Social Services Committee — Department of Social Services — 14 May 1991

1991-05-14

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 14, 1991 Social

Services Estimates Committee Social Services & Education (UNEDITED)

Pursuant

to Standing Order 87, Mr. Danny Dumaresque, M.H.A. (Eagle River) substitutes for

Mr. Charles Power, M.H.A. (Ferryland).

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

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Murphy): Order please!

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the continuation

of the Social Services Estimates Review Committee; again this evening I want to

welcome the Minister and his staff, and the committee members, the press and the

public.

I do not know if there is any need to re-introduce

everybody, we have a carry over from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes okay, fine. At this time I

want to quickly introduce the other committee members. The Vice-Chair, the

Member for Humber East, Ms. Lynn Verge; the Member for St. John's East, Mr. Jack

Harris; the Member for Bonavista South, Mr. Aubrey Gover; the Member for Trinity

North, Mr. Douglas Oldford and the Member for Eagle River, Mr. Danny Dumaresque

and again our secretary for this evening is the Deputy Clerk of the House of

Assembly, Miss Elizabeth Murphy, and I would ask the Minister if he would be

kind enough to introduce his staff, so that Hansard will know who is here.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my left

is my Deputy Minister, Mr. Bruce Peckford; the Assistant Deputy Minister for

Regional Operations on my right, Mr. David Roberts; Mr. Noel Browne, Assistant

Deputy Minister for Social Assistance; Mr. Beaton Tulk, Assistant Deputy

Minister for Child Welfare; Mr. Jim Strong, Financial Administrator for the

Department of Social Services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.

Minister; I think we can move right into the questions. I will give an

opportunity to the Vice-Chair, the Member for Humber East, but before I do that,

I will ask for motion to move the minutes as circulated, moved by Mr. Harris and

seconded by Mr. Gover.

Are there any errors or omissions?

MR. GOVER: (Inaudible), in place of Mr. Gover.

Mr. Ramsay in place of Mr. Reid. What is the difference between `in place of and

in lieu of'?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what it says, if I am

reading the hon. Member right, is that the original Members who were on the

Estimates Committee as read in the House of Assembly, were replaced by, and I

think that is self-explanatory, Mr. Simms replaced Ms. Verge; Mr. Aylward

replaced Mr. Gover and Mr. Ramsay replaced Mr. Reid.

Of course, the appropriate letters were in the

hands of the secretary before we convened the meeting and I think that is the

normal practice Mr. Gover; so, are there any other questions re the Minutes?

All those in favour?

Contrary? Carried.

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. When we last met as a

Committee to consider the Social Services Estimates for this year, I reminded

the Minister that two years ago, on June 8, 1989, he said that the social

assistance caseload was 19,631, of which approximately 3,500 were single

parents, mostly mothers.

I asked for the equivalent statistics as at our

last meeting a week or so ago and the Minister replied that the current social

assistant caseload is about 25,500, which would be more than a 25 per cent

increase in two years.

He also said that the number of single parent

families on the social assistance caseload has risen to 9,900; I later

questioned one of the officials about the sharp increase in the caseload and in

particular the dramatic rise from 3500 to 9900 in the number of single parent

families on welfare. I would like to give the Minister an opportunity this

evening to discuss those statistics, to talk about the rise in the social

assistance caseload, to discuss the number of single parent families, mostly

mothers, I assume, and children who have had to resort to social assistance. I

would like the Minister to give as much information as possible about the

increase in the number of people in the Province depending on welfare, the

reasons for this, and a profile of the caseload? If these figures are really

true, and there has been such an alarming rise in the number of people on social

assistance, what has gone wrong? What has the Provincial Government been doing

wrong to prompt such a terrible increase in the number of people having to draw

social assistance? What is the Minister proposing to do to assist the thousands

of families on social assistance who would prefer to be in school or in the

workforce so that they can get out of the welfare trap?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: First of all let me correct the

numbers of caseloads. As of March 1989 there were 19,600. I gave a figure the

other night where in 1981, I think, there were approximately 25,500, but as of

March 31 there were 23,466. As of March 1989 there were 6300 single parents in

the Province depending on social assistance and out of those numbers there are

different categories of social assistance. If I remember correctly back when we

were talking about those numbers, the different number of single parents who are

on social assistance, people who are in the work force, widows, and whatever,

different categories, but the total single parents depending on social

assistance in March 1989 was 6300 and in March of 1991 there are 7500. According

to statistics provided to me today that is the total number. You also asked the

question the other night: how many were male and how many were female?

Approximately 80 per cent of the single parents, according to statistics we have

at our disposal, have females as head of the family. You asked me why we have

such high numbers. Why did we have 19,600 in March 31, 1989 and why do we now

have 23,000? I suppose I could go back to what I have said about 150 times in

the past two or three months in the House of Assembly. It is the result of

seventeen years of mismanagement in this Province and no job creation, and no

strong emphasis put on the education of the lower disadvantaged families in the

Province. That is one of the main reasons why. One of the other reasons is the

fact that we have had a large influx of refugees last year into the Province.

You are well aware of the influx we had back in January to April of last year.

We had to take some steps to try and encourage people who did not want to stay

in the province to make it possible for those people to leave the Province. Then

there were a number of refugees who wanted to stay because they had their first

or second level hearings already scheduled so it was more advantageous for those

people to stay in the Province. We had, in any given month, 300 to 400, and

sometimes 500 refugees in the Province at any one time. There is a pretty steady

moving around.

I think a little over 200 came in this year, and

probably the same number has left the Province. As soon as they get the

opportunity to leave, they do. Because in this Province we don't have

opportunities for those individuals. Certainly most of them who leave the

countries from where they originate, their homeland, pretty well have friends or

families in Ontario, Quebec or a larger province where the job opportunities are

very much greater. I do not know if they are much greater today but certainly

their intention was there when they decided to come.

Another problem with the increase in the caseloads, is

the heavy reliance on home support right now. The trend for people, seniors and

the disabled, to move away from institutional living and stay within the

community, within their own home environment, or apartment living or whatever,

there is a lot more emphasis placed on that today. Therefore that certainly

increases the number of people by a great deal on social assistance. Last year

we spent approximately $11 million in home care for the seniors and disabled and

the people within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This year we have

budgeted approximately $13 million. Now that may go higher or lower depending on

the caseloads as the year goes by. I do not expect it will lower. I expect it

will probably increase, the demand will increase. But certainly we have $13

million budgeted.

You asked me what we are doing for single parents and

for people on social assistance to get away from it and become independent.

There is nobody in this Province who would like to see that any more than I

would like to see it. I spent four years on the Opposition as a critic for

social services. I identified and disagreed with a lot of the policies of the

former administration. In fact in most cases there were no policies. There is

$25 million spent each year on community development projects. And I always

identified the fact that most of that money was spent to put people to work for

ten weeks, so they would get UI benefits for the remainder of the year. In other

words, they would not be dependent on the Provincial treasury, they would be

dependent on Ottawa.

There will always be a need for that - there is no

question about it - some of it. But I think we should take a lot of that money

and place it into areas where we can provide incentives for people who want to

get away from the system, who do want to get into education programmes whether

it be Memorial University or a vocational institute or whatever, on-the-job

training, sharing the cost of a job with the private sector.

So we are putting emphasis on that. We started that

last year. It is not something new this year. We are hiring on now ten trained

employment counsellors with the expertise in how to assess the needs of people.

Because one of the things I have found is that we so often - and not only

Provincially but Federally - when we bring in job development programmes or we

try to get people job ready we do not look at the individual needs and the

abilities of people. So these job counsellors will be able to do a full complete

assessment on individuals to see exactly what those people should be trained

for. It is no good training a person to be an airline pilot or an airline

technician if there are no jobs around. So you try to bring the ability of the

individual up to the job market which is available, and also try to teach people

how to become entrepreneurs in their own way, into a small business development,

where the opportunity arises.

So we are placing a lot of emphasis on those

programmes starting with the basic life skills, self-esteem, motivation of

individuals. Now, are we going to accomplish it overnight? Absolutely not. I

have been Minister of Social Services now just two years just approximately two

weeks ago. We have made a lot of inroads into helping and dealing and

identifying the problems, and I think we are on the right road to working with

people. We cannot, as a Department, do it alone. It has to be a cooperative

venture between the individuals themselves who want to take on the initiative,

all we can do is provide an opportunity and some incentives within the realm of

our responsibility. That is the trend not only for single parents but all people

who are on social assistance.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) revised statistics given

tonight there has been over a 20 per cent increase in the number of families on

social assistance over the past two years since the Liberals formed the

Government, over a 20 per cent increase.

Now, sitting in the gallery are two single mothers

attending Memorial University bearly staying in school, clinging by their

fingernails, they are both on social assistance but because of the Minister's

policy of deducting fully, student loans, money that the students get and have

to pay back in full, they cannot afford to continue in school. The Minister

announced on March 1, a committee to study this problem. Now, two and a half

months have gone by, can the Minister not indicate that he is going to make

changes before the next school year starts, well in advance of September, to

allow social assistance recipients who want to go to school, who already are

part way through education programs, to carry on with their academic work so

they can qualify for jobs, so they can become productive. They do not want to

continue to take from the welfare system. They want a chance, just a chance, to

be productive and contributing members of society.

Will the Minister say there is a deadline for that

committee? Will the Minister promise to have positive decisions to help single

parents go to school and stay in school before September? Will he undertake to

make public the report of the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Minister, if you would just singly respond to that

question because I want to give equal time (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, there are hypocrites and

there are hypocrites but when I have to sit here and listen to that sort of

nonsense, when after seventeen years in power in the Government and they never

made one positive step to help anybody on social assistance, especially the

single parents, she sits down here and tries to tell me that I must implement

that demand before a certain deadline. That is absolute nonsense. The one thing

I am going to clearly tell you is that this Government - I do not care how much

you play to the gallery - this Department and me as Minister does have the

plight of single parents in mind. Not only the single parents at Memorial

University, not only the single parents at Cabot Institute, but the 7,500 single

parents across this Province. Now, it is not just enough to say: do we know the

problems that single parents are incurring in their education? Yes. The

Committee is not put together just to deal with the plight of single parents in

the Province trying to purchase their books, their tuition, their rent, their

day care, their transportation, we know that. But it is much more detailed than

that and the hon. Member, if she has any knowledge of the system whatsoever,

knows there are 15,000 to 16,000 other people going to Memorial University plus

thousands going to other vocational institutions, single people.

Regardless of whether they are single parents or not,

what happens under the Canada Assistance Plan if you allowed single parents as

one specific group? You do have some knowledge of the Canada Assistance Plan.

When we are ready to deal with the problem and the doors that could be opened up

by allowing single parents to receive the maintenance income as a non-allowable

income, the effect that it will or will not have on other groups of people going

to educational institutions, then we will make the decision.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Our intent is to do it as soon as

possible. We will do it when we are ready. We will hope to have it by the fall

semester, when we are ready, when it is done properly. It will not be done in an

ad hoc manner, but it will be done for the interest of single parents all over

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, understanding their dilemma,

understanding the frustrations they are having, but done to protect them in the

future, not just done in an ad hoc manner.

