May 12, 1992 SOCIAL

SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE - SOCIAL SERVICES

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Kevin Aylward,

M.H.A., Stephenville substitutes for Mr. James Walsh, M.H.A., Mount Scio - Bell

Island; Mr. Douglas Oldford, M.H.A., Trinity North substitutes for Mr. Walter

Noel, M.H.A., Pleasantville; and Harold Small, M.H.A., Baie Verte - White Bay

substitutes for Mr. John Efford, M.H.A. (Port de Grave).

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Acting) (Ramsay): Order, please!

My name is Bill Ramsay. I will be filling in for

Walter Noel, the Chair of the Committee, who is in Vancouver right now, as I

understand it, working on behalf of the government.

There are a few other replacements, Elizabeth, if

you would note them for the record. We have Kevin Aylward replacing Jim Walsh.

Doug Oldford is replacing either John Efford or Walter Noel, one or the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: He is replacing Walter, and

Harold Small is replacing John Efford.

MS. VERGE: Garfield Warren is missing in

action. I think there will be a replacement. I am not sure, though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is about all. The paper has

been filed with the Clerk and everything is in order, I think, Elizabeth.

This morning, we have just one piece of business

prior to dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Social Services, and

that is the Minutes of the Social Services Estimates Committee of May 5.

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I welcome the Minister of Social

Services and his officials here this morning. It is the minister's first

appearance before the Committee in his new capacity. I will now allow you,

Minister, if you would like, to make some opening comments about the department

with reference to the Estimates. After that we will get into some questioning.

MR. GULLAGE: Firstly, I would like to introduce

the staff who are with me: at my right, Bruce Peckford, Deputy Minister; Noel

Browne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Client Services; and Dave Roberts, Assistant

Deputy Minister, Finance and Support Services. Jim Strong will be joining us

shortly. He is the Director of Finance.

I don't have any formal opening comments to make,

really. I just look forward to your questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will just explain first-hand

that we will go on a ten-minute basis back and forth, similar to what we have

done before.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Welcome Minister, and officials from

Social Services.

I would like to begin by asking you to table, for

the Committee, for our consideration during the morning's hearing, statistics

for the social assistance caseload, the financial assistance caseload, for the

present and also for intervals over the previous three years.

When I asked this question to your predecessor

three years ago, in the spring of 1989, he checked and replied that the

financial assistance caseload then was $19,631. My understanding is that it has

grown astronomically since then, unfortunately. So I would like the total

financial assistance caseload for the present, as well as for intervals,

recognizing seasonal fluctuations over the previous three years. I would like

the totals categorized. I am not sure how you keep your statistics, but I will

ask for groupings by age and by sex. In other words, I gather each case in your

'caseload' represents a family unit, some family units being headed by two

parents, other family units being headed by a single parent, and other family

units consisting of simply one person. I would like the number of single parents

--- BREAK IN TAPE --- indicating how many are single mothers, and finally, a

breakdown by geographic region. I understand your department has - what is it? -

seven -

MR. GULLAGE: Five.

MS. VERGE: - five administrators for regional

units. Do you keep the statistics by each of those five regions?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, well stats would come in from

the regions would they not? They would come in regionally. One of the problems

we have, of course, is that we are presently not totally computerized. We are in

the process now of computerizing all the offices. Stats are not that easily

available when you are not computerized, but we will provide you with that

information. I am not sure if we can do it in the context of the next few hours

though.

MS. VERGE: Well, I will ask for whatever is

available now this morning, and additional detail as soon as it can be compiled.

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, the last three years. You

said 1989 was provided to you, so you are talking about 1990-1991 and current?

MS. VERGE: Yes, so that we can relate current

statistics with the past.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Now, the last time that the

Opposition asked for these statistics they were produced promptly by one of the

previous ministers. I think the last minister to table them in the House of

Assembly was Bill Hogan when he was minister, which was only for a short time,

and my impression is that the department's record-keeping had improved quite a

bit.

While I am asking for statistics, I would like

statistics for the present, and again, for the previous three years, for the

child welfare caseload, the number of children in the care and custody of the

Director of Child Welfare presently and in the past, a breakdown by age, by sex,

an indication of the reasons for each of the children being in the custody of

the Director of Child Welfare, and geography, whatever is available readily this

morning and additional detail later.

For years, officials in Child Welfare and Justice

have acknowledged the need to revise the Child Welfare Act. There was a draft

prepared probably five to eight years ago. When the government changed three

years ago, the first Wells Administration minister, John Efford, told me that he

was going to have the revised act before the House of Assembly that fall. We

still haven't seen a draft bill. We have a Social Legislation Review Committee,

and at that Committee, of which I am vice-chair, I keep asking about it. I

haven't even been given a precise answer about where it is in the system now.

The Hughes Report recommendations call for specific amendments to the Child

Welfare Act and none of those should come as any surprise because what Hughes

says had been said by many people over the previous several years.

Two changes are acutely needed. One is dealt with

by Hughes and that is an improvement of the reporting requirement and offence

provisions of the act, and another is a provision to close the gap between the

ages of sixteen and eighteen. Young people between those two ages fall through

the cracks; they are too young to be treated as children and too old to be

treated as adults and there is no guarantee of service.

Now, the Opposition has said previously, last year,

I know for sure, that we will co-operate by having those amendments passed

without any delay, and I would like to ask the minister if he will bring before

the House of Assembly this spring, this month of May, 1992, the critically

needed amendments to the Child Welfare Act with the understanding that the

Official Opposition will co-operate in seeing that those amendments are passed

speedily so that they can be enforced for the summer and children be left

unprotected no longer because of the deficiencies in the act.

If the minister needs more time for the master

revision of the whole act, then that can be done later in 1992 or 1993 or

whenever.

My question is, will the minister bring before the

House of Assembly this month, the amendments to the Child Welfare Act that are

badly needed, including the two that I have highlighted, and have them passed

and proclaimed in force this spring and not procrastinate any longer? We have

been talking about the need to do this for too long and the time for talking is

over, now we need to act.

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, the status of the act - and

you are quite right, of course, the revision of that act has been ongoing for

some time. It is in process now, it is in consideration by government. I cannot

promise that it would be in the House before the end of this session, I would

like to think it might, but the fact of the matter is we do have to deal with

the Hughes recommendations, and whether government is able to act upon the

changes to the Child Welfare Act in relation to the Hughes report in time for

this session of the House is hard for me to predict right now.

MS. VERGE: Will you, as a minister, ask the

Cabinet to bring a bill with amendments to the Child Welfare Act before the

House this month?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, it is a matter of timing. If

that is possible, yes.

MS. VERGE: But, obviously, it is possible. I

mean, you have had the bloody Hughes report for a year. People have been talking

about the need to amend the act to look after young people between the ages of

sixteen and eighteen for years. Every now and then we hear of a tragic case and

there are some news stories and people who pay lip service to the need to close

that gap through a Legislative amendment, and then nothing is done.

MR. GULLAGE: All I can say is that there is no

major impediment that I can identify in terms of process because we have pretty

well dealt with the revisions. As you said, some of them were already in

progress prior to the Hughes recommendations coming down, and were under

consideration, anyway, in the revisions to the act. So it really is just a

matter of whether or not government can make decisions and we can finalize a

recommendation to the House in time for this session. I will do my best to

accomplish that, that is all I can tell you.

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

for right now. We will get back to you again later.

MS. VERGE: Could we have an indication of when

we will get at least some of the statistics for financial assistance and child

welfare? Will we get some of them within the next half-hour so that we can

examine them?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, can we produce some of

those?

AN HON. MEMBER: I think so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will go to Mr. Harris after

that.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Mr. Tobin is here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a note for the record, while

the minister is conferring with his officials, that Mr. Tobin, the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, is here replacing Mr. Warren. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) letter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Without the credentials, it will

just be by leave, I guess, of the Committee. Mr. Tobin, I don't think there

would be any problem with that. I don't think any of the members will have a

problem with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, do you have a response

to the final question of Ms. Verge?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes. It is going to be very

difficult to give you the kind of detail that you have asked for with your

question on caseloads over the last three years. We will start to work on it

right away. I would say it is going to take several days to put together that

kind of detail. We can provide you with information on caseloads as far as the

current status is concerned, I would say, this morning. But to go back the three

years you want is going to take several days. Because of the lack of

computerisation, we really have a problem in coming up quickly with the kind of

detail you have asked for.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Well -

MR. GULLAGE: But we will start working on it

right away and I will have to table it in the House, I would think.

MS. VERGE: Would you be able to give us orally,

now, the current totals, the current financial assistance caseload?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will be with you in a minute,

Mr. Harris.

MR. GULLAGE: As of the end of March, which is

our latest stat here, it is 28,129; that includes the 531 refugees.

MS. VERGE: That is about a 50 per cent increase

in the last three years.

MR. GULLAGE: From 1989, the figure you quoted

of 19,000? Yes, that's right, it is about a 50 per cent increase if that 19,000

figure is right.

MS. VERGE: It is here in Hansard. John Efford

gave it to me three years ago.

MR. GULLAGE: Okay.

MS. VERGE: It was March of 1989, actually. He

was answering the question in June, but the figures were March.

MR. GULLAGE: Just to give you further on that,

we will go back a little bit here to April of 1991 - which is a year ago from

that last figure of March of this year - when it was 24,442. So since April of

1991 to March of this year, we are up from 24,442 to 28,129 - 3,800 or so. So,

yes, there is no question, it is increasing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. John's East.

Mr. Harris, if you want to start your line of questioning.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to welcome the

minister and his officials to the Committee. This morning, I have a number of

issues I want to discuss, but this round, I want to look first of all at some

child welfare issues.

I know that Ms. Verge has requested the minister to

supply the social assistance caseload to the Committee, and we have a

preliminary figure there now. One of the areas, of course, that the Hughes

Commission inquired into and looked at was the child welfare caseload of

individual workers. I wonder can the minister provide, or undertake to provide

to the Committee, as soon as possible, the current situation with respect to the

caseload that individual social workers are handling, particularly a child

welfare caseload.

MR. GULLAGE: We will have to get those stats

for you and provide that as well. Social workers, by individual worker - per

worker, that is what you want, is it?

MR. HARRIS: Yes. There should be some - I guess

it is probably worked out on averages. There is a methodology used in The Hughes

Report to look at the issue of caseload, and it was revealed to the Committee

that compared to other provinces, the caseload of social workers here was very

high, and the commission recommended that be modified. I just want to know where

the department is right now.

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, we will undertake to get

those figures for you.

MR. HARRIS: Now, in the child welfare field,

can the minister identify in the Estimates, areas where there would be people

involved in child welfare, as such? We see under the heading 3.1 on page 188, an

administration program for child welfare, providing a staff of twelve.

MR. GULLAGE: I am sorry. Where did you say it

was?

MR. HARRIS: At page 188 of the Estimates. I am

sorry. I am looking at the Departmental Salary Details, page 188. That shows a

staff complement of twelve positions in administration.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, okay.

MR. HARRIS: Is there delivery of services? Can

that be identified separately or is that, generally speaking, under Client

Services on the previous page?

