May 27, 1996

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m.

[The beginning of the committee meeting was not

recorded.]

CHAIR (Bob Mercer): (Inaudible) the people

around the table, and he needs to record that for the purposes of Hansard. So if

I could ask you to do that, even those who have been around for some time. Jack

understood and recognized most of the voices from the House, but I think Randy

is a bit new at it.

The first order of business is to adopt the minutes

of the previous meeting. Elizabeth have those been circulated?

MADAM CLERK: Yes, just now.

CHAIR: If they are in order can I get a motion

from one of the committee members to adopt.

MR. H. HODDER: So moved, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Moved by Harvey Hodder.

MR. ANDERSEN: I second it.

CHAIR: Seconded by Wally Andersen.

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Just by way of introduction, we are here

this morning to review the Estimates of the Department of Social Services.

Before doing that, I will just outline briefly the procedure that we will

follow. To most of you I am sure it is old hat. First I will go around and ask

the members of the committee to identify themselves, following which I will ask

the Clerk to introduce the first head, on which we will start debate and

discussions. After that I will ask the Minister to introduce her officials and

to make an introductory statement on her budget. Normally that lasts about

fifteen minutes, Joan Marie, or less as the case might be. Following that I will

ask the Vice-Chair, Mr. Ottenheimer, to respond and to ask questions. After that

we will ask each member in turn to ask questions until the questions have run

out or we reach twelve o'clock; whichever comes first, I guess.

So with that having been said, and with a reminder

to everyone to identify themselves before they speak, I would ask then each of

the members of the committee to identify themselves starting with the gentlemen

at my far left.

MR. ANDERSEN: Wally Andersen, M.H.A., Torngat

Mountains.

MR. G. REID: Gerry Reid, M.H.A., Twillingate

and Fogo.

MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, M.H.A., Waterford

Valley.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: John Ottenheimer, M.H.A., St.

John's East.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Now to you, Joan Marie, for your introductory

comments and introduction of your officials.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much. Good

morning. Joan Marie Aylward speaking, Minister of Social Services.

I would like to start by introducing my officials.

To my immediate right, Deputy Minister Joan Dawe. Sitting next to Joan is Dave

Roberts, Assistant Deputy Minister. Next to Dave is Dave Lewis, Director of

Income Support. To my left, Director of Finance, Jim Strong, and to my far left,

Assistant Deputy Minister, George Skinner.

I would just like to take a few minutes to give a

brief overview of the budgetary impact of our department. Certainly there will

be an opportunity for lots of questions as we proceed this morning. I would also

like to say that my intentions were to invite my committee to lunch today, but I

would like to defer that request because I have a Treasury Board meeting at

twelve o'clock which I have just been made aware of. So if it is okay, I would

like to take my committee to lunch, all of you, and maybe we can agree on a time

outside of the setting here this morning.

CHAIR: I am sure that will have no influence

whatsoever on the questioning this morning.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay. It is not meant to,

believe me.

The first point I would like to make is that when

we started our budgetary process, it was brought to our attention, the large

number of temporary employees that were working in the Department of Social

Services; certainly in all parts of government, but from our perspective in the

Department of Social Services. Immediately we were very concerned, as had been

my predecessors and other government officials in the department, about what

this would do to our front-line staff. So we made a very clear effort from the

very beginning to try to stabilize our front line, and in so doing, we brought a

proposal forward to Treasury Board in an individual way as well as through the

budgetary process. We value all of our workers and employees, but we recognize

the value of a stabilized front-line workforce. We are very pleased that we were

successful in identifying that need and the fact that these employees have been

made permanent, those that have met the two-year threshold requirements. For us

that made a big difference in how we would look at the overall budget process.

We recognized, with the type of financial

restrictions we had, that there would be positions that would also be eliminated

through redundancy, and I think I would like to reinforce that stabilizing the

front-line force was crucial to us making those decisions. When we looked at the

number of people who actually left through redundancy and lay off, the larger

percentage, two-thirds in fact, were from management, and one-third was at the

bargaining unit level. I would like to make it clear that we did not eliminate

any front-line positions from our workforce.

At the end of the day what we have seen, at least

what we feel we are confident in seeing, is that we have stabilized mostly our

social workers, our financial assistance officers, and our administrative staff

at the front line. In addition, we were successful in lifting the hiring freeze

so that we were able to put in place approximately twenty front-line

supervisors. So this also added to the support in the front lines by giving our

workers some support for decision making, and will allow us to decentralize the

decision making to the front line, but in the meantime giving them the support

they need.

As was read in the Budget, we hired five social

workers to assist single parents, who are mostly women, to retrieve court

ordered child support payments. Of course, this process was done in consultation

with the Women's Policy Office which is very supportive of this process, because

it is a voluntary process. For a lot of women, in particular, it allows them to

receive their income support from social assistance without an interruption in

the money they need to work through their requirements as family members.

Other issues, of course, were that we modified our

regions from nine regions to six, and we did restructure our district manager

responsibilities. For the record, I think it is very important to state that we

did not close any district offices, and for us that was very important. We know

that that may, in the short run, produce some extra support as well because of

the situation we are facing over the next year. We also are in the process of

program review, and we will be looking at the needs of our offices and the types

of services that we deliver. In areas where we can create efficiencies over the

coming months we will be looking at doing that.

As also mentioned, we reduced our operating budget

by 20 per cent. You must keep in mind that 70 per cent of the total budget in

social assistance goes to income support. So we are also, I guess, somewhat

pleased in that direction, that we are able to cut our operating expenses by 20

per cent and focus on providing the services that we are able to provide.

I would like now to open up this session to

questions, and I will speak to whatever questions you will have, or defer

appropriately to my officials. So if you are ready, I'm ready.

CHAIR: John.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In terms of procedure, I guess

it is fair to say that it is relatively informal, and if we just go back and

forth in terms of any particular issues which may arise.

Subhead 1.1.01, concerning the Minister's Office: I

think it is clear from the estimates which have been tabled that we have an

increase, if I'm reading this correctly, of some $51,000 in Salaries, and the

Transportation and Communications double, when there is a comparison made of the

1995/96 figures, in comparing with this year's estimates. Perhaps just for

clarification, and for the purposes of beginning on this issue, I guess my

question is simply: I'm looking for some explanation as to why there is an

increase on the face of the documentation when you compare last year and this

year.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

With respect to the Salaries, I think the answer is

clear. We had a number of positions that received redundancy. We had a severance

package for a previous administrative executive assistant and we also had a

previous minister who received some partial monies that were coming. We also had

some increased travel because the previous minister was in an out-of-town

portfolio which required a lot more travel, I suspect, back and forth. We also

had one more staff than we currently have so all those coupled together would

allocate the increase in funds which you refer to. We had the severance package

of a long time member so that would be fairly significant.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: How does the Chair wish to

proceed? Are we going to proceed item by item or just generally?

CHAIR: Anyway you wish, John.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay, the next heading there,

1.2.01, under Executive Support, again on the issue of Salaries: When a

comparison is done we see an increase of some $133,000 again, so my question is

similar to the last one I guess.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say that the answer is

similar to the previous one, in that we had a very senior deputy minister's

severance package in accumulated leave included in here and that's it.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When you say accumulated

leave, you talk in terms of, as part of - are these for individuals who have

left their jobs or had been terminated or is this leave for ongoing officials in

your department whose jobs remain intact?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, this is for one person who

left, a very senior person with approximately thirty-seven years of service, who

left, I guess, in early March of this year and had annual leave and other

accumulated leave that was owing to him because he left before he was able to

use it. So it was a combination of that accumulated leave for that person plus a

severance package.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This might be an appropriate

time to get the department's officials to respond in terms of the grants and

expenditures by way of the federal government and, of course, the federal

government input, particularly in this department. We see, for example,

throughout the Estimates, a reference to federal government granting and so on.

I think this department can distinguish itself because of the input it receives

from federal government resources. This question is certainly by way of just

general information and clarification. Maybe somebody within the department can

give me some overview of the involvement directly by the federal government and

its injection of funds into the provincial Department of Social Services, as it

distinguishes itself from other departments in terms of cost-sharing and

revenues that this department receives. I wonder if somebody on the committee,

Madame Minister, could respond to that, just to put it in some context for us

because, I think, of the special relationship that this department has vis--vis

the federal government involvement?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay. Jim, would you like to

respond to that?

MR. STRONG: Sure. Currently there are three

federal programs which the Province receives funding for that relate to the

Department of Social Services. One is the Young Offenders Agreement which is a

cost-shared program with the Department of Justice for eligible expenditures

relating to young offenders.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. STRONG: I think there is around $2 million

forecast for the 1996-1997 year relating to that program.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Can I ask you a question on

that?

MR. STRONG: Sure.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Specifically where you said

the Young Offenders Agreement: Can you give a bit more detail in terms of

precisely what that $2 million is for with reference to the Young Offenders Act?

MR. STRONG: Well, in terms of the federal Young

Offenders Act, the agreement would cover a number of, what would be called,

eligible expenses. Those would be custodial costs and non-custodial costs.

Custodial costs relative to our department would be costs associated with

running young offenders' group homes where the young offenders would be placed

by the court system. Non-custodial costs would be things like the cost of our

social workers working in the young offenders' area in our district office and

that. That would be an example of a non-custodial cost.

We aren't the only department now that receives

federal revenue. With the transfer of the Youth Centre to the Department of

Justice, some of the revenue goes there.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is it fair to say, then, that

the bulk of the money coming from the young offenders' agreement would go to the

provincial Department of Justice as opposed to the provincial Department of

Social Services?

MR. STRONG: Yes. In total it is about $4.9

million in revenues receivable.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So about 40 per cent of the

funds available under that agreement come to this department?

MR. STRONG: Yes. That agreement was capped in

1988-1989 by the federal government.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We still allocate it from this

department to Justice. Because of the recent shift from Social Services to

Justice, it is still all delegated from this department.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You mean administratively, all

the funding arrangements?

MR. STRONG: Yes. We administer the agreement,

but that was similar to when we administered the CAP agreement. We would do the

claiming on behalf of Health and Finance and other government departments.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Of course, that made the news

there several months ago when there was a shift in jurisdiction, with respect to

closed custody in Whitbourne and Pleasantville, from one department to another.

From a funding point of view, even though the administration is from this

department, what was the effective date in terms of transition from one

department to another?

MR. STRONG: From a funding perspective?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. STRONG: April 1.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: April 1. Okay, that is the

young offenders agreement, then.

