June 7, 1993

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 7:30 p.m. in the Colonial

Building.

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Roger

Fitzgerald, MHA, Bonavista South substitutes for Mr. Nick Careen, MHA for

Placentia, or Mr. Glenn Tobin, MHA for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): There are several

matters that we'll straighten away first and then we'll get on with the meeting.

I welcome Roger Fitzgerald, who is replacing either

Mr. Careen or Mr. Tobin tonight as the other member of the Committee.

I will tell you what we have tried to do so far in

conducting the meetings. There are three hours, as you know, allotted for this.

We normally start at 7:00 p.m. but because of other commitments today we

couldn't start until 7:30. By about twenty-five past ten I'll be asking the

Committee whether they think we can pass the Social Service estimate tonight. If

we can clue up then in a few minutes, if not, it will be adjourned to be clued

up at some other time. I hope that we can get it done in the three hours. We've

been reasonably successful so far with the committees that we've had.

What happens is usually I will ask the Committee to

introduce themselves in a minute or so, and then I'll ask the minister to

introduce his staff, his officials. He has the right to speak for fifteen

minutes and give his opening remarks. Who will be responding? Ms. Verge, will it

be you again tonight?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So Ms. Verge will be responding

for the Official Opposition. She has the right to have fifteen minutes. After

that I will recognize speakers as they hold up their hands or whatever they do.

They will then speak for ten minutes. They have a right to speak for the ten

minutes, but if they do the minister won't answer any questions, because they're

making a statement for ten minutes. However, if they want to have a give and

take with the minister, a question period, in that ten minutes they have the

right to do that.

I will now ask the Committee to introduce

themselves. Ms. Verge?

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, MHA, Humber East.

MR. FITZGERALD: Roger Fitzgerald, MHA,

Bonavista South.

MR. HARRIS: Jack Harris, MHA, St. John's East.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, MHA, Fortune -

Hermitage.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, MHA, Port au Port.

MS. YOUNG: Kay Young, MHA, Terra Nova.

MR. CHAIRMAN: David Gilbert, MHA, Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

Mr. Minister, we'll ask you to introduce your

officials and make your opening remarks if you would, sir.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. To

my immediate right is Mr. Bruce Peckford, who's the Deputy Minister of Social

Services. I think most people would know Mr. Peckford. I'll go right along here.

Next to him is James Strong. James is the Director of Finance. Next to him, the

next two gentlemen are ADMs: Mr. Noel Browne, who's the ADM in Client and

Community Services, and Mr. George Skinner who's the ADM for Program

Development. Here on my left is David Roberts, and he's the ADM for Finance and

General Operations.

I want to thank these people for coming here this

evening. They're going to be my main support and back up. That's for the facts.

Anything outside the facts I'll take care of them. The facts will go with these

people. I don't plan, Mr. Chairman, to give a fifteen minutes dissertation. As

far as I'm concerned, I'll give that to the Committee. We can go right to

whoever the next speaker is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize Ms. Verge I

would point out, Mr. Minister, that if your officials are going to speak, for

the sake of the people who are recording and who are going to have to type this

eventually, I'd ask the officials to introduce themselves before they speak. It

would make it easier for them.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I'd like to congratulate

the minister on his appointment as a Minister of Social Services. I have fond

memories. I've been around for a long time - not quite as long as the minister -

but I have memories of being in this Chamber for estimates committees meetings

when the tables were reversed. The minister, then an Opposition critic, waxed

eloquently about what was wrong with the education system. It's good for me to

have the opportunity now to give some of my views on what's wrong with the

social services system.

I'd like to start by asking the minister to comment

on what's provided in the Budget estimates for social assistance. It's $20

million less than what was actually spent last year. I don't have the page open

at that head. Oh yes, it's head 5.3.02 on page 328. What was actually spent last

year was $180 million, roughly, and I stand to be corrected. It is a lower

amount this year - $175 million, social assistance.

I would like the minister to explain how

conceivably the department will be able to get by with a lower amount for social

assistance this year when the budget document, in the early pages, in the Table

of Economic Indicators, and the Budget Speech, do not offer any real hope that

the economy is going to improve significantly.

Last year social services had to get extra funding

beyond what was provided in the budget for social assistance. I recall a special

warrant around December, so how does the minister think that the department will

be able to get by with a lower amount for social assistance this year compared

to what was spent last year?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, has the member

finished?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. LUSH: I thought the member said, when she

started off, that social services was $20 million less? Did she mean that under

MS. VERGE: I said that I stood corrected when I

opened the estimates document to the correct head.

Just to clarify, looking at Page 328, 5.3.02,

Social Assistance.

MR. LUSH: Yes, 5.3.02, I have it.

MS. VERGE: I am reading, what was actually

spent last year was $180 million, and what is estimated to be spent this year is

$175 million. Given the gloomy economic indicators, how can the department

expect to get by with spending less on social assistance this year compared to

what was spent last year?

MR. LUSH: Okay. The member knows quite well

that the amount budgeted for last year was $160 million, and we have budgeted

$14.5 million more than what was budgeted for last year.

We have made some budgetary arrangements whereby we

think we can cope with this problem should a problem arise. For example, this

figure of $174,500,000 reflects a reduction in the transportation budget and $2

million for funding of refugees, compared to the 1992-'93 revised amounts, as

well as $3.5 million related to the hiring of ten temporary investigator

positions. So these reductions are offset by the additional funding related to

the - and increased growth in caseloads is another situation, but very basically

these three budgetary measures that I pointed out to the minister - the $1

million reduction in transportation, $2 million for the refugees, and the $3.5

million that we are expecting to save with respect to the temporary investigator

positions.

MS. VERGE: Last year, as the minister pointed

out, the government estimated spending $20 million less than what it ended up

spending. That is where I got the $20 million, and I believe the year before the

government was low in its budget projection as well.

The social assistance caseload has climbed steadily

for the last four years, and according to the figures the minister tabled in the

House of Assembly for April of 1993, we are now up to a caseload of about

32,000; 68,000 individuals. The trend has been steadily up for just about four

years. It has not levelled off. Does the minister expect that the caseload will

continue to climb, or does he think that it will level off?

MR. LUSH: Well again, in the projections you

have to take some figure and in this particular case the department took an

average, for the coming year, of $30,700. That is the average on which the

budget was determined and as the member rightly said, that works out to about

68,000 individuals. So, that is the basis on which the calculations were made,

on an average of $30,700.

MS. VERGE: How does that average compare to the

actual average of last year?

MR. LUSH: The average of last year was $30,100.

MS. VERGE: So, you're basing the estimated

spending this year on a slightly higher caseload?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Now, I would like to address the

three savings measures, how will you cut $1 million from transportation?

MR. LUSH: You have not heard about it?

MS. VERGE: I have heard some complaints but I

have not heard details.

MR. LUSH: I am surprised you have not heard

about it, I have. This is the -

MS. VERGE: The minister's car allowance?

MR. LUSH: One million on the amount allowed for

clients taking taxis, this kind of thing, the amount allowed clients for taxi

transportation this kind of thing. We have tried to get close to $1 million

reduction in that particular vote.

MS. VERGE: How are clients supposed to get

around now?

MR. LUSH: Use a cab but we are hoping that our

people in our regional offices can be creative and come up with some system

whereby people can still use the taxi but hon. members will realize that if

there is one area in which there has been abuse in the past with respect to

social services, it has been this area of taxis.

MS. VERGE: It sounds like you are double

counting abuse because you are saying that you are going to cut $3.5 million

because the investigators will -

MR. LUSH: This is an area where we know that

with some economy some prudence and some frugality that maybe we can achieve the

$1 million savings.

MS. VERGE: Now, the $3.5 million that you are

counting on, will that come about through lessening what is approved?

MR. LUSH: Will that come - I am sorry?

MS. VERGE: Will the $3.5 million savings that

you are estimating because of the welfare cops, the investigators, will that

come about as a result of lowering or lessening what is approved or will it come

about as a result of recovery of overpayments?

MR. LUSH: No, to my mind, it will come about

through people receiving money who are not permitted to receive money or cases

of fraud. This is what it seems to be but now maybe the officials may want to

make a comment here because I am sure they are more familiar with this than I

am, on this particular one with respect to the investigators. So, Mr. Peckford?

MR. PECKFORD: We have, during the past year,

had two or three investigators working in a couple of locations in the Province.

The results of their activities in identifying areas where clients are in

receipt of funds or misunderstand the arrangements and has resulted in us being

able to project that we may be able to achieve this sort of a saving were the

same efforts applied across the Province.

MS. VERGE: Yes, okay.

MR. PECKFORD: So, this would be a combination

of recoveries but more like an avoidance -

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you, yes.

MR. PECKFORD: - of assistance.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The total number has been

climbing steadily, has the composition of the caseload altered significantly? I

do not know how many general categories you have but I can think of people who

are unable to work because of illness or a disability, I can think of single

parents, I can think of young single able bodied people and I am hearing more

and more from them.

Have the percentages of the different categories

stayed about the same, is it just that the total has grown larger? The deputy is

nodding, yes.

A significant part of your caseload has always been

single parents and as the minister knows, I took strong exception to the

decision the Wells government made back in October of 1990, to categorize child

support and maintenance as non-allowable income. I feel that removed totally any

incentive on the part of a social assistance recipient who is a single parent to

try to get an absent parent to contribute to child support. Now I realize social

services coerces recipients to go to court and get an order, but you cannot make

people be persuasive or try for a higher amount and in my view, this reward

system is wrong. I think we have to find ways in our social security systems,

provincial or federal, to have positive reward systems.

The only reason that I strongly objected to it is

that, it took away money from the poorest families in the Province and it is the

children of course who are suffering. Most of the people affected and affected

negatively are children. The amount of money involved for the government is a

pittance but for the families affected, it is significant. When the income is

allowable, the family is only able to benefit up to $115 a month, now $115 a

month means very little to the people in this room because of what we are all

earning, but when you are a single mother with three children on social

assistance, it can mean 20 per cent of your cash income that you have to manage

to get your groceries and pay your utility bills and get clothing and outfit

your kids for school. While this minister was not in the Cabinet at the time,

that decision was made without any warning to the families affected, and it was

imposed at the start of the school year, which was the worst possible time for

the families affected, but I realize that is history, but, will the government

not change that decision to reinstate the incentive for social assistance

recipients to get maintenance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: At that point, Ms. Verge, your

time is up.

Mr. Harris.

MS. VERGE: By leave, could we have the

minister's response?

MR. HARRIS: Not if it cuts into my time.

MS. VERGE: No it would not cut into your time.

MR. HARRIS: I have no problem; I do not know

about the rest of the members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave, Mr. Minister, you have

two minutes.

MR. LUSH: To address that: because there were

some other questions about the composition of the caseload but I will not get

into that, I will get into the one about maintenance.

I feel as strongly as the member does with respect

to people having all of the assistance that they can get, and in this particular

situation sometimes we are dealing with some very, very desperate cases, but on

the other side of the coin, I believe that anybody who has kids, brings kids

into this world, have a responsibility to pay for them, have a responsibility to

pay for their upkeep, and I wish there was some system where we could do both. I

am not familiar enough with this but my officials might now and if somebody was

having difficulty getting their maintenance income from the spouse, then this

certainly should be paid and I hope that it is.