MR. GULLAGE: The deputy can speak to that. He

is probably more aware of that detail. Go ahead.

MR. PECKFORD: The 3.1 item on page 188, Child

Welfare Administration, the twelve positions there are the twelve positions we

have at headquarters, which are the program development staff associated with

child welfare.

The actual social workers who carry out the child

welfare program are, as you indicated, on the previous page, involved in client

services.

We have only one office in the Province which deals

exclusively with child welfare issues, and that is the child protection unit

here in St. John's, so all of the staff in that office would be involved in

child welfare-related activity. The remaining offices have social workers, some

which have exclusive child welfare caseloads, and others which have mixed

caseloads. That varies with the office.

MR. HARRIS: Would you be able to say how many

social workers are employed in exclusively child welfare issues? The child

protection unit you spoke of - you say some are exclusively child welfare, some

are mixed. Do you have a figure as to how many would be involved in child

welfare exclusively?

MR. PECKFORD: In the child protection unit it

is forty-eight.

MR. GULLAGE: That's dedicated exclusively to

child welfare.

MR. TOBIN: The way it should be.

MR. HARRIS: The child protection is

forty-eight.

MR. PECKFORD: At the child protection unit.

MR. HARRIS: And then, in the regional offices

there are also some who are exclusively child welfare?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: You can't give us a figure at the

moment.

MR. PECKFORD: No.

MR. HARRIS: Okay.

MR. PECKFORD: I would mention though, if I

could elaborate, that the child protection unit has a specific office that

carries exclusively one program, i.e., child welfare versus the mixed caseload

that is occurring in other offices. It is being evaluated now to determine its

appropriateness as an organizational delivery option.

MR. HARRIS: In addition, there are eighteen

positions under client services for child management specialists. What would be

their qualifications?

MR. PECKFORD: Child management specialists are

not necessarily professional social workers. They would be positions which would

assist, in the main, families with children and could be related to child

welfare, but where families need assistance in looking after their children at

home, to provide services to children who are still remaining in their own

homes.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they are disabled.

MR. PECKFORD: Often disabled.

MR. HARRIS: Are these considered social work

positions?

MR. PECKFORD: Technically, no.

MR. HARRIS: Could you tell us, of the 801

positions the department has, how many are, in fact, social work positions?

MR. GULLAGE: How many are BSWs?

MR. HARRIS: No, how many are social workers.

MR. GULLAGE: How many are social workers per

se.

MR. HARRIS: Well, you have clerk stenos,

program co-ordinators, switchboard operators and homemakers.

MR. PECKFORD: About 400.

MR. HARRIS: About 400?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: That's of the permanent staff

complement of - in addition to that are there -

MR. PECKFORD: No, that would be total social

worker positions.

MR. GULLAGE: Some are temporary in there.

MR. PECKFORD: Some are temporary, some

permanent, it would be 400.

MR. HARRIS: But there are 801 staff complement

approved positions.

MR. PECKFORD: Permanent.

MR. HARRIS: Permanent, yes.

MR. PECKFORD: We have a lot of temporary

positions. Some of the social worker positions are filled by employees who do

not have BSWs, and they would be temporaries at this stage.

MR. GULLAGE: Termed as temporary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not all of them.

MR. GULLAGE: Not all of them, no.

MR. PECKFORD: We have 266 permanent.

MR. HARRIS: You have 266 permanent social

workers in social work positions. The difference between that and 400 is 134.

Are these temporary positions, or are they permanent positions that are filled

temporarily?

AN HON. MEMBER: The latter.

MR. HARRIS: The latter. These are only filled

temporarily because they don't have BSWs. Perhaps some one should explain to me

- it looks like my time in this round is running out - but the 800 positions of

permanent nature, and let's never mind who is filling them so far, is it 400 of

these that are, in fact, social work positions by your estimation?

MR. GULLAGE: No, because some of the 400 were

temporary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: The 800 category is all full-time

isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: The 800 is all full-time social

workers and full-time back up support if you like. Is that right?

MR. HARRIS: Do we ever get beyond 800? Is 800

the maximum number of people you have in your department, temporary, permanent,

part-time, the whole business?

MR. GULLAGE: No. No, because you have to add

temporary to the permanent.

MR. HARRIS: Alright, what I am saying is you

have 800 positions listed here in the approved positions, the departmental

salary estimates. Of those 800 positions, regardless of who is filling them at

the moment, how many of them would be considered social work positions? In other

words, performing social work as opposed to administrative, clerical, or

managerial functions?

AN HON. MEMBER: The listing that you are

referring to here shows 800 permanent positions. We have much more positions in

total than 800 in the department, probably around 1,100 total.

The listings that we were referring to here shows

266 permanent social workers. As we have already said, the actual number of

social workers on the front line is around 400. So the comparison of the social

workers to the total staff of the department would be somewhere in the vicinity

of 400 to 1,100.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are talking about social

workers verses BSW's verses staff. I think that is what you're saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but I am finding it a bit

difficult to follow myself.

MR. HARRIS: If I could follow up on this for a

moment. There is a point to all this which I think the minister is aware of from

previous discussions, but in addition to the 800 permanent positions, there

about 300 temporary positions that you have at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is correct.

MR. HARRIS: And of the whole 1,100, 400 of

these positions are what you are calling social work positions in that -

MR. GULLAGE: Social works positions that are

either permanent or temporary.

Two hundred and sixty six of which are in the

full-time category, if you like, of 800.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the permanent category.

MR. GULLAGE: In the permanent category, and 134

or 136, whatever the difference is there, is in the temporary category, the 300

balance, if you like, making up the 1,100.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, your time has run

out. You will have another opportunity after another member. Do you have just

one more question?

MR. HARRIS: I suppose the next question would

have been of those 134 who are now temporary, how many of those would be

grandfathered in by the legislation that is now before the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As soon as they finish answering

we will go to Mr. Aylward for questioning.

MR. GULLAGE: We have about 120 of the 134 that,

if we proceed and finally put grandfathering in place the way we have it in mind

right now, and obviously I can't predict how that particular change is going to

go through the House and so on, but about 120 will be grandfathered as it

presently reads, as we presently propose to do it but that is not finally and

obviously.

MR. HARRIS: Are you saying there are no people

in full-time social work positions who do not have BSWs at the moment?

MR. GULLAGE: Not in the permanent category, no.

MR. HARRIS: So there is nobody there who does

not have a BSW?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, there are, yes, yes, yes.

MR. GULLAGE: Prior to 1985, when the BSW became

the standard, there was a group grandfathered at that time, so they are in that

permanent category.

AN HON. MEMBER: They had a BA in social work

(inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: They had various requirements that

were acceptable as a standard when the BSW was introduced as the new standard if

you like, they were grandfathered in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I have a problem with the numbers

then and it is going to take a little time to deal with it, so I have to defer

until next round, but we were just told that there were 400 social workers and

of the 400, 266 of them had BSWs.

MR. GULLAGE: May I ask the Deputy just to

elaborate a little bit because we are getting into registration of social

workers now as well as the terminology if you like, of full time and part - do

you want to speak to that Bruce?

MR. PECKFORD: At the present time, there is of

course

an act before the House which would lead to mandatory registration of

social workers, at the present time there is a voluntary registration only. From

the department's point of view, there is the manner in which we deal with social

workers and the categories are based upon the classification system.

Now we have social workers in permanent positions

who do not have BSWs. They are longtime employees in the main, who have been

with the department for quite some time. We also have another group of social

workers who have BSWs or MSWs or so forth and then we have a third category who

are in social workers positions who do not have a BSW and they are temporary, so

we have three categories of social workers as the classification system goes,

permanent ones, some have BSWs some don't, and then we have the temporary social

workers who are in social work positions full-time but don't have a BSW.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will now turn it over to

Mr. Aylward now that we have that straightened out somewhat.

Mr. Aylward.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you for the opportunity and welcome to the

minister and his officials.

You have a tough job, Mr. Minister, being Minister

of Social Services at these times is not easy and I know that you have a lot of

things and problems to tackle. There are two or three issues I would like to

just get some information on for my own perspective. One of the things that I

hear a lot when I am talking to different social workers, say for example, in my

office or in the district office or in different district offices in the areas

which I represent, or at least the problems they have had in the past, were,

having time to do their social work and then coming back and writing up the

reports and the administrative type of things.

I know that the department is undertaking to do

some computerization, I have heard something about that but I was just wondering

if you could give us a bit more detail as to where that exactly stands, and what

it would mean to the social worker in the field at the end of the day, in the

sense of the delivery of the service, because there are more things coming out

now in the sense of social issues that these people have to deal with on the

frontline, so it is good to see that this is being done and I just wondered when

you expect it to be able to take full effect and what will it mean to the social

worker at the end of the day, in that sense and then I will come back to a

couple of other things after so I will leave that question with you first.

MR. GULLAGE: Well, one of the ways we are going

to help and assist the problem we have with increasing caseloads is to provide

better support services for our field staff.

We have had a computer project, if you like,

ongoing for some time now in offices in the city in the main, and moving our

paper, if you like, the files, onto a computerized system. We have already seen

the effect of that, I think it is fair to say, in our St. John's offices. That

effect will be seen across the Island as we move to computerize all the district

and regional offices. That is going to take a period of time, obviously. It will

take about two years to complete. I think I am right in saying that - about two

years to complete all the offices where they are fully computerized and linked

into head office here in this building, or in the other building. That will be a

tremendous asset when it is accomplished. It is ongoing now. The process is

started. We have staff from Computer Services in our department, seconded to our

department, working with our financial and computer people. The process has

started to fully computerize all of our field offices.

MR. K. AYLWARD: So hopefully the social worker

will have, for the eight or ten hours that they will spend, much more of the

majority of that time will hopefully be able to be used in the social work area,

in the sense of dealing with the client and dealing with the problem instead of

having to go back and then write things up, which over the years, I think, has

been one of the complaints they have always had, and -

MR. GULLAGE: Well the intent, of course, is to

free up the social worker to do their job as a professional in dealing with the

client, and not have to deal with paper and bureaucracy and red tape and so on.

The other thing that will accomplish, and that we

are constantly preaching, if you like, from the executive side, is to try to

move decision making closer to the client. To accomplish that, we need to free

the social workers, the professionals in the field, from unnecessary detail and

allow them to counsel, consult, and spend more time in interaction, if you like,

with their clients, and give them ability, consequently if they are able to do

that, because only if they are able to do that are they able to make decisions

in the absence of a decision from an executive group or the regional office.

We would like to move decision making as close as

we can to the client, because when you have to go through several levels of

bureaucracy to get a decision, it takes time. That is not professional. It is

not the way we would like to see our professional social workers operate in the

field. We have already made some significant changes, I think. Decision making

is taking place a lot more quickly in the field, and we have allowed them more

authority to make those decisions than I think they have had in the past.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The second issue kind of

related to this would be - I was noting in the estimates that there are

fifty-three regional district offices and there are five regional. As the

department is dealing with a number of the problems, for example, the abuse

cases now that are coming out and so on, cases I have seen pockets of in some

areas. How do you propose to be dealing with that in the future? I don't think

you can put more offices up there because you have as many offices as you can

get geographically, I suppose, in sense of the services. Are you looking at

directing certain services to help in certain areas of the Province depending on

if certain areas have more problems than others in the sense of the different

types of issues?

