May 18, 2004 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Mr. R. Wiseman): We are ready to start.

First, Minister, I want to welcome you and your staff from four different

divisions of your department. Not only do you have the longest title but you

have the largest number of staff. Does this mean you have the greatest budget?

I want to thank you for gathering your staff and for joining us this evening.

The process is - normally what we have done is allowed the minister an

opportunity to make some opening comments. Then, at the same time, introduce

your staff, and then to be able to open the floor for some questions.

There are a couple of things that, because of the numbers and how we would

like to manage this tonight, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile only has a

short period of time that he is going to be able to be with us. So what we will

do first - he has some general questions in a number of areas so we will allow

him to deal with those directly with you, minister. When he is through with his

questions, we will move then and go directly to Womens' Policy, because the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair wants to ask some questions in that area

and she has to leave. When that is done we will be finished with that particular

area. If your staff want to leave, and they are not excited about staying all

night and listening to everybody else, they can leave. Then we will move into

the Labour Relations Agency and then we will do Housing. So those three parts of

your department will be concluded. Then we will deal with the Employment and HR

piece of your department as a separate piece at the end. Is that okay with you?

We will do it that way.

If you would, what I would ask you to do as well, is when you - for the

benefit of the person who is recording this downstairs and for the benefit of

Hansard - when any of your staff start to speak, or go to speak, if you would

just say your name first. That is what that list was for. It will help the

recording people. If you would just identify yourself before you speak, that way

we can capture it on record.

With that, minister, I open the floor to you for your opening comments.

MS BURKE: Would you like for me to introduce everyone before we start?

CHAIR: Whichever.

MS BURKE: I think I will stand to do this, so I can see everyone.

CHAIR: This is your first test, by the way, to see if you can introduce

them.

MS BURKE: I will start down in the back. This is Tony Cornect with Human

Resources, Labour and Employment. He is the constituency assistant. Next to Tony

we have Carol Ruby, who is an Assistant Deputy Minister who deals with the Youth

Services division of HRLE. Coming down the back row we have Mac Blundon, who is

with the Labour Relations Agency. We have Wayne Penny, Assistant Deputy Minister

with Human Resources, Labour and Employment. As well, Jennifer Jeans, who is

also an Assistant Deputy Minister with Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

In the second row we have Heather MacLellan, who is the Assistant Deputy

Minister of the Womens' Policy Office. We have Jim Conway with Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing; we have Joe O'Neill, who is the CEO of the Labour

Relations Agency. Then we have Dave Roberts, who is the Assistant Deputy

Minister with HRLE; we have Dave Denine who is the Parliamentary Secretary for

the entire department in Housing and everything included. We have Jacquelyn

Howard, who is the Director of Communications; we have Rebecca Roome, who is the

Deputy Minister of HRLE; we have Les Dean, who is the Chair of Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing, and Mary Marshall, who is also with Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MS BURKE: I have opening comments, I guess, on two levels. One is on

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and the other is with HRLE. I do not know, are

we going to do Housing or are we going to just do some general -

CHAIR: Well, we can do it if you want. If you have some opening comments

that you wanted to make you could do that if you wanted to, or have a brief

introduction of the department. Then we can move directly into the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile to deal with the questions he would like to discuss with

you.

MS BURKE: Okay, I have some opening comments that I would like to make

here. This is in relation to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

The provincial act respecting Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation

enables the corporation to exercise its powers, as Crown agency, whose auditor

is the provincial Auditor General. You will see from the 2004-2005 Estimates

document that this year's provincial allocation to NLHC is $9,910,000. This

represents the Province's grant towards the corporation's budgeted current

account expenditures of $100,691,000. This amount reflects a net reduction of

$1.2 million from last year's grant. The reduction is net of $350,000

additional funding required for negotiated salary increases and increased

amortization expenses for the Mary's Harbour facility constructed last year

and a $1.5 million reduction in operational costs that will be achieved by the

corporation throughout 2004-2005. These savings in the main will be achieved

through administrative efficiencies, self insuring the non-profit housing

portfolio, a reduction in discretionary spending within the non-profit grant

allocations, staff realignment and adjustments, and maximizing Canada Mortgage

and Housing Corporation's contribution to administrative costs. I can get into

the specific programs in speaking to those but I think I will wait until we

actually get into some specific program areas there.

The other comments I want to make are, with the introductions here this

evening, as you can see, there is indication that we have had some changes

within the Department of Human Resources and Employment which is now the

Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I am pleased that the

responsibility for Housing, Labour and Youth Services now falls within the

department. I think it is a good fit with the HRLE's role and mandate.

This, of course, is my first meeting with a Budget Estimate Committee and I

understand it is an opportunity to review the final figures put forward in the

Budget for programming and services. However, these decisions, as you know, are

about so much more than numbers and figures. They are about the people of our

Province. As such, the process that has led us here tonight was characterized by

debate. Every proposal considered from all perspectives, every effort made to be

just and fair. Our decisions have been guided by a desire to maintain services

to the best of our ability, to minimize impacts on our community partners, the

people we employ and those we serve, and to address the government's financial

challenges, a necessary step on the road to moving our Province forward.

This is a difficult Budget. Taking the kind of actions we have, such as the

consolidation of twenty district offices, has not been easy. However, given the

nature of my department and its lines of business, our choices were somewhat

limited. We felt strongly, Mr. Chair, that funding for the Income Support

system also makes good sense. Over the past several years the department has

invested considerable dollars in updating our computer technology.

The pilot of the new computer pay system on the West Coast has been a great

success. Now, Mr. Chair, it is time for us to take the next step. As I

mentioned, it has involved some tough decisions but I am confident that our

Income Support Program will be delivered in a more efficient manner. Most other

jurisdictions across Canada have already implemented or are exploring the

changes we are now putting in place. As a result of redesign, we can refocus our

staff on the department's other primary line of business, the delivery of

employment and career services. It is critical that we work with our clients to

help them secure meaningful employment. At the same time, planning is underway

on initiatives that will ensure our most vulnerable clients. Often those who

cannot move off assistance will receive help in accessing the community programs

and supports they require.

I believe, Mr. Chair, there is a clear understanding, within my department

and across government, that the social fabric of our Province cannot be

jeopardized by the need, however necessary, to correct our fiscal imbalance. Our

decisions also focus on the well-being of our children and families, as well as

those in our Province with disabilities. We have committed $500,000 for the Kids

Eat Smart Foundation. We recognize the critical role nutrition plays on a child's

development. Two hundred and fifty-thousand dollars will be spent on indexing

the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit. Two hundred and thirty-thousand

dollars has been invested to increase the first child rate of the NLCB. Another

$108,000 will be invested to introduce a one-time benefit of $90 within the

Mother-Baby Nutrition Supplement, payable when the baby is born. An additional

$400,000 has been committed to the Supported Employment Program to facilitate

full participation in the workforce for persons with disabilities. In addition,

funding for the Income Support Program has been maintained and accurately

reflects the number of people who will require this assistance in keeping with

recent trends.

Mr. Chair, at first glance it may be difficult to see beyond the budget

reductions our department had to make, but these Estimates are not just about

reductions. They are also about using our funds and resources strategically to

create, to the best of our ability, a balanced approach. I believe we are

positioned to follow through on the groundwork that has been laid in recent

years to benefit those we serve while, at the same time, making an appropriate

contribution towards addressing the Province's fiscal challenges.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister, for your comments.

Now I will ask the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile if he would like to open

the discussion.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, just a couple of questions that I have. I just want to clear the

air, I guess, right off the mark. I guess information, as they say, is a very

important and sometimes valuable tool. I would think that you have had a

reincarnation since before the election. I ask this question because we have had

a lot of talk about layoffs and everything by this Administration and your

department. You were personally a firm advocate that all vacant positions,

particularly vis- B -vis

corrections officers and social workers in this Province, should be filled

before October 21. I take it from your comments today and earlier that you have

changed your mind on that situation.

MS BURKE: Is that the question?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MS BURKE: I think that any front line positions that would affect client

service delivery would need to be maintained. I think, specifically, I made a

comment prior to the election regarding child protection caseloads. I also know

there is a study regarding the amount of child protection workers in the

Province, but I guess I will not be addressing child protection issues here this

evening.

MR. PARSONS: I just wanted to point out, I guess, what position you hold

or held previously. You are obviously in a different position now, but I would

have thought the philosophy would be the same. If that was your position, that

front line positions should be maintained, how do we rationalize the closure of

twenty HRLE offices across this Province when many of the staff in those offices

are front line workers and deal with people face to face, one on one, to provide

services to them? You are obviously removing that front line element. Don't

get me wrong, I have no problem with the fact that the government has made a

policy decision to save some money. I have no problem and I accept fully your

explanation that you had to make some tough decisions but I have great

difficulty balancing that off against the fact that we say one thing, for

example, we do this to save money and, on the other hand, we say we are trying

to help people when your actions belie what your comments are because I am a

firm believer that we should not just say things for the sake of saying them.

For anyone to suggest that the closure of twenty HRLE offices in this Province

is not going to impact the people who use your office, I think that belittles

the thought processes of all of us who hears it.

I represent a rural district. Burgeo, for example, being one of the areas

that closed. Your front line workers in Burgeo perform duties above and beyond

just being front line office workers, secretarial, social workers, whatever.

They handle everything from CPP to old age pension inquiries, to people who have

housing needs, you name it, and to suggest that can be handled just as easily by

a telephone call, I think that is not right to say. That is not what the facts

are. That is not going to be true.

MS BURKE: Okay, I guess -

MR. PARSONS: Do you firmly believe that it is not going to have a

negative impact on services?

MS BURKE: What I believe, or what I know is that since 1997 we have lost

approximately nine thousand cases on income support. When I use the word cases,

of course, that could mean - I would say probably somewhere in the vicinity of

twenty-seven thousand men, women and children, individuals.

We have had to deal with the situation where many of our workers were in

environments where the caseloads were not equitably distributed. What happened

is that sometimes clients would have to deal with workers who were carrying very

high caseloads and in other cases the caseloads were quite low. Basically, the

work that is being done by our income support workers, who do the applications

for support, are basically doing an administrative financial function. Sometimes

when their caseloads were quite high, obviously the workers were not getting

involved with other duties that were not necessarily within their job

description for them to be doing. This move should actually help us be able to

make a balance within the workplace for the workers who are representing the

department of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have had 9,000 less cases. In

addition to that, when the offices were set up originally - there were forty-six

offices set up, maybe more. I do not historically how many we actually had

across the Province over the years but we have had forty-six for quite some

time.

At one point in time, up until the mid-1990s, in order for a person to

qualify for income support a home visit was absolutely necessary, whether the

person lived in a remote area or next to the office or in a neighbouring

community. At that time, when a person went out to do these visits to determine

if somebody was eligible for assistance, they actually had to make some case

regarding the level of poverty within the home. I can remember back in the

summer of 1985 when I worked doing income support applications in the Grand

Falls-Windsor office in the Department of Social Services, we were told, at that

time, to look in the fridge to see what kind of food a person had. That is a

very degrading, belittling experience for a family and, equally, for the worker

who had to go out and face that family and asked to do that type of work.