Now, my understanding is that, there was some

consideration or there has been some difficulty with this ever since the Canada

System Plan in 1966, which requires that any extra income federally, go against

people's income and I think you and I are in that same boat or anybody who gets

income, whatever it is, has to go against your income, so if somebody is on

workers' comp. or old age pension, or whatever it is, and they receive other

income it is added to that. Now in this particular case we are talking about

people on low income but I am just wondering if we allow this to happen, whether

or not we are just allowing people to get away with their irresponsibility? As I

have said, since 1966, we have been working on this and there are two events, as

I understand it, that has helped in this tremendously, and that was the

establishment of the Unified Family Court and the Support Enforcement Agency

which the hon. member should know about. I know she knows about both, but

certainly the Support Enforcement Agency. One is in Corner Brook, is it not?

MS. VERGE: Yes, the Support Enforcement Agency.

MR. LUSH: I understand that the recipients

declaring income since the Unified Family Court and particularly the Support

Enforcement Agency has gone up dramatically. I think we all feel that spouses

should have some responsibility to people that they have brought into this world

and that they should be making some contribution. If there was some indication

to me that these people could not get their maintenance income, if it becomes a

hardship because they are not getting it, then I would be prepared to look into

it, but if the system is there and they can pay their maintenance income I

believe that aspect should be followed and people should have to pay their

maintenance income.

MS. VERGE: I will come back to that in my next

turn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

I would also like to congratulate the minister on

his appointment as Minister of Social Services. It is a very large but very

vital department to far too many people in this Province. I know the minister

has only been in charge of this department for a brief period of time but I

understand that the minister is a very quick study and can pick up these things

very quickly so I look forward to seeing some changes in his department, and

with the compassion that I know the minister personally has I hope he is able to

convince his government to join him in doing some things.

I want to talk about one thing that I think the

minister can do. I will not say without costing any money because I am sure your

friends to your left or right sitting with you there will tell you that it might

cost some money. The Support Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook right now, the

agency that handles most of the activity in getting this maintenance money from

individuals, almost entirely men I should imagine who have been ordered by

either the Unified Family Court or other courts to pay maintenance to their

spouses for the support of their children. They collect this money and they pay

it directly to the spouses. If these individuals are on social assistance and

let's say there is an order in place for $200 that Joe has to pay Jane for the

support of little Susie, that $200 comes directly to Jane from the Support

Enforcement Agency if they get it. If Jane has a social assistance allowance of

say $450, from that $450 is deducted $200 and Jane is given $250 from Social

Assistance and she has to wait and hope that the other $200 comes from the

Support Enforcement Agency. If it does not come on the first of the month and

she runs out of money, if she has no money to buy groceries, perhaps, she has

$200 less than what she would expect to have, she cannot get access to that

money until a much later time in the month, I think it is about three weeks.

They will not give it to her. She is waiting for her cheque but she cannot get

her cheque and she knows perhaps that her former spouse or whoever this

individual is who is required to pay maintenance has either quit his job, left

the Province, was not working, or whatever, and for whatever reason she knows

that the Support Enforcement Agency is not going to get this.

The question that has often come to mind is if

there is some doubt as to whether this money is going to come why can this

individual, instead of having to wait for the cheque to come from Support

Enforcement, if it does not come on the day it is scheduled to come, why does

not Social Services provide the income with that money on the basis of an

assignment from the Support Enforcement Agency?

It can be quite easily done. I don't know if this

is actually in keeping with the protection of privacy act, but I understand that

your social workers have access to the same computer bank that tells you whether

or not these individuals have gotten orders through the Support Enforcement

Agency in Corner Brook. That the knowledge base is there. That the ability to

get an assignment from an individual can be done at the same time that a cheque

is issued. Surely a system can be put in place so that the individuals who are

dependent on this income as part of - and it's being taken out of their social

assistance cheque - why can't they be administratively - I don't mean guaranteed

in a real sense - but administratively guaranteed that money, and not have to

wait and hope that it might or might not come in and do without the expectation

of that money for two or three weeks until it finally becomes clear to Social

Services that the money is not coming?

Now that's an elaborate question but I think it

sets out the situation that many people find themselves in. You hear this

complaint again and again. That someone has no money, they can't do this, and

they phone our offices. They try to get us to intervene and do something. We

keep getting told: that's our policy, to wait until the middle of the month or

the eighteenth of the month to see if it comes, and then and only then will we

issue a cheque to cover the difference. Is the minister aware of that problem?

MR. LUSH: Yes, and in other area too, with

respect to payment other than maintenance. Mr. Peckford tells me that your

problem's been addressed. It's an important one. I find the same thing. I'm sure

all members have found this with respect to, oh, it might be UI. People are

applying for UI and they get delayed, this kind of thing. The department sees

that.

MR. HARRIS: This is an institutional one. This

is institutionalized delay though -

MR. LUSH: Yes, yes.

MR. HARRIS: - that happens on a (inaudible)

basis.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Peckford tells me that we're

doing a pilot. Maybe you can describe that, Mr. Peckford.

MR. PECKFORD: At the present time the

Department of Social Services, together with the Department of Justice, is

looking into the question that you've posed and which we are very much aware of.

In particular, looking at it from not just the aspect of when there's a delay in

the forwarding of the maintenance payment, but the other legal, procedural and

administrative barriers associated with the whole maintenance and social

assistance interface.

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

right now which is monitoring the situation whereby we will include the

maintenance amount as part of the cheque to the client, and then recover from

the other spouse afterwards. That side of it is one aspect of the total project.

There are other areas related to the legal side and other procedural and

administrative simplifications being sought to make this work a little bit

better.

MR. HARRIS: The Support Enforcement Agency

seems to be getting a bit better in dealing with these. For a long time you used

to constantly hear problems - people not being able to reach them and things

like that. But now this is not your department, so there seems to be some

administrative improvements in that system. Perhaps it was because of having it

set up in the first place and getting so many people onto it.

You say it's a pilot project. Is that intended to

bring about administrative change for the whole of people affected by that? Is

that the plan if it works?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes. At the present time the

pilot project is speaking specifically to the situation that spouses who have a

legal right to maintenance payments. It's looking at all aspects of that system

and the interface between the Justice system and the Social Services system.

Once the pilot is completed and an evaluation is done then a decision will be

taken as to how it will expand and in what way.

MR. HARRIS: There have been some very

forward-looking policy directions in other provinces - I don't know whether any

have actually been implemented - to treat maintenance payments, to have the

Crown actually pay that money and then to convert it into a debt to the Crown

and have the Crown go and collect it. Not just for social assistance recipients,

but for others. Is that part of what you're looking at in this particular case?

MR. PECKFORD: I am not quite sure if we are

looking at it in the sense that you have described it, where it would be

considered a debt to the Crown. To be perfectly honest with you I am not right

current on the status of the project right now in that level of detail but we

are looking at, as I indicated, all the administrative and legal barriers or

impediments that are there which make the whole question of maintenance

difficult for the individuals who have a right to it and difficult for

departments like ours and Justice, to administer. So, we are trying to simplify

the whole thing.

MR. HARRIS: The question that I have, the more

you talk about it the more I see it as a broader policy initiative by your

department. Now, what I am proposing and suggesting is something far more

specific and deals merely with one agency in Corner Brook that has all the

administrative capacity, the data, the computer links with your department, a

simple form which would allow an individual - if Jane came in and said: look I

did not get my cheque from Corner Brook. You could check and see whether it had

been sent. If the answer is no, it has not been sent, she signs a form saying I

hereby assign any payments received this month by Support Enforcement Agency to

Social Services. She signs that, you click it into your computer and the money

does not go to Jane, it goes to you. I am oversimplifying I am sure but that is

what I am suggesting as a simple way of solving this problem that keeps coming

up again and again and causes hardship to individual single parents who find

themselves in this difficulty. Can that be done?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris your time has expired.

I do not know if you have leave to carry on.

MR. HARRIS: The question is, can that be done

as a one quick fix to one problem?

MR. LUSH: I think the member said that this was

being done in other jurisdictions. My first response is, if it is being done in

other jurisdictions than I cannot see why we cannot do it but that does not mean

that that is the kind of approach that we are beginning to take on this and Mr.

Peckford is not certain. So, all I can say is that we will take a look at it but

I think any suggestion that makes this system work in a more adequate manner is

certainly worth looking at. I would be prepared to take a look at that to see

what others are doing because if it is a problem we want to get it ironed out

and no question that this has been a problem over the years. Whether it is as

big now as it was two years ago or three years ago, I am not prepared to say but

it is something I am prepared to look at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to continue

the discussion on the same issue. There are basically two aspects, the one that

I raised which is, when an absent parent is paying maintenance on time, the

social assistance recipient is no better off. The second aspect raised by Mr.

Harris, is the inevitability of delays in the payments which means that the

social assistance recipients, a single mother and children, are actually worst

off than if there was no court order for maintenance. The minister talked about

parental duty but the harsh reality is that when parents split very, very, very

few absent parents pay voluntarily.

In this Province, until the law was reformed and

the Department of Justice Support Enforcement Agency set up, which happened in

the Spring of 1989, very few court orders for child support were ever enforced.

Basically court orders for child support were not worth the paper they were

written on. It was just to hard to enforce them. With the law reform, suddenly

court orders for maintenance meant something. The social assistance regulations

which were then in place provided for income from a job and income from

maintenance under court orders similarly being treated as allowable income and

presumably the theory was that social assistance recipients should have an

incentive to help themselves.

There should be a reward for a social assistance

recipient earning a bit of money from a job. Now, if John and Jane with baby

daughter Susie are all altogether in the one household on social assistance and

John gets a part-time job and earns a bit of money, then and now, that family

will be better off. They will be able to keep up to $115 a month of John's

earnings. If John splits and takes off with somebody else the department will

require Jane to go to court to look for an order for child support. Now, she

will have to do that but she will be worse off when she gets that order. First

of all because every dollar that the Support Enforcement Agency gets from John

and relays to her will be subtracted dollar for dollar. John, inevitably will

miss some of his payment dates and then Jane and Susie will not even be able to

count on the meager social assistance allotment for groceries and all their

other living needs.

Jane is worse off now than before the Support

Enforcement Agency was set up, which I find really sad. That is not one of the

results that the previous government anticipated when we set up the Support

Enforcement Agency. It turns out that people like Jane and Susie, who are the

poorest people receiving child support, are actually hurt by the Support

Enforcement Agency, so I would like to ask the minister if he would not consider

once again making child support and maintenance allowable income and giving

people an incentive? You allow John, Jane, and Susie to be a little better off

if they are together and John has a part-time job, why will you not allow Jane

and Susie, after they have been deserted, to benefit from anything that John

pays under a court order?

MR. LUSH: First of all, I am concerned, as I

said, as the minister if it is not working. I do not know if the member is

saying that we should allow spouses, to use the vernacular, to get off

scot-free. They have no responsibility. They can just walk out on people and go

away from a situation. I do not know how we can allow that kind of a situation.

MS. VERGE: I do not think you are understanding

me.