MR. GULLAGE: Well we do have issues that are

more pertinent in certain areas than in others, and it depends on which division

of the department we are speaking of. But we have, for example, as I found out

yesterday with a lot of the women's issues, a women's lobby attended some

meetings in Gander and there are parts of the Province that have more dominant

issues than others in that area. It is also true in child welfare.

So we do have to try to, as I just mentioned,

coordinate our services and our counselling so that we provide the service that

is needed in a given area of the department and of the region of the Province

identifying where the problem areas are, where we need to concentrate and focus

and make sure we face our staff off against the problem properly. So that is a

challenge, and one that hopefully we are addressing.

MR. K. AYLWARD: And as I see it, you know, with

all the offices that you have geographically when you are located in each of the

areas, it is a matter like you say of trying to direct if there is a specific

problem area, then you can try to direct at least some action to deal with if

there is a bigger problem in one area.

MR. GULLAGE: I don't think there is any

question that there is a need for social workers and other professionals who

work with them to specialize a little more in certain areas of the Province, and

in certain parts of this department if problems are identified that need focus,

you know the generalist or the social worker who deals with a large number of

files in a general way and all sorts of problems right across the whole

department is finding in most cases and in most districts and district offices.

But we are recognizing that there are areas that need focus, and child welfare

is obviously one that we are dealing with and that we have identified, but I

don't want to suggest that is the only one. There may be some others as well. We

need to focus on and concentrate our staff in that direction.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think one of the points is it

is not much good to put up more offices. We have a number of offices. It is a

matter, I suppose, of direction (inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: I think it is more direction and

staff duties and how we coordinate and counsel within those offices. I don't

think the answer is more field offices per se. We always had to be constantly

aware, of course, of where these offices are located in relation to the case

loads and where the work is. But numbers of offices per se is not necessarily

solving the problem.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think that is enough for now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I had a request from Mr.

Tobin if he could ask some questions by leave of the committee. No problem? Mr.

Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was

thinking about getting involved in the discussion that Mr. Harris, my colleague,

was into on the registration of social workers, but I think he is going to get

back to it, so I will leave it to him.

Is the legislation before the House for the

registration of social workers exactly the same legislation in totality that was

agreed upon by the committee that was studying it? Were any changes made by the

final meeting of the committee when they looked at the registration of social

workers until what was presented in the House, did you or some of your senior

people change any wording in that?

MR. GULLAGE: You know the bill that is before

the House is the same bill and the same wording that was agreed to with the

Association of Social Workers. Is that your question?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is my question.

MR. GULLAGE: There have been no changes.

MR. TOBIN: There have been no changes

whatsoever?

MR. GULLAGE: No.

MR. TOBIN: Not a word omitted or changed, not

one?

MR. GULLAGE: Not that we are aware of, only the

change of the name of the association.

MR. PECKFORD: I think that arose in the

committee hearings around the bill that there was a change of name going to be

proposed, yes, but the bill that is there now is the bill that the department

and the Newfoundland Association of Social Workers as it was then, it is now the

Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers. That is the bill that

was agreed to between both parties. The association spoke in support of that at

the Legislative Committee hearing recently.

MR. TOBIN: Did they agree to the two year

period?

MR. PECKFORD: They agreed to everything that

was there.

MR. TOBIN: The word permanent was not omitted

or added? Anyway, I am going to leave that to my colleague for St. John's East,

Mr. Chairman, because I do have a problem, so I can reference back to '88 when

this issue was dealt with as well under the committee for the registration of

social workers, as a matter of fact I have copies of it here. But my question to

the Minister, in a broad sense would be: the budget last year for the Department

of Social Services was $159,460,800; this year it is $154 million, some $5

million less. My question to the minister is, on the backs of which people, who

depend on the Department of Social Services did you reduce the $5 million?

MR. GULLAGE: Our gross budget is actually up.

We do not have last year's figures with us, but we believe it to be $258

million, and assume for the moment that that is reasonably accurate, $258 up to

$280, those are the gross figures. On the net figures, there is a differential

of about $4 million I think you just quoted -

MR. TOBIN: Roughly $259 (inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: - that money is, I think almost

entirely the amount of money that we injected into the system for make-work

projects last year. That is not provided in this budget, and obviously cannot be

provided under revised figures because we do not know where we are going with

the balance of the year, and whether or not another initiative like that may

take place. Assume for a moment that it will not take place, there is $4 million

that the budget is down from last year, because we had that special initiative.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) employment

opportunities?

MR. GULLAGE: I am not sure of the title on it.

Is that what it was called? Emergency Response Program. It is in under

employment opportunities, though.

MR. TOBIN: Well actually the Emergency Response

Program, if you want to look at it that way, from your actual budget last year

was eighteen, but your revised was twenty-two and it is back to sixteen, so

there is still a reduction in the employment opportunities division of your

department. There will be less money to put people to work this year than there

was last year, with the Department of Social Services. My question to the

minister is: Does he anticipate that his caseload will be less this year than it

was last year?

MR. GULLAGE: I am not sure of the relevancy of

that.

MR. TOBIN: You do not have to be concerned

about the relevancy of it.

MR. GULLAGE: No. I am not sure of the question

even.

MR. TOBIN: The question is: If there is less

money for employment opportunities this year than last year, will your caseload

be higher or lower this year than last year, for your people on social

assistance?

MR. GULLAGE: That is a difficult one to answer.

I will let the deputy answer that question.

MR. PECKFORD: In employment opportunities this

year, which is broken down into two or three different categories, the community

development side of it is budgeted at about $400,000 higher than it was budgeted

last year. Of course the revised last year was up to 13.7, which was the

emergency response funding that was injected in October.

The employment enhancement, the $4 million there,

is budgeted the same as previous years. There has been some reduction in the

vocational area, but the community services budget for employment opportunities

is also the same as last year.

MR. TOBIN: If 24,442 was your caseload in March

of 19.., and that instituted an Emergency Response Program, what would you plan

on doing this year with your caseload increased by 4,000 people to 28,000?

MR. GULLAGE: I think the only answer I can give

to that question is that we will have to monitor what is happening with the

caseloads. Government reacted last year. I cannot predict what will happen this

year, but certainly it is something we will have to monitor closely and see what

happens, and whether government is willing to inject dollars as they did last

year.

MR. TOBIN: Okay. I am still not satisfied with

the answer given by you or the deputy as it relates to the reason for the

reduction in the employment opportunities division.

I want to know which area was it? Was it the

employment enhancement initiative, vocational services, or community development

project? Where has the significant cut been in that budget?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, the vocational services

initiative has been cut by almost $3 million. That was a pilot project started

in 1990-1991 -

MR. TOBIN: And what purpose did it serve?

MR. GULLAGE: The funding for that has been

terminated.

MR. TOBIN: What purpose did it serve before?

MR. GULLAGE: Well the purpose was to focus on

the vocational and training side rather than make-work, I think it was fair to

say. That was a pilot project carried out, and not budgeted for this year.

MR. TOBIN: So that was put in place for

training rather than make-work?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: With your caseload increasing, that

$3 million that you took out of vocational training, did that go back into

community development?

MR. GULLAGE: I do not think it did, no. Did

that go back?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not directly.

MR. GULLAGE: Not directly.

MR. TOBIN: Not directly. So what we are saying

is that while the caseload has increased, while there are more people in this

Province being pushed to the rolls of the Department of Social Services by the

lack of economic stimulation by the government, there is less money available

for people to take themselves from the Social Service's rolls and do something

meaningful in society, where there would be work from the make-work projects, or

whatever the case may be. The government and your department have reduced the

budget for that line of work, is that what we are saying?

MR. GULLAGE: Vocational training per se, of

course, as we all know, is something that is being focused on by other

departments of government, Education, Employment and Labour Relations. Also, the

federal government now is changing a lot of their initiatives towards training

versus make-work, if you like. So it is not to suggest that because this project

has not been funded for this year that we are not in vocational training per se.

We are, but it is in other areas of government.

MR. TOBIN: But it is not within your

department, where your caseload this year has increased, so far, by 4,000

people, and yet there is $5 million less in Community Development projects, that

is what we are saying?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: That means there will be more people

who will remain on social assistance than will be on unemployment, or whatever

else. So there will be a greater burden on your department financially, and a

greater burden with respect to the caseload of your social workers, which is

really what I am trying to get at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin, your time has run out.

There is just one point I'd like to -

MR. TOBIN: If I could just get clarification

from the minister of that. What we are saying, and I think the minister

responded to it, is that there is more of a financial burden on your department

as a result of the reductions in the Community Development project. I asked the

question, whether he saw there was a greater caseload, a greater work load, for

your social workers.

MR. GULLAGE: I think it is a little early to

predict that. Our caseloads are going up, we know that.

MR. TOBIN: They are going to be, and those

people who will not go on Community Development will either get work or end up

on unemployment insurance, but will continue to be on your caseload now probably

for a year. So, in your opinion, will that put a greater burden upon the already

overburdened caseloads of social workers?

MR. GULLAGE: I think it is a difficult question

to answer, in the sense that we are not alone in trying to work with the problem

we have of people without work.

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: We have other departments

involved, as I mentioned, and the federal government. So whether or not the lack

of these dollars, as you say, will cause our caseload per worker to increase -

MR. TOBIN: What do you think?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin -

MR. GULLAGE: I think it is too early to

predict, I really do.

MR. TOBIN: You don't think that an additional

caseload?

MR. GULLAGE: I think we do have an increasing

caseload, there's no question. But whether or not that has been exaggerated or

is going to be exaggerated by, the lack of the dollars that are in the Budget,

versus last year, assuming for a moment that we do not inject new dollars as the

year goes on, it is difficult to answer in the sense that we don't know the

impact of programs in other departments and how that might affect our caseload.

MR. TOBIN: The point I am making is that I

think there is a recognition by you and by your senior people, as well as

everyone else involved in social work, is that the social workers of this

Province have a tremendous caseload. As a matter of fact, there are some

statistics relating to the caseloads of social workers in this Province versus

social workers in other provinces, that I am sure you have. If not, I'd be

willing to share.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. So I am asking, if your social

workers were overworked last year with 24,000 on their caseloads receiving

social assistance, and this year there are going to be 28,000, are there any

plans to increase the staff, a complement of social workers? Will your

department be hiring additional social workers?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, first of all, you are

assuming they were overworked last year.

MR. TOBIN: No, I beg to differ, I am not

assuming, I know they were overworked.

MR. GULLAGE: Well, okay, but that is still an

assumption. We are working now, analyzing and trying to define, if you like, the

caseloads - ever-increasing, there is no question, I mean, the stats show that.

MR. TOBIN: So have the complements of social

workers increased.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is happening nationwide, as

well, I guess.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, it is, and I am not sure you

are correct, that word, that far out of line in cases per social worker with

other provinces -

MR. TOBIN: Always was, too, by the way, not

just because you are minister, we have been for some time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Tobin, I hate to cut you

off but I have given some room to move there. The next questioner is Mr.