The Income Support Program and service delivery model has evolved over the

years and in some ways, which I fully support, one being the necessity for home

visits. If a person applies for income support, and whether or not they receive

it, is an objective assessment. There is no subjectivity to it. It is not based

on the size of their home. It is not based on the condition of their home or the

vehicle they drive. It is an income-based assessment that they need to meet in

order to qualify for income support. We do not need to go out into their homes

and we do not need to be making value judgements against the people. Income

support, like many other financial programs that are government sponsored -

whether it is CPP, old age assistance, income tax returns, EI eligibility - is

on an objective basis. We are into that type of analysis and that is the

analysis that our workers, doing the administrative functions, need to do.

The other thing I think that needs to be pointed out right now is our workers

are CSOs, who are engaged in income support, ensure that people who require

financial assistance, for whatever reasons, that they have access to those funds

and if they qualify for income support that they receive income support. It is

an administrative function that they perform. The workers who do these income

support applications and provide the financial assistance are not social

workers. I think, at some point, when the split was made with social services,

that went into Health and Community Services and HRE, that I have often heard

sometimes that people still feel that the workers who do the assessments for

income support in some way perform the work of social workers, which they do

not. They are not qualified to do it and they are not registered as social

workers nor is it in their job description.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, back to my question. We cannot get lost - everybody agrees there

should be changes as time goes on, times change, people change, circumstances

change. We can say they are not social workers, and we know they are not social

workers. You and I know they are not social workers but to the people who live

in a lot of areas in rural Newfoundland it is irrelevant what you call them.

Social workers, call them administrative clerks, call them whatever you want,

but they are the people, they are the front line, they are the service provider

to these people in rural Newfoundland and that is the point I am trying to make.

The fact that a government or bureaucrats, or any of us come up with fancy name

policies and whatever we want to call it - I am talking about how it hits the

person on the street who needs your service. That is the only point I am trying

to make. I do not disagree even that whatever we can do that is of an

administrative nature, if we can do it cheaper and more efficiently I have no

problem with that. All I am saying is I think you went too far in the closure of

these offices at this time and where you closed them.

We are not talking, for example, Burgeo, where there is another option. The

option that has been suggested to them is to pick up a phone. Now, if it is like

most of the mechanized and computerized phone operated, government operated -

whether it is provincial or government phone systems, that is going to be

complicated enough in and of itself. I think when you talk about rural

Newfoundland, which is geographically isolated - I am sure you have been to

Burgeo. It is at the end of a 154 kilometre road. There is nothing else around,

minister. You are down on the South Coast. You have Ramea, you have Fran ois

and you have Grey River. When missus goes over, or mister goes over to the

Calder health care clinic in Burgeo and if they happen to be one of their

recipients and they have to get some assistance, for example, some more funding

or whatever, they go to see that person in Burgeo to get their help. There are a

good many of them who cannot read and write. They are illiterate, not due to

their own fault, a lot of them, but we cannot help that. A lot of them do not

know the first thing when we say pick up the phone or operate a computer. They

do not know that. They need that person there. That is all I am saying, that

cost-cutting for the sake of cost-cutting is not good enough. There has to be

some recognition given to these people and help extended to these people. It is

fine to say we are not going to do CPP because that is a government function and

we are not going to help them with their Old Age Pension form, that is a federal

government function. That is not the reality of rural Newfoundland. That is the

point I am trying to make. Giving nice, neat news-clip answers that we need to

do this, we have to do this, and here is the rationale as to why we are doing

this, does not cut it when it comes to the service on the ground. That is all I

am saying. Don't you think you maybe went too far in some of these isolated

areas of Newfoundland?

It is fine to close the one in Stephenville Crossing or Deer Lake where the

people have to go twenty kilometres to the next office. That is an inconvenience

in and of itself, but asking someone to go from Deer Lake to Corner Brook to the

next office is a far different cry than asking a person who is in Grey River to

get on a ferry to go to Burgeo - all of which your department is probably going

to pay anyway. They have to get on a ferry, they have to go to Burgeo, they have

to overnight, they have to get up from Burgeo to get up to Stephenville, which

is the nearest office, get whatever it is they need done because they cannot do

it, minister. For whatever reason they cannot do it, and you telling them to

pick up a phone and do it don't cut it. That person then has to get the

service, get back down that road, get on that ferry again, probably overnight it

again in Burgeo to get back to Grey River. All I am saying is I think you went

too far with the locations that you closed, and I am not just concerned with the

Burgeo one. There are other areas in this Province, I think, where you did not

consider the geographics of it.

Now, I do not know about anybody else over there, and I do not know who was

involved in the decision, but I would like for anyone of you, between January

and mid-March, to come down the Burgeo road and tell me that you had an easy

time or you have to come up from down that way to get some service. You have not

accepted reality in that decision. You are from the West Coast, I know you are

familiar with the area and surely you must recognize that that decision in that

particular location cannot be justified. It cannot even be justified monetarily

when you talk about all of these people who have to move that distance to get

the service. That is what is frustrating, and I guess my frustration is showing

because when you have these concerns and you bring them forward, and somebody

gives you these pat little answers in press releases and so on, it does not cut

it with Joe and Martha in rural Newfoundland who need your help.

Has anyone done a cost analysis on what it is going to cost in those types of

situations, Burgeo down on the South Coast and people who access the service?

Forget about the fact that they do not have the service available to them. Has

anybody even factored out what it is going to cost?

MS BURKE: The office closures this year, the savings should be $1 million

with an annualized cost saving of $2 million.

MR. PARSONS: In that one office with three employees?

MS BURKE: No, that is the office closures.

MR. PARSONS: There are twenty offices.

MS BURKE: Yes, that is part of the provincial -

MR. PARSONS: What is the cost analysis on closing Burgeo? For example,

you have three people working in Burgeo, as I understand it, two of them who are

out the door because they have no time or no seniority and cannot bump, and one

of whom is eligible to transfer. Is there any cost analysis that you can provide

to us, vis- B -vis

Burgeo in particular, as to what the closure of that office is going to save you

versus what it is going to cost you to service the people of that area who are

now going to have to go to Stephenville to use it?

MS BURKE: The cost analysis that we had done is on a provincial basis. We

do not have it broken down into the individual offices. We could talk about, I

suppose, the lease for the offices or whatever but we did not break it down

specifically. There should not be any increased cost to the client.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, are you suggesting that you have made a decision

to close the Burgeo office and you did not do the cost analysis? How could you

pick Burgeo as an example and include it in the twenty when you did not have the

cost analysis done?

MS BURKE: Well, we did break down the statistics for each office in a

number of ways actually, in the long-term assistance caseload, the short-term

assistance caseload, the employment and career services caseload. So, we broke

down the statistics for each office. We did not do it without analyzing each

office.

MR. PARSONS: Again, I am back to my point and you are making my point.

How does a strict statistical model, that you used with your Administration's

desire to save dollars, justify the closure in a remote area of Newfoundland of

a service that is essential to those people? It seems to be done for the wrong

motivations. That is the whole point I have been trying to make religiously

since it has been announced. There is nothing wrong with your decision. Nothing

whatsoever wrong, nothing wrong with your justifications for your decision but

you have gone too far in certain areas without justification, and you admit

yourself now that all you have is statistics. You do not have any cost analysis

done to justify why you even closed Burgeo.

Anyway, minister, I will move on. I think my point is made. It is just that

we rarely get an opportunity to make these concerns known in this type of forum

where, not only yourself - you are just a political figurehead and

representative who has to take this when we come to these types of meetings and

in the media - but I say this, in all seriousness, there are a lot of people

behind you over here tonight who made this decision, were part of these analysis

and these discussions, who, I would suggest, know very little when it comes to

some of these areas in rural Newfoundland and the impacts that their decisions

have. There is never anything wrong, ever anything wrong, with admitting that

you might have made a mistake and go back and evaluate it and do what is right.

That is what I sense we are missing here. Do not try to justify the complete

package if it is not justifiable.

Minister, moving on to the Estimates - and I will probably save some of the

other members some lengthy questions. It begins on page 206 of the Estimates -

or 205, actually, where it starts with the Minister's Office. Maybe in a

nutshell - and what we have done with the other departments, you will notice in

the various headings, starting on page 205, in 1.1.01 it says Salaries, for

example, under the Minister's Office. Then you go down further on the page,

1.2.01, there are Salaries under the Executive Support, and that is the same

throughout the whole section. Administrative Support, Program Development and

Planning, all of these headings have salary components to them. What we have

done in earlier Estimates Committees to save time, and rather than have the

minister get into the nitty-gritty details of each of these salary components in

why they might be up or might be down, what we did is - everybody has a package

on the Departmental Salary Details. In this section, for example, in the case of

your department it starts on page 145. It actually lists everyone of the jobs

relating to this salary for all of these subheadings in the Estimates book.

What we have done is we have asked the minister to undertake - and this would

save a lot of time. Could you provide us with the complete list of all positions

noted in the Departmental Salary Details for all of the subheadings that involve

salaries with the details of which of these positions are permanent, which of

these positions are temporaries, which of these positions are currently filled,

which of these positions are currently vacant? Furthermore, the ones that are

vacant, if you could advise whether you feel they will be filled at anytime

during the year because most of ministers acknowledge that there are positions

in all of their departments that are not filled at the present time and they

suspect they might go all year and not have to fill them but they also

indicated, which is quite reasonable as well, that if the need arose they would

indeed have to fill it, and that is quite understandable. But, if we could get

that level of detail for each and everyone of these positions, the same as we

got from Justice, we got from Health and Community Services and so on, that

saves us the trouble of having to get into all the details here tonight as to

what is up, what is down and why is it up and why is it down, because we could

be here until the cows come home if we have to get into that kind of detail

here. I just wonder, is that okay?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: The other comment, in that regard, is we would need the

information prior to May 31. The reason we would need the information before

that date is we are currently into the Budget Debate. This process of what we

are going through here tonight on the Estimates - we are doing the Estimates for

your department, just for the purpose of the people wondering why we might need

it by that time line. Doing the Estimates for a department is only one piece of

the Budget process. The Budget is done in the House as well as with these

Estimates Committees, and we have to come back to the House to do what they call

Concurrence Debate. Any questions that anyone asks here tonight, that you are

going to provide answers to - such as the one we just talked about, the Salary

components and so on - if we do not have it by May 31 it is no good to us at all

because we cannot use it then in our Concurrence Debate that will take place

here in the House. That is why we have a problem, in terms of getting the

information prior to then. We suspect, according to my conversations with the

Government House Leader, that the House will be open at least up to and

including the week of May 31. That will allow opportunity, if we have it before

that time, to have it for the Concurrence Debate that will take place during

that week. The other ministers have no problem with that issue. I just wanted to

explain why we were asking for it in that time fashion.