MR. LUSH: The person is only worse off if she

is not getting the maintenance income. It seems to me that if the person is

getting the maintenance income I cannot see how they are worse off than under

the original situation.

MS. VERGE: First of all if John pays on time

faithfully, religiously, Jane and Susie end up with exactly the same as they

would otherwise be entitled to in social assistance, but if John is like most

judgement debtors he is going to miss a few payments, or he will be late

occasionally, and during all those gaps Jane and Susie will suffer.

MR. LUSH: We have no internal measurements for

gaps and things like that?

AN HON. MEMBER: We do.

MS. VERGE: But they do not work instantly and

Jane is still left waiting. What I am trying to get across is that there is no

incentive. When Jane goes to court now she goes because the social worker makes

her go. There is no reason for her to ask for $100 a month. The lower the

payment the judge orders the better off she will be and the better off John will

be. There is no incentive for -

MR. LUSH: You mentioned the social worker

(inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I have talked to legal aid lawyers

about this.

MR. LUSH: But she has a legal right to this

money, you know.

MS. VERGE: But it is going to be subtracted in

full from her social assistance. Now if it were allowable income then there

would be an incentive for her to get a higher amount from the court.

I have talked to legal aid lawyers about this, and

what they tell me -

MR. LUSH: But these are matters - I am sorry.

MS. VERGE: - and I have talked to the staff at

the Support Enforcement Agency about it. If you talk to them over a drink,

privately, they will say: This is nuts. There is no incentive anymore for people

to even try (inaudible).

MR. LUSH: You agree they should pay though?

MS. VERGE: I do not think the minister is

understanding what I am saying.

MR. LUSH: Yes I am, but I want to make sure

that these people are made responsible and they should be paying. I think what

the hon. member is suggesting is that -

MS. VERGE: Well I think they should be paying

too. That is why, as Minister of Justice, I helped reform the law. People are

people, there are certain fundamental human characteristics, and one of them is

that men who leave their wives do not pay maintenance unless they are made to

pay, and women who are left on welfare, basically, once they figure out the

system, will learn that the lower the court orders the better off they will be.

People respond to the reward systems inherent in

government programs, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are pretty shrewd at

figuring them out.

MR. LUSH: I think that aspect of it, Mr.

Peckford, is something that will be addressed by the pilot?

MS. VERGE: How will that be addressed by the

pilot?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Peckford.

MR. PECKFORD: The pilot project is looking at

all aspects of the interface between social assistance and maintenance. It is

looking at the forms, the documentation, the effort that an individual has to go

through in securing a maintenance order, and the administrative aspects as well

- the pilot will include providing, in the first instance, the maintenance

amount to the spouse who has custody of the child. Then the Crown will recover

the maintenance from the absent spouse. That is what the pilot is looking at.

MS. VERGE: Do you have assisting you, designing

the pilot and monitoring it, any single parents on social assistance who are

personally affected? Or do you have input from the Women's Policy Office?

MR. PECKFORD: Right now the primary staff

working on the pilot are those of Social Services and the Department of Justice

- some legal assistance from the Department of Justice. They would be consulting

with our offices and perhaps consulting these other bodies that you mentioned as

well. I am not certain of that.

MS. VERGE: Who is in charge of the pilot?

MR. PECKFORD: Well it is a joint effort of

Social Services and Justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Ms. Verge.

I now call upon Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I too, Sir, would like to

congratulate you on your new appointment. Even though I do not know you very

well personally, I think most of the people in the district where I live know

you, and if your heart is half as big as some of the good things I have heard

about you, and if you can convince some of your staff and some of your

colleagues to be even close to that concern, then I am sure that you will be a

very compassionate minister.

I also think that you have taken on a very big

challenge. You are going to be probably dealing with some real - probably we

should call them con artists - and some people who are very deserving to be

where they are. Sometimes you may have to draw a fine line because I can assure

you, as you know, there is a need there and there is a lot of abuse there.

So I wish you well, Sir, and I feel kind of happy,

in fact, that I got the appointment to be a shadow cabinet member asking you

some questions, because I know that I will get answers that you will put forward

in a very capable way.

Some of those figures in this book here kind of

intimidate me in that they are all general figures and I am not sure how to read

them or where they came from, and I alluded to that in my short address today on

the committee that I served on prior to now.

On Page 316, for instance, Professional Services,

General Administration, it shows Professional Services $5,178,000 compared to

the revised budget for 1992 of $3,657,000. Where is the difference there?

MR. LUSH: 1.2.02, okay, yes. Number 05, yes.

So, what was your question?

MR. FITZGERALD: My question is: Why the vast

difference there? What do we call Professional Services and why the increase for

1993-94?

MR. LUSH: Professional Services; these are

normally services that a department gets outside of government. These are things

not done by the department so they have to go outside to get them done. In this

particular case, we are talking about the computers for the Department of Social

Services. We are carrying on an extensive program with respect to computerizing

the Department of Social Services all for the purpose of making it more

efficient and to be able to serve the clients of the Province in a much more

effective way. That is what that relates to there in that particular heading. It

also considers rent, rental space and printing services, advertising and a

number of things like that.

I want to just come back before I forget it, I did

not do it to the other people, thanking people for their congratulations, I

thank you very much. I also congratulate you, the Member for Bonavista South and

all the other people who got re-elected. When I took this job they asked me how

I was going to like it or how I am finding it and I say to them that I have

dealt with all of the problems, probably not as specifically as I need to deal

with them as minister, but I have dealt with all the problems in my seventeen

years in politics but I do not know what the number is multiplied by. I do not

know if it is fifty-two times the problems I deal with on a district level or

whether it is 100 times, maybe in a years time I will be able to address that.

In any event, I thank you for your congratulations and maybe next year this

time, you will not feel as inclined to congratulate me. In any event, I take

your good wishes and I intend to do the job to the best of my ability. Thank you

very much.

I think that explains the Professional Services. I

hope that we are into the computers here. That is the reason for that escalation

of somewhere in a little excess of $2 million over the revised figures for

1992-93.

MR. FITZGERALD: Going on to page 322, 4.2.04,

it says The Right Future and it gives a column there for 1993-94 -

MR. LUSH: Page 322, just take it easy now. I am

not catching up with you, sorry. Page 322 and what?

MR. FITZGERALD: It gives a column there under

The Right Future -

MR. LUSH: The Right Future, yes?

MR. FITZGERALD: - and it does not show anything

for 1992-93, is this some new spending that we are looking at here?

MR. LUSH: Yes. That is a brand new program. It

is only this year, that is why there is nothing in the other columns related to

it. We have just started it this year and it refers to the - I do not know

whether the hon. member heard about this - the attempt to integrate some of the

people at the Waterford Hospital into the community. It is a big program and one

that is being looked at actually right throughout - looked at by the nation -

looking to us as an example in this particular area where we are taking out

people with developmental disabilities and bringing them to community based

service systems. So, that is why there are no other figures, there is only this

year because it is a new program.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister also, in the book

that we have here, Budget 1993 under social services it reads; funding for home

support services in the Department of Social Services has been held at the

1992-93 Budgeted levels.

I have a memorandum here that was sent to all

regional directors and it came from the Director of Social Assistance, and it

reads; In order to remain within the 1993-94 Budget a reduction of 30 per cent

from 1992-93 expenditure will be required. Why the sudden change from the

memorandum to the Budget estimates here? That is for Home Support Services, Mr.

Minister.

MR. LUSH: Well I think the hon. member knows

that this is the same amount of money that was budgeted for 1992-93, but if my

hon. friend will observe the middle column which is the revised, he will see

that we spent $16,620,000 and I probably should allow my officials to comment on

that if I am wrong. I think to stay within the budgetary figure of $13,120,000,

with respect to Home Support Services where we are dealing with the physically

disabled and senior citizens basically, I think these might be the two groups we

are dealing with; there was a third one, the physically disabled, the

developmentally delayed and seniors who may qualify.

These three groups. To insure that we stay within

the budgetary figure of $13 million, these were guidelines that were sent to the

officials, to the people in the regional offices to have a case by case study.

We could have reduced it right across the board, if we wanted, just made a

reduction, but we thought that doing it that way you would not be looking at the

individual needs, so we thought the best system was to do a case by case

analysis, to determine that the people were cared for in relationship to their

needs and along with that, that memorandum was sent out with general guidelines

to help people arrive at the analysis. I do not think it was meant to apply

stringently in that sense, it was just something to help workers to come to some

conclusion about how they could meet their budget restraints.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald's time is up right

now, sir. Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again on that topic, I had a note to ask about that

particular subhead. It is a $3.5 million reduction from what was required to

meet the needs last year. I would not expect the minister to know this off the

top of his tongue but I am sure one of his officials will. What is the breakdown

in terms of that expenditure? How many individuals or units or homes or whatever

are being served in the three categories here of homemaker services, attendant

care and respite care? Is there a breakdown of that?

MR. LUSH: I do not know if there is a breakdown

of each one, but the total caseload, the total we are dealing with in Home

Support Services is 1,051, but whether it is broken down into -

some people get it all.

MR. HARRIS: It says either breakdown by

physically disabled, senior citizens and developmentally delayed. These are

developmentally delayed adults I take it?

MR. LUSH: Yes, both of them.

MR. HARRIS: And children as well? So will we be

talking about respite care primarily for the developmentally delayed, is that -

MR. LUSH: Mostly seniors, is it not? I saw that

figure somewhere.

MR. PECKFORD: The nature of the services that

the various clients receive in the categories that you mentioned, varies with

the individuals. Some individuals get home care, attendant care and respite

care; other individuals would be cared for by the family and only require

respite care so certainly, if we were to analyze our numbers we could certainly

differentiate as to how much is home care, how much is respite care and so

forth. I do not have that data right now but in the case of developmentally

delayed individuals, the home care component would probably be higher than the

respite care. So it varies with the client and the client's needs.

MR. HARRIS: Let me guess and say that if I were

Treasury Board you'd have to tell me more than that to either get this amount of

money or explain how we were going to take $3.5 million away from you without

doing any harm. I'm asking the questions, what percentage of this $13.16

million, or how much of the $13.12 million is to be spent for each of these

categories, whether it be respite care, attendant care or home care. Or in the

categories of the individuals involved, or how many individuals are involved.

Ten fifty-one, that's a correct figure, I take it, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Um hmm.

MR. HARRIS: So there's that many individuals

who are involved in it. Is there a breakdown on how many are in each category?

There must be some allocations other than the global amount of $13 million. If

you spent $16.6 million last year and somehow Treasury Board is saying: you're

only going to get $13.12 million, somebody must have analyzed what that's going

to do to people, or whether it's needed or whether it's not. What I'm suggesting

is that surely some analysis is available, or something more than what's been

offered right now is available.

MR. PECKFORD: The caseload breaks down to about

- 33 per cent of the 1,051 would be seniors, 20 per cent would be physically

disabled, and 47 per cent would be developmentally delayed. The question that

the previous member asked relating to the memorandum that was just sent out to

regional staff: that particular memorandum was intended to give guidance to the

regional staff who are conducting an evaluation of each individual case of the

1,051 cases to assess the levels of attendant care, respite care and other care

that has been given. That these people require.

