Social Services Committee — Department of Education's Estimates — 12 May 1998
1998-05-12
Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
May 12, 1998
SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in Room 5083,
Confederation Building.
Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Perry Canning, MHA
for Labrador West, substitutes for Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains.
CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!
We would like to convene this meeting of the Social
Services Committee. We are missing one member but I believe Mary is en route.
Just before we get started, I will ask the members
of the Committee, starting at my far left, to identify themselves.
MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name
is Perry Canning, and I am the Member for Labrador West. I am representing,
today, Wally Andersen from the mighty Torngats.
MR. G. REID: Gerry Reid, Twillingate - Fogo.
MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, District of Humber East
and Chair.
MR. SULLIVAN: Loyola Sullivan, Ferryland.
MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, Waterford Valley.
MS S. OSBORNE: Sheila Osborne, St. John's West.
MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, Harbour Main -
Whitbourne.
CHAIR: Thank you.
We will follow the usual procedures. We will ask
the minister to introduce her staff and to make some introductory comments. We
will then ask the Vice-Chair to lead off the questioning. We will then alternate
between the members until all the questions have been asked. I believe, Harvey,
you wish to leave at 8:00 p.m. or thereabouts?
MR. H. HODDER: If you are lucky I will.
CHAIR: Oh, well, in that case we will
definitely alternate.
MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Okay.
Before we start, perhaps I could ask for a motion
to approve the minutes of the May 5 meeting of the Committee. The Committee met
that evening to discuss the Department of Education's Estimates.
On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR: Thank you kindly. Minister?
MS BETTNEY: Well, in terms of introductions of
the officials who are here with me, to my immediate left is Dave Roberts, who is
our Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services; to his left is George
Skinner, our Assistant Deputy Minister for Regional Services and Transition; to
my right is Alison Earle, the ADM for Programmes and Planning. My deputy
minister is unfortunately not in the Province. She is away right now and was
unable to attend. Seated behind me - I am not quite sure in what order - we have
Don Kavanagh, who is the Director of Finance and General Operations; Wayne
Penney, the Director of Income Support; and Ray Franey, who is the Director of
Employment and Careers. These represent the major functional areas in my
department. So that is who we are.
In terms of opening comments, Mr. Chair, I would
like to proceed. I will make my opening comments rather brief and leave the time
really for some questions and discussion in terms of responses.
As everybody is aware, this has been a year of
transition for the staff of the Department of Human Resources and Employment. On
April 1, the divisions of child welfare, community corrections, open custody and
family rehabilitative services, were integrated with the newly created
Department of Health and Community Services. That whole transition took place,
as was indicated in the previous year in the budget, with the intent of
integrating all of the services associated with children and families, and
general health and well-being under that Department of Health and Community
Services.
This department of Human Resources and Employment
is primarily focused, of course, on providing income support for those who
require supports for their most basic needs, and require help in getting into
the labour market. The whole intention of the department is to take an active
approach towards supporting people towards employment, and to use active
employment measures to support people towards making that move into the labour
market. We have a number of strategic goals but I think the most significant of
those is that we know that in this transition, and in reforming how we approach
income support, we need to break the dependency and encourage self-reliance in
our clients. We know that we have specific populations who have specific needs,
very special needs. Some of them I would categorize in terms of sectors. We are
looking at youth, we are looking at women, we are looking at people with
disabilities in particular, as three groups who have specific employment needs
and we know that we have to address those.
We are intent, as a goal right now in our
department, on reshaping and reforming our whole approach to income support so
that it does link income support and labour market policies in an active kind of
way. In addition to that, because of a lot of the consultation that has taken
place, we also know that we have to develop meaningful opportunities for people
in their communities. We have to provide some kind of employment strategies that
bridge both the private sector and the public or not-for-profit sectors as well,
and we cannot do it alone. We have to do it in partnership with those other
levels of government, with the volunteer community, and very much with the
private sector as well. Of course, the overall intent is tackling this issue,
which came up in the House today, which is one of our primary concerns in terms
of the level of particularly child poverty, and is a main goal that our
department is focused on.
A lot of the changes we are going through - me in
taking a different approach to our clients - if you were to look at our
department as it is today and as it has been, it is primarily focused on
providing support to people in the form of cheques. It is income support. I
would say that 95 per cent of our staff, as we exist today, is dedicated towards
really delivering that income support. Only a very small portion is devoted to
helping clients find jobs, really supporting them towards employment.
When we make the full transition within the next
three years, our goal is to have at least 70 per cent of our staff's time
directed at working with clients to help them identify what they can do to find
employment. We are talking about a major shift in emphasis and in the whole
orientation of our department and the staff who are working with them. I think
with that you will see our clients taking a different view too of what
government provides when they come for income support, and what the links with
employment are.
We are changing the program. Obviously you cannot
make that kind of real fundamental change without changing the program that
delivers income support, so we are in the process now of developing a new income
support system. It will be based on a real point of entry system for clients, it
will be much less obtrusive, that will enable people to access the basic
supports that they need, but also, in terms of finances, the services they
require. We see that happening, as I say, in a much less invasive and intrusive
manner that is much more respectful of people's dignity in the whole process.
Because we realize this is a continuing issue when you talk of social services,
as people know, the main service of this department in terms of income support.
We have a number of partnerships that we are
working towards and developing more fully, and of course one of our key partners
is the federal government. We have the private sector and also the community
agencies. When we look at the employment services and the resources that we use
in employment programs, in a large part the federal government is our main
partner there. We will continue to work with the federal government through, for
example, the Labour Market Development Agreement because of the active
employment measures that are involved in the funding that goes with the Labour
Market Development Agreement. That fund this year will provide in the order of
about $106 million for active employment measures to this Province for people
who have an attachment to the workforce. As I say, it is very complimentary to
the kinds of employment programs we have provincially.
Of course, another major piece of the partnership
is the National Child Benefit program. This year, because of the contribution in
the introduction of this program from the federal government, we will have
available to us what amounts to, and it is prorated out at $7.7 million in this
fiscal year, but in actuality on an annual basis is $10.15 million for programs
and services to take a preventive and an early intervention approach to
addressing some of the issues that affect poverty for children and their
families. As I indicated today, I think most people would recognize that the
best way out of poverty for children and their families is through employment.
Therefore, this national strategy focuses on strengthening the links for people
to move into employment and to move into the workforce.
The variety of programs that we have dedicated in
our National Child Benefit initiatives do two things. They try and support the
transition, but they also recognize, as a result of major studies that have been
done in the past - the Children's Interests Report, the Select Committee's
report from the House on children, and as well the Strategic Social Plan - that
there are some pieces of early childhood development and family services that
simply are not available in the Province today that have to be there if we are
going to eliminate some of the systemic and root problems that cause poverty in
this Province.
The money that is available, through the infusion
of resources by the federal government in the form of the National Child Benefit
program, gives us this opportunity to establish some of these programs that we
have wanted to establish and I think successive governments have wanted to put
in place for so many years but simply have not had the opportunity to do so.
I guess in terms of a concluding comment, the
common theme that runs through the changes - and there are very profound changes
taking place through my department on the social scene - is that we are taking a
proactive approach to trying to address issues that are associated with
employment, with income. We believe that this will be the answer and this will
provide some of the solutions to increasing and promoting people's self-reliance
and independence to building a real solid foundation for children and families
throughout this Province, and ultimately for reducing the levels of poverty that
concern all of us as people experience them in their communities and in their
daily lives.
Having said that as a kind of overview, I will stop
there and be available to respond to questions.
CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. I will now ask the
Clerk if she would call the first head and we will then view the discussions
under that one head. Then we will turn it over to Loyola. Harvey, out of
deference to the fact you are leaving at 8:00 p.m., you may go immediately after
the vice-chair.
CLERK: 1.1.01.
CHAIR: I am being very kind.
MR. H. HODDER: I know you are.
CHAIR: It is uncharacteristic.
MR. H. HODDER: I know, I'm surprised. There is
still hope for the rest of the Liberal Party.
CHAIR: Any time you want to join.
MR. SULLIVAN: I was intending, Mr. Chairman, to
defer to him, but seeing it is twenty after and he is going to get a chance to
go second I will not give him that courtesy. That way I will be able to limit
his time and serve our interests quite well.
MR. H. HODDER: These are my friends.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: He got selected for a
parliamentary trip today (inaudible) number of people here so I think he has
done well today.
Actually, I have a variety of questions there. I
will make sure that Harvey gets an opportunity, probably for twenty minutes,
before he leaves, the same that I could use at the beginning. I made a list. I
will just get to some of these basic changes and announcements here that
accompanied the Budget first of all, rather than just go to the specific head.
Would you prefer to move down under each head and move through it?
CHAIR: No. We called head 1.1.01 and all the
discussion will occur under that.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, sure.
CHAIR: Anything is a go.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Reference was made to
providing, I guess, some funding through the Single Parent Association of
Newfoundland. I think we refer to them as SPAN. Would that money be in a direct
disbursement to them or would it be in conjunction and expended on a continuing
basis directly from the department?
MS BETTNEY: What we are looking at is
developing with them a pilot project to test out the concept of providing a wage
supplement for single parents. Because one of the key issues they have brought
to us is the fact that oftentimes single parents, when they are making the move
into the workforce or moving in to low-paying jobs, and because of the cost of
running a household and taking care of their children, they are unable to leave
social assistance and take one of the lower-income jobs, say the under $10 to
$15 jobs.
What we are exploring with this pilot project is
what effect providing a wage supplement to people in these circumstances would
have on increasing their employability and their long-term ability to get and
keep jobs, and move further into the workforce in a manner that they can sustain
themselves.
At this point, I do not think that it is fully
decided on the nature of the funding relationship. I think there is a
possibility that we could fund the Association directly to deliver the program,
but it is also possible that they will design the nature of the program, and the
actual funding for the supplement would still come directly from the department
to the individual clients. The key is that the way it will work will be designed
by the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland in consultation with our
officials, and then they will more or less direct how the fund should be
dispensed in order to test this concept to see how it will work. These are early
days yet.
MR. SULLIVAN: The reason for asking the
question is in terms of the accountability of how it is applied, and to make
sure that it is in line with the intended purpose and the criteria there, and
whether it would be in the hands of SPAN. Not that I have any problems with
that, to be honest with you, but to insure that the proper accountability
procedures are exercised.