The other issue, minister, and that is all I have to say, is can you also

provide us with a list of who is not in your Estimates anymore? For example,

what layoffs there have been versus last year versus now, because this obviously

only reflects - and these positions in the Salary Details only reflect who you

have now. Can we also be given a list of what positions no longer exist in your

department? We know the twenty office closures and so on has been done, but a

list of each and every position that no longer exists, that have been

terminated, and whether they, in fact, have been abolished, terminated, declared

redundant and so on.

MS BURKE: Just for clarification, I guess, you want this information - we

have no problem providing it - by the end of May. Do you want what has taken

place up to that point or what will be taking place?

MR. PARSONS: Well, if you give the complete details on the salary piece

you will be able to tell me each and everyone of these positions in this book,

and that is a good guide to use actually when you provide the information, I

would suggest. Is the position filled now? Do you anticipate that it will be

filled all year? If you do not, and you think it is only going to be lasting six

months, well, it should be noted. If there are vacancies, it can be noted which

ones are vacant. Do you intend to fill it throughout this fiscal year? If you

do, tell us. If you do not intend to fill it, you know, that can be noted. We

will end up with a comprehensive list then of exactly where we should be going

in your department in terms of employees. In addition to that, we would like to

have some yardstick as to what was there before you did your budget. You may

have had 1,200 employees in the fiscal year 2003-04 and maybe as a result of the

office closures and other things you have done in your department, we may be

down to 1,150 here. If that is the case, we would like to know what fifty

positions were cut and where. That way we get a true representation of the human

resources issue of the department. I take it there is no problem with that?

MS BURKE: No, there is no problem with that.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: I thank you. You have concluded now (inaudible)?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

CHAIR: Thanks very much.

As we had commented on earlier, after the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile was

finished, we are going now directly to the Women's Policy piece and -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay. Just let me know when you are through with the questions on

the HRE piece, then we will go directly to the Women's Policy.

MS JONES: Okay, sure.

Thank you -

MR. COLLINS: Before you start, I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair just said she wanted to ask a couple of

questions on HRE and then you were going to move to Women's Policy. I am just

wondering, are we finished with HRE at that time?

CHAIR: No, the intent was - just to go back to my opening comment. My

intent was to try to accommodate the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair who had some time restraints on tonight.

They wanted to get some questions in so they could leave, which the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile has already done, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair was the critic for Women's Policy. So, she wanted to have her questions

in after that so she could leave.

MR. COLLINS: Okay, right.

CHAIR: So, you will get more than your ample opportunity to any and all

issues you want to deal with, to be sure.

MR. COLLINS: I do not have a lot. I just, you know, have a couple.

CHAIR: Is that okay?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Minister, and officials. I welcome you to the Estimates

Committee. I am going to start by apologizing to Heather MacLellan because I had

met her only a couple of hours ago and told her I probably was not going to make

the Estimates tonight. Anyway, my plans changed rather suddenly. I had an

opportunity to meet the Deputy Minister for the Status of Women as well,

federally, and I appreciated that opportunity.

I have a couple of questions under HRE and very quickly I will move into the

Status of Women. Some of my questions will overlap both departments simply

because some decisions taken in HRE are having an impact on women within the

Province.

First of all, Minister, I have to express my displeasure with your decision

to close twenty HRE offices in the Province; two of which were in my district of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, one in the Labrador Straits in Forteau and the

other one in Cartwright.

Minister, I heard you quite clearly when you defended the closure of those

two offices saying that the number of clients on the caseloads in these offices

had declined. In fact, I know that you are right and I know there has been a

steady decline in the caseloads in those offices over the past number of years,

four to five years. I would like to outline for the record why that is. It is

because there has been a very aggressive campaign to grow the economy in that

region of the Province, undertaken by the previous Administration that I was a

part of. There was a significant amount of money invested in that rural area of

the Province to look at new economic growth and new opportunities. The people in

that area were able to avail of a new start in the tourism industry, as well as

appreciate the jobs that could derive from massive construction of highways.

Then, with regard to the marine services being moved from Lewisporte to

Cartwright, all of this combined to generate a lot of new business opportunity

and to create a lot of new jobs in that area.

Over that four to five year period, your stats, I am sure, will show that

there was a steady decline in the number of clients who were depending upon

social assistance. I cannot remember now, but I know from 1996, which is when we

started to do the investments up until 2003 - I cannot remember what the exact

decline was and maybe you can tell me in just a minute - but I know there was a

fair percentage. My fear is that decisions your government has made in the past

six to eight months will see a reversal of that downward dependency on social

assistance benefits and what we will see is a growing list again of clients that

will be added to your caseload. I say that because of decisions your government

has made to relocate marine services back to Lewisporte, jeopardizing a number

of businesses in my district and over 120 jobs this year that may be lost

because of that move.

We have also seen a significant downturn in the fishery, in that area, last

year and again this year, where we have had massive cuts in crab allocations

affecting plants and plant workers. All of these things will have an impact. I

am thinking that your decision to close those two offices may have been somewhat

premature, especially when you look at - first of all, Cartwright is quite a

distance from Mary's Harbour and most people in my district who are clients of

your department do not have the ways and means to be able to travel, own

vehicles or be able to access the services of that particular office. So, they

are quite a distance away. Even though it was more of a clerical position there,

it was a point of contact and it was someone to assist them when they needed

that assistance.

In the case of Forteau, I have not been able to rationalize that one at all

because my understanding is that the person who was based in the Forteau office

is, in fact, an investigator for the department who does investigations in all

regions of Labrador. My understanding is that this individual has been told that

their job is still there, they may keep their job but they must move two or

three hours up the road to another community, uproot their family, their

children and look for somewhere else to live in another community, although they

are serving all of Labrador. That makes absolutely no sense to me. In that same

community, that same region, the department of forestry has offices, the

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Department of Health, and the

Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Why you would tell this

person, who is serving all of Labrador, that they cannot live in this particular

community but they have to uproot their family, their children and move to

another community a couple of hundred kilometres away to do the same job they

are doing today makes absolutely no sense to me. I think that if you were

somewhat creative you may have been able to find a way to fit this one staff

person in with another provincial government office in that area, saving them

the aggravation and the stress on them and their family with having to deal with

that.

Minister, I would like to ask you this evening if you will reconsider your

decision to ask the person, who you are maintaining as part of your staff in

Forteau, if you will reconsider your decision to have them relocated. It serves

absolutely no purpose. I cannot see what it would save, other than maybe $300 a

month to the department, which is the going rate for office space. I checked it

out myself this weekend. I am asking you to reconsider your decision and allow

that person to live in the area where they have lived for the last seventeen

years with their family and children and not be moved and continue with their

responsibilities as an investigator in your department.

MS BURKE: I just want to make some comments about the Forteau and the

Cartwright decisions that we have made. You asked about the declining cases.

Cartwright, actually, had an increase of cases since 1998; an increase 1.5 per

cent. However, in 1999 the Income Support Program and employment and career

services was moved out of Cartwright and has been in the Mary's Harbour

district office since 1999. In addition to that, in 2001 the income support and

employment and career services were removed from Forteau.

The person who remains in Forteau is the investigator position. There have

been times when we have had to send work up from other parts of the Province to

justify keeping the position in Forteau. We have had difficulty having

sufficient work to justify the position, so we have been creative in trying to

maintain that position over time. I will continue to investigate options for

that investigator position but the caseload from Cartwright and Forteau for

income support and employment and career services has not been done from those

sites now with the last one having been moved in 2001. In saying that, I

commented on Cartwright that there has been, actually, an increase in people on

income support; an increase of 1.5 per cent since 1998. On the flip side of

that, in Forteau there has been a decrease of 40 per cent since 1998.

When we divide our cases and look at the cases that are more, I guess,

time-consuming for workers, in a combined caseload of Cartwright and Forteau

there are approximately fifteen cases on what we call short-term assistance. So

they are the cases that require more intensive work. Basically, this came down

to a decision where the work was not being done at those sites. We were

maintaining the offices without performing their functions of income support and

employment and career services and the caseloads, in all seriousness, were quite

low in those areas, certainly not justifying moving staff back there to do those

functions.

MS JONES: Can I assume, from your remarks, that you are going to look at

the worker in Forteau again and re-evaluate your decision on whether that person

will have to move or not?

MS BURKE: I will look at the functions that person does and I will make a

decision based on the work that person does and where that can be done.

MS JONES: Okay.

I would also like to ask if you could table for me the stats on your client

loads, client cases throughout the Province for each office, including the ones

that are closing.

MS BURKE: Do you mean tonight?

MS JONES: Whenever you can table it, but it has to be before the

Concurrence of the Budget.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Did you want to call the heads for the Women's Policy Office

before I start?

CHAIR: I will.

Heads 2.7.01, found on page 20 of the Estimates.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, recently you stood in the House of Assembly and supported

legislation to legislate women in the public sector back to work. You also

supported legislation that, I guess, legislated concessions, such as sick leave

for new women, new entrants into the workforce. I guess my question to you is:

How do you feel that your decision to support legislation of this nature would

help promote the cause of women in the workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS BURKE: Overall or within the government offices?

MS JONES: Women have a long time fought for equal rights, equity within

the workforce and so on. I am not saying that it was inequitable but I am saying

that, I guess, a lot of the benefits that women have in the public sector, they

have achieved them through exercising their right to protest, right to strike

and so on. You, as the Minister for the Status of Women for this Province, stood

in the House of Assembly and supported legislation that not only legislated

women back to work but also legislated concessions for new women coming into the

public service with regard to sick leave.

MS BURKE: I guess, in all fairness, I really cannot speak for the unions

or for Treasury Board but I was not aware of any deals that would have been

taken off the table or put on the table which would have given women, I guess,

different rights that we took away in that legislation. Unless there is

something I am not aware of that you are asking?

MS JONES: Well, I am asking your opinion: Do you think this shows respect

for the rights of women in the Province, the fact that you, as the minister,

stood and supported that legislation?

MS BURKE: Well, we could only deal with the collective bargaining that

was going on, and I am not aware that we took away anything that was on the

table which was specifically going to put women in a different category or

different benefits than what would have been in for the whole bargaining unit.

MS JONES: It is not a question of inequity. It is a question of principle

and I am asking you, as the Minister for the Status of Women, do you think it

showed disrespect to women in this Province that you, as the minister, could

stand and support legislation that not only legislated them back to work but

legislated concessions, such as a different sick leave policy for new women

entering the workforce?

MS BURKE: That policy and that legislation I voted on did not distinguish

that the sick leave privileges would be anything different for women than it

would be for any other person in that bargaining unit.

MS JONES: There has been a campaign ongoing in the Province called the

Feminist Fits. It is a campaign that has been launched by the St. John's

Status of Women Council. Apparently - and I am quoting from newspaper articles

because I have not talked to Mrs. Zigler about this but I have read her

commentary and I have listened to her in the media. She indicates that on April

8 there were sixty-five e-mails sent to your office talking about funding for

women's centres and how they were requesting more funding. Have you responded

to any of those e-mails?

