May 10, 2007 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Paul Oram, MHA for Terra Nova,

replaces Bob Ridgley, MHA for St. John's North, pro tem.

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

CHAIR (Mr. Oram): Order, please!

I think we are ready to start. I think we will probably do the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation first, under subheading 1.1.01., if that is

okay with the Committee.

First of all, I want to do some introductions here and we will move forward

from there. I am going to ask Mr. Ball if he would start with an introduction.

MR. BALL: Dwight Ball, MHA for Humber Valley.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA for Port de Grave.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. COLLINS: Felix Collins, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, MHA for Port au Port.

MR. FRENCH: Terry French, MHA for Conception Bay South.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We will start with probably the minister.

MR. SKINNER: Shawn Skinner, Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

I have a number of staff here today, so I guess we will just go through and

have them introduce themselves.

CHAIR: Please, that would be great.

MR. SIMMS: Len Simms, CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation.

MR. PENNY: Wayne Penny, ADM, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS CAUL: Brenda Caul, Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

MS HART: Norena Hart, Manager with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation.

MR. THORNHILL: Clyde Thornhill, Executive Director of Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation.

MS KING: Cynthia King, Manager at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation .

MR. LAWRENCE: Tom Lawrence, Chief Financial Officer of Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation.

CHAIR: Whenever your light comes on, that means you are on next.

MR. HANLON: Brendan Hanlon, Director of Finance for Human Resources,

Labour and Employment.

MS LINDSTROM: Jackie Lindstrom, Applications, Vacancies, with

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MR. O'NEILL: Joe O'Neill, CEO - Acting, of the Workplace Health,

Safety and Compensation Commission.

MR. FOWLER: Wayne Fowler, CEO - Acting, Labour Relations Agency.

MS JEANS: Jennifer Jeans, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Health

and Community Services.

MS VIVIAN-BOOK : Lynn Vivian-Book, ADM, Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment.

MR. MORIARITY : Ed Moriarity, Director of Communications, Department of

Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Congratulations, Lynn, on your new job.

First of all, I guess we will get the minister to have a few opening comments

that will be very short, I am hoping, and from there we will start the

questions.

Go ahead, Minister.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just for the information of the people opposite, Jennifer and Lynn, you may

have heard them introduce themselves as Jennifer with Health. Jennifer was ADM

up until about a week or so ago and moved to Health. Her and Lynn had a little

switch, so that is why both of them are here today.

Thank you very much.

It is my pleasure to be here today as Minister Responsible for the Department

of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and also Minister Responsible for

Housing. I have, as you can tell, a number of people here with me today. We have

the Housing Corporation represented, the Labour Relations Agency and the

Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and it is my intention to

do each of them in that order.

I will not say a whole lot. I do have some opening remarks that I would just

like to make. As the Chair knows, I am typically not too long-winded. I will

just have a few brief remarks on the Housing Corporation and then I will throw

it back to members opposite to ask any questions that they may have.

For the first time in decades, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has been

given an extremely high priority within government. The largest additional

investment of funding for housing programs and projects related to housing will

be found in this Budget.

To touch on some of the highlights, we have a Social Housing Review that is

underway. We have announced funding of approximately $25.5 million in the

Modernization and Improvement Program over the next five years. We have

announced funding of $24 million, which will double the contribution towards the

Provincial Home Repair Program or the RRAP, as some people refer to it. We also

have an Affordable Housing Trust with $4.3 million being added to the existing

federal-provincial private non-profit affordable housing program. We, in this

Budget, have funds available to build a new regional office in Corner Brook.

Approximately $1.3 million has been allocated for that; and, under our

Affordable Housing Program we have a number of submissions that have been

accepted where we are looking to potentially create or construct an additional

150 rental housing units throughout the Province.

Without going into any further detail, Mr. Chair, given the size of the

delegation and the number of departments that are going to be questioned in the

Estimates, I will conclude my remarks related to Housing and open up the floor

for any questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

We will start with Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I just have two or three questions, Minister, with regard to

Housing, and I will begin this year like I did every other year.

I have to say that, when it comes to dealing with the staff at Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing, the relationship has been nothing by excellent. Not that

you get what you are looking for all the time on behalf of your constituents,

but the people are there to return the calls, and I have to say they are a

pleasure to work with and they do a marvelous job, and I have said that before.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you for that, Mr. Butler. That has been my experience

as well.

MR. BUTLER: The first question is in relation to, you mentioned that for

the Provincial Home Repair Program the funding this year will double. I am just

wondering, where will that take us in the Province with regard to the long list

of people we have there? When people call now, I have to tell them: Boy, you are

on the list for two-and-a-half years unless it is an emergency or something like

that. Where do you see this going with regard to the numbers that are there;

and, the two-and-a-half year time frame, what will that be, say, within a twelve

month period?

MR. SKINNER: You are quite correct, Mr. Butler, there is a long waiting

list. Approximately 4,500 applications are currently on file, as I understand

it. Currently, the officials at Housing are dealing with people who applied in

the calendar year 2004, so there is quite a wait unless, as you say, it is an

emergency case.

We recognize that as a government, and that is why we asked Cabinet to

approve some extra funding. The extra money that we have put in, the extra $24

million over the next six years, will eliminate that waiting list.

I will put it to you this way: we normally process about 1,500 applications a

year - and I am being approximate because it is hard to judge the kinds of

repairs we would have to do but it is about 1,500 a year - we expect, with the

new funding, we should be able to add about another 700 or 800 applications per

year to that, so we will increase the number of applications we can process by

about 50 per cent per year.

The expectation overall is that in six years' time the waiting list that

currently exists will be eliminated. So, if you are the last person on that list

today we will definitely have that taken care of in six years' time, but

obviously as we roll it out we may do it in a faster time than that.

MR. BUTLER: My next question is with regard to units that are in various

areas of the Province, and I know there are mortgage units out there, and rental

units and so on. What I am finding in my area - and I understand, I suppose, why

it happens - some of the units, when some of the residents move out, are in

pretty hard shape, or what have you, but it seems like now they are going on the

market and being sold off. They go up on tender or whatever, and some general

individual will come in and take them over. I am not saying that is the cause of

it, but in my area I know there are quite a few people looking for units and

there is nothing there very close to where they are trying to find something.

I am just wondering, is there anything in the works that this might be

alleviated, that there could be other units? I am not saying you are going to

build new ones, but anything for the Conception Bay North area? I have a couple

of people now who are trying to get something in close proximity to where they

live, but they may have to move to Carbonear or further up the bay, that type of

thing.

MR. SKINNER: Okay, I will give you a bit of a general answer and then I

will ask if maybe one of the officials can more specifically address your

particular geographical question.

Within Newfoundland and Labrador Housing we have had cycles in the past

whereby we have had excess units and they have sat vacant for extended periods

of time. In particular, I know up in Labrador and in the Marystown area we

actually sold off or tore down some units just because we had them there and

they were costing us money to keep them and there was no demand for them. A

couple of years later, then, there is a demand that shows itself and we are

scrambling to try and find some units. So, it is a management of that resource,

or a management of that inventory, that we try to do to the best of our ability.

If, for and extended period of time - and I am talking a couple of years - units

are vacant, we do make decisions on whether to sell them off or whether to tear

them down, or whatever we do with them in terms of getting them out of our

inventory.

In terms of your particular geographic location, I will ask Mr. Simms if he

might be able to give us more particular information.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Minister.

I will just elaborate on what you said, really. The units you are referring

to are mostly - the ones that we sell off are usually in the rural parts of the

Province, isolated areas where we have one unit, or something of that nature.

More frequently it is because they have become vacant and really there is nobody

who are clients of ours who want them, but there are other people quite

interested in buying but perhaps are above the low income amount to $31,000 per

household, that sort of thing; and, also, they are hard to get to in terms of

major maintenance and renovations. It does not happen a lot, but there are

occasions when we do it.

In terms of replacement units, Housing has not really, for all intents and

purposes, built any new housing units, unfortunately, for about twenty years;

they have never had the funding or financing to do it. Fortunately, over the

last couple of years there has been a federal-provincial agreement, the

Affordable Housing Program, where there are two components to it. One is for the

non-profit sector, and that would be for groups like Stella Burry and the

Wiseman Centre and so on, and we have helped them a lot. The other component is

for the private sector, where we can actually provide a capital subsidy to a

private entrepreneur who wants to build, say, ten units, mostly to serve

seniors, disabled, handicapped people and so on, and that program will give us,

over the next couple of years probably, an additional 300 units stationed

throughout the Province.

There are benefits for us. There is no ongoing subsidy, as there is for our

own units, because the owners have to keep them maintained, but they do have to

keep them at a low end of market rental rate for ten years. That is the deal.

Unfortunately, in Conception Bay North there have not been any private sector

applications for that program, even through the program has been well advertised

for the last two years. The same thing has applied up in Labrador West where

there has been a bit of an issue in terms of housing, but it certainly has been

well advertised and well promoted. In fact, this year, as the minister alluded,

I think we have sixty-seven applications for probably about fifteen that we are

going to be able to approve in the end, and those are done in a specific way.

That helps us increase the number of units. That is the best vehicle and the

best method that we have.

MR. BUTLER: The 300 units that you just mentioned, is there a breakdown

of where they would be, say, versus Avalon, Central, Western, Labrador?

MR. SIMMS: Most of them are outside of the Avalon Region, let me put it

that way, or outside of St. John's. I guess that is your question. There are a

couple of projects from entrepreneurs in St. John's that were approved but we

cannot announce them, unfortunately. It is a federal-provincial agreement and,

if you are familiar with those, you know there are all of these little

stipulations: no announcements to be made until everybody is ready, and all that

kind of stuff, so we are waiting to make some announcements from the ones that

we approved last year.

The ones for this year have not yet been decided; it will probably be the end

of May. We had indicated probably the first week of May, but we had sixty-seven

as opposed to forty-three applications from last year so our technical people,

the engineers who are doing the assessments of these applications, are going to

need another two or three weeks, so we figure by the end of May.

It is not a political decision. The decision basically is made by

professionals, technical people down in the engineering department, our finance

people and our affordable housing people who assess the needs in the area, et

cetera.

I can tell you where the applications are from; by far they are from outside

of the St. John's area, and the ones that have been tentatively approved, that

we cannot yet announce but they know who they are, for the most part are from

outside the Avalon Region - 70 per cent of them, anyway.

MR. BUTLER: My next question goes back to, I guess it is a couple of

years ago now, the federal government, before it changed, came in with a

program, the home heating efficiency program, I think it was called, or

something similar to that, and I believe it was to be administered through

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I know we received a letter saying that very

shortly we should have the applications and so on.

I know another program has been announced by the federal people, and I

believe those applications were supposed to be out by April 1. Is there anything

to report on that? Because I have about sixty people waiting to get an

application and I don't think they are believing me that I don't have them.

MR. SKINNER: There is a bit of confusion, Mr. Butler, over that program

that you refer to. You are correct that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing will

eventually deliver on that program, but it is actually a program that falls

under Environment and Conservation and they do not yet, as I understand it, have

all the details worked out as to what they will be doing. Once they decide what

they want to do, we will be the delivery agent, but we are not a part of the

strategy, if I could use that word.

MR. SIMMS: It is not our program.

MR. SKINNER: It is not our program, I guess that is what I am saying to

you ultimately, but we are waiting on direction from Environment and we have not

yet received that.

