April 6, 1995

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87 Roger Fitzgerald,

M.H.A., Bonavista South, replaces Harvey Hodder, M.H.A., Waterford-Kenmount; and

William Ramsay, M.H.A., LaPoile replaces Percy Barrett, M.H.A., Bellevue.

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Oldford): Order, please!

We will get the meeting under way. Welcome,

everyone, to the Social Services Estimates Committee. I am Doug Oldford, the

Member for Trinity North and the Chair of the committee. We will start off by

introducing the committee members, starting with the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, MHA for Fortune -

Hermitage.

MR. FITZGERALD: Roger Fitzgerald, MHA for

Bonavista South, replacing Harvey Hodder.

MS. COWAN: Patricia Cowan, MHA for Conception

Bay South.

MR. RAMSAY: Bill Ramsay, MHA for LaPoile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I welcome the minister and her

officials. Minister, the rules we have set for our committee meetings are that

you will be allowed ten minutes for an opening statement and the introduction of

your officials. After that we will begin the questioning with the Vice-Chair,

the Member for Bonavista South. If your officials are going to be answering some

of the questions on the Estimates, I ask that they identify themselves each time

they speak because we are being recorded by Hansard. These are the basic rules.

Having said that, I ask you to proceed with your statement and the introduction

of your officials.

Thank you.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to introduce my administrative staff.

Mr. Bruce Peckford is the deputy minister. Then we have Mr. George Skinner; he

is the Director of Program and Planning Development. Mr. Noel Brown is Assistant

Deputy Minister, Client Services. Directly behind me, we have Mr. David Roberts,

the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and Support Services. As well, we have

our Director of Finance, Mr. Jim Strong.

I would just like to say how pleased I am that my

officials could accompany me this evening. I guess I should say they have been

working very hard trying to groom me for the position way back in August when I

was elected. My first reaction to this department when I was appointed minister

was, `Oh, my gosh; what have I ever done to deserve that department?' However, I

guess that is a reaction of a lot of people, but now that I have gotten into my

duties as minister, I am extremely pleased with all the fine work that goes on

in this department. It is quite different from anything I had ever anticipated.

This department touches so many lives, what can I

say about it? I am sure a lot of it will come out this evening when you ask us

questions, so I will leave it open now for questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we get into questions, I

want to welcome Mr. Nick Careen, the Member for Placentia.

We will begin the questioning with Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, just to continue with the line of

questioning that I started in the House today, there are very serious questions

and I know that there is a great need out there and a grave concern with what is

going to happen because now something has changed, and sometimes when a change

takes place it is not always a positive change.

In the past, and correct me if I am wrong, it has

been the procedure of the Department of Social Services if not to pay hydro

bills, at least to help, and I know that several times hydro bills have been

paid when people have fallen behind, have gotten into arrears, and deductions

have been made from social service recipients' regular payments.

I am after having several calls from my own

district, and the Member for Burin - Placentia West brought forward a case, I

think, which touched everybody here the other day in the House and received

front-line coverage in one of the newspapers as well, so it is a case that just

about everybody knows about. I am wondering if your department is considering

taking another look at the decision you have made in not paying hydro bills, and

possibly bring it about over a period of time rather than say, as of today we

are not responsible for those bills anymore.

MS. YOUNG: No, we have come to no decision to

do that. The decision was made because we were asked to cut our Budget due to

the financial requirements at the federal level. We looked at all of our options

and we could have cut back, I guess, on the basic rate right across the board,

however that might have caused severe hardships for some of the families out

there, and that was certainly something we did not want to do.

We looked very carefully at what we could possibly

do and we realized that we were paying arrears for some of our clients, and some

of them, I guess, year after year, the same clients, were showing up in arrears;

however, if they ran up expenses in other areas we were paying that. We issue an

amount of money for basic rates. We provide money for housing and a number of

things. The money was never meant to provide a life of luxury, it was for basic

needs.

It was interesting when we looked over our

statistics that in some district offices there has not been one cent paid out in

arrears. In some district office it is $5,000 or less, and indeed some were

paying out $100,000, so I guess that tells us something as well. Again, is it

really the responsibility of the Department of Social Services to pay arrears

for people? Is there not an agreement that can be worked out with Newfoundland

Light and Power? After all, it is to them the money is owed.

I might also point out, too, that if we gave a

period of time whereby people could adjust to this, what you could have is a lot

of people coming forward asking Newfoundland Light and Power to cut their

electricity, and that did happen on the 24th, people went up and asked to be cut

so they could come in under the wire. Then there are a lot of people who never,

ever fell into arrears, and what does that say to these people? We will pay off

arrears for some people but you have managed within your Budget so you have no

rewards.

MR. FITZGERALD: I thought you could have been a

little more lenient in probably bringing about a time frame and letting people

know it wasn't going to happen anymore, and I know you are 100 per cent right -

sometimes: If I can get $600 should I pay it myself? I thought you could have

been a little bit more lenient rather than having the Budget brought down one

day, then say the next week, this option is not available to you anymore.

There have been some people out there who have been

in arrears through no fault of their own, but through some very difficult

situations, so I ask this question for a very simple answer. Are you saying

there are no more hydro bills being paid, or are you saying that maybe we will

look at an individual case and if circumstances warrant, we will consider it?

MS. YOUNG: It is interesting you say that if

people had more time they could adjust to this. Well, if indeed they could

adjust to it over a short period of time, how come they were in arrears then? I

sort of question your question.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, in some cases, like in

running your own home, you find that things get much more difficult in the

wintertime than they are in the summertime. Some people have electric heat

bills, and as you know, your light bill, your heat bill, or your hydro bill, in

January is much greater than it is in June or July, and that is the reason why I

say to you, if you could give them an option saying, this is going to happen and

it is going to happen at such a time, then maybe you would be able to take the

amount of money they are in arrears now over their regular payments in the

summer months and say: `this is it', and that way they would know that they

would have to be responsible. There are a lot of people who are going to fall

into very difficult times because of this decision, and I am not saying it is

wrong, what I am saying is they should be given a little more time probably,

since it was there.

MS. YOUNG: Would you like them answered?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MS. YOUNG: Again, what I should like to point

out as well is that there are three parties involved here. There is a client who

receives a basic amount of money, plus winter allowance, plus you know, rent,

mortgage, whatever and all of the other benefits. Then there is Department of

Social Services which provides the funding and then there is Newfoundland Light

and Power, so I mean, I don't think the whole emphasis should be on the

Department of Social Services. Again, if it is a matter of a light bill being to

the extreme like you are saying over $300, maybe -

MR. FITZGERALD: Over $600 actually.

MS. YOUNG: Pardon?

MR. FITZGERALD: The one to which I am referring

is well over $600.

MS. YOUNG: A month?

MR. FITZGERALD: In arrears.

MS. YOUNG: No, no. I am thinking about a month.

If you are looking at a heat bill being that high, I think there might be

something wrong with the housing, so you know, there are more players than just

social services involved here.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but Madam Minister, I can

assure you that a $300-hydro bill is not a high bill, not a high bill at all.

MS. YOUNG: It depends on where you are living.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, wherever you are living

in Newfoundland, it is not a high bill. I can assure you of that. Well anyway,

thank you.

Madam Minister, have you had many complaints

regarding people staying at the Naomi Centre here in St. John's?

MS. YOUNG: Complaints on what?

MR. FITZGERALD: Complaints about people going

there and falling into trouble by not getting the proper supervision that they

require while they are there?

MS. YOUNG: No, I have to admit, I have not

heard any complaints there. I mean, they haven't come to me personally, I don't

know if my staff could answer that.

MR. PECKFORD: We have had one complaint

recently, that is the only one I am aware of.

MR. FITZGERALD: I think, Mr. Peckford, you are

probably aware of the complaint that I am referring to. Does it bother you or,

is your department planning to look into what is exactly going on there, to see

that such events don't happen again? I think this particular situation is, not

the fault of the Naomi Centre but probably the fault of society, for not

providing a suitable place for a girl sixteen years old to go when she has

nowhere else to find shelter or refuge.

MR. PECKFORD: At the present time we are aware

of the one as in the case I indicated and we have heard from the complainant and

we are looking into the other side of it right now. I haven't heard the other

side of the story as yet, we are looking into that side now.

MR. FITZGERALD: So it is fair to say that you

are going to check out the complaints that have been made and if there is a need

to make changes or to do things differently, that you will?

MR. PECKFORD: That's correct. We have an

ongoing dialogue and relationship with Naomi House and all other agencies which

we fund. In fact, this past year, we created a position within the department to

provide more continuous dialogue and liaison with the agencies which we fund, so

we would hope that through having a specific person associated with this now,

that will improve our communications with these organizations.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Minister, may I ask what

the caseloads of your department are, as of today?

MS. YOUNG: I can't give them to you as of today

but I can give you the last official information I have to the end of February.

It's 35,472. I might be a few numbers out there but it is very close.

MR. FITZGERALD: So it would be fair to say that

there are about 75,000 people who are availing of the services of the Department

of Social Services?

MS. YOUNG: No, actually, it is less than

72,000.

MR. FITZGERALD: Less than 72,000?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Your budget has been cut by $10

million this year. What is your projection that the number of people,

considering the state of the economy, are coming into your department and being

considered in that case?

MS. YOUNG: It is very difficult to tell. As you

are well aware, we never know what circumstances we are going to be hit with.

One of the things we were concerned about was the number of people who might be

coming over to us from TAGS because there is an estimation of about 1,000 and to

the end of February I think it was about 460 who had actually come over. We are

looking at probably a 5 per cent increase and as I said, it is very difficult to

give you an exact figure.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Home Care program - and

this is probably the wrong place to ask the question - the Home Care program is

now taken from the Department of Social Services and put with the Department of

Health. Am I correct in saying that there was $20 million transferred from your

department to the Department of Health and that same program cost you $27

million last year?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, there has been a cut-back.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so that $7 million then

is still in your department?

MS. YOUNG: No, actually about $2 million. The

other part was cut, there was a cut in the budget.

MR. FITZGERALD: The youth centre out at

Whitbourne, the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre - are there any problems

there now, considering the problems that were there in the past? Does everything

seem to be going okay?

MS. YOUNG: Well, of course, like in any

facility such as that, there may be minor incidents but there has not been one

of the magnitude of the incident to which you are referring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. We

will go now to Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: I would like to ask a couple of

questions - pursue a topic that Roger did earlier on the Newfoundland Power

situation. Can you tell me how much the department paid out last year, in

approximate dollars, to pay the built-up light bills? Do you have any idea?

MS. YOUNG: We are looking at a saving there of

about $2.2 million. What was happening was that we were paying and trying to

recover it again but it was always very difficult to do that because if people

went off social services it is very difficult to recover that amount if they

moved out of the Province and so on. So that is what we are hoping we will save

there.