Oldford.

MR. OLDFORD: I will pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are going to pass? Okay, Mr.

Small? No? Okay. Well, with that, it is back to you, Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: I would like to pick up where Mr.

Tobin just left off and draw attention to two statistics that seem to be at odds

with each other. One is the dramatic rise in the social assistance caseload of

50 per cent over the last three years, an accelerating rate of increase. We use

the figure 28,000 cases for the present, that would be 28,000 families.

MR. GULLAGE: That's right. That is not

individuals.

MS. VERGE: No, we are probably talking about

70,000 or more individuals.

MR. GULLAGE: That includes refugees, too.

MS. VERGE: The other statistic is a $6 million

reduction in spending by Social Services on employment creation and training,

and related to that is a $4 million cut in the estimate for spending on

employment creation by the Department of Employment and Labour Relations. So the

provincial government, in its Budget, is planning on spending more on welfare

and spending less on employment initiatives to get people off the welfare rolls

- people who don't want to be on welfare, people who are healthy, who are able

to work, who want to work, but the government strategy seems to be to simply pay

them dole and not allow them any opportunity or not facilitate any opportunity

for them to work meaningfully. What is the rationale for that strategy? Why is

the government planning to spend more on welfare and less on employment

initiatives?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, you are making that point

but I am not sure it is correct in the sense that we are not the only department

involved in solving the problem, as I said to Mr. Tobin.

MS. VERGE: The other department, the Department

of Employment and Labour Relations, as you will see on page 167 of the

estimates, is forecasting a marked reduction, a reduction of $4 million in

spending on employment creation and training, as is page 192 of the Estimates.

So where else would there be provision for employment creation other than those

two departments, Employment and Labour Relations and Social Services?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, the federal government, as I

said earlier, and the fisheries response program, of course, is an important

component, as well.

MS. VERGE: But the federal government is paying

50 per cent of what the Social Services Department spends through the Canada

Assistance Plan. I mean, as a government, wouldn't it be sensible to pay more in

make-work projects, employment creation projects, and less in welfare?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, one of the problems we have

in this current year - to try to answer your question if I can - is in dealing

with the federal government, of course. I think we recognize, all governments

and all provinces working with the federal government, that the current system,

as it presently is, with unemployment and social services benefits and all other

types of income support, is just not working.

The balance of this week, the deputy and I will be

on Prince Edward Island at a minister's meeting dealing with this problem,

because it is a focus. We may see initiatives come out of those deliberations -

I hope so - that would address the problem a little better than we are doing

right now. But it is not just confined to our area, it is a broad-based problem.

We probably have it exaggerated in Newfoundland because of our difficulties with

the fishery, in particular. But I think it is not just provincial, the federal

government have a role to play, as well, and where we go with the balance of the

year is yet to be determined. But certainly, I think there is a fair consensus

that make-work per se is not the sole answer. I am not suggesting that in the

short term we can do without it, but there has to be other solutions.

MS. VERGE: But surely, the solution is not

paying more welfare.

MR. GULLAGE: No.

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask a question now

about the Social Assistance regulations, in particular the Social Assistance

regulations definition of allowable and non-allowable income. Allowable income

now, as I understand it, includes income from a job. According to a sliding

scale formula, a social assistance recipient who gets income from a job may

derive a net benefit up to a maximum of $115 a month.

MR. GULLAGE: Is that the current stat?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Now, until October of 1990, income

from maintenance and child support was considered the same as income from a job,

as allowable income, and the recipient was allowed to benefit up to a net of

$115 a month. At that point, without any warning, without any discussion with

clients, without any discussion with advocates for single parents, the

government abruptly recategorized maintenance as non-allowable income, and that

move resulted in a sudden and drastic drop in income for single parents on

Social Assistance who had been getting maintenance. Since the support

enforcement program of the Department of Justice had only started in May of

1989, it had only been in the previous year-and-a-half that any number of social

assistance recipients were getting maintenance. And suddenly, the benefit they

had derived from the program, the benefit that the program had been designed to

provide, was wiped out.

Now, from a government fiscal point of view, the

incentive to seek maintenance was also wiped out. Now, there is absolutely no

incentive for anyone on welfare to try to get maintenance, to try to get a

higher amount rather than a lower amount. It is a hassle to have to go to court,

it is an irritant to have to deal with the absent spouse or parent, and there is

no incentive to ask the court to order maintenance.

A social assistance recipient today is better off

not having a court order for maintenance, or if there is a court order, to have

it for one dollar rather than one hundred dollars. There is no incentive

anymore.

Civil servants, of course, can't speak freely for

fear of reprisals, but civil servants in your department, and civil servants in

the Department of Justice, tell me that this is a counterproductive move.

One of your predecessors made the decision. As I

said, apparently there was no consultation, it was done quite abruptly, and I am

wondering if you, as a new minister, having a chance now to assess the results,

will pause and look at correcting that mistake, revising that change so that you

will restore the incentive to welfare recipients to try to get maintenance?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, certainly I can say that I

will take your comments under consideration, and as a new minister, as you said,

have a fresh look at that area and see whether your concerns and your points are

correct. As I said, I will take a look at it.

MS. VERGE: Okay. I appreciate that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will vouch for her on that

one. I have had similar cases where there was no incentive for individuals.

MR. GULLAGE: It is a point well taken, and I

will certainly have a look at it.

MS. VERGE: That is very encouraging.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will go to Mr. Harris. This

will be the last line of questioning prior to a break we will take at 10:30. Mr.

Harris, we will allow you to go, and at 10:30 we will break for some coffee in

the common room.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Just to follow up on that point, and I must confess

to not listening to everything that Ms. Verge was raising, but there is an

administrative -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I have heard parts of it before,

but did Ms. Verge deal with the administrative problem of -

MS. VERGE: I was talking about maintenance

(inaudible) in Ottawa (inaudible) and thereby the incentive to seek maintenance

is gone.

MR. HARRIS: There is another aspect of that.

Again, as a new minister, an opportunity to review policies, one of the problems

that we constantly come up with in dealing with constituents, is the social

worker. If maintenance is not being paid, there are irregularities in

maintenance, particularly through the facility out in Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There are irregularities in the

collection of monies from the husbands who are supposed to pay, or non-custodial

parents who are required to pay maintenance. The difficulty is that the agency

in Corner Brook will pay only when they get the money. They won't pay it before

they get it, obviously. The regular payment is not there, it is only if the

money comes in. Quite often it is late, or it doesn't come. The individual needs

the money to buy groceries and is going to the social worker and saying: Look, I

haven't gotten any money yet. The department will actually wait to see whether

or not any money comes in and not make any payments to the individual. They are

left without money for a week or two until they find out what is happening out

in Corner Brook.

Now I see the Member for LaPoile nodding his head.

It is something that MHA's are constantly dealing with, and there seems to be

some big problem in how the department deals with this. Now it sounds like an

administrative problem. It sounds like some sort of administrative decision has

been made to wait and see what happens to monies coming from the maintenance

agency, but it is causing great hardship and lots of trouble for individuals.

Would the minister look into that and see if that

could be changed so that people could be guaranteed to get their amount? I mean

maybe by assigning, you know, it is a simple assignment of the monies from the

maintenance agency to the department should be satisfactory. Why should the

individual have to suffer because the system can't wait three or four or five

days?

MR. GULLAGE: All I can say is I will have to

take it under consideration. You know, the area is not just confined to the

difficulty of getting maintenance payments, which I understand has improved

somewhat because of the Corner Brook office and so on. They have increased the

recovery, if you like. Now whether it is the social service recipients - whether

the improvement has been there or not, I am not sure. But we have other

considerations in the equation as well, you know, payments from federal sources

that have to be considered and so on.

I understand your concern. I will definitely have a

good look at it and see if we can't do something about it. It is an

administrative thing, waiting to see whether or not some money comes from this

agency which seems to be unnecessary. But we wait for other reasons as well, you

know, from time to time. Now maybe this particular area of maintenance support

is one that causes a particular problem and the wait is too long.

MR. HARRIS: Because there is a particular

problem there is a lot of uncertainty because the individual doesn't know

whether or not the non-custodial parent is going to actually - they are going to

get the money from them and then this is transmission time that could be

streamlined or could be gotten around by a simple assignment of whatever monies

should be coming from the maintenance agency. So I would ask the minister to

take it under advisement and see if that can be rectified.

Can I try and straighten out the numbers issue? As

usual there are several categories of numbers that we end up getting talked

about. I was trying to get the facts straight first before we started talking

about registration at all because the registration is a different issue. I

wanted to get the facts straight about how many people in social work positions

there were in full-time positions, and then I will ask questions about the BSW

issue. But do we have it straight now that there are 400 individuals in social

work positions of which 266 are in permanent positions, and 134 are in temporary

positions. These are 400 out of the 1,100 positions in the department past.

MR. GULLAGE: 1,100 total. A combination of

permanent and temporary, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Now I was led to believe last time,

although I have come to question it, that the 266 permanent positions are filled

by BSW's. That is not correct is it?

MR. GULLAGE: No.

MR. HARRIS: No.

MR. GULLAGE: Some of them are grandfathered

from 1985, is that the difference?

AN HON. MEMBER: Grandfathered and looking for

permanent positions.

BRUCE PECKFORD: We have people in permanent

social work positions who have been there for some years. The requirement to

hold a permanent social worker position has changed over the years so there are

people in the 266 category who joined the department quite some years ago when

the qualifications were different, obtained a permanent position, still occupy

it and are permanent employees, without BSWs. Then, as time went by and the

requirements, the qualifications altered to the point where they are today,

being you must have a BSW to have a permanent position.

MR. HARRIS: Would you be able to tell us what

the shortest length of service of a non BSW permanent social worker; in other

words you say that the change was brought in 1985 -

MR. GULLAGE: In the permanent category.

MR. HARRIS: - in the permanent category. Are

you looking at six or seven years?

BRUCE PECKFORD: Shortest length of service

should be seven years.

MR. HARRIS: It should be seven years?

MR. GULLAGE: Seven years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it was seven as of 1985?

MR. GULLAGE: That is when it changed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those individuals today would

have fourteen years service minimum.

MR. HARRIS: No, they would have seven minimum,

they would probably have more than that if they are being -

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven since 1985.

MR. GULLAGE: Seven since 1985, he asked the

minimum.

So all their service prior to '85 would be added to

that.

MR. HARRIS: That is right and you would not

have grandfathered everybody in in '85, (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Were they grandfathering in '85?

No, there was no grandfathering in 1985.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you did not need the

qualifications (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You didn't need the qualifications

to get the permanent positions.

MR. GULLAGE: That is when it came, the BSW, the

standard.

MR. HARRIS: So every nine BSW in a permanent

position has at least seven years of service -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: - and of the temporaries then,

there would be varying lengths of service there, I take it, ranging from seven

and under I suppose, is it? Under the proposed legislation that is before the

House, all but fourteen of them would become permanent positions without any

requirement to do any upgrading, if the current legislation goes through.

MR. GULLAGE: Well, is that accurate, no

requirement to do any upgrading?