MR. BUTLER: But you will administer the program?

MR. SKINNER: Correct. We will deliver the program and administer the

program.

WITNESS: Whatever type of program they have.

MR. SKINNER: Whatever they have, yes.

MR. BUTLER: One of the problems I saw, and it will probably be corrected

when it gets to you people - like, for instance, with your own repair programs

you have your own inspectors who go out and look at it. I had information from

the MP for Avalon, Mr. Manning, eight or ten pages on this particular program,

and one of the things that was very disturbing to me, and I know we are not

going to have much to do with it, but if I applied for that program - and a lot

of the people who are applying are very low income families - you have to pay

between $250 and $275, I think the figures were, to have their inspector come

and look at it.

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Now, some poor old soul out there trying to get a window put

in, if she had $275 she would have the window put in.

I am just wondering, and I know you people don't have it yet, do you see

any changes in that?

MR. SKINNER: What you are referring to is a fee for a home audit that

they do on the individual's home, some type of home energy audit. I have heard

numbers from $250 to $500, and that is very much a sticking point or a deal

breaker, I guess, in terms of the program.

I have had conversations with the Minister of Environment about that; I

believe there have been officials within Housing. We have voiced our opinion, I

guess, if I could say that to you, on that kind of a thing.

Again, what the Minister of Environment is doing with it, I cannot really

speak to. All I can say to you is that you are quite correct; it is a concern,

we have addressed it as a concern with the minister, but I am not sure yet what

they are planning on doing with it.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) advocating for the audit.

MR. SKINNER: Yes, I should mention that as well.

Just as a final point, one of the issues relating to that energy audit is

that advocates in the community who are supporting the program - Bruce Pearce,

for instance, is a gentleman well-known here in the St. John's area - are

advocating that element of the program stay in place.

WITNESS: Paid for out of the pot, whatever the money is (inaudible) -

MR. SKINNER: Yes, people would lose that $250 or $500 towards putting in

another window to pay for an audit. Our opinion is that maybe we should not be

doing that, so I think the minister is getting competing opinions on it.

MR. BUTLER: One last question.

I probably should know more about this particular issue, and for lack of a

better word I am going to call it the fuel adjustment through Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing.

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I had a couple of calls, believe it or not, from the Burin

Peninsula this past winter. I guess you people have units in Marystown, and that

is where it was from. They were trying to explain to me that they were allowed

so much per year. I don't know how it works, whether they get it all one month

and when that is gone you have nothing left.

Those two ladies told me that they were sitting in their rooms then with

their feet up on the oven door with the electric heat up on high in the oven. I

am sure that is not helping your units, either, if you are looking after the

other part of it. How does that work?

MR. SKINNER: I can tell you that prior to becoming minister, and even now

as minister, there have been hundreds of hours of time spent on reviewing that

situation.

I will ask Mr. Simms, in his very eloquent, lucid way, to explain that to

you.

MR. BUTLER: I am looking forward to it, the way he is reacting there now.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Minister.

When I first went down to the Housing Corporation two-and-a-half years ago,

or whenever it was now, that was one of the items that we were directed by

Cabinet to have a look at, this home heating issue. When we looked at it, we

assigned a person full-time on it, a person with an M.B.A., to try to figure it

out. It is very complicated to answer here.

There are about nine different kinds of formulas. We have people who are not

our actual tenants but they are tenants who live in our private non-profits

units; they get 100 per cent support from heating. Then we have tenants who live

in units that are heated by single oil tanks; they only get 43 per cent subsidy.

Then we have people who are living in all of our other rental units, who are

heated by electricity; they get about 57 per cent subsidy. Then there is another

group that are heated by bulk units, so you can imagine the complexity of the

issue.

We have been looking at it and trying to determine the fairest way to treat

everybody. The fairest way to treat everybody, I suppose, would be to give them

all 100 per cent subsidy, but we spend now $8 million out of our budget for heat

subsidy.

The one move we made this year, by the way, in the budget was to provide an

increase for those who are heated by one single oil tank. There are some in your

district, Ms Michael, many in Mr. Ridgley's area and so on. There are some on

the Labrador Coast and a few scattered throughout the Province, about 900 of

them. They were getting, from us, a subsidy that equated to about a 43 per cent

subsidy. They were responsible for paying for the rest themselves. Everybody

else in our units - well, not everybody, but most of them who are electrically

heated were getting 57 per cent subsidy from us. The government was good enough

this year to give us an increase to allow those who have the single unit tanks

to get an increase of about $200 a month. At least they are going to be equal to

the ones who are getting 57 per cent subsidy. I think we are a long way away

from being able to increase it significantly. It might be something we will move

at in another year, I do not know the cost line.

MR. SKINNER: If I could, Mr. Butler, just to sort of conclude on that

point. We recognize that there are inequities within the system that have

evolved over time. It has just sort of taken on a life of its own. We have tried

to address that. We started this year, as Mr. Simms indicated, by dealing with

those that we felt had the most inequity and moving them up. The challenge

becomes, for those who have the cadillac plan, for lack of a better word, can

you bring everybody to that level? Can you afford to bring everybody to that

level or do you somehow try to bring both more towards the middle? There is

going to be some work done on that but it is an issue and it is an issue that I

have identified, and I have discussed it as recently as yesterday with Mr. Simms

and his officials. Hopefully, we will have something coming forward next year in

the budget process.

MR. BUTLER: My previous question - I will conclude on this one, Mr.

Chair. When you mentioned about the federal program and it has not been received

by you people yet, did you mention the Environment and Conservation had it, you

were talking about provincially?

MR. SKINNER: Yes. Minister Jackman's department.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

That is it for me, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I will not have a lot of questions because I think my colleague has covered

quite a number of things that I would have talked about.

First of all, I, too, will commend Mr. Simms and the agency on the good work

that is happening - not to butter you up, but I think you really do good work.

The openness of Mr. Simms and his staff to hold meetings with my staff earlier

in the year soon after I became MHA, I think was a wonderful decision and it was

very helpful. First of all, there was a meeting between myself, the minister,

Mr. Simms and Deputy Minister, and then meetings between my staff and staff here

in the St. John's area, just to make sure that all communications were going

well.

I am actually happy to report, to the best of my knowledge, as of yesterday,

I do not have any constituents banging on our door who are unhappy. There have

been a lot of things resolved over the last months and things are flowing well.

AN HON. MEMBER: That will probably change.

MS MICHAEL: It probably will, but as of yesterday - it changes on a daily

basis.

I think it is important for me to bring it up simply because the one area

that we get the most calls on in my office are around housing, from my

constituents. By far, the highest number of phone calls that we get from

constituents are about housing because we do have a lot of people in NLHC in my

district. So, I am really delighted with how things have gone since I have been

in and it has been a short period of time.

Just a couple of questions. As I said, I think Mr. Butler has covered some

things that I would have wanted to ask about. This is just straightforward

information. The 150 new rental units, what is the breakdown of where they are

being located in the Province?

MR. SKINNER: I will have to refer to staff and ask that staff give you

that detail, if you would?

WITNESS: Sure, yes.

I do not have an exact list with me, but most of them, as Mr. Simms

indicated, are located outside of St. John's. Non-profit groups in the City of

St. John's have been very good, Stella Burry Community Services, Tommy Sexton

Centre and the Wiseman Centre. Other than that, the private sector has been more

active outside the city than it has been inside. So the majority of those, about

90 per cent, will be outside of St. John's.

MS MICHAEL: Okay -

MR. SKINNER: Ms Michael, if I could, if you want something provided to

you in terms of a breakdown, I can certainly get that forwarded to you. I

apologize for not having it here this morning.

MS MICHAEL: No problem. If it is available, sure.

MR. SKINNER: Yes, we cannot make it public because of the

federal/provincial agreement.

WITNESS: We can tell you privately where they are located, probably.

MR. SIMMS: Conversely, if I could add, minister, on the non-profit side,

which I know you have a great interest in -

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: The vast majority of the non-profit funding goes into the St.

John's area.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. SIMMS: And for members outside of the St. John's area, the reason

for that is these are all operated and run by volunteer groups. They have

difficult times trying to keep these going and things like that. We have had a

heck of a time trying to get applications. Even though we have gone around the

Province over the last two years and put ads in the papers, we have had a very

difficult time to get non-profit groups to apply for the funds that we have,

which amount to $70,000 per unit - which is a fair chunk of change to put up ten

units for seniors or disabled people, but we cannot. So we are working with a

group now in Corner Brook, for example, a non-profit group, who have mental

health patients who have no place to go when they get out. We are working with a

group up in Labrador West, a women's group up there trying to do something

similar.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I am aware of that one.

MR. SIMMS: It is like pulling hen's teeth. If we had a Jocelyn Green to

go around the Province and tell them how to do it, it would be done, but that is

one of the difficulties. So most of the non-profit funding really has gone into

the Wiseman Centre, Tommy Sexton, all of these great projects here in St. John's,

but we wish we had more supportive housing projects, non-profit projects outside

St. John's.

MS MICHAEL: Right. I guess two questions then from that, or one is a

comment. The 150 new rental units then are mainly the ones that you are talking

about -

MR. SIMMS: Private sector -

MS MICHAEL: - and therefore are all - not all, but for the most part

geared towards, sort of special needs groups?

MR. SIMMS: No, low income.

MS MICHAEL: Low income, but some of them are special needs, too.

MR. SIMMS: Seniors, handicapped.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Well, the Tommy Sexton is special needs.

MR. SIMMS: That is non-profit.

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Well, I am talking about the non-profit actually. I am

sorry. The non-profit I am talking about.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. They are all what we call, and what you call, I guess,

supportive housing, second stage housing.

MS MICHAEL: That is right, exactly.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Then the others are the ones in the private sector, but what

happens if the agency identifies a need in an area and no applications are

coming in, there is no avenue for the agency to look at new units that the

agency will be responsible for?

MR. SIMMS: Non-profit you mean? Not the private sector because we have

closed off the dates for those the end of March.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. SIMMS: Non-profit we are much more flexible. In fact, to be honest

with you, we have difficulty because of the fact that they are run by

volunteers. We have money, but not that we cannot give the money away because I

know Jocelyn would take it all if we offered it to her, but we are working with

other groups, like I said. There is a group in Corner Brook and a group in

Labrador West.

Yes, there is an opportunity if somebody still wants to come in on the

non-profit side and work with us and Cynthia's staff; she if the manager of

affordable housing. They are very interested in trying to get some projects

outside St. John's in particular, if you know of some groups who would be

interested in getting into supportive housing projects. The problem, like I

said, is having the volunteers and making them work. They have to pay for

themselves, or they have to go look for money from health and all this sort of

thing.

CHAIR: Was your question -

MS MICHAEL: Well, my question is a bit more than that because I guess

what I am asking is if you identified an area - I am not going to pick an area

because I do not want to pick an area, but just say you identified an area and

you said we really need housing there but there is nobody in the non-profit

sector organized to do anything about it. There are no applications from the

private sector. Then you just say: Well, that is too bad. Is the agency then

proactive, neither saying to the minister that maybe we need to build units

there, our own units, but if we know there is a need and it is not coming up

from the other two sectors, who is then going to take up the need and do

something about it? That is my question.