MR. LANGDON: Again, I guess a technical

question that somebody from the department might be able to answer - how many

households do you have for social services and how many of these total

households do you have problems with percentage-wise, five, six, ten, twenty or

less than that, any idea?

MR. PECKFORD: I wouldn't have that kind of

data.

MS. YOUNG: Excuse me, you mean trouble paying

their bills?

MR. LANGDON: Yes, of the total number of

households you have on social services how many - what percentage of the total

number would have trouble paying their bill?

MR. PECKFORD: I wouldn't know.

MR. LANGDON: Would any of the officials know?

MR. PECKFORD: No, I wouldn't have - I would be

afraid to guess.

MR. LANGDON: Does anyone else have any ideas

here?

MR. PECKFORD: No, sorry.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, so you might be able to get

that and share it with us sometime, the minister might. The other thing, has the

department - and probably it is not the department's responsibility, I guess, as

the individual household - how many of these people that you have on social

services, households, how many of them have a budget plan with Newfoundland

Power? I guess you wouldn't have that either because, I mean, that is a

technical question outside of your jurisdiction.

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. PECKFORD: No, we don't monitor the

individual activity of clients in that way with respect to their relationship

with Newfoundland Power, nor in other ways - oil companies or other people they

do business with. We tend to expect them to be able to manage. We don't

intervene in their lives to the extent that we have that kind of data.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. I will leave that for now

and I will come back to some others later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's carry

on just for a second regarding what the other two members were saying

previously. Minister, not everybody is (inaudible). Same as on this side here

during the daytime and on the other side over there. You see people from all

walks of life, that some are better managers than others. Those who deliberately

try to screw the system eventually will do the job on themselves, but those who

are poor managers probably should be given a hand. That is a different sort of

human being. Only from my wife - I mean, myself and the queen

part company

pretty quickly, and she is a better manager than I will ever be. You have

clients who fall in that sort of category and for my opinion, for what it is

worth, they always should be looked at a little bit differently - my two cents

worth.

I have a couple of small questions here, nothing

big. Next year they are talking about changes, feds, social services, and the

next year. What plans, precautions, negotiations have started with the feds to

ease some of the impact of what we are supposed to believe is going to be

happening over the next two years?

MS. YOUNG: I guess we are not even sure of the

amount we will be asked to cut our budget by next year. However, it is an

ongoing process with us. We are looking at ways of course of making ourselves

more efficient within the department itself. We are looking at ways where we can

deliver in a more efficient manner and probably save money that way.

With regard to what are we doing with the Federal

Government, our Minister of Finance and Treasury Board - I guess you've heard

him in the House - has always started his plan of action with the Federal

Government. Because we find ourselves in an unique situation here in

Newfoundland with the downturn in the fishery and all the other factors. There

is a lot of seasonal employment here. We are quite different from some of the

other provinces and we are treated as equals with them. So that is a matter that

our Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is addressing with the Federal

Government, and I remain optimistic.

MR. CAREEN: Page 190 - 3.1.01 - Residential

Services: On behalf of children who reside in foster homes, special foster

homes, special living arrangements...," et cetera, we see that there is a bump

up in Allowances and Assistance. I know you are new to the department, but with

regard to the higher unemployment rate that this Province has seen over this

past couple of years and it seems like they are escalating, are we seeing more

dysfunctional families?

MS. YOUNG: I don't know if there are more or

there are more coming to light with us. There are certain factors that influence

anything that happens with regard to families but we have seen an increase in

the number of children who are going to foster homes and we are also seeing the

special supports that they need as well because some of them are not necessarily

younger children. Some of these are older children with problems. They are

adolescents and teenagers who are going to foster care.

MR. CAREEN: Yes because some of us old hands

here like myself - the things they get in trouble for today we were only

considered idle boys at that time, some thirty or forty years ago.

MS. YOUNG: I cannot believe you were ever in

trouble.

MR. CAREEN: On page 288, 1.2.02, Administrative

Support, there is a small increase in salaries and a big increase in purchased

services. Could you explain this, Minister, please?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, with purchase services, that is

office leases. Some of our leases have run out and that is where we will see an

increase there. With regard to salaries, there is an increase for this year.

That would be due to more people coming on or more people moving up a step

within their salary range. I don't know if any of the officials would like to

comment further on that.

MR. CAREEN: The community correctional

services, 3.2.02, page 291, the Alternate Measures Program. This seems to be a

good program. Just a short while ago there was one approved out in Placentia. As

I said there a while ago, our crowd were just considered idle youth, now

authorities seem to take a dimmer view of it. Like Father Flanigan said: there

is no such thing as a bad boy. How is it going across the Province?

MS. YOUNG: It is going like wildfire. I mean

there are a lot of people out there who are very, very pleased to get involved

with it. I think currently we have about twenty boards. It is a wonderful

program whereby young kids don't end up with a record and they do a lot of

community work. It is well received by the general public and many people are

volunteering to be part of it. We also have approved in our budget salaries for

an additional twelve social workers to help with this program.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Oh, I am sorry, I was thinking about

the alternative to custody but the alternative measures, these are going very

well.

MR. CAREEN: How many boards are there -

MS. YOUNG: Twenty.

MR. CAREEN: So that's twenty. So do they cover

most regions of the Province or all regions of the Province now?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, and into Labrador as well.

MR. CAREEN: Then that is good. There is a lot

of peer pressure on young people today. I have known girls who got caught

shoplifting with shades of mascara and shades of lipstick that they could not

use. I heard of boys stealing shirts that were way too big for them - peer

pressure - and it happens. I used to be dared to steal plums and I was never

caught.

MR. HARRIS: Not now.

MR. CAREEN: I don't mind lawyers.

I think it is a very good project, and besides

being spread out do you see much of a change? When did it first start? When was

the first pilot project?

MS. YOUNG: That one goes back to which date?

MR. PECKFORD: I am not quite sure when the

first alternative measures board began. I suspect it was at the beginning when

the Young Offenders Act came in, in the mid-eighties. It is provided for under

the Young Offenders Act. I have been with the department now four years and I

think there were around ten to twelve boards when I came, and it has gone up

since then.

The district offices in the areas, the social

workers assigned to the youth corrections program are usually the ones who test

community interest and so forth and as a result bring about the formation of the

boards. The boards are supported by the social workers in the district offices,

and referrals are made through that source - you are probably aware of that -

but it is a very successful program. I think we are probably up to - the last, I

thought, I saw around 4,000 referrals to these boards in the run of a year. The

St. John's board is by far the largest one but they exist, as the minister said,

in Labrador and pretty well all across the Island.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Cowan.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much.

I feel more like giving speeches than asking

questions because there are a couple of things that I want to say, and one is

that it makes me mad when I hear the Social Services Department sort of being

downgraded, and the minister kind of referred to that in the beginning when she

said: My goodness, what have I done to deserve to be Minister of Social

Services?

To me, you are one of the most important

departments in the Province. We simply could not exist without you, and I think

that the level of people - and first of all I learned this just through working

through the Kelligrews office, but then I learned it when I started to meet with

some of you people in context of the Chairperson of the Children's Interest

Committee - the level of commitment is tremendous in the Social Services

Department. It is unfortunate that the only times we ever hear anything is when

some sort of little scandalous thing breaks out, because we all know what

horrendous caseloads the social workers have, and yet they always seem to have

time to try to help you out when you call up with some individual person. I

think I would really like to comment on that. Of course we need more social

workers, but you know that as well as I do so I will not ask you anything about

that, but I think that you are the right person to be there at the moment Madam

Minister, and your approach is an excellent one.

I also want to comment, having been a minister I

immediately know where to look under all the Estimates to see what this year the

minister has been able to maintain, because I know what the fighting points are

in every department, so of course I quickly ran to transition houses, and I

think those transition houses have really become part and parcel of our

thinking. I want to say, because there is no other opportunity really to talk to

you, Minister, as minister responsible for the status of women, I am pleased

about the transition houses and I am extremely pleased that you were able to

keep in place all the other services in other departments - we have a paltry few

but they have all been maintained - that serve women because they are all so

closely tied to social services.

When we were travelling across Canada talking about

issues related to children, every place we went people said if we could solve

the problem of poverty amongst single mothers, we would have solved the majority

of problems in society; unfortunately, although we say that on one level, we are

still not doing it, but anyway, that was just a bit of a speech which, I

probably should not give but anyway I did.

Tell me a bit about the Brighter Futures Program,

would you? No, the Right Future, I am getting it mixed up with the other one.

Just what is that program, how is it working out and so on?

MS. YOUNG: Again, thank you very much.

This is a program that is just working out

wonderfully well in this Province. It is a pilot project, it is funded by the

federal government and it has a life of five years and there is a million

dollars allocated to the program over a five-year period.

WITNESS: Ten million.

MS. YOUNG: Ten million, I am sorry.

MS. COWAN: Is the Brighter Futures part of this

with the children?

MS. YOUNG: Yes. This is the Right Future

Program and to date we have two units closed out at the Waterford Hospital and

these people have gone out into the community. They live in a normal house and

they have support staff with them; what's happening is that as they integrate -

some of these people have been at the Waterford for many, many years and as they

go out into the community, there could be, you know, six or more people working

with one individual.

MS. COWAN: It could be a real culture shock.

MS. YOUNG: Absolutely, and I was just talking

to a family the other day who had taken the wife's brother out of the Waterford

and had him into a home environment, and they said they couldn't get over the

improvement in him. I mean, his life has dramatically turned around and he is

just doing wonderfully well, and it is good too, because these people go back

into their communities all over the Island and along with improving their lives,

it is also money that is going back into rural Newfoundland.

I was approached by somebody out in my district one

day and they were questioning me, last year, in the Budget Estimates, or the

year before, as to why we are spending all of this money, you know, on one

individual, because you know, there is a lot of money being spent, and I

explained to her how important this program was. Prior to that she said: well,

why don't you have about six people out; you have six workers there, why don't

you take six people out, and I said: but that will be defeating the purpose. You

know, you are trying to integrate these people back into, I guess what we

consider a normal way of life, and it takes a considerable amount of time for

the adjustment; but as these people move back, the amount of support will

dwindle off -

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MS. YOUNG: - and hopefully, they will be down

to probably just one support person and the ultimate goal would be to be able to

function independently.

MS. COWAN: So these are people who are just

from the Waterford or are they people who are perhaps - I don't know what the

word would be - potential residents of the Waterford, or are we just dealing

with people who are there now?

MS. YOUNG: We are just dealing with the

Waterford. To date we have about forty-one people out and we are looking to take

out about thirty more this year, so hopefully, at the end of next year we might

have all of the residents out, and we would have four units completely shut down

at the Waterford, so it is a program that is federally funded but we administer

the program.

MS. COWAN: Okay, and you have the funding you

say, for five years?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, $10 million.

MS. COWAN: Okay; so it looks like you will have

all the people out within the five-year period?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, that is the objective and we

will meet that objective.