MR. HARRIS: The legislation that is before the

House requires no upgrading, no courses, no nothing; you are just given that

automatic grandfathering in forever, as I understand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But they can improve their level

of remuneration or otherwise by upgrading, is that correct?

That is my understanding of it, maybe. We will wait

to answer this one.

MR. HARRIS: The current legislation, and I am

not suggesting that this is a current policy of the department, because I know

some discussion is going on. If this legislation were passed 120 of these 134

would be grandfathered in and it would be intended presumably that these

positions could and would be filled by the graduates from the BSW program at

Memorial University of which there are some forty odd this year. These people

would not be able to have those positions if this grandfathering were to take

place.

MR. GULLAGE: What you are saying is not

entirely correct in the sense that we have not decided that. I do not think the

legislation reads in such a way that a person without a BSW, in a temporary

category, the majority of which, except for a couple I think, except for two,

have at least a BA. We have not decided yet whether or not they would be moved

from temporary to permanent when the act is proclaimed.

Would you like to speak to that, Bruce?

MR. TOBIN: Just one question. Did you say only

two?

MR. GULLAGE: Only two?

BRUCE PECKFORD: Only two or three, yes, of the

temporaries now who were -

MR. TOBIN: Temporarily filling (inaudible).

BRUCE PECKFORD: They all have BA's, with a

major in (inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: At least a BA.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: I would ask the deputy to speak to

that, too.

MR. PECKFORD: The current act requiring

registration, as we have been discussing, deals with which positions will be

grandfathered in for registration.

As we have been discussing, some of the people who

currently hold the positions now hold them temporarily. I do not think it

necessarily means that once they become registered they will automatically get a

permanent position. They will automatically be registered, but whether they

automatically get a permanent position is something that we still have to work

on.

There are certain requirements of the Public

Service Commission with respect to permanent positions. Permanent positions can

only be held by people who are recommended by the Public Service Commission, and

there are some other questions there related to the collective agreement as

well. So what the current Act now deals with is grandfathering from the

standpoint of being registered. It does not necessarily say: you will get a

permanent position because you are registered.

MR. HARRIS: The positions that are being held,

these temporary positions - the reason they are temporary, I am told, and you

can confirm this or correct it - these people were hired without qualifications,

and were told that they would be replaced by people who had BSWs when they were

available. Is the Department changing its policy and now going to tell the

graduates of Memorial University with the BSW: we do not need you, because we

are going to grandfather in these other people?

MR. GULLAGE: No. That is the problem that the

deputy just spoke to that we have to deal with.

MR. TOBIN: What is the answer?

MR. GULLAGE: We still have a policy that the

BSWs are given priority for permanent positions.

BRUCE PECKFORD: As permanent positions become

available.

MR. GULLAGE: As they become available. Which

means, I guess, by retirement and by attrition, generally, we will fill the

positions with BSWs. But it does not, at this moment anyway, suggest that we are

going to start terminating people who are in temporary positions and replacing

them with BSWs.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. GULLAGE: That decision hasn't been taken

that I am aware of.

MR. TOBIN: If I may, Mr. Chairman. The question

that Jack just asked. There are forty -

MR. CHAIRMAN: This will be the last question.

After the answer to this one we will break and go to a coffee break.

Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: We have to get an answer to this

question first.

MR. GULLAGE: As graduates become available.

Okay. I should qualify what I said, it's not correct. We are in fact taking

people out of the temporary positions as BSWs become available. So we are

bumping them out of these temporary positions. Replacing them with BSWs.

MR. TOBIN: Okay. Minister, there is forty - I

would assume the graduating class at University, BSW graduates, somewhere in the

area of forty-odd. There is usually a mixture of some - Noel would probably know

it more than I - there is a mixture of some MSW graduates as well that comes out

of the graduating class this time of the years. You probably have, I don't know,

five or six (Inaudible) who don't have jobs. The question that my colleague is

asking is, are you saying if there are forty people who come out of University

right now - I think this is what you are saying, I am not sure, so I'll ask you

to clarify - that these forty BSW graduates who are coming out, and if there are

any other MSW graduates who are looking for jobs with your Department, that they

will receive jobs because of - I think what you just said, is that they do bump

out the people who are already there?

So are their fears of not being able to become

employed...?

MR. GULLAGE: Okay. The qualification would

obviously be the fact that they have to come through the civil service process.

MR. TOBIN: I know that.

MR. GULLAGE: But assuming that they apply -

MR. TOBIN: As I understand it -

MR. GULLAGE: - and they're qualified, as you

say, with BSWs -

MR. TOBIN: As I understand it, the Public

Service Commissions has just done an eligibility list for social workers who are

coming out-

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. TOBIN: The ADM says yes. The Public Service

Commission has just done an eligibility list on all these graduates that are

coming out, and you just said a few minutes ago, as I understood it - I am

totally confused, okay, by your answers. Probably I have confused myself. I do

not say it in a negative sense towards you. Because at first I thought you were

saying that all of these would be grandfathered in and they would be secure in

their employment, and there would not be any room for other people. That was my

first impression.

Now I am getting the impression from your last

answer that it is a decision that the Department will be making. So you have not

made a decision now - as these graduates come out that they will fill the

positions that are now permanent positions that are temporarily filled by people

who do not have BSWs.

So if these forty or fifty graduates who come out

of University all apply, that are qualified, will they in turn bump the people

who are still temporary in these positions?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes. If they are qualified, which

MR. TOBIN: Okay, (Inaudible) -

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, so they have a BSW or a MSW.

They apply to the Department - assume they do - and they meet the requirements

through the Public Service Commission, and they come through the interview

alright - because there are other factors as well that, you know, we have to

obviously accept them as acceptable candidates, and the Public Service

Commission does - there may be other factors that they may not get the job if

you like. But all things being equal, they will replace the temporary category

of worker.

But grandfathering, as we are talking about it,

pertains to registration, per se. So I think that is where you are getting

confused, is that the temporary group will be registered with the association,

but not necessarily grandfathered.

MR. TOBIN: The permanent positions that are now

being filled by temporary people, will be grandfathered as RSWs, but not

necessarily grandfathered as permanent social workers? Is that what you're

saying?

MR. GULLAGE: That's correct. I think that's

correct. Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the way I understood it.

MR. TOBIN: So the concerns being expressed, as

Mr. Harris pointed out. He said there are concerns being expressed by the

graduates that are now coming out of the program. That they may not receive

employment as social workers within the Province because of this grandfathering

thing, they have no reason to be concerned about that, then?

AN HON. MEMBER: No changes.

MR. GULLAGE: No. As long as they qualify

through the civil service, they are successful in their interview process -

MR. TOBIN: So while these - okay, well, that's

different. I didn't understand that. While these people are being grandfathered

in, their are just being grandfathered as RSWs. They are not being grandfathered

into permanent positions.

MR. GULLAGE: That's correct. Yes.

MR. TOBIN: The same policy that continued since

1985 will be still in effect.

MR. GULLAGE: This is the area which the deputy

spoke to a moment ago. We are looking at that policy area. But in the main, what

you said is correct. We are looking at that area. Because obviously we have a

large group of temporary people there. But in the main -

MR. TOBIN: So the other side of that is what

happens to them? Do they revert to social assistance workers or what? As I

understand it, most of those people before they began filling permanent

positions, were social assistance workers, I guess. What do you call them now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Financial assistance officers.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: I assume that they would have the

right to bump back to those positions. That is right, isn't it? Yes, they would.

MR. TOBIN: So if there is somebody in these

positions then, in a temporary position today, someone in a temporary position

today as social worker, and all but three of them have degrees, they should - if

they want to stay as permanent social workers, is what you are saying, they

should start upgrading themselves rather quickly.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As quickly as they can, I would

think.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With that we will adjourn now and

reconvene at 10:55 a.m.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Any members here have any comments or questions?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I'm due up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're due now, if you want to have

a question.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I just have a couple of more

questions for the minister. I noticed the other day that the Premier of New

Brunswick and the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Valcourt,

had announced a new kind of a pilot program. I do not know if you have seen it

or not, or heard any details about it. I just saw a news clip on it. It was an

announcement of a pilot program to have a number of people who have been

receiving social assistance to have them, over a two or three year period,

receive a certain income level, they would bring them up to a certain income

level. It is a pilot program to see whether or not it will work. To assist these

people in moving in a direction that would see them on their own eventually, and

into the workforce. I think there was some upgrading of education, but I am not

sure what was involved there.

I just wondered if, in your capacity now as the

minister, and as taking over the portfolio just recently, if there are any such

discussions or such policy developments under way or under review, in the sense

of getting a proper income for people? Right now there are different programs

available. I know for years that guaranteed income has always been talked about.

But just your view as to where you see this thing going in the future, in trying

to get some people who are on social assistance who would like to, have the

capacity to, say, get more education or to get training and so on, how you see

your Department's role there. Are there any discussions, or will there be any

discussions in the near future, with other government departments, federally and

provincially, to look at trying a cooperative approach, to go together?

I know out in the Port au Port Peninsula there is - I

think the school board has gotten together with the Department of Social

Services and also with a number of government departments in the Port au Port

area, to do some upgrading of just kids who have dropped out of school. To work

with them on an individual basis. More of a cooperative effort. So really, it is

a general comment, but I saw the announcement the other day in New Brunswick and

it struck me a little bit as to a newness, or a new idea, and a new method

maybe, of a new direction. So what do you see in the next little while, and just

your view on that, if you don't mind.

MR. GULLAGE: We are doing some of it now, of

course, in terms of training, employment, training, re-training and training per

se, in the Department and of course then in other departments. I guess the gist

of your question if you read it right is that: what are we doing towards moving

towards some kind of a guaranteed income base?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. If that is appropriate, I

think.

MR. GULLAGE: I guess that is related.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: Discussions of course are always

ongoing. They have been for some time, as you've said. I will be going to a

ministers' meeting this week and that topic is on the agenda, obviously. It

probably has been on agendas for years.

Whether or not we will see it come to be in any

fashion as a pilot project or as a permanent policy change, a policy change per

se, I cannot predict. As I said earlier, this whole area of income support is a

very difficult one. We can't go on, I don't think. I think the federal

government has said that. We have said it. We cannot go on with the present

system indefinitely. It is not doing anything to solve the problem. Granted,

re-training and education, we know, long-term is the answer. We also have to

grapple with the diversity of programs that we have. The complication, even from

the client's standpoint, dealing with so many different agencies. The overlap of

benefits, the complication of benefits coming from so many different sources.

Providing incentives in the system for people to -

MR. K. AYLWARD: It's important (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: - to want to be educated, to want to

be re-trained, and to get back into the workforce and so on. So I anticipate it

is going to be a very interesting meeting over the next few days dealing with

that very issue. Probably the prime focus, really.

But where we are going, and what changes we can make

in the short-term, and of course long-term as well, but certainly in the

short-term we have obviously an immediate problem. It is hard to predict. I can

only say that we are working on it with the federal government, with other

departments. We do need change, and as quickly as we can bring it about we

should do it.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. There seems to be more and

more of a focus. Just last week there was a conference on literacy, with the

learner trying to identify the needs of the learner. The person who is trying to

avail of a program. Do you see your Department getting involved in those

discussions in the near future? Also, in the sense of the Department of

Education and the federal government, both their efforts in trying to address

literacy?

