MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue with the estimates of the Minister of Community Services. The NDP has, according to the minutes here, 23 minutes left . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: So we're starting at 2:38 p.m.?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine, yes, 2:38 p.m. is fine.
The honourable member for Dartmouth North.
MR. JERRY PYE: Mr. Chairman, when we left off with the estimates for the Department of Community Services we were talking about the employment supports and the income assistance portion of the Department of Community Services. The minister had brought forward the number of some 2,400 full-time employees, I mean employees who received full-time job positions. I asked the minister if he could provide me with the information on where those employment positions may have been, and the minister had indicated that he did not have the information at his disposal, but that he would provide me with that information.
I'm wondering if the minister has had time to provide me with that information or is there a need for an extended period of time in which to bring that information forward?
343
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Community Services.
HON. PETER CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member did ask some questions the other day. We were talking about people who were going back to work and the question had to do with where were people going, which direction and what kind of jobs were they going to. So I'm happy to table this for the honourable member today, indicating some of the areas that people are going are construction and manufacturing, call centres, retail and food services, and cleaning and related services. One of the things we were talking about was everybody going back into minimum-wage jobs - I think that was part of the discussion we were having. So we've put on this piece of paper for the honourable member the typical range of salary of people who have moved into those other areas.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for providing the information, but based on the job categories it would be safe to say to the minister that some of the jobs that people have been moving into are certainly in the minimum-wage job category. Other of those jobs may range between the $10-an-hour job and the minimum-wage job which, I believe, is $5.55 an hour in the province. So I guess, having said that, we can be assured that those individuals are still individuals who have left the Department of Community Services, but are still continued because the different job positions that they may take are still needing some income supplement from the Department of Community Services and I'm sure the minister will agree that that's probably an assistance for the one year as well as the drug card.
I'm sure that the minister has dissected those numbers, but the minister hasn't gone to the length of actually laying out in matrix as to the number of individuals who would continue to receive income supplement and the drug card for the one year when their period of time has expired; I'm sure that the minister hasn't gone that far. But I want to tell the minister that in order for people to move, and we've talked about the educational qualifications, and in order for individuals, simply because they were on social assistance, to be restricted to institutes of higher learning, both the universities and community colleges, that this was somewhat unfair and it meant that those individuals who are particularly on social assistance may very well find themselves not getting to the position since the Department of Community Services has grandfathered that in and they will no longer receive benefits while they're at university.
I believe that the minister will be very much aware that if we are going to recognize the future of families and children and, in fact, education warrants a degree of prosperity, then the Minister of Community Services would certainly be aware that education is paramount to moving people from dependence on social assistance into good, meaningful jobs in the labour force. I guess what I would call that is an investment in families and children. Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Community Services, I guess what I will say is that obviously the minister under the tight restraint that he has now, but is there an opportunity, can the minister give us some assurances that in fact in the future there is the opportunity to cover funding to institutions of higher learning?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple parts to your question. The first question was about transition assistance and what can people expect in returning to work. As the honourable member will know, as we put the legislation in last year, we did place that in the regulations, showing that support would be there for people who needed that support for up to a year. The other part of the question has to do with whether there will be opportunities for people in this year and in future years, to get additional training. If we go back to the discussion we had the other day regarding what the goals and the objectives of the department are, I will reiterate that our major goals are to try to seek that large group, 50 per cent more of our recipients, to get them the Grade 12 education, but that's where we have to put our largest focus.
The emphasis, of course, is getting people back to work and, as the honourable member sees from his budget Estimates book, our return-to-work initiative this year is again $8.2 million, to have the funds there available to be able to react and to be able to do those things that the honourable member was speaking about. So that would include the back-to-work incentives, that would include the ability to send people for training. So, yes, we have that in our budget and, yes, that is the training, but we are still going forward with the two-year post-graduate. We have to address the Grade 12 issue, but the two-year post-graduate support is required in the community colleges and those areas, that's where we're directing our focus and, yes, the money is in our budget for this year.
[2:45 p.m.]
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, I want to go to the issue with respect to the National Child Benefit. I want to tell the Minister of Community Services he's absolutely correct that his government has passed on the National Child Benefit directly to the families of those children, something that the Liberal Government hadn't done for the period of time in which it was in office. Also followed with the National Child Benefit was in fact the Nova Scotia Child Benefit, and I want to tell the minister the combination of the Nova Scotia Child Benefit and the National Child Benefit certainly did not enhance the quality of life of individuals because, as the minister is very much aware, the families who are recipients of those programs, in fact the children at younger ages, younger-aged children, received an increase in the child allotment to them from $130 to $133, I do believe, and yet people who are older, I believe 14 years of age and older, who used to receive $174 a month were dropped down to approximately $130 a month.
In my opinion, when you look at the whole picture and the landscape of the government's contribution to its allotment to families on social assistance, there has been no increased benefit to those individuals. In fact it has been relatively flat, if not decreased, and I'm wondering, can the minister possibly respond to how he had calculated that the National Child Benefit, along with the Nova Scotia Child Benefit, as seeing more money in the pockets of poor Nova Scotians?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to correct that the honourable member said was that people over a certain age drop down to $133 and I think, as the honourable member will remember, we grandfathered those people in, so they stayed at that rate. I just want to clarify that.
As we came to look at the rate as we were going to put those together, we were doing two things at the time. You will recall the initiative was to enable people to come off assistance and go back into the workforce without having to have any loss of the benefit, and the benefit would continue to be. The other part of that initiative is that we were wanting to ensure that even though people who were working were under that income band, they were going to get this child benefit too, and they would have the opportunity to receive the full child benefit.
Now the honourable member is right, there was the federal part and there was the provincial part, and we brought those together and the increase we gave wasn't very much. But also, as the member indicated, the increase in the national portion last year went on to people, as does the increase this year, to the portion that went on to people, so we were trying in that process to stabilize it so people weren't losing benefits if they came off income assistance, but more importantly we were bringing in more people who were under that low-income band. That's how we sort of derived that and came up with it, but it was tied into that part of our plan of people being self-reliant and being able to return to work.
MR. PYE: Yes, Mr. Minister, I do apologize. You're absolutely right. I forgot to mention that it's grandfathered in, but anyone from this date on, from the date of the introduction of that policy, in fact, is no longer receiving the benefits they would normally be entitled to under the old system. So I think that we're quite clear on that. But I think that you will agree the measures that this government has taken are measures which pit the poor against the poorest because, although you've broadened the scope of where the money would have gone, those people who are the poorest of the poor receive a less proportional ratio of those dollars that normally would have been received through the Nova Scotia Child Benefit.
So I guess, Mr. Chairman, what the minister is saying to me is that he has used this stick as an incentive, to say to individuals that there is a welfare-to-work program here but we're going to use this incentive by topping up the individuals who are the working poor, whom we agree ought to receive benefits, but at the expense of money not going to those people who are the very vulnerable and those people who are on social assistance. I guess the message is quite clear as to where that direction and how this thought or notion was going to be driven, there's no doubt about where this is going to go.
I guess the concern that I have is as a result of that kind of action many people who are on social assistance have not seen increases in their shelter components - which actually witnessed decreases as well - and in their food allotment. So I'm wondering if the Minister
of Community Services can tell me, when was the last time that social service recipients received an increase in both their shelter allotment and their food allotment?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify something the honourable member indicated. I think you said that when we put through this National Child Benefit and the Nova Scotia Child Benefit combination, the people who were the poorest got less of an increase than people, or a little less rich, a little richer - I think I heard you say that.
MR. PYE: It's a combination . . .
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, I do want to come back to the point. As the honourable member knows there is the income band of $1,605. People get that benefit and then people up to $2,300 are scaled in, so that in reality the people on the lowest income level do get more than the people who have a little higher income, because of the scaling in between $1,600 and $2,300. I just wanted to put that point out.
I guess the other question that you raised was when was the last time there was a rate adjustment for food and for shelter. Well last year as we brought through the combination of one single rate, all those people who were under the plan of social assistance saw their rates go up. Those rates went up for them. It was last August, those rates came up. As we balanced the two rates and came out with the standard rate, all the people on social assistance, their rates increased. So those rates were brought up to another level. I think the last time there was an adjustment was last August when the new rates came in.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm going to have to take some liberty here with the minister. The rate adjustments the minister has said have gone up, I guess I would like some clarity with respect to those rate adjustments and how they've gone up because my understanding is - and maybe I'm wrong - from the clients I receive information from, in the community that I represent or in the constituency that I represent, they don't reflect adjustment increases at all. As a matter of fact, there have been some decreases - and I wish I had with me, and I do apologize, but I will bring it on a future day, the chart which I have actually prepared with respect to the number - and I believe it came from the Department of Community Services - of individuals whose shelter component has actually been reduced, and I guess primarily with respect to single individuals.
I know the minister didn't talk about that, but I guess what I would like to know is with respect to the cost of shelter in Nova Scotia, and it varies particularly with respect to region and it also varies with respect to the economics of the regions and so on, but there is this universal payment to individuals across the province and that came out of the takeover of the Department of Community Services from municipalities to provide that balanced, uniform rate across the province, but there are certain parts of the province that do, in fact, have more difficulty with respect to the allotment for shelter components than other parts of
this province. I'm wondering if the minister has taken that kind of a situation into consideration and has the minister looked at that?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, I think the first part to your question was in terms of looking at the rate increases. I do want to remind the honourable member, again, as part of that rate change, as he's well aware, that people who were on the old family benefits program became eligible for a wider range of services - those services being Pharmacare, child care and transportation as they looked for those special needs they would need. The honourable member is quite right, the demands of housing costs in different parts of the province are quite different. In large part, areas where there are the higher housing components and rent costs are the areas where, in this case, the employment is higher right now. Your question was, did we look at that. That's indeed part of the whole housing initiative and the homelessness initiative that we've been talking with the federal government on and we've been looking at other people to partner with us.
Once again, the housing component of Community Services has looked at a number of units. We keep expanding those programs for rent subsidy. We keep looking at those places for rent stabilization so we can work with people in those areas. So those are the areas we have looked at in terms of providing additional housing supports to people, be they low income or people on assistance.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, when I get to the housing section I'm going to talk about housing, but at a later time. I just want to talk around the social assistance and the rights of social assistance for the time being. I believe it has been consistent. I know that last year the minister allocated approximately $250 for low-income families. I believe, if I'm correct, that that was a lump-sum payment, and the lump-sum payment may have come at approximately around the Fall. I believe it may have been September, October, in that particular period of time. The lump-sum payment was to defray costs or assist persons with low incomes. I'm wondering if the minister is going to continue with that $250 allotment to low-income families and if he's not committing the $250 to low-income families, how many low-income families are affected and what will be the saving to the Department of Community Services?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, that assistance program, as the honourable member knows, was a program that had carried over for a number of years. It started with the introduction of the GST and it carried on for a number of years. Over the last couple of years we've seen the number of people who applied for that program reducing, and the last year it was approximately 4,000 for a total of about $1 million. What we have done, and as we introduced last year, the child benefit analysis and the National Child Benefit and the Nova Scotia Child Benefit to go to all income families. Our thrust has been in that direction. That program for the people applying for the $250 is not carried forward in this year's budget and it is not brought forward this year. We won't be carrying on that program, our thrust is to get to all low-income families through the Nova Scotia and the National Child Benefit.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, so here's another move in which I can say that set the government and the Department of Community Services - and the minister is very much aware that it was his government that championed the notion of working poor and low-income people out there, and it was his government that said that wherever possible they would provide that money. Now the minister is telling me that here is a $1 million cut in his Department of Community Services and that some 4,000 families, even if . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if the conversationalists would turn down their conversations a little bit. The member for Dartmouth North does have the floor and it's difficult for the minister and his support staff to hear him, as well as other members and the Chair. The honourable member for Dartmouth North.
MR. PYE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure the minister can tell me, how many individual families would have been the recipient of that $250 if this program would have continued? As a result of the introduction of the Nova Scotia Child Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit you implied that there wasn't a need for this $250. I would say to you, Mr. Minister, that there still is a very real need for that $250. I don't see people inching their way out of poverty; I see that continuing to increase.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes, at this particular time, the member for Dartmouth North's time and, of course, his caucus' time. Does the minister wish to respond?
[3:00 p.m.]
MR. CHRISTIE: The question the honourable member was raising was how many families - well, as the honourable member knows, if you are on assistance you did not receive that, you were not eligible to receive that. That was for low-income families. As I indicated, people gave us applications and it was, one year, 3,600 then 4,000 and then 3,600, and those were not available to people on assistance. Our thrust has been for those people on assistance and people who are going back into the workforce to give them those things that they need in terms of Pharmacare and child care and transportation allowances. We're focusing on that. I indicated that the $8.2 million that we have in that program for this year is to be able to sustain that. Once again, that program for the $250 was a program that came some years ago from the GST introduction and, as we looked at it and saw the numbers dropping down, we knew that we had to be able to provide better assistance on those things that people needed more. So we went in that direction.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I have indicated that I will be taking up all of the time that's available to me at this time to ask the minister questions. First of all, I wanted to start out on a topic that I think has been one of the most controversial topics that has hit the floor of this Legislature so far this session, and that has been the
controversy that has evolved around transition houses, women's centres and men's programs throughout the province.
Mr. Chairman, in Question Period today, the minister will recall that he said that I haven't taken the time to talk to people, service providers, who are involved with this issue. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. Previous to today, I had talked with many of them and today I've talked with a few more. Over the past few weeks I've talked with people such as Bea LeBlanc from a transition house in Sydney, and a number of other service providers from throughout the province.
What these people are telling me - and perhaps it's a different story that they're telling the minister but I doubt it very much - and what they're telling others is that the $890,000 cut that's contained in the budget, which is a cut that's aimed towards services provided to families in crisis in this province, that $890,000 that has been cut, they are asking for that to be fully restored. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that's what they're saying, that's what they have told the media, that's what they've told me and I think that's what they've told the minister. I will let the minister reply to that in a minute.
I wanted to go just a little bit further because, as I brought up in Question Period today regarding this whole thing, what I think is happening right now is that the minister - and these things happen from the top down, this is not just something that came from the minister's staff, I'm almost certain that's not the case. This came from the minister or ministers on that side over there. I'm not sure exactly what is up. I don't know what the scenario is but I know something is up. Something is up. When the minister floats a trial balloon such as possibly closing transition houses and then at the last minute pulls back and says hold on for six months, something is up.
What I want to get at in the first part of my time here today is, as contained in an article in today's Amherst Daily News, which is an article that quotes the Minister of Natural Resources and the MLA for Cumberland North today, the MLA is quoted as saying, as I said earlier in Question Period, that there was a misconception that transition houses were slated for closure. The minister and the MLA insisted that that information did not come from the government but was rather, a rumour. That MLA goes on to say that he was informed; the minister informed shelter workers on Tuesday that the redesign will still occur but over a much longer time period.
Is this what's being floated throughout this province right now? Is it all of this talk, all of that substance that was contained in the draft proposal, in the draft that I saw, that all of us saw, that I tabled here in this House, that was a draft to reduce the number of transition houses per region in this province. Is the minister now telling Nova Scotians, telling us that this is just simply a rumour that was created out there because of this draft paper? That it was only a rumour that transition houses were to close; that there would be at least four of them
closed in this province? Is it only a rumour that $890,000 is going to be cut in this budget? Is that a rumour? I will let the minister reply to that, if I could.
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member refers to the draft memo we put out. The draft memo said there would be a minimum of one transition house in each region. It didn't say four were closing. It didn't say there were nine and we were going down to seven. It said there would be a minimum of one in each region. What it also said is that we were going to be in consultation with the process, we would be looking at the process of the period of time and how we would be developing that. That's what we had indicated. Where the particular story came that four particular transition houses were coming from, I do not know. I know that we said in that draft that we would start and there would be a minimum of one in each region. There could be two in each region, but it said there would be a minimum of one.
