lot of money this year on

training and education programs so that we can get single parents into the

education field. While she tries to make a major point of us taking away the

$115 a month we also put in there a special allowance of $175 a month for single

parents who are going into certain training programs. We are not just doing it

to hurt people, the decisions we make are for the best interests of the

individuals within the Department of Social Services.

MS. VERGE: Well, Chairperson, many of the

single mothers who are among the Minister's caseload certainly do not understand

what the Minister is trying to do, because they have been hurt. They felt the

hurt and their children have felt the hurt because from October 1, 1990 they

were dealt a bad blow. They instantly lost up to 20 per cent of their income

when the Minister started treating maintenance as non-allowable income, and in

that move the benefit of the new support enforcement program of the Department

of Justice for the people who needed it most was taken away, was negated, and

the incentive for people getting court orders for maintenance, or for judgement

debtors paying, has been taken away, because the dependent family members who

are suppose to benefit from maintenance do not benefit. The Government takes the

money, the Government subtracts it dollar for dollar.

I would like to ask the Minister about his advisory

committee. My colleague for Port au Port asked him earlier. Several single

mothers, and now the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Government's

own Advisory Council, has expressed disappointment with the way the Committee is

functioning. The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women issued a

news release on April 29, two days ago, expressing disappointment that the

Committee has no deadline for their report and no commitment to release their

recommendations to people whom they had invited to submit briefs. Now, perhaps

the Minister will take this opportunity to tell us that he has reconsidered and

set a deadline and will announce that he promises to share with the public and

the presenters all the briefs and the final report?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When the hon. Member for Humber East was Minister

of Justice - I will not tell you how good or how bad a Minister she was

recognized as being - but when she was Minister of Justice for a short term,

that is when the maintenance income factor was brought in and that system set

up. The then hon. Minister of Justice stated clearly and publicly, as quoted in

Hansard, that the purpose for bringing in the maintenance support program was to

relieve the burden of the taxpayers in the Province. The spouse of that single

family should be responsible for providing the income for their children or

their family members, and there is no reason why the taxpayers of this Province

should be burdened with that program. Now, that was out of the mouth of the hon.

Minister of Justice at that time, but now she is condemning the very thing that

we have put in place that she did not have the courage to do. Are we saying that

parents, a man who leaves his wife, should not support his children? That is

absolute nonsense. They should have to support their children.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: Ah, come on, that is very clearly

what she said.

MS. VERGE: I certainly did not Chairperson.

MR. EFFORD: You cannot receive two incomes from

the Department of Social Services. So, the responsibility lies with the parents

to support them. Now there are other ways in which we are helping out the single

parents so it is very clear that the hon. Member is confused and frustrated and

she is trying to make political points. I can honestly say this very clearly:

the single parents she was associated with last fall when she was trying to get

them to sign petitions would not even talk to her, they kicked her out of the

office in there. In fact, this morning I had a single moms association in my

office at 8:30 from St. John's who were opening up another office in Corner

Brook and one in Port aux Basques, I have a great relationship with the Single

Parents Association and the Single Moms Against Poverty right across the

Province. We are going to work very closely with the single parents.

One of the ways we are going to work jointly with

those individuals is we are going to bring in a new program so that these people

can get into the schools and talk to the teenagers now and the young people to

prevent this sort of thing from happening.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, my time is being

frittered away. I asked two specific questions: Will the Minister set a deadline

for the Committee? Will he promise to release to the public the Committee's

report and the submissions that are being made to the Committee?

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell the hon. Member one

thing, when any hon. Member in this House of Assembly asks me a question I will

take the opportunity to answer the question. If the hon. Member does not like

the way I answer questions then do not ask me any. But do not interrupt me when

I am giving an answer to a question and expect it to be answered only the way

you want to hear it.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I will call on you to

have the Minister stick to the question. I am trying to ask precise questions

and the Minister is wasting my time rambling discussing things that are

irrelevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first question the hon.

Member asked, the Minister's answer was that he would respond under advisement

and bring you that information. The second question, the Chair would feel was

deserving of a long answer. I do not know how it could be answered without an

explanation.

MR. HODDER: I have been on many committees Mr.

Chairman and I have never seen the likes of this before. Run the thing fairly,

run it fairly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is going to

constantly continue to question the Chair -

MR. HODDER: Perhaps why I am so upset tonight

is that since the Estimates Committees came in I was a Chairman or a

Vice-Chairman of these committees. Last year I was Vice-Chairman for the first

time for a long time but I did take over the Chair on a number of occasions.