MS. VERGE: I hope so!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: You need not hope so! It will be done

that way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I give the questions to Mr.

Harris the Chair wants to make a couple of points. Number one, the questions are

the questions; the answers of course are the answers. Now, some people may not

like the questions and some people may not like the answers. But in saying that,

that is exactly what the Chair must recognize. And we are not into debate as

such here and we should not be into debate. I mean, if certain Committee Members

pose questions, the Minister responds or he asks his staff to respond, and I

would ask that format to stay in place.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, a very wise

ruling. I would like to ask a simple and civilized question in regard to what

the Member has just raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: (Inaudible) at least you do not have a

record.

MR. HARRIS: I beg your pardon?

MR. GOVER: A record of seventeen years in power

and doing nothing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

MR. GOVER: Or any other kind of record.

MR. HARRIS: I thought you were insulting the

Member for Humber East for having a record. I did not know what the issue was.

The issue, as I understand it, for the single parents, the one that the Minister

has been asked to deal with, is a very specific and simple one, in relation to

monies borrowed. That is, from the student loan programme. That if the loan

portion of monies borrowed from the student loan programme, whether or not the

Department should fairly consider that as income. Money that they have to pay

back. I mean, no different in any real sense than money that they might borrow

from a bank or some other source that they have to pay back.

Now that strikes me - now you call me naive if you

wish - as a fairly simple matter. Now there may be bureaucratic

interpretations

in Ottawa from the Canada Student Loans programme. It strikes me also that it

does not take a committee of five people to figure out whether or not there are

other implications. It seems to me that there are bureaucrats in your

Department, or within Canada Student Loans in Ottawa or in the Canada Assistance

Programme in Ottawa, that could answer that question in a matter off hours. If

not hours, days. By assigning someone to determine that question.

And I just wonder whether or not in fact what the

Minister is doing is putting off the decision instead of taking the bull by the

horns, coming up with an answer to the question, and telling people what is

going on. Is that not a simple question?

MR. EFFORD: I will answer your first question, you

are naive, if that is your own estimation or knowledge about the question.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, no, I will answer your question.

Secondly, you are not the Minister of Social Services. You are a critic and you

are asking questions, and we make the decisions on what is best for the single

parents. If you have any idea or concept of what the Canada Assistance Plan is

all about, everybody who is in need must be treated by the guidelines, rules and

regulations, otherwise we could jeopardize the whole Canada Assistance Plan. Now

a single person going to Memorial University in his own right as an adult

individual, not being dependent on their parents or some members of their family

for income - so in their own right they could qualify depending on the amount of

money that is allowable by the Department of Social Services. So if we set up an

income for single parents in this Province it could have an impact on the

remainder of the people going to Memorial University or going to education

institutions. So we have to be very careful.

So we are going to take our time. Not an unreasonable

amount of time. If we did not put a committee in place we would be condemned for

that. If we did not give people an opportunity to appear before that committee

we would be condemned for that. Now the situation is, this was only done

approximately a month, a month and half ago, let's say approximately two months

ago. Now, I said at that time, and I asked the committee to try to do it in a

reasonable period of time so that we could have a decision made one way or

another before the fall semester; now that, in all fairness I expect will be

done, but I will not commit to a deadline and I will not be pressured into

making a rash decision; that is the advice I accepted on behalf of the officials

in the Department.

The decision was not made solely by me as Minister. I

accepted the advice of the officials in the Department and we have to have a

reasonable amount of information to make a decision which is sensible, rational,

logical and common sense, as long as we do not jeopardise the Canada Assistance

Plan and we do not open up the flood gates where the whole 17,000 individuals

going to Memorial University can apply for social assistance and receive it.

Surely if I had done that, what kind of criticism would I get then?

So, what I am saying to the hon. Member for St. John's

East is, that it is not something that you can jump into and make a rapid

decision and make it the right decision, but we will. That is the estimation I

can make this evening is that I can tell you from the advice of the five Members

of the Committee, that they should be clued up when all the people across the

Province, the different groups have an opportunity, if they want to make

representation to the Committee, they have an opportunity to do by the fall

semester.

If that is an unreasonable amount of time, then I

apologize to the single parents, but they must have patience and the fall

semester will not make or break anybody.

MR. HARRIS: Have you asked the Canada Assistance

Plan people in Ottawa for an opinion?

MR. EFFORD: That is being done.

MR. HARRIS: That has been done.

MR. EFFORD: That is being done.

MR. HARRIS: But it has not yet been done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Mr. Harris has another question.

MR. HARRIS: I have another question I want to

follow-up on from the last time as we ran out of time the last time I was asking

the Minister about this. I felt that the Minister was not being totally

forthcoming when I asked the number of secretaries in his office because when I

was looking at -

MR. EFFORD: You what?

MR. HARRIS: When I was looking at the estimates-

MR. EFFORD: Oh, I thought you said you were

talking to the secretaries in my office, because I would not agree with that.

MR. HARRIS: I did not hear what you said, but

anyway, the Minister's office shows salaries in the Estimates of $155,500 and in

the Minister's office under the Departmental Salary details, shows $144,000 so

there is a difference of $11,000, which I will ask the Minister to explain. The

second question has to do with the number of secretaries the Minister's office

has and I understand from the answer the Minister gave the last time, that in

fact, he has three secretaries.

One secretary to the Minister, one Departmental

secretary to the Minister and one other and I will ask the Minister if he could

tell us where that `other' secretary's salary is shown in the Estimates.

MR. EFFORD: Let me clear up any misunderstanding

the hon. Member is having about the Minister's Office.

You know my name; my political secretary is Joan

Efford. If you want to know who she is, she is my sister-in-law. Mary Eustace,

is a secretary to the Minister who came with the Department from the former

Minister; the other secretary is Robin Russell, a former President of the

Student Union at Memorial University, just graduated with a degree in political

science. She is a secretary in the Minister's office.

Why do we have that amount of secretarial staff there?

If the hon. Member would come over with me and spend one week from 7:30 in the

morning until about sometimes eight, nine, ten o'clock in the evening, and then

when I go back to my apartment or my home, which ever one I can get to that

evening, and receive the number of calls we receive from around the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador on a weekly basis, we have a need for at least four to

five more people within that office to deal with the requests and the calls

which we get on a day to day basis.

There is nobody, and I am speaking from the Deputy

Ministers, the Executive right down to the office in Nain, Labrador; all of the

offices around, the fifty-five district offices, the five regional offices, and

Confederation Building, with the number of requests and the number of things

they have to deal with on a day to day basis, that nobody sits idle in the

Department of Social Services, and there is no such thing as being over staffed.

MR. HARRIS: I did not mention anything about being

over staffed, or whether they were necessary or not. I asked the Minister two

questions, what is the explanation of the discrepancy between 144,000 in the

detail Estimates and 155,500 in the 1991 Estimates book in Line 1.0.01? Where

does the salary unit for the third secretary show? It does not show in the

permanent staff so I guess it is not permanent staff complement. Perhaps the

Minister could point that out?

MR. EFFORD: The only difference is I did not

explain that Robin Russell's is a temporary position to deal with the workload

we had last year. We do not know how much longer that is going to continue and

we will probably need to hire somebody else. What you have in front of you just

shows the permanent staffing. The difference in the amount of money you are

talking about there, and you asked the same question the other evening of the

Minister of Justice, and I think you will find it in pretty well every

Minister's book as the $8000 car allowance.

MR. HARRIS: That would bring us up to $152,000.

MR. EFFORD: I have no other explanation unless I

am getting a raise that I am not aware of.

MR. HARRIS: There is an $11,350 difference and the

Minister has said there is a car allowance of $8000.

MR. EFFORD: The financial administrator Mr. Strong

explained there are some extra monies there, I think which is normal, for some

step increases in salaries to be paid the secretaries. They get a step increase.

MR. HARRIS: They get step increases during the

year.

MR. EFFORD: Well, normally.

MR. HARRIS: Why would it be different? Why would

the detail Estimates not contain the step increase and the other book contain

the step increase? Is there some explanation as to when the Estimates are put

together why one contains it and one does not? We are dealing with the same year

here. We are not dealing with one year versus another year.

MR. EFFORD: You have to remember that when we do

the Budget we do the Budget based on the salaries in place at that particular

time, and the salary Estimates show the revised salaries. It is not done up by

the Department of Social Services but it takes into consideration the step

increases done up by the Hay Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: These are actual salaries and this

makes allowance for step increases.

MR. HARRIS: So, this one here contains the actual

salary levels, the current levels, I guess, at the time of printing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: And the Estimates includes what it

would cost whenever the step increase kicks in. Is that the explanation? I am

not hard to get along with. I just want to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) office and you see

$144,174 and

$26,400 for temporary and other employees, $8000 which

the Minister explained as a car allowance, you will see permanent and other

adjustments at $23,074 for a total of $155,500 which is totally in line with the

salaries in the Estimates themselves.

I am looking on Page 201 in your departmental salary

details.

I do not want to be answering for the Minister but I

do not know if we should prolong this. If you look you can see that the total at

the end of the Minister's office is $155,500 and the salaries, as per 261 in the

Estimates, are exactly the same.

MR. HARRIS: I want to thank the Chair and the

Committee. I would have expected and hoped that the Minister and his staff would

have been quite able to point that out when I asked them simple questions.

MR. EFFORD: I told you we had a temporary staff

and I told you there was an $8,000 car allowance. So, that is the same thing

there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) overtime and other

earnings of $8,000.

MR. HARRIS: You must be very thankful to the Chair

for explaining something that you were unable to.

What about the permanent and other adjustments? What

is that $23,000? Perhaps that one can be explained because that seems to be the

explanation that is necessary.

Well, the Minister does not have to answer questions

that is perfectly plain. The $23,074 the permanent and other adjustments is the

discrepancy between the three figures he has been talking about. The $26,400 I

guess is the temporary staff figure, and the permanent and other adjustments is

$23,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: I would like to refer the Minister to

the Budget Speech. In the Budget Speech there is one item under Social Services,

I will just read it and then the Minister can comment, I am sure the Minister is

quite familiar with it. Actually, it is not in the Estimates but in the Budget

Speech itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Oh, you have the Budget Speech. It is a

separate booklet from the Estimates. I am sure you are aware of what I am going

to raise. I will just point out what is here, `In addition the Government has

decided to approve the social assistance programme response to single parents

with dependent children by introducing a single-parents monthly supplement of

$55. This allowance recognizes the special need of single-parent families and

will bridge the gap between the amount paid to single-parent families and that

paid to two parent families. These two measures' I believe it means the fuel

supplement measure and the $55 `will cost $8 million in the next fiscal year.'

Just to focus on that $55 a month supplement, what is

the gap between single-parent families and two parent families with the same

number of children? How does the $55 address that gap? After the $55 is paid

will a gap still remain or not?

MR. EFFORD: The reason why we did that is very

clear. For example, a couple, two adults and a child in a family, the adult

under social assistance would receive much more than you would get as an

individual, a single parent with a child would only get one adult allowance from

social assistance and the first child would be treated as a child. So what we

wanted to do is treat the first child as an adult as far as the monthly

allowance for social assistance is concerned, so that $55 would bring that

single-parent family on the same scale as if there were two adults in the family

because he/she incurs the same expenses in maintaining a household whether there

are two adults or two children, the heat, lights, and the operation of that

household would remain the same. So, we are treating the first child as an adult

and that would bring the allowance up as if there were two parents and they

would receive the same amount in that household, which was a very positive step

for the single parents, by the way.