MS. COWAN: Tell me again now, you will have

them all out by that time and are you anticipating that most of the support

services that they need will have dwindled somewhat by that stage as well?

MS. YOUNG: Hopefully!

MS. COWAN: I just think that there is always

this problem, these wonderful federal programs and then we are kind of left

holding the bag.

MR. PECKFORD: Perhaps I could just mention who

the population is. The population that are coming from the Waterford hospital

are not mentally ill, they were never placed in the Waterford hospital because

they are mentally ill or ever were mentally ill. These people are

developmentally delayed so this is a population for which hospitalization was

the only option at the time that they went there. Community supports to enable

them to function in their normal families, who are not available.

PAT COWAN: So we hope that is a population in

the Waterford we will never see again.

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct. Now the younger

group in that population years ago lived at Exon house and children's home and

these two facilities were closed by the department as you are aware years ago.

So the department has been in a process of de-institutionalization,

de-institutionalizing individuals with developmental delays. The Waterford

hospital is the last population which is institutionalized right now. So these

individuals are moving back to sometimes their own families, sometimes mostly

their own communities anyway, with the required supports to function daily. We

would anticipate that some of them will over time require less support than they

will need initially.

However, our knowledge of the population would

indicate that there will be quite a few of them who will still need, and perhaps

forever, a certain level of support. The funding from the federal government is

meant to bridge the fact that during the time that these people are coming out

of the hospital the government of the province will be supporting two

facilities, the Waterford because it will not be closed and the community. So

the funding that the federal government is giving us is in lieu of the fact that

we will be for the five year period operating a dual system. Then the financial

supports that they will require after that will be part of the social assistance

program as they always were.

MS. COWAN: Are any of these individuals

involved in many of your other programs? Like are any of them so severely

delayed that they are not able to become involved in some of your pre-employment

programs or that type of thing? Would most of them need 24 hour a day attention?

MR. PECKFORD: There is a full range of

disability. Some people perhaps will be able to work, yes. Some already work at

the Waterford there now and for others the nature of their disability is such

that it is not expected they would be able to work.

MS. COWAN: I commend you on your involvement

with that, that is great.

MR. PECKFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you Ms. Cowan. Now we go to

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Minister I indicated to

you earlier that probably the first question I was going to ask you was why your

executive assistant was paid more than you and I looked in the Departmental

Salary Details and Estimates and found out that your executive assistant in fact

is paid more than you - according to page 185 of the Department Salary Details

the ministers' salary is $39,800 and the executive assistant's salary is

$45,900. I'm not sure what that tells us about how government operates but -

MS. YOUNG: He is worth more than me.

MR. HARRIS: Last night they had difficulty

explaining why that was. I was told at the end of the Estimates Committee that

the Minister of Environment's executive assistant, even though the Estimates

showed the salary of $47,000, was actually only getting $40,000. I'm assuming

that in this case that is correct. How is that determined, normally? I know the

ministerial salary is the same for all ministers. Is there a scale for executive

assistants?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Depending on your number of years

of service and -

MS. YOUNG: Yes there is.

MR. HARRIS: - step increases. That is where

that comes from?

MS. YOUNG: That is correct.

MR. HARRIS: I didn't mean to be facetious about

that, but just to follow up on my earlier comment. In the case of the minister

last night there was a new minister and a new EA. The amount of the salary

seemed out of proportion to that, but I understand that in your situation the

executive assistant has been there for some time and is in a different place on

the scale.

I would like to get on to something that I've

raised with you, minister, privately and by letter, and I've had occasion to

talk to some constituents about, and that is the method by which individuals who

are in receipt of or who are supposed to be in receipt of income from sources

other than social assistance, in the form of maintenance orders that are ordered

by the court, that are lodged or filed at the support enforcement agency, and

the very difficult problem. I know the minister in her letter indicates that

this may be 2 per cent of the cases. It may be 2 per cent of the cases on a

monthly basis but the individual who I've talked to seemed to have the problem

on an ongoing basis.

That is the situation whereby if an individual is

for example supposed to receive $200 a month from a spouse, in the form of

spouse or child support that is to be paid through the support enforcement

agency, that if that money comes when it is supposed to, well and good. If it

doesn't it is a hardship. In our economy - and I frankly don't accept the

minister's figures of 1 per cent or 2 per cent - it just seems to me to be

totally inconsistent with what I hear and the anecdotal information that you

hear around, and the knowledge about the uncertainty in the economy.

Nevertheless, even if it were that low, this money does not come by clockwork.

If the person is working and working steady and if there is a garnishee order in

and the money actually goes and flows and the bureaucracy works well, the person

may get a cheque.

I spoke to a woman today at great length because

she had called me and written me on this issue, and I sent her a copy of the

letter I sent to you and your reply. We talked about it today at length. Just to

put some flesh and blood if you will onto it, this is a woman who lives with her

fourteen-year old son.

She receives a cheque on the 15th of the month for

$380.00 of which she has to put $250 aside for her rent, so she has $130.00 left

over from that cheque; she is supposed to get an amount from her spouse for

child support of $150.00 and last month that cheque didn't come. It was supposed

to come on the 15th of the month, it didn't come on the 15th of the month, in

fact it didn't come at all to the point where she eventually had to get a

replacement cheque from the Department of Social Services, which she got readily

enough, you know, because they check with the support enforcement agency and her

story of course was legitimate and they sent her out a replacement cheque which

she got on the 29th or 30th of the month for $150.00. But she had to do without

that $150.00 for two weeks and she had $130.00 to do her from the 15th to the

end of the month with her and her one child, a fourteen-year old boy - and

teenagers are fairly aware of circumstances, they are aware of what's missing

and what they need.

She then, as it happened the next day or a couple

of days later got the cheque from the support enforcement agency. Now, this

woman happens to be a particularly - I won't use the word responsible because

she is going to be held responsible for it any way - but she is particularly

aware of her own circumstances, she is an educated woman and she said: well, I

better do something with this cheque or else I am going to be in trouble. She

would not cash it, she said: I will take this cheque and I will bring it down,

sign the back of it and pass it over to the social worker because I know what

will happen if I don't, because if I spend it, even though I have needs, if I

spend it, it will obviously be an overpayment, it will come off my next cheque

and I will be in the same trouble afterwards.

What I suggested to you by my letter and which I am

told by your response it would cause too many problems, but maybe you can

explain that for everybody. Why can't a woman in that circumstance, say to the

social worker or say to the Department of Social Services: Look, I am on

long-term assistance, I am going to be on it for a year or two, hopefully I

won't be but if something else happens, well and good; I will assign to the

Department of Social Services, very voluntarily, no requirement, no nothing, but

if this woman could say: I hereby ask support enforcement to pay my maintenance

upon receipt to the Department of Social Services, not to me.

Why could not that woman, instead of getting her

cheque for $380.00 on the 15th of the month, get a cheque that would cover what

she would be entitled to under social services, and have it up to the additional

$150.00 and then the Department of Social Services would collect the $150.00

when support enforcement is paid, and there will be no need for the intervention

of a social worker to receive the request, perhaps except a visit, do an

investigation, contact support enforcement, issue a cheque, have that go out,

set up an overpayment, follow it up and track it down and then, try and recoup

it and make sure it is repaid.

It strikes me that there are a lot of hardships

caused here, unnecessary hardships, and I realize that in the grand scheme of

things when we are talking about issues today of families losing electricity and

perhaps kids being taken from them this is not, in this particular circumstance,

the worst problem, but it may be one that can be fixed without too much

difficulty. I know the department does that going in the other way and did for

years with Newfoundland Light and Power. If the department ended up paying the

arrears because someone got behind because they did not have enough to pay their

light bill, the department only paid the arrears once - they would pay it once -

and then they would say to the individual: This is not going to happen again. We

worked with Newfoundland Light and Power, and we put you on a budget plan. If

your light bill is $150 a month on the average for the year we will take $150

off your cheque and give it directly to Newfoundland Light and Power.

Anybody who has ever had their arrears paid, I am

told, went on that system going the other way and it only happened once. Now

maybe it happened once to everybody and that is where the cost comes in, but

perhaps the department, recognizing some of these problems up front, can avoid

these problems in the future. That is a different issue and I am not going to

ask you about that in this question, but I wanted to explain the circumstances

to see whether the ministry can consider something as apparently straightforward

from a legal point of view of an assignment, something in the age of computers

and information technology that we hear so much rhetoric about ought to be

easily accomplished from a communication point of view. It would seem to me not

to require additional staff, but in fact would reduce staff time to accomplish

and would save hardship for single parents who all too often find themselves in

circumstances where the husband is either working irregularly, changes his

status from employed to unemployed, leaves a job or whatever, and the individual

suffers; is that not possible?

MS. YOUNG: To get back to one of the first

statements you made, you felt that the figure of 2 per cent is rather low. These

figures - I was looking back at Mr. Strong there - I am sure these figures are

accurate.

MR. HARRIS: It may be 2 per cent on every month

asked for additional cheques; that may be. That is fifty people a month, which

is significant.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, I can certainly recognize -

MR. HARRIS: There may be a lot of others who do

not ask for the cheques because they do without it, you know.

MS. YOUNG: Well that could very well be. There

are some people who probably would not come forward; they would wait, or they

might have a little on reserve that they could live on for a few weeks.

It does cause hardship, I certainly agree with you,

but you are suggesting, then, that we would not put everybody on, just the women

who are having difficulties.

MR. HARRIS: Upon request.

MS. YOUNG: Upon request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't know if she wants to answer

the question. She was clarifying it there for a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) answer.

MS. YOUNG: I was just commenting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going in ten minute

segments and I think we are up to thirteen minutes now on this one.

MS. YOUNG: Okay, we can come back.

MR. HARRIS: Do I understand that I would ask

the question again to get the answer, or is the minister going to be allowed to

answer the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: I will have my time later, the

minister can answer.

MS. YOUNG: I am hearing what you are saying and

it would cause some extra, I guess, accounting on the part of our department.

I would like to tell you as well that the Advisory

Council on the Status of Women has also brought that to my attention in both my

capacity as minister responsible for the Status of Women and Minister of Social

Services. I cannot tell you that yes, we will do that, but everything is always

up for consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay, I have a couple of things.

One is, knowing that we will have an increased caseload in your department

within this fiscal year. I suppose it is somewhat mistaken to say that the

Budget is being cut; it is just to which extent is it being funded, because in

my estimation the Budget of the Department of Social Services, although it makes

for good, political rhetoric for opposition to say that the Budget has been cut,

in essence, has been increased, as opposed to being increased by the full amount

that we would need to maintain everything based on the status quo, it has been

increased by a figure to account for the anticipated extra caseload, and based

on that, it is just that it hasn't been increased by that $10 million amount of

which we are speaking, where we are seeking economies in the department. Is that

a correct statement?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay, so that the Budget last year

was $179,679,000 this year, the Budget is $198,173,000, a difference of

approximately $19 million so it is approximately a $20 million increase. Some of

that, may be accounted for I suppose, with federal revenues and different

programs; I am looking through all of the different subheads, there was a cut

also that you did mention coming out of that so if you take that cut out of it

as well, it is really $21 million or so of an increase in the overall

departmental budget.