MR. SKINNER: I guess the response to that is we do face that issue in

terms of sometimes the community, be it the private or non-profit sector, is not

or does not want to respond, or is not able to respond. Part of our Housing

strategy, hopefully, will address how we as a corporation can respond to that.

I guess the response today to you, Ms Michael, would be that would be

something that we would identify as being an issue. Currently, we would sit

around and discuss that and say: Okay, what are we going to do about that? - and

maybe go out then into the community and try and stimulate or instill within

somebody a response. We, ourselves, are not able to do it but that does not

prevent us from trying to instill within some group, organization or individual

to do that.

I have had discussions with people in some areas in the private sector trying

to get them to come in and have another look at this, people who told me they

looked at it before but did not feel it was viable. I have tried to say to them:

Well, come in and have another look and talk to us, tell us what the problems

are, tell us what you think the challenges are and maybe we then, as a

corporation, can do things a little bit differently to try and help you with

that.

So, that is sort of an ad hoc way that we are doing it now, but I am hoping

as a part of the Housing review that is being done that there may be more come

forward in a formalized way that we would be able to do that.

MS MICHAEL: When do you expect the review to be ready, minister?

MR. SKINNER: I was going to say early 2008, but Mr. Simms says maybe by

December.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Well, I will be looking forward to that. I am glad to

know that you are dealing with the issue that I have just raised.

Now, I have to comment on Mr. Simms' comment about having a Jocelyn Green.

Why not have a Jocelyn Green? Why not have somebody in that position? It would

certainly tie in with one of my concerns that I have raised in other discussions

and in the House of Assembly as well.

One of the things with regard to rural development, and I think good social

housing is part of rural development, is to have staff who work with communities

or community groups because people do not always have the skills they need to do

that community organizing, and it does take community organizing. Here in St.

John's you have people who have been at community organizing for decades, not

only years but decades.

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: They have so many skills but a lot of people in other parts

of the Province do not have them. So, it is something I have been talking to

government about, asking questions in Question Period, et cetera. So, I bring it

out here again. Why not put some resources into people who help organize in

order to meet needs? This would be one area, and because you said: Why not have

the Jocelyn Greens hired?

MR. SIMMS: Yes. I am glad you asked the question because we have a

meeting this afternoon at 2:00 and that is exactly the issue that we are

discussing. We have been talking about it internally. We have talked to Bruce

Pearce and asked his advice on it, and so on and so forth, and that is where we

are heading.

We think we can access some funding from the Affordable Housing Program to

hire a consultant, or maybe a full-time staff person or something. We have not

quite decided which route to take, but somebody who would be able to go and help

those volunteer groups put together their project and their application for

their project, show them how to run the operation and that sort of thing, like a

Jocelyn. I do not think she would be available, but Jocelyn and Bruce, these

people, we have talked to them and they might be able to give us some ideas. We

might advertise for the person, or we might hire a consultant who has some

expertise in that field and so on. That is precisely where we are heading and we

feel the same way as you do. There definitely is a need for somebody to help

walk them through the process, and that has been the problem.

MS MICHAEL: Right, and make sure it is not a bureaucrat. It has to be a

consultant who can work with people on the ground, not a bureaucrat.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, definitely not a bureaucrat.

MS MICHAEL: Sorry, but you all know what I mean. I am talking about a

bureaucrat mentality who is working from that mentality instead of a community

development model.

MR. SIMMS: Ideally, you need a Jocelyn Green or a Bruce Pearce; neither

of whom are available.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is right - or a Lorraine Michael if she were still

doing community development work.

MR. SIMMS: Or a Lorraine Michael. Exactly. Are you interested in it?

MS MICHAEL: I am quite happy where I am, thank you very much.

MR. SIMMS: We agree with you and that is exactly where we are heading,

and you should be happy to hear that because I am.

MS MICHAEL: I am very pleased to hear it, I really am, I have to say.

I think that is it for the moment, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions with regard to the Housing

Corporation?

Dwight.

MR. BALL: Just a couple of questions. On page 253, we see line item, 01.

and the federal contribution of $6.8 million. Is this matching dollars or is

this a new program, or is this the Affordable Housing component here?

MR. SIMMS: You are talking about $6.8 million?

MR. BALL: Yes, $6.8 million. It was not there last year, so I did not

think it was the affordable housing piece.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. A couple of years ago the previous federal government

announced housing trust funds to provide to the provinces to do some housing

projects. There were limitations and conditions on what you could use the

funding for. Primarily, they are for revitalization of areas like Dunfield Park

that you would be familiar with in Corner Brook, Cashin Avenue and those sorts

of things, or to build new units. Unfortunately, there is no subsidy to go with

them to help continue to maintain because that was cut off by an agreement ten

years ago, but at the same time that is what the money was used for.

Our share of that money is approximately $12 million, and $8 million

approximately for Aboriginal housing which we are still discussing with the

Aboriginal groups and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. Of the $12 million we

have, this year we went to Cabinet and sought approval to spend $6.8 million of

it. Because the money has already come to the Province; that is why it shows up

in the Budget. We had to then access it from the Province, the Housing

Corporation. That is why it is in and out. Out of the $6.8 million, $4.3 million

of that we decided to put right into the Affordable Housing program to increase

what we had there then for non-profit affordable housing and for private

affordable housing. There is a breakdown of it there somewhere.

In addition to that, there is $1 million that we are going to spend in St.

John's to replace units that were burned down or taken down. Occasionally, we

take down units and get criticized for it. Unfortunately, we have not had a

mechanism to replace them, but we do have this mechanism here, a small

mechanism. We are putting up units and we have not quite decided where. They are

brand new units. We are going to replace or build six new units in Stephenville.

They are the units that were damaged in the flooding over there a couple of

years ago. We are not eligible as a Crown corporation for the emergency measures

funding, but fortunately we have this trust fund, so we are going to spend $1

million to put those units up there.

Not to publicize it too much, we have two families up in the Shea Heights

area who are really, really in difficult need. They have three or four children

all of whom are disabled or handicapped, so we are building two special units up

in the Shea Heights area for those families. That is an estimated cost of

$500,000. We have $1.1 million set aside for revitalization of Dunfield Park,

but that will not be until next year's Budget.

What else is there? I think that is it. I think that adds up to about $6.8

million, does it? Did you do your rough calculations there?

MR. BALL: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Four point three million for affordable housing; $1 million

for here for units, that is $5.3 million; $1 million in Stephenville, that is

$6.3 million; and $500,000 in Shea Heights, that is $6.8 million.

We still have $5 million in that pot so we may be able to think of some

things we can do with that. We have until 2009 to access that money.

Does that answer your question?

MR. BALL: Yes, a good answer.

Just about everything else has been covered off. It would be remise of me, I

guess, if I did not congratulate your staff in Corner Brook, because last Friday

morning we had the opportunity to go down and meet with all of them. They are a

fantastic bunch to deal with. We are actually communicating with them virtually

every day there. What was really interesting - and I would not mind even if you

could pass the message on, because I did not realize this until I left the

meeting - that Tina Snow, after she left our meeting, was on her way down and

she was doing a promotion for Daffodil House and she did a fantastic job there.

MR. SIMMS: Tina is a social worker, Tenant Relations Officer, and we have

six of them Province-wide. They do superb work, there is no question about that.

With you permission, since you have all mentioned this - I am hoping the

other members, if they say anything, will be just as complimentary - we put out

an internal staff newsletter to our staff and I wouldn't mind being able to

sort of mention, in the newsletter, you all by name and say that you have been

complimentary to our staff.

MR. BALL: Well I would appreciate that.

MR. SIMMS: Thanks.

CHAIR: Mr. Cornect.

Sorry. Mr. Ball, are you finished?

MR. BALL: Yes, I am.

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Minister and Mr. Simms.

I come from the District of Port au Port, and the office at Stephenville,

yes, I have to compliment them as well. The co-operation that I get from the

staff there is second to none.

MR. SIMMS: Of course you worked there.

MR. CORNECT: It is very encouraging and I am very happy, Mr. Minister,

that you have influxed a lot of money to take the wait list away. I know in my

district, although there is a wait list of two-and-a-half to three years, people

are still telling me: Thank God for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and RRAP,

we can get our house done.

I am encouraged by the monies going in and I certainly hope that we do not go

to six years to get that wait list finished up and gone and out of the way. I

hope it is within three years, Mr. Minister.

Just one quick question on the heating program, the subsidies for heating.

Can these clients or these people renting from you avail of the heating rebate

program that is offered by the government as well?

MR. SIMMS: Can clients -

MR. CORNECT: Clients who are living in your housing units and they are

subsidized by heat by the corporation.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. CORNECT: Can they avail of the government program as well?

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. CORNECT: Good. Perfect.

MR. SIMMS: Most of them are subsidized. It is built into the rent.

MR. CORNECT: Thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. COLLINS: A couple of quick comments, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister and Mr. Simms, I, too, share the positive remarks directed your

way. Of course my experience with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing goes back a

long way, so I am not surprised you get that kind of reaction. If I could be a

bit facetious for a minute, that with all these platitudes coming towards

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, it is interesting that the CEO has been

absent for the last three weeks.

A quick question on a question that Mr. Butler asked earlier, and either

through a combination of my being partially deaf or not having my machine on

here or not paying attention, the status of the waiting lists, could you repeat

that again, Mr. Minister? How soon can we get up to speed on the waiting list?

MR. SKINNER: There are approximately 4,500 people on the waiting list.

WITNESS: RRAP, is it?

MR. SKINNER: My understanding is you are talking about RRAP, provincial

home repair?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. SKINNER: Yes, okay.

There are 4,500 applications currently on file. We do approximately 1,500 per

year. It is estimated that we will now be able to do an additional 700 or 800

applications per year. Having said that, we will not necessarily reduce the

waiting list by the 700 or 800 because we anticipate, with the new funding, an

additional 300 or 400 applications per year coming in, so the net benefit will

probably be 400 applications per year more. There will still be people coming

in, adding on to the waiting list.

Worst case, we are saying we will have the waiting list eliminated in six

years but we are going to be monitoring that an a fairly regular basis and it is

our intention to get rid of it as quickly as we can, but in fairness it is going

to be a few years. It is not going to happen in eighteen months or twenty-four

months, I think it will be a few years.

MR. COLLINS: That is for the whole list, but people who were on the list

now, say for two years, how soon do you anticipate getting them off the list?

MR. SKINNER: People who are currently on, say, a two year or

two-and-a-half year or three year cycle will probably be looking now at eighteen

months, maybe two years on the outside. Until we get at it, it is hard to say,

but just based upon raw numbers we are thinking we can drop at least a year off

their wait time.

MR. COLLINS: The other question I had for you: In terms of the new

funding available for refurbishing old units and what not - I am thinking, for

example, of units in Placentia that got a little bit of a cosmetic facelift last

year, a bit of paint and what not, but they need much more than that - are there

any extra funds in the Budget for that kind of work?

MR. SKINNER: Yes, we do have a number of dollars put into the

modernization and improvement, the M & I budget we call it. That will

consist of things like windows, doors, roofs, siding - the building envelope as

Mr. Simms refers to it. The things that are leaky or drafty, those are the kinds

of things we are going after.

MR. COLLINS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions from the members?

MR. SIMMS: I was wondering if Mr. French wanted to be complimentary to

the staff so I could add his name in the newsletter.

MR. FRENCH: I have a couple of things in the can I am waiting on.