MR. GOVER: Let me get this straight in my own

mind, the situation before this change was: a father, a mother and a child would

get two adult allowances and a child allowance; and the single-parent family

would get one adult allowance and a child's allowance.

MR. EFFORD: Exactly.

MR. GOVER: Now, the situation is that the

single-parent family gets two adult allowances.

MR. EFFORD: That is correct.

MR. GOVER: So they are still behind the two parent

family unit by one child allowance; is that correct?

MR. EFFORD: No, no. The extra fifty-five dollars

would be what that adult male, the father, would receive on his monthly

allowance cheque.

MR. GOVER: Yes. I am not quite sure -

MR. EFFORD: Well you see the child still receives

the allowance per year he or she was receiving. We are giving an extra

fifty-five dollars to bring that up, so they are receiving an extra fifty-five

dollars so that the social assistance cheque that they receive on a monthly

basis would be the same as if there were two adults and one child, instead of

one adult and one child, they are now receiving the same as if there were two

adults in the family.

MR. HARRIS: Ask him to give it to you in baby

talk.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. GOVER: I do not want to ask him to give it to

me in baby talk, I would just like to determine if there is a discrepancy

between two parent families with a child on social assistance and a single

parent with a child on social assistance?

MR. EFFORD: Not now, there would not be. There

was.

MR. GOVER: There was, and the Minister has now

rectified that particular discrepancy and I mean, if the Member for St. John's

East would like to tell me how to ask the questions, then I might as well pack

it in and go.

The purpose of the Estimates Committee is to obtain

information and certainly with the number of people in my district on social

assistance, and the number of calls I receive from people on social assistance,

I am certainly going to take this opportunity to obtain whatever information I

can, whether the Member for St. John's East likes it or not, and I certainly

commend the Minister, as the Member for St. John's East should be doing, on

correcting that discrimination, which obviously has existed for some eighteen

years.

MR. HARRIS: That was an aside.

MR. GOVER: That was an aside; provoked. You see

the Member for St. John's East wants me to use up my time without asking any

pertinent questions to the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would ask him to move.

MR. GOVER: I beg your pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Member to move on.

MR. GOVER: You would ask the Member to move on?

Thank you.

With respect to the issue that you raised about the

Canada Assistance Plan, I noticed your total departmental budget is

approximately $144 million and I noticed in the revenue estimates that the

revenue from the Canada Assistance Plan is approximately $129,400,000; now does

all the revenue from the Canada Assistance Plan flow into the Department of

Social Services and is attributable to the $144 million departmental budget?

MR. EFFORD: Not directly. Everything that is spent

under the Department of Social Services that is cost-shared under the Canada

Assistance Plan is fifty-cent dollars that is returned, so if we spend $100

million in the Department of Social Services, we get $50 million returned to the

general revenues, so that comes back to the Province and is budgeted different

amounts each particular year-

AN HON. MEMBER: And it is over different sub-heads

in the (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes. It is not just in social

assistance; there are different sub-heads within the budget estimates, as I

explained the other night, I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bonavista

was here but when we were talking about the employment opportunities programme

under four different headings.

On one heading we received fifty-cent dollars back

from the

Federal Government, under another heading we do not

receive any money back because of the type of project and on another one we

would probably see 65/35 per cent, so that is the reason they were placed under

different headings so that we would receive a maximum amount of money from the

Canada Assistance Plan.

But, we do wherever possible take advantage of that,

but under the social assistance plan, the direct social assistance, we would

receive fifty-cent dollars back.

AN HON. MEMBER: It also includes (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, like the Department of Health; we

would put in claims for other Departments because they have some cost-sharing

under so many programmes also, so we do administer the Canada Assistance Plan

through the Department of Social Services. So we have to send up a budget and -

what is the right term? It would not be a budget. A claim, yes, a claim for the

amount of money that is allowed to be claimed for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes. Monies like, for argument's

sake, the Federal Government gives us special monies for the new systems, the

computer projects that we are putting in different Departments like young

offenders, child welfare. We are trying to computerize the whole Department and

that is cost shared by the Federal Government.

The young offenders plan was capped two years ago. And

now it's whatever money we spend over $8 million, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five million dollars.

MR. EFFORD: Five million dollars?

AN HON. MEMBER: Capped at $5 million.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, okay, capped at $5 million. So

any money spent over that now the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is

responsible for.

MR. GOVER: I just have one more question, Mr.

Chairman. With respect to the other item in the Budget speech, the $50 a month

fuel allowance, what percentage of the families on social assistance will

receive that particular allowance, and how much of an increase will that be on

their social assistance? Can the Minister advise us of that?

MR. EFFORD: Oh boy. I had that too. All the people

on coastal Labrador were receiving a subsidy. Not all the people who occupy

Newfoundland and Labrador housing units were receiving a heat subsidy. Those are

the ones that we are giving that $50 to. I had the numbers, I can provide them

for the hon. Member tomorrow - in fact they may be there in my desk - but I had

the numbers available. But I just cannot tell you off the top of my head now the

numbers of families that will affect. But it is (Inaudible) taking a guess, but

it would be about 4,000 to 5,000 if I remember correctly. But I had better not

guess because then I will get - you know, I will find and get you the

information.

MR. GOVER: But what you are saying is that

families who do not live in NLHC units around the coast of Labrador -

MR. EFFORD: Yes, because they were already

receiving a heat subsidy.

MR. GOVER: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: So all the remainders will now receive

the $50 a month.

MR. GOVER: I see. And do you have any idea - like

on the basic family unit say of two parents and a child, or a single person and

a child, how much of an increase that would be for those people who receive it?

MR. EFFORD: Oh, it will be $50 a month.

MR. GOVER: Yes, but on the basic amount of the

assistance that they (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, for argument's sake, two parents

and two children receive $605 a month now. That is the basic social assistance.

So then they will receive $655.

MR. GOVER: So it is approximately - it is over an

8 percent increase.

MR. EFFORD: Well, depending on the numbers in the

family, yes. Now, two people, a single parent and one child, if I remember

correctly, $495 a month. Single parents and one child. Four hundred and

ninety-five dollars a month, approximately, that would be the amount, and they

would receive $50 a month for six months of the year.

MR. GOVER: For six months of the year.

MR. EFFORD: For six months of the year, in the

winter months, the heat subsidy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Ten thousand people will receive that

$50 a month.

MR. GOVER: Okay. So at least for those particular

people then their social assistance levels are not frozen. There will be an

increase in the payments they receive from the Department of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. They were treated unfairly

because the people in coastal Labrador and people in Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing units were receiving that money, which left an unfair advantage for

individuals who were not in those to pay their heat bill and it is difficult. It

is very difficult. We all admit $605 a month for a family of four is not

sufficient income. But the Province does not have enough money to provide a

guaranteed essential income. That can only be implemented by the Federal

Government. What we are trying to do is to provide some money to ease the strain

and the frustrations on families.

But we have to deal with the larger problem and try to

get people educated in some vocation of their choosing, to get them away from

social assistance altogether. You are never going to get 54,000 people in the

Province today off social assistance because some of them just cannot be trained

for one reason or another and the job opportunities are not there for all

individuals but we can try to help some of them. So, any step in the right

direction towards self-sufficiency by individuals is certainly a positive step.

You take a single parent that is an extra $105 a month they will be receiving

for six months of the year and $55 for the remainder of the year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Mr. Oldford.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I have one question I wanted to ask you

about and that was in the rehabilitation area of social services. Under

section

4.3.02 you have a prevocational training centre listed, and under 5.2.04 you

have vocational services. Now you have more than tripled the budget for

vocational services, I wonder why does that appear under services to families

rather than under the rehabilitation area in your Department?

MR. EFFORD: The prevocational training centre was

in the old sanatorium on Topsail Road. What we did there was, we took a number

of disabled or developmentally delayed people - it is a day programme - and

approximately fifty people go out there every day for a day programme. The other

one you are talking about in 4.3.02 that is the new programme under the

community development out of the $25 million that I spoke about earlier, where

we are giving individuals, using the example again of socially disabled or

under-educated people dependent upon social assistance or single parents who

want to avail of a training programme. We are putting that amount of money into

the new training programmes because we believe 99.99 per cent of the people who

are on social assistance would rather be independent and educated.

Unfortunately, for one reason or another they were dropouts in school and never

got an opportunity to get in on an education programme. That is what I was

talking about earlier when I answered the question from the hon. Member for

Humber East regarding what we are doing to help people on social assistance.

That is one of the new programmes under the Employment Opportunities Programme

that we are placing a lot of emphasis on. I would like to see as Minister and I

think the officials in the Department and the Director, Mr. Franey of the

Employment Opportunities Programme, would like to see that tripled but we have

to start slow because we have to work with the community colleges and the

educational programmes within the Province to provide opportunities for people

and ensure that they are just not trained for the sake of training. Train them

and give them an opportunity so they will get some benefits from it. We want to

make sure that what we are doing we are doing for the right reasons and not just

to do something for the sake of doing it.

MR. OLDFORD: I agree with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: The Minister has said about one-third

of the families on social assistance are single-parent families mostly mother

lead, many of those families qualify for court-ordered child support or

maintenance. Now, up to last October 1 maintenance was considered under the

social assistance regulations as allowable income, the same as earnings from a

job. There was an incentive built into the rules for social assistance

recipients seeking and getting maintenance or child support. They were allowed

to benefit up to $115 a month. Similarly, there was an incentive for absent

parents or spouses paying the support. Since May 1, 1989 for the last two years

the Department of Justice has had an office enforcing court orders -

MR. EFFORD: What year did it start?

MS. VERGE: May 1, 1989, one of the tremendous

accomplishments of the former administration.

MR. EFFORD: The only accomplishment.

MS. VERGE: One of many accomplishments of the

former progressive administration. It has only been in the last two years that

court orders for child support and maintenance have meant something. It has only

been during the past two years that any number of them have been enforced, and

single parents on social assistance and their children were only feeling the

benefit of court orders for support for a few months when the Minister pulled

the rug out from under them by suddenly reclassifying maintenance as

non-allowable income. I have asked for the past seven and a half months how much

money did the Government save as a result of that measure? How much money did

the Government save on the backs of the single mothers and the children? The

Minister has never yet given me an answer.

MR. EFFORD: None.

MS. VERGE: I do not believe it.

MR. EFFORD: Did we save money? Saving money means

taking money and putting it into a bank and not using it. That is saving money.

MS. VERGE: Saving money means taking income out of

the hands, and taking food out of the mouths of single mothers and their

children. There were hundreds of single parent families in this Province who

lost as much as $115 a month as of last October 1. What I want to know is how

much did the reclassification of maintenance as non-allowable income cost the

single parent families and how much did Government gain as a result of that

measure?

MR. EFFORD: Let me quote the former Minister of

Justice. I think it was in 1989 when that then Minister of Justice enforced the

Maintenance Income which is now situated in the great district of Corner Brook.