We do have some knowledge today on how that breaks

down. However, we felt that it was necessary to do a more up to date and

complete evaluation of each individual case, which has been ongoing now for

about a month or six weeks. We should have it completed shortly. Which will give

us a precise picture at this time of the kind of care and assistance that these

cases are receiving.

MR. HARRIS: What's happening here, though, and

I appreciate, as the minister pointed out, that the budgeted amount this year is

the same as last year. But last year the need was there for $16.6 million worth

of care. Otherwise, I assume, the department would not have provided that level

of care. What we have now is a 20 per cent reduction of funds allocated this

year than were spent last year, and that has to result in the physically

disabled individuals, the seniors, and the developmentally delayed receiving 20

per cent less services. Unless we've got a 20 per cent reduction in the

caseload. I wonder, can the minister say that case load of 1,051 is projected to

increase or decrease this year?

MR. LUSH: I don't particularly know but I think

it's fair to say that we don't know whether there will be a decrease. That's one

of the reasons why for the analysis and the study. It seems to me we would do

this, or we ought to do it, even if we weren't into a budgetary restraint. This

is something we should do. Because it's going to change. It might be that some

of the people who we're now dealing with either don't need as much care; it's

possible that some of them could come off entirely; it's possibly, thirdly, that

we've been probably a little too generous.

So regardless whether we're into budgetary

restraints or not, we should carry on this study from time to time just to find

out what is the exact status of the caseload with which we're dealing. There's

no question, in the meantime, that a budgetary restraint is probably what's

causing us to do it now. My suggestion is that if there were not a budgetary

restraint it's something we should be doing anyway.

MR. HARRIS: I assume that there's an ongoing

monitoring system within the department. But this review is to cut back by 20

per cent the level of services being offered, is that the case?

MR. LUSH: It is an attempt to meet our

budgetary restraint, or our budgetary allocation, of $13 million.

MR. HARRIS: I know that the minister was not

the minister at the time but was it felt, in making the budget submissions to

Treasury Board, that a reduction of 20 per cent was achievable without doing

harm to the level of services and the need that was there?

MR. LUSH: I am not sure whether that indeed was

the line of argument advanced or whether they got all they money they looked for

- or whether they thought that would be sufficient.

MR. HARRIS: How does this process work, Mr.

Minister? If there was a budgeted amount of $13 million last year, obviously the

additional monies were spent, and I assume that the department would be

responding to the need that was there, that was discovered and that was found by

the department operating within the policies that existed for granting these

monies. I suppose the question is: From where does that money come? Does it come

from other appropriations in the department? Or is there extra money in

supplementary supply? Or is that something that you just look at at the end of

the year and say: Oh, we spent $3 million more than we had.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, Mr. Harris, your

time has expired again.

MR. HARRIS: I will leave it then for another

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you want to go back again, I

take it? Yes, okay.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

I would like to ask the minister about the proposed

new federal program called `Brighter Futures' intended to provide funding to

community organizations to help families with young children at risk.

I understand the federal government, Health and

Welfare Canada, are negotiating agreements or protocols with each of the

provinces. The last time I checked, which was March, the negotiations between

the Newfoundland and Labrador government and Health and Welfare Canada, for our

protocol, were well advanced and the expectation on the part of both provincial

and federal officials I talked to is that the agreement would be signed in late

April. Has the protocol been signed? If not, when do you think it will be

signed?

MR. LUSH: It seems to me that it is not signed,

because it seems to me again that there was a document that crossed my desk

related to that just a few days ago, so I do not know what time we are looking

at now, Mr. Peckford might have a better idea of that.

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct. The protocol

agreement with the federal government has not been signed yet. Over the months

of perhaps March and April a consultant was engaged by Health and Welfare

Canada, who did some evaluation of data in the Department of Social Services and

the Department of Health, to identify the various communities which probably had

children at risk in the ages of zero to six, to which the agreement applies.

That first phase of evaluation has been completed

now, and a further consultant has also been hired now by Health and Welfare

Canada to analyze this data, to identify the priority areas. The first approach

was a more broad-brushed approach to identify the primary areas. The second

consultant now is taking that data, evaluating it more closely, and visiting the

various communities to assess what the community response to this group

presently is and what the potential for community response would be to address

the needs of the targeted population. So once that second report is in, then we

will be in a better position to identify government priorities - which areas

should receive funding and how much.

MS. VERGE: When do you think the protocol will

be signed?

MR. PECKFORD: I would guess in perhaps one to

two months.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

How much money will Health and Welfare Canada

provide for this Province - I know it does not come to the provincial

government, but for projects and activities in this Province - in the 1993-'94

fiscal year?

MR. PECKFORD: Half-a-million dollars.

MS. VERGE: A half-a-million? How much in each

of the next four years?

MR. PECKFORD: The same amount.

MS. VERGE: I thought it was more like $1

million a year?

MR. PECKFORD: No, I do not think.

It is based on population of the children in the

ages zero to six.

MS. VERGE: I looked at the national total and

divided by forty, we have 2.5 per cent of the population roughly, and it worked

out to over $1 million a year.

MR. PECKFORD: The total amount that the federal

government has set aside for Brighter Futures also includes monies for native

children which has been administered directly by the federal government and all

administration and evaluation is coming out of that pot as well. So, once those

amounts have been extracted then the remaining amount is divided on population.

MS. VERGE: Okay. So, from what you are saying

in terms of cash flow from the feds into this Province, even though the protocol

will not be signed until partway through the Budget year, you are now saying

July/August, and the fiscal year started on April cite, the money essentially

will be given with effect from April sat.

We have in Corner Brook the Dunfield Park

Child/Parent Resource Centre which fell through the cracks of federal programs.

It was started and operated for over a year with the Health and Welfare Child

Care Initiatives Grant. The sponsors of the program, the Corner Brook Citizens

Action Child Care Committee, expected in good faith that Brighter Futures would

be on stream last Fall and would provide funding for that program to continue.

There has been a succession of delays and Brighter Futures still is not in

place. The centre had to close at the end of March when the child care

initiatives grant ended. I have asked the government, and I will ask the

minister now, why will not social services provide a bridging grant for interim

funding to the Dunfield Park Child/Parent Resource Centre on the condition, and

this can be done with Justice lawyers, that the sponsoring agency undertake to

repay the Province the bridging funding out of Brighter Futures revenue which it

gets so that the Dunfield Park program can resume?

Unfortunately, it has already been closed for

April, May and part of June but a federal/provincial agreement always takes way

longer than anyone ever estimates. This is just the most recent in a long list

of examples. As I say, when I asked in March, I was told the end of April. When

I asked now in June, I was told July or August. I will probably ask next

September and be told Christmas but in the meantime the families at Dunfield

Park in that neighbourhood in Corner Brook who were benefiting from the

Child/Parent Resource Centre, from the early childhood education programs that

were going on there have been let down. Basically, there is nothing happening

there worthwhile now. So, Brighter Futures eventually is going to come on

stream. It will not be as soon as anyone expects because these things never

shape-up when they are supposed to but eventually it will and the money will be

given for 1993-94 with effect from April sit.

Dunfield Park almost certainly will get funding.

The project sponsors have been talking to all the key people in the federal and

provincial systems from the beginning. So, why make these people wait and suffer

when all the Province has to do is basically give them a loan? Give them a bit

of bridging funding and recover it later. Get them to sign an undertaking, the

same as you do with your social assistance recipients all the time. You get

social assistance recipients all the time to sign written undertakings to pay

back social assistance advanced now, to enable them to eat now, while they are

waiting for their court decision or while they are waiting for their federal

payments. What I am saying is, in a similar way, why will you not give the

Dunfield Park Child/Parent Resource Centre interim funding now, get them to sign

an undertaking to pay you back when they get their federal money.

MR. LUSH: Get who to sign, Dunfield? Get

Dunfield Park to sign?

MS. VERGE: The sponsoring group is the Corner

Brook Citizens Action Child Care Committee.

MR. LUSH: I know that whole matter has been

looked at, it has been studied. I do not know where the report is, whether it is

done, I know the whole matter has been studied, I do not know whether the

department ever entertained that notion of committing monies before we knew what

the situation was. I do not know what the score is with the Brighter Futures, I

know that the hon. member has raised it and I do not know why the delay, but I

expect the Province would be rather reluctant in the meantime in getting itself

signing away the money before it comes, but I know Dunfield Park has been

studied and whether we have a report back yet, Mr. Peckford, if you would like

to comment on it.

MR. PECKFORD: Before my comment. Just quickly,

I made a little error in my previous remark which I just remembered. The

protocol agreement will probably be signed earlier than that, once the protocol

agreement is signed we will still need to wait until the conclusion of the study

that is in place right now to identify the communities and the areas where the

funding seems to be most acutely in need and then the money will be applied to

those areas.

MS. VERGE: And that will be a joint decision of

a committee with feds and -

MR. PECKFORD: Federal and provincial

governments, that is right so the protocol agreement would probably be signed

earlier than that. That was a mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I do not know if we have increased

the Budget on counselling services this year, is there much effort put forward

in counselling rather than passing out welfare cheques and payments, biweekly or

monthly?

MR. LUSH: I am not sure of the (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Counselling social services

recipients and with that I am referring to - I can name you lots of cases. I

know one gentleman in fact who works at an establishment in Clarenville, and he

makes about eighteen dollars an hour, and every time he gets laid off, he works

twenty to twenty-five weeks a year, and every time he gets laid off, he is off

to the welfare office collecting a welfare cheque until he gets his unemployment

insurance.

Now you can keep handing out that gentleman cheques

as long as you want to and it will never change unless you change the person's

attitude and the way he thinks. I am wondering if there is anything like that

happening out there, or is it just people dealing with the particular cases and

paying bills? It all goes back to education. I think if we educate people and if

we try to get at the root of the problem rather than throw money at it, maybe we

can solve some of our problems there.

MR. LUSH: I do not think our monies in

counselling go that far. Our monies in counselling are usually dealing with the

person who is a recipient of social service and we try to offer counselling

services of different varieties there in terms of life skills, that kind of

thing, but I guess the kind of thing you are talking about is a broader aspect

of our educational system.

It is one of the things that we try to deal with in

restraints and it probably does not always work. We know that every person

around the table here has heard of extravagance in social services and when we

get into a time of restraint, sometimes we hope to cut out that kind of thing,

but it does not always work I realize. I will just quote an example to the hon.

member now in reference to what Mr. Harris raised as well earlier.

Somebody had enquired about me, they had not seen

me since I was Social Services Minister and they were longing to see me, because

there was a lady next door with a bad back who had three people looking after

her, and he wanted to address that situation with me saying that he had a bad

back too, but he was out working, so you know, these things go on. You are

right, there is an educational system for that. Our cutbacks are aimed at that,

to get at that kind of thing and we do not want to get into, as the hon. Member

for St. John's East is referring, a situation where we hurt people. We hope that

is not the kind of thing we do; we hope to cut out the excess wherever that

might be.

MR. FITZGERALD: I'd like also to refer back to

the 30 per cent reduction which I referred to earlier. You stated that it was a

figure that was put out to district offices.

MR. LUSH: As a guideline, yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, I can assure you

that the district offices are taking the 30 per cent very seriously.

MR. LUSH: We know.

