[Page 405]

HALIFAX, FRIDAY, MAY 7, 2004

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

9:19 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. William Dooks

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call the committee to order.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, would you please call the estimates of the Minister of Community Services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Community Services.

HON. DAVID MORSE: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on a couple of questions that were asked at the end of the session last evening by the honourable member from the NDP caucus, the Community Services Critic, who asked about the release of the business plan. I've discussed it with her this morning. She has a copy of the plan. In fact it was put on the departmental Web site at the time the Minister of Finance tabled his budget.

The other matter that came up, which rather intrigued me and my staff member, was the question about the changes in the federal social transfers. I wonder if the member is referring to the split of the Health dollars from the rest of the Canada Health and Social Transfer? She is nodding yes. The answer that was given yesterday, really, was the better one, that the Minister of Finance is the one who receives those monies, and the conditions are attached to them. With that, I look forward to further questions from the honourable member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth South-Portland Valley.

405

[Page 406]

MS. MARILYN MORE: Mr. Minister, the reason I was asking those questions about the split between the Health and Social Transfer federal payments is because before 1995, the Canada Assistance Program was the funding mechanism by which the funding came down to the provincial government. At that time, it had some criteria attached to it that provided a stable set of conditions under which the department had to work in terms of distributing that federal money as part of its programs. These included things like the right to claim welfare, the right to an adequate income, the right to assistance when in need without being forced into work or training programs, things like that.

When the new system came into effect in 1995, those conditions were dropped, and I assume they went into a sort of general revenue pool. I'm just wondering, now that the two have been split, are there conditions now put on that funding by the federal government to ensure that all Canadians have sort of a basic level of service?

MR. MORSE: Basically, you're absolutely right, when the federal government blended this all into the one transfer, a lot of the conditions they had placed there previously were wiped out. Now there is an expectation that if the money comes for health, clearly it goes to health, or if it comes to other social programs, it must go to those programs. In the unlikely event that our health expenditures would be less than the 16 cents, as an example, that we get from the federal government today for health transfers, then the province would be in trouble. But my suspicion is that the Health budget is not going be dropping by 84 per cent, just to make the point. So, in essence, to answer your question, there are virtually no restrictions, for all practical purposes.

MS. MORE: The reason I'm concerned about that, and that's why I'm starting off my questions I'm trying to find out if there's any sort of broad social framework on which a lot of the financial decisions have been based. The reason I'm concerned is because there are a lot of evaluations, reviews and redesigns proposed for your department in this coming year. I'm assuming that the cost of those is fully covered under your budget.

My concern is, are these being driven by financial necessity, or is there a basic sort of framework of social rights that the citizens of Nova Scotia can count on as a social safety net that will be there, despite all the changes that are going to happen in the department this year. They include things like employment support, you're going to be looking at the child care subsidy program, child welfare governance, domestic adoption services, and a department strategic plan. I just want to know, has the department developed any core values and principles that would reassure Nova Scotians affected by these programs that their rights and concerns are going to be looked after, despite all these changes?

MR. MORSE: That is a very appropriate question and one to be asking going into the estimates. In essence, the department does have a mission statement, which is our guiding principle. It is, we are committed to promoting the independence, self-reliance, security and well-being of the people that we serve. So everything flows from that concept. But with

[Page 407]

regard to your specific questions, clearly, we want to understand what it is that we're trying to accomplish, we are there to serve the more vulnerable Nova Scotians, and that is of paramount concern. Your point about sustainability is an appropriate one, because there's much that we would like to do in many areas, not only within the Department of Community Services and beyond. It's very important that whatever we put in place, we're able to sustain.

In fact, as long as you've asked that question, I would tell you that some of our greatest frustrations in the department are when another level of government, the federal government, comes in, starts up programs, calls it a pilot project, gives it funding for maybe 12 months, 24 months, and of course it catches on, people like it, and then they walk away and say, well, now it's up to you to continue the program. Just as a chance to comment on the importance of the sustainability of programs, one, when we take something on at the Department of Community Services, we take it on with the idea that we're going to be responsible and deliver it for the long term.

MS. MORE: Actually that's a perfect lead into my next question, thank you. I want to talk a little bit about the partnership or relationship that the department has with the voluntary sector and the service organizations that actually provide a number of the programs and services using the department funding. Many times they are forced to apply for outside funding, from the federal government, for example. Often that's provided on a project basis for a certain number of years, and of course those organizations are going to come to the department when a worthwhile initiative has been set up and it's benefiting Nova Scotians to see if it can be continued instead of having this short-term approach to everything.

There are lots of problems now with the voluntary sector being underfunded by government. I do recognize that the major government funder is the provincial level of government. There is some money coming from municipal and federal, but most of the money for the voluntary sector in Nova Scotia and across Canada actually comes from the provincial level of government.

Leading into my question, a couple of years ago the department developed a service agreement model that was going to be used with community-based and non-profit organizations and agencies. I believe these agreements were going to provide three-year funding arrangements to provide some stability to the sector, but it would also clarify the expectations from both the department and from the community-based agency or organization in terms of what the department expected that group to do on its behalf. I'm just wondering what the status is of these service agreements?

MR. MORSE: The service agreements really are a critical part of the evolving infrastructure within the department. You mentioned the old CAP funding with the federal government, which had some interesting ramifications on the Department of Community Services, because we were the department that could get 50 cent federal dollars, so as a result of that, there were a lot of very interesting programs that all of a sudden were found to be

[Page 408]

properly housed in the Department of Community Services even though one might suggest that they would have been a better fit in other departments. That's a little bit of the history of it.

Given that we're into a lot of these programs, we do want to move towards a more defined agreement with the service providers, as to what it is they're supposed to do and what it is we're supposed to do in defining these working relationships. That is still a work in progress. We've not come to agreement in general with the sector, but it is an important thing to do, and we continue to work on this.

[9:30 a.m.]

MS. MORE: I'm curious because I think I actually underestimated the length of time it's been since that model was actually in place. It's probably closer to four years ago. I'm wondering, why the delay in providing that financial stability to the organizations that you rely on to provide those services? Do you have even a rough idea of what percentage of those groups have been able to enter into these agreements with the department?

MR. MORSE: The sticking point with coming to these service agreements is that it clearly defines the expectations of both parties. We would be pleased to be able to do that, because that's more of a results-driven model, and it gives us a greater sense of control that we're able to target those monies to the purposes that we want to see them applied. But, to answer your question, in essence, we've not reached that level of agreement with this sector, for all intents and purposes, it's still a work in progress, but it is something that, in fact, during my time as minister we've discussed as a way of addressing some of the problems that we, by times, encounter, where the view of the services that should be provided through the sector differ from what actually is being provided through the sector. It provides for a better method of service delivery, and, so, it is something that we look forward to doing, I'm hoping, during the time that I'm minister.

MS. MORE: Well, I'm still not clear on why the delay, because, as it turns out, the Department of Health was so excited by what the Department of Community Services had done that it actually, afterwards, adopted a similar model. I was able to actually facilitate a non-profit organization, going through that process with the Department of Health, and that organization is now in its third year of funding under that arrangement. I have to say that I think it was a brilliant move on the part of the Department of Health, and I'm really curious as to why the Department of Community Services, which was the sort of lead department in developing these service agreements, hasn't followed through on it.

I notice that in this year's business plan, the deputy is going to start some meaningful dialogue with the service organizations that the department deals with to try to improve relations. I would suggest that providing a bit of stable funding, beyond the one year sort of lurch that the organizations are facing now and therefore having to devote so much time and

[Page 409]

energy to fundraising and trying to secure funding for the next year, would go a long way to settling down the voluntary sector, enabling them to do the work that they actually want to be doing. Can we get a commitment from you that significant progress will be made on signing some of those agreements in the coming year?

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I first want to start by saying that we will certainly make sure that we do our part to try to move that forward, but we do have to reach an agreement. An agreement is between two parties. It's important that we respect the concerns of the other parties, as I know they do with the department. In the meantime, we are working on trying to bring the per diems up to date. There were delays in recognizing things outside of wages and the per diems, because this is often the way that we fund these service organizations. They have a client in them, the client is assessed as needing a certain amount of support, with that a price tag is attached to it, and that per diem is then given to that service organization. We are endeavouring to work with them to make it more current. Ideally, the service agreements are the way that we would like to go. We feel that would be better for the people that both the organizations and the department are trying to serve.

I do want to just make a comment about the idea of fundraising, because I will tell you that fundraising is a very constructive aspect of dealing with these organizations. Honourable member, while I did not know you before you came into this House, my suspicion would be that you have been involved probably in many fundraising campaigns for various organizations. I know that I have, before coming into this House, and continue to do so. What I found with those fundraising campaigns is that it introduced that organization more to the community. Quite often the community was just peripherally aware that this was going on, and it was really a very constructive exercise in public relations and generally providing a greater acceptance of what that organization was trying to accomplish in the community. So I think a certain amount of fundraising is constructive. I would say that fundraising should be within defined limits, it's not that it's necessary that everything should be raised by fundraising, nor would I say that it should all necessarily come just as a grant from the Department of Community Services through the per diems.

MS. MORE: Well, we could spend the entire budget estimates talking about to what extent the voluntary sector should be doing fundraising, but I just want to summarize by suggesting that these are service organizations that your department relies upon to deliver mandated, legislated programs and services, they should not have to be fundraising for any aspect of their core operating funds. If they want to do fundraising to add discretionary or additional programs, that's fine. We are actually losing board members on these organizations, we're losing volunteers, we're losing staff, because of the fundraising pressures and the inability to plan beyond one year. So it is a big challenge to the voluntary sector, and I think that's something your department will have to take a more serious look at.