The reason why she brought it in is that single parents and spouses, should not

get away from paying maintenance to their ex-wife or children and they should

not be a burden on the taxpayers of the Province.

MS. VERGE: Needlessly.

MR. EFFORD: That is why you brought in the

Maintenance Enforcement Agency.

MS. VERGE: That was not the purpose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. We are here to ask

Estimate questions and when the Member poses a question we should not get into

debate or dialogue. If the Member does not agree with the Minister's answer then

the Chair has to protect the answer as well as it must protect the question. I

ask the Member to let the Minister respond and then the Member can respond

rather than intrusions that do nothing for the answers we all need.

Thank you.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your

protection. I need that.

Very clearly, I have a great deal of interest in

providing opportunities for single parents. We just brought in a new program, as

was so ably brought up by the hon. Member for Bonavista, where we just gave

$50.00 and treated the first child as an adult, plus the $50.00 each subsidy and

we are now looking at new incentives for opportunities for education, plus $175

a month for people who are going into the work force, for single parents to take

care of their first months rent. I think that $175 is an incentive for

individuals, so we are not closing, and not listening to the needs of single

parents. Yes, we disallowed the maintenance income of $115 a month but we are

providing many other opportunities for single parents. Do we save money in the

Department of Social Services? Absolutely not. Last year we had to go for a

special warrant at the end of the year for $10 million. We have a Budget this

year of $257 million in the Department of Social Services and I have no doubt

with the needs of the individuals in this Province now, we will probably have to

come back for more money later on. One of the drains that we had here last year

in the Department was something like $7 million or $8 million we had spent on

refugees. I would have liked to have had that money to spend on the needs of

individuals within the Province. We do not save money. No Government and no

Department is in administration to save money. But we have to try to spend the

money where it better fits the people and individuals in the Province. And there

will never be enough, no matter how much money we spend.

But what we have to try to do is provide opportunities

so those individuals can become self-reliant, independent, and get away from

dependence on the measly amount of money that they receive from social

assistance. Restore some dignity, independence and pride back into individuals.

And that is my goal and the administration of the Department of Social Services

today. Not like the former administration which never brought in any incentives

for individuals on social assistance whatsoever except to put them to work for

fifteen weeks so they could draw UI benefits for forty weeks. And that was the

total object of what the former administration did.

So I am not going to sit here and be totally

criticised for all of the positive things we are doing. We make a decision, we

stand by the decision. I do not hide behind any closed doors or closet doors and

hide my head away from it. You have heard me, I have answered that question in

the House of Assembly a hundred times, and I will answer it again: there will be

no change in the maintenance income.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I have asked this Minister

for the last seven and a half months to tell the House the impact on his

Department's budget of the October 1, 1990 decision to reclassify maintenance as

non-allowable income under the social assistance regulations. He steadfastly

refused to answer the question. Obviously that change in policy cost hundreds of

single parent families up to $115 a month, which for some of them amounted to 20

per cent of their family income. Obviously, conversely, it saved the Department

money. Yes, the Department paid more than it forecast last year because the

social assistance caseload has gone up dramatically. The Minister himself has

told us that the number of families in this Province drawing welfare has risen

by more than 20 per cent since the Government changed, since the `real change'

Liberals took office two years ago.

The Minister himself has said that the number of

single parent families on welfare has risen by over 20 per cent. I say to the

Minister that hundreds if not thousands of those single parent families are

getting court ordered maintenance. And if it had not been for his regressive

change last October they would be benefiting by up to $115 a month by virtue of

getting that court ordered maintenance. Now there is no benefit to the judgement

debtors, to the men for the most part paying, or to the judgement creditors. The

Government is simply taking the money and subtracting it dollar for dollar from

social assistance.

And that is inevitably going to discourage people from

going to court to even try to get a court order, or encourage them to get as low

orders as possible. I mean, why would people bother when the maintenance is

simply going to be subtracted dollar for dollar?

MR. EFFORD: Is that a question or a speech?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Obviously, obviously.

MS. VERGE: It's both.

MR. EFFORD: Okay. Are you ready for an answer?

MS. VERGE: I am repeating the question that the

Minister has never answered, which is the impact on his Department's budget -

MR. EFFORD: Do you want an answer? If you don't be

quiet I won't answer it at all!

MS. VERGE: - of the October 1 change in social

assistance policy involving treating maintenance as non-allowable income.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! You know the obvious

is that we would like Members of the Committee to put questions to the Minister.

The hon. Member herself says that this question has been posed to the Minister

for the last seven or eight months and she still has not had a satisfactory

answer.

It has been posed twice now in the Estimates, so the

Chair does not want to belabour it and will not belabour it. I think the

Minister has responded, obviously not to the satisfaction of the Member, and the

Member, I am sure will pursue the question at some other time-

MS. VERGE: But, Chairperson, I am not satisfied

with that. It is a perfectly simple, straightforward budgetary question-

MR. EFFORD: What was the question?

MS. VERGE: - and the Minister has consistently

evaded it, but I think it is because he is ashamed and embarrassed to admit that

the Government saved only a paltry amount of money at the expense of hundreds of

single parents and thousands of children.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Now, the Chair is not going to let constant debate go

on on this particular subject; it proves absolutely nothing, it draws nothing on

the Estimates from the hon. the Minister's department, it does not satisfy

obviously, the hon. Member, and in saying that I would recognize the Member for

Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out

many times in the Committee, there are several Members to the Committee, not

just the Vice-Chairman and it is obvious that whenever a Member asks a question,

the answer may not be satisfactory to the Member, as often occurs in Question

Period when a question is asked, the answer may not be satisfactory. I suppose

in Question Period though, we have the late show, where, there is another

opportunity to debate the question and the answer and I suppose in the House,

there is ample opportunity for debate of questions and answers.

But, the Estimates Committee cannot be a committee

whereby a Member can ask the same question to the Minister, over and over again

until the Minster gives the answer that the Member expects to receive, and in

this particular instance, I mean, the Member is making an assertion that monies

have been saved as a result of this particular move and I am sure the Minister,

who has not been permitted in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, to answer the question

yet, the Minister can, I would suggest demonstrate that there may in fact be no

savings to the Department as a result of this measure, because the expenditure

by the Department for single parent families and for dual parent families if we

like, may be exactly the same and no savings have accrued to the Department.

I mean, it is an assumption on the Member's part that

there are savings and I think the Minister should be allowed to address the

question and my second point is, we cannot be questioning, questioning,

questioning because we are not satisfied with the answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think what the hon. Member

has just said is an extension to what the Chair has already said and I would

give the hon. Minister one short comment, at his discretion to answer the

question, then I would move on to Mr. Harris.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I used the

same analogy as the hon. Member for Humber East, then every family within this

Province would decide not to pay for the support of their children whether they

are living with their wives or husbands or not and say: well, I am not going to

pay for them because social assistance is going to take care of them. That is

utter nonsense.

A man or a parent, has the responsibility for the

support of his children and he should provide that support wherever possible; if

he cannot provide that support, then it is the responsibility of the Department

of Social Services, you cannot get away from that responsibility. But, if we

make it easy for individuals to get away from that responsibility then that is

certainly going to be the outcome.

The obligation for any single parent to apply for

maintenance income if he or she does not receive maintenance income from their

ex spouses, at any given time, or if they receive it for one month and do not

receive it next month, then the Department of Social Service will help them with

that cost.

We just brought in fifty dollars for an extra child in

the family to be treated as an adult, $55 for a special fuel allowance for six

months of the year, that is $105 extra there. Providing educational

opportunities for individuals is another new plan on behalf of the Department of

Social Services for single parents.

Did we save any money? How could we save money when we

had to go for a special warrant of $10 million to help single parents, to help

people on social assistance to go and help seniors receive home care and help

the physically disabled, developmentally delayed, group homes, young offenders,

child welfare, day care, 8,000 children last year on the child protection

caseload in this Province. One thousand new cases of child abuse last year, 547

of those were sexual abuse cases who need counselling on a day to day basis. You

do not save any money in the Department of Social Services. I wish we could but

I have to go back to Treasury Board and Cabinet this year and ask for more money

again. I am going to get kicked around by those officials because they will say

well, what are you doing with the money Efford. We do not save any money in our

Department that is ludicrous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MS. VERGE: There is a $4 million cut in your

budget from last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. EFFORD: Not that again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. HARRIS: Now, I may be foolish to do this but I

am going to ask the same question that I asked before, and it is a pretty common

sense question and thank you to the Chair for pointing out the right place in

the Estimates to go with this. I am going to ask a very simple question and

perhaps if the Minister does not wish to answer it one of his financial wizards

to his right or his Deputy to his left could answer this common sense question

with a common sense answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he did not mean it with any

disparity.

MR. HARRIS: No, the word wizard, I thought it was

a compliment to Mr. Roberts.

On page 201 of the detailed Estimates, the Minister's

Office has $144,000 for permanent employees which are listed in the following,

$26,400 for temporary and other employees - which I assume is the extra

secretary of which we spoke - and $8,000 in overtime and other earnings which is

the Minister's car allowance. That adds up to approximately, leaving out the

hundreds, $178,000 from which is subtracted as an adjustment $23,000 and some

odd leaving a total of $155,500 which is what appears on the salary line in the

Estimates on 1.1.01. Now, the question is how do we come up with the $155,500,

we have had a couple of different explanations. It strikes me, and I am going to

ask a simple question, that $23,000 is an amount subtracted from $178,000 as a

permanent or other adjustment. This cannot be a step increase because it is a

subtraction unless there are step increases and other subtractions from it. So,

there must be some other common sense explanation which is not a political

explanation, which is not an attempt to avoid an explanation, but there must be

some explanation that the Minister or his staff can give for what this

adjustment is. Is there somebody not working throughout the whole year? Or, is

there some explanation of which I am not aware?

MR. EFFORD: I am going to have to answer the hon.

Member because he will not sleep tonight if I do not and I do not want him to

lose a night's sleep.

When we prepared our salary budgets for this year we

had to make some decisions within the Department of Social Services and

especially in the Minister's office. I had to look at where we probably could

not use an employee or let an employee go. One of the decisions I made was that

if the need is not there, and the number of calls and things that come in on a

day to day basis is not there, we possibly could let one of those employees go.

Thus, that is the reason why that was put in there. To date that has not taken

place because the workload is steadily increasing and this is the reason you see

that amount of money there in the brackets. I explained the other amount, the

$8000 for the luxurious car I am driving, and the remainder of the money is for

the Department secretaries in the Minister's office.

MR. HARRIS: It is an interesting explanation and I

assume that this must have come up since the Budget on March 6, the time the

detailed estimates were produced. I am assuming that the Minister's earlier

comments about needing more and more people because of all of the calls was not

operative at the time that the detailed salary estimates were tabled in the

House about a week or so ago. I accept that the Minister is saying that he

thought there would be an adjustment of $23,000 by letting a person go for the

full year but now the salary estimate of $155,500 itself is no longer operative

and that figure ought to be $178,000. Can I assume that is correct, that figure

of $155,500 under salary votes for the Minister's office ought to be $178,000?

Is that the new estimate?