MS BURKE: I have received some e-mails. I am not sure of the number. I

consider e-mails when I get the standard letter, the same letter as a petition,

a lobbying-type effort, and I do take those messages and use them when we are

dealing with issues in relation to the Provincial Advisory Council when I am

dealing with the Women's Policy Office. In saying that, I often get other

letters and lobbying requests, as I guess all politicians do, in a petition-type

format where you get the same letter on numerous occasions. But, yes, I will be

addressing those issues throughout the year and through policies. Obviously, the

issues that come to my attention are not necessarily related to the department

that I represent.

MS JONES: So, you will not be responding to those e-mails that were sent

to you on April 8?

MS BURKE: Not on an individual basis.

MS JONES: What about the e-mails that were sent to you on May 8 which

talked about their discontent, I guess, with budget decisions made by your

government, including the elimination of the 4,000 public sector jobs over four

years and the restructuring within health care and education? Do you intend to

respond to those e-mails?

MS BURKE: I intend to represent women's issues through my role as the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women by ensuring that all our policies

and all our decisions certainly take in the needs of women and include a gender

inclusive analysis.

MS JONES: Any woman who e-mails you on any particular issue will not be

responded to?

MS BURKE: No, that is not what I am saying. When I receive a number in a

political lobby effort, the same letter that comes in probably ten or twelve

times, no, I will not be sitting down and writing individual responses. If any

individual has some questions or concerns and wants to e-mail me, wants to phone

me or wants to write me, I will respond to all of them, but as a politician we

get many lobbying efforts, whether it is where to locate the health care

services, either in Grand Falls or Gander. I have had more letters in relation

to that than I have had in women's issues. Whether it is on abortion, or

abortion legislation or rights, I get stuff on the daily gospel that comes into

me everyday. I often get many lobbying efforts, where I get the same message

many times. I take that as a petition. I take those seriously but I do not

necessarily respond individually to a lobbying effort.

MS JONES: One of the issues that they have e-mailed you on is with regard

to the funding for the women's centres. I will ask you the questions now. You

guys increased the budget for women's centres; $5,000 per centre in the

Budget, that is my understanding?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay.

How did you calculate the $5,000? What was your rationale for increasing

$5,000 as opposed to $10,000 or $20,000 or $15,000? Do you feel that was

sufficient in addressing the demands that women have our there in the centres

today?

MS BURKE: When we did up our budget, of course, we were at a time where

the fiscal reality, certainly, led to many decisions that resulted in cuts to

budgets. This was one area where we were able to make some increases; although

modest, they were increases. We were allotted an extra $80,000 in the budgeting

process to address these issues. What we decided to do - we had to decide how we

would divide that money. What we did was give each women's centre - and there

are eight in the Province - an increase of 10 per cent. They had $50,000 last

year, so we gave them an increase of 10 per cent. Then we used the additional

$40,000 to go towards the Provincial Advisory Council for the Status of Women.

MS JONES: I listened to Joyce Hancock on the radio a little while ago.

She was talking with regard to the HRE offices closing. She obviously felt quite

strongly that you had made the wrong decision. She talked about the fact that

government was closing these offices, and that in fact they were closing the

door to the face of poverty in our Province so that you do not have to see the

clients in their respective areas, like the area of Burgeo - like my colleague

talked about earlier - or in other areas of the Province. Then soon government

forgets the issues that families who are dependent upon the programs are faced

with, and primarily a lot of those people are women and children.

How does the minister respond to her comments? Joyce Hancock being the

President of the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador, how do you

respond to those comments?

MS BURKE: I certainly feel that although we are reducing our number of

offices that we will maintain service to the clients. Anyone who is eligible for

financial assistance will receive assistance, or any special request certainly

will be assessed and they will receive the funding if they are eligible for it.

We have not been out into the homes for a number of years - since the

mid-1990s - doing assessments of whether or not people are eligible for income

support. We have not been out doing the traditional home visits, I guess, dating

back to the 1960s when that happened. We will continue to do objective

assessments. If people meet the qualifications for income support, they will

continue to receive that benefit.

MS JONES: You do not think there will be any gaps in the service

whatsoever by this reduction in offices throughout the Province?

MS BURKE: We will continue to provide income support. The same policies

will be in place and the eligibility requirements and the amount of assistance

that a person is entitled to, that has not changed and will not be changing.

MS JONES: Just to rephrase it a different way: You do not think the

decisions that you have made will affect women and children in the Province?

MS BURKE: I did not get that.

MS JONES: You do not think your decision will have a negative impact upon

women or children in the Province?

MS BURKE: The amount of income that a single-parent family receives right

now will not change based on these decisions. What they can achieve through

their financial assistance now, I guess, will be the same. They will achieve

after - the level of income, the financial support, will not change.

MS JONES: I understand that, but do you think this decision will have a

negative impact upon women and children?

MS BURKE: We do not provide counseling for women or children as a direct

service within our department, so we are not actually changing that function.

MS JONES: I will ask you one more time: Do you think the closure of

twenty HRE offices in the Province will have a negative impact upon women or

children who are being served through those offices?

MS BURKE: I feel that the services that we provide -

MS JONES: Just a yes or no will be fine. Yes or no?

MS BURKE: - will continue to be maintained.

MS JONES: Minister, what is your strategy to address the issue of poverty

in the Province?

MS BURKE: What we would like to do, as the Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment, is to be able to realistically assist people in moving

from income support into the labour force in a meaningful way.

MS JONES: How do you plan to do that?

MS BURKE: We plan to address the employment and career services to assist

people who are on income support and who request employment and career services

to have access to these services to be able to work with these people. We

provide an assessment and a referral service, a lot of times, to existing

services to help people move into the labour force in a meaningful way. We also

plan to increase the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Tax Benefit for low-income

families. We also have been able to address poverty through the Mother-Baby

Nutrition Supplement program and, as well, the $500,000 grant to the Kids Eat

Smart Foundation is also an effort to help us address poverty.

MS JONES: First of all, isn't the grant to the Kids Eat Smart

Foundation just a continuation of a program that has been ongoing for five years

in the Province?

MS BURKE: The grant to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation is a one-time

payment that is not actually budgeted as a program that extends from year to

year.

MS JONES: It is not a new program though, is it, minister?

MS BURKE: No, last year it was budgeted for just the one year, and as

well the same thing this year. The budgeting is still considered a one-year

program.

MS JONES: It is not a new program though, is it, minister? It isn't a

new program, is it, minister?

MS BURKE: No, but it is not an ongoing budget item from year to year.

MS JONES: The funding was not increased in that program this year over

last year or the year before, was it?

MS BURKE: No, the grant maintains the same.

MS JONES: Just before I get back to my original question that I asked you

about poverty, just one more thing you mentioned, the Mother-Baby Nutritional

Supplement. The eligibility, I think, is $90. Is that an increase from last

year?

MS BURKE: That is a brand new initiative.

MS JONES: It is a brand new initiative. Okay. Wasn't there a supplement

program in place last year though?

MS BURKE: Yes, but this is an add-on to the program.

MS JONES: It is a different program or an add-on to a program?

MS BURKE: No, it is an add-on to that. This program that was in place is

continuing, with this in addition.

MS JONES: They are eligible now for two supplements?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay.

MS BURKE: The one the person would have been receiving prior to this

decision, in addition a $90 payment when the baby is born.

MS JONES: Okay. So the other one was a supplement they received while

they were pregnant, was it?

MS BURKE: And for the first year.

MS JONES: And the first year. This is an additional $90 they will receive

upon the birth of their child?

MS BURKE: Right.

MS JONES: Okay.

My original question had to do with poverty. You said that you were going to

address poverty by moving people from income support into the labour force. Then

you said that you were going to look at employment and career services. I guess

my question is: How are you going to guarantee women have the opportunity to

access employment and career services for retraining or whatever the case may

be? Are there going to be supplements provided? Are there going to be additional

supports provided? Will there be funding for women who want to seek other career

opportunities or retrained in a public institution in our Province?

MS BURKE: There are actually a number of initiatives to assist women and

there are different programs in place across the Province. We have also been

able to provide some supports to address some of the barriers, whether it is

child care or other issues, that women can address as they are trying to move

into the labour market, and that could be from the income support program to

help out with child care. We also have women in resource development - the

committee - to help women, to assist women to move from, I guess, income support

into resource based employment into the skilled trades. We also are working with

Voisey's Bay to develop a plan for women to move women into the workforce. So

there are a number of initiatives, I guess, that have been ongoing that we will

continue to support to help move women into the labour force.

MS JONES: You would be aware that I was one of the people who worked with

Voisey's Bay Nickel to negotiate that opportunity for women. My question is:

Women who want to seek these services, what new programs are you bringing in to

help them? I know what is out there in the system now. What are you going to do?

Because you seem to be telling me in the House, and you have told me here again

this evening, that your agenda to eliminate poverty or reduce the level of

poverty is the focus on employment and career services. Most women that I know,

if they want to go back to school in order to retrain so they can get off

assistance and look for a job, they need to have more supports than is presently

being provided. I am asking: Are there any new programs, any new initiatives,

anything new that you are doing in that context other than in hiring employment

and career service workers?

MS BURKE: There are a number of ongoing initiatives that we will be

continuing, whether it is the wage subsidy program or grants to help them go to

school or address some of the barriers. We are not eliminating those services

and we do have programs available, and then we have specific programs for people

with disabilities that would move them into the workforce. So whether it is the

wage subsidy program or some of the grants to community agencies or educational

supports, there are a variety of programs that are available.

MS JONES: You talked about moving them from income support into the

labour force. Has your department looked at where the opportunities are in the

labour force in the Province today and what fields women should be training for

and moving into?

MS BURKE: We monitor the labour market through various means. A lot of it

is kind of national-provincial information and it breaks down into sectors. We

monitor what the trends are in employment and we also monitor where there are

going to be deficits in the future. So we do, through the Labour Market

Strategy, monitor what types of jobs are available or the trend will be where

they will become available.

MS JONES: The fact that you are laying off 4,000 - well, I should not say

laying off - eliminating 4,000 jobs in the public sector, do you think that is a

deterrent for women to want to train, to look for employment in this Province?

MS BURKE: No, I think that as we move ahead with economic development and

other initiatives, that the opportunities for women will be there and that they

need to be aware of what opportunities lie ahead and combine that with their own

personal interests.

MS JONES: You talked about that this year you increased the Child Tax

Benefit. That benefit does not come into play until 2006. Is that true? Is that

accurate?

MS BURKE: No, July 1.

MS JONES: Of this year?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: How much is the benefit?

MS BURKE: It is based on $1 per first child and then indexed to the CPI

with the increases.

MS JONES: I don't know how that works. Can you explain that to me

because I do not understand how that is calculated, please?

While somebody is looking for that, I will just continue on, minister, if

that is okay.

MS BURKE: You are looking for the specifics of the Newfoundland Child Tax

Benefit?

MS JONES: Yes, I want to know what the increase was for the Child Tax

Benefit. All I got was $1 and a formula, so I do not know how it is calculated.

I would like to know how it is calculated, or at least tell me what the amount

is so I know what numbers I am dealing with.

MS BURKE: Okay.

MS JONES: I am just going to move on to a couple of other questions now.