In terms of the $890,000, as part of our budget estimates we lay out in our business plan what we are hoping to achieve this year and the direction we're going. One of the directions in which we were going was to do a redesign on transition houses and family violence services. We are also in the process of looking at a redesign or looking at the structure of the Children's Aid Society, and we're in the process of doing that. So as we look at those we forecast out as to how we're going to have things work out. What we have talked about recently with the transition houses is we will slow it down, so that simply means that our business plan will look at slowing it down. The question is did the government say four transition houses, no we didn't. What we said was there would be a minimum of one in each region.
MR. WILSON: When the minister met with service providers on Tuesday, did the minister tell them that when you said you're going to slow down the process, which I take it was the six months that you mentioned you're going to slow things down, so you're saying that at no time - you have not said that you're going to reinstate that $890,000, have you, Mr. Minister?
MR. CHRISTIE: What I talked to people about yesterday and what I sent them in a letter on Tuesday indicated that we would ensure that their funding would not change while we were at the point of talking about the redesign. I also indicated to them that as we went forward that the Department of Justice was going to be involved in men's programs, and with men's programs we would be looking at those programs and we would be seeking the department in government best able to deliver those programs. I indicated to them that we would be coming through the period of time with what the government saw as their core services. We had a long debate around the fact of how other core services would become involved in this discussion. As we left yesterday, the discussion point was that we were now developing how we were going to set up the infrastructure and the model for going forward for future discussions. That's where we are at this point in time.
MR. WILSON: I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman, and I will ask him again, are you going to restore the $890,000 that we're talking about?
MR. CHRISTIE: I indicated to that honourable member and I indicated to people yesterday that we were going forward with the review. By doing that, by looking at the review, the answer then is that we are not restoring $890,000. We are going to go through the review and we are going to look for those efficiencies that the department and the people in the sector can achieve. Whether we achieve the whole $890,000 will remain to be seen. That's what I indicated to people yesterday, that we were going forward and we were going to look for the efficiencies as we could. As we left the meeting yesterday that's the understanding we all had.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I think once the people involved left the meeting yesterday, there seems to have been a lot of fog that has developed around the whole thing since that time. I think what they understood was that the minister was saying one thing to them at that meeting and saying another thing outside in the halls of Province House. Here's where we have that fog. Let me ask the minister, you put a six-month time frame on this, what happens if this consultation process takes longer than six months? What happens then, does the funding continue for a longer period of time?
MR. CHRISTIE: If the consultation takes longer, the funding that we were going forward with will remain the same, what we indicated to them. I think the honourable member talks about whether there's some misunderstanding or misconceptions. What I had indicated to them yesterday is that I would write to every one of the board of directors indicating what we had talked about and where we were going with this so that the executive directors, the boards and the people knew who was responsible for the cash flows and the debt. As we move forward on this project and as we move forward to looking at it, if it doesn't take six months as we're looking at the men's programs, if it doesn't take that long then we will be working on those before six months. If it takes a little longer than the six months to look at the redesign on some of those others, then it will take a little bit longer. As I indicated to them and as we talked about, we are going to go forward with the redesign and I don't think anybody left that meeting not understanding that that was what we were going to do.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, in the kindest words that I could possibly find and with all due respect to the minister, let me say it in this term, that the minister put one over on service providers yesterday, if that's the case. Not a thing has changed. That $890,000 cut is still there. You are still talking about closing transition houses and shelters in this province. You are still talking about doing away with women's centres in this province. You are still talking about doing away with men's treatment programs in this province. I'm saying that and I don't think you can say otherwise, because nothing has changed from where we were. The only thing that has changed is that you have somehow managed to stop the flow of blood from the cutting in the media by taking these service providers into a room and
putting one over on them and saying, well, everything's okay now because we're not going to close these transition houses and we will take a look at it for six months. (Interruption) That's correct.
I've had it pointed out to me that if you really meant it, if you really meant what you were saying you would change your budget immediately, that would be done. You would restore, you would reinstate that $890,000 without question if you actually meant what you were saying, but you do not mean what you are saying and you have not meant what you said in this House, and you certainly have not meant what you said outside of this House on several occasions.
[3:15 p.m.]
Mr. Chairman, you know what has happened here, and we've seen thousands upon thousands upon thousands of names tabled on petitions in this Legislature and we saw the public outcry. We saw the protests outside of Province House and the minister saw this as well, and every person over there on that side of the government saw what kind of a public outcry was building on this issue. The minister is fully aware that this was happening, and I'm sure that the backbench MLAs on the government side, as we were on this side, were starting to hear from constituents and from people who were genuinely concerned about what was happening in their community on this issue.
What I have stated, and I will state it again, is that that concern has not evaporated. If anything, that concern is there even more so today because this minister has attempted to put one over on service providers and on the people of Nova Scotia. But the people of Nova Scotia and those people who work in that industry know better and they've recognized exactly what the minister is trying to do. Let me tell you that the people of the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia now realize what the minister is trying to do, because I've been talking with them and they're going to be talking with a lot of other people and telling them what's going on.
I want to know from the minister about this redesign. I want to know the redesign of this whole system. Mr. Minister, is this your brainchild or is it perhaps the brainchild of let's say the Minister of Justice? Where exactly did this come from, Mr. Minister, and who came up with this redesign that is supposedly necessary of these programs?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, let's go back to a couple of comments that the honourable member has made. The honourable member indicated that people don't understand what we said, people are confused on what we said. Well, I think that's why we sent them a letter on Tuesday. That's why we sent them a letter to say here's the direction that we're going. That's why we sent them a letter to say here is what some of the goals of the department are.
In relation to the redesign and looking at the structure, we have been going through the department, we have been looking at other areas. I mentioned the Children's Aid Society, looking at how those services are delivered. We obviously talked earlier about income assistance and how we deliver that. We have been looking at the systems we have for delivery over the last few years and we started to look at how those areas would be redesigned.
As I indicated to people yesterday, when we start looking for administrative savings we look at areas - and I know the honourable member has seen our statistics and seen the statistics - that only 7 per cent of people who are abused are coming to transition houses, then you have to have other methods of them getting those services. So we looked at areas where there are three facilities, in particular areas that house three different locations, we looked and said, well, if we can bring those together in one facility we can look at how we're delivering those. There are administrative savings and efficiencies that we can come up with and that's what the program was set out to do. That's why the department is moving forward and that's what we have told people as we move forward into the redesign program.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, look, I will tell you, the minister talks about saving at an administrative level. Well, we will get to that later on because - and I'm sure I will let the minister have his reply - if you take a look at the estimates, I will show you in those estimates where indeed the minister has increased spending in his own office. I will show you that later on. We will get to that, Mr. Minister, but for the time being, what I'm trying to point out to you and what I don't think you're paying attention to is that you're not putting this one over anymore on the service providers who are involved here or the people of Nova Scotia. The jig is up. The con game is over.
You've done a pretty good job, I will give you an A for effort because you fooled a lot of people out there by telling them, hey, this is okay. Let me tell you, the member for Kings North is going to have to go back and tell his people down there that that transition house is probably going to close, and it is. The minister knows that. He has put one over on the backbenchers over there. That's what you've done. What a ruse, what a ruse, what a joke, and they don't even realize it yet. They don't have any idea that you're doing this. Now, you know fully well, Mr. Minister, that the Minister of Justice is involved with this as well. You know that men's treatment programs, that the Minister of Justice is looking to take over those programs. The minister knows that.
AN HON. MEMBER: It's a power grab.
MR. WILSON: It is nothing more and nothing less than a power grab. That's all it is and you're taking part in this but, as I said, it's up, it's up. You have tried the best you could, Mr. Minister, to put this over on all of us but you've been caught, and service providers, people involved, women and children in this province are not going to put up with it.
Now, there's something else you've done, and your government is particularly good at it, and that is you've tried to pit one group against another and now you're pitting transition houses and women's centres and people who run men's programs, against each other. You're putting them in the same room and saying, listen, we only have so much so who's going to get their piece of the pie, who's going to fight for that. You've done that rather successfully up until this point, but again you're caught, the jig is up and they know that that's going to take place, too.
The redesign of the whole program, saying that it's going to take a slower pace is not saying that it's not going to happen. From the very beginning in that draft document that we talked about, you were asking the workers involved in those programs to basically, as I've said before, dig your own grave, chart your own course for death, because that's what's going to happen. Now you're asking them to do the same thing but at a slower pace. Instead of it being done right away, you're saying we will take six months to map out your own end, and the end is still there, whether it's six months or seven months or whatever the case may be down the road.
Mr. Minister, I have to be somewhat careful here because probably there's a chance that you really don't think that this is personally the right thing to do. This may have been a message that came from your Finance Minister, or from your Premier, or perhaps from your Justice Minister who's saying as I mentioned about those men's treatment programs, and perhaps because of that, Mr. Minister, you really don't believe in what you're doing. So there's an outside chance that you really haven't gotten to the point where you fathom exactly what's happening here. If you take a look at it and stand back and take an unbiased look at what's happening here and listen to the people who are telling you, all of them have told you, they told you previously and they're telling you now that it's not the right thing to do, they need the $890,000 so that the programs can exist as they now are, and they're asking you to reinstate in full the $890,000 to this program.
The delay is fine. It's something you should have done in the first place, that consult with those workers and you did not do that. You did not do that. You said in this House that you paid a visit to a few places, but you did not sit down and actually consult on a consultative process with those workers which you are now embarked upon. Yes, you started it and hopefully you will continue it, but you have to start listening and you have to act on the concerns that they have come to you with.
If I may just go off in a different direction for the time being, but I'm sure that we will end up back where we are. Mr. Minister, on Page 6.3 of the Supplementary Detail of the Estimates there is a significant increase under Senior Management in your department. It's an increase of more than $75,000, which is especially significant in the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister. So, Mr. Chairman, could the minister please explain the breakdown of that increase?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member will have to correct - Page 6.3 is not the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister. I presume you're referring to Page 6.2, am I correct? (Interruption) Last year the estimate was $460,000 and this year it's $475,000; your question is what is the $15,000 increase in salaries in the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister. The answer is it's because we had to account for the proposed 2 per cent increase in salaries, the offer that has been made with the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I do have it down as Page 6.3 in the Estimates Book under Senior Management. Anyway I'm wondering, this is a government that campaigned on making government smaller but here we are back to the old point again, while the minister is gutting services from transition houses and women's centres his office is getting $39,000 more. So let me ask the minister, is any of that $39,000 being used to hire additional resources or pay for existing salaries?
MR. CHRISTIE: The answer to your question is there are five people and, yes, it is an increase for those five people of 2 per cent per year. That is the offer with the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Minister, also found on that same page is an increase in the Communications budget over last year's amount. I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, how many Communications' staff members does the department currently have and also will the department be hiring any more Communications' staff members?
MR. CHRISTIE: We have one staff member included and the rest of that is what is billed to us from Communications Nova Scotia.
MR. WILSON: If he could, Mr. Chairman, could the minister please explain the breakdown with Communications Nova Scotia?
MR. CHRISTIE: If the honourable member is asking for a series of invoices, a listing of the breakdowns and what's billed to us, we will certainly pull that out and provide it. As I indicated, there is one person whose salary is paid through there. The other people are employed through Communications Nova Scotia and are billed to us. If your question is what is the billing and how do we get it, we're certainly prepared to get that information and table it for you.
MR. WILSON: That's fine if the minister so wishes, if you want to table that information, go ahead. What I'm wondering, with the increase in Communications, well, I guess the only question to ask is, that kind of an increase in those increases, how does that better serve the clients of Community Services, Mr. Minister?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the question is your increase from $226,000 to $229,000, that $3,000 increase, how does that better serve the clients. That provides us with the staff and the resources to be able to communicate with people, to be able to get information out and be able to provide and share with people the programs and the opportunities they have.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, under the Corporate Services Unit, which is on Page 6.3, we see a rather substantial increase of I believe $1.9 million for IT Services. So I would like to know what is this additional money being spent on? Is it being used to purchase perhaps new computers or is it being used to repair existing ones or software packages, perhaps which software packages, and there is a series of questions here, if I may. I would like to know if the minister's department will be hiring any additional staff members and in what regions the money will be spent, in regional offices or in field offices and again, how is that going to help the bottom line here, servicing clients? How does all of that help servicing clients and indeed does it mean that you will have perhaps in the Department of Community Services a faster turnaround time for clients? I understand there's a batch of questions there, but if the minister could start with that rather substantial increase for IT Services, I would appreciate it.
[3:30 p.m.]
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, that line item for IT Services is indeed what the honourable member indicates, it's for services we supply of computers and programs. It's for providing through the offices the programs and the ability to service our clients. But a major part of that, $2 million of that, is part of the programs we outlined in our business plan and that is part of looking at the client service delivery initiatives.
We have indicated over the last year that we are going to move in that direction so we could ensure that our programs and our services would be able to maintain those things our clients need: to issue cheques; to be able to exchange information; to be able to marry together the two programs we have; to be able to look at housing and how we can bring housing together with our income support; and to look at the daycare issues. Also, as we look at the information sharing between the transition houses and women's centres, how we can exchange that information. So that is a substantive part of that. The $2 million is to look at that client service delivery initiative which would allow us to be able to service our clients and to be able to have the platform base and the service units that would allow us to ensure that we can deliver those in the future.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful anyway that the minister's answer will mean that perhaps myself and many other MLAs will never get another call from clients who say my cheque is late or my cheque hasn't arrived, or something has screwed up in the delivery of my cheque. If you're spending a couple of million dollars to improve those services then, indeed, that increases the possibility of that happening if, indeed, what the
minister says is true and that advantage is being passed on to clients, that it is actually going to improve the service.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. WILSON: Feel free, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, member. Order, please. The member for Glace Bay has the floor.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I see that the minister in the department is spending an additional $174,000 on human resources. I would like to ask him, does that mean an increase in additional staff and, if it does, in what fields and also what geographic areas are going to be most affected by that increase in human resources?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the answer is that we are transferring one person in from another unit and the other part of that is the 2 per cent, 2 per cent and 2 per cent that I indicated was the proposal with the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union for salary increases.
I just would like to go back to the honourable member's question earlier when we were talking about the customer service delivery. He indicated he hoped that meant that the cheques would be faster. I think not only does our view of that program mean cheques would be faster, but we have to provide that we will be able to get those cheques out. We have to be able to provide that four different services will be able to provide the programs we have, without IT Services, will now have those IT Services. So that's all part of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask before I recognize the member for Glace Bay that the members in the Chamber here would quiet down. It's very noisy. It's very hard for the member to ask his question and certainly hard for the minister to answer the question. So I would call for order one more time before I recognize the member for Glace Bay.
Honourable member for Glace Bay, you do have the floor in a very quiet atmosphere, I am sure. Thank you.
MR. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly wouldn't want to see you clear the Chamber, especially on the government side. (Interruptions)
Mr. Chairman, obviously you better talk to the member for Kings North because that heckling is supposed to stop. If you call that intelligent heckling . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. Thank you. The honourable member for Glace Bay has the floor.
MR. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get back to my questions now. I see under Financial Services that there has also been an increase there by $231,000. It increased even more last year by more than $4 million so I would like to ask the minister, could he explain the breakdown of that increase, please?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has indicated on the line, why did we go from, in the year 2000, actual expenditures of $1.928 million to $6.154 million. The answer is that in part of the government policy, the rents of the facilities that we use, instead of being absorbed by Public Works, are being absorbed in the line department and that is the line where we would find the costs of those rents. That would include the rents of the buildings, plus the operating costs of Nelson Place, where we are now, and as it will indicate in the expenditures coming forward, that rent is carried through into this year's estimates and that's why the estimates show approximately the same amount.
MR. WILSON: Under the heading of Field Offices Administration, that has increased significantly as well in relation to other administration costs. My question for the minister, in terms of field administration costs, could you explain that increase please? Also, will that increase in the budget for project management mean that you will be increasing your staff there as well or will those projects be managed using existing staff?