[Page 410]

I am going to move on. I would like to talk about your new Policy and Information Management Division. It was announced last June. I'm just wondering, how many staff work in this area? How many of them are new positions, and how many of them are just regrouped or followed their positions in a reassignment from another area of the department?

MR. MORSE: We happen to have the two gurus in the department in that area with me today. Actually, I want to apologize to George Hudson, who has joined me here today. He will be my right-hand person today, and Clem Hennebury will be my left-hand person. That is not to suggest that one is any less important than the other.

You had mentioned about fundraising in your closing comments, about the - I guess it would be - volunteer fatigue. I just want to give an example of what the fundraising relationship is with say the Children's Aid Society. The department funds 99.5 per cent of the cost of providing services to Children's Aid Societies, and the societies raise half of 1 per cent. I want to put this in perspective. In this case, which is a huge component of the department, representing approximately one-quarter of the department's budget, it is almost entirely funded by the department, but I can tell you as one who has been involved with the local Children's Aid Society and the way that they augment their services, I think it's a very positive initiative. What it does is it gets a lot of community buy-in, and that's one of the things that I think the private agencies bring to the system.

We have some numbers here with regard to your question. There are 71.7 FTEs in that Policy and Information Management Division, and it is a reorganization within the department. So, we felt this was a better way of trying to focus on what it is they were trying to do and ultimately deliver those information services within the department.

MS. MORE: How many of those are new positions?

MR. MORSE: Just confirming my previous answer, it is all a reorganization within the department. There were no new positions added for this purpose. The department is very focused on trying, as best we can, to keep our resources in front-line service delivery.

MS. MORE: One of the functions of that division is management of the appeals board, I understand. I noticed that last year, the appeals board budget, they only used 53 per cent of the budgeted amount, and the year before they used 72 per cent. I'm wondering, is there a waiting list for appeals to be heard? And following up on that, I'm wondering, was this an area of service that was cut in order to save money last year?

MR. MORSE: Actually, the reorganization of the appeal process dramatically reduced the waiting times. So, as I understand it, there's a statutory time frame for it, and, to the best of my knowledge, we're living within that time frame.

[Page 411]

MS. MORE: I have a little concern about how that appeal process is actually being applied differently across the province. In fact, from the Dartmouth office they've added a step to the appeal process that isn't required. So, when an income assistance client asked for the appeals application, this person was advised that an in-house investigation had to be done before the application would actually be mailed to this person. They couldn't pick it up personally. In the neighbouring office, the appeal applications are actually sitting on the counter, so that any client can pick it up if they feel they want to appeal a decision by the caseworker or the supervisor. I'm just wondering, were you aware that some offices are putting in this extra step? What it actually does is it probably delays, by a week to 10 days, the whole appeal process. That's not covered under your procedures.

MR. MORSE: That is what we refer to as the administrative review, which is a required part of the appeal process. I would tell you that speaking from personal experience, and again going back to before I was Minister of Community Services, when a constituent would call up and have concerns about whether they had been treated fairly by their caseworker down at our local branch of the Department of Community Services, oftentimes, after listening to them and trying to get the essence of why they felt they had not been treated fairly, we would then refer that back to the supervisor, who was our contact with the local branch. In some cases, we were able to resolve it there, without it having to go to an appeal. I think it is a constructive part of the process, but I do concur that if it fails the administrative review, then it does go on to appeal.

MS. MORE: Actually in this situation, I recognize the administrative review is part of the official process, this is another step that happens before the client is actually able to get the application to appeal. I just think perhaps it's something you need to check into.

I wanted to talk a bit about the client service delivery initiative. This was a request for a proposal to have a private sector partner help fund, design and implement an integrated business system to manage information across the department in 2001-02. The department chose not to accept either of those proposals. I'm wondering, is that initiative or a similar initiative included in this year's estimates? If so, where does it show up, and how much does it cost?

[9:45 a.m.]

MR. MORSE: The Department of Community Services is very dependent on IT and, as such, I understand that we were perhaps one of the departments earlier on, to take greater advantage of the emerging technology. That was a good thing at the time. However, with the passage of time, we have, perhaps, not kept up with the new developments. In fact, there is an integrated case management system budgeted in this year's capital budget for $2.5 million. In essence, what we're trying to do is we're trying to take the various software systems within the department and combine them into one, in other words, the integrated case management, so that if a client comes in and perhaps is an Employment Support and Income Assistance

[Page 412]

client but might also fall under Community Supports for Adults or have need for housing services, at the press of a button, the caseworker can get all that information. It provides a better method of service delivery and, clearly, it's good for everybody when you can do more for less.

MS. MORE: So is it basically a name change? Does the proposed integrated case management system have similar activities and functions as that former client service delivery initiative?

MR. MORSE: This is more about upgrading our IT technology that's available to our own staff. Whereas the other was a redesign of the business model, this is basically making better use of the information and putting it readily at the disposal of our staff to provide better service delivery for our clients.

MS. MORE: In the Supplementary Details, Page 4.4, there's some detailed information on the Early Childhood Development Initiatives Funding. I notice in there that IT services are $450,000, I believe. Are there similar lines - I couldn't find reference to IT in the other budgets - so are there similar lines in the other budgets, or is this particular Early Childhood Development Initiative covering the cost of IT development for a significant part of the department?

MR. MORSE: That would just be a small portion of the total IT Services budget. If you look on Page 4.6 under the Corporate Services Unit, the budget is $7,616,800. So the $450,000, under the early childhood development, would be part of that $7.6 million, but a very small part.

MS. MORE: What does it actually cover, then, under the Early Childhood Development initiative?

MR. MORSE: You've actually put your finger on something that the department has long wanted to change. This was the last part of the department to go IT. In fact, it was not very long ago that things like the subsidized childcare seats were on index cards. So, in essence, this is the cost of taking that information and bringing it into the 21^st Century.

MS. MORE: In last year's business plan, Mr. Chairman, it states that the caseload for children in the care of the minister and the cost of providing services as growing, even though the percentage of children as part of the total population is declining, and these are the children who are provided protection due to neglect or abuse. I notice on Page 4.9 that you were under budget for Maintenance of Children last year by $3 million, and I'm just wondering why?

MR. MORSE: Honourable member, you've been doing your homework. It's a good question, and I would hope you would say that it's a good answer although it's not the

[Page 413]

answer that a year ago we would want to be giving in 2004-05. What you put your finger on is delays in the opening of the secure care facility in Truro, the Wood Street Centre. There were construction delays. I understand that it took three attempts to pour the foundation, the concrete wouldn't harden, and then there were problems with discolouration in the water, and it was just very challenging for the contractor. As a result of that, there were significant delays in opening it up. But we're happy to say that it is open today, and it is providing those services within Nova Scotia to Nova Scotia children instead of having to send them outside the province, as was often the case before.

MS. MORE: On the same page, I'm just wondering why the estimate for Child Welfare and Residential Services is less than this year's forecast. I think it's $62,700 less.

MR. MORSE: Honourable member, are you referring to the Community Residential Outreach line on Page 4.9? (Interruptions) That refers to head office staff. Again, the focus is on front-line service delivery. We've been able to economize in our administration. Clearly, that's where we want to focus, so long as we're still able to provide the proper management controls. We want to put our money into front-line service delivery.

MS. MORE: Under Children's Aid Society Grants, they're up 1.2 per cent over last year's forecast - again, on the same page in the Supplementary Detail. Both in the business plan for last year and also in discussions with your staff, it's been indicated that there are heavier caseloads in the metro area. So I'm wondering, is there anything in this year's budget to address this need?

MR. MORSE: I would like to advise that the specific amount of the grant to any one of the 14 agencies is worked out by the region, directly with the agency. It would be by negotiation between the regional administrator and, presumably, the executive director of the Children's Aid Society.

MS. MORE: But I'm assuming the department gives sort of an envelope, under which the district administrators have to negotiate. I'm just wondering why it has only increased by 1.2 per cent.

MR. MORSE: The honourable member, by virtue of her question, has actually given me the opportunity to point out a few things. One is that your comment about the growing caseload in metro is quite an accurate description of what's going on, but with that growing caseload, there's also a shrinking caseload in some of the rural areas of the province. So there is a shift there. The other point that I think might be of interest to the honourable member is that in the restructuring fund, there is an allocation there for anticipated wage increases for the staff of the Children's Aid Societies, bearing in mind that they're treated just like civil servants even though they're not part of the Civil Service. This is the agreement that we have with the Children's Aid Societies, and there is basically parity in the wage packages.

[Page 414]

MS. MORE: I wasn't clear, did you say my statement was accurate or inaccurate?

MR. MORSE: I tried to pay you a compliment, to say that you were astute. I may not have used that word, but for greater clarity, I thought it was a good question. There are heavier caseloads, it is a bit of an anomaly in that you're right, there are fewer children out there, the caseloads are growing and they are more challenging but, along with that, I'm hoping that you might ask some questions about adoption because in there, I think there may be some solutions.

MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I will get to adoption, in time. I noticed that the department was under budget for Early Childhood Development Services last year by $300,000. I'm just wondering why, and if you could provide any detail on that?

MR. MORSE: Honourable member, you had a little competition, we had some information sent down and I had to be briefed on your question. I apologize and will try not to let that happen again. Your question was the underspending in one of the lines of the Early Childhood Development Services budget lines, there is some flexibility with the early childhood development, which has been afforded by the federal government. In fact, there's quite a bit of flexibility and we certainly welcome that so that we can make best use of those monies to target them to the children in greatest need in the province. In essence, what happens when one line goes down, it's picked up in another line, so that we invest the total amount.

You were inquiring about which line? (Interruptions) The forecast under expenditure reflects delays in hiring staff and physicians, which were fully funded in the 2003-04 estimate, but those monies were transferred to early childhood development grants, so that we made fully use of the available monies.