Now, one thing that happened when I chaired meetings of this Committee was that

everybody got an equal chance, the other thing was I did not get involved in

whether a Minister was doing this, this is not question period. I certainly did

not choose one side over the other. I did not make little innuendos when

somebody else asked a question or how nice it was or how nice it was not. I

certainly did not make decisions, value judgements, as when the Minister was

speaking when it was my side or the other side. What I am saying to the Chairman

is that I am getting a very big whiff of this there tonight and I think the

Chairman should act as a Chairman and forget being a partisan person.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I have no trouble with the

right of the hon. Member for Port au Port to have an opinion that I totally

disagree with. I used the hon. Member for St. John's East, who does not have the

same political persuasion as the Chair, as to what I feel asking questions

associated with the estimates are all about.

Now, let me say to the hon. Member without

interruption. I did not interrupt you. When certain types of questions are

asked, obviously the response is going to take the same tone. If the hon. Member

does not like the tone from the Minister when the tone of the question is

similar to the response from the Minister, then the Chair has to give the

Minister the right to respond in the same sense of dialogue to answer the

question. Now if the hon. Member feels that the Chair is protecting the Minister

and/or not being fair in these estimates, then I totally disagree with the hon.

Member. And the Chair will rule. If the hon. Member does not like the ruling of

the Chair then he has been around long enough to know his option.

MR. HODDER: To that point of order, Mr.

Chairman, would you allow me a response?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, certainly, by all means.

MR. HODDER: No, I just want to say, Mr.

Chairman, that I do not think that the Chair should partake in discussion as to

who is right or wrong. This is not Question Period. I think the Chair should be

a facilitator, from my point of view, that the Chair would be well advised to

just act as a neutral person in this forum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Having said that, I think

we might adjourn for ten minutes. It is now 9:00 p.m. There is coffee and tea -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, before we break could

we just finish off those two detailed questions, the deadline and making the

report public?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to use the break to

have a discussion with the Vice-Chair and then we will come right back to the

Vice-Chair. So we would reconvene in ten minutes.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I want to welcome Mr. Larry Short, the Member for St.

George's, who is here, a little late, replacing Mr. Art Reid, the Member for

Carbonear.

MS. VERGE: There is another letter there

(Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, (Inaudible). Now before we go

back into session the Chair would just like to make a few points. I suppose it

is fair to proceed with the Chair's opinion, I guess, to some degree, but I do

not want to do that. If the Committee wants to decide that ten minutes is the

allocation for questions, then if the Minister takes a few more minutes and/or

one of his staff to answer that then we will extend ourselves somewhere to

twelve or thirteen or fifteen minutes per Member. If the Committee wants me to

hold that ten minutes totally to the line then the Chair is prepared to do that.

But I am a little reluctant, to be quite honest with you. I would like to have a

question answered and completed and the Committee Members satisfied. So I see

that there is no response from the critic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I just want to say that, and I

asked the Vice-Chair for some guidance here. I do not see any of the Members

disagreeing with the Chair's decision to allow it.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, if you look at the rules

of the House, the Member in a certain debate has twenty minutes speaking time,

in another debate he has ten minutes speaking time, and the reason that this is

so is that it is fair - and I think it is. I do not say this with any other

reason than for the running of the Committee. I think that a strict time limit

is the only way that we are going to be able to get through this and do it

fairly. I mean, why should I get seventeen to nineteen minutes and the Member

for St. George's get four - you know, I mean, it is judgement. And I just say

that I think we should do it and -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay then is it the wish of the

Committee to say that at the end of ten minutes, if the Minister is in the

middle of a response, that the Chair interrupt him and moves on to another

Committee Member?

MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, because everybody

can come back, the Minister particularly. He gets to come back for ten minutes

every time somebody speaks. For instance, if I have ten minutes he gets ten

minutes, if the Member for St. George's gets ten minutes he gets ten minutes

plus the fact that he is responding all the time. The Minister is not going to

be without a word to say here.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Either we follow the rules strictly,

which is perhaps what the Member is saying, but in that case the Minister does

not have a chance to have ten minutes every time someone else speaks. So what I

suggested is that I would take ten minutes or whatever the allocated time was

and use it as a question and answer period with the Minister and then we move

on. Whether it is ten minutes or fifteen minutes I think perhaps we can agree,

but the reason I got the ten or fifteen minutes was because the Member for

Bonavista South had spoken for ten minutes and then the Minister responded for

four or five. Well that is a reasonable period of time, let's use the same thing

again.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I agree with the Member

for St. John's East. That is how I would like to use my time. However in

response to my bite size questions I am getting lengthy tirades from the

Minister, which may prompt me to revise my approach and I may speak for ten

minutes at a stretch. However, I think it would be more useful for the Committee

if we could have short exchanges of pointed questions and direct answers. And as

soon as we get out of this procedural wrangle I would like to get back to my

question for which I am still awaiting an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have discussed the point

of order long enough. Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: I agree with the Member for Port au