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me start with the first question and the first question was Field Offices Administration. The forecast of last year was $4.3 million; expenditures, $4.5 million; and this year's forecast, $4.6 million. In reality, that is the same adjustment for the rate increases for salary increases. We have made some revisions this year and you will notice below, Licensing - Field Offices, there has been a slight adjustment in those but essentially the question of Field Office Administration is salary increases.
MR. WILSON: Under the heading Community Support for Adults, I note that funding for Community Based Options has decreased by some $2 million. Community Based Options include accommodation for three or fewer persons with a mental disability who are able to live in the community with some support or supervision. I would just like to know, is the minister aware of how many people live in small options homes across this province?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, we're aware - I have those figures here, I will table those for the honourable member. The question he asked is, under Community Based Options, last year our forecast was for $54 million, our expenditures were for $61 million and our forecast this year is for $59 million. Why does it show a decrease from last year's actual expenditures? As the honourable member knows, we have been involved with a framework for bringing workers in those fields up to a higher salary level and that's been going on over a number of years. Last year, part of that program was a catching up of 30 per cent, so there is a 30 per cent adjustment in salaries in that figure for the actual for last year. That obviously didn't need to be carried over into this year, so in reality our increased number from last year's forecast of $54 million is to $59 million. That's the $5 million increase.
In terms of the number of people in care, our total licensed beds are 1,747 in our group homes and other facilities and our small options homes, community residences, associated families and supervised apartments is 1,535.
MR. WILSON: Perhaps the minister will give me a concrete answer to this question. I would like to know, will any small options homes across the province be shut down because of any funding problems within the department? It's actually a decrease in funding, is it not? Are any small options homes going to be shut down as a result of that?
MR. CHRISTIE: The answer to the question, are any small options homes closing, the answer is no. Will we be opening some other facilities for people? The answer is yes. I'm not clear on the honourable member's comment that it was a decrease. As I indicated, the actual expenditures in last year was a catch-up on salaries - part of that framework program. That was caught up last year so in reality, our forecast from one year to the next is from $54 million to $59 million this year. Perhaps I'm not explaining it right, but it's a $5 million increase taking away the framework catch-up.
MR. WILSON: If I heard the minister correctly, and he's gone on the record - you know the problem is with the public fear that this minister has instilled over the issue of transition homes and women's shelters and that's exactly what has occurred here - I want to make sure now that the minister has told this House and the minister has told me that he is committing that there will be no small options homes that will close across this province. Is that correct?
MR. CHRISTIE: What I have told the member is that Community Services will not be closing any small options homes. As the member knows, if the person operating the small options home chooses to close, that's entirely within their perspective and their right. But Community Services' plan does not call for closing any small options homes. Some will open, some will have to do repairs and perhaps they will want to go to another facility and replace that facility, but there is no option and no part of our business plan that says that Community Services will be closing any small options homes.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, will the minister confirm that there is a decrease in Long Term Care and also confirm that there will be no bed closures across the province as well?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, under Long Term Care, the member is asking, our estimate last year of $57 million and our expenditure of $61 million shows the increase. That is the same situation as we had for Community Support for Adults. Those were personal care workers and LPNs that we were catching up under the framework agreement. This year, we're forecasting - with that not affecting this year again - an increase of $57 million to $60 million. Your question was, will any beds be closing? Yes, some will be closing because we have been looking at the larger institutions. We will be closing the Halifax County Regional
Rehabilitation Centre this year. We will be in the phase-out of the Scotia Nursing Home and we will be doing that, but those people will be placed out in the community. Those places and options will be replaced, so some places will change; the larger facilities and the smaller ones - we will be providing care in other types of facilities for those people.
MR. WILSON: If I could go into some more detail on that - does the minister have any idea of how many beds will be closing in total?
MR. CHRISTIE: I think the honourable member is asking me how many beds are currently being used in Halifax County and how many in the Scotia ARC - is that the question? How many beds are we using that we will be transferring people to other places? I just need some clarity on that.
MR. WILSON: When the minister said that there are going to be some beds closing, I guess the clarity that I'm looking for is how many beds are you talking about in total that are going to close?
[3:45 p.m.]
AN HON. MEMBER: And where?
MR. WILSON: Yes, and where will they close?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to suggest to the honourable member is that we would be shifting people from one place to the other. Those beds that will be closing in the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre and in the Scotia ARC, people will be transferred to other locations. At the end of the day, along with other beds that we will be opening this year, the number of beds will be higher at the end of this year than they are now. They will not all be in the same facility. Some will be in smaller locations. But there will be equally as many, if not more, beds than we have right now.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I guess, I don't know. I'm having a problem understanding the minister, all right. If you could put that - I don't even know if putting it in layman's terms, because I don't know if a layman would understand what the minister just said. But he had said that there are beds closing, but now he's talking about transfers and they're opening beds or whatever. So, again, just to clarify, is the minister saying that there are beds permanently closing; where are they and how many of them are there?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, there will be more beds this time next year than there are now. Some of the facilities where we have beds, Halifax County, those are being phased out. They will be replaced with beds in other parts of the province. People will be going back to their home communities; they will be going to other facilities. Some of the beds that closed in Scotia ARC, people will be transferred. Those people will be housed by
the Department of Community Services in this province. Beds are not closing. Beds will be replaced from one place to another. The number of beds we have this time next year will be higher than the number of beds we have now.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, that does clarify it somewhat. We will hold the minister to his word that there will be more next year, not less. If I took that from your statement, is that not a fair evaluation of what you just said, that next year there will be more beds to look forward to, not less?
MR. CHRISTIE: Absolutely.
MR. WILSON: Great. Let me change the subject now, Mr. Chairman, to daycare subsidies. If we look at the numbers, we can see that the funding has increased. Will the minister confirm this increase, please?
MR. CHRISTIE: The daycare subsidy, yes, I will confirm that that has increased. That is the annualization of the number of daycare spaces.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, could the minister please confirm then, number one, whether he's planning to increase the number of subsidized seats, and if it's a yes, by how many, and also is the minister planning to increase the operating grant for subsidized seats in non-profit child care centres?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the question was is there an increase in the number of daycare spaces. The answer is yes. There are 50 additional in this budget and it's under Early Childhood Development.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, the Healthy Child Development Initiative, it may be just my mistake, but I don't think it's listed here. I would like to know why or has it been scrapped or does it simply fall under another category? Maybe I'm overlooking something here.
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, no, the honourable member isn't missing anything in that. The Early Childhood Development Initiative was part of the structure, as the honourable member will remember the debate around the clawback of monies, those were the programs that were funded. Since we've now stopped that, those programs are now included under Early Intervention Program and Early Childhood Development as part of that program delivery that's going on. It's the same places and the same partners who are delivering those, but they're just included under another line. Your question was, were they under another line. The answer is yes.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, is the minister aware, the money that was obtained from the federal government, is that correct and if so, how much and how much is provincial money?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the question was, is this a federal government initiative? The answer is yes. As you see in the estimates for last year, it was $9.1 million as part of that program and this year it is $12 million.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member for Glace Bay, I was wondering if you would permit an introduction.
MR. WILSON: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your time. The honourable member for Kings West on an introduction.
MR. JON CAREY: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure today to introduce a long-serving councillor from Kings County and one of my friends, Wayne Atwater. I would just ask that you welcome him to the gallery. (Applause)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I also would like to say good afternoon and welcome to the House.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, under Income Assistance and Employment Support Services, I note that in the budget subject Income Assistance Payments, actually, there is a $3.9 million decrease. I'm wondering, could the minister please indicate whether that reduction is due to a reduced number of clients in the caseload?
MR. CHRISTIE: The answer is yes. That's the reduction.
MR. WILSON: So it is because of a reduced number of clients, that is what the minister is saying. Well, if not, then it would be a budget cut. Why anything would decrease so significantly is because perhaps the rates are going down. Could the minister reveal what exactly the government's plans are for any kind of reduction in Income Assistance Payments?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the question is, do we see a reduction in the number of people that are requiring income assistance. We have a chart here showing the reduction of people requiring support over the last number of years. I'm happy to table that for the member, but our numbers of people on income assistance have been reducing over the last number of years and that's what it reflects.
The question is, did we have any reduction in rates to people on assistance? We set the rates last year on August 1st and those rates are carrying on and those are the rates that we have forecast for here. Yes, we have some increases in areas for return-to-work initiatives and, yes, we have some areas where we have initiatives for people who have back-to-work assistance. But in terms of the rates, the answer is no. There is no reduction in that. For the honourable member, I will table this. This shows the number of people on income assistance over the last number of years and it has been steadily going down and that's where we use our basis for our forecast.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, under Income Assistance and Employment Support Services, I've noted that under Income Assistance - Field Staff, there is a decrease of $2.5 million. So would the minister confirm that decrease, to begin with, and explain the breakdown there and, also, will that affect staff positions and if it does, then where will they be affected?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, I think I heard the honourable member ask me, is there a decrease in the number of dollars for Income Assistance - Field Staff. Last year's forecast was for $17.2 million. Our expenditures were $15.9 million and our forecast this year is for $18.4 million. In reality, one forecast to the other, we're forecasting a $1.2 million increase and that, of course, reflects the 2 per cent that we had talked about earlier.
MR. WILSON: So there's not going to be any change in staff positions in any area, is that what the minister is saying?
MR. CHRISTIE: What that does indicate is that there will be some increase because last year we did have some vacancies. So as you will see from our forecast to our actual expenditures, we had some vacancies. This year some of the vacancies will be filled to bring us to full complement plus the 2 per cent increase is the reason for the $1.2 million increase in budget to budget.
MR. WILSON: Perhaps I missed the first part of the minister's answer, I'm not sure. So I would ask him again to explain that if he could. I'm sorry, I just didn't hear the answer.
MR. CHRISTIE: I think the first question was, is there a reduction in the amount of money this year for Income Assistance - Field Staff.
MR. WILSON: I got that part.
MR. CHRISTIE: Okay, the other part of that was that in last year's $15.9 million there were some vacancies. Within this forecast this year we will be filling those vacancies, plus the addition of the 2 per cent salary increase. That's the reason for the $1.2 million increase budget to budget.
MR. WILSON: So in a roundabout way I'm to take it that there were staff vacancies so they will be filled, correct? So there actually will be more staff if there were vacancies. You're actually adding some more staff to fill those vacancies because, as the minister would be well aware, if the number of staff was reduced, for instance, rural clients would have a more difficult time dealing with representatives and it would lead to longer waiting times and, of course, larger caseloads which I'm sure the people in your department and the people at the regional offices will tell you they certainly don't need any larger caseloads than what they already have. Will the minister then confirm the exact number - and maybe you can table this - as to what geographical area there are vacancies and where they're being filled?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, yes, the honourable member is quite right that there were some vacancies and we will be looking at filling those because we have to be able to meet the caseload. We will get that information. Your question was, what offices and places are there vacancies to be filled, and we will get that for you and table that in the very near future.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Glace Bay with three minutes.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, let me move on. I noted that the budget subject Pharmacare has increased by $1.4 million over last year's budget so could the minister please indicate whether he and his government have any plans to increase the co-pay amount currently charged to clients when they're getting a prescription filled?
MR. CHRISTIE: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no intent on that. There is no change in co-pay in this forecast.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, if I could ask the minister then, how would he describe the current Pharmacare co-pay? Would he describe it as adequate?
[4:00 p.m.]
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, I guess the question is would I describe the co-pay as adequate. The co-pay is what has been set up and established to try to find that balance in being able to provide everybody with those services. The honourable member has indicated he sees an increase and, indeed, as the Department of Health indicated to you in their estimates, the costs of drug services are going up and this area is no exception. We provide, as I indicated, the drug plan for people on assistance, for people to have those drugs available to them as they go back into the workforce. Last August we extended that for one year. So those all have to reflect those increases.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Glace Bay now with a minute and a half.
MR. WILSON: Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the minister for some of his answers, not all of them. Indeed, I would like to go back to our initial topic, that being the current crisis that we find ourselves in regarding transition houses and women's centres and men's treatment programs across the province and again I would urge the minister to take a second look at things and to back up quite a bit, not just six months and stall for six months, but to take maybe six seconds and reconsider the fact that the $890,000 that has been cut from those programs should immediately be reinstated and fully reinstated.
Mr. Minister, I think that's a plea you're hearing not only from Opposition benches, but a plea that you're hearing from women across this province. We're very, very concerned about that situation. Again, I would indeed beg the minister and his Cabinet colleagues to reconsider that decision and to fully reinstate that money into the budget so that we don't have to worry about that any longer in this province, so that women and children who are most affected by that will not have to worry about it any longer as well.
Mr. Chairman, with that I take it I've used up my time and I thank you and the minister for your time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now I would like to recognize the member for Cole-Harbour Eastern Passage from the NDP caucus, the time being 4:02 p.m., and one hour allotted in your turn.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I'm only going to probably take about 10 minutes or 15 minutes and my colleague, the member for Halifax Needham, will take up the rest of the time and, if not, then some of the rest will be taken by the Community Services Critic. My questions are fairly specific around some issues that I have in my area from time to time. I do want to have a fairly good discussion around the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre since it's in my riding, but before that, there are a few people in my riding who are permanently disabled. They are receiving Canada Pension Plan disability pensions and the issue comes up year after year as to whether they are eligible for a Pharmacare card as well. They are not on social assistance. They make too much through the CPP. So can the minister explain to me his understanding as to the eligibility of CPP recipients for a Pharmacare card through his department?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member's question is whether people who aren't on assistance are eligible to get drug coverage and the answer is yes, if they meet the income test. If it's shown that the medical expenses take them outside the budget range, then they are eligible to get Pharmacare support. It is indeed one of the areas in Community Services, one of our faster growing areas, because people will find that drug costs for whatever reason extend and add to their expenses and cause that deficiency. So I think the answer to his question is, yes, we do.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, the problem is that there are one or two people in my riding particularly who it seems get a letter extending it on an annual basis and then when it comes time, usually around April, for the next April, they end up not being able to get answers on a timely basis. I know very clearly one individual who was stocking up at the end of March on prescriptions because they never did get a letter until, quite frankly, I don't know if they have already received it, but they're into April. They don't know whether their coverage is going to be extended. Is this something that is done on an annual basis? Is it reviewed every year by your department, every individual case, before they determine whether it will be extended for another year?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. It's done every year and it's done based on the information that people have. As the member knows, people submit their tax return and we derive information from that. So, yes, it's assessed every April.
MR. DEVEAUX: Well, Mr. Chairman, considering that it is April of the year, and presumably because that's the beginning of the new fiscal year, that people are told when a new year starts. Is there any way in which the minister can guarantee that these people are going to be evaluated and a decision made in January or February, or even in early March, so that they have some time to prepare. As I say, I know of cases where people are waiting on March 31st to early April and they still haven't heard whether they are going to get the extension. Can the minister tell us why his department is waiting until the very last moment or even after the fiscal year has begun to actually tell someone whether the extension will be given for another year?
MR. CHRISTIE: I guess the honourable member's question is whethr we can take the decision back into January and February. I suppose you can look at that, but there are two things we have to look at the information. The other thing, of course, is the process that we're going through now - the budget estimates have to be approved by this House and passed and so we simply can't make commitments based on what hasn't happened as yet for the budget to come through. Those are two of the reasons that we look at having it fall in April.
MR. DEVEAUX: I must admit that I'm not clear why budget deliberations here would tie things up. The whole government doesn't shut down if we don't pass the budget by April 1st, as the fiscal year begins, because they don't know whether there will be new funding for their particular department, whether it be the Crown prosecutors or the hospitals, they don't all shut down because they don't know whether their budget is going to be passed. So that doesn't sound like a very legitimate answer as to why - these individuals are in a very tenuous situation, their drugs are costing them a lot of money and they rely on the Pharmacare card in order to make coverage for those medical expenses - this minister's department is unable to give them an answer on a timely basis so they can prepare one way or the other to know whether they're going to have an extension for another year.
