HANSARD

NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

COMMITTEE

ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER

Department of Community Services

AG Audit on Child Care Services

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)

Mr. James DeWolfe (Vice-Chairman)

Mr. Mark Parent

Mr. Peter Christie

Mr. Graham Steele

Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid)

Mr. Keith Colwell

Mr. Michel Samson

Mr. Wayne Gaudet

[Mr. Peter Christie was replaced by Mr. Cecil O'Donnell]

In Attendance:

Ms. Mora Stevens

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Jacques Lapointe

Auditor General

Ms. Alan Horgan

Assistant Auditor General

WITNESSES

Department of Community Services

Ms. Marian Tyson

Deputy Minister

Mr. George Savoury

Senior Director, Family and Community Supports

Mr. George Hudson

Executive Director, Finance and Administration

Ms. Denise Stone

Coordinator of Special Needs Policy and

Program Development - Early Childhood Development

[Page 1]

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

9:00 A.M.

CHAIR

Ms. Maureen MacDonald

VICE-CHAIRMAN

Mr. James DeWolfe

MADAM CHAIR: Good morning. I'd like to call the committee to order. This morning we have with us as witnesses the Department of Community Services concerning the Auditor General's audit on child-care centres. I would like to welcome our witnesses from the department. We will proceed in the usual manner with introductions of the members and the Auditor General and his staff. The floor then will be opened to the deputy minister to introduce her staff and make a brief opening statement, and that will be followed by rounds of questioning. We'll start first with introductions.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Tyson, the floor is yours for introductions and opening statements.

MS. MARIAN TYSON: Thank you. My name is Marian Tyson, I am the Deputy Minister of Community Services. I'm very pleased to be here today with three representatives of the Department of Community Services to provide information and to answer questions on the child-care programs. I have with me, on my left, George Hudson, who is the Executive Director of Finance and Administration for the department. On my immediate right, George Savoury, who is the Senior Director of Family and Community Supports. Early Childhood Development, which includes child care, is under George's division. On my far right, Denise Stone, who is the Coordinator of Special Needs Policy and Program Development, and she is currently the Acting Director of Early Childhood Development Services.

1

[Page 2]

I'd like to begin by saying that I was very pleased that the Auditor General's Report found that the systems and controls used by the Department of Community Services to ensure compliance with the Day Care Act, the regulations, the policies and the procedures, were adequate, and that the roles and the responsibilities relating to the licensing of child-care centres were clearly drafted and communicated. They also found that staff were well trained.

The Early Childhood Development Services program offers support for families and fosters healthy child development of children between the ages of three months and 12 years. Early Childhood Development, that branch of the department, is responsible for licensing of the child-care centres, which includes monitoring the facilities, developing the policy and the standards, staff training and support to the operators. Currently, there are 372 licensed child-care facilities, with a total of 12,452 spaces. They are all required to follow the same Act and regulations.

Early Childhood Development Services also provides financial support to parents who require child care while attending education, training programs, or work, by paying the full or the partial fees for their children who are enrolled in child care. There are approximately, as of this week, 2,886 subsidized spaces province-wide. The branch also provides funding for early intervention, and coordinates and funds the Child Care Stabilization Grant, that's a salary grant; coordinates supported child care, that is for special-needs children and other funding to child-care centres; and also coordinates a range of programs to support children's development.

In September 2005, we asked Nova Scotians, including child-care centres and parents, to identify their priorities for child care. It was an extensive consultation with over 2,300 surveys and close to 300 participants. There were sessions province-wide. Also, we received quite a number of written or voice messages. Also over the past year, we've been consulting with both the commercial and the non-profit child-care sector in terms of their specific issues and priorities. Those consultations have helped in the development of a child-care plan for Nova Scotia, which we hope to be able to complete and announce shortly.

I'm going to very briefly highlight some of the program investments for 2004-05. Almost $3.9 million in the Child Care Stabilization Grant, which supports wages, benefits and training of licensed child-care staff. This helped 1,125 full-time staff and 217 full-time centres. Almost $9 million was spent on the subsidy program, which provided assistance to low-income families. On January 1, 2005, the subsidies were increased. That required an additional $1.1 million. In addition, in 2004-05, a one-time operating grant of $200,000 was provided to centres, also. Over $2.4 million on supported child care, and this was building capacity to provide more quality-inclusive programs for special-needs children. This served 553 children in 128 centres.

[Page 3]

So in closing, with those brief remarks, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to provide you with information. We look forward to answering specific questions.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. The floor is now open to the NDP caucus.

Mr. Steele. You have until 9:30 a.m.

MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Thank you very much. I know my colleague, the member for Sackville-Cobequid, and I have a personal interest in this. He has young children who are just about exactly the same age as mine. We've both taken advantage of licensed and unlicensed child-care opportunities. As parents of young children, we feel that we have what you might call a personal knowledge of and a personal stake in the child-care system in Nova Scotia.

We also know that the mandate of this committee is to look backwards, and you're invited here today to talk about the Auditor General's audit, and I do intend to get to that later in my time. However, I would be remiss the day after the federal budget not to ask you about the impact of the federal budget on the child-care system in Nova Scotia, because ever since the federal Conservatives announced their so-called child-care plan, child care has been front and centre as an issue in Nova Scotia and across the country. So let me, uncharacteristically, ask you an open-ended question to start off. What will be the impact of yesterday's federal budget on the child-care system in Nova Scotia?

MS. TYSON: I'll start by saying, Mr. Steele, that staff in the department had worked very hard for a very long time in anticipation that the Martin plan would be rolled out, which would have given us about $137 million. We suspected, and subsequently knew, that it was not going to be a possibility, and we were told before last night and everybody knew because of the election promises that it was unlikely that the Harper plan would continue that amount of money.

We are getting the first two years of money, which is approximately $39 million, and that's one-time funding. So instead of $137 million that we thought we had to work with and we thought that might well be ongoing, we have $39 million which will be not ongoing as far as we know at this point. The staff had worked with that $39 million and also with the previous two federal plans to try to craft a proposed plan for Nova Scotia and to put a foundation in place with that amount of money that, hopefully, should we be fortunate enough to obtain additional funds in the future we could build on that foundation. That plan has not been announced yet, but we hope that it will be announced shortly.

[Page 4]

MR. STEELE: I'll get to that shortly as well. The plan announced and elaborated on in yesterday's budget was $100 a month allowance to parents who have children under age 6. Has your department done any analysis of what impact, if any, that will have on the child care system in Nova Scotia?

MS. TYSON: Staff in the Department of Finance is working on that, as are our staff, as is the federal government. I understand there are programs that could be potentially impacted. I understand though from the federal budget last night that it appears, although we'll need more detail, that they are working in some way so that $100 a month does not impact other programs. That's my understanding from reading the budget and we in the department, with the Department of Finance, will be looking at all of the potential impacts on our programs. Our Minister of Finance last night has indicated similar remarks, which would indicate that it is his intention not to adversely affect Nova Scotians.

MR. STEELE: I guess we're all in an area where we're not sure what's going to happen because of course the money, which is more in the nature of a baby bonus than a child care allowance, really can go anywhere and can be used by parents for anything. Essentially that money is being subtracted from the child care architecture in Nova Scotia and I guess we're all wondering, where exactly is the money going to go? Is it going to go into child care? Is it going to go somewhere else? Are operators going to have to raise their rates and just eat up the extra amount of money? So it doesn't surprise me that the department itself isn't sure what impact this is going to have.

[9:15 a.m.]

Our Premier though is on record as saying that he would be encouraging the federal government to take what he happily called a "blended approach", by which I took him to mean that he wasn't going to oppose this baby bonus allowance but that he'd also be encouraging the federal government to follow through on the five-year agreement reached just about a year ago between the federal and provincial governments. Can you tell me what precisely the Premier and Minister of Community Services have done to lobby the federal government for the so-called blended approach?

MS. TYSON: I understand that the Premier did meet with his federal counterparts, but I can't tell you exactly what was said in that conversation as I wasn't there.

MR. STEELE: Is it your understanding, as the deputy minister, that any talk of a blended approach is essentially dead, the five-year agreement is dead, and that the province has no realistic expectation of getting the money for years three, four and five?