MS BETTNEY: In terms of accountabilities for
the overall pilot, this will be set up as a real test with stated objectives and
a specific plan developed for how the pilot should work and what we will be
testing. Then that will be evaluated. That will be part of the accountability
mechanism. As I say, I anticipate at this point, but I do not know for certain,
that the direct funding of the supplement would still go from the department to
our clients directly in the form of a supplement. I do not know if either of the
officials have any later information. It is still being discussed.
MR. SULLIVAN: So you should hope to have it up
and running in the next, what, month or so?
MS BETTNEY: That one is targeted to start up
when, Dave?
MR. ROBERTS: August or September.
MS BETTNEY: August or September for the actual
implementation date. We will test it from there.
MR. SULLIVAN: Under 3.1.01, Social Assistance
heading, page 214 - there for a quick reference -, last year there was a
budgeted amount of $251,975,500, almost $252 million that is, and an expenditure
of $234,575,500. This year of course the estimate is showing a decrease. There
has been an anticipated decrease in the amount under Social Assistance.
I was just wondering about that with reference to
the TAGS program for example. I think around 24.9 per cent, a little less than
25 per cent, of the people coming off that program had to go under the social
assistance lines. I know there is economic growth projected too, but you are
showing a decrease of $6 million over last year. Would that be attributed to, I
guess, the people under twenty-one years old now, people in the single
(inaudible)? People not availing of it in the year? Because I think that was
implemented during the year, last year I believe. I am not sure if that was -
WITNESS: At the beginning of the year.
MR. SULLIVAN: In the beginning of the year? So
we had a full year with that being applied. Well, that should not be a factor
then. Why would you have a $6 million decrease if an estimated couple of
thousand people may have to go on the social assistance lines who are falling
off the TAGS program?
MS BETTNEY: The simple answer for the roughly
$6 million difference is the fact that because of the nature of the National
Child Benefit program, where we are recovering the National Child Benefit and
using that for the re-investment program, that actually decreases the total
amount of the line item that is associated with social assistance. We would look
at the actual dollars that we are now providing as being that much less.
Having said that, there are still increases and
decreases that have netted out. For example, one of the other key factors in
what you see as this major decrease is the actual caseload numbers. You will
note that in our recurring figures we have had for the past nine months since
last April, actually for the past year now, a month over month decrease in our
social assistance caseloads. We are running now at 1994 levels. We are back to
January of 1994, and we have actually 4,000 people less on our rolls today than
we had in April of last year. That is a significant decrease.
Part of it is the single able-bodied cases that you
referred to where a policy change said that in last year's Budget we would take
into account a family's circumstances for somebody eighteen to twenty-one years
old before determining if they are eligible. That took a significant number of
people off of our case-loads. In addition to that, there has been a decrease in
the number of families and other components of our caseload throughout. That is
likewise a factor that has contributed to the fact that this number is lower
both from what it was last year, what it was revised at in mid-year, and what it
continues to be right now.
MR. SULLIVAN: Basically too, the increase to
these people would equate to an extra $4.5 million in your budget, in that ball
park, the 2 per cent increase? In spite of that we are having a drop of $6
million.
MS BETTNEY: Yes, that is right, that is
(inaudible) right.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is technically a drop of $11
million over last year. First of all, how much money was it reduced by, by
eliminating the single able-bodied? What dollar value was applied to these
people? I guess that is the number one question.
MS BETTNEY: I would think that I would have to
follow up with an actual dollar value. In terms of cases, it amounted to
approximately 1,700, Dave?
MR. ROBERTS: I would think so, yes.
MS BETTNEY: Seventeen hundred single persons
who came off our caseloads as a result of that policy change, but in terms of
the cost per caseload they were at the very low end of our cost per caseload.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is only about less than $2
million really.
MS BETTNEY: Yes. As I say, that is a low figure
for that particular part of our cases. The more significant part was the
decrease that we also had in areas like the able-bodied families and the heads
of families. Those numbers also decreased consistently throughout the year and
those are more costly cases.
MR. SULLIVAN: So what would you project this
year now would be your actual caseload for 1998-1999, compared to 1997-1998?
MS BETTNEY: We are projecting our caseload at
32,300, which is roughly where we are right now.
MR. SULLIVAN: Versus last year?
MS BETTNEY: Yes. We have added into that, in
terms of our budget figures, a projected increase of 100 cases per month over
this fiscal year. We are starting from where we are at the 32,300, give or take,
and we have projected for an increase of 100 cases per month on top of that. We
have built the budget estimates on that basis.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I still find it difficult to
see why it would be down. I guess you are anticipating a slight increase in your
caseload.
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: A 2 per cent increase over last
year, and we will still be down. Six million dollars.
MS BETTNEY: Yes. Part of it, as I say, is the
National Child Benefit, $7.7 million, that comes out of those figures
(inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but still, when you look at
putting in your the 2 per cent, that is roughly, what, $4.5 million
approximately?
MS BETTNEY: Three million dollars.
MR. SULLIVAN: So that is not 2 per cent of the
total.
MS BETTNEY: No, it is 2 per cent of the basic
rates. (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: It is only 2 per cent of the
basic.
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: So if someone is getting above
basic - that is right - for other add-on for various natures, whether medical or
whatever, it would not apply to that of course, just the basic rate.
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Then the one we just
referred to there is that $7.7 million in the next section. In 4.1.01.01 there
was a $600,000 budget under Salaries, and an expenditure of $1.1 million, and
this year we are back to $667,800. Why was there a half-million dollar
expenditure over what was originally budgeted? What could that be attributed to?
MS BETTNEY: In this area, we made some shifts
in our programs, kind of collected our programs together and the staff
associated with them when we re-organized our employment development programs.
Now, I would ask my ADM to comment on the specifics of it, but it generally is a
re-organisation of people associated with the function of employment development
programs.
MR. SULLIVAN: So there will be a drop in
another area to correspond to that, I would assume. Would that be correct?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the figure is up a
half-a-million dollars, being revised for last year as you say. We readjusted
some of these main objects (inaudible). You will notice that the total figure
for this year is up about $700,000 over the revised. That half-a-million dollars
is now reflected down in Allowances and Assistance. You will notice that is up
from revised, from $3.9 million to $4.4 million.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: The money is all there. It is just
that in chartered accounts, Treasury Board calls it, they re-juggled some of
these things.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. The total amount at the
bottom there is very much the same anyway.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: I guess we are factoring in an
extra 4 per cent for salaries with the extra pay period. That would be part of
the difference too.
MS BETTNEY: Yes. Those are the two factors that
tend to show a moderate differential between last year and this year in all of
the salary items that go through this budget.
MR. SULLIVAN: With 4.1.01.06, there is a
significant change from what was budgeted under Purchased Services. What would
account for that drastic reduction there?
MR. ROBERTS: From .01 to .07, that is really
the budget for our SAT Centre, the Skills Assessment and Training Centre, and
again we have reoriented some of this funding. If you go from the Salaries at
$667,800 and right down - $2,000, $36,000 and so on - to $6,000, they add up to
$781,800, which is the budget for our SAT Centre for this year.
MR. SULLIVAN: From which numbers, did you say?
Could you just repeat that?
MR. ROBERTS: We start at Salaries, at is .01.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, .01 down to what?
MR. ROBERTS: .07, and including Property,
Furnishings and Equipment at $6,000. If you add those, they come to about
$781,800, which is the budget for our SAT Centre, the Skills Assessment and
Training Centre.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Last year it was roughly...
That is right, we have to knock off $400,000 to $500,000 in the upper line,
right?
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Then Allowances and Assistance is
already allotted there, which brings it roughly to the same as last year
overall, when you do the re-juggling.
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: No particular Strategic
Employment Initiatives. That is because of what, because of a federal
withdrawal?
MS BETTNEY: This is a federal program that was,
I believe, a three year funded program from the federal government that expired
at the end of the last fiscal year. There is no funding available in that
(inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: There are no initiatives to
replace or to compensate for that forthcoming.
MS BETTNEY: No.
MR. SULLIVAN: Labour Market Adjustment
Programs, 4.1.03. I keep moving, seeing we are looking at each
section there as
we go. Under .10, Grants and Subsidies, this year we are looking at a little
over $6 million as opposed to about $7 million last year. Why would that be? Is
it that it has already done significant adjustments and you anticipate having
less -
MS BETTNEY: Which item are you referring to?
MR. SULLIVAN: 4.1.03, Labour Market Adjustment
Programs. There is only .10 there under that, Grants and Subsidies. It is down
about $1.940,000 budgeted.
MS BETTNEY: The Labour Market Adjustment
Programs that we are talking about are ones that were, again, like the older
worker program -
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) and so on.
MS BETTNEY: Yes, which have now expired and we
are carrying certain individuals under that program, and we will continue. This
provides the continued funding for that support, but as people drop off of that
MR. SULLIVAN: Drop off as they get to the age
of sixty-five. It keeps going down.
MS BETTNEY: - it will continue to decline.
There is no new funding in this area. There is no provision for any increase in
growth here. It is simply continuing to support the people who have been placed
on this program over the years.
MR. SULLIVAN: Would NCARP, the northern cod
early retirement program and so on, show the Province's 30 per cent in this
category also?
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: There is no basic, I guess, in
this year, allocation this year showing for any future program. That would have
to be done at that particular time. I guess you weren't that presumptuous.
MS BETTNEY: As I say, the -
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, there was nothing
officially approved, so basically there is nothing you can do. You just -
MS BETTNEY: Right. These programs that were in
place expired, and the obligation is simply there to carry people through on the
commitments that were made in previous years. There is not an existing program
to move forward.
MR. SULLIVAN: I just have another question on
this particular one and then I will stop, Mr. Chairman. I know Harvey has a few
too before he goes. Under that total amount that is left there, how much would
be attributed to probably the two retirement programs. There was NCARP, I think
it was called, northern cod early retirement program under the NCARP program,
and under the TAGS program. There were the two basic programs. I guess there was
a variety of programs too, weren't there?
MS BETTNEY: Yes. Under the NCARP program we
have provided $3 million (inaudible) -
MR. SULLIVAN: That is the total since 1992, the
two programs basically, or -
MS BETTNEY: No, that's for this fiscal year,
1998-1999.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but I mean the programs that
went under NCARP and under TAGS, all the fishery ones.
MS BETTNEY: I think the Atlantic fisheries
early retirement program would be the second, would it not?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there was AFERP, right, I
think it was called, and NCARP.