The second part of his comment was around "they need information". Can the minister explain in more detail what information they need, such that it can't be obtained and a decision made in February or early March, why are they waiting until April to make a decision?
MR. CHRISTIE: One of the pieces of information is the tax return information and that, for whatever reason, is set to go at the end of April and people get that and prepare it as they get their T4 slips and all of that other information, so that is one of the factors that takes us to this point in time.
The honourable member indicates departments don't shut down and I guess some people would know the evaluation of how they're tested to see if those Pharmacare programs are going on. They know at that point in time if anything has changed for them, so they would be in the best position to know how those programs were going to meet them as they came on into April.
MR. DEVEAUX: Can the minister say whether or not he's actually providing an extension? Is a decision made on a case-by-case basis, or on an annual basis? Does he have to decide whether or not they will continue to provide coverage for anyone in particular?
MR. CHRISTIE: I think the question was whether we assess each case on a case-by-case basis, and the answer is yes. From a point of looking at the program and the "allowabilities," those programs carry on from one year to the next. It's the income level, how your budget meets and how your budget and your revenues combine, but we do look at those on a yearly basis, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to move on to the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre. This is a building that was scheduled to close in June 2001 and it was extended to November 2001, and then we were told that early January was a rough date and now the place is still open. Let me start by asking, can the minister tell me how many residents are currently still living in the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre?
MR. CHRISTIE: Approximately 40 are still there at this point in time.
MR. DEVEAUX: When we met with the staff of the department back in September - in fact, I recall it was my birthday, it was late September 2001 - there were 60 residents and at that point we were told that they would be quickly moved to other locations. Now we still see that in the past seven months there have been 20 of those residents who have actually left the facility. Can the minister now tell us what he understands to be the "new closing date" for the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre?
MR. CHRISTIE: Our timeline now is to have the facility closed by the end of June; that's what we have talked to the fire marshal about. As the honourable member knows, there were issues with the fire marshal and the areas there. I think, as you recall - and the honourable member refers to the meeting in September - one of the proposals that we had for that area was that the directors of the Halifax County Rehab Centre would stay on and form a group that would carry in a number of areas. One of the proposals that was inherent in that, built into that is that there would be a facility built next door to that location, and it was one of the proposals that the HRM would provide land to do that.
I'm sure, as the honourable member knows, HRM chose not to do that and so we have had to look at other options. The request had been by residents and by the people who were involved that they wanted to stay in that general area. The proposal was to carve off a piece of those lands, HRM - which is going to get the property, it's vested with them - would put up a piece of the land and then the province would build a facility there. HRM chose not to do that and so we've had to look at other options as we move forward.
MR. DEVEAUX: Since we're on that thread, maybe I will pull it a little further. Is the minister and his staff still looking at a new facility, a smaller but more modern facility in the Cole Harbour area?
MR. CHRISTIE: As I mentioned, with the group - that is the present directors of the Halifax County Rehab Centre - they have, as the honourable member knows, purchased a small options home in Lawrencetown, and they are looking at acquiring some others. Yes, they're looking at remaining in that area with some other areas and they have been looking at homes to this point in time.
Your question was, the people of the area there, the residents, where are we now? Nine of those are moving to small options homes in the Cole Harbour area, they're looking at the area; 11 would be moving to Halifax. As we look at Sunrise Manor, nine are going to Queens and five are going to nursing homes. That's the plan as we move forward over the next few months.
MR. DEVEAUX: I guess, given the snail's pace at which we've been moving with regard to the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre, where 20 residents have been moved out in a period of seven months, does the minister have any legitimate beliefs that this place will actually be closed by June?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, I think if you look at what's happened in the interim, if you look at the new facilities that are coming onstream down in Shelburne, the residential facilities, if you look at the progress that's happening at Sunrise Manor, if you look at the fact that this group I have referred to has acquired a small options home and are planning to go forward, things seem to be coming together quite nicely to achieve that goal.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to ask a little bit about Sunrise Manor. My colleague, the member for Halifax Needham, is well aware of the issue as well - actually no. I'm going to back up for a second because, before I forget, the minister suggested the fire marshal had issues with the building.
When we met with the minister's staff back in September 2001, we were told it was environment, it wasn't the Fire Marshal's Office, and that there was an oil spill of some sort that was an environmental hazard. Subsequent to that, having checked with other people involved with the centre, we were told that wasn't the case. Can the minister confirm whether there were any environmental orders issued against the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre with regard to oil spillage or some other environmental contamination?
MR. CHRISTIE: The question is whether there were any other orders. The issue around this was the Office of the Fire Marshal under the Department of Environment and Labour. The issue was surrounding, as the honourable member indicated, the fuel tanks. That was the issue that was being discussed at that point in time and it was what had to be taken care of.
MR. DEVEAUX: I will again ask the question. Were there orders issued by environmental inspectors, not fire marshal inspectors, with regard to the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre?
[4:15 p.m.]
MR. CHRISTIE: The Department of Environment and Labour has indicated to us, as obviously there was the fire marshal, that they wanted that area vacated as soon as possible so they can start remediation on the oil situation there. So that was the discussion and the letters that we've had from the Department of Environment and Labour.
MR. DEVEAUX: Just so I'm clear, the minister is saying that he had orders issued from Environment and the fire marshal inspectors with regard to the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre. And if it wasn't both, which set of inspectors issued orders?
MR. CHRISTIE: The question was, were there orders. The answer is no, there were no orders. Their inspections have gone through the thing and have indicated that they felt that it was time for that building to be closed, and the last suggestions were from Environment, they wanted to move relatively soon in starting to remediate the oil spills and the damage there.
MR. DEVEAUX: Well, it can't be that urgent, Mr. Chairman, or they would issue orders.
Will the minister undertake today to provide us with the letters he received from the Department of Environment and Labour and table them here in the House?
MR. CHRISTIE: Certainly, we will make a note of that and we will table those at the earliest convenience.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, now I want to go on to Sunrise Manor. Can the minister tell me his understanding of originally - I think it was 15 months that the Sunrise option was to be there, they would renovate Sunrise Manor, or a portion of it, and some eleven residents, I think you mentioned today, would be going to Sunrise Manor. Can the minister confirm today if that 15-month time period is still consistent with his plan or whether that has gotten shorter or longer?
MR. CHRISTIE: Your question is, when we finish reconstructing Sunrise Manor and 11 people move in there, will they be there for more than 15 months. At this point in time that is still the intended target. We have talked with that other group, presently the board of the Halifax County Rehab Centre, and they have been looking at the other options I indicated to you. Their first option was to try to put a facility on the HRM and that did not work through, so they're looking at other options. But the plan was that people would go in there for a period of time, 15 months to 18 months, and then those facilities would revert for the use of the housing authority.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to go back to what the minister - you drew my attention to it, around the board. Let me confirm with you that the current board of the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre Society, maybe that's what it's called, but there's a non-profit organization, HRM transferred it over to that organization, the current board of this centre is also reconstituted as an organization that will be operating a small options home in Lawrencetown that will take some of the residents, is that correct?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the honourable member is yes, that is correct. The society's name is Quest and they have been very active in discussions with us over the last number of months. The issue was surrounding Sunrise Manor. They were involved in that issue and, indeed, they are the people who are going to be involved with residents of Sunrise Manor, involved with the staffing and so on and yes they have looked at a place down in Porters Lake and they're looking for some other facilities to bring people back to the community.
MR. DEVEAUX: So I want to confirm this as well. Quest is a separate society made up of the same board as the people who are the board for the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre?
MR. CHRISTIE: The answer is yes. It's not all the current board members, but it's a majority of the board members and their intent is to bring in community members as they would have carried on in the Halifax County Rehab Centre, but presently the person who we perceive as the president of the board now is the president of Quest.
MR. DEVEAUX: Can the minister tell us who the president of Quest is?
MR. CHRISTIE: The answer is Harry McInroy.
MR. DEVEAUX: Would a Mr. Stephen Mont be a member of that board as well?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, Mr. Mont is a member of that board. He has been a member of the County Rehab Centre and he is a member of that board.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, my next question is - because I'm not clear on how the small options homes work, I mean I have some idea - around the issue of small options homes. Are they constituted as non-profit societies or are the owners of small options homes able to make a profit?
MR. CHRISTIE: Is your question about this one or about all in general?
MR. DEVEAUX: Generally.
MR. CHRISTIE: Generally there can be both types. There can be non-profit and there can be for-profit.
MR. DEVEAUX: And the board of Quest, do you know if they're being constituted as for-profit or a non-profit organization?
MR. CHRISTIE: They're being constituted as a non-profit organization.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I guess one of the points I'm trying to make around these questions is I find it difficult to imagine that a board that is supposed to be operating the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre and has a fiduciary duty - maybe that's not the right term, but roughly the right term - to the residents, to the staff, and to the families of the residents, with regard to their ability to make sure that that facility is running properly and the best interests of the residents are being met, and at the same time is operating another organization called Quest in which their goal is to take these residents and put them in small options homes and in Sunrise Manor. Does the minister not see the possibility of some conflict in the two duties?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, we did have extensive discussion with them about that, but they indicated they had a definite interest in the community. They had been on that board for a number of years, they had some attachment to that facility and to the people who were there and they wanted to carry on. Their business plan that they gave us, to show that they were going to bring in people from the community, they wanted to be involved in the community and indeed I think one of their major points was they felt that people preferred, they were familiar with that area that the Halifax County Rehab Centre was housed in and they felt that they wanted to stay there. So given all of the discussion, we felt that that board brought a good community base. We felt that board had a track record to bring to the table, so we were comfortable with carrying on discussions with them.
MR. DEVEAUX: Will the minister undertake to supply the business plan of Quest to the House?
MR. CHRISTIE: Certainly we will provide the business plan and the list of the directors we're talking about. We have a note there to supply you with other information and we're happy to supply that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, around Sunrise Manor, is there currently construction going on at Sunrise Manor to renovate? Has it started? If it has, is it continuing now or has it stopped?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, the construction has started, and yes it should be completed within the next three weeks to a month.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the objective is within a month to have 11 of the residents from the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre moving to Sunrise Manor? The minister is nodding his head - there's no need to get up on that point.
My other question is around negotiations. Because the building is still open, I believe CUPE is still negotiating with the board of the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre. Can the minister tell me if he has been getting updates with regard to those negotiations?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, they are carrying on discussions and indeed they have successor rights and as Quest moves forward, as they have looked at nursing staff there, other staff, that as the opportunities are available for these other areas, as they move towards them they will be carrying on discussions with that group to bring them along with them.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the negotiations with CUPE have bogged down as a result of - I'm trying to choose the right words - there having been no approval from your department for any sort of a plan dealing with the negotiations. Can the
minister confirm today that he or his department has any direct or indirect influence over the negotiations between CUPE and the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, I guess the answer to the question, do we have any direct influence, is we have not been involved in that nor do we intend to be. Our objective is to work with the board of Quest to look at the opportunities. Obviously it's the department's mandate to provide those services for people who need them. Quest is a group that is saying we can assist you in doing that. We have not been involved in the discussions, no, and it is not our intention to do that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, is the minister aware that the board - maybe it's not the board maybe it's the executive director, whoever is negotiating on behalf of the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre - is telling CUPE that they cannot finalize any deal as a result of not getting approval from you with regard to a business plan or some other form of plan? Is the minister aware that that's being mentioned?
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't know what the executive director is saying. There's certainly a number of components to the business plan that they put forward. As I indicated, one facility has been acquired, and they have been looking for a couple more. Perhaps the discussion is whether we have approved those other locations or not, and the answer is no we haven't approved those other locations. That would be our involvement with the group and any encumbrances on their plan or needing approval from us.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the minister, if he can confirm, is saying neither he nor his department is in the position to approve any plan with regard to this centre itself, that anything that he might be approving with regard to a business plan is with regard to Quest's small options homes in Lawrencetown or Porters Lake or Sunrise Manor, but that neither he nor his department is in the process of reviewing or approving any business plan with regard to the centre itself, is that correct?
MR. CHRISTIE: Obviously there are the two issues. There is the close-out plan, and there's that part of the plan that is happening now, it's winding down. The other part, of course, is what happens to people and where they're going and what Quest is doing. What I was trying to indicate is we're not involved in the negotiations, and we are not going to, or are we trying to influence or are we going to be involved in approving any negotiations, we're not involved in that. We are, of course, involved in dealing with their staffing and the various business plans as they move forward as to locations. We will obviously be funding them, as we do with other ones. So we are approving on that. But if your question was are you involved and are you going to sign off on the negotiations, the answer is no.
MR. DEVEAUX: Well, that wasn't exactly my question, Mr. Chairman. Now you've mentioned a close-out plan. Has your department finalized a close-out plan for the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre or is there still another component, or another part of that plan that is still to be approved?
MR. CHRISTIE: The answer is no, we haven't finalized that close-out plan. We have indicated where 11 of the people will go. I've indicated that Quest people are looking at one option and looking for a couple of small options homes. We won't be in a position to finalize the close-out plan until a couple more of those details come into place. The question was will we be able to achieve it by June, and we have every indication to believe that we will.
MR. DEVEAUX: I take it a close-out plan has been submitted by the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre. Does that plan include any request for funding with regard to severance or retraining packages?
MR. CHRISTIE: No, the retraining package has not been part of the close-out package; it's been part of the ongoing package that we've talking about as this started, and as the honourable member indicated some while ago. That retraining package is part of that; it is not a component of the close-out package that we have with the Halifax County Regional Rehabilitation Centre. There are a few outstanding issues to deal with, and those are being taken care of now, and we have every reason to believe that we will achieve the June timeline.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I heard the minister say that the retraining is not part of the package request, but I didn't hear him mention severance - maybe it was just a misstep by him, but can the minister, for the record, say whether or not a request for severance funding is a part of the close-out plan that's been submitted to his department but not yet approved?
MR. CHRISTIE: No, Mr. Chairman, the severance is not part of the close-out package.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, those are all my questions. I will pass the rest of my time, which is about 30 minutes, over to my colleague, the member for Halifax Needham.
[4:30 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have a number of small items I would like to get through initially, before I turn to a couple of more substantive items. The first thing I want to raise with the minister - and perhaps you were here when I was speaking with the Minister of Education on this point the other day - I had written to both the honourable Minister of
Education and yourself with respect to the difficulties that people who have been accepted into university, because they meet all of the academic criteria to take a university degree, have with respect to being able to support themselves when they actually go.
Increasingly, people who are poor and on social assistance aren't able to access university programs, because if they have a student loan they become ineligible for social assistance, and in fact if they are on social assistance and they get accepted into university they're often told to apply for student loans. Not so long ago Saint Mary's University did a very excellent lunchtime series where members of the minister's staff came and made presentations and answered questions on this. One piece of information I picked up from that lunchtime series is that the university presidents in the province are very concerned about this, and I believe they have made some representation to government about the unfairness - not only the unfairness but the weakness in this as public policy.
Probably one of the best things we could do for people who are poor and trapped in the social assistance system is to give them as much education as we possibly can. In fact, if we could give them free education that would be a really good thing, because it would pay back in spades down the road.
At any rate, I wrote the Minister of Education and I wrote you, honourable minister, and I received a response that indicated this policy was going to be reviewed and that there would be a review happening. I want to know what the status of that review is. Has it begun, has it been completed, and who is involved in the review? Is there any consultation with respect to opportunities for people who have been directly impacted by this policy to have input into the review? Will the university community have input into the review? The student assistance offices inside the universities who are seeing students come to them, will they be involved in the review? Could you please give us some information on that?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, yes I do recall being here when the honourable member had the discussion with the Minister of Education in terms of that program. Yes, I do recall that the honourable member wrote to me and asked those questions. As the Minister of Education indicated, we are going to have a look at the interrelation of that between the two departments. I was talking earlier with the member for Dartmouth North - as we look at how we're going to go forward in the area of post-secondary education - and indicated to him that our major priority is for the close to two-thirds of our people on income assistance who haven't achieved high school education levels and that we have to move on in that direction. We were also having a discussion about the two year's post-secondary and as people develop their work plans.