Minimum wage in the Province, a lot of women in this Province still work at jobs

that pay very low wages, most of them in minimum wage jobs. What is your

position on minimum wage? Do you think it is too low, too high? Do you think it

should be increased or decreased?

MS BURKE: I do not think it should be decreased. I think it needs to be

reviewed. It has to be reviewed on a regular basis and that review will be

happening and we will be making a decision on it. I cannot say, at this time,

what is going to happen but I can most certainly say it will not be decreased.

MS JONES: When will you do the review? This year?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Do you have a time frame on it?

MS BURKE: Not a specific time frame but it is something that I want to

address in the very near future with regards to consultation.

MS JONES: Is that a statutory review?

MS BURKE: There is a statutory review every two years that the minimum

wage has to be reviewed.

MS JONES: Is that the review that you are talking about?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay. Will that be done internally or externally with

government?

MS BURKE: The decision will be made by this department.

MS JONES: Oh, yes, I know that. Will the review be done internally in

your department or will it be contracted services?

MS BURKE: It will be done internally.

MS JONES: Okay.

Minister, there are a lot of women who are employed by large chain stores,

Wal-Mart being one of them. At the risk of coming on - one that is unionized, I

know Dominion is, but Wal-Mart, I guess, Canadian Tire, some of these stores are

non-unionized chain operations. Many of them employ women. It is my

understanding in talking to a lot of women who work in these department stores,

especially Wal-Mart, which is where I have talked to a number of them, their

working conditions, their working hours, I should say, are very conservative by

their employer. They are limited in how many hours they can work a week simply

because if they go over a certain number of hours then the employer has to pay

them out certain benefits and so on. Is this one of the issues that you will

look at within your department? Has it been raised to you as a concern?

MS BURKE: No, it has not been raised to me as a concern.

MS JONES: Okay.

I want to talk about women in the fishery for a moment. Most women in the

fishing industry in this Province are seasonal workers. With the reductions in

allocations and the quotas for a lot of areas of the Province the hours of work

and the weeks of work that they are getting in fish processing facilities have

been declining on a year-to-year basis. Recently the federal government had a

task force on seasonal employment. They held their hearings here in St. John's.

Did you go before that task force, minister, to represent women in seasonal

industries in the Province?

MS BURKE: Our plan, from the department's perspective, is once we get

the interim report we will be involved in the consultation process at that time.

MS JONES: Are you telling me that you did not make a presentation to the

task force on seasonal employment for women in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS BURKE: Yes, but I believe that happened during the labour dispute.

MS JONES: You could have provided written submissions as well.

MS BURKE: We will be once we get the interim report.

MS JONES: After the decision is made you will provide a written

submission?

MS BURKE: No, following the interim report we will be making our

submission, once we receive that report.

MS JONES: When is the interim report due?

MS BURKE: The end of this month or early June.

MS JONES: Recently, Memorial University did a study on the financial

constraints that cancer patients are faced with in the Province. Are you aware

of that study?

MS BURKE: No.

MS JONES: In the Estimates, I wanted to look at

section 2.7.01 under

Salaries, page 20.

Salaries have declined in your department by $34,000 this year. Do you want

to tell me why that is?

MS BURKE: We have eliminated a policy analyst position in the Women's

Policy Office.

MS JONES: Is that position currently filled?

MS BURKE: That position had been vacant.

MS JONES: Are there any positions in the Women's Policy Office that are

budgeted for here that are not filled at the present time?

MS BURKE: They are all filled. There is one person on maternity leave, so

there is a person backfilling there. There is somebody off but there is somebody

in that position during that leave.

MS JONES: Line 2.7.01.05, Professional Services have decreased by

$25,000. Why was there a cut in Professional Services this year, and what

professional services would your office be using?

MS BURKE: The money for those services - we have a

federal-provincial-territorial meeting coming up hosted by this Province and we

realigned some money from these different areas to assist in hosting that

meeting.

MS JONES: So, other provinces are paying the $25,000.

MS BURKE: I do not understand.

MS JONES: You have decreased your professional services by $25,000 but

you are telling me you are hosting the federal-provincial-territorial ministers'

meeting.

MS BURKE: We will be cost-sharing the federal-provincial-territorial

meetings and we have also had to realign some money in another line there of

Supplies to help cover the cost for that meeting.

MS JONES: Under Grants and Subsidies; what is covered under Grants and

Subsidies, under that heading?

MS BURKE: Yes, my official will speak to that.

MS MACLELLAN: That would include the Grants and Subsidies for the eight

women's centres in the Province. It would also include Grants and Subsidies

for the regional co-ordinating committees under the violence prevention

initiative. I would have to check, but I also think in that line object we

provide small grants to the Provincial Association Against Family Violence in

Newfoundland and Labrador sexual assault crisis. It will probably come out of

that line item as well.

MS JONES: Are the transition houses in there as well?

MS MACLELLAN: No, the transition houses are funded through Health.

MS JONES: The Department of Health, okay.

The 10 per cent increase, I guess that is why the Grants and Subsidies went

up in the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women?

MS BURKE: Why, was there an increase in the Provincial Advisory Council

on the Status of Women? Is that your question?

MS JONES: Yes. Last year there was $257,600 budgeted, this year it is

$297,600.

MS BURKE: We gave an additional $40,000 to the Provincial Advisory

Council. Some of that had to go into the salary of the President who was

receiving a salary of $59,360. They were not following the step that they had to

follow according to the classification of the job. So, the salary now pays

$78,070. There was $20,000 that was given to the President for the discrepancy

in what the salary was being paid and what it should have been, and the

additional $20,000 to the Advisory Council.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, and your officials for answering those questions. I

appreciate your time.

Unfortunately, I have to go, Mr. Chair, so it is all back to you.

CHAIR: Thank you, to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and I

trust you are not late for your meeting.

MS JONES: Just by half an hour. I think they will still let me in.

CHAIR: You were so excited that you could not leave.

MS JONES: Try and carry on without me now.

CHAIR: What we have been doing, just so you do not get too tired, we

normally delegate about three hours for the debates and about halfway through we

take a ten minute break. If you want, before the other two gentlemen follow

through with some of their questions, we can take a ten minute break.

MS BURKE: Can I just - before we take the break, to prepare for the next

part, are we going to do Housing, Women's Policy Office, Labour Relations

agency followed by HRE, in that order? Why I ask that is some of them are not as

detailed or as massive, I guess, as some of the others. We have a lot of staff

here, so if we could break it down and do some of the others first. Is that -

MR. COLLINS: Whatever works for you. It does not matter to me.

MS BURKE: Okay.

CHAIR: I think it was, as we said - well, we are finished with Women's

Policy now, so Heather is the first to go.

MS BURKE: Are we finished with Women's Policy?

MR. COLLINS: I did not have any questions, other than what was asked.

MS BURKE: Okay.

CHAIR: And I cleared it with Roland, that is not an issue. The intent was

to do Women's Policy and that is now done, although it was not intended to go

as long as we have. We thought we would get the Labour Relations and Housing

pieces out of the way as well before we broke but that -

MR. COLLINS: Whatever order that you want to go in is fine with me.

MS BURKE: Okay. We will do Housing when we come back, followed by Labour,

followed by HRLE.

CHAIR: Okay, we will do it that way.

We will just take a ten minute break. It is 8:37 p.m. now, let's come back

at 8:47 p.m., ten minutes.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

Thank you very much for returning promptly.

When we left off we said we were going to come back and pick up - I think,

Minister, you suggested we pick up - Women's Policy is done. You suggested we

pick up Housing, I think was your comment. Housing is found on page 247 of the

Estimates. It is in a separate piece by itself called Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation. We are dealing with one page, which is on page 247. It is

not an indication of the significance of that department but it is one big line

item.

Go ahead, the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I just have a couple of quick questions on Housing. I wonder

if the minister could update us on the backlog now on the wait list for housing

repairs? I know the list at one time was quite lengthy. I am not sure what the

status is today.

MS BURKE: Can I clarify that question, Randy? Are you talking about the

Provincial Home Repair Program or maintenance to our existing units?

MR. COLLINS: Maintenance for -

MS BURKE: Our existing units or the Provincial Home Repair Program?

MR. COLLINS: No, the Provincial Home Repair Program.

MS BURKE: There are approximately 4,000 on the wait list. It takes about

two years, I guess, from the time of application to get the repairs completed.

There are still provisions that if there is an emergency they would be done on

an emergency basis.

MR. COLLINS: Is that the only criteria, emergency, in order to get ahead

on the list? For example, I know some people in the Province who have had - not

in my district - their name in and they are probably eighty-one or eighty-two

years old. To be on a list that - a little while ago it was four years,

realistically -

MS BURKE: No, it is based on an emergency only and age would not be a

factor in determining. It would be on the date of the application, not on age.

The budgets are on a regional basis. So, as well, the wait list could

actually be different for different parts of the region. When I use that

two-year, that is an average, I guess. It is variable based on the region.

MR. COLLINS: That is the only question I have on Housing.

MR. BUTLER: First of all, Minister, I would like to welcome you and your

staff. I have quite a few questions but there will be no long

preambles. There

are going to be questions and short answers and we will be out of this pretty

fast.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple. With regards to subhead 1.1.01

for the Housing, I noticed that the budget for last year was $11,125,000 and

this year it is estimated at $9,910,000. I was wondering - I think that is a

cutoff of $1,215,000 - how will this hurt all of the operations of the Housing

program?

MS BURKE: The reduction will not result in any reduction of services, how

we deliver the program or the stock. The reduction will probably address some

efficiencies within the system. It is not going to reduce the number of housing

units we have.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. So, there will be no reduction in the number of houses

that will be done this year as compared to another year?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other thing, I guess - and this is not a question, just a short comment.

One of the things I find sometimes - and by the way, I want to thank the staff

at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing because if there is any name over there

they know, it is Roland Butler. There are always e-mails or messages going back

and forth. I have to say that I get good response back and forth. It is not

always what you want but that is beside the point.

One of the things I will mention - and sometimes, I guess, what you classify

as an emergency through the Housing and what individuals think might be an

emergency are two different situations. I have one case now that is being

reviewed over there, where a lady is blind in her home and the floor is really

bad. They did get money a little while ago to help hook up their water and

sewer, but this particular - there is money left in the fund for them but it was

not classified as an emergency. Now maybe that will take care of itself, but

that is one of the things I find confusing, what is sometimes classified as an

emergency in cases when you really think it is not an emergency. That is just a

comment. I do not expect you to respond to that because it was not a question.

MS BURKE: I will comment, although I do not usually comment unless I am

asked a question.

Sometimes what can happen, I would think, is from the time of application

through the wait list that a situation could change and develop into an

emergency. The other thing is, if we are asked to review a case to see if it

qualifies as an emergency we do respond to those requests and we try to treat

everyone fairly in relation to that.

MR. BUTLER: I have to agree with you on that part.