MS BETTNEY: Right. We have an additional $1.1
million that is estimated for that, and then we have a fish plant older worker
adjustment program. I think all three of those are perhaps included in what you
are thinking of, and the total of that allocation is $5.7 million.
MR. SULLIVAN: So the rest of them - most people
on the other programs have not been very recent, and they are pretty well all
dropped off.
MS BETTNEY: Right, it is very modest. Yes, this
is the bulk of it.
MR. SULLIVAN: I will just stop there, Mr.
Chairman. When everybody else gets a chance I will -
CHAIR: We can come back to you.
MR. SULLIVAN: If there are any of my questions
unanswered, I will get back to it.
CHAIR: So from Harvey we will go back to Perry.
Harvey.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you. I have a couple of
questions. Last year there was considerable discussion on the support
arrangements that would be for people who were in receipt of social services but
who were going to go to post-secondary. In recent days I've had a number of
people call me about the number of people who entered into training in
September, began to access student loans. Because of the arrangements that were
there, and the fact that they had to access all the student loans, the way that
that arrangement was structured a fair number of them, I'm told, have dropped
out of post-secondary institutions.
Have you been monitoring that? Is there any data
available on the number of people who have dropped out of programs because of
the way that the system was structured between your department and let's say,
the student aid division?
MS BETTNEY: We have been monitoring it as
closely as we can. We have been looking at that particular aspect of it to see
what the impact has been. I don't have the specific figures here right now and I
would certainly have to follow up to give you any kind of specifics, but my
recollection of the extent of the drop off that would have been associated with
the recovery, in terms of the shelter component, was that it was very modest.
The real problem that we experienced was in the
very early application of the program when, in fact, we did not have an
arrangement with the banks or with the Department of Education to have the
deduction made at source. You will recall that in the first term after the
policy was applied, when people actually received the money and had to return
the money, that that caused some difficulty. People found themselves in a
position where they had difficulty returning the money. They had spent it on
other things or whatever.
After we got to the point where we had worked out
an arrangement between the banks and the Department of Education where the money
could be deducted at source, the actual impact in terms of the difficulty that
it posed for clients seemed to be reduced. We did not have the same problems
with it. What we tended to do was to try and work individually with the cases
that were left over from the first term application of it to try and prorate out
the payback so that they were able to continue. In the majority of cases, I
would suggest to you, people were able to continue with their education and
gradually pay back the shelter component from the first term, and then work
through in subsequent terms having it deducted at source.
Right now it is an issue, as I say, that clients
for the most part seem to have adjusted to, in the sense that once their tuition
and their books are paid and once the shelter component is deducted at source,
there is still some of the student aid, in the vast majority of cases, that is
left over. Plus people continue to receive their social assistance. They are
getting by, and I'm not aware of any significant number of people who have had
to leave their courses as a result of this.
Now I will ask my Director of Income Support, who
is probably the closest to it, to indicate whether we have any specific figures
to respond to this. Wayne, if you can contribute anything to this?
MR. PENNEY: No, as you say, (inaudible) quite
well. In the first semester a lot of these women were not deducting at source.
The students received the money, and obviously some of them had some difficulty
repaying or paying the money to us regularly. This semester, to my knowledge,
most students have accommodated the policy quite well.
MR. H. HODDER: Have you kept any stats on, for
example, the number of dropouts that would have occurred between, let's say, the
middle of October and the end of December, and compared it to the second
semester dropout?
MR. PENNEY: There were a number of cases, a
small number, and I don't recall the exact (inaudible) but I have it written.
There were a small number last semester who indicated as one of the reasons -
and they might have went on for any number of reasons - but one of the reasons
why they had some difficulty was our policy. This semester, again, to my
knowledge, no individual cases have come to my attention with respect to that.
MR. H. HODDER: That particular policy and how
that is structured, is that consistent with the practices in Atlantic Canada and
across the country? Has that been built in into the student aid
federal-provincial agreements?
MR. PENNEY: About a month ago (inaudible) take
some time. One of my staff is actually doing a province-by-province comparison.
At this point it is not completed, but it should be completed in the next couple
of weeks or so.
MS BETTNEY: Do you have any early indication
even whether others are doing it the same or is it too soon to say?
MR. PENNEY: The early indication that I have is
that our policy is in fact fairly favourable compared to others.
MR. H. HODDER: When you get that kind of data,
is it possible to make a note and have it shared?
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. H. HODDER: It does permit other MHAs to be
able to answer client based questions that arise through telephone calls or
whatever. We want to be able to give them reassurances, and also give them
encouragement. The whole point is to get these people into post-secondary.
In your Information Technology I notice that you
have allocated $2.7 million again this year. That follows on the $2.8 million
last year. What new initiatives are you undertaking, or is this going to be the
standard amount that is needed to support information technology programs for
the department?
MS BETTNEY: Much of it is the operation of our
existing computerized systems. We do have a significant operation there to run
our income support program in particular. There is that element to it. We have,
as you say, $2.7 million, but we also have the development of new systems
provided for in that allocation.
We have the year 2000 issue, as Dave points out to
me, that is facing us as a department in a really big way. We have to make
adjustments in our whole computer system and all of our programs in order to
ensure that people will continue to receive income support when that particular
unique factor kicks into the whole system. Those are the main things that you
see in that $2.7 million allocation. It is primarily the ongoing maintenance,
ongoing operation, with the addition of the changes to the system for the year
MR. H. HODDER: I have a couple of other
questions. One deals with the pilot that you were doing relative to the payment
of social service benefits, direct deposit initiatives. I want to get some idea
as to how that is going, how it has been received. Is there any intention in
this Province to make it more of a global methodology?
MS BETTNEY: That is part of our overall income
support reform, that is just one piece. We are looking at, as I say, a direct
client entry system that is as unobtrusive as we can possibly make it. One of
the things we know is that for the majority of our clients they fit into a very
simple income support system, in the sense that their needs do not change. Once
you have determined what they are and what people are entitled to, they are
likely to be able to continue with a moderate amount of checking. We know for
those people that as long as we get the accurate information up front and
determine what their eligibility is then we can administer that system pretty
simply. There is another whole category of clients who are in the minority whose
needs change consistently, and they are the more difficult one. That is why you
see a policy book right now in my department that is in the order of hundreds of
policies to try and accommodate all of the complexities of those exceptions.
What we believe is that if we can design a new
income support system that is built on the fact that the majority can be
accommodated very easily, that people can sort of self-identify what their
circumstances are, that we can make the most use of technology to determine what
information we need to know - whether it is from the federal government, from
vital statistics, from wherever - and then get what they are entitled to and get
it out to them in an efficient manner, we think that direct deposit may be one
aspect of getting it out to them that would be efficient.
We know that if you take that and say: We are going
to go to direct deposit in every community, for every case, for every family in
this Province, we would have a nightmare on our hands. That is not the intent,
but it is to say that this is a way that people can get their payments easily
and efficiently, and things like postal strikes do not make a difference to it
so it can have some real advantages to it.
It will not be for everybody because a lot of
people will not be comfortable with the technology in the beginning and it may
be that they will have to grow into that. There is a really large public
information piece, and information and education with our clients, that have to
take place as well. I think that this is a component of the new system which
will reduce our costs. We will be able to make that shift. It will give us the
ability to make that shift from having 90 per cent of the people focused on
getting the right amount on a cheque to a person, to having the majority of
people helping people get their needs met towards employment. It means taking
use of existing technology. Direct deposit and ATMs are part of the answer. and
where it is appropriate in communities around the Province, and where they
exist, we will be making as much use of them as we possibly can, and encouraging
our clients to go in that direction.
MR. H. HODDER: Just a couple of more questions.
This one follows from a question Sheila asked in the House on Friday. It has to
do with the internship programs in the school system, when we have a program
that is working that helps students be able to identify their own skills to let
them have some experience in the workplace and a meaningful role model in that
kind of relationships.
As you know, the federal government has withdrawn
its funding. It is one of those cases where the federal government, having
initiated very worthwhile programs, and having a view today on a mandate to do
that, then, when the program works they drop it and say to the provinces: This
was our idea. We have all of the public relation benefits that we need to get
out of this now. Now we will just throw it in your lap and you can go with it.
This idea that the federal government can just do
that kind of stuff bothers me greatly. What are we going to do as a province?
Because this is a very successful program. It follows in line with the
initiative that you have talked about in terms of making sure that people have
the skills. Yet I get called on a regular basis, including today, from a school
asking: What have you heard? When is the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment going to have dialogue with Roger Grimes, and when can we hear
something on this? Any answers I can give to these people?
MS BETTNEY: We don't have the answers yet. As
you have indicated in your comments, this was a federal program and it was a
program, I would add, though, that was quite unique to this Province. I think
there was probably only one other province where the federal government was
funding these kinds of programs in high schools. Typically the dividing line
between jurisdictions has been at the post-secondary level.
This was not a program that ran in all of the
provinces. I think over the years the federal government has had to be convinced
on many occasions that it was appropriate for them to be funding a high school
program, to all intents and purposes, here in the Province. Unfortunately, I
think, over the past year the policy level decision in the federal government
has been that no, they should completely withdraw even in these areas from any
involvement in high school programming.
I think the challenge to us now is to convince the
federal government that we need to find a way to be able to continue funding
these things. Because I think both the federal government officials who we have
talked with and ourselves agree that in terms of early intervention in
employment related issues on bridging young people from school to work this has
been a very successful program. While it takes place within the confines of the
school and in terms of education, I would say it is more of the jurisdiction of
the Minister of Education than it is, for example, of myself, the Minister of
Human Resources and Employment.
Having said all of that, knowing what the outcomes
are, it is very important that we try to sustain those. With the Minister of
Education we are pursuing this with the federal minister of HRDC where the
funding has come from in the past. Our officials are trying to pursue this at
their level as well. We do not have a change of position at this point. Right
now there is a policy position taken by the federal government to say no, they
are not going to do this any more. We have not successfully changed that
position at this point but our efforts continue.
I think the avenue that presents some opportunity,
some potential for us to explore, is in the youth employment strategy that we
are developing cooperatively with the federal government. I would make the case
that when we look at a federal-provincial youth employment strategy, a very
viable and valid piece it for this Province - not to say that it would work
anywhere else in the country; I don't know that - but for this Province I would
make the argument that a very solid youth employment strategy is to use some
kind of internship cooperative type program in the schools because of the
success that we have seen with it to date.