MR. STRONG: Another agreement we have currently

is the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons agreement. The revenues

anticipated from that are about $3.2 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Three point two million

dollars?

MR. STRONG: For this department.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I guess the name of the

agreement largely speaks for itself, but perhaps again, could you just give me

some indication as to specifically what the purpose of this agreement and

funding is.

MR. STRONG: It applies mostly to individuals

who have physical or mental impairment and provides funding to enable them to

gain employment or an occupation. It provides things like counselling,

assessment training, employment services, things along those lines.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does it also provide people,

for example, who live in group homes, or is this specifically for employment

purposes.

MR. STRONG: It is employment oriented, yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay.

MR. STRONG: The third area that we would

receive some cost-sharing in would be under The Right Future agreement, which

was a special agreement with the federal government. That is estimated at about

$1.3 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What is the amount again?

MR. STRONG: About $1.3 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Again, an overview on this

agreement.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I just might add here. With

respect to The Right Future agreement, this is a four-year pilot project which,

I guess, was developed with four partners. It was the provincial government,

namely the Department of Social Services, the federal government, then the

provincial Association of Community Living and the federal Association of

Community Living. So it is a four partner project. We are into the final year of

that project, but we have not really, at this point in time, gotten a clear

direction on where we will be going with it because we are still waiting for

confirmation from the federal government. We, in fact, have a meeting set for

Wednesday of this week to outline the course of action for the following year.

There was a four-year agreement, but because of the

change in CAP and EPF and the switch to CHST we are still not clear on the type

of commitment that we are going to have, and certainly we are concerned as well

as the other partners. So we will be meeting with them on Wednesday.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just in terms of regular

benefits for social assistance recipients - I am thinking, for example, a number

of years ago when we had a significant influx of refugees that came to this

Province. I know, for example, legal services were provided on a cost-shared

arrangement, but obviously it was at an incredible cost to the provincial

government in terms of maintenance and day to day expenses. I understand, as

well, there is a cost-sharing arrangement with respect to federal government

input as well. Is that under a particular plan? What is it precisely? What

arrangement is in place that would allow the federal government to make

contribution to the provincial government for those kinds of expenses that the

Province may find itself in, at relatively short notice?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you referring specifically

to the legal aid question?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, no. I am thinking, for

example, of just room and board and lodging and expenses and transportation. In

addition too, I realize the legal aspect is a separate issue and there was a

cost-shared arrangement in place. I am just thinking, for example, many were

living in apartments throughout the city. Of course, there were many individuals

in that situation here in the province for several years. What arrangement is in

place between both federal and provincial governments to meet that sort of, you

know, sudden situation that the Province finds itself in?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, I will just say with

respect to that immigrant issue - I know that was an example, but you know that

issue has pretty much dried up. I think we had one immigrant who came from

Gander this year, if I remember correctly. In terms of the actual funding, I

think that the block funding related to Canada Health and Social transfer is how

we have gotten the monies, and the monies are given in a block fund. We have put

in an estimate of what we need to the provincial government, and we were given

an allocation of our money. We have special needs and we have special areas

where we can deal with needs as they arise. There are no specific funds any more

that are earmarked for this or for children's issues because of the way the

system now has changed. So it is based on an allocation of the needs that we put

forward.

I think it is fair to say at this time, because of

the change in the federal government system we are taking it upon ourselves to

review the whole income support program, as are the rest of our colleagues

across the country, in how they deliver social programs because of the change in

the relationship between the federal and provincial governments.

CHAIR: Are there any questions? Wally?

MR. ANDERSEN: Not at this time.

CHAIR: Gerry?

MR. G. REID: This pertains to my district. I

think we lost a regional manager. Where was that, on Fogo Island maybe?

AN HON. MEMBER: District manager?

MR. G. REID: District manager. Was that

position filled before or was it vacant at the time?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That position was vacant.

MR. G. REID: Vacant.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. G. REID: So it will not be filled. So that

will give Gerri Poirier - she is the regional director, I take it, in

Twillingate - more responsibility?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It will not be filled. I think

the choices we made were difficult choices. We were looking at how we could

either restructure the delivery of services or how we could restructure the

management of the delivery of those services, and we chose to restructure the

management perspective leaving the district offices in place. So it is important

to note that the district office remains open but the district manager is not in

place.

We have looked at is a number of things. We have

looked at the ratio of management to employees; we have looked at the

geographical areas; and we have tried to find a combination whereby we will meet

the needs of the catchment area through demographics, through employee needs and

through the caseloads; that is how we have done it. We have reduced the number

of district managers. We are left with forty-nine district offices and we will

be combining duties.

MR. G. REID: So, there is one body less on Fogo

Island, I take it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, there was one not filled

and that will not be filled.

MR. G. REID: That's right. So the social

workers there on the island now report directly to the regional director in

Twillingate?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes. There are still district

managers but -

MR. G. REID: Okay. It is Gerri Poirier, I am

talking about, in Twillingate. She is a district manager, not a director. So

they report to her, I guess.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes. As I said, there will be

a management structure in place but it will probably have broader

responsibilities, so those social workers in Fogo will report to Twillingate.

MR. G. REID: Good.

The other thing is Education and Training: Do you

still have a program under which the clients, social services recipients, can

obtain training from district vocational schools or anything and be paid?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We have the Employee

Opportunities Program which is a federally funded program, or was federally

funded I should say. We are now still providing this service and in fact, what

we are doing is, it is a three-part process. We do assessment and training, we

give some education and then we also assist people in the workforce, through

either partnerships or by trying to assist them in going out into the workplace.

We have approximately $7 million in that area. While it is less than what was

budgeted, it is more than what we actually spent last year.

While we have the three-part process, the

assessment and training, the education and then the workplace, this year we are

hoping to focus more on the partnerships in the workplace versus the assessment

and training, because we have a significant number of people already gone

through the program, approximately 2,000 people, who have gone through for an

assessment process and training. This year we are going to try to devote most of

our attention to the third part of the program which is getting people back to

work either through partnerships or other arrangements. So, yes, there is money

in the budget.

MR. G. REID: I don't know if I am understanding

you correctly, but if there is a social service recipient and he needs to take -

I had one particular person who wanted to do a mining course and who went to

social services there just before the end of the fiscal year looking to have his

tuition and what not, cost of living, paid for while he was going there, and

there were no funds available at that time. Do you have something direct like

that?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, the reason there

probably weren't funds available at the time is because -

MR. G. REID: It was the end of the budget, the

end and fiscal year.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, it was close to the end

of the budget year and we had direction previously to freeze and to limit the

spending so that we wouldn't be over-budget. We do have programs with which we

are able to assist people. We are trying to do two things. We are trying to

bridge more people into areas like Department of Education for student loans and

that kind of process. When people do get student loans we still provide the

services they need with respect to basic living allowances, and we will try to

set them up, yes, with partnerships if that is what they need in the community

once they have gone through the program.

You know, we try to be more responsible on how we

are doing it. We are looking at the needs of the community, the needs of the

person, the assessment that would go into it. So if someone comes up and says: I

want to do a course in something or other, if it is totally irrelevant to the

workforce and the needs, we try to match people up with the likelihood of

finding employment afterwards. There are possibilities there for people.

MR. G. REID: Thanks.

CHAIR: Harvey?

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.

We were talking about the temporary employees and

we totally agree with initiatives that you took there. I think in some cases it

was long overdue, the fact that we had people in all parts of the government

services with, in some cases, ten and twelve years and they were still

classified as part-timers. In their downsizing mode, the collective agreement,

sometimes they don't necessarily even protect those who are included in the

collective agreement. We all know examples of that throughout, not just the

collective agreements that you work with, but with the NLTA and all the rest of

it.

In that, how many of your social workers now have

their Bachelors of Social Work as a minimum criterion? What percentage?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would have to defer the

numbers to George to get the actual numbers. I know, before I turn it over to

George, that that is an area in which we are trying to provide support and

encouragement, because we recognize that a lot of our front-line social workers

have not met the requirements and are working towards them. A lot of social

workers are in fact working towards their bachelor's and having their

registration. Of course, it isn't by choice, it is because of direction we have

been given to improve the accountability on the front lines, which we are very

happy to do because it is a very important place to work with respect to

children and other areas.

In terms of the actual numbers, I will turn it over

to George.

MR. SKINNER: I don't have the actual numbers in

total but we can get that for you and provide it to you later. Certainly since

1985 we have required, for a permanent social worker appointment, to be a B.S.W.

I believe it was since 1991, 1992, we have required the B.S.W for all temporary

workers. The vast majority of our social workers would have the B.S.W except for

those who were grandfathered in.

In terms of the breakdown, I would have to get that

for you later.

MR. H. HODDER: Would it be fair, George, to say

that at the moment there are fifty to sixty social workers in the Province who

are on the front lines day after day but they do not have a minimum of a

Bachelor in Social Work?

MR. SKINNER: I can't confirm that specific

figure, like I said. In terms of the registration of social workers act that

came in in 1994, I believe it was, those who were with us, long-standing

permanent positions, had a grandfather provision in terms of their registration.

Of course, they have had long practice with the department over their career.

Certainly, as I said, the earlier appointments would have taken in the B.S.W.

requirement ever since 1985.

MR. H. HODDER: What provisions are you making?

Let's state the number at being fifty, fifty-one, fifty-two. I think the actual

number is forty-nine. Let's assume there are fifty out there. What provisions

are you making to make sure - you are now into the second year of a five- or

seven-year program that, sat, by a certain time all social workers will have to

have a minimum of a bachelor's. How far along are you in that particular program

now?

MR. SKINNER: I believe the provision you are

talking about is the seven-year provision under the registration act for social

work. These social workers are given every opportunity to avail of the social

work requirements through the School of Social Work. They are aware they have to

complete their social work degree for registration. The department, through its

educational policy, is quite supportive, district by district, in helping people

get their B.S.W. within the seven-year requirement.

In terms of the grandfathered social workers, of

course, there is no legal requirement for them to complete the B.S.W.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I might just add to that,

Harvey. I think this most recent move from temporary to permanent has really

kind of put the focus on the qualifications issue for front-line workers.

Through a communications system that we have started, people now will contact me

directly in many cases with issues. On my e-mail I have a lot of notes, I guess,

from very concerned social workers who have not met the requirements. I think it

is really coming now to the forefront in the sense that these people will not be

given permanent positions. While we are able to recognize and value a

combination of years of experience with some qualifications, it is beyond our

control to go beyond that. We have to say: In order to become permanent you have

to meet the minimum requirements. For some people, as you can imagine, who are

facing the twilight years of their professional career, they have to make some

serious decisions on whether in fact it is even sensible to go and take on that

type of educational arrangement to meet the requirements.