MS. YOUNG: That's correct.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay. I just wanted that clear and

for that to be noted in the record. It is not anything that we are, I suppose,

especially proud of to say that we have had the increase to social services

budget, but the government has, in spite of the fact that it has balanced its

Budget, committed extra resources to cover off the requirements that are there.

I did want to ask though, a couple of questions.

One, concerned the situation as you are trying to find economies in the

department, what process is it that you will undertake in order to determine

what you are going to have to do, because if the social wheel of the country is

going to be reinvented, if we are going to reinvent the wheel the way we fund

social programs, then you are going to have to change the way in which you

deliver them, so essentially it has fallen on us to deliver the programs in such

a way that you have to account for less money potentially coming in; so I am

wondering what you have planned departmentally in the way of consultation, in

the way of line department staff providing information on how they feel you can

best come up with solutions. Is there a plan developed now to consult and

develop a strategy for this?

MS. YOUNG: Well, we are still getting over the

$10 million one and we are certainly, almost on a daily basis, trying to make

sure that we are headed in the right direction to take the hit if it comes next

year, so we must be prepared and we are looking for about eight months down the

road when we start to prepare for the budget for the following year.

We also have to realize the capping of CAP and all

these things and what effect it will have upon us. I think one of the things we

have to look at, Bill, is the fact that we have a high number of young, single,

able-bodied people on our records, and what we are finding is that quite a

number of these have not finished high school, and even if we pumped money into

them it would be just a Band-Aid solution, so what we have to do is, I guess,

get to the crux of the matter. If you have no education and you have no skills,

wherever you live, your chances of ever being employed in a permanent position,

making any amount of money, are practically nil because even in today's economy

these people are out there competing with people with degrees for employment.

MR. RAMSAY: Sometimes for the same exact jobs.

MS. YOUNG: I beg your pardon?

MR. RAMSAY: Sometimes for the same exact jobs.

MS. YOUNG: Oh, absolutely. So we have to look

at programs whereby we can get these people into, I guess, basic education

courses, into some skills training, some of them may be able to go to

university, but I don't think the whole responsibility of that should rest on

the shoulders of this department. There are other partners involved as well. We

have to look to our friends in the Department of Education. We have to look to

our friends in the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, and do some

partnering there as well as with the federal government.

There are a number of programs that we have been

involved in which are rather successful, for example the SWASP program. As you

know we have moved away from the community development projects where you were

moving rocks from one place to the other, and the projects that we have approved

in our department have been on the main with some skills enhancement for the

clients. It was very unfair to put them in positions where they were doing

meaningless work. At the end of the day they just went from one program to the

other and came back to us again, so the people were flip-flopping from program

to program with no real direction in their lives.

MR. RAMSAY: I guess the only ones in that

specific area that were a problem - not the only ones, but ones that were not

necessarily disabled but probably socially delayed by virtue of situations such

as individuals who had been incarcerated at one time. I know of certain cases in

my own district where they depended on that as an income type situation. They

were fully capable of working on these programs but it was used then more as an

income supplementation and not as a genuine situation that gets them skills they

could marketably utilize.

MS. YOUNG: Then again you had people who, once

they got on the system it was even more difficult to get off of it. Even their

children - I had a situation in my own district where this young gentleman grew

up in a family that relied on Social Services to exist, and he was one of the

first in his family to graduate from high school, and there was a stigma

attached to him that he found it very difficult, even in a cost-shared program,

to avail of employment. So a lot of these people become victims of circumstances

and it is perpetuated one generation after the other.

MR. RAMSAY: I have just a couple of other

things.

In the area of abuse, and to understand, I suppose,

the interest in social services, as you know, as an MHA we probably spend as

much time as social workers dealing with some social assistance cases, so it is

something we all become intimately familiar with. It is a shame that is the way

it is. I wish we could spend more of our time working on business initiatives on

behalf of constituents and that sort of thing. Hopefully one of these days that

is the way it will be. But in the course of work we have to do, I am always

coming across allegations of abuse and, of course, everyone I suppose, because

it gets exploded in the community, the jungle grapevine creates a situation that

may not exist, it is exaggerated at times, and sometimes you don't get the full

story until you call a social worker to find out exactly what is going on.

I hesitate, but I feel that I should mention it;

there was a case recently where I was approached about the payment for dental

services and the occasional time when the department pays for the provision of

false teeth and dental services and I found it extremely hard at times to be

able get anywhere with this particular thing. I knew that the subhead under

which people on occasion and very rarely were funded for this, had been

exhausted at this point, and on doing some investigation into it I was told by

someone in the dental community whom I knew, that this year, in fact in the past

twelve months, there was a very significant time, part way through the year or

something, when, it was almost like teeth were going crazy; there was a ton of

teeth being paid for really, and it was almost as if certain people were aware

of it.

I did hear allegations of dentists who knew of this

lining up a lot of patients, and as soon as they knew the money was approved,

bang, they started cranking out dentures like there was no tomorrow and then,

all of a sudden the money was exhausted and there was no more left for people

like the constituent whom I had, who was left holding the bag. I don't know if

you know anything about that, I think it happened before you became minister. I

don't know if any of the officials might be able to either check into it or

elaborate on it.

MS. YOUNG: What I would like to say to you is

that, unfortunately, we can't provide dentures for all of the people who require

them. But there are situations where people are seeking employment and they have

an opportunity to go out into the workforce and to enhance their appearances,

and for training and to enhance their prospects in this environment, we have

provided money for dentures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, the Right Future Program to which

you referred, that does not necessarily mean that those mentally challenged

people are put back in their own community, does it?

MS. YOUNG: Not necessarily, no. We try to get

them as close as we can to their own communities.

MR. FITZGERALD: Is there follow-up done from

either the Waterford Hospital or with some social worker after that to make sure

that people are adjusting and that there are no problems, they are not put there

and -

MS. YOUNG: No, no, no. It's monitored.

MR. FITZGERALD: It's monitored as well, after.

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Minister, I would like

you to tell me what a subsidized home means with regards to the Department of

Social Services. When I think of a subsidized home, I am thinking of a rest

home, where you would have your clients placed. I am thinking about what you pay

for the cost per bed, what other services are performed and what criteria you

have to meet in order to be considered as a subsidized home?

MS. YOUNG: I think the questions you are

asking, are they related to seniors?

MR. FITZGERALD: Not necessarily. In many cases,

the Department of Social Services had people placed in those homes who are not

seniors. One case, in your own district is probably the Greenwood Rest Home, and

there is another one in Jamestown in your own district and they are not all

seniors, no.

MS. YOUNG: They are probably not necessarily

developmentally delayed but -

MR. FITZGERALD: Some of them are.

MS. YOUNG: - some are socially disadvantaged

people. No, I can't give you figures on that but maybe some of my officials

could.

MR. PECKFORD: I think you may be referring to

what is known in government as personal care homes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. PECKFORD: Personal care homes, I am not

fully conversant on it because they come under the Department of Health

jurisdiction, and there are some subsidized homes and there are some

non-subsidized homes as well. The amount of subsidies, and which ones and how

many, I just do not have the numbers but we in the Department of Social Services

are not directly responsible for these homes or the subsidies to the homes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Are you saying that your

department does not pay a subsidy to the owners of those homes?

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct; the Department

of Health does.

MR. FITZGERALD: It comes under the Department

of Health?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes.

Now, at the same time I would just add - it is not

directly related to your question, though - that social work intervention

services that may be needed by some of the residents are provided by our social

workers through the district office in the area, so if there are issues that the

residents would have that would require social work services we do provide

those, but the subsidy to the home is provided by the Department of Health.

MR. FITZGERALD: How about drugs and supplies by

people who are there, that people at your department are responsible for?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, that is the Department of

Health also.

MR. FITZGERALD: So you don't pay any drug

costs, any personal care costs.

MR. PECKFORD: The drug plan is sort of a

combined plan between us and the Department of Health, and they would be, I

suspect, seen eligible for a drug card like other persons and then the actual

drugs are billed through the Department of Heath. We determine eligibility for a

drug and issue the card, and Health then provides the drugs on the basis of

that.

MR. FITZGERALD: Getting back to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre in Whitbourne, I understand there were

fourteen workers hired there a couple of weeks ago. Is that correct? Fourteen

additional front-line workers hired March 20-something, within the last month?

MR. PECKFORD: I am not aware of that number. I

am aware of the fact that we have a recall list of workers in the area, and the

number of workers fluctuates with the population at the youth centre, but I am

not aware of that number or that date.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, there were fourteen

workers hired there from what I understand, and also that those fourteen workers

normally were supposed to be given a three week training program to familiarize

them with the youth centre and the care that they are expected to give and what

have you, I suppose, going into such an environment.

Does it bother the minister that those people were

hired and within six days were working on units there, looking after ten people

that many of them had very, very little knowledge about, or what to expect?

MS. YOUNG: Are you talking about -

MR. FITZGERALD: I am talking about front-line

workers at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre at Whitbourne.

MS. YOUNG: Were they taken on a temporary

basis?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, those were new people,

never worked there before, hired sometime around the middle of March. They were

supposed to be doing three weeks training before they were even considered,

because I think the way it works there, there is a call-in list where people

come in as people are off sick or on annual leave. Those people were hired and

after six days of training, because the department would have had to pay

overtime to regular workers - it was not one case in point, it was several cases

- that those people came in and went to work without the three-week training and

without the proper training in order to do the job that you people would

consider normal.

MS. YOUNG: This is certainly news to me. I'm

not on a daily basis about who is hired and who is not. I can certainly look

into that and get the information for you. I would like to think that anybody

who is going into a position for which there is special training required would

have received that training. However, if there were extenuating circumstances I

would like to know about that as well. I will certainly look into it.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is my understanding. From

what I understand, the extenuating circumstance was the difference in paying

overtime or taking those people there and paying them straight time.

MS. YOUNG: I can't comment (inaudible) -

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Does it concern the

minister as well that even the front-line workers there who are regular

call-ins, regular casuals, sometimes are off as much as a month or two months at

a time, and come to work sometimes, two of them looking after a particular unit,

and within five minutes of them arriving on the job the other regular workers

have departed and they are to look after this whole particular unit without

having any knowledge of the people who are there, the people who they are

looking after, the type of crime or whatever that they are in for? Does the

minister have any concern about that?

MS. YOUNG: I have concerns about everything

that is part of my department. If these things are going on and they are brought

to our attention, certainly they are dealt with.

MR. FITZGERALD: Because there is -

MS. YOUNG: But on a day to day basis anything

could be going on with 1,300 staff in this Province all directly responsible to

the head office here.