In essence, a number of people who may be receiving or

depending on social assistance, there are a lot of people there who have a

literacy problem. It is not so much as they have only Grade X. It is a problem

that when they were in Grade III or Grade IV they just did not learn how to

read. So the basic skill is not there.

I know that some of your people in different offices

have done some work on that. So do you see your Department working with these

agencies? Maybe even in pilot programs is what I'm just, you know, because I

think that you may see some people coming to you in the near future.

MR. GULLAGE: Literacy of course is everybody's

problem. We, as you said, it's probably quite accurate, I would suggest that a

large number of our clients have problems with this area. So it is not our

mandate as a department, obviously. It is primarily Education. But certainly

anything we can do to cooperate and be part of the solution and work effectively

together with other departments, particularly Education, to address the problem

of illiteracy, we will certainly intend to do it.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, because I think it will help

the client overall. If they are going to move eventually to something more, to

get on their own, I think it is going to take - they have to have the basic life

skills to do that. So I know that.

MR. GULLAGE: I think we are doing some of that -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Doing some of that now, that's

right, yes.

MR. GULLAGE: - we're doing some of it now in some

areas. We fund some community organizations that are involved with it. Where

Social Services' clients are being re-trained, of course, or being trained for

the first time in many cases, but also have to supplement that with that are

involved with it.

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is right.

MR. GULLAGE: Where social services clients are

being retrained, of course, or being trained for the first time in many cases,

but also have to supplement that with basic education that they do not have. We

have some of that work ongoing now but, as you said, it is a large problem.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: I think it is going to be a prime

focus for the immediate future.

MR. K. AYLWARD: One other question on a separate

issue was the matter of housing in the sense of, I think your department has

some involvement, or your social workers are always monitoring the client and

their needs, and some of those needs are housing.

I think right now the housing corporation has

committees, I believe, set up. I am just wondering what the input from, for

example the social worker or the department's offices in the field, their input

to the housing corporation when it comes to decisions of the client in reference

to their clients. Sometimes for example, I called housing and they have a list

of people they want to put in the houses. Sometimes it is the same list. Social

services have people they would like to have because of their need. In other

cases it is not. I just wondered. I believe there is some kind of a committee

set up with housing, which includes -

MR. GULLAGE: Well the most recent initiative was

while I was the minister. I think, as a matter of fact, this week or next week

they are going to start their meetings. I think there is a fair backlog of

clients waiting to go to these committees. They are regional in nature, and a

social worker is on each one of them. I think that is the committee to which you

are referring?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: To listen to appeals -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: - where people have applied for

housing and been rejected, for whatever reason.

Those committees are something new and are taking

effect, like I say, either this week or next week, and they are regional in

nature.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Okay.

MR. GULLAGE: Just to back up to your other point,

yes, the social workers have a large role to play in placement of people in

housing, obviously. A lot of people looking for housing come to their social

worker for a change in location or a change in the type of housing they have. So

they are very much a part of the system.

You may know that a couple of years ago we did a

survey of this House - of all the members of the House. We found that, I forget

the percentage now, but certainly greater than 50 per cent of the inquiries to

the MHA's - all fifty-two - were either housing or social services.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, that is right.

MR. GULLAGE: So it is a large concern, not just

for members but also for workers in the field who are on the front lines; but I

think these committees will help tremendously. I hope so. They are starting to

work right away.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, because I think there is

direct - as much involvement as possible is a help in the sense of having the

housing corporation making their decisions. Even though they have their own

people assess the housing needs of these individual clients, having a social

worker's perspective on that is extremely important in making those decisions.

I think there should be as much co-operation as

possible. This new structure will hopefully be a help.

MR. GULLAGE: It is not going to necessarily solve

the problem per se, because...

MR. K. AYLWARD: No.

MR. GULLAGE: It will help, I think, particularly

in some areas of the Province, but where the needs are greatest, in St. John's

for example, and Corner Brook, where the waiting lists are very high per capita,

I guess because they are urban in context, and the problems of living in an

urban area - but the waiting lists are very long for housing. It is not going to

solve that, I do not think; but it is certainly going to help. It is going to

provide an avenue for clients that they did not have before, to address their

concerns of why they are not being accommodated or assisted in some way in

relation to housing.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just have one short comment prior

to turning it back to Ms. Verge, or if she would defer it to Mr. Warren.

In some discussions during the budget lockup I recall

being told about one subhead - I am not sure which one it is - where in the

past, administration was included in a total for community development, or

something like this, and now that administration has been moved to a different

subhead, or something like that. Now maybe it is erroneous, or it is not

correct, but is there some portion in these budget estimates where

administration has been taken from where it used to be, and therefore is showing

some different figures? I just have that question, and -

MR. GULLAGE: Maybe the deputy can answer that.

MR. PECKFORD: We had a number of positions

throughout our offices that were basically clerical support, that were funded in

the employment opportunities area last year. That funding was shifted over to

the salary account in client services where it more appropriately should have

been presented.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What would that amount have totalled

up to, and would it show a significant change in the employment opportunities

area?

MR. PECKFORD: It would not affect the employment

opportunities area that much at all. It is just a change of money coming from

one place into another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I just wondered what the amount

of that shift was?

MR. PECKFORD: About $4 million.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So $4 million that used to be under

employment opportunities is actually still being spent, but it is put into a

different category?

MR. PECKFORD: Salaries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The salary category?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: We are still able to recover from the

federal government in the same way as before, but we wanted to identify the

salaries as we do for other salaries throughout the department, as a

departmental expense rather than faced off against the program.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So in fact if the amount under

employment opportunities is left the same, in spite of that, then it is actually

a $4 million increase; is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No?

MR. GULLAGE: No.

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

It is my understanding, in the estimates committee,

that the Chairman of the Committee is as the Speaker is in the House of

Assembly, and he or she does not participate in the debate, and votes only in

the event of a tie.

Are we somehow breaking the rules here this morning?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I suppose, with the grace of the

committee, I was putting this by leave of the committee, I suppose.

If there was a way you could explain that, prior to

Mr. Warren - I still find it a little bit -

MR. GULLAGE: (Inaudible) no increase in that

category. It is $4 million down in one area and up in another. It was just an

internal change to identify the perception, if you like, to change the

perception that the $4 million for salaries for these people was previously

identified under a program heading. We wanted to make sure that the salaries

area was properly identified as salaries in the department, because these people

were working, and had been working for some years, and not shown as departmental

expense. Is that correct?

BRUCE PECKFORD: Yes, they were showing up under

employment opportunities administration under salaries. It was a salary transfer

from one subhead to another subhead. The money was still being used for salaries

in both instances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So what were those two subheads,

just to finalize that? Where did it go from, and where did it go to?

BRUCE PECKFORD: The old subhead does not exist in

this year's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What was it before?

BRUCE PECKFORD: It was special projects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Special projects?

AN HON. MEMBER: In last year's budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But usually a subhead, if it ceases

to exist, is still identified as such, and shown as zero. Is that the case?

BRUCE PECKFORD: That would be the case if there

was no funding continued in subsequent years, but the budget is restated on a

comparative basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright, I will turn over to Mr.

Warren.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple questions for the minister. Earlier

before our coffee break the minister was talking about social services degrees

and qualifications and so on. In native communities I do not think the degree is

the important element and I think the department realizes that and I understand

there has been some move afoot to get the person, not necessarily in the

technical term but in the logical term. Has the minister done anything recently

or has he some plans on brush ups or some kind of a training for native people

as in Davis Inlet for example, with a population of 99 per cent Indian people?

We have a girl there now who is as good as you can get but education-wise, she

does not have what is required under the new act. Could the minister bring us

up-to-date as to what he plans to do in that area?

MR. GULLAGE: The member would know of course that

I was in Labrador with the deputy about a month and a half ago, just after the

tragic incident in Davis Inlet, and met with Peter Penashue in Sheshatshit, but

not necessarily connected to those meetings, we initiated a review of the social

conditions in Davis Inlet. That report is now being considered, it has been

completed; Miss Andrew did it as you probably know and we are going to consider

the recommendations that have been made and work with the native community,

hopefully to solve some of the problems we have. Now, in discussions with Peter

when I was there, we talked about natives and the work they are doing right now

in the social services area, I think that was your question, what do we plan to

do about these natives and their training? I think there are lots of ways we can

help, assuming that the natives agree that we should work together and try to

find some ways of having the natives carry out a lot of their own services

because as you know, they are asking for that, not just in social services but

they are asking for it in policing and education and so on.

It becomes one of a matter of process and agreement,

so we have initiated, and I am just talking now from my perspective in this

ministry, discussions and will be continuing on with those now that we have the

report on Davis Inlet to help us. I think there are many ways we can help and it

is obvious to me that the natives can be doing more for themselves and we can be

doing more to help them in the training area. Social workers per se, the

training of natives to become social workers whether - and I would thing long

term to become BSWs. If they agree to that process, it seems logical to me we

should follow along that path and in all areas of social concern if you like,

the social side of the conditions with which they have to live, so we are in

discussions with them right now.

MR. WARREN: The minister - and I know that the

minister is new in this particular portfolio - but would you not suggest that

you would probably pattern the native social justice, or social concerns, in

comparison to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and even in northern

Quebec? I understand they have a program that is administered by the native

people. Unfortunately, and it has been going on for years in our Province, we

have the St. John's bureaucracy stopping progress by the native people.

This is not news to you, sir, but it is something that

has been there for years. I think we have to get out of this in order to see the

improvement in the social field in Labrador. We have to get rid of the white

man's philosophy on the native people, and that is what is wrong with us. We

have the white man's philosophy on the native people, and that is what is

hurting. Not only in Social Services, but in Health, Education and Justice and

so on. I would think that examples from the Northwest Territories are a good

pattern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to interject here. I was just

asked by Hansard to have your officials say their name before they speak so that

the transcription can be done without problem. Thank you.

MR. GULLAGE: In various departments of government,

and the areas that you speak of, of course, pilot projects have been undertaken

in other areas of the country. But again I think we have to get agreement on

starting those initiatives with the natives. Policing is one example I can think

of where presently we have police being trained to go back into Labrador. The

problem we have, of course, with policing, or medical or social services, or

whatever it happens to be, is ensuring that when the person is trained that they

go back. That there is an agreement in place that they go back.

Then, when they are there, it seems to me from my

limited knowledge of it, I'm not in the Department that long, that the natives

want their laws and their customs and their culture to be dominant, versus our

laws. Wherever it happens to be. In Justice, Social Services, and so on. That

seems to be the area of prime concern where we have to come to some sort of a

consensus. I mean, do we abdicate our responsibility? If we see that social

workers are trained and they are native social workers, just to use an example,

or police or whatever, let them go back to the communities and let them operate

under our jurisdiction and our regulations and various acts and so on, or do we

allow them to operate under - what the natives seem to want is to let them

operate under their laws.

MR. WARREN: What's wrong with that?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, I don't know. But that seems to

be where the problem is. Coming to a consensus about the two extremes, obviously

we are having difficulty. It was raised to me as far as policing is concerned.