MR. SIMMS: I am going to put all of you names in the newsletter to the

staff so the staff can get a little pat on the back.

MR. FRENCH: That is fine, I will wait and see.

CHAIR: Mr. Simms, in the two previous Estimates's sessions that this

Committee has held, that backbench has been very quite and I do not know why you

have them stirred up here this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Their name is going out in print now.

MR. SIMMS: I apologize, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: You promised them publicity, didn't you?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, it is probably part of my background and history

and somehow when I get to sit in one of these seats it all comes back, and I

apologize.

CHAIR: It might be.

MR. BUTLER: The only comment I want to make to that, when I made the

complimentary comments about your staff -

MR. SIMMS: It was not about me.

MR. BUTLER: No, we will not go there because we had a discussion about

what I said one time before.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: No, seriously, regardless of who was there. I have been

involved with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing now and in my former position as

an EA back to 1989 and I have to say the same thing. It is not getting any

worse, it is just getting better, but it was always there.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you.

CHAIR: I will ask the Clerk to call the subhead then please.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall the subhead 1.1.01. carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01. carried.

CHAIR: There is only one subhead, I am not sure if I have to call the

total, but I will call it anyway.

Shall the total carry? There is a total for only one subhead?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, total head,

carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation carried without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation Estimates carried

without amendment.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Simms and staff of Housing.

MR. SKINNER: We are going to do Labour Relations.

Mr. Chair, would it be alright if I shuffled the deck a little bit and moved

some people?

CHAIR: We may just have to do introductions again for the people

downstairs.

MR. SKINNER: Yes, alright.

In terms of our shuffling of the deck, Mr. Wayne Fowler has moved along side

of me here occupying the seat that Mr. Simms formerly had. Mr. Fowler, as he has

already indicated, is the Acting Deputy Minister of the Labour Relations Agency.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

We are on page 216 then and we will call the subheads inclusively. We are

dealing with 7.1.01 up to 8.1.01 on page 218. Shall 7.1.01 carry?

Again, Minister, did you want to have some introductory remarks on this?

MR. SKINNER: I will be very brief. As I indicated, Mr. Fowler is here in

terms of the Labour Relations Agency. In terms of subhead 8, Mr. O'Neill is up

here in the back and I was just going to bring him down afterwards, but if you

want to engage him now, by all means we can certainly do that. There is no

problem on our side, but just for clarification, Mr. O'Neill is there and he

will certainly do that.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SKINNER: My apologies. My mistake. Just for clarification, I jumped

ahead of myself. Mr. O'Neill will not be doing number 8 because that is the

review division, which falls under Mr. Fowler. My apologies on that. I did not

mean to confuse the matter, Mr. Chair.

In terms of introductory remarks, I will be very brief as I indicated. The

Labour Relations Agency side of the department is one that probably has a lot of

activity but very little of it actually garners much public attention. Sometimes

we have some issues - the IOC strike being a recent one - which hit the media,

but there are many, many issues that this department deals with that never see

the light of day from a press perspective.

Mr. Fowler and his staff very quietly go about their business trying to bring

resolution to disputes that come up in the workplace and do a very good job of

it, and that is why a lot of it does not make the light of day.

I will just conclude with that and see if there are any particular points

that the members opposite wish to question us on and we will try to provide

answers as best we can.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I just have a couple of questions and I will make reference

to the minister's comments. No doubt that is how it is with those ladies and

gentlemen, whoever is working there. Very seldom do we really have that much

contact with them.

I have just a couple of questions. The first one is under heading 7.1.03,

down in Revenue-Provincial, the $70,000 there, I am just wondering, in reference

to that, where does the revenue come from? How is that derived at?

MR. SKINNER: I can give you more background if you need it, but the

Revenue actually comes from clearance certificates for labour standards. People

who are looking for those certificates have to pay a fee for them.

MR. BUTLER: My only other question - and I think you said Mr. Fowler

would deal with this one; 8.1.01. That one has to do with the amount spent on

Professional Services last year. I know it was budgeted at $410,000 and it was

revised to $280,000. I am wondering what type of Professional Services would

have been purchased under that heading, and also, I guess, why was $410,000

budgeted but only $280,000 spent there?

MR. FOWLER: Your question, Mr. Butler, falls under the Workplace Health

and Safety Review Division. The reason for the decrease in what was budgeted

was: from the Review Division's perspective they do the appeals for decisions

that come out of Workers' Comp. With the recent changes, I guess, that Workers'

Comp have been putting in place, the number of appeals that are coming forward

have reduced. That, they believe, is due to the Early and Safe Return programs,

getting people back to work a lot quicker. So that is the reduction in the

amount of money that was used.

The money is really allocated for the adjudicative expenses of review

commissioners, chief review commissioners, who have to get paid for doing the

appeals and reviews. Obviously, as the number of cases before them decreased,

the amount of money we have to pay them to do it has decreased as well.

MR. BUTLER: Just a follow up and as a general question - and, if you

cannot answer it here that is fine as well. You are talking about the reviews

out at Dorset Building, right?

MR. FOWLER: Yes, the Dorset Building.

MR. BUTLER: For instance, when you go with individuals to an appeal, is

there any authority through your department where you are trying to subpoena

somebody to come to those hearings? How does that work from your perspective? I

had an incident where that happened and they did not show, and probably rightly

so they do not show, but is there anything there that they should be a part of,

once their information made the decision and what the individual is actually

appealing? I know it is not a financial question.

MR. FOWLER: I am sorry? Just to clarify, are you questioning when someone

goes to the appeal division to present their appeal how they can subpoena

somebody?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, I know they can subpoena them.

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: But, people were subpoenaed and did not show. I guess they

can refuse anyway, but I am wondering is there anything there? Because the file

was totally based on the comments that they made about the individual, but they

will not come and back it up, you cannot question them more or less. I am just

wondering is there anything that can be put in place?

MR. FOWLER: Good question. Right now is the first time I have ever heard

anybody raise that question. I know the review division is a totally independent

division, quasi judicial from that perspective, reporting directly to the

minister. We handle the administrative functions just with respect to the staff

payments and not the legalistic functions of it. It is something we can

certainly check on for you and get back with an answer.

MR. BUTLER: It has nothing to do with the review division, every is fine

there, but do you know what I am saying? When you get the big file and

everything is based on two investigators who took the pictures and said this and

said that, Workers' Compensation cannot answer it for you, the Chairperson

cannot get involved, the employer is sure not going to tell you, and the two

individuals who really got this file where it is, you cannot get them there.

MR. FOWLER: I will say, within the system there are worker and employer

advisors who are funded through the Workers' Compensation Commission to

assist, whether you are a worker or an employer. Anyone who has any questions,

including the question like this, could very well get that answer directly from

a worker or employer advisor out in the system. It is something I have not heard

asked before but will check it.

Just for the last comment, I would say to anyone who comes to you with a

question that we do not know, the worker or employer advisor certainly would be

able to give them some information on that. The Workplace, Health, Safety

Compensation Commission has a customer service officer down there and I am sure

that individual would be able to help as well. So there are areas for them to

get answers A.S.A.P. on it, but we will check it out for you.

MR. BUTLER: Like I said, in this particular case I am referring to, the

Compensation Review Division did issue the subpoenas to them.

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: That is it for me, Mr. Chair, on this particular section.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Are there any other questions on this segment?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, just a few line items. Mr. Butler just covered one under

8.1, so I do not have to go there.

Back to 7.1.01., a similar question, and the same way in 7.1.02., both of

them in Transportation and Communications. So 03 in both of those sections,

again budgeting a certain amount but money not being spent. In 7.1.01, $50,100

budgeted for Transportation and Communications, you only spent $13,800, yet you

are budgeting again this year for $50,000. Why was it so low last year? Was it

that is was an anomaly and that is why you are going back up to $50,000?

MR. SKINNER: I will turn that over to Mr. Fowler and ask him to answer

that for you, if he wouldn't mind.

MR. FOWLER: Thank, you.

Yes, an anomaly it was. Staff were involved in a number of things last year

that required that they stay in-house. Specifically, staff were involved in the

stat review process, three people directly into it, and being involved in those

processes, we had to not go to some federal, provincial, territorial or local

meetings. As well, there were some meetings that we could not get to due to the

weather, and there were some other meetings that were cancelled. These meetings

that we budget for are regularly held meetings every year. We all understand,

and so do the people through the federal areas where we attend these meetings,

that sometimes you just cannot attend because of your working group. We do try

to attend them every year, it is our intent, so when we budget back, we say: We

did not make them, there is a justified reason but we need to go to them because

it is mainly part of the business that we do.

MS MICHAEL: Sure, that is fine. That would cover both sections, I think,

wouldn't it?

MR. FOWLER: Exactly, both sections.

MS MICHAEL: Then under 7.1.03, under Salaries, have you added a new

position this year? Because you do have approximately a $100,000 difference in

this year's Budget and last year's budgeted figure.

MR. FOWLER: In 7.1.03 under Salaries?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. FOWLER: The Estimates are $1,120,300 versus the Budget of last year

of $1,087,400.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MR. FOWLER: No, the variance is due to salary increases that are going to

come within the Labour Relations Agency, the Labour Relations Division, Labour

Standards Division. No new positions have been added.

MS MICHAEL: So, $100,000 worth of -

MR. FOWLER: Unless I am reading it wrong, it looks to be any about

$33,000.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, you are right. I am sorry. I am doing bad arithmetic. You

are quite correct.

Thank you very much. That makes sense.

That is all, Mr. Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Michael.

Any further questions under this section?

Mr. Ball.

MR. BALL: Page 218, category 8.1.01, line item 02, the revenue from

provincial government. I was trying to follow this through there. In the

2006-2007 Budget we saw $896,700, revised to $1,481,900.

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MR. BALL: It seems to me there was a contribution from the provincial

government to go to zero, but yet we have an outstanding debt there of $714,000.

I am just wondering where that stands now or how that works.

MR. FOWLER: The budgeted was $896,000 correctly and $1,481,000, but the

variance is due to an increase in revenue resulting from 2005-2006 revenue that

was not received until 2006-2007.

Yes, the review division is fully funded by the Workers' Compensation

Commission, so the money comes back to pay for it. Obviously, what happened here

is the money came back to pay for 2005-2006 in the 2007 year, so that is why you

see $1,481,000 as revised. Basically, it is the payment of the money for the

year prior to being paid in the current.

MR. BALL: Okay, that is it for me.

Thanks.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions on this section? If not, then I

will ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

CLERK: 7.1.01 to 8.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall the subheads 7.1.01 to 8.1.01 inclusive carry?

All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, subheads 7.1.01 to 8.1.01, carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total of these subheads carry?

All in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, total subheads 7.1.01 to 8.1.01, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates for the Labour Relations Agency and

the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review carried without amendment?

All in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: aye.

On motion, Labour Relations Agency and Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Review Estimates without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: We will move then to the department itself or another arm of that

department which will take us to -

MR. SKINNER: We are going to do a little shuffling of the deck again just

for our people down in communications.

Moving in along side of me will be Brenda Caul, the Deputy Minister, and

Wayne Penny, the Assistant Deputy Minister, is moved over a bit.

CHAIR: I think he stayed where he was.

MR. SKINNER: Okay.

CHAIR: Minister, maybe for the benefit of the people downstairs, we will

just go through a quick introduction of who we have there.