I have had the opportunity to talk with Dr. Traves of Dalhousie. We were at a luncheon and we were chatting about that. He did communicate to me part of what the honourable member is indicating, that people need to be able to access university education. There was a discussion surrounding whether that should be through student loan or through
income assistance, and how we would approach that. My recollection of the discussion with him was that he was taking a more broad scope and saying that income assistance wasn't the only method for a whole variety of people for a whole variety of reasons. He was advancing the argument that there had to be more in the way of support for those people going back to get their post-secondary education.
I guess your question is, are we starting to focus on that, and the answer is yes; have we started to come to a resolution of that problem, and the answer is no. Yes, we give that some degree of priority so we can look at that. The other part of your question was, who is going to be involved in that discussion, and obviously the Minister of Education is meeting with all of those different groups at different times. Community Services, as we start that discussion, will bring to the table people from income assistance, people from different areas who need to be involved in that. I'm sure Education will bring people who they have had discussions with, that they feel need to be involved. Who is going to be involved in that is yet to be determined, but I would view it as a wide group of people who will try to find what our options are and what are the best ways to proceed.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, well, I agree with Dr. Traves that income assistance shouldn't be the only player in supporting people in these situations without financial means of their own to go to university. There's no question that the Student Aid Program in the province is inadequate and antiquated and requires some modernization, but I think, clearly, the decision by your government to make it very difficult for people to get assistance and go to university has been a real step backward for people in this province who have the intellectual capacity to go to university and to do well there.
As I said to the Minister of Education, it's my view and the view of this Party that no one should ever be denied higher education simply because they don't have the financial means to go to university. The vast majority of people who are in this situation aren't looking to go to university, it's actually a fairly small group. Many of those people have gone on to be really successful in a variety of fields. They bring quite an important perspective, because of their life experience, into those fields they go into because they have some compassion that's often missed at senior levels of bureaucracy and what have you. I think this is important that it be revisited. I would only say that while it's important to bring members of the departments together, it's equally as important to have the first voice of people who have been impacted by these situations involved. I think the policy can only be better as a result of that.
I just want to say that I think it's the feeling in the community that deals with the minister's department that the communication between the department and between community-based organizations and all of those groups that are service providers and people who work on the front line, without a doubt, from the contacts that I have with people, the view of the person on the street is that there is an enormous amount of closedness and a lack of consultation between your department and these organizations.
It's reached a level that I hadn't seen for some time. I think it's a cause of concern, and I think it's something that can be remedied fairly easily. I don't know why the culture of communication between your department and community organizations has changed so dramatically, where it comes from, but I suggest to you as minister at the top of the apex, you could change that situation and you could open up your department for better consultation and real consultation with people in the community, and it's high time that that happened. I would suggest that the social assistance policy with respect to university attendance might be a very good place to start to build some trust in the community.
Having said that, I want to talk briefly about service contracts, because I understand that the department is in the process of developing service contracts with a lot of service providers, probably folks who receive assistance from your department under the direct grants portion of your budget. Generally speaking, I think people feel that service contracts is an okay approach, and the idea of three-year budgets or something like that, being able to predict funding, is a good approach. People like that idea. It gives some stability.
There are concerns being expressed that part of this process is taking away, it's requiring organizations to enter into agreements that will take away from service providers their ability to be advocates, and not only advocates between and among agencies for service but advocacy with government for public policy that reflects the real needs of the clientele in the various agencies. I would like to know from the minister whether or not you're prepared to ensure in the service contracts or service agreements that the important job of doing public service advocacy by these organizations is reflected in those service agreements.
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me just start by saying, I hear the honourable member saying that people we've had discussions with on these service agreements realize and understand that we need to be able to know, and they need to be able to know what service they're delivering and what their business plan is. If that's the case, I think that we've achieved our objective. We wanted to know, for example, what that particular group was going to do and have them lay out their business plan for us.
In terms of a lot of groups, I guess I'm not clear when the member says that they're going to advocate. If that's their only function, if their only function is to be an advocate group, then that's what we expect them to spell out in their business plan. If, indeed, they're a group that is providing a service and they're going to speak out on behalf of that service, then that's something else.
[4:45 p.m.]
What our objective is, is to expect through these contracts that the money given by the government to these organizations will deliver the agreed-upon outcomes, and following on that, those groups will be accountable for delivering on those outcomes. That's what we see these contracts doing. As we started down the road we clearly had to say to ourselves, as
we had to do in all areas, that the expenditure of dollars is being the most effective to the province, but in the process of doing that, what we set out to do and what the grants set out to do, the outcomes that were defined, in effect, do we all agree on the outcomes and, if so, were those outcomes what we achieved. That's what we have looked at.
The last part of your question is, if a group is going to be an advocacy group and that is their objective and they're going to say our group is to advocate for people with disabilities, whatever it might be, then we agree on that and we know what the measured outcomes are going to be. If, on the other hand, their objective is to provide services to the Boys & Girls Club, then that's what we expect, for them to look at the outcomes and at what they have delivered. If your question is, can they speak up on behalf of the Boys & Girls Club even though their outcome is to help them, well, of course, the answer is yes; but, at the end of the day, we expect that what they have indicated to us as outcomes is what they will be delivering.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I would say that most organizations in this field have more than one objective, they have multi-focuses. I can appreciate that the minister doesn't come from a social work or a social policy background so might not appreciate the history of these organizations and the role they have played in shaping public policy in the country. We have services today because of groups of citizens coming together and forming organizations and doing two things, essentially, providing direct service for people where there was a need and that need wasn't being met, and advocating with government on the important role of allocating resources and developing public policy that reflects a framework in which service will be provided.
I guess that's the point I'm making, that service contracts that reduce the role of these organizations to providing units of care and seeing that as their function is quite limited in terms of the history, the practice and the philosophy of most of these organizations or many organizations who also want to have reflected and understood in government and in a department like yours that there is an important role for these organizations that in fact the expertise, if you will, for developing public policy rests as much in these organizations as it does in some government bureaucracy.
I know that the Garber book or the Osborne book, whatever, reinventing government, how entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector, whatever, the problem with that approach that says that governments steer and these organizations row is that it doesn't understand, essentially, that these organizations can steer as well, and in fact that these organizations have a lot of insight into where the ship of state, if you will, in terms of public policy should be going; they see the impact of changes in the social, economic and political climate before anybody in government does, believe me.
So when we develop service contracts we have to make sure that we maintain in those service contracts a dimension that these organizations have as part of their practice, multiple objectives including objectives of public policy and formulating public policy and advocating good public policy for their clients. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't mean that they get reduced to being just an advocacy group, most groups would never want to abandon the service component of what it is they do because that's what they do, and they do it well, and they care about it passionately, as the minister will know from his experience in the past week or so. There's nothing that will get a group more riled as when they know that the outcome of government policy is going to dramatically change the service delivery picture on the ground.
I don't necessarily expect a response from that, I just want to impress on the minister where these groups are coming from and what it is that they think. A very wise United Church minister in my riding, Rod McAulay, at the Brunswick Street United Church, years ago, when I was first practising social work in that community, once talked to me about accountability between government and community-based organizations. He said, I've seen it all, every two years there's a shift in philosophy, there are new forms that come along, a new model to be accountable under, and frankly it's a little bit like busywork for bureaucrats. The nature of work never changes. We continue to be the ones on the front lines, answering the phones, making sure people have housing, making sure they have food, making sure their lights are on, making sure their kids are in safe child care, and so on and so forth, but you have to constantly understand that you're going to have to deal with this in your social-work life he told me, and he was right. Service contracts are sort of a new version of accountability that these organizations will have to learn to live with until something else comes along.
I want to ask the minister about the allocation of funds for a couple of things that I'm quite interested in because I've had some contact with these organizations, not at their request but because I happen to have some activities that coincided with meeting them. One thing I would like to know from the minister, I visited Apple Tree Landing in Canning, and I don't know if you've been there or not, Mr. Minister, but it's well worth the visit if you haven't. (Interruption) You have? Yes. It's quite wonderful, isn't it. They have a new building, it's owned and operated by the community, built by the community. They've done a lot of work. One of the things that I was quite surprised about and really troubled by is that they don't have one subsidized child-care space in that centre. I've lived in that community, just outside that community and I know there are certainly families in that area who would require subsidized child-care space, and I know there are families in that area, women who could go back to the community college in Kentville, they could participate in training programs, they could get into the labour force, but subsidized child care is certainly a barrier. I know that Apple Tree Landing is hoping to get some subsidized spaces, and I want to ask, is there provision in this budget for subsidized spaces at Apple Tree Landing?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, yes, I did have the opportunity to go with the member for Kings North to Apple Tree Landing. It is a unique experience. We enjoyed meeting the people there. Just before we go on to that last question, I do want to go back to a question you raised earlier in terms of the busywork for people and how these things create nothing but paperwork for bureaucrats and so on. As the honourable member will know, part of the service contract is to do multi-year funding, that's part of the whole initiative. I guess we viewed it as perhaps removing some busywork. If you did get the service contract, you knew you were going to go out two or three years, that took away the whole issue of what's going to happen next year and the panic, and you've started to plan it. I hope the honourable member sees that as a step forward if perhaps there is more paperwork than necessary, but that particular part of the program is a step forward.
The other question in terms of Apple Tree Landing, through Early Childhood Development Services, as I indicated before, there will be 50 new spaces coming on this year. At this point in time the Round Table on Child Care has not given me a report as to the allocation of those, so I'm not able to answer your question. The round table met a couple of weeks ago; they will be meeting again. In reality, as the honourable member would be aware, some people came off that board. We appointed people just in the last few days to that board, and they will be coming together in the latter part of this month. I expect to have their report on the allocation of spaces.
I do know that the centre in Canning had made application last year, they had indicated their need. I know they were on the list. My expectation is the round table would react to that in some way, shape or form. I do not have that report as yet, but I will be getting that shortly.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Perhaps the minister would comment on portable spaces and whether or not there will be an allocation in that area.
MR. CHRISTIE: In terms of the spaces that we're looking at, we certainly would expect that as part of those, the round table's allocation, that a number of those would be portable. They will do the assessment on where the needs are for the portability spaces and where for the fixed spaces. I have every intention that the report will contain a number of portable spaces, but as I say I don't have it as yet.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I see our time is drawing close to the end and I'm not going to get to those other areas right now. I have one other question regarding the Inner City Initiative, which the minister is no doubt aware of. The North End Council of Churches has been sponsoring this initiative. Folks from the initiative actually came here to the House, last year, I think, in the Spring. I had an opportunity to introduce a number of the organizations that had sent people to Flint, Michigan to look at Project Hope, I think that's what they call it there. I know I've been to at least two discussions or workshops sponsored
by the Inner City Initiative, and members of the minister's department have been in attendance.
I know there is an awareness in the department of the Inner City Initiative, not just an awareness but an interest and, I would assume, support - a supportive interest in terms of the Inner City Initiative. I am wondering if the minister could indicate if funds have been allocated for the work of the Inner City Initiative, and how much will the initiative receive from his department this year for their ongoing work?
MR. CHRISTIE: We certainly have had discussions with the Inner City Initiative. I know I was at a dinner for the Parker Street Food and Furniture Bank, Dr. Michaels was there, and I had the opportunity to speak with him on it. At this point in time the initiative is doing a number of things. I had an opportunity to meet with the person who runs the Parker Street Food and Furniture Bank, Mr. Mel Boutilier, back some weeks ago. He has a number of initiatives and as the honourable member indicated, they're doing retraining, they're doing computer training now, they're doing a number of those things.
At this point in time we have not had any money that has gone to them because it is in its infancy and in the proposal stage. We have talked to them about other initiatives in other areas. They talked on a variety of things, the expansion of their food business. As you know, they're talking about expanding their furniture business. They've talked about retraining. Indeed, they've spoken to us about early childhood initiatives, perhaps somewhere they might possibly get connected there. But as we sit here today, we haven't had a proposal from them that says let's do this and this is how much money we want, but we expect to have that shortly.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I will certainly be raising this with the minister again as the initiative moves ahead with their plans. There are many extraordinary organizations and individuals that are involved in the initiative. I think it's an example of a community that is coming together and trying to coordinate the efforts of the various groups in the community to ensure there isn't a duplication of program delivery to identify the gaps that aren't being addressed and to try to address them. Certainly, for example, St. Joseph's early childhood education folks, they've started a program that I think they call the HIPPY program. I don't know what it stands for, what the acronym is, but they have people going into the homes of young families and trying to give them support. It's an initiative that needs to be supported. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the NDP caucus' time at this time.
The honourable member for Lunenburg West.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I won't be taking all that much time, but I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the Critic responsible for Community Services. Mr. Minister, I have a couple of questions, obviously the issue of Harbour House is near and dear to both our hearts, as we've both spent some time dealing with the issue, following some of the debate that's currently underway about the stay of proceedings, as it were, until so many months down the road and final decisions will be made. I might say, being in my riding last night, there is still a fair amount of cynicism to that. People are looking for a long-term solution and some to women's centres, certainly in my riding.
[5:00 p.m.]
I note with interest the letter that was received from your department to Harbour House with the $8,750 cheque in regard to that $35,000 loan that was originally made. Can you tell me the status of the $35,000 outstanding loan by Harbour House to your department that was taken out about a year or two ago? Can you update me in regard to the status of that loan? Will it be written off subject to a business plan, or will it still be a contingent liability by Harbour House?
MR. CHRISTIE: There are two parts to the question. The honourable member indicated there was a lot of concern in his community. What I had indicated to his honourable colleague earlier was that we had sent a letter and we did meet with the directors yesterday. Yesterday at that meeting, I undertook to write to the directors who have the responsibility for the cash flow and the funding for the building and indicate to them that as we stood now, from a department's point of view going in, the transition house in Bridgewater wouldn't be closed.
What we did indicate to people yesterday is that Bridgewater is a perfect example, there is a centre for the women's centre, there is a transition house and there is another space for men's programs. Those are areas we have to look at, and how we can achieve some efficiencies of not spending for three locations. So by definition, if you keep the transition house open therefore some of those programs that women have will perhaps be delivered through that transition house. We've indicated to them they're going to keep the same program, and we've indicated the funding is going to remain the same for the period of time while we talk about the redesign.
Your other question, in terms of the loan, it brings up the very reason why we have to look at the redesign. As the honourable member knows, it's Bridgewater, and there are other places that have loans. There are other areas that have the programs and the ability to raise money in the community is not meeting the funding needs which is exactly the reason we said we have to go back and define those core programs so that we're all sure of what we're doing and what we're being funded for. At this point in time has a decision been made to write off the loan? No, it hasn't. As we go forward on the redesign, that will be part of the restructuring and the redesign as we look at it.
So if the transition house in Bridgewater has more services there and is delivering more outreach than they did then, of course, we will have to incorporate, but I have undertaken to write the directors to raise all those questions so that not only executive directors but the board of directors are actually completely aware of how we're going and how it affects them.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, what you also realize in your visit to Bridgewater is that Harbour House deals with battered women, children and families, and their expertise is in helping those individuals cope with the trauma that they're dealing with, to deal with abuse and so on and so forth. The areas of Second Story, which is a women's centre, there are a number of educational components to that side. They deal with sex education, single mothers, you know, the family resource centre is tied in dealing with helping women make that transition, that either they're left alone, trying to help them with furthering their education, having a place for their children to be looked after and things of that nature.
So this is like a community of efforts by a lot of very dedicated people in our area providing assistance to needs that do truly exist. Herein lies your challenge, as Minister of Community Services. It's not a business that you're running here, it's the ability to be able to look after the people who are the most vulnerable in society and for that it's a huge responsibility, but it's also a huge opportunity to do something positive for the community. So I hear what you're saying and, you know, it's not a matter - if we're all working in good faith going forward - of looking at duplication, that's fair.