In terms of new hirings, we are obviously not able

to hire anybody without the requirements. I know it is an issue that has come to

the forefront because these people now have actually missed an opportunity, and

in some cases may actually be bumped out of the system; although I find it

difficult to believe that would happen because we are always trying to recruit

social workers.

MR. H. HODDER: Well in terms of what is

happening out there - and you are right, I agree with the provision of changing

the collective agreement and what you have done. However, you can have people,

for example, who have eight years of experience on the front lines, but they do

not have their degree, and, I mean, they looked for permanency. You have people

who have two years who have been retained and then somebody with seven years or

eight years find themselves moved to a new office at a lesser position.

My question would be: Knowing that there are people

out there who have eight or nine years, or whatever the years are, what

provisions are you making to give these people an opportunity to upgrade their

qualifications? More specifically: When these people have gone to university in

the nights, and whatever time they can get from their schedules and they have

completed the course requirements, one of the things that happens is they have

to have a placement and during the placement period this, of course, means that

they have to have (inaudible). They have worked eight or ten years into the

social work and now when they finish their course work they have to go and work

in some office, probably with somebody much junior to them, for a three or a

four month period in order that they can meet the placement. During that period

of time they are essentially unemployed, in the sense that they are out of the

system. Is there any provision to give some fairness to these people who want to

upgrade their qualifications in order to better themselves and the department so

that these people can be encouraged by some kind of a program of educational

leave or something like that, so that they can more easily bridge the gap

between, shall we say, not having a bachelor of social work and having it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think you raised a couple of

points there. I think the first point I would like to make is that education is

a lifelong process. While we recognize the importance of experience, because it

is very valuable, we also have to work within the requirements, and that is that

the qualifications are set down. It is incumbent, I guess, upon the people who

are working on the front lines to meet the requirements, not only for the sake

of their own professional liability but for the sake of the safety and care of

children, in particular, and other services that we provide.

Many of the issues that you are referring to are

clearly collective agreement issues, and are issues that are, I think, best

dealt with at the bargaining table. For example, educational leave funds or

other sorts of arrangements. We have made, I guess, some provisions available

for people where they are able to go on leave, to try to get their degrees. We

are supportive of them in a sense that these positions are being blocked or held

for them. If they meet the grandfather clause, they will not be terminated, but

they have a window where they have to go and try to meet the requirements.

There are lots of creative ways for people to get

their education and I would like to refer to one of the leading agreements which

was put in place by the nurses where we were able to provide a two-thirds pay

arrangement for people to go back and get their degree. As I said, it was a lead

agreement in all of the country. I still think that is best left at the

collective bargaining table, because that is, in fact, where that was

negotiated. I think you can provide the support, but there are a number of

people in areas that would like to upgrade, and to have some sort of pay

provisions.

With respect to the other comment you made about

people coming out with say eight or nine years experience, and then perhaps

working with somebody with one year to get their placement. I mean, that is also

part of the process, and it is beyond our control. We always say in those areas

that both people will learn from each other. I think the person with the more

experience will certainly add to the new person's ability to take on that

experience and, you know, the person who has gone back with their degree will

meet the requirements. We have tried to keep positions blocked for those people

and we have tried to provide the leave. As you know it is always ultimately up

to the individual to take on that kind of a responsibility.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, we all recognize

that you have to have the best qualified group of professionals out there, and

we know that historically there has been some difficulty. It is just not in

social workers, it is with nurses and teachers. Just a few weeks ago Chief

Justice R.S. Furlong died, and he was the last chief justice who never went to

law school. He was from that old school where you learn on the job.

In terms of incentives - and in the nursing

profession I am aware of what you people were able to negotiate there and it was

a good agreement. I just wanted to make sure that that kind of initiative is

brought forward in your department to recognize that there are people out there

who really, really want to complete their program so they can be guaranteed a

two-thirds salary while they are doing this thing. What happens is these people

do not qualify for student loans because they are not available for work, they

are going to university. So, some way in which we can be fair to these people.

What you are saying to these people is that after eight or nine years working on

the job now they are going to take four months off, be placed, no salary and no

educational leave. It is a matter of putting the incentives there to get these

people to move on with their education. They want to but a lot of these people

just cannot take four months off and they cannot get a loan either.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I hear what you are saying

with respect to incentives but I still think that is an issue that is best

negotiated at the bargaining table. I think if you are looking for special

arrangements, that is something that is done at the bargaining table. I feel

that the fact we were very successful in moving the temporary issue to permanent

is a very lead issue with respect to our department and one that we are very

proud of, because I think we have helped stabilize the front lines and minimized

the amount of disruption from any redundancies or lay-offs that might occur in

the system. I still think the union must play a very large role in representing

their membership, and I think in so doing, they need to bring forward those

types of proposals to the bargaining table. Because while this is very specific

of social workers we also have other areas out there with FAOs wanting to

upgrade, where we have new requirements where people want to advance and would

like to go on and complete their masters and do those sorts of things.

I think it is a combination of incentive, personal

incentive, and the need to hold a job. If the requirements are such that they do

not meet those requirements there will come a point in time when they will not

have a job and that is beyond our control.

MR. H. HODDER: On the issue of training for

social workers, the amount of time spent in child protection, as a part of the

curriculum at Memorial University's Department of Social Work, was so minimal

that it certainly was not very adequate. In fact, child protection just happened

to have been one of those things that just got put in there. Yet, the entry

level for most social workers into the system is at the child protection level.

It seems to be that many of the people who enter into the department's workforce

are not always as accurately trained for the entry level as they might otherwise

be if the curriculum at MUN were different.

Have you made any initiatives to change the

training program at MUN to more adequately reflect the entry level into the

Department of Social Work which is at the child protection level?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, before I would answer

that I would have to do a detailed analysis of the total curriculum of the

social worker program. My understanding of any baccalaureate program is that it

provides an entry level degree and like any other degree there would have to be

a period of orientation to that area. Now orientation varies from on the job

orientation to other programs but I would be very interested in looking into the

basic requirements. We do have meetings set up with representatives from the

Social Workers Association and with the School of Social Work as well, and that

would be something that we would certainly raise with them, to get their views

on it; because I would suppose that would also be an area of concern for them as

they try to represent what is required at the front lines. If there has to be

more training or education of delivery of child care services then that is

something that we would raise and we would look into, but I wouldn't comment on

the curriculum without having an opportunity to study it.

I think there have always been concerns about

front-line deliverers of care, especially in the social programs. There has

always been an expectation that you produce a graduate who is ready to go to

work immediately. I think that has been a fair assessment of all sorts of

professionals, whether it is an engineer, a nurse or a social worker. I think

the trend in the education system is that you provide a generic basic student,

and then anything that becomes specialized requires added training or expertise.

Again, I wouldn't speak on behalf of Social Work because I don't know their

curriculum that well.

MR. H. HODDER: We all recognize that at the

bachelor level it is a basic program.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: An entry level.

MR. H. HODDER: That is true of all bachelor

programs. When you look to the Master of Social Work you get to be more

specialized, which brings me to the point of: What proportion of your social

workers now are at the master's level? I think you are finding that there are a

lot of people now doing their master's. My other question would be: How many of

these people who have their master's level are actually practising within their

level of specialty?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is a question that I

would also defer to George, as Assistant Deputy Minister, for those types of

specifics. I would say, in the

preamble, that we have a number of social workers

at the policy level who are working with the department and in an advisory

capacity to the front lines.

In terms of working within their specialty, I guess

I would have to know what their specialty is, because like any other program

there are a number of specialties, and at the graduate level there is a fair bit

of flexibility, in that people have an opportunity to pick what specialty it is,

whether it is in the legal aspects of social work, whether it is in child

protection, whether it is in rehabilitation or whatever.

So I turn that over to George for the specifics

with respect to numbers.

MR. SKINNER: Again, in terms of the actual

specifics I will have to get the numbers from Human Resources. Dave, I don't

know if you have that.

WITNESS: Not off hand.

MR. SKINNER: Generally, I can certainly say

that the School of Social Work has expanded the graduate level program by

teleconference and other methods in the last couple of years. A large percentage

of our management staff, I know, have pursued correspondence courses, and these

on-site teleconference courses. So a greater number are receiving training at

the graduate level.

It has been my experience that the specialty they

focus on is usually related to their job function within Social Services. You

may be aware that there are two main areas of specialty, one in social

administration and the other in clinical practice. Many of our St. John's social

workers have pursued courses for a long time, since the graduate program has

been in existence. Certainly with the advance across the Province, a greater

number of our managers are also taking part, as well as our social workers, as

far as Labrador and in the western region in particular. In terms of the exact

numbers, we can get that breakdown for you.

MR. H. HODDER: A further question - and again

I'm focusing on the training and this kind of thing. If you haven't got the

right emphasis there, you can have all the front-line workers you want, if they

aren't properly trained then it won't work.

On the issue of the turnover in child protection

workers, we have had about a 65 to 70 per cent turnover of child protection

workers in the past twenty-four months. What initiatives are we taking to

analyze why that occurs, to make sure that the proper supports are in place so

that doesn't occur? This turnover is detrimental to the system, it is

detrimental to the clients, and it has been identified for a long time. What is

happening to address the issue?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I agree with you, the turnover

is an issue that we are all very concerned about. I think one of the significant

components of the turnover was the fact that we had so many temporary employees.

The turnover was out of their control, because a lot of people were bumped at

the front-line protection area and that would be community service workers, in

many cases, who are providing the care and the advice; and also with our social

workers. So that was one area, the temporary.

We are looking at other areas and I think that by

the very nature of the job it is a very stressful job; there is no doubt about

it. We certainly value and recognize the type of work that our front-line people

are doing, social workers as well as some of our other front-line workers,

because you cannot minimize the type and value of the work that our financial

assistance officers are also doing. They provide a lot of support because they

are the first person that often meets with the client and makes a referral to

the social worker. So it is a very stressful area.

I guess in our short time here, just a little over

two months, we have identified the need to provide more supports to the front

line. That was one of the reasons why we lifted the hiring freeze, to put

supervisors in place to give that type of support and direction.

Another area I think that we are looking at is

trying to work towards some sort of centralization so that we are not looking at

practitioners out on their own. For example, in the area of Harbour Grace and

Carbonear, we tried to move those services together so that these front-line

people will have support systems themselves and that they can bounce things off

one another for professional support and guidance. So there are a number of

things, but it is a concern. I think by the very nature and intensity of the

job, that will always be a challenge and we will continue to look at it.