MR. EFFORD: If you want to come back the end of

next month and ask me if she is still there I will then give you that month. We

will play it month by month, but I am not going to tell you now that she is

going to be there next year at this time.

MR. HARRIS: So, it is a month to month decision

but you are not estimating that you will need $178,000, you are still estimating

$155,000?

MR. EFFORD: Month by month.

MR. HARRIS: Let me move to another topic. Perhaps

the Minister is now in a position to provide the information he was unable to

provide in Question Period yesterday on the services that he is inviting

proposals on for the Child Welfare Program, the 1600 hours of administrative

case management, 1400 hours of social work services, 600 hours of psychological

or other counselling, and 800 hours of support of services over a six month

period. Could the Minister perhaps give the estimated cost of this program and

tell us where in the Estimates we might find that amount?

MR. EFFORD: It is not in the Estimates and it is

not going to be any cost to the numbers that the individual just read out except

possibly psychiatric treatment for these individuals.

MR. HARRIS: That begs the next question, how can

this be purchased without costs, and if there is no cost, of course, it could

not be in the Estimates because there is no cost of it?

MR. EFFORD: Very clearly, we are not going to

purchase all those hours that are there.

MR. HARRIS: Not purchase any of them?

MR. EFFORD: The only hours we will possibly

purchase -

MR. HARRIS: Do you want to answer any questions,

Mr. Minister?

MR. EFFORD: The psychology counselling and

probably psychiatric services. The 1600 hours of administrative may not be

purchase, nor will the 1400 hours of social work be purchased.

MR. HARRIS: Why are you asking for proposals on

these?

MR. EFFORD: From time to time when you have

approximately 900 people working in the Department some information does get

misinterpreted. I apologize to anybody in the general public who is going to

submit a proposal on that but there was an error in this being sent out. I take

full responsibility as Minister for that error, but there was no commitment nor

any contract signed. The proposal was on a pilot project to be asked to be

submitted and I do not think to date we have received a proposal, but if we did

we will certainly explain it when we receive it, but there will be no purchase

of 1600, nor the 1400 hours. There was no cost incurred by those. When, and if,

we receive the proposals for the other services then those people who submit a

proposal, I would assume, the normal thing to do would be to submit a cost of

what they will be charging for their services. If we decide to go with that

pilot project, then we will be able to say what this would cost, but it would

come out of the budget of the department of child welfare within the Department

of Social Services.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. So -

MR. EFFORD: You provide counselling on the day to

day basis for individuals, for children.

MR. HARRIS: So am I given to understand then that

the Minister's answer in the House yesterday, that you are going to do this case

management service which had not been done before, that is also - I have before

me the terms of reference - but the Minister is saying that part of it is in

error. You are not looking for proposals on (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The case management will be done but

not by -

MR. HARRIS: It will be done internally.

MR. EFFORD: Internally, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. And the only thing that the

Minister is calling for proposals on is 600 hours of counselling services and

800 hours of supportive services. Is that it? Am I right?

MR. EFFORD: The one thing that we are lacking in

this Province is (Inaudible) -

MR. HARRIS: I just want to know if that is right,

that is all. I mean, I can understand that it may well be needed and it may well

be needed wherever the Minister is going to put it. (Inaudible) -

MR. EFFORD: Do you want me to answer the question

or don't you?

MR. HARRIS: - (Inaudible) - can you ask, am I now

right? If the Minister puts out things that are wrong, and I am entitled to ask

whether he has corrected them and whether the corrections now is that there are

600 hours of counselling service and 800 hours of supportive service, that the

Minister is looking for proposals on. Is that correct?

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell the hon. Member for St.

John's East one thing. I know he is only a junior in the House of Assembly. He

has some experience in the House of Commons in Ottawa. But you see fit to ask a

question how you want to ask it; I see fit to answer it how I want to answer it.

And I am not going to sit here and have you tell me how to answer a question.

Now you either want me to answer it or you do not.

MR. HARRIS: Well, either you answer it or you

don't, Mr. Minister. If you do not want to answer it then that is perfectly up

to you. But I just asked you - your Department has issued a call for proposals

which includes errors. You have corrected the errors. My assumption is that the

rest of it, the 600 hours of psychological or counselling services and 800 hours

supportive services, are still going to be required or requested, at least have

proposals on them. And how much is that likely to cost and how are you intending

to allocate them around the Province? Is it by division or district?

MR. EFFORD: In answer to the first part of the

question: possibly. Second part: where the need arises. And whenever the

submission is made by the individual proposals, whatever cost they put on that,

the Department will then make a decision if they are going to accept that cost.

We cannot cost it. They have to submit the proposal themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Yes. I would like to just get back to

the single parent issue again and the maintenance income and the $55 a month

supplement. Did you indicate earlier that the basic assistance for two parents

and a child is $605 a month?

MR. EFFORD: Two parents and two children.

MR. GOVER: Two parents -

MR. EFFORD: Four member family.

MR. GOVER: Would you have any idea what the basic

assistance is for two parents and one child?

MR. EFFORD: Approximately $565 a month. Now that

may be out $5 or $10 one way or another, but I do not have the exact figures.

MR. GOVER: Okay, $565. That is what it is right

now. And right now a family with one parent and one child would receive $565.

MR. EFFORD: No, one parent and one child would

not, no. One parent and two children. One parent and one child, you know,

remembering all of those different numbers off the top of my head.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about one and one?

MR. EFFORD: One and one. Do you have it there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rate is $474.

MR. EFFORD: Four hundred and seventy-four dollars

- I said $475 - $474 for one parent and one child.

MR. GOVER: Four hundred and seventy-four dollars,

one parent and one child. What about two parents and one child?

AN HON. MEMBER: It would be $568.

MR. EFFORD: Five hundred and sixty-eight dollars.

I said $565. So I was not out too much, $3.

MR. GOVER: So there is still a difference in those

family units?

MR. EFFORD: But that is the old, those figures do

not reflect the $55 for the single parent. I do not think. That would not be the

new figures. No, it is not. Now, when you put on the $55 for the single parent

then you increase - that is last year's rates - when you put the new rates, now

you put $55 wherever there is a single parent family there.

MR. GOVER: You get $55 more.

MR. EFFORD: Extra.

MR. GOVER: Okay.

MR. EFFORD: The first child will be treated as an

adult. So there will be $55 put on top of that child's allowance that they are

now receiving. So in the case of $475 put $55 on that.

MR. GOVER: Okay. So that is ten, that is $530.

Okay. So after the change comes into effect one parent and one child will

receive $530 a month,

whereas two parents and one child will receive $568 a

month.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, okay, that is right.

You must remember now, do not confuse the issue with

two parents. It is only the single parents who are availing of the extra $55.

MR. GOVER: Right. What will happen is when the $55

a month rate increase goes into effect one parent and one child will receive

$530 a month, and two parents and one child will receive $568 a month.

MR. EFFORD: There is something wrong there,

somebody is not quoting the right figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: See, the first child is being treated

as an adult. So if we have a single parent and a child now today, 1990 figures -

MR. GOVER: A single parent and a child, okay.

MR. EFFORD: Now, in the 1991 figures, they will

receive the same amount as two adults would receive. Not two adults and one

child.

MR. GOVER: Okay.

MR. EFFORD: See? Or not the same as one and one.

The child and the parent would be treated as two adults.

MR. GOVER: Okay then. Well, let's just take that -

I am just trying to get it straight in my own head, because we are confusing the

family units. How much do two adults receive?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Two adults? The old rate here... one

received $385 a month; one and one receives $474; one and two.... Two adults,

$529 under the old rate.

MR. GOVER: Five hundred and twenty-nine dollars.

MR. EFFORD: Under the old rate, yes.

MR. GOVER: Okay. So basically, when the $55 a

month comes in one parent and one child will receive the same as two adults.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. GOVER: Okay. And two parents and one child

will receive $568.

MR. EFFORD: Five hundred and sixty-eight dollars,

under the old rates.

MR. GOVER: Under the old rates.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Sure I had this here too.

MR. GOVER: Okay. So now here we go. Under the new

rates one parent, one child, $530 a month; two parents and no children, $530;

two parents, one child, $568.

MR. EFFORD: Two parents, one child, $568, under

the old rates, plus $55.

MR. GOVER: Yes, well I am adding that -

MR. EFFORD: Oh no, I am sorry. That is two

parents. No, it does not make any difference that it is two parents. We are only

talking about the single parent family in the increase. Never mind the two

adults. The two adults are getting their regular allowance anyhow. We are only

increasing for single parents.

MR. GOVER: Alright. They are getting $530 a month.

Thirty-eight bucks for the child.

MR. HARRIS: Is that right?

MR. GOVER: I mean, after the increase goes into

effect, a single parent and a child will get $530 a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Plus $55. Five hundred and

(Inaudible) plus $55.

MR. GOVER: Four hundred and seventy-four dollars

plus $55, $530 a month. Two parents with zero children, $530 a month.

MR. EFFORD: Exactly. Now we have it.

MR. GOVER: Two parents, one child, $568.

MR. EFFORD: Five hundred and sixty-eight dollars.

MR. GOVER: I understand. Okay. We have that

straightened away. So basically -

MR. HARRIS: That is $38 for the child. Is that

right?

MR. GOVER: Well, that is what he is telling me. I

mean, you know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Just $38 for the child, is that right?

With two parents and one child there is an extra $38 for the child, is that

right?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. EFFORD: That is the Tory Administration who

brought that in, a dollar a day, and we are increasing it.

MR. GOVER: Just let me run this by you then, under

the old scheme a single parent and a child who received no maintenance income

would get $474 a month?

MR. EFFORD: You are talking about the maintenance

income of $115 allowable, if they received the $115 it would be $475 plus $115,

if they received it from the maintenance (inaudible).

MR. GOVER: No, if they received no maintenance

income -

MR. EFFORD: Oh, they would get $474.

MR. GOVER: They would get $474. If they received

say $100 maintenance income before the change, they would get $574.

MR. EFFORD: That is right.

MR. GOVER: Now, whether the family receives

maintenance income or not, the single parent and the child receives maintenance

income or not, they get $530.

MR. EFFORD: Exactly.

MR. GOVER: So, the people who benefit by these

changes are the single parent with a child who has no maintenance income.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. GOVER: So, basically when the Member for

Humber East says there are savings, there are no savings. Money is being

redirected from maintenance let us say, to those family units of a single parent

and a child who for whatever reason cannot collect maintenance income. They are

being equalized with the people who can get maintenance income.

MR. EFFORD: Plus six months during the year they

receive $50 a month fuel allowance.

MR. GOVER: Right.

So that is the objective to put everyone on a level

playing field because why should a family who cannot get maintenance income be

worse off than the family who can?

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Well, from being a lawyer myself I can

tell you enforcement is a very difficult thing. I do not see why we should

penalize families who cannot collect it because the husband quits work, does not

want to work, or absconds from the jurisdiction, I do not see any point in

penalizing those particular families.

Anyway, I have the matter straightened out in my own

mind and I want to thank the Minister and his staff. I certainly commend them

for putting all single parents with children in this Province on a level playing

field. I think that is a very positive move.

With that Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the

subheads 1.1.01 through 5.4.02.