MR. FITZGERALD: In fact, I talked with one

person the other day who lives in my district. It's a situation that I'd like to

be able to tell you about. A gentleman is lying in bed there. He weighs about

220 pounds.

MR. LUSH: Something like myself.

MR. FITZGERALD: Totally paralysed from -

MR. LUSH: Two twenty.

MR. FITZGERALD: - totally paralysed from the -

he's not as healthy as you are, Minister. Totally paralysed from the waist down.

The only way that he can get up out of his bed, he's got a piece of rope tied

onto the ceiling, and he has to haul himself up with the piece of rope. The lady

in the house weighs about 110 pounds. He's seventy-eight years old, I think, and

she's sixty-four, sixty-three. I've been trying to get some home care for them.

They called the office in Bonavista and the gentleman there informed her that

the only way they would get home care is under an absolute emergency. I asked

her if she asked what the emergency was. He said: I'll tell you what it amounts

to. That if you can turn on a light switch or turn off a tap we don't consider

that as an emergency.

To me, those are pretty hard words to tell

somebody, who is an invalid in bed. Should you have a fire or should you need to

leave the house yourself - this lady hasn't been to church for two months. In

order for her to go out and buy groceries she has to take her husband to the

hospital in Bonavista to get a needle, and while he's in the hospital waiting

for doctor's care she has to rush out and get her groceries in order to get home

again.

The gentleman explains to me that the only reason

why she doesn't have care is because she has two other daughters living in the

general area. Mr. Minister, you don't have me to tell you that because you have

two daughters or a son somewhere that those people are going to be there when

you need them. Relatives are not always that compatible with the mothers or

father, especially when they can't look after themselves.

So to me this is not an extreme case. I think there

are probably lots of cases that are existing out there everywhere. It's a prime

example of where people are taking that 30 per cent. Not looking at it as a

guideline, but a fine line that must be followed. So I ask you, sir, if that's

not the case then those people should be notified of that, and I think some of

those situations should be remedied.

Getting back to students for a minute - student

books. If I am a welfare recipient and I have a son or daughter who is in Grade

V, VI, VIII, X, any number, how do my children get books? Is it a situation

where they go forward and the books are automatically passed out to them as new

books, or is there a book lot from which they draw?

MR. LUSH: I have heard that before. My

perception is that they get new books. That is my perception,

whereas you and I

are likely to try to get secondhand ones. I am just going by my perception, that

they are provided with new books, and we will see how correct we are - both of

us.

MR. PECKFORD: The family on social assistance

who has a need for school books is given, by our office, a certificate that is

known as an inability to pay the required amount for the books, and they present

that to the school and the books are provided then.

MR. FITZGERALD: So they get new books every

year?

MR. PECKFORD: I would imagine, though, that

they are probably encouraged to see if they can acquire all their used books or

anything, but if the result is that they need books, that they do not have, and

they do not have the ability to pay, we will verify that and they will be

provided books.

MR. FITZGERALD: These are some of the ways, I

think, that we can save some money, even though it may not be a lot of money,

but when you look at the number of social service recipients we have, and the

number of children, there is probably a big saving there. I know my children

when they were going to school - even today in university - do not have the

luxury of having new books. So that is something we should probably look at.

Welfare police - have the ten welfare police been

hired?

MR. LUSH: No, but it is in process. I do not

know whether - the call has been made. It is an internal competition. I do not

know whether the interviewing has started, Mr. Peckford. If not, it is about to,

is it not?

MR. FITZGERALD: So they are not hired yet?

The VRDP program - has government changed its mind

on that particular program?

MR. LUSH: No. What happened with respect to the

VRDP was that the consumers of that program approached the government when the

government introduced the student loan component, and the government felt that

they could not retract on their attempt to save $300,000, I think is what they

wanted - in that area. The group was not at all aversive to that idea. I am not

saying they welcomed it, but they thought that everybody had to play their part

and they will willing to do it, but not the student loan route. They thought

there were other ways in which they could achieve this saving, so they set up a

committee of the consumer groups to look into that, and I think the government

had agreed that if they could convince the government that they could come up

with the $300,000 savings outside of the student loan option, that government

would be willing to, if not accept it, certainly to look at it and, as far as I

know accept it if there were actual savings.

So my understanding is that the report of that

committee has now been in, and is ready for the report to be submitted to

Cabinet, with the recommendations made by the committee. However long that

process takes, I would not want to put a time on it, but we are certainly

looking at - I suppose it should be done inside of a month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has now expired. It is

8:55 p.m. and we are about halfway through this, so I would suggest, if it is

the will of the committee, that we might have a short break for ten minutes.

Then we could come back and start again at about 9:10 p.m., if that is the

agreement of the committee, and I will recognize Mr. Harris when I come back.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

If the minister would take his seat now, we could get

this meeting going again. As much as we like to have meetings all over the

place, I would suggest to the minister that he might take his place so we could

carry on with this meeting. Would someone bring the minister to order, please?

Now we are back, and Mr. Harris is next.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I should say

that the delay, by the way, although it was five minutes delayed, may well have

proven to be a very useful delay for the recipients of social assistance in the

Province, but we look forward to further discussions with the minister about

that at a later date.

I wanted to continue on the issue of home care

services. I have had a chance to look at this memorandum sent by Terrence Haire,

the director of social assistance, and in it - I do not know if the department

made this available to all hon. members or not, but at lease one of them is

available: In order to remain within the 1993-94 Budget a reduction of 30 per

cent from 1992-93 expenditures would be required. Then they suggest that

district managers may wish to use this figure as a guide to achieve individual

objectives, so I assume he is suggesting that individuals should expect a 30 per

cent cutback of their own services.

Leaving that aside for a moment, a 30 per cent

reduction in services from the 1992-93 expenditures, 30 per cent of $16.6

million is $4.98 or $5 million so Mr. Haire would like to reduce the

expenditures by $5 million

whereas the budgeted amount for 1993-94 is only $3.5

million less than the expenditures for 1992-93. Mr. Haire would like to reduce

the matter by an additional $1.5 million less than the estimates for 1993-94. I

am just curious, is Mr. Haire being given some incentive to further reduce the

expenditures for this amount below the Budget so that instead of a $13.12

million estimate Mr. Haire's review would result in a further reduction from

$13.1 million down to $11.6? Is he acting under directives from the minister's

office or from the deputy minister's office when he seeks to reduce the 1993-94

Budget by an additional $1.5 million in that particular head?

MR. LUSH: As we said these were just guidelines. I

do not know what the exact percentage would have been. It could be easily worked

out as I am talking.

MR. HARRIS: Twenty.

MR. LUSH: So it would be twenty, to achieve the

$13.12 million. If that is the case then he has probably gone a little too high,

but I would think, as I said, because it is a general guideline it might very

well be that in assessing the needs some cases could be reduced - you might be

talking about 20 per cent for some people and in another case you may reduce it

for part of the year to 40 per cent, depending on the need. The department is

addressing all kinds of needs. For example, one has to be careful because the

person may have called another person and be easily identifiable in this

particular group and we would not want to do that.

I know in one case we are providing services to a

person who is a bit - I am probably using a strong term - paranoid with respect

to the dark, and coming on the Summer now when it is going to be daylight for a

much longer period of time we could reduce that probably by three hours, so I

just use that as an example. There are all kinds of peculiarities that people

have that are real. They may be emotional, or whatever, but they are real so

what we have done in an effort to offer our people some kind of guidelines, is

to make these suggestions.

I ask my officials to correct me if I am wrong, but I

do not think there is any intent to follow each of these guidelines to the nth

degree right throughout all the categories. I think you will see they mention

certain categories and they are meant to be just that, an analysis of each case,

and then to look at that with other people. Again my understanding is that the

results of their studies, or the comeback to headquarters, is to be looked at

and a final decision made after we have gone through each case thoroughly with

as much information as possible addressed by the factors identified by the

people out in the field, and from that we will make a determination. I know I am

belabouring the point but I think it was just meant to be precisely that, a

guideline, and for us to look at the whole thing in terms of the need.

MR. HARRIS: I know the minister may well intend it

to be a guideline but the letter and the directive to the people in the field

who are the ones making the decision, I gather Mr. Haire is not going to make

these decisions, this is a directive to the field to make these reductions. He

specifically says - there may be a guideline for each individual case, but he

specifically says that in order to remain within the Budget a reduction of 30

per cent would be required. Would the minister be prepared to ask his officials

to direct Mr. Haire to revise his figures and pass on the information that only

a reduction of 20 per cent would be required to meet the objective set forth in

the 1993 Budget because this particular attitude, if he is off by 10 per cent in

what he is telling the individuals, surely that is going to result in a further

reduction beyond what is required of services to individuals?

MR. LUSH: I think as a result of that letter

action has been taken and it is my understanding that Mr. Haire has met with the

people concerned and explained fully what the department's intentions were with

respect to the memo to which the hon. member refers.

MR. HARRIS: Has Mr. Haire told them that a 20 per

cent reduction is required only and not a 30 per cent reduction?

MR. LUSH: I am not certain that we told him that.

What was done, in reference to what I am saying, is that he was told to inform

his staff what the department's intentions were in this respect, simply to

establish guidelines to help us meet the budgetary restraints.

MR. HARRIS: But he is using the wrong guidelines.

The point I am making is that the guideline he is using is 30 per cent and the

actual reduction that is sought to be achieved is 20 per cent.

MR. LUSH: Again, if you get into the percentages,

these monies, I think, have been allocated on a regional basis to the areas and

I think if you got into allocating what was needed in each area you might be

getting into odd percentages and again, as I said, I think these were just

figures to try to approach and when they came back they would make the

recommendation in Case A to say that 30 per cent would be far too much in this

case and we think that 18 per cent is a more -

MR. HARRIS: Or zero.

MR. LUSH: Or zero. It could very well be. I think

the percentage is a bit irrelevant in a sense. It is just an objective which we

try to achieve, but thinking again in terms of the need. Nowhere are we going to

apply 30 per cent where somebody needed 100 per cent, needed it absolutely

full-time.

MR. HARRIS: Well, Mr. Haire certainly intends to

save 30 per cent from last year's Budget and that is very clear from the letter

that he sent out. I know the minister means well but it certainly seems clear as

to what Mr. Haire intends to do. Another thing he says in his letter, under the

heading of how to deal with senior citizens and persons with physical

disabilities, he says: review each case to determine the absolute minimum number

of hours of care that needs to be provided without jeopardizing the safety of

the disabled person. Now, that sounds particularly mean spirited to me. Would

the minister tell us whether or not the care provided senior citizens and

persons with physical disabilities is designed merely to look after their

safety? Isn't the kind of care that we're talking about here, whether it be

homemaker services - homemaker services could be provided, I suppose, without

jeopardizing their safety at a very low level of care, I presume. You wouldn't

have to clean the house very much to keep it safe. You wouldn't have to go

overboard with other kinds of washing clothes and things like that to keep it

safe. I realize I'm being a bit cynical here.

The review that's being requested here seems to me

particularly mean spirited. To talk about the absolute minimum number of hours

of care that needs to be provided without jeopardizing safety. That seems to me

to be a very, very, very low standard of either attendant care or homemaker

services, or respite care for that matter, to be a standard to be applied by

your department. Would the minister agree with that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, your time has expired. I

don't know if we could have the minister's answer by leave.