We are continuing to pursue it. We do not have an
answer. The same people are calling me and I cannot tell them any more than that
today. I know that the clock it ticking in terms of being able to allocate
schedules to schools and insure that the programs are able to continue. The
point that the school representatives and the school board representatives have
made to me is that the programs that are most at risk are the ones that have
only been started for one year. Those are the newest ones. They feel the ones
that have been established for a number of years can sustain themselves and can
survive. What they are asking for is some way to address the programs which have
only been there for a year to insure that they can get the two or three years
that they need to really become sustainable. That is the area we are focusing on
most in addressing this issue.
MR. H. HODDER: In terms of, for example,
development of partnerships with the community, there is a tremendous benefit
here. Because it lets the community have some participatory function in
education -
MS BETTNEY: That is right.
MR. H. HODDER: - and lets them get into the
mind-set of being, shall we say, responsible for the raising of the total child.
It has tremendous benefits. As someone said one time: One thing you have to
think about when you develop programs is what if they work? In this particular
case they seem to have worked. Of course, I should also point out that my
research tells me that this decision is not an Ottawa based decision, but an
Atlantic Provinces decision of the federal group, that this was not a decision
which was directed by policy from Ottawa, but was made with the group of
Atlantic Provinces, people who work with Human Resources Canada. They did have
options at the local level but they chose to go in other directions.
I will leave it there because I do understand my
colleague here has all kinds of questions on the National Child Benefit. I will
leave all those for the good member for St. John's West. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIR: Thank you, Harvey. Perry, and then
perhaps we could go to Mary before we come back to Sheila.
MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just
have a couple of comments to make. First of all, Minister, I want to express my
appreciation for the work that you and your officials in your department did on
the Labour Mobility Agreement. For those who do not know, the Labour Mobility
Agreement is a new agreement between our Province and the Province of Quebec to
allow free labour movement. The Government of Quebec had that opportunity all
along. It was a single gate. People from Quebec could come, in particular into
my area, and work, and we could not go there to work. We had examples, for
instance, of cement trucks going to Fermont to dump out their load of cement,
and they were not allowed to use a labourer to pull the chutes on the back of
the truck.
I am happy to say that is fixed. As a matter of
fact, I talked to William Elson the other day, who is chair of the youth
unemployed committee in Labrador West, and he is very pleased. He is saying to
me that there are new jobs opening up in Fermont with Quebec Cartier Mining that
he and others will be applying for. For the first time they will be able to
apply for jobs in the mining companies in Quebec, and that is a tremendous
advantage for our people.
The other thing I would like to say is, on behalf
of the Canadian Association for Community Living, specifically the group in
Labrador West, I just wanted to pass along their deep appreciation for the
efforts of you and, again, others in your staff, the kind of support that has
been provided through the year. I don't say this just to be patronizing. I say
it because they really believe that there has been some important progressive
social things done in terms of their group and their advocacy position. I was
very pleased today to have read their quarterly report where they talked about
how much they appreciate you going into their homes in Labrador West and talking
to them about their own issues. That is an issue that I will continue to be
working with you on, and I am sure that your support when you can will be there.
The other thing I would like to do is just mention
for a second something else. Because one of the most active women's centres in
this Province happens to be in Western Labrador. They have a very strong office
there, they have a very strong advocacy group. Because I and others know that
not only are you the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, but you are
also the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. The monies that were
provided this year for the maintaining of those offices allowed for the
continuance of their ability to affect social change.
We ought not to forget that they provide tremendous
assistance to women and children, especially from challenged homes and from
settings that are rougher than most of us can contemplate. Those investments in
those offices were very important. They give an access to women and children
when they have troubled families that they otherwise would not have. Because
sometimes it is easier to go in and talk to a neighbour you know than it is to
go talk to somebody representing the Crown, an official, or even a politician.
It is easier for somebody in a condition like that to go and talk to a friendly
face, and those offices are very important.
I wanted to just mention those three things.
Because as much as sometimes we like to look at some of the issues that we quite
haven't hit the top line, there are many things that we have accomplished. I
think that, all in all, for the three things that I have mentioned with respect
to my riding, I am very appreciative of the role and work of your office in
Wabush and the support from Goose Bay, and in the office here.
MS BETTNEY: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Perry. Mary, and then we will
go to Sheila.
MS M. HODDER: Thank you very much. I don't have
any questions for the minister this evening, but I am glad to have the
opportunity to meet some officials from the department, and to say thank you to
the people who I have not had an opportunity to meet in person, although you
have been there for me on many occasions to solve many problems that come up on
an individual basis each day. I sincerely thank you for that.
On the transition home on the Burin Peninsula, I
spoke with Cheryl Mallard again today, and things are going very nicely. They
are getting the board together, and hopefully we will see something very
positive (inaudible) in a very short while.
So again, thank you to everyone. I'm the voice on
the phone but haven't met everyone. There are not too many I have not spoken to
in the department.
CHAIR: Thank you, Mary. Sheila.
MS S. OSBORNE: I am going to start with the
National Child Benefit fund. As I have said (inaudible) in the House of
Assembly, I do commend the program. One of my concerns is that they will not
reach all the people that they should reach. In other words, the claw backs from
it will be universal or to programs deemed not necessarily universal. I am
thinking of the National Council on Welfare report that was released today, or
(inaudible) today.
One of the things they refer to is that one of the
problems for people (inaudible) small communities to obtain employment. When
they were living in the smaller communities I guess they had farming and things
that were able to sustain them. Of course, once they got into a larger community
they found this wasn't the case. I mean, one of (inaudible) jobs where it was
temporary, the end result was poverty. I guess my question is: In the very small
communities in this Province, how universal will your programs be?
MS BETTNEY: I think what everybody needs to
understand with the National Child Benefit program is that this is a very
strategically oriented program and it does not solve every problem that exists
with poverty across this country. It is not going to fix everything, and
everybody knew that in the beginning. When the program was designed it was
intended to address this issue of helping people bridge from dependency from
social assistance into employment. That was the primary intent of the program,
knowing that a lot of the first jobs that people take are going to be on the
lower end of the income scale.
There is a real gap. People have coined a term for
it, the social researchers have called it the welfare wall. It says that you are
better off being inside, on this side of the wall, dependent, getting support,
because of all of the other benefits that go with it, that are basic protections
for you and your family, than you are breaching that wall and taking the risk of
going it on your own.
That is the main focus of the National Child
Benefit program. It does not presume that it will address all of the other
issues associated with rates and the income of people on social assistance
across the country. What it is intended to do is provide provinces with the
resources by freeing up the funds that become available, through providing
social assistance really, by providing this benefit to all families, to allow
provinces to have the resources to design programs and services to assist with
this aspect of the problem.
In this Province we (inaudible) had a particular
problem because we had, I would have to say, some of the largest gaps in early
childhood programs and services of any province in this country. Beyond a doubt
we did not have and we do not have the level of services for young children in
this Province that exist elsewhere. Whenever you talk about families moving into
employment, there is a basic requirement that they are going to need. It is
going to be child care. Apart from anything else, apart from the people who
require it for other reasons, it is going to be a primary requirement,
particularly of single parents. We know that there is something like 8,000
single parents on social assistance today.
In terms of the overall development of children,
these early childhood services are so important. We did not have any
programming, any services, or any legislative authority over children who are
zero to two years old. There is a cost to putting that in place. I would have to
say that without the $10 million that the National Child Benefit provides us
with, the resources and the access to it, we would not be able to instate and
put these kinds of necessary early childhood programs and services in place. In
addition to that, we have looked at the family services, the family resource
centres, which provide a real support service to families. We see successes with
those. We are basing it on the model of the family resource centres that were
funded federally under the CAPC.
We have had a full evaluation of the program. It
was just completed earlier in the fall. Tremendously positive results with those
in terms of the results that it had for children, for families. I visited the
MacMorran Community Centre here talking to the director there about the results
they have seen with something like the nutrition program for pregnant mothers.
Where they have completely reversed the problem of the low birth rate with
infants. They have gone from a rate that was really disturbing in terms of the
number of low birth weight children in that particular area that the resource
centre serves, to where they have had fifty healthy, full weight, full-term
babies there at Christmas time. This is a huge success story. That is the kind
of services we will be able to now fan out and extend across the Province in all
the areas where they do not exist today.
The other area that we are focusing on is the
youth, and the twelve to eighteen-year-olds. We know that if we can somehow
engage those young people who just have not had the exposure - they are at risk
of dropping out of school, they are at risk of not developing their skills so
that they will go on to be employable. They are also at risk from some of the
things that young people do when they get off course, whether it is associated
with their health, with drugs, with other dependencies and so on, or their
general mental health. Through our youth networks, this will provide us with an
avenue to really deploy all of the resources that are already out there in the
community with the existing agencies, and more fully be able to respond to the
needs of young people in this age category.
Without going too long, I would have to say to you
that I recognize that there are areas - when you look at the National Child
Benefit program, it does not address the issue of the rates of social assistance
and the difficulty and the inadequacy that exist in the current rates. Our
applying and putting in place a three-year phased in increase is one response to
that particular issue. As I said in the House today, if you told a lot of
(inaudible) the 7 per cent over the time that it will be implemented, it is
going to comprise a $30-million increase in funding that will go in place. It is
$3 million this year. You add on to that. Next year it gets up to be $11
million, and then it just compounds, and that is the reality of the cost of
social assistance in this Province.
Something as simple as a 2 per cent rate increase
this year and a 3 per cent rate increase next year adds up to those kinds of
millions of dollars. That is not the full answer, but I do believe that the step
we have made in putting these programs and services now in place is the most
profound social policy shift that we have made in this Province in decades.
I think you will see the results of that ten years
out. I just absolutely believe in the value of what we are doing here, but I
will never say that it is the answer to everything. It is not. We still have to
continue, and as more resources become available we will have to be able to
respond and provide more resources as well.
MS S. OSBORNE: The work incentive program,
which will be for the working poor, will be able to take (inaudible) -
MS BETTNEY: Yes, that is a good piece of it.
MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, that is a good piece of it.
I think that is wonderful, especially as it pertains to the drug card. I have to
say that if I were in a position of being dependent on the security blanket of a
drug card and I had children, that is the route I would take. My main concern,
and I keep saying this, is the little people out in the little community who
will not be able to take advantage of any of these programs.