Port, and I agree with the Member for St. John's East that ten minutes is what

is allowed in the rules and Members use the ten minutes how they see fit. If it

is a speech for ten minutes, fine, if it is question and answer for ten minutes,

fine, but let's have a rule that it is ten minutes and move on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, well what the Chair will do is

when the Chair gives another Committee Member leave to question then I will

start the stop watch at the end of ten minutes, that is the end of it, and then

we will move on to another Committee Member.

MR. HODDER: And he can choose whether he wants to

ask short questions, and if he asks short questions and the Minister answers the

ten minutes is up when it is over, but if he speaks for ten minutes, then the

Minister gets to speak for ten minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. HODDER: Why not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because the rules do not allow it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Herein lies the problem, okay. Now

what the Chair will do will be at the discretion of the Chair. No, I will not

let you take over. It will be at the discretion of the Chair, and if you look at

the Standing Orders, and you know and every other Member of the Committee knows

they are right if they disagree with the Chair. So I will go with the

Vice-Chairperson, the Member for Humber East, and I will give her ten minutes or

whatever, to ask short questions and to receive short answers. Sometimes short

questions take long answers; sometimes long questions can be responded to with

short answers. So ten minutes for each Committee Member and then the Chair will

bring that particular Committee Member to order and we will move on to another

Member who has indicated that he or she might want to speak.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I ask the

Minister with respect to the Committee that he established -

MR. SHORT: I just want to make a comment in

relation to last night because we sat and went through this same wrangle last

night. Well we did not go through a wrangle, but what we did last night was we

had an Opposition Member allotted ten minutes, and that could be questions back

and forth, and then we moved on to the Government Member and then an Opposition

Member, and that is the way we ran the whole thing last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. If you had been here at 7:00,

Mr. Short, you would have seen that that is what the procedure had been taken.

It is just the time frame is where some of the difficulty is coming into play.

And now the Chair has made a ruling that it will be ten minutes and ten minutes

only and then we will move on.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: With respect to the Minister's

Committee, the Committee the Minister had set up around the beginning of March

to advise the Department on policies relating to single mothers on social

assistance and ways of allowing these single mothers to get out of the welfare

trap: number one, will the Minister set a deadline? If so, what will the

deadline be? Number two, will the Minister promise to release to the public the

Committee's report, together with the submissions made by groups and individuals

making presentations to the Committee?

MR. EFFORD: A very short answer to the first part,

no. To the second part, no.

MS. VERGE: Why will the Minister not set a

deadline? Why will the Minister not take steps to ensure that the Committee's

work will lead to some decisions that will help single mothers who want to go to

school in time for the beginning of the 1991-1992 academic year in September?

MR. EFFORD: I have asked the Committee, under the

directorship of Mr. Haire, and the other members of the Committee outside the

Department of Social Services, to set the terms of reference, which they have

done. They know when they are expected to have it back in. I will not set a

definite deadline.

MS. VERGE: When are they expected to have it back

in?

MR. EFFORD: They are very responsible individual

people doing a job as long as it takes. I am hoping that it will be by

mid-summer so that a decision can be made and finalized before the fall semester

begins, not only at Memorial University but at the vocational institutes.

MS. VERGE: And why will the Minister not agree to

release to the public the report of the Committee or the submissions made by

presenters?

MR. EFFORD: When the report is received by the

Minister and officials of his Department we will sit down and read the reports

and look at all the submissions. I will then make the decision. But will I

commit to making that report public this evening? No.

MS. VERGE: Well, that is too bad. Now, will the

Minister tell us the -

MR. GOVER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order, Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: I understood when we came back from the

break the Member for Humber East was going to get a response to her two

questions. She started her questioning at 8:40. The Committee adjourned at 9:00.

That was twenty minutes. We are now going on and on. And I thought we were under

the ten minute rule. And I thought when she came back she would get an answer to

her two questions. The two questions have been answered three times by the

Minister. I suggest that it is time to move on to another Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The Chair will not do that. We

started with the critic, we came down, and Ms. Verge was involved for ten

minutes. And we will now go back the other way so that before we adjourn at

least Ms. Verge might have been left out and only had ten minutes. So, she is

two minutes and fifty seconds into it. Then we will go back to Mr. Harris and to

you Mr. Gover, and to Mr. Oldford - no, excuse me. From Ms. Verge to Mr.