I think as we go through program review over the

next year, and in particular look at child prevention and protection, as well as

income support, we are going to try to put in place more tangible ways of

dealing with it, whether it is regular meetings. Those sorts of initiatives need

to come from the people who are most affected. I cannot say: This is what you

need. What we have tried to do, right at the outset, is identify and establish a

communication system where they can communicate with their immediate

supervisors, who are now in place in most cases, and then on up the line. So we

are very aware of it and we are concerned. We are going to try to come up with

some solutions other than the ones I have mentioned.

MR. H. HODDER: What kind of programs do you

have by way of Employee Assistance Programs for social workers who do get burned

out and who do have very high stress levels? What proportion of your social

workers will avail of that kind of program? You are familiar with the program, I

am sure?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes. Well I think, as you

know, that sort of program is highly confidential and we would not have access -

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, but I am only looking at it

in terms of, not numbers but percentages.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would not have the

percentages because also they do not do the breakdown on departmental statistics

for Employee Assistance Programs. As you know, the way the system is developed

is based on a highly confidential process whereby a number of an employee would

go into the system and you would not have access to the actual specifics of the

case or the need.

WITNESS: And nor should you.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: And nor should you, and I

think that is very important.

I think, in terms of the services, in addition to

the Employee Assistance Program with their group insurance program, they also

have access to professional counselling services. Out of fairness, I would not

be able to say that these people avail of the services because as in any amount

of stress that is involved there is usually more than one factor. Like any

professional group who are providing front-line services, there are a number of

supports within the system. Employee assistance is one; the type of relationship

you have with your supervisor and your colleagues; your own family life;

financial situations: They are all a part of the whole determinant of stress and

types of healthy needs. So I would not be able to answer that and I am not sure

that I would want to in terms of the breach of confidentiality.

MR. H. HODDER: I don't think anybody would ever

want you to get into particulars. However, I did want to assure that there is

adequate funding put in place, if we are going to address the high stress

levels, particularly with child protection workers, although not exclusively to

them. When you have traumatic events that happen in a community, then you

obviously know there are going to be traumatic events happening in the lives of

the professionals who have to serve that particular community. While sometimes

we hear tell of all kinds of interventions when you have things that happen, you

know, a tragic events response team - I wrote part of a manual for that some

years ago for a school system.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you talking about the

Critical Stress Debriefing?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, and all of these issues

that are there that effect the lives of social workers, as they do teachers,

doctors or whoever; that there is adequate funding put there to make sure that

proper counselling and debriefings and all of these things do occur, and in the

time of fiscal restraint that we make sure we look after the people who are

providing the service to the clients.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, I recognize that. I think

there are many avenues in addition to the employee system. There is the

physician that you would go to who would make the necessary referrals to

psychologists and whatever through your own group insurance plan. I agree it is

very important and it isn't an area that we would be interested in reducing. I

think we recognize the value of providing the supports, as we have outlined, to

the front lines and all the way up through the system.

MR. H. HODDER: Let's get on to something more

mundane for a while.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: My pleasure.

MR. H. HODDER: Not that it isn't important, but

way over on page 290, you have $2.9 million for Information Technology. That

always interests me, particularly in the Auditor General's Report, where you

people have spent, in that department, millions of dollars to bring us along by

way of having an integrated network of technology. What is the status of the

efforts to computerize the department? Are we proceeding or are we spinning

tires?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Of course, we are not spinning

tires.

MR. H. HODDER: Well they have for the last

number of years. If you have snow grips on right now, then tell us about it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We have the chains and the

studs on.

Actually, I think that is a very good area to

outline, the whole issue of computerization. There a number of very positive

things happening, as far as we are concerned at least. We are in the process of

working very closely with Health to try to link with their computerized system

to bring the needs and issues of Social Services with the needs and issues of

Health. I think that we are recognizing from our, I guess, preventive

backgrounds and our related social programs, that we are, in fact, in many

cases, dealing with the same clients. So rather than trying to reinvent any

wheel, and I use the reference to `wheel' not `tire', we are trying to bring our

resources together. That is one of the directions we are taking with respect to

administration, to try to eliminate duplication of services and trying to work

more closely with other departments. We are starting off with Health, but we are

also hoping that we will bridge that to Education and Justice as well.

That number is one that we think will provide a

very useful service to us and to all of government. You will also note, from

your Estimates, that the number is down significantly. The reason is because we

are trying to work more closely with Health, we are trying to develop a program

that will benefit departments in a horizontal way versus a vertical way. You can

see that it has decreased from $4.7 million to $2.9 million. I think that is

pretty -

AN HON. MEMBER: Responsible.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it is responsible and

also it shows a direction in which we are going.

MR. H. HODDER: Last year there was an incident

of a difficulty with the security of data, when information that was private to

a young offender at Whitbourne was being faxed to a construction camp in

Labrador. What provisions have you made to ensure that that kind of incident

never occurs again?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: When there is a breach of

security it is always a concern, whether it is a breach of MCP files or whether

it is breach of a social assistance recipient or a young offender. I think that

we have, I guess, done what we considered is appropriate by stressing the need

for confidentiality and verification of fax numbers and lines. I think that

happens from time to time. It isn't something that we would like to see happen.

We are very concerned about it, but we did try to provide an updated list of the

numbers, and we tried to verify those numbers so that wouldn't happen. We would

like to avoid using the fax machines if we could in cases of clear

confidentiality issues, but that doesn't always happen because of the time

frames and the necessity of it.

I think in terms of anything specific, I would say

we have just tried to verify numbers and we have certainly put out a communiqu

to all our staff of the importance of that. It often just takes a phone call to

verify the number if it is something that you aren't clear about.

MR. H. HODDER: What was interesting about that

particular incident was that (inaudible) to have been called back from the

construction camp on a number of occasions, and yet someone at the other end

never did make the call to the department and say: Look fellows, there is

something wrong here. It was a case where I don't know whether somebody felt

that they shouldn't do it or couldn't do it or whatever, but it certainly went

on for some time, and it was kind of a sad story. It does go to show us that

information technology is only as good as the people who are using it, and your

willingness to say, this isn't working, and to make the appropriate changes. I

would like to think that kind of thing is, shall we say, totally isolated and

was an absolute abberation, and I do believe it was.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think when you have 1,000

employees working for you, as you have pointed out, working under a lot of

stress and a lot of challenges, I would like to think it is an abberation.

Again, there is always an element of human error, and as long as we maintain our

human status I suspect that is the way it is going to be. We always try to

minimize that as much as possible. I'm not trying to minimize the impact,

because a breach of confidentiality is always serious, but I think we have done

as much as possible. As soon as it comes to our attention we have no other

choice but to follow up on it. It was in fact followed up on, to the best of my

knowledge, although it did take some time for it to actually be acted upon. I

would finish by saying, I suspect it is an abberation.

MR. H. HODDER: I think what disturbed us was

how long it took to make a simple change? The error was one thing. How long it

took the bureaucracy to respond to it was a sad commentary.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is something we can always

strive to improve upon.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, sure.

Mr. Chairman, if you would like to break for a few

minutes now.

CHAIR: If you would like.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, I think that the minister

(inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am fine, if you want to

continue on.

CHAIR: The Clerk has been very efficient

passing around the coffee. If it is the wish of the Committee to take a short

break, by all means.

MR. H. HODDER: I can go on.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Me too.

CHAIR: Okay, continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: We might want to see if Gerry and Wally

have any further questions.

MR. ANDERSEN: Not at this time, no.

CHAIR: No.

MR. G. REID: On page 291, under 2.1.01,

Salaries dropped by about $1 million. Is that the district managers we talked

about earlier? At the top of page 291.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes. I'm just getting my

proper area here, Gerry. Just give me a second.

MR. G. REID: Regional Operations, Client

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I can give you a breakdown on

the decrease. We had a total of 34.5 funded positions which have been eliminated

over the course of the year. That included lay offs that were imposed in

November and also some of the more recent ones. So that is the bulk of the $1.4

million.

MR. G. REID: So that is under Regional

Operations?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, it was more than

regional. It included regional managers, managers of support services, district

managers, program supervisors, employment opportunity field workers, word

processing equipment operator, .5, a service quality manager, a service quality

support staff and a director of community agencies. So it was just the regions,

it was a whole provincial perspective.

MR. G. REID: The number that were let go are

not filled? You said 40-something?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That was the total number

throughout the year.

MR. ANDERSEN: I have a question and it is not

particularly on the budget, but, Minister, I would prefer at a later date if I

could sit down with one of your - probably the Deputy Minister Dawe. It is

mostly for information purposes pertaining, for example, to vocational training,

support services and so on. I have a few questions I would like to ask, probably

later on.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: At any time, yes.

CHAIR: Perhaps in the interest of our

circulation, maybe we could take a five-minute break just to stretch. We can

refresh our coffee and then come back to the table.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

Mr. Ottenheimer.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a few questions. The first one is general

in nature and has to do with an issue which again came to the fore a number of

months ago, and we touched on it briefly this morning.

I would like to ask the minister, in the hopes of

getting a clearer response, because in the House I asked a similar question of

the Minister of Justice and did not get, what I feel to be, a satisfactory

response. So I am going to try it again now with respect to the Minister of

Social Services. That is, the rationale for the change in jurisdiction in terms

of closed custody, specifically Whitbourne and Pleasantville, from this

department to Justice. I am wondering Madam Minister if I could have your

explanation as to why that change was made. Obviously, you know the rationale

behind such a change?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

Well, while I was not a direct part of that decision

to transfer services, I can give you some information which might help answer

your question.

With your background in law, I am sure you are very

much aware that the jurisdiction of closed custody is not one that is

consistently kept within the boundaries of social services right across the

country, and in fact, in many jurisdictions, is a part of the Justice portfolio

as opposed to Social Services. So it is not something that is totally out of

line with the trends across the country, and there are many different styles of

portfolios that deal with social issues. Some are specific to Departments of

Social Services, some have specific breakdowns, families and community services,

and they deal with those portfolios. Some deal specifically through Justice.

I guess I can add to my colleague's answer by saying

that it was a decision that was made perhaps for other reasons than I am aware

of, but one that I am familiar with, that is in keeping with many of the other

jurisdictions across the country. It is not out of line with how the services

are delivered because we still very much keep a close liaison with the

Department of Justice. As you know, our director moved with the program so we

see it as a way to enhance the relationship between Social Services and Justice.