MS. VERGE: I have not finished questioning. There

are several important questions that I have yet to ask. Some of them have to do

with the social assistance caseload. For example, I would like the Minister who

said that the current number of families on social assistance is about 25,000 -

MR. EFFORD: No, 23,000, get your figures right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I am giving the Vice-Chair some room but I want to be

totally firm and honest. We have dealt for some four and a half hours with the

Department of Social Services Estimates. We have digressed many, many times, of

course, that is I suppose -

MR. EFFORD: Provoked by the hon. Member for Humber

East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I think we have lost a lot of

time in asking the Minister questions and what have you. However, the Chair

wants to remind the Committee that the motion that is before us is obviously in

order No. 1; but I just want to remind the Vice-Chair that we have other

departments and there must be other questions to the Department of Education.

Tomorrow, we have to use the time that is allotted to do estimates for the

departments and the Chair wants to make sure that every Member, and I have tried

exceptionally hard to give every Member a chance, and I would remind the

Vice-Chairperson, that we do one or the other.

We stay with the Department of Social Services and we

ignore the Department of Education and the Department of Health, or we stay here

until daylight tomorrow morning. Now the Chair does not mind, but I say to you

that we have extended ourselves, the Chair has been more than courteous I think,

and the Committee understands that, I have a motion to move inclusively; heading

1.1.01 to 5.40.2 -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I have not finished

questioning the Minister of Social Services. I realize that our time is limited;

I realize the time for examining the Estimates of the Social Departments expires

tomorrow night; I also know that when I was a Minister of Education, I answered

questions of Estimates Committees for as much as nine, ten hours.

It is up to the Committee to apportion the time

available and I said to the Chairperson privately this afternoon, that this

evening I felt the Committee would need more than one hour to finish Social

Services, and if the Chair will allow, I will get on with my questioning. We do

not need to waste time in procedural arguments; I am trying to find out the

number of individuals, women, men and children in this Province who are now on

social assistance.

The Minister earlier gave us the number of families

and I noted it as 24,000 something, he said it too quickly, I did not get the

exact figure, now I would like to-

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to remind the Vice-chair

once more, that I have a motion before me that I have to entertain. If you want

to raise a point of order on the motion or you want to speak to the motion, then

fine. I understand where the Vice-chair is coming from; you want to continue

questioning the Minister of Social Services.

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to give the Member for

St. John's East an opportunity for a short comment.

MR. HARRIS: I want to speak to the motion that is

before the Committee now, but I too, have other questions for the Minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: We need more time with this Minister

because he takes a lot of time and he is a very contentious man and we need more

time to ask questions, I have more questions and I do not think we should pass

through these estimates; if we have another Minister waiting, then I am sorry

that the Chair has scheduled these things, but he has done it with the

expectations that we will be through but we are obviously not.

I mean we could be out-voted if the Liberal majority

on this Committee wants to rush through the Estimates and tell the people of

this Province that they do not want the Minister of Social Services to answer

any more questions, if they want to do that, well then they can go ahead and do

it but I would suggest to them that is not a very wise idea, when two Members of

the Committee have further questions to ask the Minister and we would like to do

it.

I do not think we are going to be here all night; I

have a couple of issues that I want to go into and you know, we had this Member

for Bonavista asking detailed questions that are probably in a policy manual,

which the Minister I am sure can give him, then surely we can ask some questions

about other matters.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Minister. I think

that I have given the Vice-chair an opportunity to speak against the motion; I

have given the Member for St. John's East an opportunity to speak against the

motion and the Chair has no other alternative, but to ask the question-

MS. VERGE: Well Chairperson, I -

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I would like to raise a

point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order.

MS. VERGE: In all my years of serving in this

Legislature I have never witnessed an estimates committee cutting off

questioning of a Minister. Now we have until midnight tomorrow night to examine

the estimates of the five social Departments. The Government chose to give us

five Departments this year instead of the usual four. Not only has the number of

Departments been increased but the Departments we are scrutinizing are the big

spending Departments of the Government. The Departments that together spend

about 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the Government's expenditures. And it is

only reasonable that we take more than three hours per Department to go through

huge Departments such as Social Services, Health and Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair respects the opinion of

the Vice-Chair, the Member for Humber East. But I have a motion in front of me

that is duly moved and duly seconded.

MS. VERGE: Well, Chairperson, I have raised a

point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you have spoken to it.

MS. VERGE: I have raised a point of order. My

point of order is that it is quite wrong -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot rule on your point

of order in a positive sense when I have a motion before me that is duly moved,

duly seconded. You spoke to the motion, the Member for St. John's East has

spoken to the motion. The Chair has no other alternative but to ask the

question.

MS. VERGE: But a point of order is in order at any

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. VERGE: And my point of order is that it is

quite wrong for a motion to be put through by the Liberal majority to cut off

two Members of a committee who have not finished asking the Minister questions.

Now if we had been here for nine or twelve hours questioning the Minister of

Social Services people might accept terminating the questioning. We have

actually had four and a half hours, much of which has been wasted, frittered

away, by silly procedural wrangling. And I have several pointed, serious

questions about important issues such as: social assistance, such as measures to

assist recipients to become productive contributing members of society, about

child care, child protection, abused children, about transition houses for

battered women and children, about group homes for handicapped people, about the

plans to phase out group homes, about foster care, about -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has absolutely no problem

- and I want to remind the Vice-Chair - whatsoever in dealing with the questions

that the hon. Member has to ask. I just want to remind the hon. Member that the

Chair does not have an option. As a Chairperson, when a Member of the Committee

moves, after four and half hours of questioning - and I will take advice from

the Table - the Chair looks for guidance here. But I do not see how I can deal

with a motion that has been duly discussed and moved. And if I give the

opportunity to the Vice-Chair to discuss the motion - and understanding that,

and understanding the point of order - and I give the Member for St. John's East

the opportunity to discuss the motion, then I still must call the question. I am

left with no other alternative.

MS. VERGE: Well, Chairperson, what is going on

here is that one of the Liberal Members on the Committee is trying to protect -

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

MS. VERGE: - the Minister, is trying to shield the

Minister, is trying to prevent -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Mr. Gover on a point of order.

MR. GOVER: Okay. Point of order. I resent the

accusation. Now I moved the motion, and the Member for Humber East already

indicated that there were preliminary discussions between herself and the

Chairman today. What they are I have no idea. I am one Member of the Committee.

I do know that there were three Departments scheduled for this evening, and I

took it that at 8:00 we would have the Department of Education, at 9:00 we would

have the Department of Health, and then at 10:00 we would go and adjourn.

So it being 8:30, and basically everybody I suppose

having two rounds on the Committee, and the fact we had the other Department to

do, I moved the motion. But the Member makes an assumption that merely because I

moved the motion my colleagues on the Government side are going to support the

motion and the estimates are going to be passed, and that I am in some way

endeavouring to stifle the activities of this Committee. Now I may have

erroneously assumed that given the scheduling and given that we had two rounds

of questions that people had satisfied their examination of the Minister. That

may be an erroneous assumption on my part, in part from the scheduling and the

fact that we had two rounds of questioning.

Now the Member talks about procedural wrangling. The

last time that we had estimates, procedural wrangling was largely taken up with

a question over how much time the Vice-Chair should have to ask questions. And

she certainly had more time than any other Member on this particular Committee.

Now, here is my point. If I have erroneously assumed

that the Members of the Committee have exhausted the questions they want to ask

the Minister, I am prepared to defer the motion. So there is no attempt to

silence, stifle or protect anybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order. If the hon.

Member wants to defer the motion then with permission of the seconder the Chair

would obviously have to bow to that wish and the motion would be removed. So it

is totally up to the seconder, Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: To that point of order. Do we have

some idea then, or are we just going to go all night, or what is it (Inaudible)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, just as a point of

information. When the Vice-Chair discussed that she had talked to the

Chairperson today, we talked about the three Departments coming and we both

agreed that that was probably sensible due to the time frame. And the Member

said that she would probably want to spend some more time than an hour with the

Minister of Social Services, and I said: fine, but I do not know how the Member

for St. John's East would feel about that. And she said also - and I do not mind

saying now that the hon. Vice-Chair has brought it up - that she would have very

little time with the Department of Education, and hopefully we could get through

and clue up the estimates for the three Departments this evening.

Now I want to keep before all the Members of the

Committee that we are running out of time. And I would have thought that we

would have had - hoped, I guess - good sharp questions and good sharp answers

and we would have been able to satisfy the estimates. And other questions that

have been asked this evening the Chair would think they could be asked in the

House of Assembly and/or at other times. Because they were more overtones rather

than direct dollar questions. And the Chair does not want to interfere with any

Member and try to direct Members in what type of questions, or what they should

or should not ask.

So I just want to give that advice to the Committee.

And it is a pity - and for me I have no problem with staying around and giving

all Members equal opportunity to ask questions of the Minister and his staff.

The only thing I say is that at midnight tomorrow night the estimates would fall

into limbo, I suppose, for the want of another word. And for expediency I was

hoping that we could - and maybe it was a wish that the Chair had that could not

be fulfilled because of the dialogue that has ensued due to the questions.

So I advise the hon. Member for Eagle River that if he

wants to withdraw his second -

MR. DUMARESQUE: What I would say, Chairperson, is

that I find it a little bit amazing that - I know since the House has been open

the opportunities have been there. I think you can count on one hand the

questions that the hon. Member has asked the Minister of Socials Services on

many pressing issues that she says cannot go beyond tonight, that there have to

be answers to. I find that a little bit unbelievable, that all this has been

building up and the world out there is falling down. But you could raise it in

Question Period or table it for questions in the House. And that would be the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair respects your comments the

only thing I ask you - the Member for Bonavista South withdrew the motion to

move all the subheadings inclusive and the Member for Eagle River seconded that

and the Chair would ask the hon. Member if he wants to withdraw his second.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Sure. Obviously, if he is willing

to withdraw the motion then I withdraw the seconding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In saying that, I want to thank the

hon. Member for Bonavista South for his - and what has happened here is that we

have lost ten or eleven minutes over again, and again the wranglings - and the

Chair has been put in awkward positions in the last five to six evenings totally

unnecessarily and the Chair is trying, as I have already said, to be

conciliatory and fair to everybody. I have been more than fair with the Member

for Humber East in every sitting of the Estimates Committee in dealing with all

Departments and she well knows that. I have tried to be equally fair to the

Member for St. John's East. The time allocation has not been spread fairly

throughout the Committee and that is understandable because it would lead to

giving the Opposition people a better opportunity to ask the Minister about his

estimates. But in saying that, and it is now 8:40 p.m., the Chair is prepared to

hear whatever the Committee wants to do. The only thing I say to you is that at

midnight tomorrow night the Estimates go into limbo and not at the fault of this

Chair I can assure you and I am sure the hon. Members of the Committee

understand.

Are there any other questions from Mr. Oldford or Mr.

Dumaresque?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I fully understand under

the rules of the House the time for examining estimates of the departments runs

out midnight tomorrow night. I would like to say that I was not consulted about

the plan for this evening. I, presumably the same as the other Members of the

Committee, received a notice saying that the three departments that we had not

finished would be continued tonight. I said to the Chair this evening that I

felt that I as one Member of the Committee would require more time on Social

Services than Education or Health.