The only other question I have, I guess, is with - now, I do not know the

exact name of the agreement, maybe there is none, but it was between CMHC and

NLHC. I think it was signed off on by the former minister last year or the year

before, or whatever. It is the one with reference to, I think it was 50-50

funding; 50 per cent - I will call it cash - from the federal people and 50 per

cent could be a variation of what it was in the Province. I understand there

were proposals that went out but there were only a few received on the Avalon. I

was just wondering if you could give me a report on that and maybe explain to me

why - maybe there has been some back from rural Newfoundland now. I believe

there is some action taking place now on the Labrador Coast with regard to this

program. I am just wondering, if there is none, what do you think the problem

is; why there were no proposals coming in from rural Newfoundland where I know

the housing needs are probably just as crucial for low income families as what

they would be in the city?

MS BURKE: We did have that request from outside the Avalon.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, you did?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. How is that program progressing now?

MS BURKE: The information has been received but the decisions have not

yet been made on what projects will be approved.

MR. COLLINS: I do not have a question but one thing I would like to make

a comment on is the way that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units have been

built in the past. I think that it is totally wrong. I think in some ways it is

outright outrageous, where you go into a community and you build housing and

rather than integrating the housing into the community, it is sort of built in a

position where it is singled out and there is a certain amount of -

MS BURKE: Stigmatism?

MR. COLLINS: - stigma attached to the people who live there. I think that

is very unfair and very inappropriate. I think that is a mistake which was made

in the past, and I certainly hope that if this government, at any time in the

future, decides to construct units that they would certainly take that into

consideration because it is not very nice.

MS BURKE: I do agree with what you are saying. I fully agree, and I think

integration into the community is very important for people and to remove that

stigma - and that can happen in many ways. The housing units built in the

cluster is certainly an example of segregating within the community, and I

certainly agree with what you are saying.

MR. COLLINS: That is all I have.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chairman, something came to my mind when I passed over to

Randy. With regards to that program I just referenced, the CMHC-NLHC program -

and probably Mr. Dean and others are familiar with the situation I am going to

bring up. I am not going to bring any names into it, but I know one individual

whose house was dilapidated to the point where they could not get any funding

and, rightly so, the money was not there to repair it and he had to be moved out

of the community. I guess, not knowing the individual, he did move into a unit

and they helped, wherever possible, to move him. I was wondering, with this

program, would that be possible to help someone in his situation? Because he

moved out of his own community - he did not move that far away but it was just

as well as if they took him and moved him to a foreign country. He is totally

lost. He has gone downhill, both him and his wife, over the situation. I know we

were even trying, at one point in time - I will call them portable units, for a

better word, they use to move them from community to community. I was wondering

if this program could be something to help a family in a similar situation?

MS BURKE: I do not know if I am answering it to the degree you want. The

program that we are talking about would provide affordable rental units

wherever, I guess, they are built. It is not for home ownership.

The other thing is, I would think that the program - if we have individuals

who are at a disadvantage because they had to move out of their community, I

would assume we would work with them to try to help place them appropriately if

it is causing stress and issues like that.

MR. BUTLER: When I said there were proposals received from the St. John's

area but not outside, but now you have confirmed there have been. When you say

proposals, what is that? Someone who will build so many units and put a price in

on them to do them in different communities or in one packaged area?

MS BURKE: Yes, it would be a proposal for units in whatever particular

area they tender. They would put in a proposal of what that would cost to set up

x number of units, which would be affordable rental units.

MR. BUTLER: That is it, Mr. Chairman, on that expenditure.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

With that, we have now concluded the discussion on Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing.

Minister, you indicated that you would like to deal with the Labour Relations

Agency next. Those Estimates are contained within the body of those that are

characterized as Human Resources, Labour and Employment, which starts on page

I will ask the Clerk to call the Estimates dealing with Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing.

CLERK (Murphy): 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

OFFICIAL: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

OFFICIAL: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

Shall I now report that the Estimates for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation will carry without amendment?

OFFICIAL: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, total heads,

carried.

CHAIR: We will now go over to the

section identified as Human Resources,

Labour and Employment. We are going to - minister, at your request, we will deal

with the piece dealing with the Labour Relations Agency, which starts on page

214 of the Estimates and starts off as 6.1.01 and follows through. So, we will

deal with that piece next.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: First of all, welcome. I would like to start off by saying

to the minister that the Department of Labour is a department of government that

I have had a long-standing working relationship with, long prior to becoming

involved in politics. I have to say that the people in the department - like

Joe, Wayne, Yvonne and others, and the Labour Standards people - are extremely

qualified people who have earned the respect of both labour and management in

both the private and public sector throughout the Province. I commend them for

the role they play and the great work that they do because I have been

benefactor of that work on many occasions; they say (inaudible). I would just

like to say welcome.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

MR. COLLINS: We talked about the minimum wage, which was raised earlier.

I just wonder if there has ever been any thought put into - I know one of the

things we have advocated is an $8 an hour minimum wage that could be viewed as a

living wage. Another proposal that I have been part of advocating for a long

time is to have the minimum wage tied to the average industrial wage in the

Province so that as that moves up the minimum wage would automatically track it,

therefore there would be no requirement for a statutory review. I think it used

to be every five years at one point, if I remember correctly. Now it is every

two, but if it was tied as a percentage of the average industrial wage in the

Province then that would automatically go up as the average industrial wage. Has

there been any consideration given to something like that?

MS BURKE: We are in the process of reviewing the minimum wage, as I have

indicated. We will be doing a consultation process and we will be open to

suggestions and ideas as to how we can address the minimum wage issue here in

the Province. There is no decision made yet and I am not closing any doors on

the discussion and the consultation.

MR. COLLINS: That would be the public tribunal travelling around the

Province?

MS BURKE: It will be departmental officials and we will have - I do not

know how many consultations, but I will say at a minimum, East Coast-West Coast,

with stakeholders in the community invited into a forum for a discussion.

MR. COLLINS: Under the same format that took place in previous years, the

same

schedule type of thing?

MS BURKE: I will have to check on what happened in previous years. It may

not necessarily be the same consultation process because they used external

reviews in the past. So, it will be an internal process. I would imagine the

consultation process will -

MR. COLLINS: Be the same.

MS BURKE: - because of that. Well, it will be somewhat different, I was

going to say. I have not been part of the previous one, so I am not sure of the

differences there.

MR. COLLINS: In the area of Occupational, Health and Safety, the

requirement for joint committees to file safety meeting reports, what percentage

the workplaces actually comply with that requirement now?

MS BURKE: When we did the realignment of the department in February the

Occupational, Health and Safety responsibilities went to Government Services, so

that question would be to that department.

MR. COLLINS: Okay. So that is no longer under your jurisdiction?

MS BURKE: No. Maybe I should start with some explanation, I guess, as to

the Department of Labour and the change that took place in February. I guess I

should have done it to preface the discussions here this evening.

When the Department of Labour joined Human Resources and Employment we

established a Labour Relations Agency which looks at labour relations, labour

standards and then, at an arm's-length, Workers' Compensation, but the

Occupational, Health and Safety division moved into Government Services.

MR. COLLINS: What was the justification for doing that? Because from my

background Occupational, Health and Safety was one of the most critical parts of

the Labour portfolio.

MS BURKE: It was based on the inspections that the officers do, and

Government Services basically provided that role in other areas. So now they

have the inspections in that department along with, I guess, other inspections

they do from that department.

MR. COLLINS: Okay.

Do you want to go for a bit there, Roland?

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I will be going through some of the headings here,

6.1.01. Just a few general questions down through, nothing major. The one under

6.1.01, Salaries, there are cuts listed there of $125,200. Could you explain how

and if this affects the government's stance towards negotiations with the

unions in the Province by that reduction of $125,000?

MS BURKE: That does not affect the number of mediators we have. That

reduction addressed the elimination of an ADM position and a half-time Director

of Communications position.

MR. BUTLER: 6.1.02, I take notice there that IT has been cut by $31,100,

yet the division's mandate involves a focus on IT. I was just wondering if you

could explain that?

MS BURKE: The IT budget comes from Treasury Board and last year there

were three new IT Web-based programs that were put in, that are in now, so that

the funding is no longer needed. They are in and set up.

MR. BUTLER: The other one, Purchased Services has increased by $61,000. I

was just wondering if you could explain what that might be?

MS BURKE: Purchased Services has increased?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, the revised was $140,000 and now it is up to $201,000.

MS BURKE: I am on a different -

MR. BUTLER: 6.1.02.06.

MR. BLUNDON: The reason why the Purchased Services went down, if you note

up in 6.1.02, Purchased Services went up and it had to do with advertising

within the department. We use most of the advertising budgets. For the whole

department it was budgeted - not budgeted but actually expended in the Executive

area. If you look at it, there is just a reallocation. There is a $25,000

increase just in advertising up in Administration in the Executive Support

section. There was money used as well for the purchase of IT equipment. It is

just a reallocation within the department.

MR. BUTLER: Subhead 6.1.03, probably a lot of those are going to be the

same answer, really.

Professional Services there again are up by $65,000 from last year. I was

just wondering: Is this the case of contracting something out or is there

another explanation for it?

MS BURKE: That figure is based on a projected budget for the negotiations

in relation to the fishery. That number is estimated each year. If you look,

$30,000 was used last year. Again, that is an estimate of what they may need in

relation to that service.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, minister, Revenue - Provincial; $70,000, under

6.1.03, the Revenue - Provincial, what would that -

MS BURKE: That is in relation to the clearance certificates for Labour

Standards, which are $25.

MR. BUTLER: Under 6.1.04, the same thing I guess. That is probably what

that is. The revenue there, that would be revenue coming in from similar

certificates or what have you?

MS BURKE: That would be in relation to the fees for the board conference.

MR. BUTLER: What was that again, minister?

MS BURKE: Registration fees.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

That is all I have under that, Randy. Do you have something else there, sir?

MR. COLLINS: I just have a couple of questions that I am curious about.

The Preventive Mediation Program, is there much of a demand in the Province

for that now?

MS BURKE: Yes, the demand is growing, especially in grievance mediation.

MR. COLLINS: How many people do we have in place now, staff, to deal with

it?

MS BURKE: Five.

MR. COLLINS: Five. Are conciliation officers used for that purpose now?

Labour Standards, do you have any idea as to the number of complaints

received, on average, per year by the Labour Standards officers?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes, what we do is when we get a case we usually invoke an

early resolution. In other words, we try and settle it without doing an actual

investigation.

In 2003, we had 309 early resolutions, which meant they would have been cases

coming in that we resolved. We had seventy-four cases assigned for

investigation. So, approximately 400 cases a year.

MR. COLLINS: How many people are involved in that process (inaudible)

staff?

MR. O'NEILL: Seven officers in total.

MR. COLLINS: Has there ever been any consideration given, or has it ever

been discussed - because right now under the existing Labour Standards

legislation an officer can go in to investigate a complaint and not find - if an

employee lodges a complaint against the employer for, say, dismissal, and other

than giving the one or two weeks pay to which they are entitled, that is far as

the officer can go. Has there ever been any consideration given to making the

Labour Standards division or the officers with more power to order different

remedies?