At this point in time, it will stay within the boundaries of Justice, unless we

are given direction of it moving back.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Isn't it in some way though, a

shifting in response? Is the purpose of this move, if only in part, away from

rehabilitation to one of incarceration, if you know what I mean, in terms of the

emphasis, you know, in dealing with a young offender who has been convicted of a

criminal offence? Is that, if only in part, you know, some of the rationale as

to why there was a shift?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well in response to your

question, the incarceration is evident with respect to whichever portfolio these

two particular sites belong, because, in fact, it is a closed custody

environment. With respect to the philosophy of the shift, whether it will mean a

direction moving away from rehabilitation, I think that would be something that

would be best dealt with now through the auspices of Justice. My understanding

is, there was a balance of both rehabilitation and incarceration under the

closed custody system.

I think my colleague in Justice would perhaps best

speak to the plans with respect to the actual programming with these two areas,

Pleasantville and Whitbourne. From my perspective, I know we will be working

very closely with the director of the program, as she moved to Justice, because

in many cases we do see the continuity and we are trying to refocus our energies

to put more emphasis on early intervention and prevention. I guess our goal

would be that they would not end up in those facilities if we had our way. Our

intention is to work very closely, as we mentioned earlier, to improve

collaboration with the four departments, Justice being one. Anything more

specific than that I think would be best answered by my colleague from Justice.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: On the issue of open custody, I

believe I am correct in saying that the whole area of open custody, custody with

respect to young offenders, continues to be within the jurisdiction of this

department.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is correct.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I understand that in recent weeks

there have been a number of young people who have absconded and they have been

on the missing lists. Obviously that has been an area of concern, I would think,

for those homes or institutions where open custody is permitted. I am just

wondering what steps has the department taken to, I guess, tighten security, as

it were, although it is an open -I appreciate the fact that it is an open

custody setting, but it must be of some concern to the department if, in fact,

young people are not reporting back at a particular time and, in fact, are

missing for hours. These matters have not become public to my understanding, but

they have been of concern to those individuals within the Social Services

Department, and who have responsibility for supervision in these institutions.

Because of this problem which has occurred in recent

past, what steps have been taken, or can be taken, to ensure that young people

do not find themselves in serious distress as a result of having not reported to

these homes for open custody? Obviously the accountability of the department, it

would seem to me, would be a major concern, and the department would have to

speak to it if an incident did occur.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In order to answer your question:

Is there a specific area or home? You mentioned absconding persons? Is there a

specific incident to which you are referring so that I might best try to answer

the question?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Sure. Approximately six weeks ago

- and it coincided with the time when there was an attempted suicide incident

out in Whitbourne - I am aware of a home in town where there was at least one,

maybe two young offenders, who were in open custody who had been missing for, I

think, a six or eight hour period. Are you familiar with that?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. So that particular

incident, obviously that can happen again. So my question is: What steps had

been taken by the department, or what does the department see as the best way to

address that? Clearly, you know, there is other than the accountability issue.

We have to look at what is in the best interests of these people who are in

these institutions?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think, as you said in your

preamble to your question, that it is open custody, and when you deal with open

custody versus closed custody there is always the element of risk related to

people leaving a premises, because they are not under lock and key twenty-four

hours a day, and while they have supervision, it is not one on one supervision.

As you are also aware, with your background I am sure, the whole purpose of

these arrangements is to allow a certain element of programming and a certain

element of restriction. The whole idea of the programming, speaking generally -

because I mean there are individual programs set down - is to try and encourage

independence and responsibility for one's actions.

While we are very much aware of it, I think the most

important role that we play is monitoring and making sure that we have adequate

staffing levels, that we have an adequate reporting mechanism, and that we have

the necessary resources to find the people if, in fact, they do leave. To say

that I can assure you there will never be a breach of safety with respect to

people leaving these residences is unrealistic and something that I could not

maintain; so I certainly would not promise it.

All I can say is that we are aware of the risk. The

courts are aware of the risk, because when a court orders these young people

into those homes they are aware that that possibility exists. If they feel the

situation is such that they need closed custody, then they would have been

ordered in a different environment. So while we have a responsibility for the

risk, I think the courts also recognize that these young people are not suitable

for closed custody, are suitable for open custody, and these things may happen

by virtue of the environment they are living in. They are not living under lock

and key.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is a desperate need out

there, it seems to me, for professional help, obviously, for a lot of young

people today. We see in the Education budget, for example, a reducing of program

coordinators and so-called specialists within the educational system. I am

wondering, has the recent budget recognized the need in your department for

increased professional services for misguided young people or young people who

obviously are crying out for help regardless of the reason? Is there attention

being given to this particular problem by the department, and what allowances,

if any, have been made for, perhaps increased professional services and

psychiatrists or psychologists to help young people in need?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: To answer your many questions.

With respect to the program coordinators begin removed from the school, I think

you are probably more familiar with that part of the education system. In fact,

many of these program coordinators were not in roles of providing counselling.

So I think that that particular statement does not reflect the withdrawal of

services that you referred to with respect to counselling. I think that is

clearly a separate issue.

As I mentioned in the beginning, one of our

directives, more recently since my assumption of the role of minister, is to try

to improve collaborative efforts between the departments. Education and Health

are two that come to mind, as well as Justice. You can see there are very clear

linkages. While right now we are faced with dealing with a lot of young

adolescents with a lot of problems, we all recognize from the determinants of

Health that early intervention is the way to go, and an ounce of prevention is

worth a pound of cure. Another way of saying that is, you either pay now or you

pay later.

We are very much involved in trying to bring together

the four major portfolios to try to provide and create more solid linkages, for

example, having more early intervention in the schools. I am not sure if you are

aware of it, but the Classrooms Issues Report that was released last year, there

are a number of initiatives in that which I feel are very important to our

department in social services as it relates to early intervention. From a health

perspective we also know that rather than trying to help children when they

reach adolescence, if we can prevent the problems in early years we would be

much better off.

These are the sorts of things that we are doing. We

are very aware of the problems, and I think I have stated time and time again

that I would like to focus more on prevention than on treatment. It does take

some time. We are actually going to be engaging in working more closely at how

we deliver child welfare services and trying to shift the emphasis more to

prevention. That is clearly going to involve more linkages with education and

with health.

So that is where we are moving and I am very committed

to that from my background in health, from my background in the community and

from my other experiences with community development. I am very interested in

trying to provide preventative services as much as possible.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. That's good to hear because

obviously we share the same concerns and obviously the department is making

strides in this area.

One further question, before I hand it over to my

colleague or indeed another member of the committee. The department plays a role

in the social arm of the Unified Family Court, in the providing of social

workers, for example. It is my understanding that social workers play an active

role in home studies, for example, and in the preparation of home assessments in

dealing with often very difficult issues concerning custody and access of

children, involving parents and spouses who are in the midst of matrimonial

strife. The social arm is an important arm of this court and, in fact, the judge

down in Unified Family Court, Madame Justice Mary Noonan, herself is very much

in favour of having the social arm play an active role in dealing with issues

that come before the court.

My question is really one of funding. I am familiar

with a particular incidence, not that long ago, when it was deemed necessary by

the court that a home assessment be done to deal with the issue of custody and

access to children involved in the middle of a matrimonial dispute involving

their parents. There was a home study ordered, however there was simply no

funding. In fact, it was made known to these individuals that if they wanted a

home study the cost was anywhere between $1,200 and $1,800 to have a

professional home study prepared. It was necessary for the parties themselves,

both the mother and the father, to pay for it and to, in fact, divide the cost

equally. This is something new because obviously the social arm of the court

would, in the past, have covered that cost and a social worker would have been

provided to do an in-depth analysis of the problems. There would then be a

completed home assessment filed with the court that would assist the judge in

determining what the outcome of the case should be.

However, as I say, recently there appears to have been

a problem with funding in this area. So my question is: Is this an isolated

incident? Has in fact funding then either been reduced or discontinued to assist

social workers, or was it because of the time of year, in the sense that the

budget had been met and there was a specific period of time when social workers

could not be engaged at the cost of the department?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Is there a specific time of the

year that you are referring to?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, well this happened in March

or April. I am not sure whether, because of the time of year, that there had not

been new funds allocated for the social arm of the Unified Family Court, or is

this again a shift, perhaps a further reduction?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the best way to respond

to that question - I will turn it over to George if he has any additional

information. I can say, that particular case has not been brought to my

attention, and it may have been before I came to the department that you are

actually making reference to this case. I do know that we do have meetings

planned with Justice over this very same issue that has been raised to us in

terms of supports - and in this particular case was brought forward on behalf of

women - supports to women in that particular situation, between social services

and justice and where, sort of, the twain shall meet with respect to funding. I

am familiar with that process being underway and I will ask George to speak to

anything more specific other than that.

MR. SKINNER: I am not aware of the specific case

either, however, when you mentioned Unified Family Court - and the minister has

mentioned our need to talk to Justice and our intention to talk to Justice -

Unified Family Court has counsellors and social workers involved in the issues

around family law. That is not to be confused with our social workers. We would

only be involved on a protection matter. The actual home study that you are

talking about, if there was a case I would have to check into it, but certainly

the home studies that I am aware of from family court would probably be done

within the jurisdiction of the family court which is Justice and not our issue.

As the minister has said, we are concerned about the

interface and this is why we have to have discussions. But if a home study was

necessary as a result of custody, that would not necessarily bring us in, in

terms of a protection matter.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I could add to that, we have

also had contact with Madam Justice Noonan identifying this issue as well as

other issues, and we do have a meeting set for September to sit and discuss that

whole issue of, as George referred to, the interface between Social Services and

Justice, when, in fact, it does not deal specifically with the child welfare

issue. I think the ability to pay is one that comes into play here and in many

cases, I think - I am learning at least as time goes on - whenever there is a

grey area and somebody does not know exactly where it fits, there is

automatically an assumption made that Social Services owns the issue. What we

are trying very clearly to do, is to identify what services we provide, how we

provide them and that we in fact are not a catch-all for all.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I guess though, it is fair to say

because of the direction that government is taking in the various departments,

in our committee for example, there is going to be much more involvement and

sharing of resources. As you just said, maybe one day it would be Social

Services, the next day it would be Justice and the next day it would be

Education or Health, which is perhaps not a bad idea, because, obviously, to

work in isolation of one another, I don't see it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You can't do it.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It can't be done, no.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the days of working in

isolation are gone. I think we are trying to develop, through our program

review, not only a more efficient way of delivering services but a more

horizontal approach to the delivery of services based on the old vertical, this

is your department and this is your department, when in fact we very often deal

with the same people.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay, thank you.