I have no problem with any of the programs, they
are all needed and they are all very welcome. My main concern has been, from the
beginning, with people in the very rural areas who are being clawed back and
will not get to take advantage of these types of programs. That is the only
problem I have with it.
MS BETTNEY: I see that the family resource
centres - for example, we are putting money into the family resource centres and
that is going to really benefit rural Newfoundland. Right now there are, I think
the number is twenty-nine family resource centres. Some of them are core centres
and others are just outreach type centres across the Province. We know that the
urban areas are taken care of. The whole intent of expanding this program is to
insure that that resource benefits the social assistance family as well as the
low income family.
Because this is a site people come to, where they
can really get the kind of support and development to insure good parenting
practices, good nutrition practices, just plain somebody to talk to. Sometimes a
peer counselling group has far more advantage than a medical service or a
medical counselling service will ever have. The family resource centres I see as
being one of the key services that will really benefit social assistance clients
in rural Newfoundland who, you are right, will not take advantage or be able to
take advantage of the employment side of this.
The other piece is the expansion of the licensed
day care. The move to be able to licence family home day care to me is a major
step in making quality day care available in rural Newfoundland. Up to this
point you have to have a centre. That, by its nature, happens in an urban or a
quasi-urban area where there is a concentration of kids and family. With the
family home day care, we know it is going on all over the Province. What this
does is give us a means, as a government, to be able to regulate it and insure
that that service can be a quality service. That parent can know if they are
putting their child in a family home day care that it meets certain standards
and that their children are going to be safe there and will get a quality
environment while they are there.
That particular expansion and improvement of the
licensed day care is going to cost us $4.6 million. I would suggest to you that
social assistance families and children - because of the nature and the way we
provide subsidies when children need it, whether their families are working or
not, if we determine that a young child needs to have a day care environment for
their development or for their protection, then they can benefit from that. Now
there will be an expanded level of service available to those children all
across the Province. The youth network, in the same way, I see as being an asset
to children and young people who live in social assistance families equally as
it is an asset to children who live in low income families.
So no, they will not take the employment part of
it, but if you look at the $10.10 million, only $1.6 million of it is employment
incentives. All of the remainder of the money in the National Child Benefit is
the other programs and services that social assistance families will have the
same opportunity to benefit from. I feel fairly good that while social
assistance families do not get the monetary benefit that working families get,
by the same token the value of their social assistance is greater than what a
low income working family gets. We have done the statistics on it. What we know
is that you would have to be earning over $8 per hour before you even start to
equate with the benefits that a social assistance family receives by virtue of
their actual income, other benefits. That does not deal with the other services
like the drug card that they have access too. That is pretty significant, you
know.
MS S. OSBORNE: Let me just go back, if I could.
Will there be any communities in very rural Newfoundland on the Coast of
Labrador and on the southwest coast, etc., that will not be able to take
advantage of any of the programs? These are the people that I am thinking about.
They will still pay.
MS BETTNEY: Not to my knowledge. The other
thing that you have to remember is that, for example on the Coast of Labrador,
the example you gave, again, part of the budget that we built in recognizing
this was the $150 a month increase to families living on the Coast. Because we
know that their cost of living is so much greater than the cost of living for
people on the Island and in other parts of the Province. Just by its sheer
location I cannot see that being an issue.
There will be an issue of community capacity, in
the sense that much of the programs and services, in order for them to be
successful, have to have an element of community ownership. There is a building
process that has to go on here. The family resource centres work because people
in the community are involved with them. They drive them, they own them, they
dictate what goes on in them, they are community centres in a sense, and the
youth networks will be established in much the same way. There will have to be
that kind of (
a) leadership and (
b) ownership that will have to take place in
communities for them to be able to get these things operational there. Where
there is the desire, location would not be a restriction. I cannot see that
being an issue.
MS S. OSBORNE: You own Goss Gilroy. I thought
it was Joan Marie the other night. You still (inaudible) own Goss Gilroy.
MS BETTNEY: I own Goss Gilroy.
MS S. OSBORNE: I have some problems with the
Goss Gilroy report, with all due respects to the Association for Community
Living -
MS BETTNEY: And others.
MS S. OSBORNE: - and others. One of the things
is the cost per capita of keeping a person in the Perlin Training Centre. That
is on page seventeen. I don't know if you have that (inaudible). On page
seventeen of the Goss Gilroy report it says that it costs $11,195 per capita.
That is just to keep them there. That is not reflective of their home care and
other things that happen outside of that. Just to keep them in the centre.
If the centre closes or if the centre is phased
out, what are the plans for the clients there who don't either (
a) want to or
(
b) are unable to work? The reason I am asking this is if we give thirty-five
hours of respite at approximately $6 an hour - it says $5.41 here, but it is
gone up to $5.84, and then there is the little employment expense for EI and CPP
(inaudible). To keep them for thirty-five hours a week is $10,900 respite, if
they are not in the Perlin Training Centre. Can you see where I am going with
this?
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MS S. OSBORNE: The Perlin Training Centre is a
good bang for the buck respite-wise. I'm speaking from first-hand (inaudible)
care. The person I take care of is thirty-eight years old, and she is a client
at the Perlin Training Centre, and has been for quite some time. I am caring for
her because her mother is unable to, she is a senior, etc.
I know of another man around fifty years of age who
was also a client. It was his choice to go work, and he made out really well in
the workplace, but that does not work for all of them. Some of them either can't
or don't want to. The Association for Community Living, with all due respects,
gives them a choice to integrate, but they should have a choice not to integrate
either. I am talking of social stimulation that they receive from their peers at
the Perlin.
The girl who stays with me who I take care of, this
is her right. I could not conceive of a place that I would rather have her. In
other words, if the Perlin closes I will not be able to take care of her for
that thirty-five hours a week. Somebody will have to do the day respite. I
cannot think of any place in this world where she would get a better quality of
care, social interaction, etc., than the Perlin. I am asking you now: What are
the long-term plans, or what are the (inaudible)?
MS BETTNEY: Again, this whole area is in
transition, both within the department, within the funding that we have
available. Because of course, as I indicated earlier, the funding that we have
used in this area has been 50-50 cost-shared funding with the federal
government. It was formally the Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons
program. It covered a multitude of services, employment related being some, but
also with these types of programs which were day programs, sheltered workshops.
It covers things like assistance supports, technical training aids, and a whole
host of things. In the change that is taking place in the federal funding with
the new agreement, where this is being focused primarily on assistance for
people towards employment -
MS S. OSBORNE: Going to work.
MS BETTNEY: Again, and that is the focus of the
funding that the federal government is providing here. We are, by necessity, as
well as by principal, making a change here and a transition. It is going to
take, I would suggest to you, the next three years or so, and the federal
government have allowed for that in their funding. They will be giving us sort
of a three-year period to make the transition to determine how we want to
restructure our programs and services for disabled people so that we can take
the best advantage of the federal funding that is available for this purpose.
Now that suggests some change in our current
approaches, and that's why we have a stakeholder committee which is working on
developing an implementation plan for the Goss Gilroy Report. In essence, what
you are aware of, is that all of the stakeholders have agreed with the overall
direction and thrust. Now they are trying to work out the details of: What does
this mean for the Vera Perlin School? What does this mean for the pre-vocational
school? What does this mean for the supportive employment programs and for other
interventions that we have in this area? I think there are six subcommittees who
are currently putting together a plan which I expect they will give to me by the
end of the summer.
I cannot say to you today what will happen because
it is the stakeholders themselves who are shaping how they want to see this
structured. One of the critical issues they are dealing with, that kind of drove
this early report - you saw it in the statistics there - was the fact that for
the people, for example, who are at Vera Perlin, nobody questions the quality of
the experience they have there, the value that it has for them and their
families. They are probably one-tenth of the population who are being served.
With the services full, with no movement, then it is kind of like you win the
lottery. If you are in there, you are in. Then you have the service, perfect.
MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).
MS BETTNEY: For all of the other people who
could benefit perhaps from some service similar to this, they do not have access
to it. If you ask me what I think will happen, I think you will see some kind of
a change. I do not anticipate that the Vera Perlin School, as an organization,
will disappear from the landscape here. I think you will see a clearer focus on:
What is its function, what role does it serve? Then a more equitable access for
disabled people to be able to get in there.
MS S. OSBORNE: Or make another one.
MS BETTNEY: Again, you would have to question
whether providing some elements of that, combined with some employment, combined
with some other things, might be the best answer. That is the challenge that we
have really put to the stakeholders (inaudible) -
MS S. OSBORNE: They will not go out to work
because they are afraid they will not get back in.
MS BETTNEY: Exactly, yes. What I heard, even
from the people who I spoke to there who are disabled, is very much that. It is
not a question that they do not want to work, but again it is a question of
risks. It is like that welfare wall: If I go out of here tomorrow and lose my
place -
MS S. OSBORNE: Who will take care of me?
MS BETTNEY: - and the work does not work out,
what is going to happen to me then? Am I going to be stuck home? Their families
are saying: What is going to happen to us then? We have to make that system
better. As I say, I do not expect that the Vera Perlin School will close, to be
honest with you. Right now it is with the stakeholders, and I will receive what
they give me and then take it into consideration in terms of the big picture.
Very much the federal funding that is going to be
provided to us will provide us with a means of resourcing, supporting people
towards employment, and we have to take that into consideration in terms of all
of the resources we have available and how can we best serve the needs of the
disabled people in the context of their full lives, and living quality lives. I
think Vera Perlin will continue to be there, but I think it will have a
different role, to be honest with you.
MS S. OSBORNE: I guess in my case, and I am
just using my - this is not to be self-serving, because I take this (inaudible).
In the case of, once again, the person I take care of, if Vera Perlin changed
focus even, if she was only able to stay there for another year or so, when she
went out the back door of it then we are dealing with respite, which would cost
the government or your department or whoever has that responsibility more per
month for the same hours than it would keeping her at the Perlin. I have people
who come for respite, but I cannot see that they could possibly come close
enough (inaudible), not a millionth of the quality that she gets there because
of interaction with her peers.
I have had this argument around other tables when I
was on other committees. In a effort to normalize - she is thirty-eight -, would
I insist that she sit and play scrabble with me and my son? That is normal.
Where is normal.