My concern is that we're going to shut down one for the other and lose the service delivery that those individual areas provide with a lot of volunteer services. I would ask, Mr. Minister, that during the next six or eight months, or whatever that period of time is that we're going through, that you would keep the respective members, where they have these facilities in their ridings, up to speed. I know some of the front-bench people are familiar with that particular facility in Bridgewater. I would trust that that would be shared with members of the Opposition as well because we are very concerned that those facilities are protected and looked after. We need to make sure we can find a long-term sustainable financial plan. You know it's not a matter of a blank cheque, I understand that, but clearly I support those facilities being there and being efficiently run, but at the same time being there to meet the serious needs that exist in the area and I regret that we have those needs in our area but they are there and they need to be met.
In regard to the men's centre, we fought long and hard to get a men's centre provided and we shouldn't get into a situation where we say, well, you know, either/or, we're going to take money from women's facilities for a men's centre and then all of a sudden you've got women's organizations upset or men's centres versus women's centres. The issue here is that we have people in our society who need help and I met some of the individuals involved in the men's centres and, you know, if you're trying to be preventative, that's one area you can do that because these men who hurt - physically, sexually and psychologically abuse -
women, they need help. You can't put them back in that environment because at some point in time they're going to cause a problem again.
So those facilities, as you well know, are there to be able to help cure those problems that exist for those individuals. Some of these men have had a lifetime of learning from their parents what they think that lifestyle is all about and it's wrong and whatever triggers it, it has to be dealt with. So we need to be able to find facilities that deal with the children and the women who are being affected, but we also have to make sure that we deal with the people who are causing the problems and in our area, I think, lies a model where you're trying to deal with the whole issue of family violence, family neglect and family abuse. It's a total package and I would like to hear your comments. Are you looking at trading one off against the other or can you see the benefit of trying to deal with that whole family scenario that is so seriously in need?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member raises the question of how you proceed with looking at all of these things. I think, as the honourable member knows, some of the challenges that we've looked at, as we've talked about earlier, is that, for example, only 7 per cent of women access transition houses, but 50 per cent of the people coming into men's programs are mandated there through Justice and 50 per cent are mandated through our Family and Children's Services area where people will say if you're going to be reunited with your children and with your family, you have to go look at these programs. I think one of the discussions, and I'm sure the honourable member has had this discussion with the people from his men's centre down in Bridgewater, one of the things that was identified yesterday and, of course, has been identified leading up to this, is the area of education and you referred to the fact that people relate to a lifestyle and I think that's one of the things that we see that has to become part of that process.
That's what has led us to say, which area and which department is best to serve this? If we see a component for Education, if we see a Health component, for whatever reasons people need to have health services, if we see an area in Community Services and that takes us into the Family and Children's Services. What we've said to the men's programs is we understand and we know that need is there. The question we're asking is, the monies that we're spending on delivering, is that providing the product that we want, is it giving us the outcome, and if the answer to that in the discussion is that it's not giving us the full outcome, it could be better, that takes you to saying, okay, what department is best to look at delivering some of these services.
The honourable member is certainly aware that Justice has programs for people in violence and in Family Courts where courts send them to specific programs. We have other programs that are tied in there and, indeed, one of the issues surrounding all of this is that the programs in the honourable member's area and the men's programs in another area don't go back and forth. There's no back and forth communication and that's one of the areas that we have to get in. We have to be able to move and have instances where there's high risk
identified in one area, if it happens to be your area, with something in Cape Breton, or whatever. There are a number of issues that have been identified that we have to look at.
Your question was whether those programs are pitted against each other, and the answer is no, we're looking at those delivery services and we have been informed by the people in the transition houses and the women's centres that the delivery of men's programs in facilities that they have is not appropriate and we don't argue with that at all. We don't argue with that at all, but there are other areas that we have to deliver the programs and we have to ensure that they're in the best department and that's what we told the people from the men's programs. People from the men's programs in Bridgewater were there yesterday. They asked that question, are we going forward? The answer is yes, but I can't say to you today that you won't have more influence in Justice and when I asked the question, do you want Justice at the table as we talk, the answer was yes because we look for where the best part of that program is going to be delivered. That's the discussion we had and I'm sure if you talk to them on the weekend when you go home, that's the discussion they will say we had yesterday when we met.
[5:15 p.m.]
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, you know outcome measurements are important, but in determining a criteria for which you measure outcomes and what you throw in as the question to determine what the outcome is you're trying to achieve is really what the critical aspect is here and so my question to you is, are you going to involve women and men from these centres throughout the province to dialogue to the point where you determine what is base, you know, what is an absolute requirement?
If you're talking about an outcome measurement based on the fact that you've got 21 beds here and your utilization is less than 85 per cent, then the outcome measurement means that you lose 15 beds. Is that the type of measurement we're talking about or are we talking about the fact that you can't predetermine when all of a sudden you're going to have an abusive situation happen and you have all 15 beds used? You could have 30 beds that night and the next night, you know, so when you formulate what it is that you're trying to formulate, the outcome you're trying to achieve, who's going to be a part of that to make sure that we're comparing the proper things?
It's like a questionnaire. How the question is framed will sometimes determine the answer you're going to receive and if you want an answer to be received to suit your particular circumstance, well, then you can do that. Is that how you're going to develop the dialogue for the outcome measurement, or will the outcome measurement be predicated on true dialogue with the men and women in these centres throughout the province so that we can find a fair system that is meeting their needs as well as your fiscal needs?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the member asks the question of process, how we're going to go forward from here. A lot of yesterday's discussion was talk about how we were going to set up those outcomes, a lot of the questions centred around the fact are we talking about the issues, as we start to redesign, are we talking about redesigning for family violence and abused women, or is it for family violence and just women? So that question, as you format the questions, our undertaking with them is to say we are going to set up a provincial meeting that would bring in the group that was there plus some of the presidents of the boards and other people that they deem appropriate.
To frame those questions, to frame the questions of two issues, first is what do people see as core? We, as a department, know what we are mandated to do as core. That's very simple. The legislation says we do this and we do this. There are other things that we presently do that aren't legislated. So the question is, are those core? So we have to develop the core and the people from your area were quite eloquent in saying core programs in women's centres are going to be slightly different from core programs in transitional houses and the stats show us the number of people going to transition houses and the people needing more outreach.
The other thing that's core to the department is that we indicated yesterday that simply just because you happen to have a transition house and a women's centre in your area, that people further down in Shelburne or in Liverpool have to have access to those services too and I don't think you would disagree with that. So we have to provide the mechanism to be able to outreach more, if you will allow that word, to be able to reach to those people somehow. So those are the things. Your question was, are they going to be involved in the design of the question, the answer is yes.
Our undertaking is to meet provincially, to meet with them to start to frame these and then go into regional meetings with the people in the area to simply address that. Well, if you don't live in Bridgewater, what happens, how do you get that service and as we look at efficiencies, as we look at perhaps that we don't need so many buildings, they can be incorporated into one. I would simply say this to the honourable member that perhaps you don't need as many beds and perhaps some night there will be more people, but beds aren't stationary, you know, they don't have to be one in a room and one here. There are options that you can look at and we will certainly be speaking to those.
Now, I just want to be clear on the men's program side as we were talking about them. They know what their core programs are. They know that there's a need for more core programs and they know that they have to look at how they're going to deliver those. What we said to them is those programs are going to be there, but when I asked them again if they see Justice being at the table as we talk about these, the answer was yes, that they make sure that we don't have one program being talked about in Justice and one program here. So that's how we are planning to move forward.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I will soon have to turn over the floor. I have some other questions for you tomorrow, but I will ask, in regard to long-term care facilities and beds, we have had a long time, I've spent a lot of my years in this Legislature pleading and begging with both governments now on the issue of long-term facilities for Rosedale Home for Special Care in the member's riding as well as in Hillside Pines in the Bridgewater area. There is a serious need that's there. Health care is paying out money to have people in acute care beds who need long-term care facilities and this ultimately will save money in the system. Can you enlighten us as to when you can come down and make those announcements for those facilities that will ultimately save money for health care?
MR. CHRISTIE: I know the honourable member has had discussions with us and I know the honourable member has had discussions with Health in terms of how theirs are going. We have had an opportunity through the Kendrick report to refocus on that. Your question is when will we be announcing those beds, that has not been developed as yet. We need to make a provincial plan with Health. We need to provide additional beds. The honourable member knows that we're in the process in a couple of weeks of opening up some facilities down in Shelburne to bring people from this area who have challenges down to the Shelburne area, but the long-term care beds remain a challenge and that's something that we will be working with Health. There is no timeline but I can offer the member hope and plan to join him for whatever it is we might have down in Bridgewater to make that announcement.
MR. DOWNE: A chicken barbeque.
MR. CHRISTIE: A chicken barbeque.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I should indicate that I will probably be sharing some of my time, the remaining time with my colleague, the member for Cape Breton The Lakes, who will be asking some questions of the minister as well. Before I even start, I will apologize to the minister and your staff because I'm going to do some bouncing around here from subject to subject on some items that we covered previously, and the first one being in the area of daycare subsidies. When I asked the minister about daycare subsidies, and indeed he confirmed that there was a funding increase there, he mentioned, I do believe, that there were some 50 daycare spaces that were earmarked for early childhood development. I'm just wondering, can the minister indicate exactly where those spaces are going?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member, as he indicated, we had Early Childhood Development programs, $11 million this year, those 50 spaces are allocated under there.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, again I apologize but I have to bounce around from topic to topic. If we can switch to the Disabled Persons Commission, I would like to ask the minister, has there been an increase or a decrease in funding for disabled across the province?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the funding for the Disabled Persons Commission rests under the Senior Management, Commissions and Agencies on Page 6.3 and it shows that our estimate last year was $247,000. We spent $233,000 and we are forecasting this year $265,000. So it's an increase in the area of the Disabled Persons Commission.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us some detail on exactly how that increase is going to be allocated?
MR. CHRISTIE: I think in terms of that Disabled Persons Commission, as the honourable member knows, Charlie MacDonald has left that post. Consequently, we were down that amount of money while he was gone. We're forecasting to have a full year replacement for that person, plus we have the 2 per cent increase for the staff there as I indicated earlier, the two, two and two over the three years, and that is reflected in this year's estimates.
MR. WILSON: So, actually, that's just filling a vacancy, is that correct? That's all it is. There's a decrease in funding to child development centres - can the minister give us a breakdown there and tell me if any of the centres will close and if so, where, and will there be any loss of positions?
MR. CHRISTIE: The question was, the payments to child development centres, last year our forecast was for $287,000, we expended $294,000 as there was a special payment to a place and we're actually forecasting an increase of $3,000 this year. All of those areas, the same areas would be receiving funding but there's a slight increase in that area.
MR. WILSON: So, there is a slight increase, the minister is saying? I'm sorry, I said a decrease. So there's no contemplation being given to centres closing and no loss of any positions?
MR. CHRISTIE: That is correct. Of the 33 centres that are involved in there, we're funding those to remain open and no positions will change.
MR. WILSON: On the issue of in-home support, if I may now. Has funding for in-home support actually increased? Has it gone up?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, it has gone up. As the honourable member will notice, last year we forecast $5.3 million and the demands on those services for children remaining at home took us to $6.6 million. So our forecast this year is that we anticipate the same level as last year's actual expenditures which is an increase of $1.4 million over last year's estimates.
MR. WILSON: There's currently a freeze on new clients accepting in-home support. So if there's an increase in funding, does that mean that in-home support is going to be taking some new clients and if it doesn't, then where exactly is that that increase being spent?
MR. CHRISTIE: The honourable member indicates there's a freeze on people coming into that program. That is not the case. People are coming to that program continuously. As I've indicated to the House, our level of people in that program is approximately 1,150. We had anticipated that additional people would be coming in this year and we had to anticipate that some of those people coming in would have fairly high needs, as some of our clients do. That's why the increase is there. The people will be continually coming, there is not a freeze on that, so that's why we have targeted that we would have more people and they certainly would anticipate that some of them would have fairly high needs.
MR. WILSON: I wanted to go back to the subject now of transition houses and shelters and the proposed decrease in funding to transition houses and women's centres and men's intervention programs. I wanted to bring the minister's attention to a release by Communications Nova Scotia the other day which indicated, "No Transition Houses to Close; Family Violence Redesign Slows," was the headline used by Communications Nova Scotia. In that release, the minister is quoted - and I will first ask the minister if this is a direct quote because even the good people at Communications Nova Scotia can sometimes misquote people as reporters can as well. But indeed, the minister is quoted as saying, "If we don't realize the expected savings from the redesign, then we will make the adjustments needed from within our departmental budget," Is that a correct quote that the minister gave to Communications Nova Scotia the other day?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, that is a direct quote I gave them. That was the indication I gave at the meeting yesterday.
MR. WILSON: I thank the minister for his answer and I would like to ask the minister then, if you're saying that you don't realize the expected savings from the redesign then you're going to make adjustments needed from within your departmental budget and if indeed, that's what you told me that you said, where are those adjustments going to be made within your departmental budget?
MR. CHRISTIE: I think, as we've been going over some of the numbers, the honourable member will realize that, as I've indicated to them in the area of maintenance of children and some of the other areas, we target to meet those, but sometimes we don't meet those because the demand is great. As we would make adjustments in this year's forecast, as I had indicated to the member earlier, under our IT section we have a program of our client services. When we laid out our business plan, we laid out our intentions for what we were going to do for Family and Children's Services and children's aid, what we were going to do in terms of Pharmacare for people and we laid out the program that we hoped to achieve through our client service delivery. If we are unsuccessful in areas of our budget to meet our
objectives, we would look at the area of our client services program as areas that do not have direct impact on people, areas that we do not have commitments, areas that we're not legislated to do. We would look at that area as areas to make adjustments.
MR. WILSON: Perhaps the minister could explain that further, exactly what type of cuts are you proposing in areas that do not affect the service you're providing to clients? What exactly does that mean? Are you talking about cutting back in the number of pencils your department purchases? You're not talking about cutting back on purchases in the IT sector because you've increased that - we've already gone over that. I guess, to be even more blunt, what I'm getting at here is, please, enough of this snow job, Mr. Minister. You've told us that for the time being, that $890,000 is still going to be cut at the end of the day. Now where are you going to take that money from? Where is it going to come from?
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me see if I understand the question. The question was, if we don't achieve the savings of the $890,000, where would the money come from, if that was the question. The question, as we were talking about, if we're not achieving the savings that we looked at, if we're extending the time that we don't achieve the savings, where would we realign our budget? What I had indicated where we would do that is through the client service delivery. When we were talking about that before, I indicated that we're looking at a future development of programs to give us the programs that we need. That is the area that we would be looking at to do a readjustment of our departmental budget.
MR. WILSON: You know, I think, Mr. Chairman, what's happening is that I've been asking the minister questions for so long, I'm starting to sound almost as confused as he does with my questions. So maybe I should clarify. You have said, the minister has said, there's a second option if the redesign does not recover $890,000 from the sector. That's another quote from Communications Nova Scotia that the minister has said is quite accurate. So what I'm asking is that if the redesign does not recover $890,000, where specifically, in detail, are you going to find that money, Mr. Minister?
MR. CHRISTIE: Very specifically, Mr. Chairman, under the line item IT Services and the Corporate Services Unit, the area that we would make the adjustment for, what the honourable member indicated, if the evidence shows we have not achieved those savings, where we would make the adjustment is in the issue of the client service delivery and partnering with people. We would slow that program down and we wouldn't spend those dollars this year, it would be spent in other areas of our budget.
MR. WILSON: Okay, we're getting clearer and I appreciate the clarity. So what the minister is saying, Mr. Chairman, is if indeed, by the redesign you don't recover that $890,000 from the sector, then perhaps what's going to happen is that the new computers and the new software and everything else that's associated with IT is not going to happen throughout the department. That's going to be stopped and you're going to use that to recover that $890,000. Am I correct in saying that?