MS. MORE: Am I correct in assuming, though, that this is the funding that could have relieved the pressure on the child care centres? Are we talking about the same funding envelope here?

MR. MORSE: The short answer is yes.

[10:00 a.m.]

MS. MORE: Could I ask why that money didn't go into trying to save some of the non-profit daycares and increasing the per diems?

MR. MORSE: This is exactly where we are targeting a lot of the additional monies. There was $400,000, which was earmarked, going into the year, before the federal budget, to increase the per diems for the subsidized childcare spaces, both the assigned spaces to the non-profit childcares and to the portable ones which can go to any regulated childcare

[Page 415]

provider in the province as long as they sign an agreement with the Department of Community Services. In fact, that was a 50 cent increase.

I think in view of my discussions with some of the directors from the non-profit childcares who first brought this concern to my attention in 2003 that indicated any sort of commitment on the part of the province would be so welcome, because they had not had an increase since 1998, and even though approximately 85 per cent of their costs are wages, which of course we addressed very significantly with the stabilization grant, the first thing that we did with the early childhood development monies, that's $4,000 for every full-time qualified daycare worker, was to try to put that 50 cents to address the other 15 per cent, whether it be rent or insurance or heat and lights.

Based on my discussion with the directors in December, they just indicated that any acknowledgement would be most welcome. What was suggested to me at the time was even 10 cents would be good news. So, we provided 50 cents and then with the federal government's acceleration of their share of the contribution towards early childhood development, we've, in fact, committed to another $900,000, which is going to flow from the subsidy review which was requested by the sector. As you've heard me mention on several occasions before in this House, we are expediting that review so that that $900,000 can be invested expeditiously to address the concerns to which you refer.

MS. MORE: Does that mean that nearly $1 million will not be distributed until after the review is over? I guess I'm wondering, will there be any further increase to the per diems for subsidized seats, beyond the 50 cents that's already been committed this year? Will there be any further increase, or will there be any further increase in the grants that are calculated from the subsidized seats held by some of the non-profit daycares as a result of the increased funding from the multilateral initiative?

MR. MORSE: The purpose of the subsidy review was to find out how we would allocate that $900,000. I would expect that to be in place in a couple of months, and with $900,000 more in funding, which represents roughly a 10 per cent increase in that budget line, so it's substantial, my expectation is there will be an increase in the per diems. How the consultant comes back and recommends that we distribute those monies will be determined based on the review. But it is certainly time for a review, a review was asked for by the sector, and we agreed with them. In fact, before the recent headlines in the paper regarding those two non-profit sectors, I had signed a request to spend $50,000 to engage the services of a consultant to do it properly, before this all came to the fore.

MS. MORE: That is reassuring, because sometimes when we hear the word review, it's just meant to be a delaying tactic, but if you're telling me that this could actually happen before the Fall, that's very good news.

[Page 416]

In last year's business plan, you suggested that Part 1 of the objectives would be stability for the placement of children in care through the opening of the Wood Street Centre, which has happened, but that centre seems to be used as a time-out and an assessment centre, not as a treatment centre. So I'm just wondering, does this budget reflect any further options available for placement of children who have severe behaviour and other challenges, for treatment rather than assessment?

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that the purpose of the Wood Street Secure Care Treatment Centre is to stabilize the child's or the youth's behaviours, and to try to put together some sort of plan so that they can go back and live within their community. That's done, initially, on a 30-day basis, and if it's determined that more time is needed, a court application can be made to extend it to 90 days. That was the purpose of the secure care centre, not to provide long-term care. There are outreach programs, and that is, of course, an important component of the program.

MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, my information seems to suggest that care options for high-needs children and youth are not as available as they could be. I guess I was wondering if this budget is going to show any improvement in providing high-care options beyond the Wood Street Centre?

MR. MORSE: I would tell you that one of the most difficult things I find within the department is reading the files of some of the cases of, say troubled youth who, for whatever reasons, seem to be having great difficulty, and sometimes their behaviours are heartbreaking, really. I feel for the children, I also recognize the tremendous strain it puts on their families and, indeed, those caring but professional caregivers who have devoted their careers to trying to help these children. As the honourable member would know, sometimes that can be challenging.

I do have one acknowledgement that I would like to make, the Sydney residential centre, which is for youth in the Cape Breton area, co-ed, it's a new facility, and that is expected to be built this year. That would address some of what the member is talking about. I fear it will always be a challenge. To the best of our abilities and working with our non-profit partners, including the Children's Aid Societies, we will continue to serve those children.

MS. MORE: I believe I'm at the end of my first hour. I do want to ask about the Children and Family Services Act. Section 88(1) calls for an annual review of the provisions of the Act by an advisory committee and a report, annually, to the minister on whether the principles and the purpose of the Act are being achieved. Since the Act came into being in 1990, there seems to have been only two reviews and reports, one in December 1993 and one in March 1994. I'm wondering why is this provision of the Act not being kept? I will just give you a little further information. The deputy minister is quoted in Hansard as saying, "There seems to be nothing new to be gained from having another report right at this point, although

[Page 417]

we are looking at what we can do to implement and to move along the reports that have been made in the past." She made that comment to the Community Services Committee on April 15^th of this year.

I would like to remind the minister that the Act is not discretionary, the department can't pick and choose what sections to abide by or to enforce. So the last review by an advisory committee was back in 1994. I'm just wondering, is there any money in this year's budget to call together an advisory committee to perform that function?

MR. MORSE: I thank the honourable member for her question. In fact, she's touched on something which is active within the department. We have seconded a person from Justice to look at this. Also, if you would take note, I believe in the business plan, we make reference to looking at the whole governance of the delivery of services through the Children's Aid Societies and through the district offices. I made reference to the mixed-delivery model the other night.

I was speaking with the deputy last week and just making reference to the fact that perhaps a year from now, with the Community Supports for Adults Renewal Initiative in place and the change in the governance structure, or the anticipated changes in the governance structure, with agreement from the various participants, the delivery of Family and Children's Services, the Employment Support and Income Assistance Act in place and with the Affordable Housing Program, what would the new challenges be. The deputy informed me that there's work that needs to be done on the Children and Family Services Act, and that that would soon be following. So, a timely question.

MS. MORE: One closing comment, could I ask the minister, my assumption of the advisory committee is that it might include some parents and members of the general public, but what you seem to be talking about is completely staff-based or consultant-based. I think there's a very different process in place, so I would ask you to look at that again.

MR. MORSE: The honourable member makes a totally appropriate point. Whenever government does anything with key Acts like the Children and Family Services Act, it is always appropriate to include as many people as possible in the consultation process, such as we're trying to do with the Community Supports for Adults Renewal Initiative, as an example, having gone out and met with 50 various groups, and then with the discussion paper and inviting feedback. We would probably venture out in peril, if we were not to have a full consultation process before we came forward with any changes to the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, you have one minute.

MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that there's a huge difference between consulting after a draft discussion paper is put together or priorities or sections of the Act are taken out. I think parents and the public need to be a part of that selection process, as to what

[Page 418]

needs to be considered that year. I think that was the intent of the original legislation. I think either the department has to abide by the legislation or amend it and bring it before the House. That's a completely different process, the consultation process. Thank you very much for your time. (Interruptions) Yes, I will return in my second hour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel.

MR. DANIEL GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Minister and to your officials for agreeing to come in to speak about this very important subject of community services. I intend to ask a variety of questions, ranging from housing to the Healthy Starts Program, healthy beginnings types of programs, to the transition that young people have, particularly in special education, from the education system into the community. I'm going to provide a bit of a lengthy preamble in advance to what I have to say because, frankly, yesterday, at the end of debate, I was speaking about the very important issue of special education, when the NDP, in a trick, decided to end debate, ironically, through the Education Critic for the NDP, they decided that despite the fact that in Nova Scotia we have perhaps the worst special education system in all of Canada, the questions along those lines were not able to be continued.

[10:15 a.m.]

I'm encouraged to see that the Minister of Education is here, perhaps to listen. I don't want to get into this notion of bantering and lecturing back and forth. The member for Timberlea-Prospect accused me of lecturing when I was asking questions of the Minister of Education yesterday, and he stood up, as the NDP so often does, and provided quite an impassioned lecture about the Liberal Party and the things that the Liberal Party was responsible for approximately 10 years ago. It was impressive for its bluster, but it was empty for its substance. It was particularly unbecoming when one considers that much of what was suggested by the member for Timberlea-Prospect related to issues from 10 years ago, for people who couldn't defend themselves before this House, for members of this Legislature who don't have the opportunity, the public platform on this occasion, to defend themselves.

So, in their absence, I will take the opportunity, as the Minister of Education is suggesting right now, to provide a response to some of the things that have been suggested by the member for Timberlea-Prospect. He said, with great emotion, that he was on the front lines when the issues of education were cut through the 1990s under the Savage years. He understands, he says, with a clenched fist, the problems of the people of Nova Scotia and the people in the education system. Well, he does from the perspective of somebody who's in the system and who has been in the system and by the defence that he has shown of the system, and frankly, except for mom-and-pop issues here and there, he has not taken on the challenges of the entire system with a vision that is required. This is the vision that is required, not revisiting times in past but if we did, if we looked back to the times of Robbie Harrison and John MacEachern, whom he mentioned . . .

[Page 419]

MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I would just ask a question and beg your indulgence. Would you enlighten the House as to what department we are in, in estimates now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the honourable member to stick to the topic of the day.

MR. GRAHAM: I'm not sure if the honourable member was here when I provided the preface to my comments. Clearly the issue of special education is related to Community Services. I indicated to the minister that the question of special education and its connection to transition from the education system to community services is a pressing one. If the member were here yesterday, he would have recalled that it was specifically on the issues of special education, where this Party was cut off with respect to its questioning on that important question.

HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. He is trying to blame it on the NDP, and what happened was, he finished his questions, the NDP Education Critic got up and finished his questions and sat down, and there was nobody in the seats in the Liberal rows to continue on. I got up and closed debate. So don't blame it on somebody else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That wasn't a point of order, it was more of a point of clarification.

MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, if we are to be considered honourable people, then, first and foremost, we're not here to make friends in this House, but we are here to live up to our word. If we give our word as Leaders of the House or as members that we will continue with questioning for a certain period of time and choose not to, for political strategic advantage, and go back on one's word, then, frankly, that's something that needs and deserves to be called to the attention of the House. That's why we call ourselves honourable members, it is because we keep our word. If we don't keep our word, then we find ourselves in these awkward situations where some people are faced with a situation where they have to come back and respond to these issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege. I would like to question the member for Halifax Citadel - did I give the word that I was going to speak for an hour? I said at two minutes to six, I was talking on an important topic that was Sir John A. Macdonald High School. At no time, to any member of this caucus, did I say I was going for another hour. Let's move on. That was yesterday, and a day in politics is a century. End of my point of personal privilege.

[Page 420]

MR. STEPHEN MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. As the Whip of the Liberal Party, I spoke directly to the member for Timberlea-Prospect, and he told me that he would be continuing with questioning. I spoke to the House Leader, and . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. It seems to be a disagreement among members. I will ask the honourable member for Halifax Citadel, would you like to address the Minister of Community Services? Please continue.

MR. GRAHAM: Clearly, Mr. Minister, the issue of special education and how people transition into the communities and Community Services is a particularly important question for all of us. In order for us to provide a coherent vision of what's going to happen to the people who are more challenged in our society, we need to recognize where they come from. I've spoken about the importance of healthy starts for a long period of time, I know the government has spoken about it as well, and the transition that needs to happen from a prenatal period into the education system, and from the education system into the community. What could be more important than for Community Services to recognize the challenges that are facing our young people in the special education system.

If I could, as a matter of background, provide some indication of where we stand with respect to special education, Mr. Minister - and I want to ask you questions about that period of transition. Yesterday I made reference to the School Achievement Indicators Program tests that are done all across Canada, and speak about how we compare with the rest of the country with respect to issues that are important, like special education. Unfortunately, those reports indicate that the percentage of schools reporting that they provide extra teaching for struggling students signals that in 2001, Nova Scotia ranked tenth out of 10.

With respect to the percentage of schools reporting that they provide extra teaching for struggling students, even in French, we ranked fifth out of the five provinces that provide that. In the area of writing, in 2002, shortage of specialists affecting school capacity to provide instruction, we ranked eighth out of 10. With respect to the percentage reporting that schools provide remedial programs, activities and language arts, we ranked eighth out of 10.

The minister referred yesterday to the important matter of whether we have a system that is responding to a report that was produced in 2001 on special education experts, and I would note that according to those special education experts, we have the fewest education specialists, the fewest educational resources in Canada, and overall they would contend - these are experts - one of the lowest functioning systems in the country.

In the wake of that, Mr. Minister, that undoubtedly puts a great deal of burden, a great deal of pressure on your department, because if we are not dealing well with those children who are going through the special education program, then they become your problem at some later date. In particular, a number of my constituents have expressed concerns about whether or not the transition from the public education system to community

[Page 421]

services is one that properly supports the person in an educational perspective and provides them with a healthy opportunity to live out their potential in the community. Can you respond to that?

MR. MORSE: Well, I thank the honourable member for his passion. I'm pleased to hear the member speak about those special needs children, because, in fact, that is an area, with the new early learning and childcare monies, we targeted some of those additional monies into this area. Now the honourable member is speaking about education and transitioning out of the education system and, basically, I think that you're referring to the Community Supports for Adults Program, but I would like to go to the other end of the spectrum, and you also made reference to that in some of your opening comments, to say that the supports for special needs children who require daycare is something that is very near and dear to my heart. I know that I very much share that with the staff in my department, this government and obviously the member opposite is very passionate and appropriately so about this.

I would like to make reference to the fact that of the $25-some-odd million that we put into our Early Childhood Development programs, of a total budget of $25 million, a little over $2 million is specifically targeted in support of child care. That was an area which we felt was a priority, and we increased that allocation significantly in this current fiscal year. I would like to say that that's tangible acknowledgement of the member's concerns. We are taking action. We recognize that there's more that needs to be done there. There are 22 childcare centres in the province, more, as a result of this that will be able to blend special needs children in with the rest of the children, and I think that's not only good for the special needs children but I think it's good for all the children and, as such, it's good for Nova Scotia.

With regard to the member's concern about transitioning out of the school system and into the Community Supports for Adults Program, this is something that has been discussed with the renewal initiative, and it's now out in the discussion paper, we're looking forward to feedback, and the member opposite is providing feedback.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Halifax Citadel allow time for an introduction?

MR. GRAHAM: Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage on an introduction.

MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to, on behalf of the House, welcome some guests we have who are attending the metro region immigrant language school. I believe they're in the west gallery. Their teachers and leaders are Jane Abernethy-Parker and Leita Malone. There are 17 students who come from Taiwan, China, Hong Kong,

[Page 422]

Indonesia, France, Jordan, Columbia, Iran, Vietnam, Belarus and Pakistan. Just to give them a piece of information, we're in Supply debate. We're in the middle of the budget, so things are a little more informal here today. We're going over the Community Services budget and talking about that, just in case you maybe wanted to know that. So if you could all stand and accept the warm welcome of the House, we would appreciate that. (Applause)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Indeed, welcome from all members of the House.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel has the floor.

MR. GRAHAM: I would like to spend a little more time on this issue of what programs are specifically in place. The concern that is continuously expressed to me by parents of children who are in the special education system and by people who I encounter frequently around Special Olympics programs is that once somebody leaves the education system, there is nothing there for them. Section 5 of the Education Act seems to give them the boot by the time they're 21 years old. Unfortunately, some of the people who are finishing in our school systems don't have the ability to read but are struggling to learn to become functional readers, but for one reason or another, there is this requirement under our Education Act that they have to go at the age of 21. I would like to pursue that.

I was hoping, if I had an opportunity yesterday, to ask more questions on special education, I was hoping to be able to ask the Minister of Education specific questions about what he thinks about the flexibility around Section 5. I'll find a way to pursue that at another time, in a more direct way. Clearly, we have to recognize that if we move towards integration, the model doesn't squarely fit into the education model, we need something that's more flexible.

[10:30 a.m.]

So, first, with respect to the issue of transition, what programs are in place to take care of a very wide range of functioning abilities for people who have left the special education program out of high school or perhaps they may still be in junior high but at a very senior age? What tools are in place? What institutions are providing support in the way that the education system does, because when they leave school, their needs don't change, they remain as high as they did before?

MR. MORSE: That is an area that seems to be constantly in need of more resources, and, indeed, this year, it got an additional $10.3 million. But you are looking for specifics, not global numbers, and I will endeavour to try to do that. I do recognize that school boards will often work with the families and, indeed, with the Children's Aid Societies and others involved in the care of these children, so that they can stay in school up to a period of time. The honourable member would know better the cut-off, and I believe age 21 does ring a bell with me, but in no way do I profess any expertise in the area of the Minister of Education.

[Page 423]

With regard to the member's comments, again, I'm going to refer back to the renewal initiative, and then I'm going to step out and discuss some of the programs that are in place and some of the programs that I hope will evolve or enhance programs that will evolve from the renewal initiative, the Community Supports for Adults renewal initiative. Clearly, many of these young people with special needs may often live with their parents still at that point in time. One of the key services that we can provide those families is the Adult Service Centre, that gives these young adults the chance to come and participate in a constructive fashion in the community, often earning wages.

Those who are higher functioning may, in fact, be able to find employment with the assistance of outreach services. I know that in New Minas we have a fabulous organization called the Flower Cart, which provides a whole continuum of services. But indeed for some, and again I'm going to say the higher functioning, they've in fact have, as I understand it, 20 people who are working at Michelin, earning significant wages, we're not talking about $50,000 or $60,000 a year, but I would just say more than minimum wage. That is something constructive that has been facilitated with the assistance of the Flower Cart. Clearly their families are an important part of it. Many of these young people stay with the program and, on their own, they're able to enjoy a certain amount of independence, make a contribution to their community and indeed to the economy.

We all need that for our self-esteem, and I'm very pleased to see that going on. But not everybody is able to go on the outreach programs, and for those who require more supervision in order to make their contribution, their programs within the Flower Cart, I would like to acknowledge the former Minister of Community Services and, perhaps particularly, his wife, Joan Christie, who works with, I believe, Beacon House. The Flower Cart makes afghans out of corduroy. There's a problem getting enough corduroy to meet the demand for these afghans. Mrs. Christie has her volunteers picking out corduroy and giving it to the Minister of Finance who gives it to me and I give it to my wife, and then it goes to the Flower Cart. This is another example of some of the positive things that are going on there.

There's really a sense of community inclusion, and I think that's what we want for all our citizens, regardless of their circumstances, but certainly not to the exclusion of those with special needs. In addition to that, there's a proposal for more in-home support, which is one of the suggestions in the renewal initiative, the Community Supports renewal initiative. As I mentioned in my opening comments, when we launched this initiative, the caveat was that it had to be delivered within the existing resources, but I'm very pleased to say that in fact there is an incremental $1 million worth of additional funding, which should, hopefully, address some of the waiting lists for those who are waiting to get into the Community Supports for Adults Program.

Also, other suggestions are supervised apartments, which is something that has come from the municipal model, which was uploaded to the department, but there's been no

[Page 424]

formalized program to expand it. I could go on, honourable member, but I hope that I'm giving the gist of some of the supports that are out there. There is a sincere effort, with resources, that's being made to open doors for Nova Scotians with disabilities who, of course, start off as special needs children.