It is alright to be training policeman and have them come back in here, but they

are going to be operating under the auspices of the RCMP or the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary. So you think you are part-way to solving the problem

but then all of a sudden they say: that's fine, but we want those police to be

operating under our jurisdiction.

I think the same is true pretty well in all areas of

government. I do not think I am telling you anything new. I think that is where

the problem is in trying to deal with the natives. Trying to find a common

ground where we can let them have self-government. I guess this is the whole

area of self-government we are talking about. How do you move from a situation

where they are operating under our laws and regulations to one where they govern

themselves.

MR. WARREN: Maybe right through yesterday in

Vancouver within the constitutional process might be the beginning, you know.

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple more short questions if

my time has not run out. Will the minister advise if his department is

considering closing the Arnold's Cove social office and dividing the work load

between Whitbourne and Clarenville?

MR. GULLAGE: I am not aware of that. Do you want

to speak to that Bruce?

MR. PECKFORD: No, we have no plans to close

Arnold's Cove or any other particular office right now. We have been having

considerable discussions with our staff all across the Province in how we deploy

our staff, in what offices, the number of offices and so on. So there has been a

broad set of discussions and deliberations occurring about all the offices and

how they are deployed, and the things we can do to make more efficient use of

the staff.

MR. WARREN: Okay, to follow up with that question,

if you are not planning to close it, it has been downgraded considerably since

the last minister retired, that is nothing new for you people anyhow. I guess

with the Hibernia episode out there and a number of workers in the area I would

suggest that the workload has increased, and you have less staff. I guess,

probably I get concern from that area because it is my home town, and this is

why I get a number of calls concerning, not the work of the social workers, but

it is just impossible for your workers there to keep up with the demand. I am

sure the social workers are not going to complain to their bosses anyhow, but it

is the clients who are complaining to me. Are you going to put a supervisor back

on staff there or are you going to increase your staff there, because I heard

that it may be divided up, increasing the staff in Whitbourne or in Clarenville.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with that, but I am just wondering, you know.

MR. PECKFORD: Certainly that discussion about

Arnold's Cove has occurred about a large number of other offices as well, as to

how do we handle some of the workload that is in some of our various smaller

offices because we have eight or ten very tiny offices where there are just two

or three staff in them or three or four, or something like that. So as to how we

can best service the clients in that area has been part of this greater

discussion that I referred to earlier as to how we should deploy.

With respect to Arnold's Cove I don't think there has

been any reduction in staff in the last year or so. Since I have been in the

department the staff in Arnold's Cove is the same as it was for the last year or

so. I don't think there has been any reduction. The manager went last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes Mr. Warren's time.

Right now I will ask Mr. Harris. I guess you are next on the rotation.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. I thought we had the

problem resolved with respect to qualifications of social workers, but I need to

ask further questions. I take it from the previous comments that the department

is committed to its policy of hiring BSWs to replace unqualified people in

temporary positions, that is correct, is it, Mr. (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: Correct, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister explain then the

rationale for grandfathering in these 120 of the 134 temporaries to become

registered social workers, is there a rationale for that and is the department

committed to the provisions of the existing legislation or is it prepared to

consider amending that legislation or accepting an amendment in Committee with

respect to the grandfathering in of temporary social workers?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, we haven't said that we are

going to grandfather the temporaries in, as far as permanent positions are

concerned. We have simply said that they are grandfathered in as far as the

registration is concerned at this point.

MR. HARRIS: The question is, then, what is the

rationale for if you are not - and you keep saying 'at this point', so I have a

concern that you grandfather them in as RSTs and then next year or the year

after, you change your policy and say, Well, we don't require BSWs anymore, all

we require are RSTs or RSWs and here we have effectively done that, so the

question is, if you have no intention of lowering your standards from the BSW

requirement for social workers, then what is the rationale for grandfathering in

as registered social workers, you know, the vast majority of these temporary,

unqualified people? Is there a rationale for that or is the minister prepared to

accept an amendment in the House or, move an amendment himself to make a change

in that grandfathering in as registered social workers?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, of course, the act is not

proclaimed so the reason I am saying 'at this time', is simply to recognize

that. I cannot predict what is going to happen with amendments and so on to the

act and subsequent passing of it, but the intent clearly is simply to have

registration available or insist on registration, I should say for the temporary

staff. But that is not to say that we are lowering our standards or changing our

mandate, if you like, to have permanent positions filled by BSWs or MSWs, that

is our intent which is separate from the fact that we are accommodating in the

bill temporaries in terms of registration.

MR. HARRIS: If I may, Mr. Minister, you are not

accommodating them temporarily. There is a provision under the act for temporary

registration for up to five years for unqualified people.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: You are not, in the case of the

temporaries, temporarily registering them or allowing them to be registered, you

are, by the way the legislation reads now, permanently grandfathering them in as

registered social workers. And the question is, is there a rationale for that

that can be supported or is the minister prepared to consider a change in that

legislation before it gets passed in the House?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, I have to listen, obviously, to

the debate on it.

MR. HARRIS: What is the rationale for permanently

registering temporary social workers who are unqualified when there is already

provision in the act for temporary registration?

MR. GULLAGE: I was not aware there was provision

in the act as it applies to registration of social workers for temporary -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is already provision?

MR. PECKFORD: For temporary registration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. GULLAGE: Then we are not making the change,

are we, if it is already there?

MR. HARRIS: Well, the provision that is going to

be applied to these individuals will have the effect of permanently registering

120 of these 134 people because of the wording.

MR. GULLAGE:

Whereas now it is temporary? Is that

your point?

MR. HARRIS: Well, my point is, you have said that

your policy is only to have BSWs as social workers, and you are replacing the

temporaries who have that, who are able to be replaced by trained people.

MR. GULLAGE: We are allowing a category of people

who will be called, I guess, RSWs - Registered Social Workers - who will not

have BSWs or MSWs.

MR. HARRIS: You allow them to keep the permanent

registration, even though they only have temporary positions?

MR. GULLAGE: I guess that is -

MR. HARRIS: The question is, what is the rationale

for that? I haven't been able to find one.

MR. GULLAGE: I don't know. Can you speak to that -

the rationale for that?

MR. PECKFORD: The way in which the grandfather

clause is now written, and the manner in which it applies to temporaries and

permanents without qualification is an area that has come to our attention as

requiring some additional thought as to how we are going to handle it.

Certainly the temporary registration, as you say, is

there; however, the current temporary social workers have been offered

employment on the basis of the fact that they cannot obtain a permanent job

until they become qualified with a BSW as a minimum. So that is the arrangement

we have with each of the individuals right now. We still have to work out some

details as to how the registration applies to that group of people.

There is also, within the government, the requirement

that in order to obtain a permanent position, it has to be through the Public

Service Commission, normally meaning a competition, so that registration cannot,

in my understanding, automatically give somebody a permanent position. That has

to be done through the Commission. So there are some areas there on which we are

still working.

MR. GULLAGE: It is a recognition, though. I am

trying to understand your question. It is a recognition of the temporary person

as part of the association, a registered part of that association.

MR. PECKFORD: Permanently.

MR. HARRIS: May I leave this by saying it appears

that there is no rationale at the moment, for permanently -

MR. GULLAGE: It is consistent though with other

associations.

MR. HARRIS: May I leave this, saying that it

appears there is no rationale at the moment for permanently registering

temporary social workers who don't meet the minimum qualification, when there is

already a provision for temporary registration? And may I assume that the

department and the minister are reviewing that and may, in fact, bring about a

change? Can I assume that?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes you can.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

I have a question about refugees. Can someone, the

minister or one of the officials, tell me what level of social assistance

support is provided to refugees? I am told there are 521 on your caseload. Are

they treated the same as social assistance recipients, in terms of the level of

support?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, that is correct.

MR. HARRIS: Do I take it then that a single,

able-bodied refugee is only getting $129 a month?

MR. PECKFORD: A lot of the refugees are being

handled under contract to us by the Association of New Canadians. Those not

being housed and cared for by the Association of New Canadians are being cared

for directly by the department, and support has been provided in terms of

shelter and regular social assistance.

MR. HARRIS: Is the rate of the contract for single

able-bodied persons $129 per month or equivalent? The reason I am asking the

question is that I have a feeling refugees are being looked after better than

single able-bodied persons who constantly phone my office and are complaining

about the fact that they have to lose their apartments. They can't afford to

live on $129 a month. The department is inflexible about supporting them with

rent payments. I have no problem with looking after refugees, but I want to know

if we are looking after refugees better than we are looking after our own

citizens. So, is the contract, then, with the Association of New Canadians at

$129 per month for single able-bodied persons, or is it greater than that?

MR. GULLAGE: You may be quite right, but the

reasoning is the fact that the association has to accommodate these people

mostly in more expensive accommodations - well, I would say all the time - in

more expensive accommodations than our social services clients. So we do treat

it on a broad basis where the single able-bodied refugee would get more dollars

than our regular clients, but this is an agency that we have contracted with to

provide accommodations and look after these people for the period of time they

are here with more costs per individual than we deal with ordinarily.

MR. HARRIS: I constantly have people phoning my

office saying, 'I have been to Social Services. They tell me all I am entitled

to is $127 or $125, or $129 per month. How can I live on that? I am living as

cheaply as I can. I am sharing an apartment with three other people. My share of

the rent is $200, and my share of the utilities is another $75. All they are

prepared to give me is $129 a month. My UI ran out. I am told to go live in a

hostel.' Now how can the department justify that as a policy? Can anyone tell me

why someone who happens to have their UI run out, who is living as cheaply as

possible is told, 'I am sorry, $129 a month is all you are entitled to.' That is

for board and lodging. If you had to buy your meals out of that even in a

thirty-day month that would entitle you to about $1.25 per meal, and that is

probably being generous. To live, room and board for a period of a month because

you happen to be able-bodied - now if you were ill or if you had a child, or if

you had a doctor's note, which many people are forced to go and get to say that

they are stressed out, because they are poor, then you can get more than that.

But why is it? Is there some rationale that says that because you are

able-bodied, then, therefore, you are only entitled to $129? What is the

rationale there? Is this part of the deserving or undeserving poor notion left

over from Victorian times? Can we change that policy? Can we move into the 20th

century, at least?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, we can certainly have a look at

your concerns. In and of itself, apart from the comparison to the refugee

situation, we will have to look at what you said about the amount that is

available and so on. But, certainly, the refugees and others in situations like

that - I mean, we have a contract with the Wiseman Centre and the Salvation

Army, as well, where we contract and we give a set amount, and they look after

the client or clients.

Just to go back to refugees for a moment, you know,

they don't speak our language. They have a different situation than our clients

who are in the community. It is probably a little easier for a single

able-bodied individual who is native to the Province to find accommodation, to

look after himself or herself versus a refugee, who is literally at the mercy,

if you like, of the care that is being provided by an agency or by the

department, and I would suggest, too, that it is more expensive to provide that

care on a short-term interim basis for those individuals.