MR. O'NEILL: One of the issues that has been discussed in a couple of

round tables has been the issue of the reason for termination. As you know, of

course, in our Labour Standards legislation, as in some other legislation across

the country, there is no just cause for termination in our legislation. So, that

is an issue that I think, in review of the Labour Standards Act, which we will

also be doing this year. It is something that should be up for consideration, in

terms of whether or not more authority should be given to the officers through

either regulation or in the act itself to address issues of unjust dismissal.

MR. COLLINS: So, a lot of times that is most of what, I guess, a lot of

the cases there would be on - would be on that issue?

MR. O'NEILL: What we find is in a lot of cases the people already

leave, as you know, then they go to the Labour Standards Division and file a

complaint of loss of wages, not properly being paid for statutory holidays and

that sort of thing, but that is really after they have severed their employment

relationship. There is no question that one of the reasons we moved to an early

resolution program four or five years ago was, in fact, to try and take away the

investigatory role and see if we could work with the employer and the employee

in question, to see whether or not, in fact, their position could be saved.

There could kind of a softer accommodation.

MR. COLLINS: Do you have any idea as to the number of employers in the

Province who have the Labour Standards regulations posted at their workplace?

MR. O'NEILL: No, I do not. Of course it is a requirement, as you know,

but we would not have done that kind of an investigation, in terms of how many

are actually posted.

MR. COLLINS: Do you have the number - since the first agreement

provisions came into play - of how many times that there has been an imposed

first agreement?

MR. O'NEILL: Very rare, by the Labour Relations Board. You could

probably count them on both hands since the inception of that legislation. What

has been found, as you know, when first agreements come in they generally do not

last. The board usually imposes a one-year deal and we find that the

relationship then gets severed shortly after that.

MR. COLLINS: I think, from my experience, it has worked. Even the fact

that it is there causes, sometimes, to reach a deal by virtue of it being there.

MR. O'NEILL: Yes, absolutely.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Minister, as we agreed, we would deal with this particular piece. If your

staff wanted to leave, I think we are through. There are no other questions on

this particular piece of Labour Relations.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

CHAIR: I thank your staff for their contribution and participation. For

the rest of you, you have to stay until the end. There is no one else leaving.

You are barred in now until it is done.

Having already called this section, yourself or the Member for Labrador West

or Port de Grave, whichever one of you wants to start now, the floor is yours.

MR. BUTLER: We can go anywhere now, can we, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: We will call all the heads after, so you have five minutes to go

where you want now and then we will wrap it up.

MR. BUTLER: Did you say five minutes?

CHAIR: Yes.

MS BURKE: Are we taking five minutes?

CHAIR: I gave him five minutes.

MR. BUTLER: No, he gave me five minutes.

I will go through some of those and then I will go back to some of the heads.

Minister, I know in the budget there was $400,000 for supported employment to

assist persons with disabilities to enter the workforce. I am wondering, will

all of this money go into hiring additional individuals? Because I believe in

the - I do not have the right page here now, but I think in the Estimates it

shows $300,000 or something.

MS BURKE: Are you referring to line 4.1.04, Employment Assistance

Programs for Persons with Disabilities? - because the increase is $400,000.

MR. BUTLER: Four-hundred thousand, right?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: My question was: Is the full $400,000 to go to hire people?

Because apparently there was a committee, through that division, to be set up, a

provincial committee or something, where the ones from the different - I was

wondering, would any of that money from the $400,000 go to help to set up the

board or was the full $400,000 to hire people?

MS BURKE: I believe you may be referring to the establishment of an

advisory committee but, in the meantime, this $400,000 will go into that program

to assist people with disabilities to go to work.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. It has nothing to do with the advisory committee?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BUTLER: The other question right here - now, what page is that on? I

cannot find it. I have down here $400,000 is in the budget for the Employment

Assistance Programs for Persons with Disabilities, but this division shows

$300,000. What page is that on? 4.1.01? But you clarified it anyway, you are

saying the $400,000.

MS BURKE: Pardon?

MR. BUTLER: You are saying the full $400,000 goes into the hiring of

people with disabilities.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I know a couple of my colleagues - I guess they

expressed the feelings of a lot of people with regards to the closure of some of

the offices around the Province. I am not going to go into that. They expressed

themselves and covered off on, I guess, most of it.

With this restructuring - and I do not want to use too heavy a word on it -

do you think it will open it up, where the offices are not in the areas close by

a lot of the people? I will just use an example. I am going to reference this

one, not in particular over any other area of the Province. In St. Mary's, for

instance, they have to come to Bay Roberts now, and in September it will be

Carbonear and so on. Do you think areas in the Province, it will open it up for

more abuse when people are not in their immediate areas and they have to more or

less - I am not going back to hands on. Like you said before, you had to check

their fridges to see what was in them. I do not mean that, but when they move

farther away, do you think it would probably open up more abuse in the system by

this new technology that you are referencing?

MS BURKE: I tend to think that the technology will probably assist us in

helping to identify abuse. I also preface that by saying sometimes no matter

what program we set up there is somebody who is going to find a way around it,

will tell a lie, or will mislead us and that makes us then have to investigate

those circumstances. The advanced technology allows us to do a number of

interfaces to check income, which is far more effective than asking an

individual, especially somebody who is not prepared to give us the full

information. We can do electronic interfaces to check whether or not somebody in

the household - again, if we know who is in the household - if people

deliberately deceive us it puts up challenges. We can do electronic interfaces

to see if they are receiving money from student loans, from EI, CPP, OAS and

CCRA. There are a number of ways that we can determine if there is income coming

into the household.

MR. BUTLER: I also noted - I had the letter or the correspondence with me

but I failed to bring it down with me, but I believe it was announced this year

there would be funding to hire three additional collection officers and they

would be stationed in St. John's. I was wondering - and this is why I asked

that question, I suppose - do you anticipate that there are going to be more

problems from the changeover or is there that big of an overpayment out there to

be collected in that we have to hire three more additional people on?

MS BURKE: The reason for hiring three more additional, or to establish

these positions, was an attempt by the department to increase revenue. If there

are avenues and ways that we need to collect money, we want to make sure that

the emphasis is put on it. Especially if people owe us money, we need to be able

to look at that. There will be three new positions established and it has never

been said from me or from anyone in the department, that I am aware of, that

these positions will be in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: I cannot say where the source came from now because I do not

have it here in front of me, but I think it is listed in the same book that we

are referencing here everyday and I do not want to get into that again.

MS BURKE: The present collectors are here in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: No, this is three new additionals.

MS BURKE: Three new additional positions that I have not said will be in

St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. What it said in this - you know the book I am referring

to, I forget what the title is on it now.

MS BURKE: I know, and I really do not want to have to get into this

question tomorrow about whether or not I -

MR. BUTLER: No.

MS BURKE: If there is something there that made you feel those positions

were going to be in St. John's, well, you have clarified that you saw that and

you read that into it. I am going to further clarify that I have not said those

positions are going in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: Because they continue on to say that they would be

travelling. It did not say they were going to stay in St. John's. They would

be based in St. John's, however, they would travel to other areas of the

Province too.

MS BURKE: I have not even said they were going to be based in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS BURKE: But the present collectors are in St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, okay.

Since we are on that one now, because I will come to that here shortly I am

sure. When you talk about the collectors as one end of it, the investigators

that are out there now - I am not referring, I mean we know they are out there.

Do you think that probably to help the system there should have been more people

in the investigation side of it? I know from - not from experience myself -

speaking to other people that some of those inspectors do come up with a lot of

abuse in the system. They have massive areas that they have to cover. I am

wondering if there was more along that line. Is it possible - I am trying to tie

all of this together about the three new ones that are possibly coming on for

the collection end of it, if you have people who are out there investigating and

coming up with the means where there has been abuse?

MS BURKE: A lot of the investigations that we conduct can center around

some of our technology and being able to check sources of income or additional

income through that. We use, obviously, both methods, where we have to go out

and do an actual investigation in someone's home or question them, but we rely

a lot on the technology.

The amount of abuse that is in the system, a lot of times people throw

antidotal information at me and it can be anywhere from 75 per cent of the cases

to 40 per cent, to whatever. I seem to feel the values that guide this

department are certainly values that I share. I think, on average, most

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who receive income support are honest people

who deserve that income. It is a very modest income that they receive. I think

that, overall, we will investigate when we have reason to believe, but I still

think that most people who receive income support are people who are deserving

of that income.

MR. BUTLER: You are not going to get an argument on that.

The only thing - what I am trying to tie it back to, I guess - and I can only

speak for my own area. In Bay Roberts there is an office, at the present time,

until September. I know the workers who are there and I know how committed they

are, not only when they are inside the four walls. Lots of times I know workers

seen individuals who were on assistance and probably they saw them somewhere

doing something they should not have been doing. I mean they do not mind dealing

with it when they go back to the office. I am not saying they are investigators

but I mean - I will give you an example. Someone may be out on the side of the

road selling vegetable hampers and they know they are on assistance. Well, they

are going to say: Look, are you making money? Are you being paid weekly?

By moving it all to one centre I think we are going to lose that personal

contact. That is what I said before, probably more abuse in the system. Maybe

that is not the right word, abuse, but that was the concern that I had with it.

By moving - you say St. Mary's, Whitbourne, Placentia, Bay Roberts, they are

all gone to Carbonear. All of that area is there left wide open. That is the

concern that I have with it, not that there is anything wrong with what you are

doing, like Mr. Parsons said earlier. You lose the personal touch with the

people, not that you have to be in checking their fridges. I do not mean that

way either.

MS BURKE: I still tend to think that if people are earning income,

whether it is through selling vegetable hampers, that most people, basically,

are honest people who will report their income and get the exemption that they

qualify for. I really do not think that we are chasing around income support

recipients because of their dishonesty in the community. They do have the

opportunity to report income to their workers. I still would believe that most

people will be honest when they are dealing with their workers.

MR. BUTLER: I know you mentioned earlier, minister, that you did not know

exactly what the breakdown or the savings would be from one office versus

another. I know, for instance, for my area, some of the clients have to travel

to St. John's for medical reasons. I do not know the exact - but they do get

so much to come in, whether they have their own vehicle, whether they have to

get someone to bring them in or whether they come with public transportation.

Would those people now - a lot of this they have to go to the office to receive

that, or to sign off on something or what have you. I still go back - my hon.

colleague is gone from Placentia & St. Mary's, but you take it, if you

have someone up there - I will give you another example. Maybe their lights are

going to be cut and to stop that they have to come into an office, they have to

sign off. Your office won't pay for it but they sign off so much in funds from

their cheques. They have sign that, and with an office gone in St. Mary's and

Placentia and that immediate area, they have to travel all the way to Carbonear

for it. Will there be any reimbursement to help them do that type of thing? Lots

of them, maybe, would not have a car to travel that distance.

MS BURKE: We are going to focus that people will have equal access to the

service, no matter where they live, and we will not be requiring clients to come

into the office. We will be providing the same basic services to them. In saying

that, I want to highlight, particularly in the district that I represent, there

are many people who live in Bay St. George South, in the Highlands, in the St.