MR. SKINNER: That is not a problem.

I will start off with myself. Shawn Skinner, Minister.

MS CAUL: Brenda Caul, Deputy Minister.

MR. PENNY: Wayne Penny, ADM.

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: Lynn Vivian-Book, Assistant Deputy Minister, HRLE.

MR. HANLON: Brendan Hanlon, Director of Finance.

MS JEANS: Jennifer Jeans, Assistant Deputy Minister of Health and

Community Services.

CHAIR (Mr. Ridgley): Okay. I believe that is all concerned with this

department.

We are dealing now with subheads 1.1.01 up to 6.1.01. I will ask the Clerk to

call the first subhead.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall subhead 1.1.01 carry?

Again, I will turn to the minister for introductory remarks.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, I will be brief given the time that we have and the number of

questions that may want to be asked.

I would say, Mr. Chair, that this department has been in a period of

transition and continues to go through a period of transition from being a

department of focusing, I guess, on income support, social services, welfare - I

have heard it referred to by all kinds of names, we refer to it as income

support - to a department now that is very much interested in trying to assist

people in terms of educating, skilling' them and getting them involved in

careers and career development, getting people employed so that they can sustain

themselves and enjoy a quality of life that having a good job and good income

brings with it. There have been a number of initiatives and a number of changes

to our service delivery which we have implemented over the last year to assist

us in shifting our caseloads on income support into some of our career

development services.

I will conclude my remarks there and just open the floor for the questions.

Hopefully, in some of the questions we will get an opportunity to talk about

some of those initiatives.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Butler, will you be leading off? We will say fifteen minutes to start and

then we will go to ten.

MR. BUTLER: Not a problem, Sir.

I am going to start off with a general question. I guess it relates to the

changes with regard to the delivery of service. I am sure Mr. Penny knows where

I am going.

I take you back, Minister, to when the twenty offices closed around the

Province. I know it was stated it was due to technology, the different ways of

doing it and I agree with that to some degree. The office closed in Bay Roberts

and the people had to travel as far as Carbonear if there were any needs, if

they had to go in and see their worker and what have you. That has changed and

they have a toll free number where they call, whether it is to make an

application or if there is some major issue they have to deal with.

The problem that I have with it - first of all, I was going to ask were there

any savings derived from the changes? The part that really bothers me, I guess,

and I know it will probably never convert back to what it was, but to me the

social conscience is gone out of it. I have people out there who have a major

problem, it may be only minor to me but a major problem to them. They always had

a system where they either could go into the Bay Roberts office, or later to the

Carbonear office, and sit down face to face with someone and discuss it. Now

they call a toll-free number and they speak to someone. Don't get me wrong.

Those people - I have worked with them; I worked in the department as an EA in

1989 - are wonderful people. It has nothing to do with the people who are there,

but the system that is provided to the individual out there now. You have people

calling who would like to be able to go in and have it explained to them, or if

there is something they want to do and they are told, I am sorry, you have to

call this number and you do this back and forth through the mail.

I am not saying a full-fledged office should be put back in Bay Roberts or

Carbonear. Even if there was one person there for instances like this, where

they could go in and sit down. I mean, there are wonderful people there. Mr.

Parsons is there; Bob Wheadon is there.

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The way that it is changed now, they cannot even get in to

see these people - not saying that is who they should see, but just using those

as examples. If there was only one person there, where they could go in and sit

down.

Maybe the need is not a major item where you need a lot of staff; even if

there was one person. Is there any thought to that? Maybe you do not see it as a

problem like I do, hearing from the people out there.

MR. SKINNER: I will start off, Mr. Butler, by saying that the change in

client service delivery methodology in terms of the toll-free number that you

refer to, and people not being able to access somebody through our toll-free

support line, has been, I believe, a positive experience. I am speaking now in

my role as an MHA, particularly when I still am MHA for St. John's Centre. For

the first couple of years my experience was very, very negative in terms of the

service level, the quality of service, to my constituents from the department.

When the changes were made, my constituents told me - and still tell me, I have

to be honest - that they believe it is a better quality of service.

We do surveys of all of the caseloads that we have, and those surveys

indicate very high response rates. I do not know the exact number, but I am

comfortable in saying to you that over 90 per cent of the survey respondents

indicate that they feel it is a better level of service that they are receiving.

That is fine for the nine out of ten, but what about the one out of ten who

is not happy, and maybe that is the one you are talking about, and maybe it is

more than one out of ten but I get your point.

We try to be an open door for people, so if somebody does want to come into

an office and speak to somebody we certainly try to accommodate that. I know in

my own case I have dealt with constituents who have had difficulty and I have

directed them to specific individuals within offices. In some cases I

accompanied them myself. When we had offices down in the Templeton Building and

so on, I used to accompany them down to Water Street here and go to some of

these meetings.

In terms of, are we going to do something like that? I would say to you, that

is something that would always be considered as long as I am minister, and with

the executive that I have. We constantly talk about ways that we can improve our

service delivery level, but the indicators are, to me, from a personal level,

face to face as an MHA, and from the surveys that we do, that we do not have

major issues in terms of people being able to access individuals and services

that they need. When I do become aware of them, I am able to direct them towards

staff to be able to have those issues resolved.

If your experience is different, I would certainly be interested in talking

to you more about that and seeing if we can accommodate you on that.

MR. BUTLER: I am not saying that the new program is not working. I will

just give you an example, and I won't use any names. I had one lady who had to

come to St. John's with her son - they were receiving income support - and the

appointment got changed on a Friday. They were supposed to go on Thursday or

something of the previous week. Anyway, they called and they had an appointment

for Monday morning; this was on a Friday. They usually make the arrangements

with the taxi to take them in, but where it all happened so fast.... What could

have happened, if there was someone there like was always there, they could have

gone to the office in Bay Roberts on Monday morning and picked up their slip or

whatever they had to give to the taxi driver in this instance, but here she was

in a panic: How am I going to get my son in there? Because all of this happened

and changed so fast. She called the toll-free number and they looked it up on

the screen - and they do their work; I am not saying that -

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: - but they could not help her at that time because the time

frame was not there to do it.

Whereas, if she could have walked into that office

that morning, she could have moved on.

I agree with you, probably 90 per cent or 95 per cent are probably saying it

is a good service, and I agree with that because now the stigma is not there

where people have to walk out and go into an office and people are saying: They

are on welfare - like you used the terminology earlier.

All of that is wonderful, but incidents like that, where there is an office

in Carbonear - and I understand where you are moving away from income support

and trying to get more people out into the workforce and what have you - if

there was someone there who could deal with those minor number of issues, that

service from time to time, that is all I am referring to.

MR. SKINNER: Yes, and point well taken. I would say to you that is

something that, from our perspective, we will look at doing.

Again, I can only say to you that my own experience as an MHA is that when

people were in turmoil or crisis, or whatever you want to call it, any time of

the day, even if it was after hours, there is always somebody on call. I have

accessed people on call myself. In St. John's, 7888 is the number. I have

called it myself, left my name, and said: Could you ask the person to get back

to me? I have somebody in crisis that I need to help here - and we have been

able to resolve it.

I think it can be done through the system we currently have. Is it the best

way to do it? As I said to you, I am open to that in terms of looking at

alternative ways, but my experience is currently that the system is able to

respond to needs like that; not suggesting that we don't have cases where

maybe we don't respond quite appropriately.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

On page 208, subheading 1.2.02., Administrative Support, in 2006-2007

Salaries was budgeted 2,088,800 and it was revised to 1,893,800. I was just

wondering where the difference came in there.

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Butler, could I just ask you to repeat the numbers? I

apologize; I missed a couple of numbers.

MR. BUTLER: That is not a problem.

Subhead 1.2.02., Administrative Support, under heading 01., Salaries.

MR. SKINNER: Yes, sorry.

MR. BUTLER: Where it was budgeted at $2 million and it shows there $1.893

million revised. I was just wondering why the reduction there.

MR. SKINNER: Okay, thank you.

The documentation related to the reduction is that there were salary savings

of - the number adds up to be approximately $195,000. There was an internal

audit position and some clerical positions that we were in the process of

filling. There were just some delays in filling those. It was basically a couple

of positions that did not get filled when we expected them to be filled. They

were filled a little bit later.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, under 06., Purchased Services, where it shows

$2,018,000 and this year it has gone to $2.5 million, I was just wondering, what

would the additional services be? Last year the Budget was $2 million, Revised

was approximately the same, but this year it is $2.5 million.

MR. SKINNER: It just takes us a second, because there are so many numbers

there. I just want to make sure I have the right numbers when I am giving my

answer back to you.

MR. BUTLER: No rush, Sir.

MR. SKINNER: The increase is approximately $518,000, if I refer to the

numbers that you are referring to.

MR. BUTLER: That is it.

MR. SKINNER: We have new funding because the low income drug card appeal

board is a portion of that, and there are some increased costs in accommodations

as well.

WITNESS: Office accommodations.

MR. SKINNER: Office accommodations.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. SKINNER: Those two categories are where the increase comes from: the

low income drug card appeal board and some office accommodations.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under that again, under 07., Property, Furnishing and Equipment, last year

the Budget was $5,000 and it went to $137,000.

MR. SKINNER: We had a one-time increase there of $132,000 which basically

related to some outdated equipment. I would assume, although my note does not

say this, that some of that would be related to some of the changes the OCIO are

making, as well as there were some furniture changes and some purchase of

photocopy equipment.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under heading 1.2.03., Program Development and Planning, under Salaries, it

was budgeted last year at $2,398,000 and it went to $2,509,000. I was just

wondering if you could elaborate on that one.

MR. SKINNER: Yes, there were overall salary increases of approximately

$247,000. There were approved salary increases of $60,200. That would be, I

would assume, just normal incremental steps and yearly increases - that was

about $60,000 of that - and there was new funding approved of $270,000 for: a

manager of research and evaluation, who we brought into the division; a policy

specialist for reducing barriers for persons with disabilities; a policy

specialist for the Poverty Reduction Strategy; and, our Labour Market Working

Group, we also had a position there. So, these are new staff positions.

In particular, if I could elaborate, one of the things we are trying to do is

to be able to do some research and evaluation of some of our initiatives that we

are doing on an ongoing basis to make sure that the funds that we are committing

to new initiatives are being well spent, and we are creating, basically,

real-time information that we can use in helping us on a go-forward basis to

continue with those initiatives, or to discontinue them if need be.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 3.1.01., Income Assistance, budgeted last year was $218,507,000 - that

is under Allowances and Assistance - and it was revised to $213 million. I was

wondering if you could explain the $5 million, or approximately $5 million,

difference there.

MR. SKINNER: Basically, Mr. Butler, the majority of that would end up

being a decrease in the caseload of the number of people receiving income

support. The amount, approximately $5.5 million, if I am referring to the right

heading, has to do with the decrease in caseload.

MR. BUTLER: Could you explain that? Have all of those people gone out

into the workforce, or have they moved out of our Province - families, like

that? It is probably a job to get a breakdown like that, is it?

MR. SKINNER: In terms of the decrease in caseload, we have a number of

initiatives within the department where we try to increase the labour force

attachment to some of the clients who will be receiving income support. I could

not give you exact numbers right now, but a number of those would be people who

were transitioned into workforce attachment. It may have been training and

workforce, it may have been strictly back into jobs, but in terms of actual

numbers I would have to do a little bit more work to be able to provide you with

more detail.