MR. HARRIS: I appreciate the problems a refugee

has, particularly with language and culture, and I can understand that that

special provision over and above the basic needs of accommodation and food might

be necessary to ensure their well-being. I have no difficulty with that, but

what I am concerned about is that the basic needs of refugees are being looked

after at a higher degree than the people who are Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who are in need of social assistance because their UI has run out,

because they are a part of the in excess of the 21 per cent at April 1992, who

are actually unemployed right now - March of 1992, it was 24 per cent - those

people who are unemployed, those people who are not in the labour force, which

we talked about yesterday in the House and they happen to be unemployed.

Now, I have had people talk to me about problems that

they have, about being suicidal because they have no jobs, no money, they are

hungry, they are living in an apartment. If the Wiseman Centre is all that has

been offered to them, I have also had people who have gone down to the Wiseman

Centre and had a look around and had decided that other options which are

suicidal-type options are perhaps more desirable to them in their state. With

all due respect, the Wiseman Centre is for people who really have hit rock

bottom and who can only be looked after in a place like that.

I think that the department's policy of a special

category of able-bodied assistance for room and board only, is a very, very

serious, negative consequence for individuals who happen to be able-bodied. They

won't be able-bodied very long and many of them are told by social workers - and

you may be aware of this - are told by social assistance officers, 'You go and

get yourself a letter from a doctor saying that you are sick or you cannot work,

and we will look after you.'

Now, I know people who have gone, I said: 'Go, get it.

If you can get a letter from a doctor to get some money, go ahead and do it,'

so, they go to a doctor, and the doctor will probably decide they are so

stressed out by their condition that they are incapable of working or they will

wait long enough until they are. That is a very disastrous circumstance, Mr.

Minister, and I will ask you to have a serious consideration - I have the rates

in front of me, the board and lodging rates for short-term, able-bodied singles

is $129; there is no additional funds available unless they can show that they

are disabled in some way or ill and they cannot work and that is just not

realistic, it doesn't meet the basic needs of people. If you become eligible for

social assistance by virtue of losing your job and going off the edge and

running out of unemployment insurance, you are then reduced to having to get rid

of your apartment, get rid of your living accommodations, get rid of any

possessions you might have and end up somewhere, where someone will take you for

$129 a month. I don't know, Mr. Minister, whether you are aware of what can be

obtained in this town, in St. John's, let alone in other places, for $129 a

month and I ask you whether you can really justify it. Can you justify that

level of support for a single, able-bodied person? Can you do it?

MR. GULLAGE: All I can say is that I will

certainly have a look at your concerns. They sound very valid to me, that it is

legitimate. It is a difficult area, obviously. We will look at it.

MR. HARRIS: While you are looking at that, Mr.

Minister, can you also determine from a fiscal point of view the numbers who are

on the single, able-bodied relief rolls, and what changes there have been in

those over the last couple of years, as well?

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, we will obtain that and provide

it for you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to remind the

minister of my earlier questions and his earlier responses about the statistics

for the financial assistance caseload - Mr. Harris has just asked for a further

category - also, statistics for the child welfare caseload.

MR. GULLAGE: You asked for that earlier, I think.

MS. VERGE: Yes, thanks. Earlier, I asked about

amendments to the Child Welfare Act, which most people agree are long overdue.

Now, the minister said he would look at the possibility of having a bill with at

least some of the amendments that are needed before the House this spring. I

repeat my offer of Opposition co-operation in having that passed quickly. When

will the grand design unfold, this revision of the act that has been worked on

for years? What is the estimated date of completion of that?

MR. GULLAGE: Well, the act is being considered by

government right now.

MS. VERGE: You have a draft before Cabinet right

now?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MR. GULLAGE: It is in the system right now being

considered. What I can't tell you is whether or not - and I think I said this in

the House, as well, at the time the Hughes report was released, subsequent to

that - that I can't predict whether government will want to act on some of those

recommendations and changes in the short term, or wait until we deal with the

act in the whole. But certainly, the act is under consideration now, and as

quickly as I can get it into the House I would want to do so.

MS. VERGE: Realistically, the whole act will not

be going to the House this spring. The way things are done around here we will

be lucky if it gets to the House by the fall. This really has been talked about

for years. I will read for you what Mr. Efford had to say about it when he

became minister three years ago.

This was June 20, 1989, John Efford: 'The Child

Welfare Act has not been updated or brought up to today's needs since it was

first introduced. I think the Child Welfare Act was first brought in in 1972. I

want to say this very, very clearly - John Efford did not become Minister of

Social Services and walk into the department and instruct the department to

update the Child Welfare Act. That was already ongoing when I became minister.

What I am doing in my position is seeing if there is anything we can do to speed

up the process to make sure we get it through in the fall sitting of the House

of Assembly.' Now, Mr Efford meant the fall of 1989.

'I have asked people working in that particular area

to do what they possibly can to have it ready to be introduced in the House of

Assembly during the fall sitting.'

There have been similar promises made every time the

Opposition has asked about it, every time we have asked about the revision of

the whole act, every time we have asked about the need for particular

amendments. We have highlighted two. One is an amendment to close the age

sixteen to eighteen gap, and the other is the amendment, now called for in the

Hughes report, to improve and make workable the child abuse reporting

requirement. Now similarly -

MR. GULLAGE: On those two, before you go on. Those

are two amendments that you've flagged which it is not the first time I have

heard concerns about them. The last one, the sixteen to eighteen category, was

raised yesterday with the women's lobby.

MS. VERGE: Yes, but it was raised in the House of

Assembly last year and the year before.

MR. GULLAGE: I know, and it has been raised many

times. So -

MS. VERGE: CBC radio did a series about particular

cases of young people who were living on the street downtown in St. John's,

which in a dramatic way brought the problem to public attention quite a while

ago.

MR. GULLAGE: Certainly I will make sure that

government is aware of the need to possibly act in the short-term and deal with

these amendments. Basically I can't predict how government will react to that.

Certainly I see the need for urgency, as you do.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thanks. The Department of Social

Services has been working on a revision of the day care act, or I guess more

accurately, has been working on drafting a new day care child care act for three

years or more also. When will that surface?

MR. GULLAGE: I think it is fair to say that we are

ready to move on it as far as the paper is concerned, the recommendation to

government, is concerned. The work has been done on it. So that too will be

shortly into government as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Warren has a short question

(Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Okay. With legislation there are

probably three stages before the House. The department responsible has to make

recommendations about the content; then the lawyers in Justice and the office of

Legislative Council have to do the legal drafting; and then the Cabinet has to

approve it. In the case of the child welfare act has there been a legal text

prepared by Legislative Council?

MR. GULLAGE: No, that hasn't been done yet.

MS. VERGE: Oh, that's going to take months. There

is just no way we will have that until at least the fall. But I would suggest

they could do two or three sections dealing with the two problems that I keep

highlighting. They could do that fairly quickly.

MR. GULLAGE: Which act are you speaking of now?

MS. VERGE: The child welfare act.

MR. GULLAGE: Oh, okay, because you were on day

care for a moment.

MS. VERGE: Yes. But then I talked about the stages

in the preparation of a bill. Okay. Now you had said in the case of the child

welfare act that it is before the Cabinet. But what I am now hearing is that

what is before the Cabinet is not the legal text. It is just the Department's

recommendations about policy.

MR. GULLAGE: The drafting of the bill of course

has to take place after Cabinet considers it. You can't draft something that

cabinet hasn't agreed to. Are you talking about the drafting of the bill itself?

MS. VERGE: Yes. Usually -

MR. GULLAGE: Obviously the Justice Department has

had input into both of these bills.

MS. VERGE: Yes. But I assume it has to go to

Cabinet at both stages. Okay.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MS. VERGE: In the case of the day care act,

nothing has gone to Cabinet, is that what you are saying?

MR. GULLAGE: That's right.

MS. VERGE: Okay. So the way things usually work,

unless there is some political intervention the day care act is not going to see

the light of day this year.

MR. GULLAGE: Well, it - when you say this year -

MS. VERGE: 1992.

MR. GULLAGE: We have a fall sitting, of course.

MS. VERGE: Yes, but drafting takes a long time.

Okay. Transition houses. I am sure you were asked a lot of questions about

transition houses at the women's lobby yesterday.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MS. VERGE: I understand that the existing

transition houses do not have their budgets for their new fiscal year. They have

been made advances for the first quarter, or the first so many months, but they

do not know what the totals are going to be for the year. Are you in a position

MR. GULLAGE: No, I was not aware of that.

MS. VERGE: That's what they told me yesterday.

MR. GULLAGE: Pardon? They told you - yes, okay.

MS. VERGE: Yes. There were transition -

MR. GULLAGE: Never asked me that question. Just a

second.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PECKFORD: Bruce Peckford. It may be correct,

and probably is correct, that they have not been officially told what their

budgets are. But we have had discussions with all the transition houses leading

up to the budget, so they are well aware of the amounts that they can expect

this year, and the level of funding that they are going to be able to receive.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Would you tell the Committee -

MR. PECKFORD: But officially, no, you are right,

they have not been notified.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Would you tell the Committee what

they will be getting, each of the transition houses, and relate that to what

they were given by the Department last year?

MR. GULLAGE: Okay. You want each one individually.

St. John's, $426,900. Cara House in Gander, $291,500. Corner Brook, $411,900.

Goose Bay, Libra House, $303,300. Labrador City, $59,500. There is a reserve

fund of $68,300.

MR. HARRIS: What was St. John's?

MR. GULLAGE: It was $426,900. The total of all of

that is $1,561,400.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The reserve fund at the end is

$68,300.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The amount estimated for

transition houses is less than what was spent last year. I think it is the last

page (Inaudible) -

MR. GULLAGE: No, no, it is a little bit more

actually.

MS. VERGE: Page 268 of the estimates, the very

last page.

MR. GULLAGE: What happened, the way the estimates

read here, is we had a contingency amount in there last year which we did not

spend. We deleted that amount. The amount this year is only $68,000. We have

brought it in line with the actual spending last year, the revised figures,

$1,536,900. Which you do not see, I guess. But the actual revised figures for

last year's fiscal year is $1,536,900.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Well, that's not - what we have

here is the official publication of the government. For last year there is one

column for a budget -

MR. GULLAGE: That was an incorrect figure.

MS. VERGE: - and then there is another column for

revised.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MS. VERGE: So what you are saying is that this

official publication is wrong.

MR. GULLAGE: By $130,000, to be exact, is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: It is just a more up-to-date figure.

Because the estimates cannot always reflect the exact - well, they don't always

reflect the exact figures. We do not know that until the fiscal year is over. We

are now giving you an accurate figure based on actual spending.

MS. VERGE: Okay, let us do it line by line. I am

now referring to the estimates document, page 268, Family Support Services,

current, 5.5.0.1, Transition Houses, 10, Grants and Subsidies. Last year,

according to this the budgeted amount and the revised amount were the same $1.7

million and there is only $1.6 million for this year.

MR. GULLAGE: The $1.669 million to which you are

referring is not the actual figure. Now that we have been through the year and

we have the actual expenditures, that figure is now $1,536,900.

MS. VERGE: But I do not understand why that

discrepancy would be there. I meant this was on -

MR. GULLAGE: Because there was a reserve funding

amount of $130,000 that we did not spend. That w