MR. GRAHAM: I think you appropriately draw a distinction between those people who have been in the special education system who are higher functioning, for lack of a better expression, than others. It is those others for whom I express the greatest concern. There are many people who are going through our education system and, of course, through no particular problem of their own, find themselves at a very low-functioning level and are not, frankly, in a position where they can provide meaningful assistance in the workplace, and it is parents of those children who have continually come to me and said that there really isn't any kind of support, which brings me back - and I'm happy to see that the Minister of Education is still here - to the issue of whether or not Section 5 of the Education Act, in your own opinion, is perhaps too restrictive, and whether or not there should be greater flexibility under Section 5 to set the upper limit for somebody leaving the education system at age 23 or age 25, or something more open-ended to ensure that those people who need our support the most are actually receiving it in the system that is best suited to providing it?

The concern, for example, is that you have somebody who is learning to read, is showing progress but hasn't become functionally literate in any way, but they've reached the age of 21, they continue to have promise but the education experience is going to suddenly end for them. So my question is whether or not you think it would be reasonable to explore ways of broadening the interpretation or the language around Section 5 to ensure that the people you receive at age 21 have a greater chance of being functionally literate and therefore able to go into those higher-functioning jobs at some later date?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Minister of Community Services, I just want to bring to your attention that you have continually mentioned the absence or presence of members of the Legislature, I want to inform you that that's not permitted and I think you know that. Perhaps, try not to do that in the future, member. (Interruptions) Thank you, member, I'm sure you will.

The honourable Minister of Community Services.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, in defence of the honourable member, I think he meant it to be a positive, in that he was pointing out, in particular, the people who are here, but I'm not disagreeing with the Chair's ruling, he is correct. But you had good intentions, honourable member, and it's hard to criticize somebody for good intentions.

Honourable member, you are making reference to things in the Education Act, and I think you know that is not my area of expertise or responsibility as the Minister of Community Services, but some of the points you make, I think, are worthy of acknowledging.

[Page 425]

I would like to draw attention to Page 4.8 in the Estimates books, where it outlines the $155 million which is proposed for the Community Supports for Adults Programs. Also, again with the Community Supports for Adults renewal initiative, your plea for more resources to assist those who are not able to complete that functional literacy within their first 21 years is something that would perhaps be well addressed with those additional resources that are being put into the department, that extra $1 million.

I think you make a good point, and it would be a shame to see someone who would come so close that but for a little more instruction, perhaps it be for one or two or three more years, could obtain a level of independence that would allow them to participate actively, in some form, in the labour force and perhaps live on their own.

I would also draw attention to, under Community Based Options, you will see that we invest some $73 million a year to provide those services for those who have greater challenges and perhaps would not be able to avail themselves of education, just because of the hand they were dealt at birth. We spend an additional $68 million to provide care for them. Going back to the rehabilitation workshops, or what we call Adult Service Centres, I was speaking of the great work of the Flower Cart, and there are many Flower Carts or organizations like the Flower Cart across the province, we invest approximately $10 million in that, just to bring a little perspective to the resources that we bring to the table to try to address the concerns of not only the member opposite but all Nova Scotians who care about citizens with disabilities.

MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I will pursue that with the Minister of Education when I have an opportunity for him to hear my plea in this regard. I would have looked forward to the opportunity of raising this with him, because I think it is probably something in the spirit of which the Minister of Education would also share the view of the Minister of Community Services, that people who are moved from segregated to integrated education systems still need some finessing. One of the finesses that is needed is for us, I would suggest, to provide more flexibility at the upper end of the age limit for somebody to be in the education system, 21, to ensure that those people who are continuing to learn but are still at the lower-functioning end receive the opportunity to actually continue to have the foundation that will support them for the rest of their days.

I would like to turn next to a completely separate subject, it's the two housing programs for seniors. There has been much made of the important issue of covering health care costs for seniors in long-term care facilities. It is nice to see that we have finally arrived at the point where the end to the discrimination that existed is largely in sight, but there have been a number of other initiatives that would, in fact, prevent people from going into seniors' homes for a longer period of time. I'm referring to two programs that I understand are specifically under your initiative, the Senior Citizens Assistance Program and the Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independence, the SCAP and the HAS Programs.

[Page 426]

My understanding is that each of these programs, in their own unique way, provide for funding at modest levels, they are cost-shared with the federal government and they provide funding to ensure that seniors stay in their homes longer. So it is of the ilk that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, whether or not your department has any interest in ensuring that those programs are further enhanced from the modest amount of money that's spent on them right now, I believe it's less than $2 million?

MR. MORSE: I think that anybody who has been so honoured to be a representative would have had those telephone calls from seniors who are on a fixed income and for whatever reason, perhaps they've encountered a leaky roof or their health has declined and they now need to have a wheelchair and a ramp and these other sorts of programs, and, indeed, it's something that makes me very glad that we are that sort of society, where we reach out and we make sure that, to the best of our ability, those supports are available for our seniors. It's the right thing to do, just as it's the right thing to do to support special needs children going into the school system, and at the other end, when our health begins to fail, as it does sometimes with age, it's important that the supports be there to recognize those people, and particularly the contribution that they've made during their lifetime.

[10:45 a.m.]

With regard to an increase, the Emergency Repair and Access-A-Home Programs, there is in fact about a $0.5 million increase, which is about a 25 per cent increase. It has gone from approximately $2 million to $2.5 million. The Senior Citizens Assistance Program is at $1.5 million, which is the same, in essence, as it was last year, but last year it only spent about $1.4 million, so it's still in excess of the actual for 2002-03.

MR. GRAHAM: Just a quick question as a follow-up to the response to that question is whether or not the minister, in light of the effectiveness of these types of programs, foresees an investment to ensure that we don't have to pay extremely high costs for people to continue in long-term care facilities, the investment, for example, in ensuring that somebody has a ramp in their home or has a repair done to their bathroom or that the washroom comes to the ground floor, $20,000 or $25,000, ensures that somebody doesn't require government to spend $50,000 or $60,000 or $80,000 every year, year over year, because the person is in a long-term care facility?

Surely the budget for these types of preventative measures could be greater, especially when one considers that they're cost-shared significantly with the federal government. Is the minister interested in exploring ways to further invest in that?

MR. MORSE: I agree with his point that sometimes it's better to be proactive than reactive. It's not only better for the seniors but, the member is also quite right, it's better for all Nova Scotians, even from a financial point of view, just to avoid those $4,000 a month

[Page 427]

nursing home costs. The two programs that were referenced before, as I understand it, are provincially-funded programs. The member also makes reference, though, to some of the RRAP, the Rural Residential Assistance Programs, which is a cost-shared program with the federal government, something that's particularly important to Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia, because 70 per cent of our residents have their own home, but a significant number of those homes are in need of significant repair. In essence, we have an older housing stock here in Nova Scotia, and the RRAP Program has really played a very important part in trying to preserve some of that older housing stock for people, and in this case the member is referring to seniors, who may be on a fixed income and otherwise would not be able to do the necessary repairs.

If you would just allow me, honourable member, there is another program that also assists seniors in staying in their home, and this is something that we were very pleased to be able to gradually reintroduce and that's the seniors Property Tax Rebate Program. Honourable member, I'm sure that you're supportive of this. If you have seniors in your constituency who might be on the Guaranteed Income Supplement but have still somehow or other managed to stay in their own homes, this is a wonderful program. It will allow those seniors who are homeowners on the Guaranteed Income Supplement to get up to 50 per cent of their municipal taxes back in this grant, up to a maximum of $400. Whereas the member represents Halifax Citadel, a part of HRM, the city also has a comparable program. So that is a great assist as well in helping seniors stay in their own homes who would otherwise perhaps lose them because of financial challenges.

If the honourable member has the chance to speak with constituents or perhaps would consider, in his constituency newsletter, as I did last Fall, I think that he would find that the uptake from his constituents would be considerable, if it was brought to their attention. They're not all aware that they qualify.

MR. GRAHAM: I would like to speak about issues - the minister raised concerns about housing issues in my riding. He would be aware of the publicity that was attached to the housing challenges that are faced by the dozens, if not hundreds, of people who are homeless, many of whom find shelter in my constituency. Hell's Hotel, the former Halifax Infirmary on Queen Street is one example, perhaps the most notorious example of that. The TexPark building is also in my constituency.

This is a broad issue and it's a broader social issue that clearly needs some addressing. I would like to link the concerns around this housing to the federal-provincial Affordable Housing Agreement that the minister is quite familiar with. It's a $37.2 million fund that was announced in September 2002. My recollection is that it's a 50/50 cost-share with the federal government. The announcement was made with a great deal of fanfare, however, approximately one year after it was initially announced in August 2003, the federal minister responsible for it clearly indicated that the performance of Nova Scotia on its own and in relation to other provinces in taking up its share of the funding was unacceptably low.

[Page 428]

Since that time there have been some announcements. We're all familiar with the 15 units in Middleton that have been completed, the six units on Creighton Street, and we also have the $1 million announcement for the 30 families across the province that the minister made back in February. But this is a program that was intended to provide 1,500 shelters, and at the rate that we're going we're never going to get to that 1,500 figure, and I'm wondering if the minister, as a starter, could indicate for this very significant program what kind of timeline he has in mind to ensure that all of the federal money is going to be used up before the expiry of the program, which I believe is in 2005, and that Nova Scotians are going to receive the 1,500 units that were promised with a great deal of fanfare back in September 2002.

MR. MORSE: I thank the honourable member for a number of points he brought up and a number of questions. I would like to start by making reference to the situation as it pertains to the homeless people who were in the Infirmary. In actual fact, the sources that we have indicate that the real number was three, but that what happened is that they were visited by some young people who thought it would be a good place to perhaps have a bit of a party. That was not welcomed by the three homeless residents. As a result, it brought a lot of attention to it and, appropriately, it's not a place for anybody to be living.