Some of it, no doubt, may be people who have moved away; I would not suggest

to you it would not be. I would suggest to you that a significant portion of

that would be related to us creating workforce attachments for some of our

clients.

MR. BUTLER: It is a clever chunk of change, and I know you have budgeted

this year basically the same amount as what was spent. That is why I was

wondering, where it was $5 million.

Under 3.1.02., National Child Benefit Reinvestment, you budgeted $600,000 and

the revised was $520,000. I was wondering, could you explain the difference of

the $80,000 there?

MR. SKINNER: On that one the answer is, quite simply, just less people

who took up the program, less people getting the money.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 3.1.03., Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement, I notice last year it was

budgeted at $400,000 and it was revised to $325,000, and the estimate for this

year is $475,000. I think there was something in the Budget about additional

money for that.

MR. SKINNER: Correct.

MR. BUTLER: I was more concerned - the reduction last year, why the full

amount, or what happened there?

MR. SKINNER: We did increase the amount this year, you are correct, by

$15 per month.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. SKINNER: Again, it is just lower than anticipated take-up on the

program. We budgeted expecting a certain number of moms to take us up on this

program, and we just had less.

MR. BUTLER: What do you think is causing it to go up to $475,000 this

year, if you only needed - I am sorry, budgeted, your estimate - when you only

required $325,000?

MR. SKINNER: One of the things we had to budget for was the increase of

$15 a month.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. Sorry, yes.

MR. SKINNER: Because we increased the amount obviously there would be

more money spent.

MR. BUTLER: Sorry about that, you explained that.

MR. SKINNER: The actual caseload may not change, we are not sure, but we

had to allow for the extra $15 a month.

CHAIR: Okay, Mr. Butler, we will move to Ms Michael and we can come back

to you if need be.

MR. BUTLER: Not a problem.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

If I could just come back up to 3.1.01 again, $5 million does seem like a lot

of money. Just from my general knowledge - I do not have figures in front of me

and you probably do not either - I cannot imagine that $5 million worth of

people have gone into the workforce. I really am stymied by that $5 million.

MR. SKINNER: In terms of trying to explain that a little bit more, Ms

Michael, that dollar amount related to individuals, I guess, to try and put some

context to it, which is what I am trying to do for you, would be about 730

individuals. That is what it would amount to. Unfortunately, I do not have

information here with me to be able to tell you how many we may have

transitioned into the workforce or got labour force attachment, but I am

comfortable in saying to you there would be a number of them. As Mr. Butler

indicated, some of them, sure, may have left the Province seeking other work or

other opportunities. It is our experience that we do create labour force

attachment with some of the initiatives that we have and some of those people

then move into that category.

MS MICHAEL: Hearing that it amounts to 730 individuals helps me, because

that was going to be my next question; how much per person is spent on income

support.

MR. SKINNER: That is an approximate number.

MS MICHAEL: That is an approximate number. Okay, that gives me something

to work with then. That I can deal with. Thank you.

I am going to come back a bit then. Let me see. That one is okay. I have to

check and see what Mr. Butler covered. I do not want to go over stuff that he

asked questions on.

1.2.03, Program Development and Planning: My questions have to do with line

05 and line 10. 05, Professional Services are going up quite a bit in this

Budget. I am just wondering what the Professional Services are that you are

anticipating? Also, Grants and Subsidies have gone up. If I could have answers

for both of those lines, please, why you are anticipating having both of those

lines go up by about $200,000 each, actually?

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

I am delaying because I am just trying to figure out the $255,000 on

Professional Services, so I will jump to the Grants and Subsidies because I know

the answer to that one.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. SKINNER: I will try and organize my thoughts on the other one.

The Grants and Subsidies is just an extra amount of money we gave to Kids Eat

Smart. We increased the funding. I believe they get $500,000, if memory serves

me correctly, and we upped it to $700,000. It may be $550,000 to $750,000.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SKINNER: $500,000 to $700,000 is the number, and $50,000 from the

Department of Health. That is where the other $50,000 came from. That is the

$200,000, Ms Michael.

WITNESS: The rest of it is (inaudible).

MR. SKINNER: The other amount - I indicated the Professional Services -

is the Property Reduction Strategy. We have some research and evaluation

positions, some people who are evaluating some of initiatives that we have under

Poverty Reduction Strategy. Again, as I said, we are trying to really get some

comprehensive data to see if the initiatives that were undertaken are really

have a meaningful impact. We needed to get some resource, basically, to be able

to evaluate that, so that is where that money is being spent.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Thank you very much.

The next page,

section 2.1.01, there has been quite a jump in salaries there,

$1.6 million. I think I am doing my math correct on this one, because I did it

ahead of time. What is that about?

MR. SKINNER: Yes. We did have approved salary increases to normal steps,

collective agreements and all of that. It actually adds up to $472,000 of that

amount. Then, we have a bunch of new positions that were approved in this year's

Budget, which is about another $1.45 million. That would be our CIRC centres,

our Career Information Resource Centres, career development specialists -

MS MICHAEL: All of those new positions are coming under that?

MR. SKINNER: Yes, all of those are coming out of that amount.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. SKINNER: Liaison social workers is another important one that we

have. There are around sixty-five people.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I remember all of that from the Budget, but this is where it is all coming

from.

MR. SKINNER: I am being told, Ms Michael, just for your information,

thirty-six of them actually come from that budget target but there are others

within the department that would come from others.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is helpful, thank you.

Under Purchased Services, there is a fair increase there of $180,000. What

are you anticipating under Purchased Services this year that is new?

MR. SKINNER: I will try and explain it to you. I may have to defer to

staff on this for a better explanation but I will give you my take on it.

The thirty-six new positions that we are bringing in, there is a piece of

work that has to be done to be able to accommodate that influx of staff and so

we have some services that we will be requiring to assist us with that.

MS CAUL: Like office supplies, travel, typical things that a person,

while they are doing their day to day work, need, those kinds of expenditures.

MS MICHAEL: As a Purchased Service? Well Supplies and Transportation,

they are two other lines.

MS CAUL: I guess, all told, all those increases together. All of those

increases are directly related to the new initiatives that we want to roll out

next year. It is the salaries associated with that, the travel associated with

that, the purchases of supplies, all of those kinds of things. I do not know if

there is anything else unusual.

WITNESS: Printing and photocopying.

MS CAUL: Printing, photocopying, those kinds of materials, but they are

related to those new initiatives that we are going to initiate next year like

the CIRC that the minister had mentioned and the expansion of the Graduate

Recruitment Program and the other employment programs that we have. These are

all the costs that are associated with running that: salaries, travel, office

supplies. It is all in those numbers here.

MS MICHAEL: You are putting Supplies and Transportation under Purchased

Services. They are not Purchased Services.

MS CAUL: I guess all I am saying is that there is a $249,000 increase in

Transportation and Communications as well.

MS MICHAEL: Right and that I see.

I am just trying to understand what would be under Purchased Services because

I do understand the increase under Transportation and Supplies.

MR. SKINNER: If I could; I guess what we are trying to say, and we are

not doing a good job of explaining it, it that -

MS MICHAEL: No, I am not getting it. It might be me. I am not good in the

morning.

MR. SKINNER: - there is a significant amount of work that will be done in

us trying to promote these new initiatives and launch these new initiatives

across the Province. So when we go and open a CIRC or have the availability of a

new liaison social worker we will be promoting that to the clients, to the

constituents, so there may be things like posters, radio spots, whatever we

decide to do with that. That is what that money is being used for, to let people

know that we have these extra services and extra people within our offices that

they can avail of.

MS MICHAEL: You would probably be contracting out some of that work?

MR. SKINNER: I would think we would. I am being told that under the

initiatives that we have we expect we would contract out most of that design

type of work.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much. That makes sense.

Section 4.1.02., LMDA Projects - I should know this from my past work,

shouldn't I? This all has to do with the LMDA, the agreements and the

initiatives. All of these line items, are these the expenditures of the

initiatives, not expenditures inside the department. In other words, the money

comes into the department and gets funneled out to the initiatives? Is that

correct?

MR. SKINNER: I would defer to some of my accounting people for that.

MS CAUL: I assume you are talking about the $6 million.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is correct.

MS CAUL: Yes, the federal Labour Market Development Agreement is a $132

million to $133 million agreement.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS CAUL: We get to deliver $6 million of that directly by the Province.

It has not been identified as to exactly what it is going to be spent on at this

particular point in time, but there is always an allowance put into the

provincial Budget of about $6 million to carry our projects. If we do not spend

the full $6 million, the remainder goes back to the $132 million to $133 million

federal pot and it gets spent through there. So, the full $132 million or the

$133 million will be spent, it is just that we have direct control over about $6

million of it.

MS MICHAEL: Right. I guess my question is: The $3 million for salaries,

that is not for salaries inside of the government, that is for salaries in the

initiatives?

MS CAUL: Yes, that is correct.

MS MICHAEL: That is my question. I just wanted to get a full

understanding. I figured that from my past experience, but I just wanted to be

sure about that.

CHAIR: Ms Michael, if you are finished on that point then we will move to

someone else and come back to you.

MS MICHAEL: Sure, and if my others do not get covered I will come back.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Ball.

MR. BALL: Yes, just a few questions.

Under 3.1.02, this is the $80,000 again, 09, Allowances and Assistance. We

did not spend that money. Could you give me some idea who could apply for that

under the National Child Benefit. I am just surprised that $80,000 was not

spent.

MR. SKINNER: If I could, Mr. Ball, I will ask Jennifer if she would do

that one.

MS JEANS: The people who are eligible for that have to meet an income

test and there is a certain income level. I think it is around $23,000. The

number of people who have taken advantage of this over the past few years has

declined. It reflects changing demographics as well. We do promote the program

through advertisements and so on in that. So, it is less take up; less people

eligible.

MR. BALL: Any discussion around maybe rising the threshold so that more

people could apply, take it, let's say, from $23,000 to $25,000.

MS JEANS: There has not been discussion on this. This has been tied to

the threshold of the National Child Benefit. We have raised the threshold in the

past, but it has to be done in sync with what the federal government does. I do

not have a lot of past history of that. If you would like for us to follow up,

we could provide a bit more information.

MR. BALL. Okay.

Under 4.1.01 on page 211, Grants and Subsidies, line item 10, an extra $2.5

million: Could I just get an example of how this program works?

MR. SKINNER: You are referring to the $8.7 million, Mr. Ball?

MR. BALL: Yes, I am.

MR. SKINNER: What I am going to do, Mr. Ball, is we have a list of the

kinds of organizations, I think that might help you in terms of understanding

the kinds of groups we are helping. I will just ask that they give you some

examples of that, and then if you have further follow-up, we can entertain that.

MS JEANS: Under this one, we have new employment business development

projects to help build employment in rural areas. That is something similar to

what the Random North Development Association is doing out in the region with

their program called Bridging the Gap, where we work with the communities and

businesses in the area in new or emerging sectors and we provide or support,

through that type of model, a combination of workplace literacy, skills

development and work, sort of all on the job. It is a combination and an

initiative that entails a combination of aspects.