Whereas she would rather be doing things with people who
present a little challenge, but not a great challenge to her. Because she
enjoyed being in the lip sync concert that was on a couple of weeks ago. That is
a perfect example. One of the little girls came over after and said: Tell the
government not to close us. They should have been here tonight. Because that
thing, that is one of the highlights of the year. They are in bowling, summer
games, they are in all sorts of things that they feel very secure and very
comfortable in.
MS BETTNEY: This is a classic kind of
discussion or debate around the whole issue of integration and normalization and
quality -
MS S. OSBORNE: And choice.
MS BETTNEY: Choice, yes.
MS S. OSBORNE: If they choose not to integrate
because they are happy where they are, then maybe we should have a look at
leaving them that choice as well.
MS BETTNEY: I think the department, at least
when family and rehabilitative services was part of this department - it is no
longer part of this department - when we are talking the full aspect of people's
lives here, clearly the department and the government have taken a strong
position on integration. It is one that I support and have in all of my
(inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: I do too, if they want to.
MS BETTNEY: Part of the choice then is having
realistic choices and having choices that, yes, people can make that they know
will be there in the future. They can look at it and say: Yes, this will be
something that I want to do and it is something that is good for me in the long
run. Simply forcing people into situations where because of uncertainty they
stay with the known is not a good choice either.
This is an ongoing issue, but I think in terms of
the structure of employment services I am confident that the people who are
around the table working on those sub-committees will come to a consensus and
give us a path that we can follow here that will be a good course of action for
government in this area. The main thing is we have to insure that we will be in
a position to access the full extent of the federal dollar that will be
available through the employment program for people with disabilities. Because
unless it fits we will not be able to access the funding. I think we have to
insure that we have enough employment programs for persons with disabilities
that are valuable, supportive of the employment programs that fit the criteria
to draw down on resources that are allocated to this Province. Because we are
going to need them. They are only fifty to fifty-cent dollars, and we still have
a very large need in that area that we know of. We cannot afford to turn away
any dollars.
MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Thank you, Sheila. Gerry, and then back
to Don.
MR. G. REID: I just have a couple of questions
and they are on the same topic. It on page 216 under the Labour Market
Adjustment Programs, 4.1.03. You say most of that $6 million was taken up with
the fallout of the fishery back in 1992 under NCARP and in 1994 under TAGS,
under the plant worker - was it PWAP?
MS BETTNEY: Yes, POWA power.
MR. G. REID: Any idea of what that cost
originally, what the Province was (inaudible)? That is a 70-30 program with the
federal government, right?
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. G. REID: Any idea of how many clients are
on that?
MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-eight hundred clients,
isn't it?
MS BETTNEY: I am going to ask one of my staff.
This (inaudible) pre-dates me a fair bit so I am not certain of the numbers
here. I don't know if any of the staff will have that.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is here in the package
that accompanied the budget there, I do believe. The number 2,800 clients rings
a bell.
MR. G. REID: This year?
MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is total on the program
that is -
MR. G. REID: No. What I mean is that is what we
are paying this year. Some of them have gone on to sixty-five years old now and
dropped off.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Over 90 per cent are, as the
result of fishery programs, I think still left, based on the figure that...
(Inaudible) over $5 million out of the $6 million? I will find it here now
anyway.
MS BETTNEY: In terms of some of the figures
that I have here in the details, I will just try and scan down through them.
Under the Plant Worker Adjustment Program, the program was signed in 1991, and
approximately 200 clients are receiving benefits there.
MR. SULLIVAN: Nineteen ninety-one?
MS BETTNEY: Yes, that's what my notes say for
the Plant Worker Adjustment Program.
WITNESS: That's not POWA.
MS BETTNEY: No, that's a specific one. Under
the NCARP one, that was signed in 1993 and we have approximately 1,400 clients
receiving benefits there. The Atlantic Fisheries Early Retirement Program was
signed in 1995 and we have approximately 900 clients receiving benefits under
this program. The POWA one was signed in 1989, revised again in 1993, and we
have approximately 300 clients receiving benefits under that. I think if you do
the tabulation it will probably come to (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-eight hundred clients it
says here, yes. I found it. It says 2,800 clients.
MR. G. REID: That was fifty-five years and
under, pretty well, wasn't it?
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. G. REID: What I am trying to determine is
basically how much we are paying roughly per - I know it was based on their
income I think, wasn't it, a percentage of their income?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes it was.
MR. G. REID: Have you done any estimates on how
many we would take and what it would cost if the federal government brings in a
retirement program for plant workers now?
MS BETTNEY: That is all being done under the
committee that has been structured to deal with the TAGS issue. That analysis I
know has been done because I'm on the committee, but it is not kind of resident
in this department. It is being done under the auspices of the rural
revitalization plan.
MR. G. REID: Were any of you people with the
department when it came in in 1990 with NCARP and TAGS? Do you remember what we
originally (inaudible)?
MR. ROBERTS: I have been with the department
several years, but my excuse as to why I don't know this is (inaudible). This is
part of the labour market division and program, and that was originally with
Development and Rural Renewal. It came with our department in April 1997, a year
ago last April.
MR. G. REID: I was surprised to see it. I did
not think it was in this department. I was just wondering what it would cost us
to take out x number of people under that program.
MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is $4 million or $5
million a year, beginning initially, I would think. Dave Lewis is in your
department right?
MS BETTNEY: Not any more.
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, he was.
MS BETTNEY: He is with Health and Community
Services. Moved again, Fisheries and Aquaculture now.
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh right, yes. I was not sure
because I did speak with him recently and with the department, like where Gerry
is coming from. I just did my own little calculations. I am just wondering in
terms of where we might be with it, based on how many people might be in that
category right now. I had estimates of the figures of age. I did not have the
specifics. I just did estimates.
What you estimate the average person to now be
receiving on the program as a plant worker, as a fisherperson, I had to project
how many may take the program. The plant workers are lower paid. Fisherpeople
are getting a higher income under it. I think it can be done for several million
dollars, based on 30 per cent. If you probably dipped down a bit lower than
fifty-five, because there is a big chunk of people who have gone out of the
program who were on the upper end of the scale. You are going to hit new people
coming in at the lower end now that are going to be on a program for a longer
period of time. There will be a payout over a longer period on it, because most
people now who were up there took it. We are going to have probably almost ten
year and eight year payouts under the program.
AN HON. MEMBER: So what number did you come up
with?
MR. SULLIVAN: I would say off hand they could
be refined. I said to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal that I would
need some more specific figures from the department, but I would say in the $4
million or $5 million range would certainly be about right. If you take that as
30 per cent of the total, we are looking at a program that is going to be
looking at even only a - you can pay out $15 million to $20 million a year, in
that range.
That could be it. Because there are a lot of people
who are not going to adjust out because they are just not in the age bracket,
and there are a lot of people who would fall short of a fifty-five program. If
it dips to fifty-three as it was talked about before, federally, or down to a
fifty, then we are talking about a whole new ball game right there.
MR. CANNING: These people are under POWA,
right? How many of these people are actually taking the actuarial reduced Canada
Pension at sixty? Do we know that?
MS BETTNEY: I could not tell you, I do not
know.
MR. G. REID: (Inaudible) I know at the time
that it came in under NCARP and TAGS, (inaudible) 1994 the Province said no to
fifty. I noticed the Premier said the other day that he would be interested in
looking at the fifty and above. I was just wondering if anyone had calculated
how many were in that age group. I would assume that back in 1994 those
fifty-five and older, most of them took it and walked, are out there now on this
$6 million that you have. I just wanted to find out how many. I have 2,000 TAGS
clients in my district.
MS BETTNEY: All I can say to you is I know all
of the figures have been worked out and a demographic profile has been done of
the whole industry. The answers are there, it is just I do not have them.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are working on it. I
met actually with Dave Lewis and John Scott just briefly on an aspect of it. I
have not discussed with them the figures at all, any follow up at all, but I
would imagine they have done their figures, they have done their work on it. The
question I asked - the Province has not got back to the point yet where they
have looked at the dollar value from their perspective, and even gone to Cabinet
or anything of that nature, as to what they might do on the program.
MR. G. REID: Are there any fishermen under that
program? There are no fishermen in that program, retirement package.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. When people took retirement
under the program they did not distinguish them as fishermen or plant workers.
They were all eligible for the program, I understand, regardless of -
MR. G. REID: I thought it would be under the
license buy-out (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No. People could have taken early
retirement and sold their license and kept their personal fishing license. There
are different categories under NCARP and you could have gone out completely, and
still you could have qualified for early retirement even with a license buy-out.
That was available. So there are people in that category.
MR. G. REID: The other one is on the
(inaudible). Actually, I said they were both on the same thing first. Under that
National Child Benefit, if I were eligible for that benefit, what do you
actually get in terms of the benefit for a child?
MS BETTNEY: The benefit for a low income family
is graduated. It is $605 for the first child, $405 for the second child, and
$325 - I am guessing now, it is in that order - for the third, and then there is
a subsequent piece as well. That is on top of the payment of Child Tax Benefit
which is -
MR. G. REID: Everyone gets right now?
MS BETTNEY: Everybody gets, and social
assistance clients will continue to receive. The only portion that we will
recover to create the investment fund is that increase that will be implemented
on July 1. The point is that families today will not be receiving any less as a
result of the National Child Benefit. In fact, as a result of the 2 per cent
they are getting a little bit more than they were prior to the Budget.
MR. G. REID: So a family with two kids would
basically be getting $1,000 for the year.
MS BETTNEY: Roughly, yes.
MR. G. REID: Ninety dollars a month.
MR. SULLIVAN: Six hundred and five dollars,
$405, and $330 are the figures.
MS BETTNEY: Three hundred and thirty dollars,
is it?
MR. G. REID: That is all I have. I don't envy
your department, it is not an easy one to work in.
MS BETTNEY: No, it is difficult to deal with
individuals on it, but one of the things we are finding thought the calls we are
taking, the hot line which we put in place, we are trying to give people as much
information as possible and to communicate with them directly as much as we can.
One of the things we are finding is that people
have a certain comfort level with the idea that they are not going to be worse
off. One of the first alarms that went off was: You are taking something from
us. They especially were fearing that they were going to lose the Canada Child
Tax Benefit that they are getting today. Once we resolved that people started to
get a different comfort level with it.