I also want the honourable member to be aware that we checked with the various shelters in the area, the Metro Turning Point, the Salvation Army, the YWCA, and we wanted to make sure that if in fact there was this great deluge of homeless people being chased out of the Infirmary that there would be shelter available to them, remembering that it was in the Winter. In actual fact, honourable member, there was no uptake as a result of this. So I think that the size of the population of alleged homeless people who were taking shelter in the Infirmary was greatly exaggerated in the first couple of days, in the press, and there was a front-page correction in The ChronicleHerald shortly afterwards that in actual fact the number was three. That's still three too many, and I'm sure the member would agree.

The member has referenced the delays in implementing the program - he's made reference to comments by the federal minister. I would like to update him on some of those comments since that time. In fact, Nova Scotia was the first of the Maritime Provinces, by some measure, to sign on to the agreement, to make the commitment. Because of the size of the affordable housing challenge in Nova Scotia, we wanted to make sure that with the federal government's re-entry into public housing, social housing - a re-entry that is welcomed by all the provinces and territories, and I can speak to that, having attended some of those federal/provincial/territorial meetings, in fact I find myself as the sitting chairman of that organization, that group for this year - we were one of the first in, but when you have limited dollars and such a large challenge, you want to make sure that you're putting the dollars in the right area.

[Page 429]

So the research was done under the leadership of our new senior director, an excellent report was produced that certainly highlighted, whether it's family units in Halifax or whether it's non-elderly single units in Cape Breton, just where the demand was for affordable housing, so that we can target those dollars to do the most good for those in greatest need in the province. That was a good investment that was acknowledged by Secretary of State Stephen Mahoney, when he was responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing, when we did the Creighton Street announcement a few months ago. It was duly noted in the press, and he supported the province's approach.

Now, with the request for proposals going out for 200 units, it starts the process. That is a start. As I've said many times in this Chamber before and outside this Chamber, 1,500 units is a high figure. It would be a figure that I would like to exceed, but I will not exceed that if it means that those who are perhaps in even greater need of affordable housing are overlooked for this. The size of the subsidy to help lower-income Nova Scotians is greater, to put them into affordable housing. Affordable housing is defined that your shelter costs are not greater than 30 per cent of your gross income, and as such it is more costly to government to assist those with lower incomes. But I think that is where we have the greater responsibly, not entirely to disregard the needs of those who may be middle income but in fact the Affordable Housing Program is a mortgage buy-down program, contributing as much as $50,000 between the federal and the provincial government for the buy-down on the cost of the mortgage, thus, hopefully, bringing the mortgage payment within that 30 per cent figure.

That will not necessarily assist those who are in greatest need, and that is why we're taking the approach for the provincial contribution that rent subsidies is perhaps a way of targeting those in greater need. The federal government recognizes that additional commitment. They allow us to take the net present value over 10 years and use that number to draw down equivalent federal capital. So the provincial monies, in terms of affordable rental housing, will probably be going more into the rent subsidy area, an area that the C.D. Howe Institute says is 85 per cent efficient in addressing the need to provide affordable housing, whereas they indicate that public housing stock is perhaps only 30 per cent as efficient. We think it's a good direction, but we're in no way discounting the importance of the federal contribution, which in essence will, in a great measure, go to increase the public housing stock.

So the official number is 850 to 1,500 units, but my concern is to address those needs of those Nova Scotians with the lowest incomes. We want to take that approach, and my suspicion would be that the honourable member would concur with that approach.

MR. GRAHAM: I appreciate the explanation that has been provided, and I want to deal first with your comments about the Halifax Infirmary. I've been through the Halifax Infirmary in one of those bunny suits - that's all I can say to describe them, the police outfits for crime scenes - because of the condition that the building is in on the inside. Sleeping quarters were found on several floors in several locations. Perhaps the three people in

[Page 430]

question chose to sleep in different quarters at different times, but there were clear indications that children were there, based on my own personal observations. It would be difficult for me to imagine how one could determine that there were just three people there. I can't tell the honourable minister what the specific number is, I don't think, any better than his people could. If they have some way of describing that the problem only related to three people, I'd be interested in knowing that perhaps at another time.

[11:00 a.m.]

I'd like to touch on the 1,500 target. I'm not sure whether I heard the minister correctly, but it is no longer clear to me that despite the agreement in 2002 to have 1,500 new units, the government is now suggesting that it may not meet the 1,500-unit target in the time frame that was set out back in September, 2002. A very straightforward question, is it still your intention to partner in those 1, 500 units within the time frame that was set out?

MR. MORSE: I thank the honourable member for taking me back to that. He had asked a number of questions - one of them was time frame, another one was numbers.

The time frame for committing all the monies is March 31, 2006, to make full use of the $18.63 million in federal dollars, that will be done. Those dollars have to be actually expended by March 31, 2007 - or the equivalent, making reference to the increased rent supplements from the province. Again, with regard to the 1,500, the actual official numbers were 850 to 1,500. What I've told the honourable member is that I will not go for the higher number if it's at the expense of low-income Nova Scotians who are perhaps in greater need of this.

To just elaborate a little bit more about what I understand to be the rationale for the way the federal government structured this program is that there was a lack of apartment starts in the Toronto area, which the member would appreciate is a very large city - it's almost a different world from what we have here in Nova Scotia. There was apparently so much profit to be gained in the housing market that apartments were being disregarded by the private sector, and this was a way of perhaps tipping the balance to get more apartment development in Toronto. That's why the $50,000 per unit was structured in the program, but that does not mirror what's going on here in Nova Scotia. The member opposite would know that apartment construction in HRM is brisk and, as such, we are trying to address the needs of Nova Scotians. This may address what needs to happen in Toronto, but we want to address what needs to be done in Nova Scotia. So, the official figure was 850 to 1,500.

With regard to the inhabitants of the Infirmary building, I'm advised by those who have had connections not only with people who work for the city and other groups, but also some of the people that I met in my meanderings around North End Halifax, that there were toys left over from the time that it was an active hospital. I would tell the honourable member that going out and meeting people like the de facto "Mayor of Gottingen Street", and some

[Page 431]

of these others, will enlighten a person considerably about some of the challenges that are faced out there, particularly as it pertains to shelter and the whole question of affordable housing. I would say that I get my information from what I consider to be quite close to the source.

MR. GRAHAM: I, too, am able to get my information close to the source when I meet with my legal aid clients from years ago who continue to tell me about their circumstances of living on the streets. They continue to live on the streets, and I meet them on my walks to work on a regular basis. They're expressing their great concerns about this problem.

In light of the range - I don't want to pursue this much longer, I'd like to turn to a different subject - I'm wondering whether or not the minister would be able to provide the House with some indication, given all the planning that he's talked about, the fact that we're halfway through this, of what the forecast is for the number of houses that he expects to be put in place by the end of this agreement. Right now we have this range of 850 to 1,500 and we're nowhere near being on a pace even to hit the bottom end of that target, the 850. I'm left wondering whether or not he has a specific figure. I don't want to pursue that any further, given the limited time that I have left. If the minister wants to give a quick response to that as I turn to the next topic, I'd be happy to receive that but, specifically, I was looking for a signal of what number you expect by the end of this program, somewhere between 850 and 1,500.

I'd like to turn to the issue that you had referenced early on in relation to the first question that I asked, and that is the Healthy Starts Program. Since the late 1950s and early 1960s, starting in Hawaii, we learned that a Healthy Starts Program - a program that identifies, in vitro, those mothers who look like they may have challenges with children through their years, demographically identify children in preschools who are at risk, identify families who are under some stress, providing them with the support they need - has turned out to be 95 per cent successful.

The success for the children who are in the Healthy Starts Program is a very global one - they do well in education, they do well socially, they do well ultimately in terms of employment, and they're less likely to become caught in the cycle of teen pregnancy and all of those other social problems. In the minds of many it is one of the best mechanisms that we can find as a society to ensure the cycle, that I'm frankly quite familiar with from having worked in the legal aid system - of poverty and single parenthood, in part, not to put it all on single parenthood for a moment, but, poverty, violence, and addictions won't continue to cycle in small communities and small families.

Healthy Starts is one of the best programs, one of the most effective programs and it's being implemented with vigour in jurisdictions all across North America 40 years after it started. I've been critical of your government for not taking this issue seriously. It doesn't

[Page 432]

require a significant investment considering that we spend about $1 billion a year on education after somebody turns 5 years old up to age 18 or 21. Surely we can find the resources - perhaps $10 million - to enhance a Healthy Starts Program and make sure we provide our young people with the real start that they need, so when they hit Primary that teachers and others have the opportunity to have a whole, healthy person.

MR. MORSE: I thank the member opposite for his comments and his questions. With regard to the healthy beginnings program, that is something that is split between the Department of Health and the Department of Community Services, using the early childhood development funds that are flowing from the federal government. Certainly this was a very positive initiative on the part of the federal government in working with the provinces and becoming partners; in fact, as they increase their share, they are coming up to the level of the provincial investment, which is something we welcome.

In my opening comments, the member might remember that I acknowledged the former Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, Jane Stewart, for her leadership in this area, I commended her and I think that her time in that department will leave a very positive legacy for Canada's children and, therefore, for the entire country. She was passionate about this and she was able to deliver.

With regard to the Affordable Housing Program, it's not entirely broken down to the number of units, but the member is looking for a number. That number is clearly going to be determined as we receive the requests for proposals and try to find which ones provide best value within the context of what we are trying to accomplish with the program. The member has heard me say now on several occasions how I am most concerned about low-income Nova Scotians also being able to find affordable housing. Whereas the mortgage buy-down of the Affordable Housing Program is really more targeted to middle-income families, I'm not making any apology for watching out for the most vulnerable in our society.