[Page 5]

MS. TYSON: I can't tell you what will happen in the future - we're always hopeful that there are opportunities to achieve more money from the federal government.

MR. STEELE: Has any official in the federal government given the province any reason to believe that that option is still on the table?

MS. TYSON: No.

MR. STEELE: I would like to turn now, before I get to the Auditor General's audit, which I will get to, to the agreement that was announced last May 2005. This is the framework agreement on funding for early childhood learning. The odd thing about this agreement is that the first year $20.4 million was, according to the agreement, money that the province might draw on in either 2004-05 - which was a fiscal year that at the time had already passed - or 2005-06 which, of course, is a fiscal year that ended a month ago and there has still been no announcement by the province, no plan issued about what the province is actually doing with the money. I was talking to some daycare operators yesterday who said they have no idea, they would love to know. So, deputy minister, where is that money?

MS. TYSON: I'm going to ask George Hudson to comment on where the money is and the time frames.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Hudson.

MR. GEORGE HUDSON: The federal government deposited the money into the trust fund, which you spoke of, last June. It was shortly thereafter withdrawn by the province and deposited in the bank in the Province of Nova Scotia and was accounted for as a credit to deferred revenue, to be drawn down as it's spent on the plan that the deputy has talked about.

MR. STEELE: I'm just going to repeat that to make sure I understand - is accounted for as a credit to deferred revenue?

MR. HUDSON: On the province's books.

MR. STEELE: So I'm just going to say this again, because this is news to me. So the federal government put the money in a trust fund which, very shortly thereafter, the province took out of the trust fund and put in the bank as it were, but the province hasn't actually spent the money yet?

MR. HUDSON: Right.

[Page 6]

MR. STEELE: Maybe I should address my next question to the Auditor General rather than to you.

Mr. Auditor General, you've heard about the way the province is accounting for this money - money that it received last year for the last two fiscal years which are now over, but it still hasn't been spent. It's just sitting in the bank somewhere for them to spend when and as they see fit. In your view, how should this money be accounted for?

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Lapointe.

MR. JACQUES LAPOINTE: Madam Chair, the accounting for these funds would depend on the terms of the agreements to do with them. So I guess what the department is saying in this case, and by putting them into deferred revenue they would be saying that there were conditions attached to the spending and they were for a specific program.

If there were no conditions attached, the funds would come into the general revenues, be deposited, recorded as revenues when they are received. In this case they wouldn't be recognized as revenues in that fiscal year, whenever it is, but would be allocated against the year in which the spending actually occurs - which would mean that a deferred revenue would defer the recognition of that revenue in the government's books until the time that it's actually drawn down and spent.

MR. STEELE: In the agreement which I have open in front of me right now, it says the province can draw on this money in 2004-05 or 2005-06 - but they drew on it to put it in the bank, and I always worry when there are large sums of money that are sitting in the bank to be used when and as the government sees fit because, as we know from other funds available to this government, they do have this tendency to use them for, shall we say, political purposes as well as program purposes, and one of the constraints on how the government uses this kind of money, of course, is the accounting treatment. So is it appropriate that the government has $20 million sitting in the bank with no plan for how it's going to be used, and people in the program area have no idea how or when the money is going to be used?

MR. LAPOINTE: Well, there would be two issues here. One is the cash which is sitting in the bank. When the funds are transferred to the province, I would assume that they would go into the consolidated revenue fund. The accounting treatment for this is what I believe is really the issue, and the question becomes what is the appropriate treatment for that. Not having sat down and looked at the specific terms of the agreement, I can't give a definitive answer, but assuming there are conditions in it and that those funds are allocated for a specific program and specific spending and is dependent on that, then it would be appropriate to put those funds, in terms of accounting, into a deferred revenue account as they have done.

[Page 7]

Without looking at all the details, I wouldn't want to say whether that was done correctly or not, but that would be the appropriate treatment if there were conditions attached, yes.

MR. STEELE: Ms. Tyson, where is the plan? It was committed actually in the agreement itself to come up with a plan by the end of December, which, when queried in January about where it was, we were told it was coming soon. Now it's May and we still haven't seen it. Where's the plan?

MS. TYSON: I anticipate that it will be announced shortly. That's all I can tell you.

MR. STEELE: Just before an election? You don't have to answer that. That's a question for another forum.

The agreement itself says the province will release the plan before the end of December and now we find out that it's going to be announced just before what appears to be just before an election call. Why has the province not kept the commitment it made in the agreement itself to come out with a plan before the end of December?

MS. TYSON: I can say the department had to switch gears rather abruptly and develop an entirely different kind of plan than it had been working on over a very long period of time - almost a year. So that did take some time, Mr. Steele.

MR. STEELE: You see my concern, Madam Chair, is that there's a large amount of money sitting in the bank, which apparently the government can spend whenever it wants, they made a commitment to issue a plan for how they were going to spend the money before the end of December, now today we hear it's going to come out very shortly just on the eve of an election. This kind of thing causes me a great deal of concern because we all know the financial condition of the child care sector is very precarious.

So for the second year of the agreement - which apparently the federal Conservative Government has committed to another $18.8 million - where is that money?

MS. TYSON: It's in the same place.

MR. STEELE: So the federal government has already put it in the trust account and the province has taken it out of trust and it's sitting in the bank?

MS. TYSON: I'm going to ask Mr. Hudson to comment on that.

MR. HUDSON: That money hasn't been drawn down yet.

[Page 8]

MR. STEELE: It's still sitting in the trust account?

MR. HUDSON: I'm not sure whether the federal government has deposited it yet. These funds are drawn by the Department of Finance so they're not under control of the Department of Community Services. The funds are drawn by the Department of Finance, we simply are spending funds against budget.

MR. STEELE: The workers in the sector receive extremely low wages. It's one of the key issues in the child-care sector about how to attract and retain qualified staff at the wages they are being paid. One of the key elements of the Early Childhood Learning policy of this government is the wage subsidy which was put in place which allowed them to go from starvation wages to meagre wages. That subsidy ends in March next year and there is no commitment of the provincial government to continue it, which means operators are faced with either raising their rates to make up the difference or having child-care workers suffer a cut in pay. What is going to happen when the child-care wage subsidy is scheduled to end next March?

MS. TYSON: I think you're referring to the stabilization grant that's provided to all child-care centres for wage purposes. It's my understanding that amount is covered by an earlier agreement which is subject to be renegotiated in the general social transfer. We are operating on the assumption that will be continued and that grant will continue.

MR. STEELE: You are operating on the assumption?

MS. TYSON: Yes.

MR. STEELE: Has the federal government told you it will be continued?

MS. TYSON: At the senior staff level, we are told it is almost certainly to continue. They're telling us what they know.

MR. STEELE: Okay. Bear in mind this is a federal government that has just abrogated another child care agreement - a five-year agreement that they've just terminated because they don't agree with it. Their child care policy, so called, is to give $100 month, fully taxable, to parents and let the chips fall where they may. So do you still have confidence that that wage subsidy is going to continue?

MS. TYSON: It sounds to me like it will continue, but I can't - obviously, none of us can say for certain, but it certainly looks like it will continue, that's at this point. We're operating on that assumption at this point. If things change we would have to take a look at the impact and what we would be recommending.

[Page 9]

MR. STEELE: I'm going to use my second round to talk about the Auditor General's audit because, through freedom of information requests, we have received information about the child care inspection system that I can only use the words astonishing and shocking to describe. I'm going to use the couple of minutes I have left now just to set up where I'm going to go when I start in the second round.

Last year the NDP caucus filed a freedom of information request asking for the summary inspection reports of every licensed child care facility in Nova Scotia. We received 225, and we were told that the department could not locate - could not locate - the reports for all of the others. Now you've said that today there are 372, and we were of the impression at the time that there were approximately 75 other centres for which the department simply could not locate the reports, which is a bit astonishing in itself. Not only that, but these inspection reports are not available to parents whose children are in these centres, and I have been told that, following our freedom of information request, after parents called the department looking for more information about the inspection reports for their child's facility, your staff, deputy, told them to call the NDP because we had them and we were willing to release them, your department had them and was not willing to release them.