What Bridging the Gap does is they work with an employer who has a need, and

it is a new and emerging business. They will take employees on. They work with

the College of the North Atlantic to provide a literacy development, as well as

skills training that relates to the required skills on the job, as well as work

experience. So, it is for people who often are either on income support or are

unemployed and they do not want to spend a whole lot of time in training or

getting basic literacy. It is provided all in one in the workplace.

MR. SKINNER: Just as a follow-up, Mr. Ball, there are a number of various

kinds of initiatives that we have. I am just looking at some of the

documentation I have. They range from new employment business development

projects to working with community partners that we would provide funding for to

assist with that. Some of it involves assisting income support clients in terms

of pursuing their education, training or work experience goals. There is a bit

of it that looks like it is related to ABE placement support, Adult Basic

Education placement support. So, there are a variety of initiatives like that

and a bunch of programs that we would have.

Actually, I will give you an example. Tonight, as a matter of fact, I will be

going down to the Delta Hotel to attend a graduation of a group called Making It

Work. It is actually our second group, Making It Work II. These are

approximately fifteen to twenty clients that we have partnered with. The Fortis

Group of Companies came to us as a department and indicated they were having

trouble recruiting people for housekeeping, wait service, maintenance in the

hotels and so on, the properties that they own, so we did an advertisement

amongst our clients and had, I believe, sixty or seventy income support clients

express an interest. We took one group of about fifteen that graduated a couple

of weeks ago. Now, tonight, we will have a second group graduate. They were put

through, approximately, a five to seven-week program - I am not sure of the

exact length of time - where they got some basic education and educational

skills, but, more importantly, they got some specific skills related to the

industry they are going into. We funded those clients while they did that

training. Fortis provided the training location, the training opportunities, and

those people now are being employed by Fortis.

So, they went from being an income support client of ours six or seven weeks

ago to, tonight they will graduate and they will have jobs with the Fortis Group

of Companies doing various things within their properties; basically, full-time

jobs. Some of the training they got was industry certification, and Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador was a partner in that. That is the kind of money we

are talking about there. That is the kind of initiative that we are doing there

to get people off income support and giving them a labour force attachment.

MR. BALL: Thank you.

Subhead 4.1.01. - the same page, 211 - there was $300,000, I guess, in the

budget last year spent under the same program. What I do not see attached to

this program - I am just wondering where the salaries would be for the people

who actually administer this program? Where would they be captured?

MR. SKINNER: Go ahead, Brenda.

MS CAUL: Is this 4.1.02, the Salaries from $3 million in 2006-2007 to $2

million revised and then up to $3 million? Is that the line you are talking

about?

MR. BALL: No, I am sorry. It is still under the same category, 4.1.01. I

do not see any salaries for that particular area. I am just wondering where they

are captured?

MS CAUL: I am sorry. Okay.

MR. SKINNER: The indication is, Mr. Ball, that back in 1.2.03., Program

Development and Planning, that salary burden is the salary burden that is used

to work with the Employment Development Programs in 4.1.01. So 1.2.03, Program

Development and Planning, there is a salary line item there and that is the

salary line item that reflects 4.1.01.

MR. BALL: Okay, thank you.

WITNESS: There are others as well.

MR. SKINNER: And others as well, I am told. They are not just

specifically for that, but for others as well.

MR. BALL: The same page, 211, 4.1.02., Transportation and Communications,

line item 03. We only spent $400,000 of a $1.3 million budget for there. Is

there an explanation for this?

That is the LMDA projects again.

MR. SKINNER: This, again, is part of the money that we talk about from

the federal commitment. For the projects that were approved, we only needed to

use $400,000 of that for transportation and communications based on the projects

that were approved. So that money then reverted into the federal pot of $132

million that we referred to earlier. That would have been spent then in other

areas or others ways, but we only needed to utilize, based on the projects we

had, $400,000 for that particular line item. If do not need to spend it, it goes

back into the general federal pot and it gets spent within the Province on other

initiatives that they may have.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. SKINNER: Client service issues, yes.

MR. BALL: On page 212, 4.1.04.10., Grants and Subsidies, this is for

Employment Assistance Programs for Persons with Disabilities. What I am

wondering about here is how this applies throughout the Province? Is this in

every office? Obviously, there is going to be another - what do we have, $1.4

million spent here this year?

MR. SKINNER: Well, we have funded it to a greater extent, yes. In terms

of, if it is available in every office, the programs are available right across

the Province, yes. So, any service that we offer is available across the

Province. We just targeted this year - this particular program is one that we

felt we wanted to try and do more with, so we increased the funding level to try

and provide more assistance and assistance programs for people who have

disabilities.

MR. BALL: Yes, I agree with that. What are we finding throughout the

Province? Is this evenly distributed, do you think, or is it more - do you find

there is more of an uptake on the, let's say, the Avalon versus the West Coast

versus Labrador?

MR. SKINNER: I will say to you that one of the items in there was - we

had a special request this year coming from the Vera Perlin Society. They are

doing a capital project to build a new facility and they asked us to make a

contribution to it, so we approved $500,000 toward that. So, $500,000 of that

amount will be used by the Vera Perlin Society. I am assuming you are familiar

with them and the work they do?

MR. BALL: Yes.

MR. SKINNER: So, that is part of it. Then in terms of the take up on the

programs, again, a lot of that really is sort of trying to meet the needs as you

see them. I am comfortable in saying the majority of our services related to

that would be in the greater St. John's-Avalon area.

MR. PENNY: I think it is fair to say that the Avalon region is more

active. A lot depends on the ability of the community or the interest of the

community, the number of people with disabilities in the communities, but

services, generally, are available throughout the Province.

CHAIR: Okay, Mr. Ball, we will move on and we will come back to you.

MR. BALL: Thank you.

CHAIR: Are you finished the point on that?

MR. BALL: Yes, I am. Thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler will be next.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, Sir.

Under 4.1.03., Grants and Subsidies, I was just wondering, the Budget last

year was $250,000, this year it was Revised to $11,000 and this year the

Estimate is $1.8 million. I was just wondering if you could -

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Butler, that is a cost-shared program with the federal

government, the new program, a targeted initiative for older workers. There is a

new program this year where the feds and the Province will be cost-sharing

initiatives related to older workers, and that is where that money comes from.

It is a 70-30 breakdown on the money; seventy for the feds, thirty for the

Province.

MR. BUTLER: Under the heading there it says: address major permanent

layoffs. When you refer to major permanent layoffs, could you elaborate on where

that could have taken place?

MR. SKINNER: I guess what we are talking about is people who have had a

career in a particular industry. In our own Province, I guess, you could be

talking of people who may be involved in pulp and paper or the fishing industry.

I have a couple of constituents who have been involved in office work for

twenty, twenty-two years and they are now forty-five, forty-seven and have been

laid off and been declared redundant. These are the kinds of people, and the

situations they find themselves in, that we would be trying to work with

targeting older workers to get them back into a workforce.

MR. BUTLER: Is this a new program?

MR. SKINNER: Yes, it is brand new program.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. That is why the figures were lower the previous year

and so on?

MR. SKINNER: Exactly.

Just for clarification. You will notice underneath there, Revenue, $1.5

million of it comes from the federal government, 70 per cent of the funding, and

30 per cent we cost share with them.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

I just want to touch on, minister, the Kids Eat Smart Program, which is a

wonderful program. I am not downing the program whatsoever. Back in 2005 when

the Budget came down the figure that used to be used there was $500,000. It was

reduced to $250,000. The reason given by the minister at the time was: Well,

those people got a lot of money coming in from various groups, corporate

donations, and all they would have is a pot of money there. The figure that was

used at that time, there would be a surplus of $483,000 that they would have. In

other words, $250,000 was taken away to go into some other program. That

$250,000 has gone back to make it $500,000. Now this year there is another

$250,000.

What has changed in this Province? I asked the same question last night

because it was under the heading under health a little bit there, because like

you said earlier: $50,000 or whatever, they put in.

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The answer I was given is that there are additional schools

this year, but to go from saying two years ago that they have lots of money and

we are taking some away, to now increasing it by $500,000 within two years. What

is happening out there? What is causing this major turnaround of events in the

span of two years?

MR. SKINNER: As I understand it - and I have met with officials from Kids

Eat Smart in the last thirty or forty days to discuss the grant that we provide

to them. It is my understanding that the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, a couple of

years ago, as you indicated, did have surplus funds. The sustaining grant that

they needed from the provincial government did not need to be as large as it was

because they could use their sustaining funds to do the work that they wanted to

do. The grant was reduced, as I understand it, from $500,000 down to $250,000 or

whatever the number was. They have since utilized that surplus that they had, or

those extra funds that they had, in providing the services that they are

providing. They are reaching out to more schools and it is my understanding that

their plan this year is to get into even more schools than what they have been.

They have more requests. The reason they came back to us was they said that

people are realizing that the program is a good program, it does work. They feel

that it is providing better academic results in the schools because the children

are getting fed nutritious meals in the mornings, and they want to continue to

be able to provide that to the school communities that are coming to them.

In terms of what has changed, the program is recognized as being a successful

program and more people want to participate with it.

MR. BUTLER: I guess, having said that, it also means that two years ago I

am sure the need that is in those additional schools that are coming on stream

now, back at that time, even though they may have had the funding there. What I

am saying is, surely government must have seen the need was there in other areas

and all of a sudden it is coming to light that they are going to put additional

money into it.

I know government has a strategy on poverty. Is this saying that there is a

major problem out there with regards to that issue linked into the same program

for the kids? Like I said, it is a wonderful program. I have two schools in my

district and I visit them regularly when they have their functions. It is a

wonderful program, but it concerns me too. There must be a major problem out

there that we are not seeing in order for government to see now that this

massive amount of money has to go in there when they thought there was no need

of it just two years ago. I know you have answered it, probably what I am

rehashing again now.

MR. SKINNER: Again, I can only speak to two years ago what I understood

the situation to be. I do not think that there was not a recognition two years

ago of whether there was or was not a problem. I do not view Kids Eat Smart as

resolving a problem. I view it as being a service, a service level that is being

provided upon request, and something in a positive sense, not in a problem

sense. The money, as I understand it, two years ago was reduced because Kids Eat

Smart had their own funds. It is as simple as that. It was not a matter that

government did not see a problem, or did not want to recognize the problem, Kids

Eat Smart had enough of their own funds to be able to fund their operations and

required less of a sustaining grant from government. They have now come back and

indicated that they no longer have surplus funds, they actually have more

schools, more school communities, that recognize the benefit of what they are

doing and they want to be able to expand their reach and that is why we are

going to increase the funding to them.

MR. BUTLER: It probably also says that the corporate donations, or

whatever they were getting, was probably reduced to some degree.

MR. SKINNER: My understanding is, in certain geographic locations it is

almost nil. They do not get any because there are no corporates to donate to

them. They are trying to do their fundraising in their own small little

community and it is the same pocket you are reaching into all the time.

The cost of the meals in some of those areas is 100 per cent funded from Kids

Eat Smart,

whereas in other areas, like here in the greater Avalon area, they

get a lot of corporate support and the meals do not cost Kids Eat Smart nearly

as much.

MR. BUTLER: I do not have the figures here with me, Minister, but I know

last year one of the major concerns - and there was a chart showing people under

the age of thirty who were in the system, we will say, for Income Support. I am

wondering what can you release to me on that today with regards to - I know you

said the number there earlier is $5 million savings. I am wondering what

percentage of that would have been, say, that group of people that the major

concern was about. We will always have people who will require Income Support,

but when you are talking about our youth from thirty years down, I am wondering

has that figure changed much, when you mentioned earlier that there is $5

million less this year being spent as versus the previous year?