MR. FITZGERALD: Because there is very little

record kept there, and that was one of the things that I found there. I'm not a

penal institution expert or anything like that, I can assure you, but I have

worked at a similar site at one time. It was always something that you did

there. Before you left work you always wrote up a chart of what people were and

what their actions were and how they reacted and the type of day they had and

all this kind of thing. Does the minister think that might be a good thing to be

done out there? Because there are absolutely no records kept at all out there on

what happens on a day to day basis by the front-line workers. The only thing

that is written in a log book there is a point system where it gives them

certain privileges to do something. That is all that is written there, numbers.

I think there is some number there where there are privileges lost or whatever.

What happens, what those people do - never recorded.

MS. YOUNG: You are suggesting that an

(inaudible) record be kept on each resident -

MR. FITZGERALD: Unit, yes.

MS. YOUNG: - at the end of the day. Maybe Mr.

Skinner would like to respond to your question.

MR. SKINNER: Certainly I'm aware of some of the

procedures there. In terms of specifics that you make here I would like to

follow up and try and get back to you to ensure that the concerns that you have

are addressed.

MR. FITZGERALD: I think it is something that

should be followed up. I think that would also give the front-line workers -

especially the people who've been away for as many as two months. Sometimes when

they come back - they may have worked there for two weeks, but when they come

back there might be eight different people on that particular unit than was

there before. Unless people are used to going and looking and seeing who they

are dealing with it could be a cause for some problems.

Another issue that has been brought to my attention

out there - and I think the minister should be made aware of this as well - is a

situation where some of those front-line workers are working steady, I suppose

you would, or permanent jobs at the home, and other people are casuals, are

leaving - they work twelve-hour shifts I think at the home there. Some of them

work twelve hours at the Youth Centre and then go and work at another home

sponsored by the Department of Social Services another twelve hours and that's

going back and forth. Is the minister aware of that?

MS. YOUNG: Somebody is working twenty-four

hours?

MR. FITZGERALD: Not only twenty-four hours, but

probably, when that's over, they will go and do another twelve hours. I am not

saying they are working but they are getting paid, they are employed by your

department for many, many more than twenty-four hours at a time.

MS. YOUNG: Well, I would think at the end of

thirty-six hours a person must be exhausted whether they -

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I am not saying they are

staying awake Minister, and I am not saying they are active, but this is why I

am raising the concern and the concern has been raised to me and at the places

that they are working, some of them are at the Youth Centre in Whitbourne - and

that is at Lakeview?

MS. YOUNG: At the open custody?

MR. FITZGERALD: At the open custody units? I

think it is the Lakeview at Whitbourne as well and some of them go out to -

there is another couple of places where they find themselves going is out at

Topsail, so you know, I have a real concern about that. I know what I feel like

after working twelve hours a day and I know what I have to do, so some of those

people - and it is a concern; I don't know if it has ever been raised by some of

the permanent staff there but it has been raised to me and that's why I thought

it would be important to bring it forward and make you aware of it and check

into it.

MS. YOUNG: They are raising their concerns

certainly, the workers have every right to bring it forward to their union and

then of course, you know, you take the proper steps and it ends up to me as a

last resort; so if there are issues like that, I don't get involved in it myself

at that level, we would wait for the union to deal with it and then if they are

not satisfied with the whole thing, it goes to the management and then the last

resort as I said, would be to the ministerial level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: No questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No questions? We go to Mr.

Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Minister, 292, that youth

correction facility, the new remand facility, where is that going to be placed?

MS. YOUNG: There will be an announcement made

on that shortly. I had planned on putting out some information to the media on

that.

MR. HARRIS: Tell us now.

MS. YOUNG: I can't do that. We wouldn't get the

coverage tonight.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Justice made an

announcement the other night.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) go to Port Rexton.

MS. YOUNG: Well, it probably may go to Morley's

Siding. It's not going to Placentia, I can guarantee you.

MR. CAREEN: There is no need for it out there.

MS. YOUNG: No, that's (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: We have enough buildings out in

Argentia. The Americans still left their gates there.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) spend the money.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, that's right, when she has it,

the minister may have spent some. The $25,000 that you spent last year,

Minister, the Budget allocated $400,000 they spent $25,000; what was that

$25,000 spent on?

MS. YOUNG: That went into design, I think; the

initial stages of design probably?

MR. CAREEN: Properties weren't purchased?

MS. YOUNG: I beg your pardon?

MR. CAREEN: It wasn't the purchase of property?

MS. YOUNG: No, it wasn't.

MR. CAREEN: I could always ask where the

property was?

MS. YOUNG: No, properties are worth more than

that out in Morley's Siding.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: If you wanted to be like Shanahan,

yes.

The Right Future, exactly what is the Right Future?

I heard the Member for Bonavista South mention it earlier but what is the Right

Future?

MS. YOUNG: You can't be going out and having a

cigarette, you missed it. We talked about that earlier.

MR. CAREEN: I can always ask but just give me a

quick -

MS. YOUNG: Okay.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

WITNESS: There were no cigarettes involved.

MS. YOUNG: Oh gosh, and how would you know?

MR. CAREEN: Well, there were no cigarettes

involved with him either.

MS. YOUNG: Well if there were no cigarettes it

had to be booze.

I'm only kidding.

With the Right Future, yes, it's a wonderful

program and it is a pilot project that is sponsored by the federal government

and we administer it. The objective is to close out four units at the Waterford

Hospital. I think you probably -

MR. CAREEN: Oh, okay. I know what it is, I just

didn't know the name of it.

MS. YOUNG: Yes. It is a very good program and

there is information on it on page 295, and if you would like more information

on it, I would be glad to -

MR. CAREEN: No. I know what it is. Thank you

very much.

MS. YOUNG: This is a good news one.

MR. CAREEN: It was just the name that threw me

because when you see it in the papers it always refers to some neighbours who do

not want this in their backyard, that's the one, is it?

MS. YOUNG: No, it has been met favourably in

most communities. This is where you take a Waterford resident out and you

integrate him into the community.

MR. CAREEN: Into society, yes.

MS. YOUNG: Probably four to six workers are

working with this person on a twenty-four-hour day basis and gradually the

person is integrated and the amount of support will lessen. Anyway, that is one

of the many good news stories in our department, but you only hear the bad news.

MR. CAREEN: The Employment Enhancement

Initiatives, your professional services has increased this year substantially.

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: Page 297, 5.1.02.

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. CAREEN: You are hiring more?

MS. YOUNG: Some of this will be for training

opportunities, like people getting into Adult Basic Education courses, skills

training. It could also be on-the-job training, I guess, and cost-shared

programs with employers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Oh, yes, my officials just pointed

out to me there is additional training besides Adult Basic Education. There are

skills training as well.

This is a positive step for us because we are

recognizing the fact that there are quite a number of people out there relying

on our services who have not finished high school and, as I said, have no

skills.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

In 5.1.01 there is a substantial reduction in

Community Development Projects.

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: That wasn't a part of the SAR

package, was it?

MS. YOUNG: I am sorry?

MR. CAREEN: The SAR projects, that wasn't a

part of that - no - social assistance recipients.

MS. YOUNG: That is SAR, and it covered the

employment enhancement program.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. You were very good over the

year, so you have substantially reduced that amount of money from $10 million

allotted last year where you only spent $4.2 million, to nearly $2.6 million

this year.

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. CAREEN: So while it was a cost-shared

basis, was that a 50/50, 60/40, 70/30?

MS. YOUNG: 50/50, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: No, not all of them.

MR. CAREEN: Because you have joint boards;

there are federal representatives who sit on it, and the Province sits on theirs

as well, or that is the way it used to go.

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct, Sir. The

employment enhancement area, the one that you referred to first, is cost matched

with the federal government up to $4 million. We are putting $6 million in this

year, as you can see, and we are hoping that they will extend their matching

beyond the four, but we have a commitment from them now, for every up to $4

million they will match $4 million in the same general areas as we do.

The community development, 5.1.01, is not federally

supported in any way.

MR. CAREEN: Okay, thank you.

MS. YOUNG: And because the $4 million is cost

matched it is not showing up here in our budget.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Minister, the numbers that we have heard in terms

of income support would be that there would be a reduction of $10 million in the

overall allocation or amount going for income support, and I know it is partly

because of an increased caseload but not an equal amount of money to meet that

caseload. I have been told, and I do not recall exactly whether it is a public

figure or someone told me privately, that the expectation is that your change in

policy with respect to electrical arrears expects to save the department $2

million. Is that figure accurate?

MS. YOUNG: It is as accurate as we can project.

MR. HARRIS: Where is the other $8 million

coming from?

MS. YOUNG: Some of it will come out of

furnishings.

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

MS. YOUNG: Some of it will come from

furnishings. That would include appliances as well. Some more will come from

refugees. The number of refugees has gone down. Transportation, we have a hefty

transportation budget. We are trying to rein that in somewhat; however, we still

want to provide essential services to people who are requiring transportation. I

pointed out as well that when the home support program went to the Department of

Health there was $5 million lost there.

MR. HARRIS: The figures on that are a bit

confusing. In the Budget lock-up we were told by the Department of Finance and

Treasury Board officials - and you can see by looking at the Department of

Health Estimates, in fact, on page 229. I realize, Minister, you are not

expected to be an expert on the Department of Health Estimates, but if you look

at Grants and Subsidies in 2.2.02 for Community Based Services, we were told

that the $29 million revised figure for 1994-1995, up from $23 million going

into an amount for 1995-1996 of $22.8 million, amounts to an actual reduction of

about $6 million in home care services. That is $6 million that the department

spent last year in the Department of Social Services that the Department of

Health isn't going to spend, but how does that affect the reduction in your

budget?

MS. YOUNG: It reflects $5 million.

MR. HARRIS: How so?

MS. YOUNG: Well -

MR. HARRIS: If the vote is being transferred to

another department then it is not even -

MS. YOUNG: But you notice it is not being

transferred entirely. There is $22 million being transferred. That means there

was a cutback of about $7 million according to this.

MR. HARRIS: Are you keeping that?

MS. YOUNG: No, we've lost it, it is lost.

MR. HARRIS: So it is gone.

MS. YOUNG: It is gone.

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MS. YOUNG: It is gone, but we do have I think

it is approximately two point some odd million dollars that we still have in our

budget for.... Four point three.

MR. HARRIS: Let's go back to the $10 million

again because we discovered that there was a $2 million reduction in the cost of

light bills. The furniture and appliances, how much do you expect to save on

that?

MS. YOUNG: We are looking at over $1 million.

MR. RAMSAY: That won't be cut out completely -

MS. YOUNG: No, no.

MR. RAMSAY: - but it will be cut back by $1

million. What is the expense? What is the total subhead for that?

MS. YOUNG: We will still have over $2 million

left.