Fintan's-St. David's area, who are nowhere close to the HRLE office, and

Buchans is another example. There are many communities. We are closing twenty

offices and we are leaving twenty-six open, but that is a total of forty-six and

there are far more communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there are many

people who live in extremely remote areas who have had to depend on services

over the years that have been provided to them without necessarily having to

visit the office, even when probably the policies were different.

We are very well aware and we will be very cognizant of our policies as we

move into this change to ensure that the clients do not fall into that situation

where they have to travel to the office for services.

MR. BUTLER: I know in one of your statements, Minister, I think you more

or less said, where the Province's population has shifted, the service

delivery network should reflect where people currently live. I am talking about

my own area again. I do not think too many people have moved out of that area,

but I am also cognizant of the fact that we do not have to travel very far to

get to Carbonear, or, if the shoe were on the other foot, from Carbonear to Bay

Roberts, but I do not think a lot of the areas where the offices are closing -

and I think Mr. Parsons made a good point with Burgeo. Is that the only reason,

or is it for the sake of saving money? Because when you look at that area, I do

not even live there, but if you have nothing where you can go into an office and

cover all that area - Whitbourne, Placentia, St. Mary's, all the way up there,

about an hour-and-a-half to two hours drive to Carbonear - it is impossible to

do everything over that telephone. There are times when they will have to come

into the offices.

MS BURKE: There will be an office in Placentia remaining open.

MR. BUTLER: You have me shocked now.

MS BURKE: Yes, Placentia will remain open.

MR. BUTLER: Placentia is not closing?

MS BURKE: No. Whitbourne, St. Mary's.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right? Oh, I thought Placentia was listed in the ones

the other day. No?

MS BURKE: I will just clarify that. The five in the Avalon region that

are closing are: Bay Roberts, Conception Bay South, Ferryland, St. Mary's and

Whitbourne.

MR. BUTLER: So, why are the people in St. Mary's now dealing with the

office in Bay Roberts?

MS BURKE: The situation in St. Mary's is that the client services

worker is on extended sick leave. She is not able to work, so their work has

been redirected to another office.

MR. BUTLER: Why would they pass Placentia to come to Bay Roberts? That is

my question. The staff at Bay Roberts are presently dealing - I am not saying

they are dealing with every issue in St. Mary's, but I do know, unless it is a

specific issue, they do deal with the office in Bay Roberts.

MS BURKE: The work, in cases, depends a lot on whether we have somebody

on long-term assistance or short-term assistance. We are dealing with

approximately eight cases from the St. Mary's office that are receiving

short-term assistance. They were assigned to the workers in the Bay Roberts

office. I really cannot answer why it went to Bay Roberts versus Placentia, but

those eight cases - there is a higher number of long-term assistance but, of

course, the level of intervention for long-term assistance is not near what it

is for short-term assistance, so those eight cases are being processed in Bay

Roberts.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other thing, Minister, I notice in one of your articles - I do not know

which paper it was in, now, probably the Georgian - about the office out

in Stephenville, where there would be an extension to the office to accommodate

the additional workers that will be coming in there. I am wondering why that was

not the plan for Carbonear, when the twelve people from Bay Roberts moved to

Carbonear, rather than double up in an office, and some of them, my

understanding is, may even have to use a boardroom. Is there another alternative

or is there another plan in place for that office in Carbonear, that I am not

aware of?

MS BURKE: Decisions on specific office space have not been finalized, but

I will comment on the Stephenville office in particular, because the present

office space is not sufficient for the staff that are there now. I can even give

an example of how I was in there one day and went to meet with one of the

workers, and the only place to sit was on the desk. The space there in

Stephenville is pronounced and, with or without the consolidation, we had to

address that issue with space.

With regard to the other offices, we will be doing a review of each site to

ensure that we have adequate space for the staff. That has not been finalized

for every site, as to if we will be seeking alternate accommodations.

MR. BUTLER: My understanding was, they have been advised that they will

be doubling up in offices, but what you are saying is that when they move to

Carbonear there will be adequate space for them.

MS BURKE: We will be assessing all our sites to ensure that we can

accommodate the staff.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

When my time is up, you can cut over to these gentlemen, because I have quite

a few here.

I know the announcement was made that in Newfoundland and Labrador the

government is hoping, at least, to have poverty eliminated by the year - I

should not say eliminated - to be the lowest in the country, by 2014. I know

that is quite a ways away; it is ten years.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is supposed to be eliminated in the country by 2000.

MR. BUTLER: I won't go into that one.

Minister, I know that I have read in some of the articles that a two-parent

low income family requires a average of $10,200 - an additional $10,200 - to get

up to what they would classify as being on par with the poverty level. I am

wondering what plan is in place. I mean, to me it is going to have to be a

masterful plan to get that amount of money over a ten-year period, to say that a

family of two has reached a point where they are up to the $10,000, and a

single-parent family, $8,886. I was just wondering what they plan is that,

hopefully, that this goal can be achieved. I am not hoping that you are not

going to achieve it; I am just wondering, what are the...?

MS BURKE: As we address the issues of poverty in Newfoundland and

Labrador, it is going to be a more comprehensive approach to it as opposed to

just being the HRLE office and our existing policies. We will play a role in the

poverty reduction measures, and our efforts are going to be in trying to help

people move from income support into the labour market. That is one of the

overall goals of the department. The other is to provide the assistance that

people with disabilities will need to help them move into the labour force.

When we tackle poverty, as a government, we have to bring together many

different departments, and economic and social policy come into play there, as

do many of our other departments, whether it is Health and Community Services,

or Education or Innovation and Rural Development. We need to bring together a

comprehensive plan that does not necessarily put the emphasis on one particular

department.

Our department, of course, deals with people who have no income and rely on

income support, so we will play a role, a very significant role, in poverty

reduction; but, overall, the whole area of poverty reduction does not lie

primarily with this department.

MR. BUTLER: My understanding, Minister, is that back in February of 2002

there was $935 million in the federal child care fund. It was set aside in that

federal budget, to be spent over a five-year period; however, the information

that I have, by November of 2003 only $25 million had been made available

nationwide. I was wondering, since you became minister, or the officials of your

department, have you been in touch with the people in Ottawa to see if any of

this funding would be coming our way to help alleviate, wherever possible,

through that program? I know it is a lot of money.

MS BURKE: Are you talking about child care or the National Child Benefit?

MR. BUTLER: What I have listed here is the federal child care fund. The

federal government announced $935 million in 2002, to be spent over five years.

MS BURKE: I hope I am answering this correctly. I think what you are

probably getting at, child care initiatives, would fall under Health and

Community Services. We do not have a program for child care.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, I am sorry. My apologies.

MS BURKE: Not that I have heard of.

MR. BUTLER: My apologies.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, maybe if you could probably

rotate through to your colleague from Labrador West -

MR. BUTLER: Not a problem.

CHAIR: I was just looking at the time. We will let the Member for

Labrador West - if you want to pursue a line of questioning, then we will get a

handle on where we are. Then you can pursue your line of questioning after that.

Does that sound okay to you?

MR. BUTLER: Not a problem. Go right ahead, Sir.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

I do not have a lot of questions on specifics, or the headings or the

numbers, but I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions, sort of a

general nature, as to how the Income Support Program works and how people fit

into it.

One of the frustrating things that I find from time to time is, as recently

as last week, we had a young single mother who is on income support, wanting to

get off, and, being a young single mother, she is not in a position to go to

school full time in order to do credits from a recognized college. Obviously,

with the responsibilities that she has in her personal life, she is not eligible

for student loans because she cannot take enough courses to qualify for student

loans, and, on the other hand, there is no support for her to do it any other

way. It is almost like you are trapped into a system from which there is no

escape.

MS BURKE: I guess I do not want to comment on that individual case,

because I am -

MR. COLLINS: It is not really individual.

MS BURKE: I will speak to that in general terms.

We do recognize some barriers that keep people from making that move from

income support into the labour force, and we have set up a number of initiatives

to assist people in that movement. Depending on their educational needs, we do

provide some funding for tuition based on ABE programming, or programs for which

they would not qualify for student loans. We also provide support to help with

child care while they are in school, and we also provide initiatives like

extending the drug card, to help them move from income support to the labour

force. There are some measures that we do bring in to help people make that

attachment.

In particular, I guess, when people come on income support, if they request,

or if they wish, they can have access to our employment and career services in

which that worker would help address some of the barriers that individual, or

any individual, would be experiencing, because our aim would be to try and deal

with those issues to help the person move from income support into the

workforce, and the measures that may be needed in the interim to get from one to

the other.

MR. COLLINS: But, for a person who finds themselves in the unfortunate

position, I guess, where they are probably a high school graduate and they want

to do, either by distance learning or some other format, rather than be able to

move to a city or to a major area where colleges are located, if they want to

start off by doing, say, two courses a semester, there are barriers in place

that prevent people from doing that.

MS BURKE: Any individual who has barriers that prevent them from

addressing their education, moving into the workforce, really, that would have

to be looked at on an individual basis as to what is available. I cannot comment

specifically on a particular case, but each person on income support would have

a worker that they could address these barriers with, with the goal in mind that

we are going to help them move from income support into the labour force.

I guess there is certain criteria as to which courses and programs we can

fund, versus which would fall under the student loan mandate, and there would

have to be an individual case plan done up for anyone who is requesting those

services.

MR. COLLINS: Many times that fails. I do not want to get into, like you

say, the specifics of individual cases, but many times.... If you are living in

a larger centre maybe it is easier to do, where the centre of learning might be.

MS BURKE: In all fairness to that, whatever barriers are there that we

need to address, as we move ahead and we see the barriers and what it is that is

stopping people, I would think that, as a department, we could evaluate the

barriers and try to address them.

I do not see that our policy set up now - yes, it is set up the way it is and

that is what we are working with today, but I am certainly not adverse to

addressing real issues out there that are barriers, that our policies are not

able to -

MR. COLLINS: I think that needs to be done. It needs to be looked at and

addressed from time to time.

MS BURKE: I will just comment on that in general.

We have a group in Bay St. George that are addressing barriers to women who

cannot get from income support to the workforce - probably very similar issues

to what you are discussing - and there is a community effort where they are

addressing these issues. They will be examining them and probably coming forward

with some recommendations and presenting them at some point down the road as to

what the barriers are and what they think we could do to address them. We will

take that type of information and see what is realistic that we can incorporate

into our policies.

In saying that, I want to make the point that I am not adverse to changing a

policy if we are able to do so and we are able to address some real concerns

with that. I think, in dealing with any type of human service, we always have to

have policies that we have to enforce because that guides the way we do work,

but we also have to be open and receptive to change as well.

MR. COLLINS: Be flexible at cases.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: One of the other concerns that I had, too, and I just want

to put this out to you, is that many times when we have family breakups - and I

have had this happen from time to time. It sort of happens in other areas as

well, and I even have had members of the clergy approach me and express concern.

It has to do with the whole process of how things work.

We have had cases where a man and his wife separate, or divorce, and they

have kids.