MS. VERGE: You could give leave for the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Has the Committee given leave for

the answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Minister.

MR. LUSH: I think the member probably should

emphasize the last part rather than the first part which talks about the

absolute minimum. The significant part of the letter I think is the part which

suggests safety. Again what we're trying to achieve here is to make sure that we

are not being overly generous, but that we are providing the disabled person,

the senior citizen, the mentally disabled, whatever the case might be, with a

level of care that doesn't put the person through any unnecessary suffering or

that would jeopardize the person's life. I think that's reasonable. That's the

part that should be emphasized. Again, I think that's been fully explained to

the people concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I'd like to ask the minister

about the possibility that Social Services, in preparing this budget, is being

penny wise and pound foolish. These estimates are for a total spending of $158

million. One hundred and fifty-eighty million dollars is a lot of money.

MR. LUSH: Where is this?

MS. VERGE: That's the bottom line, on the last

page.

MR. LUSH: The net spending, yes.

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. LUSH: Okay.

MS. VERGE: I'm sorry, yes, it is net spending.

MR. LUSH: Net spending.

MS. VERGE: That doesn't count the 50 per cent

contribution from the federal government -

MR. LUSH: That's right.

MS. VERGE: - through the Canada Assistance Plan

for many of the programs. Actually, the minister reminds me that the total

spending, the gross spending, is probably close to double that.

MR. LUSH: Two hundred and ninety-seven point three

million dollars, as a matter of fact, I believe. It's $297 million.

MS. VERGE: So almost exactly doubled. Okay. The

point is even stronger in that case. Three hundred million dollars total

spending. Most of it going for people who are disadvantaged. Either because

they're poor, because they're disabled, because they are young people who've

committed criminal offences, because they are children who've been abused. Most

of the spending is reactive, spending to deal with problems after they've

arisen. Very little of it is of a preventative nature. My colleague asked a

little while ago about spending for counselling.

One of the significant changes in these estimates

compared to what was spent last year was significant reductions in the paltry

amount that was provided to third-party organizations, community organizations.

One of the major budget announcements of the government was a significant cut in

funding to what the Minister of Finance called third party organizations. Social

services cut community organizations as bad or worse than other departments.

Many of the organizations that social services is

proposing to cut are agencies which provide counselling services which help to

prevent problems which otherwise might develop - organizations which put their

own resources to work and which raise money from the community.

The list of cuts which the Minister of Finance tabled

after two weeks or more of requests from the Opposition - the list that was

tabled just before the election was called - included cuts to organizations such

as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, from $90,000 last year, to $50,000; personal credit

counselling service cut in half from $32,000 last year to $16,000 this year;

elimination completely of the $32,000 each to the church counselling services in

St. John's - the Catholic, Anglican and United churches; a cut by half of the

small grant to the Newfoundland Hearing Association, $22,800 last year, $11,900

this year; a cut to the Goodwill Centre from $33,900 last year to $13,900 this

year; a cut to the CNIB, $449,000 last year, $344,900 this year; a cut to the

Centre for Understanding People's Problems - I confess I have never heard of

that before - from $74,000 last year to $54,000 this year; reduction in half to

the Canadian Association for Community Living, $15,000 last year, $7,500 this

year; a cut to the Community Services Council of $57,300 last year to $29,000

this year.

Now all those cuts that I just listed add up to about

one-tenth of 1 percent - .001 - of the estimated total gross spending of social

services. To me that seems to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Has the department reconsidered any of these cuts?

Perhaps the election campaign might have had some bearing on some of these

decisions, and have any of the grants been altered from the list tabled in the

House of Assembly by the Minister of Finance?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, let me say two things

first of all about the cuts. It is not accurate to say that they have been cut

by the amounts that have been suggested because in some cases it had to do with

something going on in the previous year. They had asked for a level of funding

in the previous year, in 1992-'93 because of a certain circumstance, and the

government responded with a one-time effort. I do not recall all of them, but I

know in some of the cases, the CNIB for example, there was something that went

on there.

MS. VERGE: According to this list there was

$397,900 requested for this year -

MR. LUSH: From whom?

MS. VERGE: - which was $50,000 less than given

last year, but there was $50,000 less than requested approved for this year?

MR. LUSH: Yes, and there were others as well. I

just mentioned that there were others where they had surpluses last year,

something in fund-raising, and the government this year brought it back to last

year's normal, deducting the amount of surplus.

MS. VERGE: Perhaps I will take them one by one.

MR. LUSH: To address the big question, I do not

know whether all the organizations to which the hon. member refers to are, but I

think most of the agencies, are under review. Whether or not it was as a result

of the election I am not prepared to say, but the point is that they are all

under review with officials from that organization to determine again whether or

not the amount of money given them was a reflection of the kind of work they are

doing, and hopefully if they have been underfunded something will be done about

it. Most of the organizations, the community organizations and agencies are

under review.

MS. VERGE: Well, let me ask the minister

specifically, Big Brothers/Big Sisters -

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: - that is under review?

MR. LUSH: Big Brothers? Yes and there was

something with Big Brothers - again, there is something in my mind about that

one. I have forgotten what it was. I just forget - maybe it is the size of the

reduction but was there - was there not something peculiar about the Big

Brothers?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: There was something removed or was there

something that they did that is done by somebody else? It does not matter but I

think there was something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: No. Big Brothers too, it seems it is

something that is now looked after - that it is passed over to the Department of

Health which was an explanation why theirs was a little lower. I have forgotten

that there was another one that did not request anything this year.

MS. VERGE: Big Brothers/Big Sisters requested the

same for this year as they got last year which was $90,000 and there was only

$50,000 approved. Actually, I have personally met with representatives of that

organization and they were shocked and would be hard hit by that amount of a

reduction. They raised way more on their own than the department provides but if

they lose this seed funding then their ability to carry on their operations will

be hurt. What about the personal credit counselling service?

MR. LUSH: Yes, that is under review.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The church counselling services

in St. John's?

MR. LUSH: Yes, that is under review.

MS. VERGE: Is the community services counsel under

review?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: The Goodwill Centre?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: When will you make decisions on all of

these?

MR. LUSH: I heard your response to that today

somewhere.

MR. PECKFORD: We have assigned one of our staff

exclusively to meet with each of these organizations, spend some time with them,

visit their offices and the like. That is ongoing now. I anticipate it to be

completed in perhaps a week or so and perhaps in another week or two, to

complete the report to submit to the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge your time has expired. Mr.

Fitzgerald?

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister I would like to refer back to this report

here again if I may. Once again I repeat here in the Budget, it says; funding

for Support Services, the Department of Social Services has been held at the

1992-93 Budget levels. Mr. Haire comes out and is looking for a 30 per cent

reduction and I think, Mr. Minister, you referred to a 20 per cent reduction as

being realistic.-

MR. LUSH: No, that was Mr. Harris.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Harris referred to a 20 per

cent reduction which was realistic according to the figures here and it goes on

to say that this review should be completed and returned by May 31st, 1993. So,

I am wondering if there has been a 30 per cent reduction, a 20 per cent

reduction or when will we know the level of home care that has been deducted out

in the areas for social service recipients?

MR. LUSH: At this point in time there has been no

reduction and I think that we are probably a bit behind. Again, we are talking

about guidelines and that is indicative of what we are talking about here, even

that date has not been adhered to. I do not know how close we are to it but I

know that nothing has been done and that the full analysis is not in or not by

that date anyway.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, there has certainly

been a big change out in the districts, I can assure you of that, because I am

aware of one particular case where this family with a two-and-a-half year old

child is now asked to take a stranger to go in under another program because

there has been a reduction in the home care program. There is a program put in

place for social service recipients to go to work and this particular person who

had this individual looking after their son for two-and-a-half years, are now

finding that there is a stranger coming in the house to look after the

two-and-a-half year old son because of those reductions. It says right here, in

another part of this memorandum: where appropriate use of community development

should be considered as a means of provision of respite home support. Some of

those decisions have already been made I can assure you and I am sure that they

reacted to this letter where they have been looking for a 30 per cent reduction.

MR. LUSH: Again, I do not know whether these

things would have been done as a result of that particular letter, but there are

things that ought to be done without the letter. There are things that if in the

view of the officials in the district there are certain arrangements that can be

made because they are more in line with the needs of the individual then I am

sure that they ought to be made. I think there would be changes made without

this letter. There are ongoing things that happen, and whether that particular

case to which you refer would be done as a result of this - there are things

that would go on particularly at this time of the year. Coming into the Summer

things would be done because of the very nature of Summer. Sicknesses seem to

ease up a bit, people make certain arrangements, and if a person is going to go

to work they will make certain arrangements to accommodate that situation. I am

just trying to suggest to you that I do not think that all of the changes we

hear about, and I hear about them all the time, were made as a result of that

letter, but if there are any, there ought not to be, unless I am wrong on that.

There may be suggestions made to people at this point in time but there ought

not to be, according to my understanding, any changes made as a result of that.

MR. FITZGERALD: I wonder if the minister would let

the House know or this committee know, at a later date when those figures become

available, exactly how much money was reduced in home care this year compared to

last year?

MR. LUSH: Certainly.

MR. FITZGERALD: How much does the Department of

Social Services expect to save on the new denture program, where dentures are

not made available to social service recipients?

MR. LUSH: Where they are not made available?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. LUSH: Did we ever have a denture program where

somebody could get dentures as a matter of course? I have interceded on behalf

of people over the last number of years and it has always been very difficult to

get dentures for people. You had to prove that they would almost die if they did

not get them, that they could not digest their food at all, that it went down in

lumps and they would die from ulcers or something. That is the only way I could

get dentures for people because they always considered them to be cosmetic.

MR. HARRIS: Now that you are a minister you can

change that.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is something, Mr. Minister,

that I think you could look at. I think it is probably a very degrading thing

that because you are on social services you cannot afford to have the Colgate

smile or something. When you go out there and talk about our health care

problems and everything else, I think that all reflects back on good health care

and probably ways in which we can save money in the long run. I am not

suggesting that we go out and give everybody a blank cheque to get a new pair of

dentures but I think it is unfair to go and say that it will not be provided. If

the need is there I think we should look at it and judge every case by its

merits.

MR. LUSH: I think that might be the policy under

which they operate but the need has to be a tremendous one from my experience.

It is the same with glasses, by the way. Those of us who have been around have

been trying for years to get glasses and dentures for our constituents and some

I have succeeded with and some I have not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

During the election campaign I met an individual who

was not in my district, in fact he was from the town of Stephenville, who was a

social services recipient. He came up to me in a public place and he was very

concerned about three policies of the department, and two of them we have just

alluded to. The first one, he said, if I had my teeth taken out and I cannot get

dentures what is wrong with me that I am not allowed to have teeth in order to

eat? He said, I found out that I cannot get glasses and my eyes are bad. What is

wrong with me that I am not allowed to be able to see because I am on social

assistance? He said if I have to go to Corner Brook to the hospital - now this

is a man in his late 60s - if I have to go to Corner Brook to the doctor and I

have to leave at 8 o'clock in the morning and I am there all day, I'm not

entitled to a lunch. They've changed that policy. I can't get a lunch in Corner

Brook. I go in a taxi to the hospital, I stay at the hospital, I'm there at the

hospital all day to wait for a clinic or whatever it is, and then I can come

back. I don't get lunch. They used to provide an allowance to be able to get

lunch in Corner Brook.