I cannot understand, I cannot fathom why the department believes that parents are not entitled to see these inspection reports, or to receive information about the inspection history of the facility where their child is. Why should parents in Nova Scotia not be entitled to see the complete inspection file of their child's facility?

MS. TYSON: I agree with you, Mr. Steele. I wasn't aware of the circumstances you just described and I'll look into it.

MR. STEELE: So if a parent calls today, will they get the file?

[9:30 a.m.]

MS. TYSON: As soon as I get back to my office, I'll find out what happened and look into it. I do agree that a parent should be entitled to that report.

MR. STEELE: We'll continue in the next round. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The time has expired.

Mr. Gaudet.

MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Madam Chair, I wanted to start off by looking at the audit specifically. Looking at Section 6.14, of the audit, all the child care centres are inspected and assessed for compliance. Under the section, when instances of non-

[Page 10]

compliance with the Day Care Act and regulations are noted during inspections, either a short-term licence or closure is recommended. My first question, in 2005 how many short-term licences were issued?

MS. TYSON: I can't tell you as of the year 2005, the calendar year, but I can tell you that in April 2006 we had - just this past April - 62 centres with short-term licences, but 20 of them had no violations, they were just awaiting that short-term licence to run out.

MR. GAUDET: Okay. My second question, on the average, how long did it take to address the issues of non-compliance? Was it days, weeks, months? What are we talking about?

MS. TYSON: I'm going to ask George Savoury to comment.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Savoury.

MR. GEORGE SAVOURY: It would vary, sometimes the inspector may be waiting for the fire inspector or public health to come in. It might be something physical where we might have the physical plant in the centre. It could relate to someone completing their training to bring them up to ratio. So, it would vary depending on the nature of the violation.

MR. GAUDET: Hearing that there were 62 centres with short-term licences and 20 had no violation, how many closures were immediately recommended as a result of non-compliance?

MR. SAVOURY: We have very few closures. Of course we're in the business of trying to open centres and make more talk here available in our province and we would much rather be doing that. In the past year we would have had one centre that closed because of violations. Other centres may choose to get out of the business for various reasons so we could have some centres close not attributable to a violation.

MR. GAUDET: I'm just curious, where was that centre located?

MR. SAVOURY: In the central region, our Halifax region.

MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Looking at Section 6.17 of the audit, it indicates that there were instances where licences were approved and issued when required documentation was not provided for file purposes. Could you please provide or indicate the type of documentation that does not need to be provided that will still enable a licence to be issued.

[Page 11]

MR. SAVOURY: Well, as you are probably aware, we have requirements under our regulations that a centre must comply with and there is certain documentation that must be provided. We wouldn't issue a licence without having all of the appropriate documentation. The Auditor General's Report did raise the issue of making sure that our file documentation manually and our IT system controls were compatible. As a result of the Auditor General's Report we've followed up on those and as of May 1^st we've put those in place so that there's no opportunity for information to be in one system that's not available in another.

MR. GAUDET: Okay, I'll pursue that one. The following section of the audit, 6.18, indicates there are no electronic controls built into the licensing system to prevent issuing a licence to a centre with outstanding instances of non-compliance. Instead the supervisor of licensing and standards manually searches for compliance issues prior to approving a licence. My question is, I guess, are there plans to build in electronic controls to prevent the issuance of a licence to a centre with outstanding instances of non-compliance?

MR. SAVOURY: Absolutely. The Auditor General's Report noted that the supervisor would have always done a manual check and we're satisfied that no licence was ever issued where the appropriate documentation wasn't available or where there were outstanding issues. However, since we've received the Auditor General's Report we've been working with our IT staff and our program staff and I'm pleased to report that we have completed this change. Warning messages now appear indicating that there is non-compliance. This message also includes the priority level of the non-compliance at either a high priority or a low priority issue.

MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Moving to the next section, Section 6.18 expresses some concern that there are certain requirements under the Day Care Act and regulations that are not included on the checklist used to inspect child-care centres. So my first question is during the time of the audit, what specific regulatory requirements were omitted from the checklist?

MR. SAVOURY: I don't have that with me, but I could certainly undertake to provide that to you. We are, in fact, planning to revise our regulations which will in turn lead to revisions of our compliance policy and our guidelines to staff. Once these regulations are amended, we will be revising all of our guidelines and direction to staff. So certainly that's our intention.

MR. GAUDET: So speaking of that revision, will all the checklists include all the requirements outlined in the Act and regulations?

MR. SAVOURY: Yes, they will.

[Page 12]

MR. GAUDET: They will, okay. The Auditor General also expressed concern about the fact that checklists are completed manually on paper and then later put on a computer system. I guess my question is, what kind of safeguards are in place to ensure that this data that's entered on a computer later reflects the information collected during an inspection?

MR. SAVOURY: When licensing staff visit centres in an area, they may do x number of centres today and then tomorrow may get in their car and go and do another three or four centres and then come back to their office and enter the data. I think that was the concern of the Auditor General, that the most current information might not be in the system. We have a practice of checking with staff and making sure that we're not issuing a licence where there are non-compliance issues, but that process - as was pointed out by the Auditor General - is time-consuming. So part of the change that we intend to put in place is to look at what technology improvement is there. If it means providing them with laptops, for example, or making other changes so that when they visit a centre they can immediately enter it so that they don't have to wait to get back to their office to do that, that's certainly what we intend to pursue.

MR. GAUDET: Okay, speaking of those delays in entering information pertaining to an inspection of a child-care centre, I guess I'm just trying to understand - in terms of delays, are we talking days, weeks, months - what time span in delays are we looking at?

MR. SAVOURY: Generally I would think we're talking days. As soon as they get back into their office, we're confident that they proceed to enter the data in the computer system. I think the 14 staff who do this are very well trained. We regularly bring them together, we discuss issues and any concerns. So we feel confident that they, obviously, take this work very seriously and if we can make changes, which we're pursuing, to make it easier for them to enter the data more quickly, that's our intention.

MR. GAUDET: How many inspectors do we have for daycare centres?

MR. SAVOURY: We have 14 throughout the province.

MR GAUDET: Thank you. Looking at this delay, again, is this delay not a concern to the department in terms of child safety and protection and, if so, what plans do you have to try to mitigate this situation and when will these changes be implemented?

MR. SAVOURY: Certainly as a department we're very concerned with any delays, particularly in this whole area. I can assure you that we are satisfied that even if staff is a day or two late putting the information in, we would not issue and have not issued a licence to a centre where there were issues around non-compliance. So we're

[Page 13]

satisfied with it, we just believe that the system can be, as the Auditor General pointed out, improved. We need to put in the systems and provide the tools so that it can be entered more quickly. We're very satisfied that we do not have child-care centres in the province that, because of that delay, have a licence that they shouldn't have.

MR. GAUDET: I want to move to Section 6.19, talking about the pilot project, the Family Home Care Project, which was initiated back in 1980. The goal is to fund smaller, home-based child-care operations. My first question is, how many of these smaller, home-based child-care operations exist in Nova Scotia?

MR. SAVOURY: We currently have four pilots in our province. What we did when that came into place was we developed guidelines that in many ways mirror the regulations under the Children and Family Services Act. Certainly our plan is to expand the number of family home child-care models or homes in our province as part of the plan that hopefully we expect to be announced very soon.

MR. GAUDET: Again, on these smaller, home-based child-care operations, how many have received money from the department, and approximately how much was allocated?

MR. SAVOURY: I'm not sure I have the figure - I'll just check here in a second for you - but the four pilots that we have in place have been provided with similar funding in terms of they get the benefit of the subsidy, for example parents could apply for the subsidy, and we've been trying to provide them with some training supports as well. We try to support them as much as we can as part of this pilot project.

MR. GAUDET: Have the regulations in the Day Care Act been updated to address family child-care operations?

MR. SAVOURY: No, not at the moment; however, I can tell you that we have done extensive work recently on this, because this was one of the priorities that came out, that certainly staff and parents have identified to us as needed in the province, particularly for infants and in rural parts of the province.