Oldford, and back to Mr. Harris, yourself, Mr. Short and then Mr. Hodder.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would now like some -

MR. HODDER: (Inaudible) I really do not want

(Inaudible) -

MS. VERGE: Jim!

MR. HODDER: I apologize to the Member for Humber

East. But am I now being told that we are going - I was told that I was after

Mr. Oldford. Now I just want to know the rules of this Committee. I understood

that you took -

MR. EFFORD: Will you stop complaining?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have given the Member for Humber

East ten minutes, I have recognized Mr. Oldford to respond behind the Member for

Humber East. I have given Mr. Harris and Mr. Gover the indication, and I have

them in the order that they indicated.

MR. GOVER: But, Mr. Chairman, to that point of

order. My understanding is - and I do not know if the Table keeps a time - that

the Member for Humber East began questioning at 8:40 and we broke at 9:00, which

is twenty minutes worth of questions and answers. Are you giving her an

additional ten minutes of time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. GOVER: Then I suggest her time is up.

MR. HODDER: How did we decide the order, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know the Member for Port au Port

earlier said that the Chair should recognize people who indicated they wanted to

ask a question.

MR. HODDER: I did indicate and you did say that I

came after Mr. Oldford. Now I hear that I come after a whole group of other

people. I am just wondering how we do this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has the right, I guess, -

AN HON. MEMBER: To change the names.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I did not say change the names.

The Chair has the right to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Pittsburg is leading one to one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Verge. There is no point of

order.

MS. VERGE: Two years ago the Minister said the

social assistance caseload numbered 19,631 of whom 3,500 were single parent

families, what are the statistics now for the total social assistance caseload

and the number of single parent families included in the caseload?

MR. EFFORD: First of all, the caseload is gone up

to approximately 25,000, it went up a little higher than that and then it

decreased somewhat, I do not have the April month's statistics but the March

month's is approximately 25,500.

MS. VERGE: So, that is over a 25 per cent increase

in two years.

MR. EFFORD: The number of single parents in the

Province today dependent on social assistance is 9,900, single parents of all

different categories.

MS. VERGE: That is a 300 per cent increase.

MR. EFFORD: Hold on now. Do not twist the numbers.

Those people include all different categories not only the single parents in an

able bodied situation, we are talking about the widows and everybody in the

Province, 9,900 totally. The figures I gave last year -

MS. VERGE: Two years ago.

MR. EFFORD: - two years ago is approximately 3,500

and that figure is in the age bracket where they could be going into the

workforce and training programs.

MS. VERGE: No, you did not say that. I have the

transcript here. What I am looking for is apples and apples. Two years ago, I

have the transcript here, the Minister said we have a caseload of approximately

19,631 who were dependent on social assistance last year, shameful, it will not

be that much next year. Then he went on to say that we have approximately 3,500

single parents dependent on social assistance and the greater percentage of

those single parents is female.

So, is the Minister now saying that the 19,631 of two

years ago has increased -

MR. EFFORD: Two years, yes.

MS. VERGE: - this was June 20, 1989, has increased

to 25,500.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MS. VERGE: That is a 25 per cent increase.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MS. VERGE: When he said 3,500 single parents

depended on social assistance two years ago, did he include all single-parent

families?

MR. EFFORD: No. There are 9,900 single parents in

the Province today, but that is not an increase. I mean no Government and no

body has any control over the number of single parents. That did not increase

from 3,500 to 9,900 but the true figures in the Province of all groups of people

of single parents who find themselves in that situation is approximately 9,900.

MS. VERGE: That is the number of single-parent

families.

MR. EFFORD: Families, yes.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

The Minister and, I think, everyone in this room would

agree that it is desirable for the Government to assist these people to get off

social assistance.

Last September an anti-poverty coalition in St. John's

made a presentation to the Minister on this topic, on the desire of helping

welfare recipients get out of the welfare trap. And one of their main

recommendations was providing greater incentives to earn money themselves, and

they recommended specifically that the definition of allowable income be made

broader, more generous, so that welfare recipients would be able to retain and

benefit more than they can now under the existing regulations from earnings from

jobs, contractual work, part-time jobs, seasonal jobs, any kind of jobs. Has the

Minister made any steps in that direction to allow social assistance recipients

to keep and benefit more from earnings from employment?

MR. EFFORD: No.

MS. VERGE: Does the Minister want to do that?

MR. EFFORD: We are looking at the whole area of

people dependent on social assistance and getting people retrained and educa

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1991-05-01
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga41session3_1991-05-01_ssc-ss_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	38ca3018cbe6a6a55bde44c3991942df2696ec67

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).