Now, here we are, and I will get on with it, how many

of the approximately 24,000 families now on social assistance in the Province -

the Minister can give me the precise number - how many individuals are there and

of them how many adults and children?

MR. EFFORD: You are not serious. Twenty-three

thousand, four hundred and sixty-six cases represents approximately 50,000

people. But there is no way that I am going to ask people in my department to

breakdown how many of those are children and how many are adults.

MS. VERGE: Why?

MR. EFFORD: Why? They do not have those statistics

and I am not going to get them.

MS. VERGE: I am amazed at the Minister's attitude

Chairperson because one of the crises in Canada today is that there is an

appallingly high number of children in poverty -

MR. EFFORD: There is.

MS. VERGE: - and, of course, our future rests with

children. Children who belong to families getting $500 or $550 a month cannot be

getting the kind of food they need to develop healthy bodies or healthy minds.

Chances are they are not getting the kind of emotional stimulation they need to

do well in school or to grow up and become productive members of society.

As a society we have to recognize that a great number

of children in our midst are living in poverty and do not have a fair chance to

get an education and get good jobs as adults. We have to devise policies and

strategies to break this cycle of poverty and to support children so that they

can grow up healthy, get good schooling, and have a chance to contribute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the hon. Member please ask the

Minister a question?

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I would like the Minister,

when he has a chance, to give me those figures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It does not look like he is going to

give them to you.

MS. VERGE: Would one of the staff of the

Department happen to know how many of the 50,000 individuals on welfare are

children as opposed to adults?

MR. EFFORD: Do you know something, you can really

wear somebody's patience down, there is no question about that, and I am about

ready to lose what little bit of patience I do have with you. What we have here

now in the Department of Social Services, or what I had a year or a year and a

half ago, I inherited from an administration who were in power seventeen years

and who never brought in one positive policy to deal with children in hunger.

Last year we implemented a school lunch program in

several schools here in St. John's to help children in need who were going to

school without food. We are increasing the educational opportunities for not

only single parents in the Province but for all people who are depending on

social assistance. The 50,000 people we have on social assistance today make up

a whole complement of different types of individuals, physically disabled,

mentally disabled, able- bodied individuals, and single able-bodied. Do I have a

breakdown here this evening of how many are male, how many are female, how many

are children, and how many are female children? Absolutely, not, but I suppose

we could take the time and somebody in the Department will get that, but that

has nothing to do with the new policies and the non-policy implemented by the

former administration. The hon. Member for Humber East was a Minister in that

particular Government who sat around the Cabinet table and knew that there were

20,000 clients in this Province that represented approximately 50,000 people,

and it is only now, since she got on the Opposition, that she sees the needs of

those individuals. I can't believe how hypocritical one individual could

possibly be. I have stated the number of new initiatives time after time and

what we are doing for people in this Province who are on social assistance and

who need to get away from it. If you want to take up the time of the Committee

the rest of the night asking those foolish questions then I have lots of insulin

and I can stay here a week if the hon. Member wants to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: You indicated in response to my

question that the monies for counselling services and supportive services would

come from the child welfare budget. I am looking through the Estimates,

beginning on page 265, listed as services to children, and I cannot see there a

vote which might include such an item. Could the Minister identify which vote we

are talking about as a source of funds for this program?

MR. EFFORD: You would not see that under that

heading under that particular name that you see on the proposal. That would come

under the child welfare allowances and in the child welfare allowances there are

other allowances, 3.1.05.

MR. HARRIS: Allowances and assistance.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. They come under that heading.

MR. HARRIS: So, these are not allowances to

individuals, these are votes that the Department can use for whatever it wants.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. You see, in the Child Welfare

Department you have many different types of needs of individuals and children. I

gave you some statistics on abuse earlier. There are approximately a little over

8000 children under child protection and some of those are in the area of

physical and sexual abuse, but we have a specific number of individuals with

severe behaviour problems, fourteen or fifteen individuals, and they vary from

month to month and from year to year, and that proposal that you have in your

hand was sent out to deal with those children who have psychiatric behaviour

problems.

We are trying to build a case management plan on how

to deal with those individuals on a long-term, not an ad hoc basis. In other

words not to do something today and not tomorrow, but to look at the

circumstances in the family, find out what the problems are and the environment

in that particular family, then what caused the problems, build a case around

that and above all try and keep the child and the family together. That was the

purpose of that. It never did get the approval of the executive of the

Department but one of the individuals in the region sent it out and very clearly

thought they were doing the right thing. When it was identified that it had gone

out without approval we had to take a second look at it. Building the case

management around it is the responsibility of the director or the people within

the region and the Department of Child Welfare. But there are some services

there that the department does not have, for example, psychological services and

psychiatrists. We do not have psychiatrists within the department so we have to

contract their services. Let me also tell the hon. Member there are very few in

the Province, believe me, we do not have enough psychiatrists. So, that is what

we are trying to do.

MR. HARRIS: You do not have to contract out

psychiatric services that's paid for out of medicare, et cetera.

MR. EFFORD: Well, we need special people to come

and work with these individuals. So, that is the idea.

MR. HARRIS: But you are saying that people who are

already under the social services caseload, it is like a special allowance that

is made to pay the costs of counselling and it comes out of that vote.

MR. EFFORD: That is one of the vote areas that it

comes out of.

MR. HARRIS: But there is no actual estimate for

this program.

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. HARRIS: You have no ideas of how much it might

cost. No projections.

MR. EFFORD: Not until we get the proposals.

MR. HARRIS: You have a caseload of forty to fifty

people and you have an idea that there is a need but you have no idea whether it

is $50,000 or $500,000.

MR. EFFORD: That is why we asked for proposals.

Let me give you an example and probably you will

understand a little better. Right now the Department of Public Works is asking

for proposals for accommodations for the social services office that was on

Harvey Road. We do not know what the cost of renting the new accommodation will

be until we get the proposals in. It is the same here when the proposals are

submitted to the Department, let us say there could be two, four or six, then we

will have an idea of what it is going to cost. But that money comes out of the

budget for the Division of Child Welfare, and if that total budget is X number

of millions of dollars - in Child Welfare the budget is $2,100,000 -

MR. HARRIS: I understand the Minister's view on

this and I think I should move on to something else.

The Minister said that he is encouraging people to go

to work and that sort of stuff - and I just want to ask him a couple of

questions on how the Minister's policies might aid that. Let us take for example

the case of a single parent who is the sole support of children and is on social

assistance and wants to go to work and gets a job. The child care expenses that

might be incurred in a situation like that, is that allowed before any income is

taken from the individual? Is there a program that builds in an incentive, for

example, to go to work? Now the Member for Humber East mentions that the first

$115 you are allowed to keep, is that over and above child care expenses?

MR. EFFORD: When we realize the problem with

individuals going into the workforce, we have a special incentive, by the way,

of $175 a month for people.

MR. HARRIS: The first $175 a persons earns can

they put that in their pocket?

MR. EFFORD: No, what we do is give them $175 over

and above their regular social assistance amount they receive. We also have an

incentive to pay the first month's rent. Now, when it comes to the day care or

child care allowances we assess that on the amount of income the individual will

be making and if it is allowable under the social assistance regulations then we

will pay for the child care.

MR. HARRIS: Can I use an example, and like the

Member for Bonavista South, just get down to numbers here rather than talk about

giving people money when we do not know who they are. Let us say you have a

single parent with one child who is receiving on social assistance, with the

increase as a result of the policy, receiving $530 per month of income, and that

person gets a part-time job making $200 a month. How much of that income is the

person entitled to keep?

MR. EFFORD: Well, under different circumstances

the $200 would normally be deducted. They are allowed to earn $105 before any

deduction is made so deduct the $105 off that.

MR. HARRIS: So if an individual gets a part-time

job earning $200 the person can keep $105 of that and the other $95.00 gets

deducted from the $530. Is that right?

MR. EFFORD: You have to remember one thing.

Dealing with the Department of Social Services every individual case is assessed

on its own needs. One parent and one child may have special needs, special food

allowances and all that.

MR. HARRIS: No, no.

MR. EFFORD: What I am trying to tell the hon.

Member is, do not get confused and say that every individual who goes to work

will get that $105 deductible because it is not so. It depends on the

circumstances around that particular case.

MR. HARRIS: So, some people will be allowed to

keep it and other people will not?

MR. EFFORD: Depending on the assessment.

MR. HARRIS: This is a very simple example and we

do not need to complicate it. The first $105 they can keep?

MR. EFFORD: Under the example you use, yes.

MR. HARRIS: I do not want any complications. No

matter what the circumstances you can keep $105. This is what my friend here

tells me. Now, what if in order to earn this $200 the individual incurs another

$50.00 or $60.00 in child care expenses. Is that also deductible as well or does

that have to be paid out of the $95.00 that the person is allowed to keep?

MR. EFFORD: No, that is allowable.

MR. HARRIS: So, if a person has to hire a baby

sitter to take a part-time job in the evening they can deduct that as well?

MR. EFFORD: The Assistant Deputy Minister says

that we have approximately $600,000 in the Budget to take care of special needs

and things like that. Let us assume that a family is receiving $475 a month.

Now, they would be receiving that on social assistance, and when they go out

into the workforce the first $105 they earn is not deductible. They are allowed

to earn that, and if they earn another $75.00 that is taken off, so now they

have $400 plus the $105, so once they apply for child care the amount they are

receiving comes into play, the amount of child care they are receiving, so in

this instance they would receive total child care. Now, if they earn $300 a

month they are going to receive $200 less on social assistance until they work

themselves right out of the social assistance allowance altogether, so it is

based on the amount of subsidy we have to give them, plus the amount of income,

depends on the child welfare. The day care allowance would be over and above the

regular monthly allowances, so that would have to come altogether.

MR. HARRIS: So, is it fair enough to say that the

overall incentive is really $105 a month and anything you earn over and above

that you lose, or your lose from your social services?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: And, child care is done on a case by

case basis?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: It is not automatic, so if I am a

single parent and I have to hire a baby sitter to go and work it is not

automatic because I am going to work?

MR. EFFORD: Because you are a single parent?

MR. HARRIS: No, because I am going to work.

MR. EFFORD: Well it depends on your income the

Hon. Member must realize if I am a single parent and I am earning $100,000 a

year, I am not going to get social assistance to pay my child care.

MR. HARRIS: Well you are not going to be on social

assistance anyway, but tell me -

MR. EFFORD: But if you are on social assistance

you would qualify for child care, yes.

MR. HARRIS: So if you earn $200 and you get the

first $105 and if you have to pay sixty dollars for child care to earn that

$200, then you do not automatically get it?

MR. EFFORD: No, no. Look, if you are receiving

$475 a month social assistance, you go to work on a part-time basis and you

receive $200, $105 is allowed, the remainder is not allowed, but you do not have

to pay your child care because you are still not up to the amount that you would

be receiving on social assistance, so your child care, in that particular case,

would be extra.

Now, as your income increases, then your child care

decreases by the Department of Social Services, but every case is on its own

merits.