[9:45 a.m.]

We've done a review of family home child-care models across the country. We have a rough draft now of proposed regulations, which we would hope to move forward with in the very near future, for family home child care. We've also met with the child-care consultation, we have tables in each region made up of folks from the sector, and we have met with them as well. We have also brought together recently those folks who are operating the pilots, to get their input and to give us their suggestions for how family home child care should be run in Nova Scotia.

[Page 14]

MR. GAUDET: Madam Chair, what time . . .

MADAM CHAIR: Until 9:50 a.m.

MR. GAUDET: I want to just bring another matter to the floor, Madam Chair. In a February 2006 article of the Bridgewater Bulletin it was reported that an investigation in 2004 of a daycare in Bridgewater determined that at least four children were tied to mats and chairs. Now this daycare, according to the article, had a repeated history of violations. According to this article, it was the local staff in the region who pleaded with the head office to do something, yet months went by and nothing was done. Does this type of situation not confirm the finding of the Auditor General when he states that licensing and inspection should fall under jurisdictions of the regions, as opposed to the head office?

MR. SAVOURY: First of all by the way, the figure for the family home child care - then I will come back to your question - in 2004-05 was $777,672.

MR. GAUDET: Okay, thank you.

MR. SAVOURY: Just to respond to your question, obviously those are always difficult situations. Fortunately they're in the minority and we don't have many of those because, as I mentioned earlier, our thrust is to work with centres and to open them. Even when centres are having problems, we spend a lot of our energy and time trying to work with them to correct issues.

The situation you had mentioned, certainly there were concerns. We were monitoring that child-care centre very closely and that centre is still being monitored very closely. I think it's fair to say the clarity of the communications from the staff could have been improved.

There were statements made around - for example, child abuse was referenced there. That doesn't fall into the domain of the licensing staff to make that determination. In fact, in that particular situation, the referral had been made to the local Children's Aid Society and they had determined that that was not the situation.

We have excellent staff and we work with staff on these issues. Again, it's a centre we are monitoring closely and take it very seriously.

MR. GAUDET: I'm going to ask the same question again. The Auditor General has stated that licensing and inspection should fall under the jurisdiction of the regions as opposed to the head office. I'm just curious if you agree or don't agree.

[Page 15]

MR. SAVOURY: Sorry, I meant to come to that particular question. We are in fact reviewing that particular recommendation. If you look across the country, in other jurisdictions you will find there is no one consistent approach where it's either licences are issued out of a central head office or if they're out of the regions. Some folks would argue, for example, the premiere licensing authority probably in North America is NARA - National Association of Regulatory Administration - and they would advise us to be cautious about moving quickly to a regional approach because of the need to make sure the licence you issue today in Yarmouth, or the licence you revoke in Yarmouth, the person who is reviewing that is applying the same standards and tests as you would in Amherst, which is I think a valid point.

However, we are looking at it. We have a review going on right now of the licensing process in the department and certainly, if that's the recommendation that comes from the report, we're prepared to look at it.

I think the Auditor General's wording was that we should assess the benefits or merits of that approach; it wasn't one of unequivocal you should go in that direction, which I think was a sound way to have worded it. Anything we can do to improve the process, we're certainly open to doing it.

MR. GAUDET: Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. The time has now expired for the Liberal caucus. I would recognize Mr. Parent, and you have until 10:11 a.m.

MR. MARK PARENT: Thank you, and thank you for appearing before us. You are fairly familiar with this Chamber - this is the fourth or fifth visit, I think, at least for Ms. Tyson.

You mentioned there are 372 facilities and 12,452 daycare spaces. How does that correlate with the demand for daycare spaces in the province?

MS. TYSON: We have wait lists in most areas, Mr. Parent. I can't tell you exactly what they are, it varies from area to area, but there are wait lists.

MR. PARENT: Do you know which areas have the highest wait lists? Do you have that information?

MR. SAVOURY: The centres, I would think, maintain it. It's something we could get for you. We would probably have to approach the centres in each region but, certainly, we could try to find that for you.

[Page 16]

MR. PARENT: That would be helpful information that I'd appreciate having if you could get it for me. There are also 2,856 subsidized spaces, these are for people who have gone back to school. Do you know the demand for those subsidized spaces? What's the wait list for those, and how are those divvied up on a regional basis?

MR. SAVOURY: Again, I'll try to get that for you. I can tell you that we have instituted a practice of making sure that staff give priority to anyone applying for a subsidy. We're quite pleased with the attention our staff are giving to that because we believe if there are any available subsidized spaces that there should be a 100 per cent utilization. That doesn't mean that there is still not some who are still waiting for a subsidized space, but we have put controls in place to make sure that they're allocated ASAP.

MR. PARENT: I'm glad to hear that, because one of the problems I face with constituents all the time, particularly with mothers who are going back to upgrade their education, is the problem of getting adequate daycare support while they're taking their further education. So I think that's an incredibly important thing that we need to focus on.

I just want to ask Mr. Lapointe, my colleague, Mr. Steele, was asking about the money that was part of the agreement signed between the province and the federal government and about the accounting of that. I just wanted to get you to reiterate that. I think you stated that the accounting of that money was appropriate the way the department accounted for it. Is that an accurate summary?

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Lapointe.

MR. LAPOINTE: What I stated was, not having looked at the agreement, on the assumption that the agreements with the federal government tie the funding to specific spending, then it would be appropriate to defer the recognition of the revenue to match it to the spending, which is what the department has indicated that they have done.

MR. PARENT: So on that assumption, it's an appropriate sort of accounting of it.

MR. LAPOINTE: That's correct.

MR. PARENT: I just wanted that reiterated because there was some suggestion that maybe it wasn't.

You've done an extensive survey and, clearly, policy is going to be based upon that, and the policy has to, I guess, go before Cabinet, so you're not going to tip your hand here telling us what that policy will be. Maybe, is it possible, to give us some of the results of this survey data that you could share with us at this time?

[Page 17]

MS. TYSON: Yes, we do have that information, Mr. Parent. The main consultations took place in August/September 2005. There were 20 sessions, and there were surveys. This was done in both English and French. There were surveys on the Web site at child-care centres, at family resource centres, at district offices and so on. As I indicated, we had over 2,500 participants in various ways, and we wanted to identify what the priorities were of the various groups of people. We found that the priorities included decrease of the cost of child care for all families, increase in salaries for child-care staff, operational grants for child-care centres, decrease in the cost for low-income families, increase in the number of licensed spaces, recruitment and retention of a stable workforce, and increase in professional development for staff. Those were the priorities overall.

MR. PARENT: I appreciate that. I was going to ask about staff retention and staff pay. My late wife was trained in early childhood, in St. Lawrence Community College in Ontario, and I always sort of lamented that she didn't take her teaching degree because, if she'd had the children one year later, she would have been making $40,000 and, as she was, she was making $15,000. So what progress have we made in terms of adequate pay for daycare workers?

MS. TYSON: Well, the province, through the last stabilization grant, provides $4,000 for every trained child-care worker, and $1,000 for every untrained child-care worker. The province requires two-thirds of the staff to be trained, and that has helped, overall, improve the salaries and remuneration of child-care workers. We are told, regularly and strongly, by child-care workers and umbrella groups that they would like to see increases from there, that the salaries are not where they would like to see them.

But the stabilization grant, which is available to all centres, both commercial and non-profit, they tell us has helped quite a bit and they're very pleased to have that money, and earlier funding for non-profit centres also has been helpful in raising or maintaining salaries, or retaining staff, they tell us. Some of the older non-profit centres are fortunate enough to have quite a bit more funding than some of the newer ones, because of the timing of the programs, and in some cases they are paying adequate wages, they tell us.

MR. PARENT: How do our wages provincially, here in Nova Scotia, compare across Canada? Do we have those statistics, that comparison? For trained workers, I'm talking for trained workers now.

MS. TYSON: We've done a survey of the child-care centres in Nova Scotia, and more than 50 per cent in both non-profit and commercial have responded. From that data, we find that the average hourly wage, the average is $9.20 per hour. Some of course are lower, and some are as high as $20 hour, but the average is $9.20 hour.