MR. CHRISTIE: You're very close. We're getting there, very, very close. What I had said is what we don't achieve of the $890,000, if we don't achieve those savings, that would come out of that budget line. It is not for computers and software. Part of it is. Part of it is for a program that we are in the process of doing and the honourable member knows we have an RFP out to look for a partner to help us develop systems and programs to carry us into the future to ensure that we can deliver the service. What I've indicated, if it's in the area of transition houses, if it's in the area of maintenance of children, if it's in the area of community supports for adults where we are off our targets, then that is the line item that we would make the adjustment on.
MR. WILSON: But, again, the minister indicates that there's no commitment there, that that is exactly what's going to happen. There's no commitment whatsoever. Indeed, I would suggest to the minister where you're looking at recovering, if the redesign goes ahead, you're still going ahead with that redesign. There has been no change to your thinking whatsoever and it will still, at the end of the day, involve the closure of transition houses, the end of some women's centres and the end of some men's programs, as well. I suggest to the minister that that's the ultimate thing that's being looked at at the end of the road.
Let me change now to the subject of housing, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister indicate to me, and I've brought this to the minister's attention some time ago, there are particular problems in my riding, the riding of Glace Bay, but I think they're probably problems that are felt throughout the province regarding the issue of housing and the amount of money that's available to housing units and so on throughout the Nova Scotia housing commission. But, in particular, at one time, I mentioned that the Winter Works Program that this government once funded but is no longer in existence, was used by the Department of Housing to hire additional workers to indeed fix up units and so on throughout the various areas and to put those units into use again. That Winter Works Program no longer exists. How much of a hardship has that created for the Housing Services Division, no longer being able to use the Winter Works Program?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the question is, how much of a hardship? Well, those few areas that would have been repaired I suppose aren't getting repaired, but we have still a fairly extensive program of providing repairs and the honourable member will know
that we have some special needs in his area, the Sydney area, on the villa down close to the waterfront. There was a particular issue that came up with the slabs coming off the front that required us to do emergency repairs. Whether there is a Winter Works Program or not, those are still going to occur. I guess at the end of the day there's possibly some maintenance on some of the buildings that isn't being done through the Winter Works Program, but that's being done through our normal maintenance program anyway.
MR. WILSON: Before I turn over the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton The Lakes, I think the minister at one time provided
the statistics to me and I think the statistics in my area in Glace Bay would show actually that the number of vacancies, the number of vacant units that are available both in public housing and in seniors' housing, if indeed those units were repaired tomorrow, let's say by some miracle that would occur with the department putting in the workers and the funding there, if those units were repaired and ready to be used that indeed there would be no problem. There would no longer be a problem because the numbers are almost matching, as I'm to understand, in some cases.
I will have to do them off the top of my head, but for instance there may be 30-some people seeking seniors' units and at the same time there may be in the same vicinity, within one or two, 30-some units that are actually empty, but not available. The same would apply to public housing. I know for a fact that there about 34 public housing units that are vacant, currently, in Glace Bay and there are only about 33 people who have 33 applications on file seeking that public housing.
So indeed if there was some sort of special program, whether it be a Winter Works Program or some kind of repair program that was put in place, then that housing crisis that now exists in Glace Bay, and I'm sure in other areas throughout the province, that housing crisis would cease to exist. I will just make that as a point to the minister. I'm not asking for a reply and I'm sure he's aware that there is that sort of crunch that does exist from time to time in many areas across the province. Having said that, I will turn over the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, up to the moment of interruption, to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, first off, Mr. Minister, I want to say good afternoon. I'm going to follow up on what my colleague was indicating. In fact, last year there was a seniors' unit on King Street in Florence that had a leaking roof for over a year. I'm wondering how many of these situations currently exist in this province that you or your staff are aware of?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, to the honourable member, the question is how many have problems. A number of them. I don't have the full list here. But as the honourable member and I both know, we have one of the oldest housing stocks across the country, some of the houses we have, the seniors' houses and the rental houses. So those require a large number of repairs. The honourable member also knows that in the federal government's affordable housing program and through the homelessness program, when the homelessness program was first announced, the federal government indicated they were going to target this area. As the member knows, we've had discussions with them saying, no we should be able to bring Sydney in as part of that so that both areas, both of the large centres in Nova Scotia,
both Sydney and this area, had the ability to access the housing money and to start going in that direction.
The other area that I can talk to the honourable member about is the Affordable Housing Program that all the provinces have been talking to the federal government about. As the program was announced back last year to cover across Canada, one of the issues that was there was whether it would be brand new houses or whether that money could go to existing housing stock. The Atlantic Provinces - all four Atlantic Provinces - haven't signed that accord as yet simply because we're making the point to the federal government that we, as an area, need more money to go to existing housing stock. Yes, we need to have some new housing, but we need to have money go to existing housing stock to do just what the honourable member was mentioning - to fix up roofs, to help people stay in their home and do a number of things.
I guess your question is do we have a number of places that need repair in housing units. The answer is yes. Are we looking at trying to get new units built and get more money into existing programs for existing housing? The answer is yes. We have to work with those items that are priority first and then go to those items as you refer to meet the needs as best we can.
[5:45 p.m.]
MR. BOUDREAU: Minister, I am very well aware of all the programs that are in place and I'm sure most of the people associated with housing are. My question is, how many of these units are in existence that you and/or your staff are aware of today in Nova Scotia? I would prefer a number, sir, and if you don't have them today, that's fine, but will you commit to tabling that number here in this House?
MR. CHRISTIE: I interpret your question to be what is the total number of units and what units are we aware of that require renovations. The answer is, certainly we will table that for you within the next 24 hours as we get that data for you.
MR. BOUDREAU: I know the minister is from Bedford and that's a rich area, but I'm from Cape Breton and that is not a rich area at the moment. Senior citizens with four buckets in your unit for over a year is unacceptable to Nova Scotians. There's another unit in Sydney Mines and both of these units, by the way, are in Cape Breton North located in an area represented by a government representative. One in Sydney Mines has fungus everywhere, there's apparently a leaking roof, walls are cracked, it's in dire need of paint. When are you going to fix this particular unit, Minister?
MR. CHRISTIE: We will be looking at those units. Housing Services looks at the requirements across the province, as they do in the Cape Breton area, they do in the Yarmouth area. We will be looking at those needs and we will be meeting those needs as we
can within our budget. If those are the areas - and I don't have that information, if the honourable member has talked to the Cape Breton people down at the housing units, they will know where that stands on our priority list for renovations as part of the answer to your question there, we will look at that information to see where that is on the priority list and I'm happy to table that for the honourable member. As that list is developed, we will move on to do that. But I do remind the honourable member that there are 1,000 households that we service every year and his colleague, the member for Richmond, has indicated that they have concerns with the facility down in that area. We will get to it and get them fixed as soon as we can.
MR. BOUDREAU: I can appreciate the fact the minister indicated he has 1,000 units - that's fine. I don't have to remind the minister that on rentals, you collect rent every month, sir. You do have a responsibility to ensure that these buildings are safe, particularly for the seniors in this province. In particular, some of the units - at least in my area and there are other areas in this province - are not safe. They're not safe so I would like to ask you, sir, how much money do you have in your budget for maintenance of these units this year?
MR. CHRISTIE: I'm just looking under the Home Ownership and Repair Programs. Our expenditures this year are forecast at $12.462 million.
MR. BOUDREAU: And how much was it last year?
MR. CHRISTIE: Last year the figure was $12.4 million again. That's the figure we've been trying to keep. As I indicated, the demand is high so we keep getting as much money in there as we can to keep doing those repairs.
MR. BOUDREAU: If you're aware of all these units that require maintenance, why did you not increase the budget for maintenance this year to repair those units?
MR. CHRISTIE: The question is why didn't we put more in maintenance. As I indicated to the honourable member, one of the thrusts in this area was that the federal government said if you want to become a member of our Affordable Housing Program, then you need to be able to come to the table with money. What we did last year is we put the $4.7 million in that Affordable Housing Program, seeing the Affordable Housing Program as having a long-term need in this province. Because that program was there - it was a 50/50 dollar match with the federal government - that money went into that program and that didn't allow us to add additional money into the repair budget for this year.
MR. BOUDREAU: Minister, my question is, if you're aware of these issues and you're aware - you just stated very clearly that you are aware that these units are in dire need of repair and maintenance. Why did you not request an increase in your budget so these units could be repaired this year? Why didn't you ask the Minister of Finance for more money for this budget?
MR. CHRISTIE: We did ask the Minister of Finance for more money and as I indicated, it was going into the Affordable Housing Program. We were going to be looking at that program, we saw that as a program that was needed in this province. The federal government opportunity was there and all the provinces were joining it so we put our money in that particular area to be able to provide more affordable housing. We will keep doing our repairs with the $12 million and keep doing repairs as we are able. We will finalize those repairs, we will look at the priority repairs, but as I indicated earlier, some things unexpectedly come up like that vista in Sydney that required us to divert some money there. But we will achieve those repairs. We will be working within our budget and we will achieve those repairs based on our priority list from the Housing Services Division.
MR. BOUDREAU: Minister, are you telling members of this House that you do not intend to repair all those houses that are in dire need of repair? You're telling this House that you do not intend to repair all of them - is that correct?
MR. CHRISTIE: I'm telling this House that we are going to have an estimate for repairs. We're going to carry out those repairs based on their priority. I'm also telling this House that as emergencies arise throughout this province, that we will meet those emergencies and I indicated a couple of emergencies that happened in the last year. We will meet those emergencies. We will be meeting the demands for repairs and we will be doing them on a priority basis and that's how we will be doing it and approaching it again this year.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister, why didn't he request those estimates prior to requesting more money from the Finance Minister?
MR. CHRISTIE: As the honourable member knows, the process of developing the budget is the departments look at the areas. They develop their business plan. They look at the programs they're going to try to deliver in the year. They look at what the priorities are. They look at the issues of what programs they will be looking at, new programs and maintenance of programs that we have. We submit that and it comes together as the budget. This is the budget that we put forward. We put our emphasis this year on affordable housing. Twelve million dollars is going to go into repairs and we will achieve a lot of those repairs this year and we will also be able to provide for the unexpected maintenance issues that arise throughout the year. That's the budget that we are looking for, the department, that we are going to use to go forward and we will meet those goals as we have in past years.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, it's pretty clear that the minister does not intend to repair all of these units. I want assurances from that minister that it's just not Tory ridings that are going to receive this funding for repairing these units. I want to ensure that fairness is used, Mr. Minister. Will you guarantee this House that fairness will be used when you decide which units will be repaired?
MR. CHRISTIE: I indicated to the honourable member that what repairs are done are from the priority list. Where are they on the priority list? I indicated to the member I would give him a copy of that list. That list is developed on the engineering needs and, certainly, the demands of the state of the houses. If all of those are in one particular area, that is developed on the priority list. We have always indicated our funding monies are spread across the province from each of our regions that put the budget in. They have the priority list. We will be following that. There is no one region, there is no one town. It is spread across the province, as we always have done. So we will be doing it as we have in the past, developing on the priority list from the department and from the housing authorities and as those priority lists are developed, we will be following the programs that they suggest they need.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Cape Breton The Lakes wish to adjourn debate as we are close to the moment of interruption.
MR. BOUDREAU: I move to adjourn debate for late debate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is to adjourn debate on Supply.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
[5:58 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[6:29 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue with the estimates of Community Services.
The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes with two minutes in turn.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, during late debate, I have been sitting here wondering. I asked a question to the minister and he indicated that he requested more money from the Minister of Finance for maintenance programs, but he didn't go out and get any estimates of how much money and I'm a little confused how he could ask the Minister of Finance for more money when he didn't know how much more he needed. So I heard the babble when he replied to my question, however, it just simply doesn't fit because being in politics as long as I have now - and I do have some municipal experience, as well as the experience of gathering here in this House - we all know budgets are very difficult. However,
the minister made a request from the Finance Minister - I want to make sure I get this clear - he asked the Minister of Finance for more money, but he didn't know how much more money to ask him for. It kind of confuses me. So I would like to ask the minister, clearly, directly, how much more money did you ask the Finance Minister for, Mr. Minister?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Community Services.
HON. PETER CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated to the honourable member before, the question he had asked is, is there more money in this budget for repairs. I indicated to him that the budget amount for repairs was the same. What I did also indicate to him is that we have to get more money in our budget this year because we were going in a federal program for affordable housing. I indicated to him, under social housing subsidy programs, that there was, in the fiscal year ending 2002, we had asked and received more money from the Finance Minister to put down as our indication that we were going to be part of that Affordable Housing Program. That's the money I was talking about when I indicated we had received more money from the Minister of Finance for housing programs. It was to be our contribution for the federal Affordable Housing Program.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The time has elapsed for the Liberal caucus. Now I would like to thank the member for his questions this evening.
The honourable member for Dartmouth North.
MR. JERRY PYE: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to where I left off with respect to the $250 per family that was paid out to low-income families. I just want to remind the minister that when the minister made this announcement last August, the minister did it with much fanfare and a press release. Now today, I want to mention to the minister what he said: "We need to recognize that in Nova Scotia more children live in poverty in working families than in families that receive income assistance." The Community Services Minister Peter Christie stated: The Family Assistance Program is one part of our effort to address child poverty in the Province of Nova Scotia.
Now the minister knows full well and when I was talking to the minister today with respect to this $250 that would have been allocated to some low-income families, somewhere around 3,500 to 4,000 low-income families, the minister had indicated that that money was now going to be put to better use by putting it through to the Pharmacare Program, I believe, by providing not only for low-income families, in this case, working-poor families, but also families on social assistance, as well. I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, can you really tell me if this was just not a simple matter of rather than seeing the increases in this part of the budget go up, that in fact this money was used to level that off to make sure that those increases within the Pharmacare costs would not have taken place?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member and I did have that discussion about the Family Assistance Program and I had indicated to him that 3,600 to 4,000 over the last number of years had taken part in that program. What I also indicated to the honourable member is that we were putting more money into the Nova Scotia Child Benefit and he will see that from our forecast on our lines under the income assistance that our Nova Scotia Child Benefit is going from $29.2 million actual expenditures in 2002 to $30.7 million for our estimate in 2003. I had indicated that we saw growth in other areas and this was going to be a method to ensure it got to all low-income families so that they wouldn't have to apply. That's the mention I was making, that that money was going into other areas, as opposed to a program where people had to apply, might apply, might not apply, that we saw the money being distributed automatically to those low-income families is the way to go. That was the implication I was making. As I say, as the honourable member will notice, our growth from actual expenditure last year of $29.2 million to this year of $30.7 million is more than that $1 million included in that program.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, I may be slipping around here from spot to spot within the department, but the department, I'm sure, will be able to follow my direction. I want to talk a bit about the privatization - I shouldn't say the privatization, but I should say a government plan to examine the Child Protection Services. I believe the government might be looking at two plans with respect to the Child Protection Services. One might be to privatize the service or convert it into a private, not-for-profit agency, or maybe even to convert it into a publicly directed service office. So I'm wondering if the minister, since we haven't heard a great deal around this as of yet, and I know that the minister is working toward formalizing that kind of a structure within the Child Protection Services, I'm wondering can the minister enlighten me as to just exactly some image of what we can see with respect to the restructuring?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member asking the question because it does give me an opportunity to share with the House some of that information. As the honourable member will know, Family and Children's Services and the Children's Aid Society have been developed over the last period of time and we have some areas of the province where it's done by the private associations and some areas where the government is developing. I have an opportunity to meet with the presidents of the Children's Aid Societies every six months. We review where we are and how things are going. Back about a year ago, they indicated that they wanted to have a look at the relationship between how children's aid was delivered, whether it was delivered through the societies as they are existing or whether it was delivered through a government department. There was the discussion at that point in time about whether we would have lawyers from Justice doing legal work or not. So they approached us and they said we want to have a look at how we're delivering these services in the province.