MR. H. HODDER: I am pleased to hear you make the

last comment because one of the things that I am familiar with is a case where

there were thirty-six different professionals interacting with one

fourteen-year-old victim of cerebral palsy; and, sad to say, after two years of

interaction, the young man's condition had not really improved. Nobody saw the

total child. These kinds of initiatives not only are they welcome, they are

indeed to be encouraged and promoted. The challenge for you is to make it a

government priority and to make sure that the bureaucracy sees it happening.

In my work, which is across country as you know, it

certainly is a big challenge and I am delighted to see that you are heading in

that direction. It really is a monumental problem. It is not just Newfoundland's

problem, it is a national problem.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I could say, though, if the

governments and the bureaucracy were to look more closely at the nursing model,

they would see that the nursing model looks at the total person and maybe that

is a perspective that we are trying to move through government - who knows - but

it is not a piecemeal approach to it. It is looking at the total issue, the

total problem or, in this particular case, it is the total person. We are

looking forward to doing that. We probably have lofty hopes but somebody has to

get in there and try to bridge the gap between departments. I think some of it

has begun but more of it needs to happen.

MR. H. HODDER: Talking about interfacing and all

that kind of thing, back to my computer work again. In terms of claw-backs -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, if we get to a computer

question. In terms of claw-backs and how they are processed: While members of

the government and others might disagree, in particular, on claw-backs, when it

comes to things like the Canada Pension Plan benefits, TAGS, workers'

compensation and these things, where there are obviously overpayments or

payments whereby the individual has been the recipient of social services

benefits in the waiting periods, very often the person gets the benefit, whether

it is Canada Pension lump sum payments or whatever, and after that money has

been expended, then they find themselves in the position where someone says: Oh,

oh, there is a share of that that has to come back to Social Services. In terms

of front-line interacting with these various agencies, so that the person who is

on social services don't find themselves victimized by lack of information or

whatever, is there any provision there whereby your new computerization program

will again look at the total person in terms of all of the programs and we do

not end up having claw-backs where it really wasn't necessary? Very often when

it comes to these claw-backs people find themselves with payments going over

years and years and years when really with simple cooperation between different

agencies, it would not have been necessary at all.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well in response, the challenge

to improve communications is always there, and we recognize that. One of the

areas that we will be forging ahead with is trying to improve the

computerization process to identify people who are receiving social assistance

and old age assistance or CPP or other forms of funding. It is our intention to

do our best to notify people in advance, you know, that this is the direction we

are going to be taking.

I will come back by saying, I will leave it to Dave,

our Director of Income Support, if he wants to add anything. When people find

themselves on social assistance, there is a contract that they sign where they

have to identify any other sources of income. While on the face of it, it seems

quite unfair that people have to give back money they have received, I think we

will standby our statement that we are living in a shrinking financial

environment where we are trying to provide a growing number of services to

people. I think, perhaps our biggest mistake is being as non-vigilant as we have

been in the past. We just cannot afford now to be non-vigilant, we have to be

more vigilant in the types of funding and the amounts.

I also have to say that it is not only an issue for

us, but it is also an issue for many people who are forced to live on social

assistance, who are living next door to people who are getting other sources of

income. So we have as many concerns and issues raised by people in the same

communities, as we do from our own financial resources. It is very difficult for

a family who is receiving x amount of dollars to be living next door to a family

who should be getting the same amount, and perhaps is receiving funding from two

other sources. It creates an imbalance.

I guess that is an area that we are trying to address.

I would also like to say that I wish we had more money to give, because I know

it is very difficult for people to live on their basic allowance that they have.

It was a choice that we made to become more vigilant rather than going back and

looking at rolling back basis social assistance services; and that is exactly

where we are coming from. We came out of this budget feeling very relieved, on

the one hand, while we have an increase in overall funding, and we had some very

difficult choices to make to get that.

I do not know if you have anything that you would like

to add to that, Dave.

MR. D. LEWIS: Just specifically to the planned

Canada Pension Plan interface with the social assistance program. A number of

other jurisdictions have implemented similar interfaces over the past couple of

years. Basically there are two main functions of the interface. One is to

identify persons who are receiving both Canada Pension and social assistance to

ensure that that income is being taken into account in the social assistance

program. The other thing that jurisdictions have found is that there are

significant numbers of clients who are eligible for Canada Pension benefits but

are not aware of it, and those clients are then assisted to apply for benefits

which they were not aware that they were eligible, which has had the effect of

reducing their requirements for social assistance and of having them access

benefits to which they are entitled under the Canada Pension program.

MR. H. HODDER: My intention is not to get into a

dialogue as to the fairness of it, but to address the issue of co-ordination and

to make sure that we don't make people's situations that much worse, to find

them in situations where they have indeed expended the money and then find that

they do now have a claw-back, you might say, coming. I am not talking about

claw-backs, that is not my point at all, but to be up front about it, to be

pro-active on it. It does not eliminate their right to appeal if they feel that

they have been wrongly assessed or whatever, but to make sure that we don't

further compound people's difficulties by letting them access the money, then

only to have it clawed back after it has been expended.

I think the aim is to have it better co-ordinated

within the department and within the government itself, both federally and

provincially, although in some cases you find the federal government is not as

co-operative. There isn't any reason at all why departments of the provincial

government cannot have a sound interaction with each other. I mean, there is

again one client, and again it is your horizontal model that you are talking

about.

I have a

section there in the budget, Partnerships At

Work, page 298, since we are here to talk about estimates, Grants and Subsidies,

$2,972,000: Is it possible to have a listing of the organizations and groups

that have been supplied with these grants and subsidies?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you talking about the

Partnerships At Work in particular?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Partnerships At Work. It says

Grants and Subsidies. This would be employment projects, looking here at

organizations, or is that possible, in looking, for example, at Family Resource

Centres and that kind of thing; how it breaks down by category even?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the best response to that

question is to say that they have yet to be developed in specificity because you

are trying to identify matched jobs with particular workplaces and there are no

specific, larger groups, although we are trying to work more closely with the

regional economic development boards in trying to establish those. I can't say

to you that we are going to Mr. Jones' workplace to try to get a partnership for

one of our recipients to go to work, because until we know who we are going to

put in with Mr. Jones, we don't have that partnership made. I don't know -

MR. H. HODDER: So your figure here is really a

guesstimate?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, I guess you could say any

budget is a guesstimate perspective, when you are trying to identify the number

of people that you actually put in specific partnerships.

MR. H. HODDER: But not the minister's salary

though.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Pardon me?

MR. H. HODDER: Not the minister's salary.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, if you are working out the

hourly rate, it is, I guarantee it.

What I would say to you is that it will be distributed

provincially; it will be allocated regionally by these boards and then they will

have an ability to establish partnerships in every region throughout the

Province. It is not going to be specific to one area or another but it will be

allocated. As I said at the beginning, this is a three-part process. We have the

skills assessment part, we have the training and we have the Partnerships At

Work. We have, this year, tried to focus more of our energies towards the

Partnerships At Work. One of those will be actually partnering in a workplace

and another will assisting people to try to get student loans to move on into

other areas.

We haven't actually identified the allocations yet but

that is where our focus will be, on putting people to work this time, because we

have a significant number of people already assessed and into training.

MR. G. REID: May I ask a question on that, Harvey?

MR. H. HODDER: Sure.

MR. G. REID: What happened to it last year? It

started off with over $4 million and was revised at $2,280,000, and that is just

about half. Did you cut it or was it just not taken up?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, it was both. We were asked

not to spend it as part of the restraint measure, so we did not. What we have

budgeted this year is what we spent last year, but not as much as was budgeted

last year, if you are following me.

MR. G. REID: What you spent last year would have

been the revised, wouldn't it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, that is what I am saying.

Originally there was a budget of $10 million, we spent $7.3 million, and that is

what we have budgeted again this year, $7.3 million, or $7.9 million actually in

total. That includes the Partnerships at Work and the Strategic Initiative.

Okay? So, what we are planning to do is spending what

we had allocated last year for spending.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) with your support for

things like, for example, family resource centres and other similar initiatives,

which have proven to be very, very successful - and some of these are located

here in St. John's and some of them are in various other parts of the Province,

the Port au Port Peninsula, for example. What is the department's position on

support for family resource centres as a preventative measure.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We have not established any new

family support centres in this budget. What we have been able to do, and we are

very pleased, is that we were able to stabilize our contributions to various

agencies, some of which provide those services in sort of an arm's length

approach. For example, Big Brothers/Big Sisters provide that kind of support,

and there are other groups listed. I have most of the list here, I think, in

front of me. As I said we are looking at the types of services we are providing

for children and families in a preventative way. I would not say at this point

in time that there will be new allocations, but I would like to think next year

that we might want to put more emphasis on that preventative part of it.

This year, as you know, after coming into the

portfolio we are very much directed to try to organize our budget based on what

was given to us in November. We have revamped a lot of that, and we try to

sustain the front line, sustain our supports in the community. I guess, that has

been the main focus. We have no identified sources of funding for new family

resource centres right now.

MR. H. HODDER: In terms of social workers in the

school system, in the classrooms, I was of the opinion, and still am, that this

was a very positive initiative, and was very well received. It was certainly in

line with the thinking on preventative programs and recognizing when a guidance

counsellor has a ratio of 1,000 students to one guidance counsellor. Also

guidance counsellors are not particularly trained to deal with the multitude of

social issues that are found in the school system. I do not see that program

being encouraged within the school system by your department in terms of

expanding the program. In fact, I sense that it may be discontinued almost.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well that was a pilot project

which you are referring to, where the social workers were in the schools, as you

are aware. As I mentioned in the House, I guess earlier today, we are in the

process of looking at our whole Department of Child Welfare and protection and

we would like to focus more on prevention. As I have mentioned in the past, we

are very interested in the final report of the Committee on Children's Issues.

We also have some research now being done into the

Classrooms Issues Report which is where that whole concept of social workers was

established on a pilot project. We are looking at that. As I said, you have to

take into consideration that you are talking about a two month period since we

have been in this new portfolio and we do have some ideas in terms of what we

would like to do with prevention. I am very committed to not putting a band-aid

here and a band-aid there. I would like to think we would have an opportunity to

look at the whole program and that is something we are very much interested in

doing, and we will be starting in clear detail by the end of June. We will be

looking at how we deliver services to children.