[Page 18]

MR. PARENT: How would that compare with other provinces, particularly the Atlantic Provinces or smaller provinces like us, like Saskatchewan?

MR. SAVOURY: We generally compare okay with the smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and of course we would be out of step with the larger provinces like Ontario, for example.

[10:00 a.m.]

MR. PARENT: Are we having a problem, because in other sectors in our economy we're having a problem retaining workers, in various sectors of society, who are attracted by the higher wages out in Alberta, for example - is that the case with the child care? Are we graduating enough graduates from our child-care program through community colleges, or are they finding it very hard to get trained people to fill these positions?

MR. SAVOURY: I think, in general, the turnover rate varies. Probably between 20 to 25 per cent in our province. In some areas we are hearing that it is very difficult. In rural parts of the province it is difficult. We are working with the Nova Scotia Community College. We've been supporting them and other training institutions such a the Mount, with the intention to graduate more folks with training in ECD. So we're quite pleased with that. We've been spending around $1 million on that initiative, but it is an issue where folks see more attractive wages in other sectors or locations, which results in that turnover rate.

MR. PARENT: I would be remiss if I did not state this, for the record, indicate the wonderful program at Kingstec Community College in early childhood, and thank you for any support that you give to that centre. A very committed staff and very eager students, whom I know I would be very honoured to have look after my children, although I'm moving, Madam Chair, to where my grandchildren are getting that age.

I wanted to talk about the agreement a little bit, the now tenuous agreement with the federal government. We have some part of the money and share concerns about what that means for the province. As the Premier has elicited, we would like to have the blended approach. In the initial agreement, even before the changes, I did have some concern that there was no recognition of family support centres, that it was all going to daycare centres. In my riding I have a family support centre that supports the parents, that educates, trains, and they weren't accessing, in the agreement we made, any of that money. I'm just wondering what does the department do to support these family support centres, which I think do a fantastic job helping both the children but, specifically, the parents to become better parents?

[Page 19]

MS. TYSON: You're quite right that the original Martin plan, of which we will receive the first two years of funding, did not allow us to support other than licensed child care. That was a restriction on that particular money. Earlier agreements were not as restrictive, and we do support family centres through those earlier agreements. I don't have the actual amounts that we have supported family centres, but that could be obtained if you're interested in any particular one, or more than one.

MR. PARENT: It's not really the amounts, I guess I just wanted to make a point. I think we've already talked personally about this, and I know that you're on side. I really do think that these family support centres - and I don't know how many are scattered across the province, but I know I have an excellent one in my riding - do a wonderful job, and we're disappointed that they weren't able to access some of that money that they saw coming in. I spoke to the minister about it. I know in other provinces, New Brunswick and Quebec, there were discussions with the federal government on maybe expanding the agreement. In a sense, it's talking about something after the horse has already bolted, because we've moved into a new era.

I guess I'm just really wanting to get on the record my support for these family support centres. I think they do an excellent job, and I think that anything we can do to help them fulfill their mandate will result in a far stronger, richer society, and children who are better looked after and parents who are better resourced. So it's not really so much a question as waving the flag. I notice that the Chair is agreeing with me, so she must have some family support centres in her area that do an excellent job on very minimal budgets. So I'm just pleading for them.

I want to come specifically to a topic that we've had a lot of discussion about - I know attempts have been made to help out this particular centre, but I still have questions about it. It's the Apple Tree Landing Children's Centre, and you're very familiar so there's nothing new I'm going to say.

Basically what seemed to happen to the centre - and I want to get confirmation from you if I have the analysis correct - is that the centre was built and the planning for the centre was done based upon subsidized spaces that were attached to various centres. By the time the centre was functional and up and going, there had been a change in government policy, and the change makes sense, to have portable funding, so that the funding goes with the particular student. The trouble is in that little window there were a few centres, such as mine, that were caught planning the size of the building and the size of the program based upon the past system, and now having to really operate in a new era. Is that a fair analysis - because I know Apple Tree Landing is maybe somewhat unique. Is that a fair analysis that there are certain centres that got caught in that transition?

[Page 20]

MR. SAVOURY: Very true. Of course Apple Tree Landing is another centre that has a family resource component linked to it. I was quite pleased to hear your earlier comments, because we have 37 of those centres throughout the province and they do an absolutely wonderful job and they're probably the key part of our prevention services to families and children. So I'm very pleased to hear your comments.

I think what you point out with Apple Tree Landing is what happens when you have kind of a variety of funding arrangements put in place, and Apple Tree Landing was one of those that just missed out on getting regular spaces. One of our objectives in working on the new plan is to make sure that funding is fair and streamlined as much as possible. So certainly we're very aware of that situation and we would hope that when the new plan is announced and we're able to get the plan implemented that folks can see the rationale more clearly for why and how they get particular funding.

MR. PARENT: I appreciate and thank you for that. The centre this year, actually for the first time in many years, posted a small surplus, came in on budget, which was very - because the volunteers were getting burnt out with fundraising, feeling very discouraged simply because they felt that other centres - and they mapped this out on a wall in Wolfville in particular, but also in Kentville - received core funding in a sense that they really weren't privy to. I know the department tried to help out as best they could, but it was more on an ad hoc basis, rather than we know we have this core funding and on top of it we can build our program.

The transition to portable spaces, so that when you had shifting populations you could shift your daycare money appropriately, how has that worked out, besides the Apple Tree Landing Centre because there are a few of these centres, but overall how has the portable funding worked out? Has it been a good move? Have people responded to it well? Has it helped with improving daycare centres?

MS. TYSON: All new subsidies are now portable, Mr. Parent, and that's a decision of the current government, and we're operating under that. It does give parents the choice. There are now 609 portable seats and the remaining, we still have 2,277 fixed seats. So any new subsidies created, we're operating under the direction that they will be portable.

MR. PARENT: And how is that working out?

MS. TYSON: It's working out well and they are utilized.

MR. PARENT: And it allows the choice of the parent, but also allows, I guess when you've got shifting population patterns, for a quicker uptake?

[Page 21]

MS. TYSON: Well, uptake is one and full utilization is something that we've been also working at, as Mr. Savoury pointed out. We receive reports now on a monthly basis as to utilization of subsidies, and it's close to 100 per cent in all regions the last time I checked. So that's an improvement and some people, if they do have a portable seat, they are going to access the same centre in their area anyway. So I think that would limit the number of people moving around. I think people do tend to stay and they do tend to access centres close to home, but it does give people a choice if they move - then they could take their seat with them to another area.

MR. PARENT: In regard to the new policy of portable seats, which I think has some very strong arguments for it, but the counter-argument is that centres need some sort of core funding on which the portable seats could be built, because the portable seats may or may not be there. Now, over time I guess you would have a good idea that you have so many portable seats and you could count on that, but that sort of core funding on which this is overlaid . . .

MADAM CHAIR: Order. I'm sorry, the time has expired for the PC caucus.

I would like to recognize Mr. Steele, and we'll do a second round of 13 minutes per caucus. So you have until 10:24 a.m.

MR. STEELE: Thank you very much. I'm going to spend this round entirely on the Auditor General's Report.

In your opening remarks, deputy minister, you referred to the fact that the Auditor General found the inspection system to be adequate. Now, in that dry accounting language which I love so much, adequate is not necessarily a good thing, it means it's good enough. In school it might be a grade of C. It does the job. The Auditor General also points out a number of quite substantial inefficiencies in the way the system is run.

What I think is interesting, though - I know my colleagues do as well - is that as a result of information that we received because of a freedom of information request, and the Bridgewater Bulletin received as the result of a freedom of information request, we found out information about the inspection system which would not have shown up in the Auditor General's audit and which we think reveals substantial deficiencies in the inspection system.

Now, here I have all the information we received as a result of our freedom of information request on The Clubhouse on Kearney Lake Road in Halifax. Inspired by our reporting on that request, the Bridgewater Bulletin put in a freedom of information request about Cookies & Crayons in Bridgewater, both of which are now closed. What is astonishing for those of us who read both files is the similarities between them. What happened was, the department's field inspection staff found years of violations, years of

[Page 22]

violations. In both files, the field inspectors indicated to senior management they could no longer ethically continue to issue a licence to these centres because they felt it was a violation of their standards as social workers to do so.