MR. HARRIS: I notice that there is a

significant reduction in the amount of refugee costs year over year, about $2

million less. So you think that would count for another $2 million.

Transportation changes, how much do you expect to cut back there?

MS. YOUNG: We are cutting back $500,000 there,

and we still have $4.3 million left.

MR. HARRIS: That leaves about another $5

million.

MS. YOUNG: That is correct.

MR. HARRIS: Where is that coming from?

MS. YOUNG: The Department of Health.

MR. HARRIS: That comes from the Department of

Health?

MS. YOUNG: The home support, when it was passed

over.

MR. HARRIS: I have a difficulty with that, I

have to be honest because if you look at the 229, it was only $23 million

budgeted and of the $23 million budgeted last year $23 million is transferred

over to health. Now granted you spent more than that last year, you went over

the budget?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, went way over.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, and you are not going to spend

it this year. But you are not going to spend any of it so whatever is being

spent is being spent by another department. I don't understand how that saves

the Department of Social Services $5 million?

MS. YOUNG: It doesn't really -

MR. HARRIS: No, I don't think it does at all. I

don't understand.

MS. YOUNG: It is gone but it came out of our

budget initially.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, but the figures we are given

is that there is a reduction of $10 million in income support amounts going out,

alright?

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. HARRIS: And of the social services

allocation, now either that is right or it is wrong?

MS. YOUNG: Well if it were left in our

department we would have had to absorb that loss but - does anybody want to help

me out on this because it is confusing?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, it is confusing. What the

$10 million reduction is, is a $10 million reduction in the areas that were CAP

funded which included the areas that the minister has referred to. So the Canada

Assistance Plan funding includes expenditures out of Social Services and the

Department of Health. Now some expenditures that were in Social Services last

year are now going to be moved over to Health but there was a $10 million

reduction in the amounts that were eligible for sharing under the Canada

Assistance Plan which goes across both departments, Social Services and Health.

MR. HARRIS: Well that is interesting to hear. I

am surprised that the minister is taking responsibility for a $10 million

reduction. She should say I am only reducing it $5 million you can blame the

Minister of Health for the other $5 million.

MS. YOUNG: We get blamed for everything so I

may as well take it Jack.

MR. HARRIS: The question again dealing with the

kind of caseloads you are struck with and looking at the appendix to the report

tabled in the House today, Appendix A, the caseload - and I won't go back to

1989 like the Member for Humber East did last year and go from a caseload 19,000

up to now 35,000 but even in the two years report in that appendix there is an

increase in the caseload in the past two years, up to March of last year, of 25

per cent over that two year period. What is your caseload currently in March of

1995?

MS. YOUNG: Unfortunately these figures are not

all in yet. It takes a few weeks for them to all get in from the district

offices and get compiled.

MR. HARRIS: Well what about February then?

MS. YOUNG: In February the caseload was 35,472.

MR. HARRIS: So it has not changed at all in the

last year? Last March, according to this table, the caseload was 35,416.

MS. YOUNG: Let me explain to you, the caseload

here is actually the administrative caseload, it is calculated administratively.

When somebody comes to us for assistance it is recorded. Then when they go and

get their first cheques it is almost like double recording for the first month.

So there is some confusion because that is administrative figures.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, well straighten me out. Has

there been an increase in social assistance recipients in the last year of 10

per cent which we have been told time and again or has there not?

MS. YOUNG: Well if you looked at the double

figures, they would be up to about 37,000. So you are safe to say they are up by

about 2,000.

MR. HARRIS: From last year?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Which is not quite 10 per cent. I

don't understand your explanation and I am not going to ask you to explain it

again but -

MS. YOUNG: February's figures are actually down

and there are a couple of things that come to play with February's figures. I

was pleasantly surprised that our numbers were down a little bit in February,

but because the month is shorter, there may have been a pay period that was not

calculated in there that normally would have on a thirty-one day month. The

other thing as well is that -

MR. HARRIS: That doesn't change the caseload.

MS. YOUNG: Oh yes, it would. It wouldn't change

the caseload but it would change the numbers -

MR. HARRIS: Isn't the caseload the number of

people receiving social assistance?

MS. YOUNG: The number of people that we had in

our February figures, without any double counting, straightforward figures, the

number is 35,472.

WITNESS: Based on the number of transactions

(inaudible)?

MS. YOUNG: That's based on the number of

transactions - not transactions, based on the number of individuals, because the

transactions would have been entered in twice -

WITNESS: (Inaudible) hired.

MR. HARRIS: But surely it doesn't matter

whether you pay him once, twice or five times, it is only one person on social

assistance, your caseload doesn't increase, does it? Anyway, I won't get into

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your ten minutes are up but there

is one thing I want to mention. Normally we break at 8:30 for coffee, if the

indication is that we are not going on until 10:00, we could probably forego the

coffee break and carry on, that's one suggestion that I might make to you.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Let's have a coffee break.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will break for ten

minutes.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

We will get back to our meeting and will go to Mr.

Fitzgerald.

Mr. Fitzgerald, it is your turn.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have three, quick questions and then I am going

to do an exit.

I would just like to follow up on what the Member for

St. John's East was saying. I am not sure if I completely understood the

minister when she said that, depending on the number of days in the month, it

would change the caseload? I can't understand how that can happen. I can

understand how it can happen as far as change pay periods and change monies and

that kind of thing but I can't understand how it would change the number of

caseloads.

MS. YOUNG: I am going to ask one of my officials

to answer that.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

MR. PECKFORD: We record, in a given month, the

number of cases on social assistance. Now, there is a fluctuation in the cases

on social assistance every month for a whole variety of reasons. People come and

go and in a given year - well, in 1994, there were actually 51,000 families who

received social assistance at one time or another during the year, so the total

number of different families for the year of '94 was 51,000; so in a given

month, depending upon the length of the month, when we take the count at the end

of that month, if it is February like it was recently, in twenty-eight days,

that shows that at the end of February, the caseload was lower than if February

had been three days longer, because there would be three additional days for

people to start coming under the caseload.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is totally confusing to me

anyway. I won't take up time with it. 5.1.03, Minister, page 298; at the bottom

of 5.1.03 it shows federal revenue, $633,000, that was budgeted in 1994-1995. It

was revised to $452,000, and this year it is $352,500. Does that mean that we

didn't spend just about $200,000 of monies that was directed from the federal

government for community services?

MS. YOUNG: I'm going to pass that to one of my

officials to give you the answer. That is page 298, 5.1.03. Federal revenue went

down from the budget of $633,000 to $452,000. That was in salaries. The drop

there was in salaries, transportation and communication, supplies.

MR. FITZGERALD: The question I'm asking is -

MS. YOUNG: Yes, I know -

MR. FITZGERALD: - since this is federal money, why

would we have allowed, or did we allow, $200,000 not to be spent when there is a

great need out there as we all know for salaries and whatever.

MR. PECKFORD: I apologize for the delay there, I

wasn't paying attention at first. I understand your question now, I think.

Monies expended in this particular area, some are cost-shared and some aren't.

Some are eligible under the Canada Assistance Plan and some aren't. The

allocation that we get from the federal government is based upon how much we

spend. They don't provide an allocation from which we spend. We spend and then

claim back. There are no federal monies lapsed as such. They share 50-50 in the

eligible expenses under that area, eligible costs under that area. If we spend

$100 eligible they will refund us $50; if we spend $200 eligible they will

refund us $100. The amount of federal revenue is directly related to what we

spend.

MR. FITZGERALD: So actually we lost $100,000 there

instead of approximately $200,000, is what you are saying?

MS. YOUNG: Not lost. In the -

MR. FITZGERALD: Or we didn't spend.

MS. YOUNG: No. Again, as Mr. Peckford has

indicated to you, if we had budgeted for $5 million and we had spent the full $5

million they would have refunded $2.5 million to us.

MR. FITZGERALD: But the $633,000 was directed from

the federal government?

MS. YOUNG: No, it wasn't directed, it was just

estimated that if we spent $1,344,900 and half of that - because not all of the

items there were eligible under the cost-shared program - if we had spent all

that then they would have given us that much. But we only spent - we don't go

out and try to spend money.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is still going to cost you

money because it is not an outright dollar for dollar, is it?

MS. YOUNG: No, no. They don't refund the total

amount to us. They would only give us 50 per cent. So the more we spend -

MR. FITZGERALD: The more it is going to cost you.

MS. YOUNG: - it is still an expense to us.

MR. FITZGERALD: One other question before I do

have to leave, Madam Minister. There is a fair amount of money still there in

your budget to encourage people to go to work and do meaningful things, to get

them off Social Services and back in the workforce.

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

MR. FITZGERALD: Then, as everybody knows they go

on - instead of 50-50 federal-provincial as they do on Social Services, they go

on 100 per cent federal funding.

There was one project, and I think it was a very good

project, that was approved in my district this past - well, it was three or four

months ago. The project was granted, the document was signed by the Minister of

Natural Resources and by the sponsor of the project. The people were hired, but

at the time that they were hired weather conditions dictated that it wouldn't be

feasible to go ahead and do the silviculture project that they had planned to

do.

A couple of days ago they received information that

the funding was cut in half. Instead of the $63,000 that had been directed and

the contract signed and people hired, instead of that money being there now, and

the people were hired through the Department of Social Services, now the rural

development coordinator informs me that they've received notification that

funding is now down to $31,000, and nobody seems to know where it came from or

why.

MS. YOUNG: If you will look on page 297 under

Community Development Projects, under Grants and Subsidies, 5.1.01.10, you will

see $1 million. That was the amount that we turned over to the forestry

silviculture project. I can't answer anything to that. It was an outright grant

from one department to another. It is another minister.

MR. FITZGERALD: So Social Services did not cut

that in half is what you are saying.

MS. YOUNG: No.

MR. FITZGERALD: Because Natural Resources says

that the labour portion was funded by Social Services and that it was Social

Services that cut the funding. I think it was Mr. Roberts who I talked to on

this the other day? You indicated sir at that time that you were going to check

it out. I think you indicated to me at that time that you weren't aware of any

funding being cut by your department.

MR. ROBERTS: No. You may recall I called you back

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: - after I checked on it. As we had

said, we did not cut the money. It is with the forestry branch of Natural

Resources. We weren't sure at the time what they had done, but if the grant was

cut it wasn't because of our department.

MR. FITZGERALD: I wonder why Natural Resources

would take it away.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know.

MS. YOUNG: An issue for another day, yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: An issue for tomorrow. Okay, thank

you, Madam Minister. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

MS. YOUNG: I'm very pleased that you were able to

come along this evening and join us for the questions. They were very good

questions you asked. Any information you've asked for we can certainly get it

for you. Thank you for your input.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. First of all I want to

thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the actual unduplicated

non-administrative real person caseload as opposed to the one that was in what

was tabled in the House today. Maybe I can suggest to your officials, Madam

Minister, that next year they put the real people on the report and save the

administrative ones for telling Treasury Board how much staff you need to handle

all these transactions that your staff is expected to do. That way at least it

wouldn't confuse people like me and the Member for LaPoile trying to figure out

where we are going.