I will also say that if we were to put twenty social

workers in the schools, it perhaps would not deal with all of the issues. So we

have to look within the realistic format of the type of sub-services we will

provide. While counsellors do not have the role in the schools of providing

those types of services, they do have the role of referring children that are in

need of those services, and I hope they will continue to do that.

In terms of whether or not social workers will go into

the schools on a regular basis, I can't say that right now. I think that will

depend on our ability to collaborate with Health and with Education because I

think it is not just our issue, as I have said over again, it is a horizontal

model and it will involve a number of different areas.

No, you have not seen it in the budget but that is not

to say we are not going to be working on putting a system in place, but it won't

be a social worker here and a social worker there. I would like to think we

would have more of a planned process for putting those types of measures in

place.

MR. H. HODDER: Just to correct one thing, these

social workers were there before the children's issues report was even -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: But it is also coming out in the

children's issues.

MR. H. HODDER: It has been reflected, yes.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It was done on a pilot project.

Many of these social workers were student social workers who were doing part of

their placement. So, with all due respect, it was not a formalized program that

was in place. I have no doubt that it did reap many benefits, because whenever

you put a professional in that type of environment you will obviously get clear

benefits. I think I would like to reiterate that we are not opposed to that type

of service, we just want to do it in a proper way, in a planned way.

MR. H. HODDER: Will that be included in your

social policy review? You obviously have the document now, you know, your

complete review that you are doing for the Province in terms of social policy

and that document has not been released.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: I assume that when that document is

released there will be some time for the various parts and agencies of the

government to respond to it. When do you anticipate

a) the document being

released and

b) how long a period of time are we going to assign for its review?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, the details of that will be

coming out I think, when we release the document and the document will be

released over the next, I would hope, a week to ten days.

In terms of would the review be done? The answer is,

no, the review would not be done, because the purpose of the consultation is to

seek input from the various groups, and for us to come out with a planned review

to give to people would be in total opposition to the concept of consultation.

So we will be putting out a document that sets out a process for consultation

and it will look at a horizontal approach to all the departments. We are hoping,

through the process of consultation, the issues to which you refer will be

raised, and from that a plan will be put in place; but this is not a plan that

will be released, it is a consultation document.

MR. H. HODDER: My point is: Is there a time frame

in which the consultations will take place?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, there is a time frame.

MR. H. HODDER: You know, that we don't end up with

something that is going to go on and on. The first time that this social policy

was talked about was in March of 1993, I think it was, when the statement was

made in the House. So that has been going on since then, and every election we

have a kind of: We are going to do this and we are going to do this. I always

say: Well, how many elections does it take to get a document prepared? Not less

than two, and that is part of my many years of being in public office that makes

me think all these things.

I would say that my question is: Are we going to allow

six months or a year or are we going to just flimsy along for longer than that?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, we won't be flimsying

along. What we will be doing is providing a process through the establishment of

a council which will conduct the arm's-length consultation process. I will say

at the beginning, there are many ways of consulting and while they may not meet

the requirements and

definitions of all involved, I think we have to work in a

timely manner. We are committed to have something in place before the next

budget in terms of a document and a plan. So in order to meet those

requirements, with your experience you would know, that we have to complete that

within a relatively short period of time.

I think many people are very much waiting for this

process to begin and have their own issues and concerns, and I would expect that

people would address the issues that are relevant to their areas of concern. So

the process will begin as soon as we have the council in place. We have to meet

the requirements that will allow us to bring forward a plan for the next budget.

The actual time frames will be identified when we release the document in the

coming days.

MR. H. HODDER: So basically autumn consultations?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Not necessarily autumn

consultations. They might be sooner than that.

MR. H. HODDER: I was looking at the fact of the

way that things happen in this Province. I think we all recognize that summer

time is not the greatest time for things, but it is time to have the document

and for people to be able to prepare their commentaries. Basically, I would say,

before the end of this year we should have the consultations completed.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say that I don't

necessarily agree that summer is not a good time to consult. I know from my past

experience I have done a number of research projects over the summer, and last

year, in particular, did a very detailed research project of consultation with a

78 per cent response rate. I think it depends on how you do the consultation and

I think there are very many creative ways of doing that. It will not be a single

way of doing it, it will involve many ways of consultations. I think the issue

is such that people will make a point of getting their views across.

MR. H. HODDER: I am getting towards the end of my

questions now and I want to talk about school textbooks for a second. Many

people who appeared before the Children's Interest Committee talked about the

way in which the department pays for school textbooks. In particular, they spoke

about the fact that nobody wants to deny a child, whose family is in receipt of

social services benefits, access to adequate learning materials. However, many

of the people who appeared, particularly the recipients, said that instead of

giving their child all new textbooks every year - in some cases they get new

ones so that they don't transfer them within the families and often end up

selling them. The people who are working, their children in some cases buy the

textbooks from the other students and they just get new ones to replace them.

Is there some recognition that the same dollars can be

spent but they can be spent more wisely? For example, instead of giving Johnny

all new textbooks - we recognize that to get a child ready for school, a child

needs sneakers, new clothing or other things to be ready for school - a kind of

a block funding, you might say, per child, per family, and then let the parents

themselves decide as to whether or not they buy new textbooks or second-hand

books, plus having some funds available to further help the child.

I just throw it as an issue, I don't have a resolution

for it. Since we give families the money to pay their own rents, from a very

practical position, in a school system, having a child come up to get his or her

textbooks and just walk on out and that kind of thing, if we sometimes say to

the parents: Well we will let you have your money instead of having vouchers or

whatever, because it is also embarrassing at the cash register and the

supermarket if you have to pass in a voucher. In the school system, we do that

to children all the time because they get their books and, essentially,

everybody knows that the child is not paying for them. You try to arrange

convenient times but it does not work out, so we take away children's dignity by

doing that. Is there any way in which we can: (

a) do a better job with the same

money; and (

b) can we be as attentive to the social and psychological needs of

the child?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

In response to your question concerning the textbooks:

We are very much aware of the issues that you have raised in terms of social

assistance recipients every year getting new books and the child next to that

child, who is receiving social assistance, gets the used books. It is very

obvious that the person with the new books is the person on social assistance,

and that does become somewhat stigmatizing. Of course, there is also the

financial perspective. We are very much aware of it, and we have begun

discussions with the Department of Education. We are actually hoping this year

to put something in place to begin the process. We recognize that the time is

limited right now. The school year end is fast approaching, and we may not be as

successful as we will be next year. We will be putting something in place, and

whether it will be having the books returned to our own offices of Social

Assistance or if they will be returned to the actual school, we do not know how

that is going to work yet logistically. It is something that we would like to

do, retrieve the books so we can recycle and reuse them in a way that would be

fair to all students.

Again I do not know much of a success rate we will

have, but even if we are able to save 10 per cent of the books, it is a good

start for this late point in the year. Next year we will be making a more

concerted effort in trying to recycle all of the books, so that they are

available to the students who need them. So that is our plan for this year.

We have set down some meetings, I guess. With

everything that is going on in education, I think it is going to be a sort of

very short window to try to implement such a huge project, but we are going to

do our best to try to implement it in some way, to at least get some benefit.

MR. H. HODDER: Just to follow up on a

supplementary to that. Very often in the school system, as you know, a fair

amount of the learning material is not covered by the Department of Social

Services. The textbooks that are recommended by the department are paid for, but

then if you are in, for example, the primary program, a large part of the

learning materials is not textbooks, it is school board generated or school

generated materials. Then the schools would charge assessments or fees or

whatever to pay for that. The children who are coming from social services

families either have great difficulty or their parents have to take money out of

their food allowance or whatever to be able to pay that. Is there any attempt to

try and address that, again taking the total picture of all the issues, not just

whether it is, you know, interfacing with the Department of Education. It is a

broader issue.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think, for this year, I will

say that our efforts are on trying to retrieve the books. I will be very

upfront. We are very interested in doing that. We think out of fairness to all

students, to the working poor as well as to social assistance recipients; it is

fairer to be able to recycle books.

In terms of the whole picture, in looking at every

program and specific materials that are offered, to be very honest, we would not

have the time this year to look into this, you know, before the end of the

school year. I do not know where we will be with it by September, because it is

quite a huge issue, and, of course, with the summer being what it is with

respect to the schools, I do not know how much specifics we would get from every

department. It is something that we will look at as we try to look at how we

deliver services. For this year, in particular, I would say we will specifically

look at retrieving books and recycling them in September as best as we can.

MR. H. HODDER: It is an area where we can do

better with the same dollars. We do not need any new dollars. We just need to

use the ones that we are now spending better, really.

On the issue of day care. I have forgotten the exact

part - 4.1.01. You have a modest increase there, not very much. I guess the $200

that you got last year from the Federal Government never came across this year.

On day care policies, particularly day care for the people who are trying to get

themselves into work programs, who are on social assistance programs. There

always seem to be a lot more people who want to take advantage of the program,

but they sometimes can't get access. Is there some way in which we can better

coordinate or make sure there is equal opportunity for all those people,

particularly single moms, who want to get into an educational program but seem

to be, I suppose, locked in by the day care funding structures.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am sure the need is always

greater than the ability to pay in most of these programs. This program has been

very restricted over the last couple of years in allowing new people to avail of

it. I guess, as people move out of the program we do allow other people to come

in to try to get the services. There is also some provision under the Employment

Opportunities

Section to allow single mothers to go back to work and provide

them with the supports to get the education and training they need under those

programs.

You can see the budget as it is. There isn't any

intention to increase it this year. If we are able to find some creative ways

under the Employment Assistance, I am sure we will be able to look at that. We

are very cognizant of the fact that if you have, in particular, a single mother

who has gone through some assessment training and had some education and needs

some child care support to complete a process of education, then we will find

the dollars through Employment Opportunities to provide it. In terms of an

expanded day care service, you know, that is not there as you can see.

MR. H. HODDER: Even the program that you have, one

of the complaints you get in rural Newfoundland, of course, is the fact that you

do not have any day care centres. One of the issues that came up: If you are

living in some of the smaller communities the complaint is made that the day

care programs you have available, say in St. John's or Corner Brook or Grand

Falls, might not be as readily available in, shall we say, Winterton or Forteau,

Labrador. Is there any attempt to try to make opportunities for single parents

more equal across the Province?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the statement you made

would be true of any services provided by any government. It is very difficult

to have equal services in every rural community in the Province, and I think you

have to look at them all individually. For example, in Nain we have a very

progressive day care environment for children,

whereas we may not have one in

Winterton. The ones that we -

MR. H. HODDER: I am not sure whether we do or

don't.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Where?