The Clubhouse file, not once, but twice, field inspectors asked to be removed from the file because the centre stayed open despite their recommendations and despite their findings of repeated violations. The problem with the inspection system appears to be with senior management overruling field staff, which happened in both cases for years.

For example, with The Clubhouse, from May 26, 2000, to March 31, 2002, there were 22 high-priority violations and 55 low-priority violations. In that period, no less than 13 temporary licenses were issued. Between June 1, 2003, and December 31, 2003, there were six high-priority violations and three low-priority violations, three short-term licences were issued. Between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, there were 21 high-priority violations and 49 low-priority violations, in that period of one year, nine temporary licenses were issued.

[10:15 a.m.]

As I've said, in both cases, field staff recommended closure because of years of violations, many of them high-priority. They were consistently overruled by senior management in the Department of Community Services head office in Halifax to the point where they were so frustrated that they felt they could no longer continue to work on the file.

In the material for The Clubhouse, for example, you, yourself, deputy minister, have been involved. You, yourself, caused delays in the eventual closure with questions you were asking, and this is after the Director of Family & Children's Services had already spent a couple of years on the file, and the regional director, and then the deputy gets involved. Why is the Deputy Minister of the Department of Community Services, which deals with hundreds of millions of dollars a year, many programs across the entire province, why is the deputy minister personally getting involved in the license of an individual child care centre?

MS. TYSON: Of course, normally I wouldn't even know any of the details of any particular centre. Only the minister, at this point, can sign the letter closing a centre, and I review everything that goes to the minister. My responsibility then would be to ensure, not having any background at that point, that the recommendation was appropriate and that was the appropriate response, taking advice from staff.

It's always a balancing act, Mr. Steele. As Mr. Savoury pointed out, staff try very hard to work with centres to ensure that they are able to comply with the regulations and

[Page 23]

the guidelines and to try to support them to be able to comply. If, however, after a period of time, it's not possible to conclude that they can comply, or if there are very serious violations, then there would be a closure of a centre. I wasn't involved in all of the details.

MR. STEELE: It just surprised me that you were involved at all because you are the deputy minister of a large department, you were getting right down asking details about the individual circumstances of that individual licencee. The frustration of your field staff who sort of shine through in all of this as being dedicated and professional, their frustration is that senior management in downtown Halifax are throwing obstacles in their way as they try to do their jobs. The fact that you were involved, personally involved with this, the individual circumstances of this one licencee is just an example of how that happens.

Let me give you another example. In 2005, after years of violation - and this is shortly, actually, before the centre closes - the regional director stops by the desk of the field officer - and this is when the inspector has made it very clear that she is very uncomfortable with what is going on - and says - and I'm just flipping through here looking for the exact quote, but it is to the effect of - so you're going to issue them a full-year licence, aren't you? Why would the regional director be saying things like that to the field inspector?

MS. TYSON: I can't answer that. I don't recall that there was ever an intention at that stage to issue a full-year licence. Staff were issuing short-term licenses that were being monitored. I understand fully why staff would become frustrated after dealing over a long period with a difficult situation. I think the head office staff, though, have to look beyond the frustration of dealing with a difficult situation or operator and look at whether the situation can be salvaged. Of course the primary concern of the department is the health and safety of the children. Many violations include perhaps not submitting the full documentation, or programming issues, that if they can be corrected, it can be a quality operating centre.

MR. STEELE: Remember, this is a centre that has been violating so often and for so long that staff have asked to be removed from the file, not once, but twice. We're now in our third field inspector who continues to find the same violations, and senior management continues to say, well, can't you work with her? It comes through in the e-mail exchanges that they're saying no, we can't work with her, this is not going to be corrected by another sit-down discussion with this operator. Senior management is still saying, if you can imagine, going by the desk and saying, so you're going to issue them a full-year licence, aren't you?

I don't think your field inspectors understand what the rules are. I know that the good daycare operators, of whom there are very many, are frustrated by this because

[Page 24]

many of them work very hard to get a clean inspection report where everything is right, and yet they see an operator like this, who they all know about because it's talked about in the industry, years of violations, major violations, and still the licence is renewed.

Let me give you another example, in Bridgewater - and this is from the Bridgewater Bulletin - "The situation was serious enough to prompt local Community Services office manager Robert Deveau and casework supervisor Krista Horne-Taylor to notify head office in writing they felt it was a violation of the social work code of ethics to leave these children in a potentially abusive situation . . ." One of the things that they found, one of them, was that children were being tied down, children were being tied down for meal times and on mats at sleep time. They said four children had been tied down. Head office said that that was the wrong word to use, that the children were actually "sashayed". Now I wonder if you could define for me what it means to be "sashayed".

MS. TYSON: I can tell you that my understanding of that situation was that there was concern that the child would slip from the chair eating his or her lunch and a scarf was used to secure the child to the chair during lunchtime. That's my understanding.

MR. STEELE: That was the owner's version of what happened; I don't think that was the inspector's version of what happened.

Now, Mr. Savoury, it was you who used the word "sashayed" - how do you define sashayed?

MR. SAVOURY: I would agree with what our deputy just said. This was a child who was very small and in these situations, when we become aware of it - and they were sashaying the child to the chair so the child wouldn't fall out - we would speak to the operator around purchasing, for example, equipment that's more age-appropriate, but we were satisfied that this wasn't done in a punitive way. We work with centres all the time and sometimes either we give them advice and counselling, or we even have required staff to participate in training so they understand issues around working with children properly.

MR. STEELE: Your inspector said it was four children at mealtime and nap time. The operator's version was it was one child, her own son, at mealtime and it appears that you, without visiting the centre, decided that the operator's version was right.

MR. SAVOURY: Well, our approach is to always communicate with our staff. In any situation where there's non-compliance - and Club House wouldn't be any different - we have many, many meetings with the licensing staff and in fact we pursued every issue that you've raised. For example, we were satisfied that there wasn't a violation of the code of ethics; we were satisfied that there wasn't abuse, that the worker

[Page 25]

was making that statement in realizing that that was a determination that was made by the Children's Aid Society that there wasn't abuse in that situation. So I think the clarity of the licensing officer's communication could have been improved, but we know it's frustrating for licensing staff, and we work with them and I can assure you, when you talk about recommendations to close, the situation that we're faced with and the licence, of course, under our Act still comes out of head office.

So that's why there are communications with senior staff, but I can tell you very clearly that we get a recommendation and if we're satisfied, our licensing staff is satisfied it should be closed, centres are in fact closed. I know you went through Clubhouse and you mentioned Great Big Dreams, which was formerly Cookies & Crayons - what you will find in these centres is that you will go in today and they may not be in compliance and you give them a date which the operator signs, agreeing to correct it, and you go back in two weeks and they may have corrected that particular violation and sometimes we will find that they are in full compliance so, despite the period of time you're referencing, there would be periods, even with Clubhouse, where they in fact were in full compliance.

MADAM CHAIR: Order. The time has now expired for the NDP caucus.

I recognize Mr. Gaudet, and you have until 10:38 a.m.

MR. GAUDET: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to the former federal child-care agreement.

Madam Deputy, you indicated earlier that Nova Scotia has received $39 million for early childhood learning, as opposed to the $137 million that was promised under this agreement. My first question is, did our Minister of Community Services ever write a letter of concern to his federal counterpart urging government to honour the early childhood agreement and, if so, could a copy of that letter and the response be tabled before the end of today's session, please?

MS. TYSON: I will determine that and, if he did, we will table that.

MR. GAUDET: So we don't know if he did or not. We'll have to wait to hear back from the deputy.

MS. TYSON: I don't believe that a letter was written by the minister, but I'll make sure and, if he did, we'll provide it.

MR. GAUDET: Great, thank you. Deputy, could you indicate whether or not the minister ever met with our Premier with the goal of ensuring that Nova Scotia would receive its full $137 million and, if so, could you indicate when.