MR. HARRIS: I understand that, but I gave you a

case, not a case on its own merits, a case of $200, so if you had sixty dollars

child care expenses and you earn $200, you would end up being able to keep the

full ninety-five dollars, because the Department will give you an extra sixty,

is that in fact, correct?

MR. EFFORD: The Department will give you an extra

sixty for what?

MR. HARRIS: To pay the child care expenses.

MR. EFFORD: Oh your child care, but that is not

paid to you, that is paid to daycare -

MR. HARRIS: Paid to whomever is providing the

service.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A lenient man; I am sure the Member

appreciates it.

MR. HARRIS: I was not counting, Mr. Chairman, but

it always seems that my own time expires much more rapidly than that of the

Member for Humber East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How true, how true. I think that is

one exercise we could all learn. The actor always figures that it takes a lot

less time to speak his lines than anybody else's.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, it being nine, I wonder

could we have a ten minute break?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think it might be an idea. I

apologize to the Minister of Education. We will get ourselves back here at nine

if we can. Let us have a five minute break here.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ladies and

Gentlemen. At this time I would like to reconvene and hopefully we can be a

little more direct and precise and maybe we will have an opportunity to get to

the Department of Education.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I would like to

come back to the subject of single parents and their children on welfare, and

the reason I am emphasizing this subject is that, in my years of experience as

an MHA, the most needy people I hear from are single mothers in Corner Brook and

single mothers in St. John's, who are living on their own away from their

extended families, with a paltry amount of social assistance that is provided,

and the Minister acknowledges that; and I acknowledge that the fifty-five dollar

a month supplement as of May 1, is a help, these women and their children cannot

live properly. It is that simple.

Now, many of these single mothers, two are sitting in

the gallery, are young, they are bright, they are intelligent, they do not want

to be on welfare; they are just dying for the chance to break out of the cycle

and get a job.

A great number have to go to school to university or

college to train for the job market and the rules are such now that it is

extremely difficult to do that. There is a powerful disincentive to go to school

because of the cost of child care, because of the low amount of the child care

allowance, because of the fact that all student loans have to be subtracted from

assistance even though, of course, the loans have to be repaid in full later,

and the result is that single mothers who have tried, who have bucked the

system, find that after awhile they just cannot keep it up, they get worn down

and they have to give up. Now, I know the Minister has a committee that has been

in place for two and a half months and I would urge him to get on with bringing

in some improvements because people are being lost in the cracks in the

meantime. Now, many of these single mothers were hit last Fall when maintenance

and child support were reclassified as non-allowable income. I would like to ask

the Minister if maintenance and child support were still considered allowable

income, the same as earnings from a job, how much more would he have had to

budget for social assistance in the 1991-92 fiscal year? According to the

calculation of one single mother's group the difference is probably between $4

million and $7 million a year, since the amount that single parents getting

maintenance were able to retain was $115 a month maximum, times twelve months,

that is $1380 a year, and of the 7500 single parent families on welfare, if you

assume that 3000 are getting some maintenance, that would come to over $4

million, if you assume that two thirds are getting some maintenance that would

come to close to $7 million. So, my question clear and crisp is, if maintenance

were still treated as allowable income how much more would have to be in the

Budget for social assistance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for

Humber East started off talking about the single parents in Corner Brook and the

plight and difficulty they are going through. I agree with her, the single

parents in Corner Brook, the single parents in Labrador, in Western

Newfoundland, and throughout the Province are going through a difficult time. In

fact I will take it to the 50,000 people on social assistance, especially the

physically and mentally disabled people who are going through even a more

frustrating time. The money on social assistance is just not enough for people

to receive the basic essentials they require to live normally as we do. We take

things for granted. When we get up in the morning for breakfast we have eggs,

cereal, or whatever we wish, but unfortunately most people on social assistance,

for one reason or another, are not able to do that. Even in the able-bodied

families, for whatever the reason, if they are socially disabled they find

themselves on social assistance so they cannot enjoy the same things that a

person in a working category find themselves in. I understand what the hon.

Member is saying, but what disgusts me most of all is that she is playing a

political game. She is playing to an audience, which I have no problems with,

but what really bothers me most of all is that she was in Government for X

number of years. She was a Cabinet Minister. I know she held Minister of

Education, and she was Minister of Justice. She sat around the Cabinet table

where decisions were made for single parents and all people on social

assistance, and those people who are having those frustrations and problems

today

had them two years ago, had them for the seventeen

years that administration was in power. I cannot think of one positive thing

they did for those individuals to help them get out of their dilemma except to

provide social assistance.

Now, she sits in her place trying to put on the

sincerity, which is coming through pretty loud and clear as being pretty false,

and playing to the political field. We are dealing with the plight of single

parents; we are dealing with the plight of all the people on social assistance

in this Province. I would love to be able to wake up tomorrow morning and see

all people into the workforce but that is an impossible dream. It took me about

six or eight months to get into the Department of Social Services and to get to

know the executive, the regulations and the programmes, since that time we have

been working very hard and diligently in dealing with the different groups of

people on social assistance. You can sit here tonight, tomorrow night, and

twenty-four hours or forty-eighty hours around the clock, I have no problems

with working, you have asked the same question four or five different ways

tonight but that is not going to change my answer. My answer remains the same,

we are dealing with the social problems of people on social assistance including

single parents. If anybody has a particular problem they should approach their

social worker or come into the Department of Social Services. As far as saving

money, we do not and we shall not save any money in the Department of Social

Services this year. In fact we expect, even though we got a moderate increase in

our budget this year, to have to go back for more money before the year is out.

I hope we have not. But if we get a large influx of refugees like we did last

year, which we are expecting at any time and have been expecting for the last

two or three months, then we shall in all probability have to go back for more

money. But, we do not do things in the Department to save money. I am sick and

tired of the Member for Humber East trying to make that accusation when it is

false, it is totally untrue, it is misrepresenting what the facts are and she

came out of an administration which never dealt with the plight of the single

parents or anybody else in this Province. Now, we are doing something about it

and she is trying to jump on the bandwagon. Jump on it if you like, I do not

care one iota what you want to do.

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

If it had not been for the Minister's October 1, 1990

decision to classify maintenance and child support as non-allowable income how

much more would he and his Department have had to budget for social assistance

in the 1991-1992 fiscal year?

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, probably it is my Port

de Grave accent, maybe people do not understand my answer, perhaps I talk too

fast, we have $257 million budgeted for the Department of Social Services a

substantial increase over last year. We will probably have to go back this year

before the year terminates depending upon the economic circumstances within the

Province, depending upon the arrival of X number of refugees at one particular

time, depending upon a lot of factors, we may be able to deal with the budget we

have.

One of the other factors that we have is that we are

trying to deal with home care increasing from day to day in the Department of

Social Services. Now, we are finding out that the unions are stepping in and

unionizing most of the people who work in the field of home care. If that

happens our $13 million budget is going to have either a 30 per cent or 40 per

cent reduction or we are going to have to go for a 30 per cent or 40 per cent

increase. There are a lot of factors playing within the budget of the Department

of Social Services. You can sit down and go through every heading within the

Department and it could increase or decrease, the programmes, except for the

grants that were structured at the beginning of the year. The same goes for the

group homes, depending upon the number of individuals going into these group

homes, the amount of money required will change from year to year.

So, what will happen? How many single parents will

receive maintenance income? How many single parents will not receive maintenance

income? You cannot tell from week to week or from month to month, so it is an

estimation that we do and $257 million is budgeted for. If the single parents

were not receiving maintenance income as an non-allowable amount when they -

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Chairperson.

The Budget Estimates clearly show, on the bottom line

with double underlining, that the total estimated spending of the Department of

Social Services from provincial sources this year is $144 million, down by $4

million from the $148 million actually spent last year.

MR. EFFORD: I told her last time that is net but

she does not understand that.

MS. VERGE: That is provincial spending, and that

is what we are here examining. The federal contributions are up but the

provincial contribution is down by $4 million.

MR. EFFORD: Let me explain. The hon. Member should

know. You were there. There was in excess of $3 million less in capital on the

boy's home in Whitbourne this year than there was last year, so we are not going

to spent money that has already been spent there, so that is a little over $3

million there. That building is just about completed so are we going to spend

that extra money now and every year for the next ten years? Once that capital

construction is done the more is done the less money is in next year's Budget.

My God the hon. Member was a Minister in Government and her Government started

that building out there.

MS. VERGE: You did not have to postpone the youth

closed custody facility in Corner Brook.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you

Ms Verge.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to ask the Minister if he

could, and I was trying to get this straight privately, the new regime, as we

say, regarding a single parent with a child, one and one, in the same category

as if they were two adults. That comes into effect on what specific date?

MR. EFFORD: The directive was sent out as of May 1

and it should show up on the next cheque.

MR. HARRIS: So, the allowance, or the money for

the month of May, in other words, there may be a retroactive adjustment or

whatever, but as of May 1 these allowances are payable, so anybody who has a

cheque already there may be an adjustment in the next cheque to cover May month?

MR. EFFORD: If it is not in it, yes.

MR. HARRIS: If it is not already in it?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: So, a single parent with one child

should expect to receive, during the month of May, $529?

MR. EFFORD: Yes. I do not see any variation there.

It was $474 for one on one, plus a $55 increase.

MR. HARRIS: Plus a $55 increase, so that would be

$529 for the month of May and that is anyone who is on long-term assistance.

The Minister mentioned food programs for schools.

Could the Minister indicate what contribution the Department is now making to

the school food programs? What is the actual contribution and how is it

administered?

MR. EFFORD: Initially we provided the start-up

money for the school lunch programme but what we are doing this year, now that

it is successful and now that individuals are getting enough money

through fund raising and through the monies they

receive for the lunches from kids who can pay, is we provide the staff through

the Employment Opportunities Programme.

MR. HARRIS: So, initially you provided start-up

money on a per school basis?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that was last year. There were

two schools initially, yes.

MR. HARRIS: And was there a grant of some kind for

each school?

MR. EFFORD: It was under the one system. The Gower

Street United Church Group sponsored it, but the amount was in last year's

budget, I have forgotten the amount of money that we gave them; it was funded

under a special project, employment opportunities was the basic start, and

monies to get started plus the fund raising to get some more monies plus-

MR. HARRIS: So how much did the Government through

the Department of Social Services spend on the school lunch programme last year

for those two schools?

MR. EFFORD: I will find that out and I will

provide an answer to the question through the House of Assembly.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, that is the number for last

year; this year that programme you say, you are not involved with that now as

that is operating on its own?

MR. EFFORD: Except for providing the staff to do

the serving of the food and in some cases, the preparation.

MR. HARRIS: And can you get the numbers on that

existing programme - it is only the one programme now in two schools, is this -

MR. EFFORD: No, no; it is in more schools than

that; four schools now.

MR. HARRIS: Well you mentioned two schools for

start-up money-

MR. EFFORD: That was the start-up last year.

MR. HARRIS: -yes, the start-up money, but the

start-up money-

MR. EFFORD: no, that expense was for the four

schools.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. But is it the same pr

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1991-05-14
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga41session3_1991-05-14_ssc-ss_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6a21966afe546c77a4abbc118bb21331238bae38

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).