MR. H. HODDER: In Winterton. I just used Winterton

as an example.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay. I am just using your

example. I do know there is a very progressive one in Nain because I have been

there to visit and I have seen the type of programming they have.

I think to say that we are on a directive to equalize

all services that we provide equally to every rural community is unrealistic and

it is certainly not a direction that I would be able to take because it is not

realistic. There will always be better services in the urban centres than there

are in rural centres whether it is in day care or in health care services. You

have more choices if you are living in an urban centre. That is the reality, I

guess, of the geography of our Province.

I guess that is much as I can say in terms of - the

provision of day care services, we feel, would be a venture that would be left

up in many places to the private sector, and with incentives to the private

sector they may want to establish day care centres, as they have in other areas.

There is no provision for government to try to establish these centres within

this year's budget.

MR. H. HODDER: Day care for children under two,

the policy of the department: We do not have a licensed day care program for

children under two. We are the only province of Canada that does not have a

licencing program for children under two. Are we going to address that?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the recent changes to the

legislation which extended the hours to eight o'clock at night was the most

recent revision. It is something that has been raised consistently to the

department, the licensed regulated care of children under the age of two. It is

something that our department, I guess, would look at in terms of policy but

there is no direct move right now to implement new legislation to cover that. We

are looking at the whole issue of day care services and the provision of care,

but I can't tell you that legislation is waiting to be brought to the House for

this because it isn't.

MR. H. HODDER: That is all I have, Mr. Vice-Chair.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just a couple of points, Madam

Minister.

On The Right Future which is found on page 295 of the

Estimates, we heard this morning that I believe we have some $1.3 million from

federal revenues in this program and we can also see from the estimates that

this is a significant reduction from funds that were retrieved last year from

federal revenues, down to $1.3 million from $2.9 million. That is a significant

amount of money.

If we look up slightly, under Allowances and

Assistance, we can see that the estimates this year is $6.9 million and the

revised figure for 1995/96 was $5.5 million, again a difference of some $1.4

million. So I have two questions really: One, I believe it was indicated that we

are coming towards the end of a four-year project or pilot project on The Right

Future. Is that correct?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. This figure of $1.3, was it

expected that this is what we would receive, was this a part of the four-year

plan, or was this an abrupt sort of announcement by the federal government that

we would only be getting $1.3, and was there in fact another figure that the

Province was expecting?

Secondly, under Allowances and Assistance: Is this a

result of, again, maybe residents of the hospital now going out into the

community, and many more residents going out, you know, resulting in the fact

that we have $1.5 million in increased expenses?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: First, I would like to say that

the $1.3 million, as I mentioned in the beginning, we have no commitment right

now from the federal government about the fourth year of this program. So this

budget estimate is outlined here but it is very much pending the federal

government resources. We should know, we hope, by Wednesday, the exact extent of

their commitment. We have gone ahead and done, I guess, the provincial budget to

match what we would need because it is a four-partnership process with funding

coming from two sources, the federal government and the Department of Social

Services. I guess I will be able to say with more certainty on Wednesday what

our actual funding arrangements will be from the federal government, because we

don't know that just yet.

We are committed to deinstitutionalizing but I think

what we would say at the outset is that how we do that may be different from how

we have done it in the past, depending on the funding and depending on the

ability to keep these people in an environment which would be stable. I would

not want to put them in an environment now and in nine months time say, we have

run out of money and we can't sustain them. I think out of fairness we need to

be up front right at the beginning.

In terms of the Allowances and Assistance to which you

referred, that is in fact what has been approved to offset the cost of the shift

to the community. I think, as we look more into this program, the cost of this

is only really a part of the total cost because we are also providing other

services in addition to these. This is the actual shift into the community and

the support, but in addition to that we will be providing other support services

through, maybe occupational health or occupational assistance, other social work

supports. So there is another amount of money that is also incorporated into

this which is, I guess, buried.

It is quite a costly program. It has been a move in

the right direction, to take people out of institutions.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: How many people, Madam Minister,

are involved directly in this program?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the total is 113. Is that

right?

WITNESS: One hundred and eighteen.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: One hundred and eighteen people,

in total. We are at the fourth phase of that. I think we have around, -

MS DAWE: About eighty out in the community.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, that is right. So we have

about another thirty left to go approximately.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Am I misunderstanding, though?

This figure here, this $6.9 million, is that to deal with these individuals that

are out?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: For 118 people, that is the cost

to the Province?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is only part of the cost. I

am saying, that is only part of the cost.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is quite significant.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it is very significant. I

think from a perspective that this project was one that was entered into as a

pilot project, it is one that is unique in the country. No other province offers

it. As I said, the government is committed to deinstitutionalizing, but perhaps

we would look at a different continuum of how we deinstitutionalize. Many of

these residents are now living in individualized living arrangements in the

community with two and three staff around the clock. So we will look at

deinstitutionalizing, but perhaps into a much different environment.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You mentioned that on Wednesday

you will probably have some idea as to what the Federal contribution may be. Is

that just for this specific program or will the department -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, just for this program. This

is a unique project, the only one in Canada as I have just alluded to. This is

the fourth and final year of the program after which these people will be in the

community with various levels of supports.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I wonder would the Minister be in

a position to table whatever the response is from the federal government during

the week when you have received notification of what, in fact, funding is

available?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would not have any problem

tabling the information provided it is completed. We are hoping, at least we are

being very optimistic, that we will know on Wednesday when our federal

counterparts come here to tell us. I will have no problem tabling it as soon as

we are made aware of it. I do not know if it will be Wednesday, but it will be

as soon as possible.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Obviously, when you are in a

position to.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Certainly.

CHAIR: Do you have anything else?

MR. H. HODDER: The only other thing that I would

have is a question addressing child hunger. I know we all recognize that it is a

huge problem out there. While your departmental stats and the ones from

Education agree that there is a very high number, there is a breakdown to these.

Whether they come from single parent families, particularly if there are two

children and a single mom, the probability of living under the national poverty

line is about 80 per cent. You know that there is funding that goes indirectly

to the school system, in some cases to support some of the school lunch

programs. We know that there are initiatives across the Province, in many parts

of the Province now, for breakfast and all that kind of thing. I recognize that

not all children who go to school hungry is because of their lack of food at

home. There is a higher probability that females will skip breakfast rather than

males because of certain sociological factors, particularly for teenagers.

Are there some proactive programs that your department

is looking at in terms of trying to address the issue of child hunger?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In so much as we are reviewing

our delivery of child protection and prevention, I do not think you can ever

eliminate the determinants of health, and one of those determinants of health,

of course, is income status and social status.

You did mention there are programs. We do have a

school lunch program, and there are various other programs throughout the

Province, some by our department and others by outside departments. The IODE,

the International Order of Daughters of The Empire, support many communities

with cheese and crackers and peanut butter and crackers for recess time.

You are also right that many families who have more

than adequate funding to provide food still see a number of their own children

going to school hungry. So it is a much bigger issue than income, it is an issue

of peer pressure, of social status. I guess, inasmuch as we are able to

recognize those problems we will be addressing those issues.

In terms of a specific project on child hunger and

poverty, we have not taken that on, but it will be a part of our whole review of

children's issues and determinants of health that we are trying to incorporate

into our preventative mode.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chair, I would suggest you call

the heads.

CHAIR: Are they all finished on your side?

Mr. Andersen.

MR. ANDERSEN: A couple of points, Minister,

because if I did not raise in committee and the committee (inaudible) I would be

in serious trouble.

The first one is the part about income tax where

people do get back so much income tax. People in my area have a very difficult

time at present, since the collapse of the fishery, to get enough stamps, but

they do work from time to time. When they do receive a refund from Revenue

Canada that is deducted from their welfare. There are cases, and it can be

proven, that their method of getting to and from work is either by an outboard

motor or a snowmobile. A lot of these people up there do have a chance,

especially with some new projects on the go - the $800 or $1,000 that they get

to do repairs to a snowmobile or an outboard motor could mean a difference of

them not having to go back to welfare, probably for the next four or five years.

As I said, there are new programs on the go now, some new fisheries that we are

starting on the coast, but when you have no money - when you go to the bank no

one is going to give you money unless you have a steady income. There are

situations where that $800 or $1,000 could take people off welfare. They would

have an opportunity to go and get their stamps and they would not have to come

back for probably eight or ten years, depending on the type of job they get,

such as the caribou hunting season in the wintertime, transporting materials for

mining companies from one bay to the other, or fishing. That

part concerns my

district quite deeply.

There are situations where it could mean the

difference. For example, a power pack for an outboard motor, the size of this,

costs over $400, and they go through at least one a year. There are situations

where I know that if people had enough money to repair an outboard motor or to

buy a new motor for a snowmobile, it would mean a difference between getting

their stamps and drawing UI or going on welfare.

The second question I want to raise is - I know we

discussed it before, about hungry children. I just want to mention part two of

the program where you administer funds to recipients. We did a cost of living,

and a young fellow downstairs in our office took what the ordinary people on

welfare would buy. If you have a man and a woman and two children living in St.

John's and you give them $200 for a two-week period, you give the same amount to

people everywhere across the Island. Right now the cost of the same goods in

Nain is 53.8 cents higher than what it costs in St. John's. Although they are

giving x amount of dollars for four people, again because of the geographical

location, the cost of living - basically the money you are giving to feed four

people in St. John's or surrounding areas, for people who, through no fault of

their own, are living in a part of this Province where the cost of living is

almost double, that $200 that can feed four in St. John's ends up basically

taking care of the needs of two people in coastal Labrador. I hope these

problems can be looked into and addressed.

A lot of times, too, the part about the people

repairing their snowmobiles or outboard motors, when they cannot do that in

these remote areas that, at times, creates a lot of social problems. So I trust

that these could be taken into consideration.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will speak to each one

separately. I think the issue on the income tax is one that has been raised a

number of times. As I have said previously, the policy is not new. We do have a

$100 reduction that we allow families to keep. I guess for a lot of families

that is $100 more than people who don't have any income coming in, over and

above their regular assistance.

I agree there are some very difficult situations out

there. Until we look at a review of our income support program in totality, I

can say that policy is in place. While we are able to look at very individual

difficult situations, for the most part, the policy is clear. Unfortunately I

know sometimes it seems that it is a bit regressive, but until we are able to

look at it - I think, as I have said in the House, we have one of the more

generous policies across the country with r