He said those three polices were ones that made him

feel like less than a person because he was on social assistance. I know the

minister has just talked about his own difficulties in trying to get individual

cases resolved for constituents. Everyone has had that experience. But I ask the

minister, quite sincerely: now that the minister is the minister, and that these

policies are under his control and direction, will the minister undertake to try

and change these policies?

MR. LUSH: I would love to look into something like

this to provide our people with the basics of life. What I've got to be

concerned about, not only as the minister, but I was concerned about it when I

was in the Opposition, is at what cost? The moment we get into dental work and

this kind of thing we're into something that is very expensive. Not only

ordinary people, middle income people have to make certain decisions about this.

Even the insurance companies now are tightening up. I remember at one time my

wife was on a dental plan, and as a result of my being her husband I benefited

from it too. But I can tell you, that's changed dramatically since first when we

started on this plan. Because it's so expensive.

I'd be willing to sit down with the member, I really

would, to look at what we think are the absolute criteria. It really bothers me

to go into somebody's house and - two things, to find them, as you say, without

teeth, or with teeth that are causing all kinds of problems. I've actually had a

friend come to me on behalf of a constituent with respect to getting her teeth

extracted. They felt that she didn't have the nerve to ask me. It was beneath

her dignity to do it. The guy told me: she needs them out, they're diseased and

all this kind of thing.

That's pretty big stuff in my view. I don't know what

kind of a job I'd have convincing the people, but I think it's something that

should be addressed. The same with eyes. People who can't read a newspaper. They

don't have many luxuries in life, and God, your eyes have to be a vital thing.

If they can't sit down and read a book what else can they do. But I realize that

these are two things that can be abused, dental and eyes. I'd be willing to sit

down with somebody to determine what we can do to take the abuse out of it and

that we do give needy people dentures and that we do give needy people glasses.

But as I said, I'd want to have something that we

wouldn't be a laughingstock in Newfoundland. By the same token, the Member for

Bonavista South wouldn't be saying what he's saying about his friend who gets

unemployed and goes up to Social Services. We've got to spend our money in a

prudent manner, particularly in these times of restraints, but at the same time

I'm inclined to look at those people with these problems. I'd like for the hon.

member to sit down with me some time and make a recommendation as to just what

we can do, how this can be done, so that the system is not abused.

We've got no system in place, I don't think, other

than to determine things by need. That leaves it pretty much open to a person.

As I've said, my understanding of the case right now is that you have to be

pretty desperate. I expect that's why. Because if you opened it up you would be

into - I don't know, but I'm sure it's an exorbitant amount of money. Are you

saying we should get into partials, or should we just give them dentures?

MR. HARRIS: Well, I -

MR. LUSH: I don't say that in a way to be

derogatory.

MR. HARRIS: I'm not dealing with the detail of a

policy, Minister, as you know. I'm dealing with the notion of an individual who

can go and have all of his teeth taken out but he can't have anything put back

in, and feels that this is an indignity. I agree with him.

MR. LUSH: I do too.

MR. HARRIS: Similarly with glasses. That's why I

raised it. I thank the minister.

MR. LUSH: Let me ask the hon. member a question.

Is he familiar with what -

MR. HARRIS: I thank the minister for his

compassionate response. I intend to follow up with him in the future. But as to

the detail of a policy, I'm sure his officials will be able to tell him how many

requests they have for that and what the costs might be. We're dealing here with

dentures, we're not dealing with orthodontic work and that sort of thing. We're

just dealing with the basic ability to be able to chew one's food and not have

to prove, as the minister may have had to in the past, that that's going to be

life-threatening.

I'm sure any nutritionist or doctor would be able to

verify that teeth provide a useful service in digestion and health generally, so

I don't think that the department should be putting individuals or hon. members

through the indignity of trying to prove that without teeth, it is going to be

seriously health threatening and so I see a policy change. The actual details of

it obviously the minister would have to work out.

MR. LUSH: I am just going to ask the hon. member a

question, not to get him off his train of thought on what he is doing, but, are

we familiar with other parts of Canada, about what happens with respect to these

two areas, eyes and dental work?

MR. PECKFORD: It varies all over.

MR. LUSH: Is it then, but we do get into it,

social services in other areas in Canada?

MR. HARRIS: That is something we can follow up on,

Mr. Minister. I say this because there are serious anomalies that occur. I have

heard of cases of parents putting their children into foster care or temporary

wardship or non-ward agreements for a period of a couple of months, because in

foster homes they are entitled to get the dental work done that they are not

otherwise entitled to get; they are entitled to a clothing allowance that they

would not get if they were in the care of the person who is the actual parent,

and a number of other services, all of a sudden the door is open to them when

they are in foster care in a foster home, but when they are in the home of their

natural parent, they are unable to get these same services from the Social

Services Department.

There seems to be far too many areas within our social

services policies where these anomalies exist in an unjust kind of way and I am

going to ask the question that I asked last year and I think the year before as

well, because you know, dealing with individual cases sometimes is very tricky,

particularly when members do not have access to the policies that the department

is in fact enforcing in particular areas, and I am going to ask whether the

minister is prepared to make the policy manual of his department available to

members of the House of Assembly?

MR. LUSH: I do not want to make a commitment here

at this moment, because there might be things that, with my limited

understanding of the situation, might not be immediately available to me, but I

will undertake to look into it and I will get back to the member with my

position.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

One of the organizations that has been cut back by

half, and I wonder whether it is under review, is the Newfoundland Hearing

Association, it may well be on the list under review, if it is, I would

appreciate -

MR. LUSH: That is the Newfoundland Hearing

Association? Yes, it is under review.

MR. HARRIS: That association does not get very

much money, I think last year they got around $20,000 -

MR. LUSH: $22,000.

MR. HARRIS: $22,000, but they provide what appears

to me to be a very valuable service to a number of individuals. They say there

are about 35,000 individuals in the Province with hearing loss problems, and

just to pass along one example which was given to me by Dr. Nora Browne, who was

at the access breakfast last week which perhaps the minister was, and I know

some of the other members here were, where an individual who was employed in a

business environment, was being told by her employer that she was going to have

to be laid off because she was not getting the telephone messages properly, she

was unable to deal with customers and could not provide proper service.

After, almost the last minute as it were, she

consulted with the hearing association, they went into the office system

situation and talked to her, made four or five different changes, moved the

photocopier out of an office because that was providing undue background noise,

provided her with brighter lights so that she could see the people to whom she

was talking and therefore hear, provide some device for the telephone that would

help her to answer the telephone properly, do two or three little things like

that to change the environment in which the person was working and save that

person's job. That is just one example. With the leave of the committee, to just

finish the story - one example of how the work of this association not only

provides a very valuable service to an individual, but quite obviously keeps a

productive person in the working environment and a taxpayer as opposed to a user

of government services, so I encourage the minister in the review to keep that

in mind. As I say that is one example but there are many, many others from this

association and the others that are there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

When does the minister propose having a draft new

child welfare act? This has been worked on, from what we are told, for about ten

years. John Efford on becoming minister four years ago promised to have a draft

act before the House of Assembly that Fall, the Fall of 1989, and every time I

ask it is in the works but it has never yet materialized.

MR. LUSH: I probably will say the same thing and

the member then will come with the next question: why do we not do what she

wants done now? Mr. Peckford and I have talked about that and again I can only

say that things are suppose to be moving. How quickly, I do not know, because I

have asked him so many things in the last little while that I do not remember

the time limits on all of them.

MR. PECKFORD: We are ready to talk to you about

that one right away.

MR. LUSH: He says he is ready to talk to me with

this one right away.

MS. VERGE: That obviously is a prime candidate for

a Legislation Review Committee so I would encourage the minister to try to get a

draft in the hands of the committee over the Summer so we can have hearings and

be ready to have the House of Assembly deal with it in the Fall sitting. What

about the promised new Day Care Act? That was promised by the Premier in the

1989 election campaign. The minister may realize that there still is no

provincial government regulation of care for children under two.

MR. LUSH: That, too, is in draft right now and

that could be discussed as early as the Fall.

MS. VERGE: Okay. I am just dismayed having heard

the deputy minister say that the federal government with Brighter Futures will

be providing to organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador about $500,000 this

year. Then I look to Page 325 of the Estimates 5.l.02 Day Care Services, and see

that the Province is proposing to reduce what it spends on allowances and

assistance by over $500,000 from what was spent last year, so it seems to me

that young children and their families will be worse off with Brighter Futures

providing less than what the Province is cutting. The Brighter Futures money is

taking an awfully long time and it seems to me a disproportionate amount of

bureaucratic activity is delaying whatever eventually will come. How can the

minister justify this cut in day care allowance and assistance, grants and

subsidies?

MR. LUSH: First of all coming back to the comment

the member makes about Brighter Futures with respect to day care. We are not

certain that day care is going to be an area that monies can be accessed from

Brighter Futures. It is children at risk and we may be able to make a case for

day care but it is not immediately obvious.

MS. VERGE: Well, in that case this cut is even

worse. How can you justify cutting by one sixth what is provided for day care

from $3 million to $2.5 million?

MR. LUSH: I would much rather that we had an

increase of $600,000 but when we are into a time of restraint this particular

area is going to cause us some difficulty. It is going to be quite a challenge

to meet the requirements and to come up to the level of service that we had last

year. We have to be looking for creative ways. This is the thing that concerns

me, that we think that every service we offer to people has to be money. We are

living in a time right throughout the world when - and particularly in Canada -

when we live in these tough economic times, we are going to be looking at

different ways of doing things, different approaches, and I hope that is going

to be one of the great benefits that come out of this recession, that people in

the jobs that we are doing - and we have some bright people, and we have some

people with some fantastic ideas, and I am hopeful that out of this there are

going to come strategies and new ideas and new approaches that are going to be

able to deal with some of these things that we think we have to pour millions of

dollars into. I am hopeful that as a result of some of those studies that we are

not necessarily going to see money, money, money all the time.

Now I know that people do this sincerely - as sincere

as I am - but I would venture to say that if we put down on paper tonight the

hundreds of thousands of dollars that have come out of this discussion as a

result of the question that we would be up to millions and millions of dollars

here tonight. There is a limit to what we can afford in this small,

poverty-stricken Province.

I think, as I have said again without belabouring the

point, that I am hopeful that out of this economic recession is going to come

new strategies, new ideas, new suggestions, new approaches for providing

services to our people that are going to be very, very effective and very, very

adequate, but they are not always going to entail that we have hundreds of

thousands of dollars in them.

MS. VERGE: I would just like to say that I think

it is very sad that the department, at a time like this, is spending more for

youth corrections, is spending more for straight welfare, is spending less for

employment opportunities and training, is spending less for daycare services for

young children, is spending less for counselling services. If we spent a little

more than the paltry amount allocated for beneficial educational and

preventative services such as daycare, such as counselling services, and a

little more employment and training, instead of more and more and more on

straight welfare, involving people who want to work, are able to work, and are

used to working, sitting home and simply passively receiving cheques, or

spending more and more on young offenders, maybe if we spent more on daycare and

community organizations and counselling there would not be quite as many young

offenders.