There are four components to this. Rental housing comprises 50 per cent of it. There's also rental preservation because, as the member opposite would be well aware, there are too many stories about tenants living in substandard conditions. It's also a concern of the city in particular, although it's not entirely confined to HRM. I've had discussions on numerous occasions with the mayor, and they are caught with the dilemma as to do we allow this to continue on with what some would describe as living in squalor in some cases. But if you shut that landlord down, then you may have created a homeless person. So we are working in that regard. There's the new rental program, the Rental Preservation Program, the Creighton/Gerrish home ownership, in specific areas of urban revitalization. That has been designated as such, that is the North End of Halifax for that area of the program.

The last component is the home preservation component. In fact, that was announced a couple of months ago. That's for going beyond the cap for RRAP. RRAP cuts off at about $16,000 - there are some homes that cannot be preserved for just $16,000 and to do so was

[Page 433]

really just throwing good money after bad, so this steps in there for the larger challenges. It provides those sorts of renovations to allow people to continue to live in those homes.

MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that response. Some of the challenges that he faces in ensuring that people have the leg up that they deserve in Nova Scotia are challenges that we all share some responsibility for. To a certain extent it brings me back to the comments that I made when I first started my questions with respect to this matter and spoke to the Minister of Community Services. It resulted in a number of people standing up and speaking about what happened yesterday.

I should say at the outset that with respect to any differences I have with the member for Timberlea-Prospect, he and I have had a good relationship in the time that I have been in this House. I know that he too knows of the significant importance of the issue of special education. Not only special education in the specific, but as it relates to transitioning into Community Services, as we talked about. But there was, in what he said yesterday, another lecture about what happened 10 years ago under a Liberal Government. While the member is certainly entitled to say what he wishes - and all members of the NDP, as they from time to time do, have an opportunity to speak about what happened 10 years ago under a Liberal Government. I think it's fair to say that for us to move forward, it is important for us to be talking about what happens here and now for us to continue to have good relations.

What we found in Community Services was that there were cutbacks in some respects there under the Savage Government and there were cutbacks in education. When, as I referenced, I was a legal aid lawyer here in Halifax, I was one of those people who had my wages cut back, and I was as upset as anybody, as no doubt the member for Timberlea-Prospect might have been as someone in the education system. What I found when I actually learned more about public policy is that, as Donnie Cameron said shortly before he left office, this province is virtually bankrupt. There were only crumbs left to pick up and for an extended period of time this province was on life support. It was only through the hard work in difficult times of a government, the Savage Government, that kept this province afloat or we might have been in very different circumstances.

I don't mean this to be a partisan remark. I've only been in this House for less than a year, and I've only been in this venue for two years or so, but I recognize when it's important for us to look forward and not to look back. If we continually look at people like John MacEachern and Robbie Harrison who, frankly, in my opinion - and the member for Timberlea-Prospect may disagree - are people who had true vision about the education system, then we're not going to be able to look forward to what we need to do. They were left with crumbs as a result of what happened for the 15 years before that - only crumbs, so something desperate had to happen.

[Page 434]

When you try to do something as John Savage did and many of his Cabinet did, under such difficult circumstances, surely you're going to be controversial even though you've tried to do something - at least they tried. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Thank you, member. The time has expired for the Liberal caucus. I will now turn to the honourable member for Dartmouth South-Portland Valley.

[11:15 a.m.]

MS. MARILYN MORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to go back to the issue I was discussing at the end of my first hour, and that was on care options for high-needs children and youth in care.

I see in the new business plan that one of the objectives under Family and Children's Services is stable placement of children in care. The number of children placed outside the province, the figures are given - in 1999 there were 25; 2000 there were 28; 2001 there were 32; 2002 there were 29; and 2003 there were 24. The number's missing for 2004, and I realize we're still in 2004, but are there any January or March figures available? The objective is to decrease this by 15 per cent, but if we don't know what base figure we're working with, it's difficult to know what the objective is.

MR. MORSE: I'm looking at my communications director in the gallery and I'm going to ask her if she can try to find out what the current number is of children who are placed in care outside the province since those numbers you have referenced in the business plan.

MS. MORE: There are going to be some other questions on some of the other objectives in the business plan for this year, and none of them seem to have the 2004 figures, so I'll just give you a heads up that I will be asking for some of those figures as well.

I want to go on and talk a bit about the confusion in designation of the placements where a young person in care can be put. I realize I've only been the critic for nine months and, as the minister well recognizes, he has a very complex department, a number of programs and services serving the most vulnerable in our province, and it's at times confusing.

In terms of placements for young people in care, I've heard terms such as licensed, approved, regulated child caring facility, and others mentioned, and I would like to get an actual written description of what these terms refer to and what the process is for actually being designated approved, licensed or regulated, sometime - I don't expect an answer from you today on that. I'm also wondering where I would find if there are any specific requirements or definitions around the qualifications for the care workers in each of those categories and the age of a young person who would be served by those child-caring facilities. That's a rhetorical question actually.

[Page 435]

MR. MORSE: To answer the member's question, absolutely there are stipulations as to what would qualify a person to work in various settings. Clearly, what's appropriate for a young child may not be appropriate for a youth, and vice versa, and we do try to separate them. We will get that information for the member. We actually have a student who is out on work experience here today with the communications director and she has been busily writing down your queries while our communications director was out trying to get the last answer.

I just want to touch base on your first point about the number of children in care outside the province. While the Wood Street Centre certainly will greatly reduce the number who have to leave the province, there are some cases that are of such a nature that we're just never going to have enough children or youth in that category to provide that sort of specialized services, so there will always be some children, regrettably, who have to leave the province because of the severity of the behavioural or emotional challenges they face. It's quite something sometimes to get the files and hear that you need to have two adults accompanying them to the organization that's going to provide them with care, whether it's in Maine or Ontario or wherever. Regretfully, some of the challenges are considerable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that response. The minister has agreed to an undertaking to provide some of the information you're asking for.

MS. MORE: I appreciate your description of what actually is the purpose of Wood Street, but I think part of the problem is that there was an expectation that because high-risk youth and children could be accommodated up to, I believe, nine months at this facility - 90 days, perhaps, it's well beyond the 30-day limit - it would be interesting to see now that it's open how many young people young people have been kept for just 30 days and then transferred and how many have had an extended assessment treatment period. I think part of the problem is there aren't options available for these young people when they come out of Wood Street Centre to have the specialized treatment within the province. It would be interesting to see if this actually does decrease any of the numbers of youth and children who have to go to programs elsewhere in Canada or in the United States.

I want to talk about the Special Needs Emergency Response Team - SNERT, I believe it's called. It was originally set up in Spryfield to provide short-term emergency placement for teens. I understand that one of the young clients served by this particular response team was a young child, so I'm wondering if the mandate for this particular team been expanded from youth, to also include children.

MR. MORSE: I thank the honourable member for her question. I'm not as familiar with that program as the honourable member, but I see my communications director has just gotten up and left her chair, so I suspect that an answer will be forthcoming momentarily.

[Page 436]

MS. MORE: I'd like to move on to childcare facilities. The objective in the last two business plans has been to increase the number and percentage of trained staff in full-day childcare centres in the province; again the figure for this year is missing. I understand that by April of last year, 933 full-time staff had been trained and I notice that your objective for this year is to maintain the same level for 2004-05, as in 2002-03, at 85 per cent. Are you satisfied with that maintenance level? I'm just wondering why it's not being increased.

MR. MORSE: Understanding that just by the nature of any profession that there's always going to be turnover, so 85 per cent basically means 17 out of 20 meet that level of professionalism. Often given the age of the people who are going into that program and the likelihood that some may leave for a time to have children of their own, it would be expected that there's going to be a certain amount of turnover. Clearly, when people first enter, they may not all have that qualification where experience is part of getting that qualification, that would account for some of the 15 per cent.

MS. MORE: I just find it strange that once a child enters the public school system, the qualifications for teachers is a 100 per cent requirement. Under the age of five, obviously, the department is satisfied - different department, mind you - with 85 per cent. I do appreciate that when these changes came into effect there was the need to sort of grandfather - or grandmother - in some of the staff who perhaps hadn't had an opportunity to be trained before they started their jobs. I'm wondering why new staff wouldn't be required to have the training.

MR. MORSE: In order to meet your professional potential, you're going to need to have some experience; and at some point in time you have to have your first day on the job. The member makes reference to the public school system, but even in the public school system, there are volunteers in there, just volunteer parents and other caring people, so it's not like 100 per cent of the people in the public school system all have their Bachelor of Education degrees or their teaching certificates.

I think the important thing is that the Early Childhood Development Program recognized there was a problem with turnover in the area of childcare. The $4,000 that is the wage subsidy that was brought in as the first measure under the Early Childhood Development Agreement was meant to try to make it sufficiently attractive so that those who wanted to pursue that career as professional childcare workers were not driven out because they couldn't afford to stay in the profession.

I think 85 per cent has brought a level of stability that was probably unthought of just a very few years ago. This is a happy story and, again, one that reflects directly on the early childhood development program.

[Page 437]

MS. MORE: I think you'll find that any staff in the public school system who have direct responsibility for children are fully trained from day one. It would be interesting to see how many administrators, cooks and people serving in sort of secondary, non-direct care of children are included in that 15 per cent, but perhaps we can talk about that later.

My overall concern is that while the department talks about wanting to stabilize the childcare sector in Nova Scotia, the objectives and the measures that are suggested in your business plan are very small steps towards that. I'm concerned that because of the vulnerability of the sector these days two non-profit day cares have closed - one in my own constituency and one in Halifax Atlantic; I understand that Alexandra Children's Centre is having problems in terms of location, their lease is up and they have nowhere to move; that three very large sort of mainstays of the childcare sector in Nova Scotia have either closed or are facing closure. I just would like to see more aggressive action on the part of the department in terms of providing the supports and the targets that are necessary to provide security for parents in Nova Scotia that we're going to have a quality childcare system.