The other piece that people responded really
positively to is the $150 a month increase under earnings exemption. For a lot
of families that is a real asset because they do have an ability to get some
income. When they realize that where previously they could only earn up to $100
and then it was taken -
MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty-fifty, was it?
MS BETTNEY: Fifty-fifty. Now the implication of
being able to have $150 of what they earn, completely exempt and able to keep,
is really money on a monthly basis that they can see where they will be able to
get a real financial benefit from that to kind of make up some of the difference
here too.
Those two things have been very helpful in creating
a level of comfort for people, but you are never going to get past the fact that
yes, the federal government is providing a benefit here which, by design and by
their intention, social assistance clients were not to keep. The unfortunate
part of it is that the province is on the end of having to make the direct
recovery, so we get mostly connected with it.
WITNESS: (Inaudible).
MS BETTNEY: Yes. It is just like on the shelter
component. When we were giving it on the one hand and asking them to pay it back
it was a whole lot more different than when we were able to deduct it at source.
Unfortunately, we don't have that capacity to be able to do it right now.
The overall intent of the federal government, and I
think this is really positive, is if they are able to move this to the point
where the federal government is actually taking responsibility for supporting
children, then you have a National Child Benefit that is of such an amount that
we will be able to take social assistance for children right out of our social
assistance design. I would not be surprised if when we ultimately redesign our
income support, assuming that the federal government continues on the track that
it is on and it's already committed now two next instalments to the Child
Benefit, we will be able to say that the amount for children is coming from the
federal government. It comes in your social benefit -
MR. G. REID: Exactly. It is only the husband
and the wife who would qualify for it.
MS BETTNEY: Right, so anything that we design
for income support need only take care of adults. When we do that we will get
away from this recovery piece. Now it is a ways out, and we have to live with
the difficulties of managing the current system, but I think when we get to that
point we will have a very tangible benefit for children which will break down
that welfare wall. Because then it will not matter whether your family
circumstances are such that you are receiving social assistance or you are
working. Your children will still have the same benefit that can move back and
forth with the children. It will make a tremendous difference in the long term.
I think it is worth the immediate pain that we are going to feel in implementing
this to try and get to that point, and that is why I am so convinced that this
is the right thing to do.
MR. G. REID: The money that we are going to get
from the claw back, has all of it been already committed?
MS BETTNEY: Yes. In the way that we have
described it in the budget for the day care services, the family resource
centres, the youth networks and the active employment measures. (Inaudible).
MR. G. REID: What I mean is -
MS BETTNEY: In terms of has it now been
assigned right out?
MR. G. REID: Yes.
MS BETTNEY: No.
MR. G. REID: Okay.
MS BETTNEY: No. These are in program form right
now that have to be developed.
MR. G. REID: So if a group in some of my
communities were to try to access some of that funding -
MS BETTNEY: There is ample time.
MR. G. REID: - some may still be available?
MS BETTNEY: Oh, the programs are only in the
development stage right now so there is no money. I should not say none, there
may be some of it that is dedicated because of the nature of, say, the licensed
day care services. We know that $4.6 million is needed for it and we know how
that will be distributed to subsidize spaces and so on, but in terms of the
family resource centres and the youth networks, no, that has not been allocated.
We will be working with community groups to develop the models and decide where
it will be expanded.
Of course the other thing that you need to keep in
mind is next year when the federal government brings in the next $850 million
there will be another increase, not to the same extent because of our rates, but
we will have an additional $3 million we are estimating to be able to reinvest
and expand these programs and services even further as they get developed in
communities.
MR. G. REID: To alleviate Sheila's fears, is
your department doing anything to encourage programs in rural Newfoundland?
MS BETTNEY: Absolutely.
MR. G. REID: Because I have one I think that
may qualify on Fogo Island. They do everything on a regional basis, and they
have the only regional council in the Province on Fogo Island. They have a
program there that I think may be eligible for funding.
MS BETTNEY: I think you are right too. I had
some contact with it before that side of my department moved and we were looking
at it as something that -
MR. G. REID: So I guess it is up to your
department and us to make sure that people are aware of (inaudible) program.
MS BETTNEY: Also Health and Community Services.
MR. G. REID: Yes, that is good. Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Gerry. Don?
MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Minister, I just wanted to get some further information with regard to the
training programs your department is sponsoring. The Member for Waterford Valley
touched on it earlier but I just wanted to sort of get an idea as to how
extensive the training program is; specifically, how many people have availed of
it who had been formerly on social services, or still are social service
recipients.
MS BETTNEY: When you are saying creating
programs, what are you referring to specifically? The employment program?
MR. WHELAN: Not exactly the employment program.
Because I understand there is a program within your department that (inaudible)
finance people who are on social services to further their education, to become
employable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MS BETTNEY: When people attend post-secondary
training, if you do not have dependents, then we simply direct you to the
student aid division in the Department of Education and you draw down a student
loan the same as anybody else in society and you live off it. If you come off of
social assistance we do not continue to provide social assistance to anybody who
does not have dependents.
If you have dependents, we recognize that there is
an additional difficulty and responsibility. As I say, focusing on assisting
children and the whole issue of child poverty and getting families out of that
kind of situation, we make provision for families to be able to stay on social
assistance while they access the student loan and attend post-secondary
training, whatever that may be.
In order to do that, we say you have to draw down
your full student loan the same as anybody else and you have to return a portion
of your living expenses, because the department is providing your living
expenses. If you do that then you can continue with your social assistance, you
can continue to have your drug card and your vision care and all the rest that
go with it, and your normal social assistance rates.
MR. WHELAN: I think that is the type of thing I
was trying to zero in on. I am wondering with regard to -
MS BETTNEY: The numbers that we would have, the
number of cases -
MR. WHELAN: That would fit into that category.
WITNESS: Do you mean on student aid, for
example?
MR. WHELAN: Student aid. Single mothers, single
fathers for that matter.
MS BETTNEY: Again Wayne, in terms of income
support, do you have the (inaudible) numbers there?
MR. PENNEY: The last amount that we had is
approximately 880 this semester (inaudible).
MR. WHELAN: That is Province-wide?
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MR. WHELAN: The people who are availing of
these programs, whether it be this type of program or student loans, are trying
to make a transition obviously from the welfare cycle. Have you been able to
monitor the success of this particular effort with regard to the people who have
been on social services trying to break out of the system and move on to a more
normal lifestyle in society? Is there any way to determine how many people are
actually breaking out of the cycle? I guess it would be difficult to monitor.
MS BETTNEY: It is very difficult to know,
especially with the kind of information system that we have today. Our whole
data management and information management is really focused on that issuing of
cheques that I mentioned earlier. It does not serve us well in terms of
capturing other aspects of information related to people who are on or off or
coming back into social assistance. I would guess at this point that we do not
have accurate information to respond to what you are asking, what is the linkage
between our clients who go on to pursue their education in terms of their
success in breaking out of the system.
Intuitively we know that it is a major factor. With
the single parents for example, and I have met with many of them over the past
year, they see this as their way out. They know from others who they have spoken
to that this is their best chance. Most times it will work for them, it gets
them out, if they get their post-secondary training. It is very much intuitive
type information.
The other thing we know is for the population as a
whole, the best indicator and the best move that somebody can make to increase
their employability is to get that post-secondary training. That is the
strongest link, and that applies not only here but right across the country. If
you go on to that post-secondary education your chances of getting employment
start to rise rather dramatically. We just know. The numbers of young people
that we have on our case loads, the, say, youth that fall into the under
twenty-five category, over 65 per cent of them do not have high school. That
just tells you of the link between education and going on social assistance. If
we have them on social assistance for that period, the odds are they are going
to be there for quite a while, unless we do something very different from what
we have done in the past.
MR. WHELAN: Julie, I think if you looked at the
figures in the fisheries you will find that they are even lower, education
(inaudible).
MS BETTNEY: Yes, (inaudible).
MR. WHELAN: The various programs that you have,
to be quite honest, I find it a little strange that there is x number of
dollars, a lot of dollars, millions of dollars, being spent on loans and
subsidization of educational programs. It is almost like you are proceeding in
the dark, spending money and not being able to determine whether it is being
spent in an effective way or whether the returns on the money that is being
spent are great or small or insignificant or nil. Is there any effort being made
to -
MS BETTNEY: Yes. In redesigning our computer
system and in redesigning our income support system we are building in the
capacity to be able to attract those kinds of factors. Our computers that we
have today, and the programs we have, just cannot cope. They do not have the
information we need. As Dave was saying, it is twenty years old, it is
(inaudible), and it is just barely getting alone. If it gets us through to the
point where we have the new program we will have to have new computers and new
systems in order to implement it. We are just barely going to make it now with
the stuff that we have today.
I do not think it is too much of a risk to suggest
that by supporting our clients in their educational pursuits that we are helping
them break out of the system. I think it is pretty good odds that that is the
case because it works for everybody else, so I am fairly comfortable with that.
We have done a better job, I think, of tracking the results with our employment
programs. We know things for example with the Graduate Employment Program. That
is one where we target young graduates and try and subsidize their employment in
the private sector, with the hope that if they get into a job in the private
sector for a year at a subsidized cost to the employer, that the employer will
find a way to keep them on. We have had tremendous success with that and in
tracking it. What is the figure, 85 per cent or 75 per cent?
WITNESS: Seventy-nine per cent.
MS BETTNEY: Somewhere in between. Seventy-nine
per cent of the graduates that we have subsidized under this program have
maintained their employment, up to how many years?
WITNESS: Up to one year after subsidy and -
MS BETTNEY: - and counting. I mean that says
that is working. It is money well spent. We put in the maximum of $10,000, but
if a year later that person is still working, they have two years of experience
now on their resume and they probably have as permanent a position as anybody
has in today's working world.
WITNESS: And they have paid back some taxes.
MS BETTNEY: And they have paid back some taxes,
yes.
MR. WHELAN: That is basically it for me, Mr.
Chairman. I just want to thank the minister on her grasp (inaudible) in her
department.
CHAIR: Thank you, Don. Before we clue up I
think Loyola has a couple of questions he would like to redirect, but he is not
going to ask too many because Montreal is playing tonight and he wants to get
home to see that.
MR. SULLIVAN: Just a question to make sure I am
clear on it first of all. With reference to family resource centres, is that
funding, the $1.15 million, being spent through your department?
MS BETTNEY: No.
MR. SULLIVAN: No, Health and Community -
MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that's my understanding.