How can the department expect to spend substantially

less on employment and training for social assistance recipients this year

compared to what was spent last year, and why would the government even want

that? Why would you want more people, as I say, sitting home passively

collecting welfare cheques when they are able to work and want to work?

MR. LUSH: The member will recall that last year

the government, through a special warrant I believe, put $5 million into job

creation. That is what puts that a little out of perspective right now, so their

intentions this year were much the same as they were last year except for the

fact that they decided that they were going to pump another $5 million into it.

Maybe they are hoping, because again the government - it is not programs that

they want to be into, these short-term programs. They would rather access the

training programs under the Enhancement Employment Program, and the department

has gone into that itself more in the training aspect, but I would not predict

what the government will do come September, but that is the reason for the major

change.

MS. VERGE: One of my big frustrations in trying to

help people in the area I represent to become more self-sufficient and to get

needed community work done is that for the last several years Social Services

has not been planning ahead. For the last several years in the Fall, panic

fashion, there is money for emergency employment, and your staff, who have an

excellent record of administering community development projects in the western

region, simply are not given the opportunity to plan and work with community

organizations and businesses to mount worthwhile projects and have them well

supervised. What happens is that, in the Fall when the weather is turning bad,

in a rushed way, projects are slapped together, they are not well designed

because there simply isn't time for that preparatory work and nobody is getting

a good return from the investment.

Now if the government knows up front that it is going

to end up spending $15 million this year instead of the $10 million that is in

the Budget, if only you would say so now, your staff and people out around the

Province would have a chance to plan and get a much better return for the money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is up Ms. Verge.

Now, Mr. Harris.

MS. VERGE: Could we have leave for the minister's

response?

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave?

Mr. Minister.

MR. LUSH: Very quickly, I think again that we have

all run into that particular complaint. Maybe we should call it something else

but the very nature of the label that we have been attaching to it, emergency

response, suggests that it is something that you do not do a lot of planning

for, because the hope is, the wish is, that we do not have to do it, and come

September, come October, I mean, unless we are all great economists I think we

can be cynical about it and say nothing is going to change between now and

September, now and October, who is going to know what is going to happen -

MS. VERGE: Maybe there will be more people on

social assistance.

MR. LUSH: - the economy is going to turn around

some time, and the Summer is the time and many of our people are going to go all

over Canada looking for jobs. Now I hope they are going to be there, but some

time they are going to be there and I do not know whether we are going to have a

lot of lead time, I do not know if we are going to know by January and say this

year there is going to be a lot of work on the mainland, so I think the very

nature of that makes it a rather precarious situation but that does not, in the

meantime, stop us from planning, and I think we are doing a little better job on

that.

I think last year for example, we took, in some of the

emergency response programs, applications that had been in the system rather

than calling somebody and saying: look, whip up an application, we are going to

give you some jobs, they took applications that were in the system. Hopefully,

they will do the same thing this year, that there will not be knee-jerked

reactions kind of thing, that the application will be into the system and that

should correct the situation a little bit better and make the jobs a little more

adequate.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Looking, Mr. Minister, at page 324, the appropriation

4.3.04 where there is a reduction in the appropriation for grants to agencies

serving the physically disabled, and the amount of the reduction is $178,000

from what was actually spent last year. In fact it is probably a $178,000

reduction from what was spent last year, $198,000 from what was voted last year.

But I see that the revenue that comes in is reduced by $123,000 on the federal

side and the rest on the provincial side, there being only a $51,000 difference

and I am just curious. Could the minister explain why that is, there is $178,000

reduction, $133,000 of that reduction comes from the federal. Has some of the

programs been stopped or, what is it that causes that? Why are we not getting

more revenue from the federal government?

MR. LUSH: I am going to defer on this one, Mr.

Harris, to my official.

MR. PECKFORD: Federal revenue in this particular

area and in other areas, lags behind the years in which it was incurred. Now we

very often have adjustments to prior years' claims with the federal government

and I think the discrepancies or the differences that we see there are the

results of adjustments to prior years claims with the federal government.

MR. HARRIS: And I take it some of those would be

under review as well, the consumer organization for the disabled and others.

MR. PECKFORD: A goodly portion of the agencies

that we discussed earlier are in there, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. While we were talking about

finding money for various things the minister's comments caused me to have

another look at the item under Administrative Support, vote 1.2.02, the $5

million that the department is finding this year for the computer project, in

addition to the $3.6 million that was found last year for the computer project.

How many years has this been going on? Are we going to be having $4 million or

$5 million per year to get this system up and running? Are we getting our

money's worth? It's a pretty expensive operation, by the sounds of it.

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, this is a fairly expensive

operation; however, a very cost-effective one, we believe. The Department of

Social Services is a very information intensive organization. Our use of

technology in this area over the past several years has been quite minimal. Our

intention here is to increase dramatically the use of information technology to

capture the kind of information that is required, but more specifically, not

only to manage the programs but to provide assistance to front line workers to

relieve them from the paper work loads and the various other administrative

processes which are bogging them down now and preventing them from having the

kind of interaction with clients for which they're best suited.

Right now we're just closing a tender for 350

micro-computers which will go out into the offices this year and another 350

next year. So we will see a considerable expenditure for the next couple of

years in this area.

MR. HARRIS: On another topic, Minister. Last year,

through the estimates committee and the House afterwards, you may recall as

Speaker dealing with legislation for the registration of social workers. One of

the issues that we discussed last year at the estimates committee was the

requirement of a BSW as the basic requirement for social workers and the various

types of grandfathering schemes that might be put in place.

I just wonder if one of your officials can update the

members of the Committee on what's happened in this field. I understand that

there were a number of different categories of people who were in the field.

There were some forty or more who had been hired under Mr. Efford's

administration, particularly in Child Welfare, some of whom had degrees in

social sciences, whether it be geography or psychology or whatever, but no

social work training, and were in the field. These were being basically given an

opportunity to upgrade or be replaced by a BSW. What are the numbers like now?

Can someone tell us what the numbers of people in the social work category who

are in the various situations, whether having a BSW, or having been replaced, or

in the grandfathering system?

MR. LUSH: With respect to the legislation, again,

I think we're getting very close to this, aren't we? That's almost a pat answer.

MR. HARRIS: The legislation's been passed.

MR. LUSH: I'm thinking about something else. I was

thinking about the....

AN HON. MEMBER: The legislation's passed. The

regulations (inaudible).

MR. LUSH: I think they're pretty close too, but

(inaudible) the legislation I was thinking about, the organization, what is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Newfoundland Association of Social

Workers.

MR. LUSH: Yes, the Newfoundland Association of

Social Workers. Anyway, yes, that's done under the regulations. Again I'll defer

to my staff with respect to the specifics of the question as to how many people

are being hired because I wouldn't know that. I do know with respect to the

procedure, and the requirement is that we're certainly asking for - putting down

preference for people with a BSW, but I know even that comes through with our

students, people working in Social Services, kind of thing. But with the general

hiring, again I'll defer to Mr. Peckford.

MR. PECKFORD: That's correct, the legislation is

passed. We've been working with the Newfoundland Association of Social Workers

on the development of the regulations. That's practically complete now so that

we will soon be in a position to discuss with the minister the proclamation of

the act. We also in discussions on the regulations with the Association have

discussed the question of the grandfathering and identifying of the staff who

would require to be upgraded and make provision to give them an opportunity to

upgrade. We are also carrying out similar discussions with the School of Social

Work to see what arrangements could be made to enable those staff, who are now

working with us who do not have a BSW, to be able to pick up the required

courses that they have to to qualify for BSW. So, we are working fairly closely

with both The School of Social Work and The Newfoundland Association of Social

Workers to bring about as quickly as we can, the upgrading of those staff that

need to be upgraded for a BSW.

MR. HARRIS: I was trying to ask a more specific

question than that, I guess I failed, therefore I did not get a more specific

answer. Perhaps I should have another review of the legislation because I

thought it was already in effect in terms of the requirements of upgrading a

seven year period and that sort of thing. Have the numbers changed as a result

of that? The number that some of the people - for example, they were not in

permanent positions, these individuals, have any of them chosen to go back to

school and get their BSW's in the meantime?

MR. PECKFORD: The legislation is not proclaimed

yet, so it is not in force yet. It has been passed but it is not proclaimed.

Yes, there have been a number of our staff who have chosen to upgrade their

qualifications to a BSW. Further, our hiring practices, notwithstanding the

legislation not being proclaimed, is to hire staff with a BSW.

MR. HARRIS: Another subject, Minister, one of the

areas that I have asked about in the past has to do with the rate of assistance

provided to the single able-bodied - I guess is the unfortunate phrase that is

used. I guess it is the people who are on social assistance for the reason only

that they are unemployed I think is perhaps the more technical description of

it. The rate that is provided to them is a maximum of eighty-eight dollars per

month if you are living with relatives and a maximum of $129 per month if living

on your own. That $129 is an amount that is supposed to cover all your

requirements -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has expired. I

will put you on the list for later. Ms. Verge?

MS. VERGE: Youth corrections; there is about $10

million budgeted to be spent when you count the federal portion. Can the

minister or the officials of the department, tell the Committee how many young

offenders the department is dealing with in the run of a year, perhaps the

numbers for the last couple of years and what is projected for this year? Has

the number been about constant or has it changed over the last few years?

MR. LUSH: Unfortunately it is not constant. It has

been rising somewhat and that is, I think, probably a reflection of our economic

times as well but the number is going up.

MS. VERGE: Could the minister indicate more

precisely the absolute number each year for the past two years and the rate of

increase?

MR. LUSH: In Open Custody, I can give the member

some numbers there. I cannot give her three years. In March of `91, in Open

Custody, the numbers were seventy-eight. They are from March, year to year. In

March `92 it was eighty-nine and March of `93 it was ninety-three.

MS. VERGE: How about closed custody?

MR. LUSH: Closed custody? Well we can get that one

from another table.

We have fifty-five in 1990-'91. Then 1991-'92,

seventy-five.

And right now about eighty.

MS. VERGE: About eighty?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: We are talking 160 or 170 young

offenders -

MR. LUSH: Total.

MS. VERGE: - a year, and a spending of $10

million. It is a lot of money per offender. How much does it average out to?

MR. LUSH: Yes, $200 a day in secured custody.

MS. VERGE: If through preventative efforts,

through a program such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, we can keep just a few young

people from committing crimes and getting into the system, obviously there will

be major savings for the government in lots of ways.

Would the minister indicate, in terms of young

offenders doing open custody time, how many are in foster homes and how many are

in group homes? I understand those are the two possibilities - foster care and

group homes?

MR. LUSH: In foster homes, again I can get the

number. It is a little in excess of 500, I believe, just in foster homes.

MS. VERGE: I am talking about young offenders.

MR. LUSH: Oh, the young offenders? I am sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are very few in foster

homes.

MR. LUSH: Yes, there are very few. Most of them

would be in the group