I do see from what we have here - maybe you should

have given the stuff to me today Bruce, on the way over - I do see an actual

increase of almost precisely 10 per cent year over year, 1994 to 1995, February

month, on the caseload, and another 10 per cent in 1993-1994. We do see a

consistency over the last couple of years. Am I right in assuming that the

projection for next year is an additional 10 per cent? Is that correct?

MS. YOUNG: We've budgeted an additional 5 per cent

MR. HARRIS: You are very optimistic.

MS. YOUNG: - within our budget for the increased

caseload. However, we are never certain what the numbers will turn out to be.

MR. HARRIS: So you anticipate that there is a

possibility that 10 per cent is correct? I mean 10 per cent is good, looking

back over the last three years because in '92-'93, the difference was well in

excess of 10 per cent. You have a degree of optimism about the provincial

economy that does not seem to be shared by many others but I take it, from what

you are saying is that if there is more money necessary, it won't be achieved by

reduction in benefits but it would be achieved by obtaining more money from

other sources.

MS. YOUNG: Well again, you have to look at as

well, the number of investigators we have and we are hiring five additional

investigators and the amount that we are looking at, the savings, related to

special investigators will be about $4.5 million. I am sure Mr. Peckford would

like to add something to this one as well.

MR. PECKFORD: We expect as well to incur

additional savings on social assistance in the maintenance area. A project that

we, together with the western region provincial courts, have had this past year,

whereby individuals who wished to secure maintenance order, were permitted to be

represented in court by officials of our department, and was held in the western

region area, including I think, Stephenville, Corner Brook, Deer Lake area. The

experience that we had there resulted in a savings of social assistance in that

area around $800,000 last year, and it's planned now to expand and we will be

hiring five additional persons who will receive training by the Department of

Justice and so forth, to expand that project in other parts of Newfoundland. It

has been very successful in obtaining a lot more maintenance so we are factoring

that into account. In addition, we are hiring six more investigators and based

on their performance in reducing cases of abuse, we also expect to have

additional savings this year above last year, by perhaps another $2 million.

MR. HARRIS: In listening to that figure, and I

accept the department's figures, I would just like to say that if we are looking

at a rate of $2 million saving by having what would appear to be a fairly

extensive investigative system, $2 million in a budget allocation for social

assistance or income support of nearly 200,000 is a very minuscule amount of

abuse; and I say that because I want to be on the record as saying that I don't

believe that our costs of social assistance are running wild because of abuse of

the system. I suspect, if anybody had a serious look at income tax abusers, if

you could find less than 2 per cent abuse in the income tax system you would be

fired immediately, so I just want to go on record as saying that that that is a

remarkably efficient system by having a large number of I think, say fourteen

now, is it, investigators?

MS. YOUNG: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

MS. YOUNG: Thirteen plus five.

MR. HARRIS: Thirteen plus five, eighteen and you

are anticipating an additional $2 million. While it may lead to a more efficient

system, it is not, to me, indicative of a system involving wide-scale abuse.

MS. YOUNG: However, I should point out to you that

there is quite a backlog of cases reported to us that we need to have our

investigators check out. I agree with you that looking at the numbers, certainly

there is not as much abuse as some people would like to think. To hear some

people talk on the streets, it is running rampant; however, as managers of this

department it is our obligation to the taxpayers of this Province to ensure that

the cases of fraudulent activities decrease within (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I hope the department does not

get into - I have a concern that with some of the attitudes being engendered, in

particular by the press and sometimes by Open Line programs and others, that the

reporting anonymously of people to get them into trouble and have investigators

track them down - a lot of that seems to be going on - I hope that the

minister's officials and investigators are following up on legitimate complaints

about realistic problems and not just involved in agents for the harassment of

others by people who have nothing better to do than to cause trouble for their

neighbours. That is just a comment.

Can I ask the minister, with respect to the caseload,

your report tabled in the House today, and I am glad the minister tabled it

today and not tomorrow so that we will have a chance to go through it this

evening - don't make a note for next year, now.

MS. YOUNG: Could I just interrupt for a second?

MR. HARRIS: Sure.

MS. YOUNG: I would like for Mr. Strong to address

the issue I was raising about the 5 per cent increase in our budget, if you

would allow him to do that.

MR. HARRIS: Sure.

MS. YOUNG: It might clarify things for you. He is

better at figures and the finances than I am.

MR. HARRIS: It always comes out of the Chairman,

the ten minutes. I am only kidding; go ahead.

MR. STRONG: The 5 per cent increase in the

caseload that is assumed is an average caseload for the year, so the whole 5 per

cent would not come on, obviously, April 1, at the beginning of a fiscal year,

so there is some room for additional growth in the caseload if you were looking

at it say February, 1996.

MR. HARRIS: It might be 10 per cent over the whole

year, but you do not have to pay for that 10 per cent for the whole year?

MR. STRONG: Exactly.

MR. HARRIS: It is like paying off a loan or

something, if you are paying off a loan over a period of a year, you are only

paying interest on half of it for the full year.

MR. STRONG: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, I understand that; that makes

perfect sense.

In looking at the change in caseload from last year,

the year to year caseload, you report today that there was a 23 per cent

increase in the number of single, able-bodied persons receiving social

assistance at the end of March compared with the previous fiscal year, and

obviously this is partly the result of people being thrown from the UI roles to

the social assistance roles. That seems to me to be a very significant increase,

and rather indicative of very serious problems in the economy. Can you tell us

what percentage of the current caseload of approximately 35,000 would be the

single, able-bodied category, or what percentage or how many, what number?

MS. YOUNG: Right off the cuff I would say 7,000 or

8,000; however, I would have to go and dig out some figures here. Yes, single

able-bodied persons, it is over 6,000; into February it is 12,000. Now is that

duplicated?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MS. YOUNG: Okay. It is 12,067 and that is quite

high.

MR. HARRIS: It is remarkably high, yes.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Peckford just pointed out, it is

the fastest growing component of our caseload.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, that doesn't surprise me. I would

assume also that a single able-bodied person would be also the last person to

knock on your door, if you know what I mean, without work and without resources,

they would have to be in pretty bad shape to come knocking on your door looking

for assistance.

I do note as well that under the regulations

section

9(2) says: Before an officer of the department may grant social assistance to

single able-bodied adults or childless able-bodied couples the minister shall

approve the types and amounts of assistance to be granted. I understand that

while the regulations set the maximum rate for adults at - one adult with no

children at $393 - that the minister, or previous ministers at least, have not

approved amounts to that extent for single able-bodied adults. Could the

minister indicate what the amounts are currently authorized by her to be paid to

single able-bodied persons on social assistance?

MS. YOUNG: I think we are looking at about $88.

Then again, as Mr. Peckford rightfully pointed out, it varies with the type of

living arrangements, the amount of money that we would make available for -

MR. HARRIS: Leaving out the living arrangements

for now, but the amounts for food, clothing, personal care and household

maintenance, et cetera, the $88 would be the lowest figure, I take it. That

would be someone living with a relative I would say.

MS. YOUNG: Yes. I can give you some figures here.

Single able-bodied, board and lodging with relatives, would be $89. Board and

lodging with non-relatives would be $130. These are monthly rates.

MR. HARRIS: Does the minister find that board and

lodging are available at that rate?

MS. YOUNG: I can assure you that a lot of these

people may find it very difficult to avail of board and lodging at that price,

but those are the rates we have set.

MR. HARRIS: Those rates haven't changed then, I

take it, from when these matters were raised in the House in the last couple of

years. Can the minister advise why these rates would be paid to people because

they are able-bodied, as it were, as opposed to having some disability? Is the

expectation that by paying this low a rate that there would be an incentive for

them to work or find a job? Is that the idea?

MS. YOUNG: There are a number of factors, I guess,

financial restrictions being one. The other is that these people are more mobile

than people who have dependants, so the opportunities for these people to move

and seek seasonal employment in other parts of the country, or indeed anywhere

in the world, are probably more of a possibility than somebody who has a family,

a spouse and children.

MR. HARRIS: So this is a deterrent to people

staying in Newfoundland. It is potentially so.

MS. YOUNG: No, it is not and -

MR. HARRIS: You don't want to make things too

comfortable for them.

MS. YOUNG: I beg your pardon?

MR. HARRIS: You don't want to make things too

comfortable for them here.

MS. YOUNG: It doesn't matter where you live, there

is only a certain amount of money to go around. These people are able to move

from one part of the Province to another. Not necessarily move out of the

Province, but they are mobile and can move anywhere.

MR. HARRIS: The assumption of course being that

you can move somewhere where there is work, either within or without the

Province. The fact that there are now 12,000 as opposed to - if that is an

increase of 20 per cent, that means there were only 8,000 last year, or is my

math wrong on that. Maybe 9,000 this time last year, 9,000 or 10,000. The fact

that people are so desperate that they would come and knock on your door, your

workers' doors, to receive these pittances of money that they can't possibly

survive on, must mean that they are very desperate. Would you agree?

MS. YOUNG: I would have to say to you that I guess

each one who comes is an individual and his or her circumstances may be

different. Some may live in families where the parents or siblings or whatnot

can provide an additional amount for them to live on. As well, these people have

an allowable income of I think it is $91 a month in addition to this. If they go

out and they work and make $91 there is no claw back.

MR. HARRIS: That applies to the single

able-bodieds, does it?

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. How does that work when you work

your way up the system? A single able-bodied who receives either one of these

allowances can earn an additional $91 without losing any of that. What happens

to the ninety-second dollar? Does he lose the whole dollar or - he loses the

whole dollar, not half of it, the whole dollar.

MS. YOUNG: Not fifty cents, he loses a dollar.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. What about others? What are the

formulas for others on social assistance?

MS. YOUNG: If you are looking at a childless

couple...?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, well....

MS. YOUNG: Do you want to take that?

MR. HARRIS: Are there different formulas for

different categories?

MS. YOUNG: Single able-bodied and childless

couples, there is board and lodging with relatives, $183.

MR. HARRIS: No, I'm not looking for the rates, I'm

just looking for the formula for additional income.

MS. YOUNG: Oh yes, okay. If you have two adults I

think the amount is somewhere about $181 a month.

MR. HARRIS: So that $91 figure is throughout the

system. If you were on social assistance for reasons other than unemployment you

still might be able to get a job and earn a few dollars.

MS. YOUNG: Oh yes.

MR. HARRIS: Is that $91 figure the figure

throughout the range?

MS. YOUNG: Approximately.

MR. HARRIS: I don't have very many more questions,

Minister. I take it there is no hope of increasing those amounts. You don't

anticipate increasing those amounts this year?