Because I -
MS BETTNEY: It started here. It is (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Fine, I'm clear. Some of the
conversation might have led me to believe otherwise, but it is in the
(inaudible) Department of Health and Community Services. I have already dealt
with a matter and I have dealt with the health department on it.
MS BETTNEY: The only aspect of the National
Child Benefit funding that will actually reside in this department is the active
employment measures, the $1.7 million.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure. The Opening Doors
Program assists around twenty people. Is that included under 4.1.04? Is that
where it is allocated? That's Vocational Training and Support Services for
Persons with Disabilities.
MS BETTNEY: It is not under 4.1.04.
MR. SULLIVAN: Would it be under 4.1.01?
MS BETTNEY: No, it is under our regular
employment programs -
MR. SULLIVAN: 4.1.01.
MS BETTNEY: - those that I was mentioning
before, yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, okay.
MS BETTNEY: It would be one of those.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. In terms of qualifying
under the Opening Doors Program, who could be a qualifier under the program? How
broad is it or how restrictive, either way?
MS BETTNEY: The Province, a number of years
ago, established an inventory - I will put it that way - where anyone with a
disability in the Province who wished to place their names sort of on this
inventory as people who were available for consideration for employment with the
provincial government could do so. That is wide open, in the sense that if
anybody feels that they wish to have themselves considered for this, it is
simply a question of contacting Jim McDonald with the Opening Doors project and
they will have their name placed there.
It is not just a question of having their names
placed there. What happens has really been that they go through a process of
career counselling and career services, in the sense that they identify the
kinds of things they have skills and aptitudes in. They get some counselling
with respect to resum writing and interview skills. Also, as part of the
Opening Doors Program, the staff there identify opportunities with departments
for positions that can be then funded through this program in departments in a
developmental way, so that the people who go into the positions get an
opportunity to spend a year kind of working and learning about a particular job
and developing their job skills and developing their expertise in this area.
In that respect, through this amount of money that
is allocated for the Opening Doors Program we provide the cost of keeping those
positions in the department. It is with the intent that at the end of the
developmental phase, however long that would be, the department would then fund
the position as a regular position within the department.
MR. SULLIVAN: Would that be under .01 under
that heading or .09 or .10? Where would it be placed? It is $500,000 a year,
provincial and federal, right, over the next two years I think. Is it under
Grants and Subsidies or under Allowances and Assistance? I guess it is under one
of those two areas.
MS BETTNEY: We are pretty sure that it is under
the Grants and Subsidies
section of 4.1.01, as a grant to the project which then
gets distributed through Salaries and so on.
MR. SULLIVAN: That would provide the salary of
that person to get into the workforce basically.
MS BETTNEY: It provides the number of the
salaries and it also, of course, provides the staff support to the project
itself, the director and the various counsellors and support staff.
MR. SULLIVAN: So somebody who may have a
certain disability, whatever the case may be, physical or otherwise, could still
qualify in that program. Assistance, under Vocational Training and Support
Services too, I guess could work concurrently with that, correct?
MS BETTNEY: Yes, exactly that. That is an
entirely separate system of supports. The Opening Doors Program focuses on
trying to develop job opportunities within the provincial government. There is
another program that it has also been running which is called the JEEPS program
which is a job experience program with the federal government. It also
coordinates with the federal government in trying to provide placement for
people with disabilities in federal government departments as well. That is
purely internal to both levels of government. Any of the other vocational
supports and employment supports are also available to these people, and to
others of course.
MR. SULLIVAN: In 4.1.04, under Salaries there,
.01, why would there have been a $200,000 drop in the revised versus the
budgeted figure for 1997-1998? That's on page 216, 4.1.04.01, Salaries. I know
it is back up again this year, but would there have been positions there that
were not filled and they were vacant and they are now going to be filled next
year?
MS BETTNEY: That is right. There were vacant
positions throughout the year and we are anticipating full (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and you are budgeting for
these. I just have a few others, similar ones like that. They are not pertaining
to finances. We will just look at this particular one, 1.2.02, Administrative
Support, under that heading. In Information Technology there was an expenditure
of almost $1.2 million over what was budgeted. What might have necessitated that
expenditure?
MS BETTNEY: Where are we?
MR. SULLIVAN: 1.2.02.12, Information
Technology.
MS BETTNEY: We made a major purchase of new
computers to replace those twenty year old ones. Really, in terms of the
increase that you see in the revised budget, that is what it represents,
approximately a $1 million purchase of hardware.
MR. SULLIVAN: Under 1.2.03, the next head
there, Program Development and Planning, I know there is roughly a 4 per cent
generally for the addition pay period, approximately, which probably takes up a
part of that. Probably $60,000-some. There is a jump too. Are there some
positions too that have been added in that area? Because last year there was
over $100,000 difference in the budget of which only a portion of that would
have been attributed to an extra pay period. Was there an extra position added?
MS BETTNEY: We have expanded the planning
function within my department because of all the work that we are doing with the
income support reform, with the National Child Benefit, and with all of these
major social policy issues. We have increased our resources in the policy
planning area.
MR. SULLIVAN: Under that same head there,
1.2.03.05, under Professional Services, and 1.2.03.10, Grants and Subsidies,
there has been a significant increase in both of these. What might have
accounted for that in the budget this year?
MS BETTNEY: I think under the Professional
Services, again , it is some of the work we are doing to hire external
expertise, some consulting expertise, with our redesign of the Income Support
Program. We have had to bring in, for example, Dr. Fraser Mustard from Ontario,
a nationally renowned expert in the area of early childhood issues, when we were
dealing with some of the early issues around the National Child Benefit. We
continue to have some contacts on a consultant basis with some other social
researchers to help us in redesigning our Income Support Program as needed. We
have just put a block of funds in that particular budget item to use for
consulting purposes throughout the year.
MR. SULLIVAN: Grants and Subsidies. It has been
$32,000. It might have traditionally been in that area, if it is $32,000 and you
spent $32,000. There is an extra $40,000.
MS BETTNEY: The block of the $40,000 is for the
women's centres. My department, Health and Community Services, and Justice each
allocated a $40,000 block for the women's centre funding, and that is where ours
got placed.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. That is it, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Are there any
other questions from committee members to redirect? Sheila.
MS S. OSBORNE: I have a couple. Will direct
deposit be compulsory when it comes in?
MS BETTNEY: I do not see how it could be. I
would have to say no at this point.
MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) would be more
consistent.
MS BETTNEY: It would be our intent to have it
as much as we could because I think it would be really efficient and it would
work well for people, but I do not think the technology will exist even from the
banking industry's point of view to make it compulsory when it is introduced.
MS S. OSBORNE: The drug card that people
receive as part of the job incentive program (inaudible). Do they get to hold it
for a year?
MS BETTNEY: No, we have not set a time limit on
it. That was one of the choices we had to make in implementing it, so we are
still working through that. What we anticipate is that depending on a person's
needs, some of them maybe more exhaustive, more compelling then others, and for
some people three months might be sufficient. For others it might take three
years. While there are constraints obviously because of the amount of money that
we have placed in the block funding, I did not want to set a period on it that
might be artificial and counterproductive in something that we are testing.
We need to view this as a pilot in the same way
that we are viewing some of the other things. We are trying to see what impact
that it has. I was concerned that if we put an artificial limit on it of six
months or a year that we might skew the results and really never find out if
this piece does contribute something significant. We have left it open. As we
further develop the pilot we will determine whether to put a ceiling on it or
not, but my instinct is that we will end up with something that is flexible,
that we will be able to use discretion based on a person's circumstances.
MS S. OSBORNE: In the training programs,
(inaudible) in the student aid when you are single and you go to get your
student loan, but at the end of your training period there is no job, I guess
you can go back on social services.
MS BETTNEY: If you are still on.
MS S. OSBORNE: If you are still on.
MS BETTNEY: Yes, for of course single parents.
Wait now, you are saying for single people.
MS S. OSBORNE: No, for single people.
MS BETTNEY: Yes, sorry.
MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I knew the single parents
(inaudible).
MS BETTNEY: For people who come off the
caseload, they are viewed in the same manner as anybody else. When they present
themselves as having a particular need for support their needs will be assessed
and their eligibility determined accordingly.
MS S. OSBORNE: The eighteen-and-over people who
are employable who live with families, what is the cutoff for them not being
able to qualify? What's the criteria?
MS BETTNEY: What's the income level? I would
have to ask, I don't know.
MS S. OSBORNE: That's the income level of the
house.
MS BETTNEY: Yes. Do any of the staff know that?
MR. PENNEY: I just want to clarify the
question. In terms of an eighteen-year-old living with (inaudible) -
MS S. OSBORNE: With family.
MR. PENNEY: If the family is on social
assistance, obviously the eighteen-year-old will continue on their assistance.
We use the social assistance rate as a measure (inaudible) -
MS BETTNEY: Do you want to have him move up
here?
MR. PENNEY: It is not an absolute cut-off. It
is judged on an individual basis.
MS S. OSBORNE: So this will be probably more
people working, as employed parents or (inaudible).
MS BETTNEY: Yes.
MS S. OSBORNE: In day care, people who are on
social assistance who have gotten a student loan, and day care is provided as
part of the support, what is the age cut-off for the children who are eligible
(inaudible)?
MS BETTNEY: Under twelve?
MR. PENNEY: I am not absolutely sure, but I
suspect that (inaudible) -
MS BETTNEY: I think it is around twelve, but
again it might depend on the child, if the child has a particular need, in a
child protection sense, that can be accommodated through a placement in a day
care environment (inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: The reason I asked is that I
have a person now (inaudible) I will have to call your department because this
is a specific case. A lady who left her twelve-year-old son alone and he was
apprehended by child protection, but they will not give her day care
(inaudible).
MS BETTNEY: I see.
MS S. OSBORNE: He will not go to a centre
obviously, he is too old for that. I guess I will deal with that on that
individual (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Loyola is telling me that I should say
thank you.
MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I want to watch that game
too.
MR. CANNING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move
the heads 1.1.01 to 4.1.05, inclusive without amendment.
On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.1.05, carried.
On motion, Department of Human Resources and
Employment, total heads, carried.
CHAIR: The meeting is adjourned until next year
at this time. All the Estimates have been concluded for this year.
Thank you, Minister, I appreciate you coming in.
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you and your staff. Thank you for
putting up with this rather warm evening.
On motion, the Committee adjourned.