Having said that, the department, along with a number of the presidents of the Children's Aid Societies, set up a review committee. What we asked them to do is look at where we have gone in the past, what areas are contentious and how they might suggest we go in the future. That group met over the last eight to nine months. They submitted a report to the last meeting of presidents of the Children's Aid Societies, which I believe was around the end of February or early March, and they submitted their report to us. The report talked about some of the areas of concern, some of the areas of size of Children's Aid Societies, whether they had enough staff to be able to deliver all the services in that area. It talked about the future directions. It talked about structures. But most of the time, they came back to the theme of what is good for children in this area.
They then had the opportunity to have all of the Boards of Directors of all of the Children's Aid Societies come to Halifax the early part of March and it was hosted by the Halifax Children's Aid Society. The purpose of that two-day seminar was to look at the report from the president, to make comments on it, to get the flavour, to then go back to their boards, have the discussion about what the boards would do at the end of the day and to come back together and submit to me a final report on the suggestions of what the working group and the Children's Aid Society believe the direction should be.
That's the stage it is in now. It is working with the boards. The Children's Aid Society is reviewing it. They're in the process of coming back to finalize that report of where the direction will go and I anticipate having that report back some time around the middle of June. Can I speculate on what they're going to say? Well, I have some ideas of what they told me at that time that they saw the growth as being through societies, as the Children's Aid Society of Halifax, as opposed to government department views. They talked about having geographical areas so that they had the strength to provide a range of services in that area. But that's kind of what they talked about at the seminar. I am awaiting the report and then we will look at the implementation phase with them.
MR. PYE: So the minister acknowledges that there is a report out there and yet it hasn't been completed. But I would remind the minister that I believe that when the group we're talking about, with respect to the Children's Aid Societies out there and the department harmonizing policy, I believe that that was the initial discussion around that. It had absolutely nothing to do with respect to takeover of services and/or programs. I think the minister might be prepared to make further comment on this issue. I believe that the department is already in action with respect to having made up its decision as to what's going to take place. I believe the minister is very much aware, and I know he is, that his department has decided to possibly cut three positions. I should say six positions, excuse me, three in Dartmouth, two in Sackville and one in Cole Harbour, and that is in order to give these positions to the Halifax Children's Aid Society. I will also note that the minister is aware that, at least this week, three casual workers have received notice that their termination will be within two weeks, that they will no longer be required of their services.
So I'm wondering, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, if in fact the process hasn't already begun, that you are not waiting for a report. There is action on your table. The action gives you a directive of where you're going and what you're going to do and you've already started to implement the process with respect to this issue.
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the member's questions are twofold. First, is there a report finished and done, the answer is no. That report is still in the formulation stage with the Children's Aid Society presidents and the working group from Community Services. The other question was, has there started to be some staffing changes, the answer is yes. The Children's Aid Society, as they do every year, as they do all across the province, indicate to us the demands and the stresses they see. They look at the caseloads they are presently serving, they look at the caseloads that they have and we have to look at how we're going to provide the proper staff for those. There is some money from vacancies to be provided to the Halifax Children's Aid Society for about six positions. We are providing money to harmonize the caseloads as we do every year and as we look across the province.
I did indicate to the honourable member and to the House that one of the challenges of the department is the number of youth and children coming into needs service. I've indicated that in our in-home support program there are 1,150; in our foster care the numbers are growing; but the same impact is being seen at the Family and Children's Services level. I think the report that they will look at is not so much the number of people, but it will be a more global approach. Should there be one Family and Children's Services for all of Halifax County area? Should there be one for just Halifax-Dartmouth area? Should we continue to have an inter-government department operating a Children's Aid Society as we do over in Dartmouth in those offices? That's kind of the position they're taking.
The honourable member is quite right - the start of this had to do with who was going to be responsible for what and how were we going to have it exchanged between the children's aid and the departments - whether it was legal services or decisions on various things and that is absolutely correct, what started this process. But as all processes start, they start then to look at what the governance model is going to be and how we're going to go through it. I hope that's answered your question. The report isn't finished yet. Yes, we're doing some staff adjustments because children's aid have indicated they need it for their caseloads and we evaluate this, we evaluate it every year as we do with all of children's aid and we get a clearer picture. Indeed, we will get a clearer picture when we finish this restructuring, look at their progress, what we will have in the future.
[6:45 p.m.]
MR. PYE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if in fact the department itself is readjusting its staff and sending it over to an agency, and that is the Halifax Children's Aid Society, not to say that the society doesn't do great work because the Children's Aid Society does. They were interested in a harmonization policy between the Department of Community Services and
those agencies to know what policies were going to be in place and how the policies were going to be able to be harmonized between those societies out there that provide it as well as government. The minister is very much aware that was the track which they were going on. Now I'm getting the impression that the minister is already working the wheels and working the wheels into either a not-for-profit society, a private society, and dismantling the children's protection services within the Department of Community Services.
Now, the minister does say that the report has not been completed, that he is waiting for the final draft of the report to land on his desk, but all the signals out there, all the indicators out there, indicate that this action is already taking place. I would say to the minister, what communications has he had with staff - and it is the responsibility of the government because the government campaigned on the platform that it would be consultive. Has the government consulted with those staff members as to where they are now going to be placed? As well, with respect to the casual employees, there has to be some serious consideration given to those casual employees as well. Was this just a matter of simply saying that your services are no longer required? Was there communication and adequate time? Who did you communicate with? I guess my question is, is this the way government does business?
MR. CHRISTIE: I think we need to get a couple of things cleared up on what we're looking at here. We had talked about the report and how that report was going to evolve and the honourable member indicated to start off, whose responsibilities were for what and where we were going to go from there. What we're now talking about is the adjustment for caseloads in Community Services how caseloads are adjusted. Indeed, each year, over the years, with the Children's Aid Societies, we've looked at the caseload requirements and we've adjusted the resources so that they can get their caseloads to a reasonable level. That is exactly what's happening now. We're looking at providing some extra dollars to them so they can harmonize their caseload standards and we provide them some dollars to do that. It seems to me that's a fairly reasonable practice to look at them and say, what is it that your demands are? What are you going to need? When they show us that they have demands for more caseloads, we offer those resources.
The honourable member, of course, was aware of the discussion and the government's initiative some years ago to get the extra 72 workers. That whole issue was based on the issue of having a standard for cases per caseworker. What we're doing now is trying to realign those caseloads per caseworker. It's not a question of saying to somebody, we don't need you here, we don't need you here, it's a question of making sure that we have the resources in the places they're needed and our statistics have shown us that we need more caseworkers in the area of Halifax Family and Children's Services.
MR. PYE: I said to the minister earlier that I would be shifting throughout the estimates budget. I guess that I would like to say to the Minister of Community Services that approximately two years ago there was a need for a secure treatment centre. The secure
treatment centre - obviously we have recognized that there is a location, that there is the construction of a facility. I believe the facility might very well be developed. The point is that no one has actually moved into the new secure treatment centre so I guess my question is to the Minister of Community Services, can you tell me if the secure treatment centre is going to be open this year and how many children with severe emotional problems is it going to house?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member and I have had an opportunity to discuss this topic on a number of occasions. It is one that I think all Nova Scotians saw that there was a need and felt that this was certainly a move in the right direction. We anticipate the construction on that facility will be completed by June. We're in the process of looking for people, for program directors and people to staff that facility and get it ready. We anticipate now that the first people coming to that centre will come in late August or September and, at the end of the day, our target is to have up to 18 people who need those services that we would be providing.
But as I say, we are in the process of looking for a program manager. We need to ensure, as you go to put somebody in that facility, you have to ask a question, does what that facility offers provide the needs of that person. So we're looking at a program manager to develop the programs, which will try to address the needs of people who are out of the province. We will try to address current trends and people's needs for that and develop those programs. So we're looking at the Fall and approximately 18 people will be there. We're staffing up for that now because the physical plant will be done within the next month or so.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, some two years ago, we talked about the serious need for a secure treatment centre because many of our children with severe emotional difficulties and problems, I should say, were being sent out of the province. Some of them were actually being housed in hotels and so on because there were no spaces available for them. The minister indicates now that there are some 18. I don't know if the minister can acknowledge this or not, but I recognize that there appears to be a growing need for spaces for children who have severe emotional problems. I'm getting more calls today than I received when I was first elected in 1998. Now I don't know what that is a symptom of, but I do know that there appears to be an increase and it's putting significant pressure on families and family members unable to cope. The minister is very much aware of the kind of difficulties that families have in working with a child that has severe emotional problems with everyone else in that family unit as well.
So I guess if the minister could tell me if there appears to be an increase in Nova Scotia with children having severe emotional problems and if in fact there are still young people who will be out of the province and who will not come in as a result of this new secure treatment centre being built and located in Truro and if in fact this day, do we have children with severe emotional problems in hotel units under guard?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the member has raised a good question. As I indicated earlier, one of the extreme challenges of the department is the number of children and the complexity of the cases that are coming to us. Presently, in the last while, there have been somewhere in the vicinity of 25 to 30 cases that are outside the province finding those services that they need. As we look at people who need those services, people out of the province, from our perspective, as we look at the secure care, secure care was never designed to have people there for long periods of time. It's a facility to have people for a short period of time, to stabilize them and that might be for a matter of a month. It might be for a matter of two or three months to stabilize them. But the indication is that we need a full range of services.
We need children's daycare residential facilities. We need to expand foster homes. We need to expand a variety of those services. I think the member is certainly aware that in the area of the Dayspring facility, the Dayspring facility was developed as a facility down in that region to house people with certain needs. The need has now shifted and they're looking at doing day programs for people to come in, for youth up to age 14, on a day to receive programs. So we're trying to find a variety of programs to meet the needs of our children. Yes there are more children, yes they're very complicated cases, but we're working to find a variety of ways that we can provide services for that program. Secure treatment is one. The difference in secure treatment is that the individual can't choose to go out when they want because we need to be able to have the opportunity to deliver the programs that that person needs.
Will there be people out of the province? The chances are there will be some because there will be some that will need services that we simply don't have here. Our hope is that as we continue to build the variety of services that we have that at some point in time, all of them will be able to stay here. But it's just like somebody needing medical care. Everything is specialized. Everything is specific to the person and we have to be able to provide those for them through a whole wide range of services.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, I want to move on to what the minister calls the client service delivery initiative. I know that there's an RFP, a request for proposals, out there and I do know that the minister talked about this last year. I remember bringing this up last fall, I believe, in Question Period, to the Minister of Community Services with respect to information technology. I do know that when he was out there talking to the reporters, the reporter said, Mr. Christie, this is just a matter of information technology. This is hardware and developing software. There are no job losses within the implementation of this client services delivery initiative. The Minister of Community Services simply said, no, there will be no job losses as a result of this client service delivery initiative. I guess my question to the Minister of Community Services is, why is his department seeking one or more private partners to help him transform or modernize its operation when it could sit down with the front-line staff and talk to their own front-line staff with respect to how they could bring
about an IT delivery service program because the front-line staff have that experience, as well?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, I think we should just refocus on this a little bit. What we are asking of people in terms of the RFP is to become partners with us in the programs. We have, for example, and as I mentioned earlier, four systems that don't communicate with each other. The platforms and the hardware was developed over a period of time for specific purposes. The member is certainly well aware that we had some major initiatives last year when we took family benefits and we took income assistance and we made one system. You had to be able to deliver that on a platform, be able to deliver those screens, those forms, those regulations all across this province. We still face that challenge. We face that challenge in housing. We talked about the fact of whether people on income assistance can avail themselves of housing units, how will they avail themselves to know what programs are there, how will we be able to see when they've been reassessed.
[7:00 p.m.]
One of the main things that we have to ensure is that we have the delivery system that can meet the needs now and in the future and it's our opinion that with the present hardware, with the present software, and with the present configuration that we will not be able to meet the demands in the next five years. Consequently that's why we're looking for somebody to start developing.
Now, the honourable member says, well, why don't you have people of your staff help you in this IT delivery. When you start writing programs, when you start configuring computers, when you start getting servers, when you start getting wireless services, the majority of people are not able to tackle that. I mean I certainly can't and I don't expect our deputy minister or our systems deputy minister to be able to do that. That is a very specialized requirement that you need to do and that is exactly the reason why we're saying to people who are in that business that we need to bring you to work with us so we can do that. We need to be able to ensure that whether you're in North Sydney, you're in Yarmouth, you have the data, you have the regulations, you know what's going on.
The honourable member certainly knows from the department's report, as we responded to the Dean Russell report, one of the things that was asked of us was to be able to share information between those external units, the transition houses, the men's centres. That's another clear program pattern, that we have to be able to gather information and we have to be able to share it. So as much as I appreciate the honourable member suggesting that staff should be involved because they have the knowledge of what it has to do, I also suggest to the honourable member that to get the layout of getting wired to servers, to get servers wireless so that you can send it across from one building to the other, that you can tie those programs together to bring them up on the screen, is a pretty specialized and indeed technological service and that's what we're talking to people about to provide for us.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, the minister is quite right. It's a very specialized field, but there is expertise within the department and the minister is very much aware. My concern is that once you bring in the expertise to deliver the hardware and the software, in order to line up the departments and do the requests that the departments will need and to develop that sort of a system, there's also the responsibility of who has ownership of the software. If, in fact, the Department of Community Services wants to continue with its staff and training of its staff and expertise to carry out those programs - and I don't believe there has been any consultation around this whole process with staff - I guess I'm wondering has the Department of Community Services had any consultation around this whole proposal with staff and is it prepared to delay the RFP until it has had that consultation with staff?
So I guess there are really two questions here, Mr. Minister. The question is, who has ownership of the property, of the software if, in fact, it is retained with the consulting firm or the agency or the field of expertise out there. If it becomes their property, then what does that mean for the sake of jobs within the Department of Community Services as well?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member had indeed raised this topic last fall and we had talked about the question of having discussions with people. I think as I indicated to the honourable member then, our senior staff was having an opportunity to meet with all the people in our regions, to meet with all the staff to talk about the goals and objectives, to look at some of these programs and the demands that we had on them and how we were going to go forward.
The issue of the software, for example, in our present configuration in Community Services, we use Groupwise to communicate. Well, obviously, Groupwise is a rented product that we rent from the vendors and if a better product comes along, we would replace it, but in the area of this specific development that we're talking about, we're talking about people getting programs and designs, that would stay with the department. They would become the property of the department. Yes, we would probably have them come back in to do a redesign and, yes, at some time, 10 years out, towers have changed, servers have changed, we have to come back and do some redesign, but the packages themselves would be the property of Community Services. They would be exclusive to us. It's not something that we're saying to these people, go develop something and then sell a package to us and sell something to Saskatchewan or B.C. We're saying to people we need things designed ideally and specifically for us and we would end up owning them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to recognize the member for Dartmouth North with two minutes left in this evening's estimates.
MR. PYE: Oh, my, time does go by fast. I guess with two minutes left I will ask the minister with respect to the client service delivery initiative, how many jobs or positions will be cut and I guess the other question I will ask rather quickly as well, is how will this initiative address the unacceptably high caseloads and workloads?
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me answer the last question first - how will this affect caseloads and workloads. As the honourable member has indicated and I've indicated to him before, one of the objectives of this whole exercise is to allow caseworkers to spend more time with clients and less time filling out paper and playing with computers and chasing systems. That is one of the major goals.
The second question is, will it impact, change things, will it have an effect on employees. At this point in time we don't even have any indication of somebody from the private sector who wants to work with it. We haven't had the debate on the RFP and we haven't had responses yet. That won't conclude for another three weeks. When that happens, we will then know if we have somebody who is interested in the RFP and dealing with it and then we will proceed on to start to look at what they might do, how they might do it, and whether it's agreeable to us. So it's way too early in the game. We're just at the very infancy now.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, another quick question I will ask the minister is, how will the access and confidentiality for clients be improved if the private sector partner is involved and one or more call centres are established? I guess very quickly the minister can respond.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Minister, the time for tonight's committee has expired.
The honourable Acting Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee do now report progress.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing that, the committee will adjourn for this evening.
[7:08 p.m. The committee rose.]