MS. YOUNG: Unfortunately that is the case. I think

that each and every one of us here would be delighted if the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board came and said: Look, you can increase the amount to families

right across the board, and single able-bodied people included in that. However,

throwing money at a situation is not the answer either. I think we have to work

with people and try to get them into thinking of completing school, getting into

training, and encouraging people to at least be prepared. I'm ever hopeful that

the employment situation will improve and we will have more people working.

We also have to look at as well the CAP restrictions.

The amount of money that people were able to make before there was a claw back

was dictated to us by CAP regulations as well. I forgot to point that out to

you. We could have said: Yes, you can make $500 but we couldn't because of CAP

regulations.

MR. HARRIS: I want to move to vote 4.1.01 on page

293, Minister. The Estimates for Day Care Services show an amount very similar

to that which was actually spent last year. I do note that the federal revenue

has increased by nearly $300,000 over last year which is significant in the $3

million allocation but I don't see an increase in the total amount to be voted

for that. Can you tell us why or how the federal amount increased by $300,000

and why the Province did not match that increase, an increase of the total vote

for day care services?

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Strong is going to address that

one.

MR. STRONG: The likely cause of that would be a

(inaudible) adjustment.

MR. HARRIS: There is no change in the formula, the

grant program or anything like that?

MR. STRONG: No, it would be a (inaudible)

adjustment, that happens in a number of the activities. Sometimes when the

particular vote is audited we find some things that might be shareable that we

did not think were shareable and sometimes the deal goes the other way too.

MR. HARRIS: Just a follow up question on that

minister - the minister repeated the rhetorical phrase about not throwing money

at problems, people or things. This is one area, in terms of day care and family

support services, where money can be very, very well spent to assist families to

resolve problems for example or obtain training or other types of activities

which improve their employability as well as make the transition - and I think

this is a matter I would like to ask the minister to provide a general answer on

- to make the transition from social assistance to the job market, if that is

possible, despite the tough economy and the unemployment situation. Obviously

there is a turnover in jobs, there are jobs available and people can make those

moves.

One of the biggest problems that people have who are

on social assistance, who would like to get off, is they cannot make that leap,

if they earn more then ninety-one dollars they lose dollar for dollar. So there

is not much of an incentive to work beyond ninety-one dollars, I guess. You have

to earn a lot of money more then you are getting on social assistance to be able

to make the jump and besides you lose part of the net. If you have kids you

might lose your drug card. If you have day care expenses or child care expenses

that is obviously an additional expense that you cannot afford. So you have to

have a good job. It is no good having a minimum wage job. A minimum wage job

will not earn you enough money to get you off welfare, it is as simple as that.

It may call for an increase in the minimum wage and that is a different issue

but what about programs that help people to make that step? Can you tell us what

programs your department has that provide either an incentive, a cushion or some

way of helping people make the transition from a social assistance recipient to

a participant in the workforce?

MS. YOUNG: If you look under day care services it

says that this subsidy is eligible to families requiring day care services for

reasons related to employment/training in payment of day care service of the

children in families on social assistance where child development needs exist.

Unfortunately, I am not even sure what is going to happen with the federal level

either. There were some thoughts that there would be some monies put in for

child care and so forth and so on. Just today I was reading some correspondence

and we are still wondering where that is in the federal scheme of things as

well. I do agree with you that it is very difficult to make that transition from

social services to employment, especially single parents, and even families with

small children - I can relate to that - but unfortunately this is the amount of

money that we have to spend.

MR. HARRIS: I realize that is all you have there,

but do we have any other programs? If your department is going to continue to

keep people on social assistance because they cannot make the jump, would it not

make sense to develop programs that might cost a little bit of money now but if

we get somebody into productive employment it would be worth that. I am just

wondering, are there other programs? Do you have any plans? Are there any

projects (inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: If you look under 5.1.02, Employment

Enhancement Initiatives, there are some allowances there as well that we could

help out in these situations.

MR. HARRIS: Any thought of changing your $91

formula to provide a little graduated situation so that there is a bit of an

incentive to earn more than $91?

MS. YOUNG: Actually, I am glad you asked that

because we are talking with the federal government with regard to the CAP

regulations, because prior to this point in time what we did and the amount of

dollars we could access back from the federal government that are cost shared

dictated some of these things to us, and if we spent more, of course, we were

expected to pick up 100 per cent if we went outside of their regulations. So I

am very hopeful that some of the discussions we are having with the federal

level would enable us to do that, and I think that would be a great step

forward.

MR. HARRIS: Well, it certainly looks like the feds

are prepared to be flexible. My concern is they are prepared to let go of the

whole control of the thing and we may end up worse off.

MS. YOUNG: We also have $1.6 million on page 298

under Strategic Initiatives, and these are programs as well, like graduate

employment and strategic self-employment initiatives as well, and we are very

hopeful that these will provide meaningful training related work.

MR. HARRIS: How is that administered? I noticed

that earlier and it is $1.6 million that is new; it was not in the budget last

year. Is that administered through your department? How does it work? How do

individuals participate? Is there a brochure on the program?

MS. YOUNG: Oh, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Can that be made available, some

detail as to how that program works and how individuals can access it?

MS. YOUNG: Certainly, Terry Stapleton in our

department -

MR. HARRIS: No, I wonder if the minister would

undertake to obtain me something more significant on that.

MS. YOUNG: Sure.

MR. HARRIS: Similarly, and this will be my last

question -

MS. YOUNG: Could I just point out, the Province

has $10 million for strategic initiatives, and this is between our department,

education, employment and labour, and also with HRDC.

MR. HARRIS: It is hard to tell from looking at

this whether this is something that an individual can apply for or whether this

is money that would help the department make plans for things, and I would like

to know the answer to that.

MS. YOUNG: I will certainly get the information.

MR. HARRIS: Would the minister or your officials

provide me with a list of the appropriations to community agencies spelled out

for that are voted in 4.3.04 on page 296, grant funding to a number of agencies

that serve the physically disabled?

MS. YOUNG: Certainly.

MR. HARRIS: And vote 4.2.03, "...grant funding to

various agencies and volunteer organizations that provide services and support

to developmentally delayed individuals."

MS. YOUNG: Certainly.

MR. HARRIS: Also, 4.1.03, "...community-based

organizations... in... counselling and diversion services...."

MS. YOUNG: They are available in our report.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about we move the subheads?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we do that I have some -

AN HON. MEMBER: Subheads.

MR. CHAIRMAN: - housekeeping.

MR. RAMSAY: Before you do your housekeeping I have

just one quick question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've heard that all night, just one

quick question.

MR. RAMSAY: If you were a better chairman maybe we

wouldn't have the problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: Anyway, I just want to know, and I

want it on the record, what a family with two children can possibly receive in

social assistance and all other sources. Namely the federal amount that they

would receive in child allowance, or what has succeeded the family allowance. I

just want to know what their monthly income would be in total including that.

Because I know you are not allowed to use that in your calculations of social

assistance but the family receives it. I would like to have it on the record,

what the amount, the monthly income is for two children, a husband and wife, and

they can receive drug cards et cetera, all the way, the whole thing.

MR. HARRIS: Below the poverty level though.

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Just on that, to what the hon. member

says. According to Stats Canada figures an MHA's basic salary is below the

poverty level, so it is irrelevant. Anyway, go ahead.

MS. YOUNG: I'm anxious to get to the housekeeping

because if he does a good job I'm going to ask him to come down and clean up my

apartment.

The regular amount, the basic amount, would be about

$618. Then there would be an allowable amount of about $372 for either rent or

mortgage.

MR. RAMSAY: That is on top of that, right?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, on top of that. Then you would

look at a drug card. Now that would vary, how much money you would spend there.

Again, if need arose, where you needed new furnishings or where an appliance

gave out and it was an essential appliance, that could be provided. If there is

need of transportation, like to get you to a specialist or whatever, that could

be provided. As well, if the children are of school age the school books would

be paid for. If an emergency arises we will -

MR. RAMSAY: Medical or otherwise?

MS. YOUNG: Yes, medical or otherwise, if something

happens and there is an emergency. On top of that, if you are living on the

Island, the fuel allowance.

MR. RAMSAY: An extra $50.

MS. YOUNG: An extra $51. I think $51, isn't that

the correct figure? If you are living in Labrador it is $91.

MR. RAMSAY: Ninety-one dollars in Labrador.

MS. YOUNG: Let me just think now. Then there is

the family allowance.

MR. RAMSAY: How much is that for a family -

MS. YOUNG: What would that be right now?

MR. RAMSAY: - with two children under the age of

seven?

MS. YOUNG: We are all too old for this. Ask Jack.

MR. RAMSAY: No, I can tell you - I don't mind it

being on the record, it is a matter of public - I receive, with four children,

some $300-plus.

MS. YOUNG: Twelve hundred dollars a year per

child.

MR. RAMSAY: Twelve hundred dollars per child.

MS. YOUNG: So you are looking at two children,

$200.

MR. RAMSAY: So that is $200 more per month.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, $200 more a month.

MR. RAMSAY: So that is $1,190 a month plus the

fuel allowance in the winter, so they receive $1,241 a month.

MS. YOUNG: And the GST rebate.

MR. RAMSAY: They get that back too.

MS. YOUNG: Sure.

MR. HARRIS: About one-quarter of an MHA's salary.

MR. RAMSAY: No, I wasn't saying that we make the

same. What I was saying though is that if you use what they determine to be the

poverty level -

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. RAMSAY: - in Canada poverty is considered

anything under $52,000 I think it is for a family of four. Something like that.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: It depends on geographic locations.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) poverty don't work.

MR. RAMSAY: Alright, and I wasn't saying it is

not. But I am just saying that is the amount that is available.

MS. YOUNG: I'm glad you asked that question, you

know, because quite often the general public will say - for an average family, I

think most people quote $500-and some odd dollars, so in actual fact it is a

little bit more. It is still not a great amount, but if you look at somebody who

is working for minimum wage -

MR. RAMSAY: A person working for minimum wage

against that, compared to the person with a family of four would be making $4.75

an hour for forty hours -

MR. HARRIS: That argues in favour of an increase

in the minimum wage, I am afraid.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, but if you look at it, it comes

out to about, I think, take home for a single person would be probably about

$190 -I made out cheques for summer students when I managed the books at the

farm, and I think it comes out to less than $200.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay, that is all I have. I move that

we adopt the minutes of the previous meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would somebody move last night's

Minutes?

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.2.01, carried.

On motion, Department of Social Services, total heads,

carried.

MS. YOUNG: I just want to say thank you very much

to my officials. I have had them working with me over the past few days and into

the evenings preparing for my first Budget Estimates, and I want to thank them

very, very much. As well, it is certainly a pleasure having my own colleagues,

even if they are of another party, it is still great.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister. If it wasn't

for Mr. Ramsay's short question we would have been out of here by about 9:30

p.m.

On motion, Committee adjourned.