[Page 26]

MS. TYSON: I can tell you that during the briefings with the new Premier, our minister met and discussed child care for a full hour, because I was with him on that occasion. He expressed his great interest and concern in the child care issue. Of course at that time, no position had been determined by the new Premier. He did have a long discussion and made sure that the Premier was up to date on the various issues and concerns of the sector.

MR. GAUDET: I want to focus on the agreements with other provinces. Other provinces had plans in place, and, as a result, had agreements with the federal government as opposed to agreements in principle like we had here in Nova Scotia.. Deputy, are you aware as to whether Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba, all of whom had full-fledged agreements, received the full five years of the funding under the agreement?

MS. TYSON: My understanding is that they received the same two years as all other provinces. There was some discussion about that at the time, what would happen with the provinces who did not sign funding agreements, and the federal government extended the same second year funding to all provinces and territories.

MR.GAUDET: Further to the new government, Prime Minister Harper's announcement of providing $1,200 for child care allowance to families for each child under the age of 6 years, $100 per month. My first question is, will the allowance that's currently being provided as a special need for child care remain at a maximum of $400 here in Nova Scotia?

MS. TYSON: You're referring to the $400 under the Income Assistance Program for child care?

MR. GAUDET: That's correct, yes.

MS. TYSON: I'm not aware of any intention to alter that amount.

MR. GAUDET: Will the department still enable a client to claim up to a maximum of $400 without this $100 being taken into consideration in the calculation? In other words, will the client be able to claim the cost up to $400 and still have the additional $100 available for use?

MS. TYSON: Those are government decisions. However, Minister Baker, I believe, made comments either yesterday, last night, or this morning along the lines that - I can't remember his exact words - it would be his intention that Nova Scotians have the maximum benefit from the $1,200. I can't speak for the government, but we have no indication that there will be any clawback, if you will.

[Page 27]

MR. GAUDET: So you're indicating there will be no changes made, as far as you're aware, to the Nova Scotia child benefit as a result of this $100 a month being provided by the federal government for child care expenses.

MS. TYSON: Again, I think the elected members are in a better position to speak to that. They're in a position to make decisions. I am not aware of any change. I haven't been advised of any change.

MR. GAUDET: Looking at the department, has the department brought forward any necessary regulatory changes to ensure that this $100 received by social assistance clients will really be $100?

[10:30 a.m.]

MS. TYSON: Not at this point. First of all, the Department of Finance and the Department of Community Services, of course, working with them, and with the federal government were anxious to see what the federal government was planning with respect to their programs, because some of their programs - we are bound by some federal rules in terms of income testing. So we were very anxious to see the result of their consideration of this issue, and we don't have details yet, but from the Throne Speech last night, it appears they will be doing everything possible to ensure parents get the full amount and that it does not impact other programs. We will be going back to our Finance Department to see how that's going to be done and how Nova Scotia will respond to that if there are other areas that Nova Scotia needs to deal with. It's a work in progress at this point.

MR. GAUDET: I guess I have a hard time following this. We've known for close to four months now that $1,200 was going to be provided. I'm just curious, within the Department of Community Services, if there have been any changes proposed, any changes looked at, if anything has been brought forward. I'm just curious, deputy, what kind of work has been ongoing for the last four months? We've known this was coming. It was no big surprise yesterday.

MS. TYSON: No, it wasn't a complete surprise, and work has been ongoing, as I indicated earlier, to try to determine which federal and which provincial programs may be impacted by the $1,200. The federal government has been gathering that information, as have we in Nova Scotia. We've been talking back and forth to the federal people, because we were made aware that they were looking at possible ways to reduce any negative impacts or eliminate any negative impacts as a result of that program.

We do have a considerable amount of information. Discussion has been ongoing with the federal government and with our Department of Finance. We do know the potential impacts. We had to wait to see, and we still need details with respect to how the

[Page 28]

federal government is going to deal with some of these issues, some of the programs that are affected by income, are based on income. If a person's income goes up they may not qualify for a particular program, because some of those programs - we are the people who administer them, so we go by the federal rules - some of them are Nova Scotia programs solely.

We need to know how the federal government is going to deal with its rules and then what that would mean for Nova Scotia programs, and then a decision would have to be made as to what action would be necessary in Nova Scotia. It's a very complicated process. I'm told by the federal senior staff that they had identified - this was a couple of months ago - about 150 programs that they were analyzing with respect to what might possibly be impacted by this $1,200. We do have until July, and we're in a good position, I believe, to provide the information for the government to make whatever decisions they would need to make in this regard. We've been working on this, and I think we're in a pretty good position.

MR. GAUDET: Again, looking at this $1,200, it is my understanding that none of this $1,200 will be clawed back in any way by the provincial government.

MS. TYSON: I think that's a question you should ask the elected members. I think I've said that I have not been informed of any change in our programs and that Minister Baker, the Minister of Finance, has made some comment on that issue - I believe it was either last night or this morning.

MR. GAUDET: Have you made any recommendations to the minister, to share with the Minister of Finance? Have you made any comments?

MS. TYSON: Yes.

MR. GAUDET: And what are those?

MS. TYSON: It's not appropriate for me to disclose recommendations that the department is making to the minister or the Minister of Finance.

MR. GAUDET: I respect that. Thank you, deputy.

I want to move on to - I know I just have a couple of minutes left - the portable daycare spaces. In an article in The ChronicleHerald dated January 27, 2006, it was stated that there are 609 portable daycare spaces in the province, with 350 to 400 of the portable daycare spaces paid for by Ottawa. First of all, could you confirm if those numbers are correct?

MS. TYSON: There are 609 portable subsidized spaces.

[Page 29]

MR. GAUDET: And how many are paid for by Ottawa?

MS. TYSON: We don't have that information. I don't even know if we can get that information, but we'll see if we can get it and, if we can, we'll provide it.

MR. GAUDET: I guess my next question . . .

MS. TYSON: If I could just add that I believe that the province was funding some portable spaces, and then some others are funded through the federal programs, so I'm not sure, I'll see if we can find a good breakdown.

MR. GAUDET: The breakdown on how many the province is funding and how many the federal government is funding.

MS. TYSON: If it's available.

MR. GAUDET: Also, is it possible to find out if the portion that is being funded by the federal government, if those portable seats will continue to be funded by the federal government? Is that possible to get?

MS. TYSON: For those seats that have been funded, they would have been funded out of the earlier agreements. Those earlier agreements are part of the social transfer. That social transfer to the province, that large lump sum of money, will be renegotiated in total in 2008-09. So that's the whole social health transfer that comes to the province, and it's included in that transfer. We anticipate that will be renegotiated successfully and that we will be able to continue that funding. We're operating on that assumption, at this time.

MR. GAUDET: Just for clarification, am I to understand that the numbers of portable seats that are being currently funded by the federal government will be until the agreement expires in 2008?

MS. TYSON: We anticipate that will be renewed and that all 609 federally - and provincially - funded will continue to be funded.

MADAM CHAIR: The time has expired for the Liberal caucus. I recognize Mr. Parent. You have 13 minutes, until 10:51 a.m.

MR. PARENT: Thank you. I was in the middle of asking a question. In terms of portable spaces how one provides some sort of stable funding and yet respect portability. I had that question out, but I don't think I had it answered.

[Page 30]

MS. TYSON: Yes, I was just trying to recall your question. We do provide additional funding other than subsidies. I think the question more is, can the child-care centre fill its seats with children? Some of the children would be in families that are paying all of the money, some would be paying part of the money, and some could be fully subsidized. It's a matter of can they fill all of their seats. I think one has to assume a certain vacancy level. I know staff have been attempting to determine what that might be, what a reasonable vacancy figure might be. It's not a matter of subsidized seats so much as are they filled, are there children in them and is the daycare centre able to get the fees from them.

In addition, I think you mentioned Apple Tree. I know Mr. Hudson has referred me that he has all the financial information here with him, and we did provide them with approximately $70,000 last year. Also, they were able to access some federal funding for capital and other purposes, I understand, in prior years.