MR. SKINNER: I can give you some statistics on that, Mr. Butler.

Hopefully they will answer it. Currently, we have approximately 26,000 people

receiving Income Support. About 75 per cent of those people are over the thirty

years of age mark, so obviously 25 per cent of them are less than thirty.

Having said that, though, I believe around half of our new Income Support

applicants are youth.

MR. BUTLER: Half of new ones?

MR. SKINNER: Yes. Approximately now, I do not have the specific number,

but about half of them would be youth. In terms of educational level, about 55

per cent of that group have less than high school education. So education is a

key part of what we need to be working on with those people. We need to be

getting them back into the school system and into skills training and educating

them.

MR. PENNY: Just to be clear, the number of people applying for income

support is less but 50 per cent of those who apply are young people. So, less

people applying.

MR. BUTLER: I know, throughout our questioning today, there are a lot of

programs for training, and like you said it is going in that direction. What

percentage - or maybe you would not have this figure either - but what

percentage of this group of individuals we are referring to here would be taking

part versus people over thirty? Are there people coming into the system saying -

I know there are some for sure who want to retrained and get into the system and

what have you.

MR. SKINNER: I do not have numbers that I can give you on that but I will

say to you that the focus of the department is to try and become more of an

activist or interventionist in terms of getting people moved along, in terms of

trying to educate and skill them, as apposed to passively providing income

support. We believe our role is, when somebody comes to us looking for income

support, certainly we have to assess and apply that to them. The other thing we

feel we need to do is show them and assist them with the opportunities that are

out there, that we may be able to transition them to another stage of their

life, be that back into ABE, high school, post-secondary, career skills

training, whatever it may be. We try to sort of provide that continuum for them

that, yes, your current situation is such that you may be in need of income

support but here are the other programs and services we offer where we try to

move you along.

I do not have factual information right here in front of me to be able to

give you a breakdown on that.

MR. BUTLER: When you mention under thirty, would you have an approximate

figure? Would it be people who just do not finish school and as soon as they get

out of high school they are trying to receive income support? Is there any

figure there or would they be all older than that, in their mid to late

twenties? Is there any figure like that for instance?

MR. SKINNER: In terms of breaking it down even further by age?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. SKINNER: We could capture it. I only have it here from eighteen to

twenty-nine. Your question would be when they are eighteen and coming out of

high school, how many of them -

MR. BUTLER: When they finish high school: That is it, I am finished it

and I am going out and try to get income support.

What I am trying to say is, if you had that figure there and 50 per cent you

are saying is under thirty, and 50 per cent of that figure is just high school

students who are leaving, then that says something, not regards to your

department, but we have to do something in the education system too to try to

break that barrier before they really get out and then down the road, maybe

their late twenties or early thirties, here you are trying to retrain them again

to get them back into the system.

MR. SKINNER: We can get that. I understand your point. We can certainly

get that information. I do not have it here, so we will make a note and I will

provide that to members of the Committee.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler, if you are finished that point we will move it back to

Ms Michael.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

CHAIR: Are you okay on that one, on that point?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will continue with the youth then, under subhead 4.1.05. Obviously, this

is a brand new initiative of the federal government with the Province, a

federal-provincial project. Could we have some information about this? Is it a

particular project that would have its own program, or will the money from this

project go into other things that the Province is already doing with regard to

youth, or is this going to have its own particular program? If so, has that been

determined yet, what the program is?

MR. SKINNER: It is a particular program.

This will be Youth Connect. I just want to be sure.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. SKINNER: It is a particular program, Ms Michael. We call it Youth

Connect. I will give you the Coles Notes version of it and based on whatever

followup you may have I may have to refer the staff to give you more detail.

We are going to run this program this year where we are going to try and do

two streams of youth coming into our system. It will be done randomly, so when

people apply for income support, come to the department and we identify them as

youth, some of them will be put through a stream that will be, I will call it,

the normal stream, and go through the system we have today, and others will be

siphoned off into this Youth Connect stream. The purpose of that is we will

provide, on a pilot basis, more intensive interventions and different options

than what we are currently providing to youth who apply to us for income

support.

The purpose of that will be to see if, using some of these new interventions

and these new options that we are going to pilot, we are able to make a

substantial difference in the length of time the individual receives income

support and in the services, be they educational or otherwise, that they avail

of from the department. We are trying something a little bit different to move

youth off income support, but give them something more to allow them to make

that transition. There will be face-to-face supports, there will be counseling

supports, there will be, if I remember, financial incentive for so much extra, I

believe.

Do you remember how much it is?

MS CAUL: No.

The big difference of this program is that we will have some funding to

provide participants for skills training. Normally, we have not been able to

support that. As well, the career development specialists who will be a part of

this will have a smaller caseload that will allow them to do some intensive

counseling. Many of the young people who come on income support have other

issues that they need to address, so we can work with them to get them the

supports that they need and for the first time be able to offer financial

supports for skills development, so attending CONA or wherever that would fit

with their employment plan.

MS MICHAEL: I presume you will be taking so many from various areas of

the Province, will you?

MR. SKINNER: There will be gender analysis done on it, it will be

geographic, all of those kinds of things.

MS MICHAEL: Has the federal government indicated - I am hoping this is

not a one-year thing, that this is going to be long-term and can then be

evaluated.

MR. SKINNER: It is a three-year pilot. Obviously, there will be a lot of

research done and a lot of information and data captured and then we will use

that to help us on a go forward basis.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Finally for me, 6.1.01. Needless to say, I am delighted to see more money

going into the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism and I am looking

forward to see things play out with regard to the strategy, the immigration

strategy.

Will all of these salaries and everything be centered just in one office here

in St. John's?

MR. SKINNER: I believe all of them are. I will say this to you, Ms

Michael, initially yes is the answer, but I would also say to you that because

it is a new initiative one of the things we will be looking at - and we have

talked about it but it is not something that we have actioned yet - is we

recognize there is going to have to be movement throughout the Province. We just

have not determined yet where and when the needs to happen. The answer to your

question is, yes, with the proviso that I think that may change over time.

MS MICHAEL: I think that is it for me, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Michael.

We are back then to Mr. Ball.

MR. BALL: I am done, thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, I have two or three other questions.

CHAIR: You have stronger batteries than the rest of them.

MR. BUTLER: Duracell.

Just a couple of things to clue up with, I guess. It takes me back to the

first question. I always go back to the office closures in the different areas.

One of the things that I see now - and that is why I asked earlier if there

were any savings from that, and no doubt there had to be.

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Is that money invested back into the investigation system?

Because, I will tell you - like, for instance, I have to go back to my area,

Port de Grave district, in Bay Roberts. When the staff were there in that office

it was almost like they were living in their own home - not the building part,

but the district - and they knew everything that was going on. They knew their

clients, they knew who was coming in, they knew what they were doing, whether it

was right or wrong, and really they did not have to move outside to get the

message. Now I sense that people are not there dealing one on one. There are

things happening that should not be happening.

I am just wondering, is there enough put into the investigation side of it to

correct it? Because I think things are going out of whack from that perspective:

that people are not there with hands on. I referenced different issues with

regard to, if someone was supposed to be renting in this unit and you are paying

the rent, they probably are not there, they are only there part time, and there

are things going on. When the staff had hands on, they could catch up on all of

this. Is the system, do you think, working properly with the investigation that

is in place?

MR. SKINNER: I will start off by saying, in terms of the savings that

were realized, the majority of those savings went back into what we call our

CEYS division: Career, Employment and Youth Services. We reinvested those

savings to try and transition youth off income support into workforce attachment

or educational attachment.

To go to the second point you make in terms of the investigative side of the

department, I can tell you that, as minister, I receive mostly e-mails - I will

get the odd phone call, but mostly e-mails - from people alleging that so-and-so

is doing such-and-such and so on. I refer those to the appropriate personnel. We

have a protocol and a system that we follow. I will tell you that the majority

of the ones that I have received and passed along came back telling me that

there was no inappropriate activity happening. Somebody says that so-and-so is

working now and getting his income support and is not telling the local office

about it. When, in fact, we check into it, that person very appropriately has

indicated to us that they are receiving some income from other sources and have

been declaring it and, accordingly, their income support payment is reduced.

My experience in the short time I have been minister is that, when we have

actioned on some of those items that have come in, people who are on the system

have, for the most part, been very honest and up front with the department in

describing their circumstances to us as they change on a go-forward basis. My

experience has been that there is a lot of suspicion but not a lot of truth to

some of that suspension.

MR. BUTLER: I know that back a couple of years ago the department entered

into a contract with Telelink. Is Telelink still being used for any reason now

through your system?

MR. SKINNER: I am not aware. I will look to my officials, but I am not

aware of anything with Telelink.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. SKINNER: No.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

This is not a major earth-shattering question, but I know that when the

Auditor General's report came down last year he felt there was a lack of

adequate recording keeping within the department. I was just wondering what he

was referencing there. I thought everything was wonderful within the department.

MR. SKINNER: I am going to ask one of my officials who might feel they

know something about that to help me.

WITNESS: What specific...?

MR. BUTLER: I just remembered, it just came to my mind, I think it was

the Auditor General. Maybe it wasn't your department - if it isn't, I

apologize - different departments that he named, that he felt that record

keeping was not appropriate or up to par. What he thought, now, not saying there

was anything wrong, because auditors look at things different than everybody

else.

MR. SKINNER: I am not aware of it, and it appears that my staff is not.

Maybe to help you, I do remember reading some documentation from Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing where there was some issue around documentation related to

rental receipts and stuff. It might have been under the general umbrella, Mr.

Butler, but it might have been Housing.

MR. BUTLER: For my last question, I go back to the Mother/Baby Nutrition

Supplement. It has to do with that, because I guess when we classify mother/baby

we are talking about infant children and what have you.

I have had the occasion recently to speak with two teachers in elementary

schools. Like they said, they don't know how to bring it to the forefront

because it places them in an awkward position. One of the things they are

finding, and I know through Health and Community Services they are bringing in a

Wellness Program and the full bit, but the concern - and it is not only in the

one area; I have had calls from people in different areas - is kids in

Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2.

I am probably a poor one to speak about this, when we talk about obesity,

because I have not lived up to the rules either, but what they are finding is

that small children, they have told me - now, whether this is 100 per cent

accurate or not, they are reliable people who told me - they find that children

who unfortunately are in families who are in receipt of income support - now, I

am not saying they are not getting enough money to do it; maybe the money is not

spent properly, and that is another issue, but - they find that those kids, some

of them who are obese, are in those families, and what they are hearing is that

they just cannot afford to buy the proper foods for them.

I am wondering, is that a concern that has been expressed? I don't know

what you can do about it - I am not saying your department can do very much

about it - but it seems to be a concern that now is coming forward from a new

front, the teachers who are dealing with it, and they said those kids, when they

go to the gym, the Wellness Program, unfortunately they cannot take

part in a

lot of the activities. They are stemming it back, whether rightly or wrongly, to

families who are, unfortunately, in receipt of income support.

MR. SKINNER: Yes, Mr. Butler, it is a concern. I have grave concern over

that, and see instances like that almost on a daily basis when I