MR. PARENT: I'll go back to Mr. Savoury. You mentioned before that you understood that there were a few centres such as Apple Tree that were sort of caught in between the change in policy. So not a question really, but just advocating on behalf of my centre that you continue to understand - one of the centres in my riding - the unique situation they are under and support them as best as possible. As I said, this year has turned out to be a fairly good year for them. For a while, I was worried about the burnout on the staff, the burnout on the board members, there were threatened resignations because they're just so tired of fundraising, but things seem to have turned around and thank you for your help in that, but don't forget us.

I want to come back to this question of compliance and the whole - my colleague has raised a specific incident in Bridgewater, one I'm not aware of, and really our job at this level isn't so much specific centres, but looking at the policy as a whole and making sure the policy is a good policy, and that the policy is being followed.

You mentioned before that various provinces have various ways of doing the inspections. Can you elucidate that a bit further? Some do it by field staff, some do it at the centre office, how do we compare with other provinces in terms of our policy for inspections of facilities?

MR. SAVOURY: First of all, we believe our licensing process is very, very rigorous in our province. In fact, we would put our province up with any province in terms of licensing. Most of the jurisdictions would have an approach very similar to our own in having front-line licensing staff who go out and do the inspection and make the recommendation. It would, of course, vary depending on their legislation if the ultimate authority to issue the licence rests with the director or at another level. We recognize our Act is dated. It's a piece of legislation that was passed in 1989, and it is our intent to modify our legislation.

[Page 31]

I should say as well that when you mentioned compliance we had 60-something centres that had a short-term licence in, I think, April 2006 and we've determined, for example, that 20 of those wouldn't have had a short-term licence if we adopted the recommendation of the Auditor General to give them a full licence when they're in full compliance. Our practice has been if their licence was, for example, annually given in January and we went in January and they were waiting for the fire inspection, or some other health inspection report, and they didn't get it until, say, April, instead of going for a full year, from April to April, we would go to January - things like that would reduce our number of temporary licences, which we think is a positive change and we intend to implement.

I should say, as well, the fact that we give these temporary licences is also related to the fact that we don't take giving the full licence lightly. If we did, we probably would have a less number of temporary licences - and I should say our operators in this province generally respond very favourably to the recommendations, we have a very small number who either are resistant to our involvement or periodically have difficulty complying. So we're quite pleased generally with the operators and we have, as you know, some fantastic child-care centres in this province and they regularly get their full licence.

MR. PARENT: Thank you for your comments. So just to reiterate, in fact when you mentioned that 20 of those centres would probably be given their full year's licence, and they're on a provisional licence, just buttresses what you said, that we're fairly vigorous in this province and that in comparison with other provinces the system is very similar. I've not been involved with a situation where someone was in non-compliance in a child-care facility, but I was involved in one that was a seniors' facility.

[10:45 a.m.]

The person in the seniors' facility at that time, the owner, felt that the fieldworker and she had a personality conflict and that she was an unfortunate victim of that. What struck me as we worked our way through that - and in the end the seniors' facility, the licence was withdrawn for various reasons - is how important it is to maintain balance in regard both to licensing and to withdrawing the licence for facilities like this; there need to be check guards and there need to be safeguards primarily for the clients who use it, in child-care centres, the children, in this centre the seniors, but also for the owners and operators as well, there needs to be this balance.

I think Ms. Tyson used the word "balance" and it's something that, having sat on the government side now, I can see is so important that one balances in light of the larger picture. So in light of the comments that were made earlier about the centres in Bridgewater, would you feel that the balance was achieved there, or was it a case where perhaps the rights of one person were taken more seriously than the rights of others?

[Page 32]

MR. SAVOURY: I think you raise a really important issue. I think the relationship between the licensing officer, regardless of the type of facility - one is licensing - is very important. It is their business, whether they're non-profit or commercial, and we need to make sure that due diligence has been done and that the recommendation that is received is one that can be supported.

In the Bridgewater situation, I've had a chance to meet with the manager and the licensing officer. I think they understand very importantly what their role is, the centre is being monitored, and I think they clearly understand their role. Sometimes it can happen that the relationship can break down, and sometimes a staff member may request to be reassigned; in fact, sometimes we have the operator of a facility who may make that request to us. We don't automatically do that. There may not be good reason when we review it, to do it. On the other hand, if we think that it would be beneficial, we say, sure, and I'm sure our staff would do that.

Balance is important. Their role is to support centres, to help bring them into compliance through various means like training, advice and counselling, and, at other times, if at the same time they're not responding, then they have an onus to make it very clear to the operator that we can revoke the licence or, at a minimum, we're only going to give them a very short-term licence until they correct the violations.

MR. PARENT: Just to reiterate then, the process is a rigorous one. You've illustrated that. It's a similar process that is used across Canada. There may be some tweaking that we need to do with the Act. It needs to be updated. Do we have any sense of timing on when you would be bringing those proposals forward for the Act?

MR. SAVOURY: We've done a lot of work, first of all, on our regulations, because we can make the regulation changes without necessarily altering our Act, and it can be done quicker, and we've done a lot of work on that, and expect to be able to move quickly in that regard. Our Act, of course, needs some work ,as well. It is certainly one of several pieces of legislation that we have on our agenda to be modified and redone.

MR. PARENT: The regulations which are, and sometimes the guts of the thing, they're being worked on right now.

MR. SAVOURY: Exactly, and we fundamentally believe that by clarifying and improving these regulations, which then enables us to revise some of our guidelines and our compliance protocol, will be very well received and welcomed by operators, and I think it will be a great help to our staff.

MR. PARENT: Good. I'm glad to hear that. Those are all the questions that I have.

[Page 33]

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. The time for questioning has now expired. I would invite Ms. Tyson to make some closing remarks, if you so wish.

MS. TYSON: Thank you. I just want to clarify one point. We've been talking about portable seats and provincial funding and federal funding, and how it actually works in the first earlier two agreements is that we receive a block of money in those earlier agreements and the province actually makes a decision where that money is going. So that's just a clarification for the Liberal member.

I would just like to say, in conclusion, that we appreciate the opportunity to come here and provide information about the child-care plan, and also the Auditor General's Report. We were very pleased to receive the Auditor General's Report. The objective of the report, which is stated in the report, was to assess the adequacy of the systems and controls to ensure that they were adequate to ensure compliance, and the Auditor General found that they were. So we were very pleased with that. We were also pleased that the Auditor General went a step further and made some recommendations to things we might look at and how we might improve our systems. We're always open to suggestions for improvement.

We have accepted all of the Auditor General's recommendations. Some have been implemented. I'm informed that just yesterday, six technology changes had been made, which will help implement the Auditor General's recommendations, and we accept them all and we are moving forward to either implement or consider, as the Auditor General recommended. So we're open, and we appreciate that very much. With those comments, I think those will be all my comments, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. We have a very small amount of other business that I think we can dispense with fairly quickly. The Auditor General's 2005 Performance Report and 2006 Business Plan has already been tabled. So I just want to make note of that. This will become a public document now.

Additionally, we've received an invitation to the annual CCPAC Conference. It will be on Prince Edward Island. You will see that there's a letter attached. I believe this was circulated to all members. It's the practice, I understand, of this committee to have four people participate - the chairman, vice-chairman, a member of the Third Party and the clerk. With your agreement, the clerk will proceed to respond to the invitation to participate. Is that agreeable to members?

The subcommittee will be scheduling today, if possible, a meeting of the subcommittee as soon as possible to consider further the legal opinion that we have just received in writing, and members all have this. It's not yet available to the public, and we would like an opportunity to have some time to review this, consider it, and consult

[Page 34]

with the various members of the committee before we release this. (Interruption) It will occur right after this meeting. I'm wondering is there any other business? Mr. Steele.

MR. STEELE: Yes, in light of the discussion today I think it's important that we draw at least one conclusion. So I would like to put forward the following motion and ask that it be voted on today. The motion that I propose reads as follows:

Therefore be it resolved that the members of the Public Accounts Committee of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly support the Early Learning and Child Care Agreement, in principle, signed between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia in May 2005, and urges the Government of Canada to fulfill the terms of the agreement for the full five years.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this motion?

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

We stand adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 10:54 a.m.]