For example, in the business plan, you also talk about spaces in full-time licensed childcare centres. Again, the 2004 figures are missing, but it's suggested that the department wants to increase the base by 5 per cent, which I suggest in view of the closures is a very low target.

I would like to move on and ask the minister, are you satisfied that there's enough money in this new budget to - and I'm going back to an earlier question of this morning - increase the per diems and the subsidies and the spaces, and all those factors that have been long studied and are recognized as essential items in terms of providing more stability and reassurance for the sector and the Nova Scotian families that the childcares serves?

[11:30 a.m.]

MR. MORSE: I thank the member opposite for her caring about the children and the families that are served by the childcare sector and, again, I'm going to make reference to the federal government joining with the provinces and territories, and pointing out that over the last three years there has been a virtual doubling of the resources put into this area as a result of the Early Childhood Development Program. The province was always there, but it's the federal government that has come on the scene and augmented these programs. So I would suggest to you that a doubling of the resources in a three-year period is a very significant number, especially in light of all the other financial pressures that provincial governments face.

So, to answer your question, I think the appropriate steps have been taken and specifically, it is nice to be in a situation with the accelerated $2.2 million from the early learning and childcare program, to actually be able to wait for the consultant's report to come back on an expedited basis to make sure that $900,000 will accomplish what it is that we want to accomplish and still have some discretion, hopefully, to address maybe things like

[Page 438]

start-up and expansion grants, which conceivably might be of assistance to one of the childcare centres that you referenced before.

But I also want to make the point that two of the childcare centres that closed, the non-profit ones - and childcare centres open and close throughout the year, I mean there's a flow, we may lose 20, but we pick up 20, or we may lose 15 and pick up 20, it's not like there are not new centres coming onstream - in the case of those two, they had designated subsidized seats that were remaining vacant, and I know in the case of one that a lot of the children moved down the street and they're very happy in this commercial centre, and I'm advised that they're not wanting to move again. So it has not been a totally negative story from the point of view of all the families although I do regret the closure of the centres. Many of the families have made provision and they have moved on and we've allowed the subsidy to follow them.

MS. MORE: Well, this could develop into a couple hours of discussion.

I would just like to say that these two centres - I know the one in my constituency had been there for 25 years and I believe they were both started when federal funding was made available back in the early 1970s and they have served their communities long and well, and it has been the accumulation of serious underfunding by the provincial government that led them to the stage where they had to actually close.

I'm wondering, you talk about the infusion of new federal dollars going into childcare in this province, do you actually have a breakdown of the current amount of money being spent on childcare centres in Nova Scotia, and what percentage comes from the federal multilateral program and how much comes from the provincial budget?

MR. MORSE: Madam Chairman, the Early Childhood Development Initiative's funding programs total $39.1 million - $19.5 million is federal and $19.6 million is provincial, bearing in mind that some of that federal money goes into the Healthy Beginnings Program which is administered through the Department of Health, and we certainly welcome that part of the initiative because we think that that's a critical investment in our children and their families - and the member for Halifax Citadel was quite articulate about that during his hour.

MS. MORE: Madam Chairman, I may come back to daycares, but I do want to move on to transition houses, women's centres and men's treatment programs. I understand that approximately $43,000 new dollars are being shared by all those programs in the new budget compared to last year's forecast, and I'm just wondering if there is any rationale on how you chose that figure, and how is this going to relieve their financial stress?

MR. MORSE: Madam Chairman, we are having a discussion as to what was the reason for the $43,000. I would tell the member opposite there was a verbal agreement that was made between the transition houses and the men's treatment centres some years ago that

[Page 439]

their wages would mirror the increases in the Civil Service. I was wondering whether that perhaps accounted for the $43,000, and I'm not able to confirm that that's the case, but the honourable member would know that we did increase the funding to transition houses and men's treatment centres by 9.3 per cent last year to implement that verbal commitment made by a former deputy minister. So we will check it out and confirm whether that is the reason for the additional $43,000.

MS. MORE: Madam Chairman, continuing with this topic. There have been concerns that the department response to the reports by the transition houses, women's centres, and men's treatment programs that were required as part of the agreement to have that funding put back in - I think it was cut a couple of years ago, and in return for having the funding put in they were asked to do an analysis of the programs that they offer. I think it was to check to see whether there was any duplication and to sort of justify the amount of money they were getting, and they submitted those reports within the last year.

After a delay the department did respond to them. The department response did not seem to focus on any of the recommendations made in those reports, and instead the department response was more around perhaps an intent to regionalize these services. The department wanted to talk to the chairs of the boards rather than the chair supported by their staff person, and there were other issues like that - it seemed to be an avoidance tactic. So I'm wondering why, in this budget, is the department not dealing with the key recommendations of stable funding from those groups?

MR. MORSE: I would point out that the member identified a $43,000 increase in that line item, and so while that may not be stable funding that is, in fact, increased funding. So I would suggest that while the amount may be modest, it certainly is following through on our commitment to the transition houses and the men's treatment centres.

With regard to the member's comments about the special nature of each community, there is an evolving pattern across the province that the transition houses, unfortunately, in the city, the capital, are getting more business than we would like to see them receive. We would like to see them not have anybody in need of their services, but in fact there is more pressure on the Halifax service providers whereas in the regions there's a recognition that we need more of an outreach approach, because the vacancy rates in some of them are dropping and so that's a chance to work with the transition houses across the province to see if we can channel monies that will deliver more to the battered women and their children and, after all, that is what we're here to do.

Honourable member, I have an answer to your earlier question, courtesy of Cathy MacIsaac, Communications Director. You were asking the question about statistics on out-of-province placement for children and why the numbers were not in there for March 31, 2004. The statistics are collected on a quarterly basis by the regions and then they're sent in to head office, so that is why there is a delay.

[Page 440]

As of December 31, 2003, it was 25, and that would have been just after we opened the Truro facility, but I want to caution the member that the opening of the Truro facility should not be allowed to interrupt the established treatment programs that are in place for those out-of-province children. So any potential drop in the future will be gradual, hopefully as those children successfully complete their programs and are able to return home to Nova Scotia.

MS. MORE: I just want to remind the minister that the $43,000 that I'm talking about is going to be spread among nine transition homes, seven women's centres, and six intervention programs for abusive men. So that, just roughly, works out to about $2,000 per program, so I hardly think that's going to be an improvement on their balance statement. As the minister realizes, many of the services provided by these organizations are considered essential, or mandated under the legislation, and the government would have to provide them if the voluntary sector wasn't doing it. I would like to suggest, from my experience and, I think, the experience of many people in this Legislature, that transition houses, women's centres, and the men's treatment programs are being delivered in a very cost-effective manner.

In terms of regionalization, I just want to point out that the Halifax Regional Municipality doesn't even have a women's centre, so it's a dangerous road I think that we tread if we're looking at regionalizing services unless there is actually an infrastructure that's similar across the province based on the population. So when one-third of the population doesn't even have a women's centre, I think that's a very dangerous road to be going down. So again I'm asking, why isn't the department dealing with the challenges facing this particular group of service providers instead of continually delaying action?

[11:45 a.m.]

MR. MORSE: Madam Chairman, I'm trying to catch on to all the member's points and I'm going to start with her comment about the women's centres. One of the challenges we face in this department - and we're trying to work with our federal counterparts, particularly in HRDC or the two successor departments - is that we've got a situation where the federal government will recognize that there's perhaps a legitimate need in the community, they will come up, they will announce project funding, they will set it up, and after the funding, walk away - they more or less throw the community the keys and say it's yours, prove that there's a need for the service, and then they just board up the doors and they just will say no, or maybe they'll let it continue on for a few months, but ultimately what they've done is they have taken an opportunity to recognize something which is a good service, but they've done it without any intention of being there for the long term, and this is a problem from our point of view.

We are conscientiously trying to deliver what we consider to be a secure safety net, a sustainable safety net, and having other people make those decisions and then leave the community in the lurch is a problem. In this case I'm being very critical of the federal

[Page 441]

government, not unlike what they did with Medicare many years ago. We went in on a 50/50 arrangement and we have now got them back up to 16 per cent and it's probably going to be less than 16 per cent this year because they have basically capped it again.

So the women's centres actually flowed out of HRDC initiatives and it was the province that stepped in and provided some funding for them, and in the case of the Yarmouth one the minister at the time for Southwest Nova - you know, I'm sure he was there for the ribbon cutting, the federal minister at the time, Robert Thibault, but when it came time to actually step in and take responsibility for the ongoing operational funding, it was the local member, now Minister Hurlburt, who was the champion for them and, yes, we did pick them up to the tune of $100,000, but this is not a way to initiate these programs. You should not be promising things to people unless you're prepared to stand by them, and that has been an ongoing problem with the federal government and something that we have spoken to them about and we hope that we will work together better in the future so that sustainability can be a key part of the announcement.

Now, you've made reference to the funding of the transition houses. I want to tell you that the need for transition houses - or I'm going to suggest, because it's probably not my role to tell you anything - I'm going to suggest that the need for transition houses, and unfortunately it's a reflection of the problems that we have in society, in order to reach out and make the community better aware of these challenges, there is no better way of doing it than to have an active association. In the Valley we have Chrysalis House. The former executive director who actually ran for your Party on two occasions, and I would say distinguished herself and your Party in her campaigns, was a great advocate for the transition house and, as a result of that, there are many people who contribute on an annual basis such as they can - and I would tell you that you're looking at one of them - to that centre and by doing that, by reaching out, it becomes an education process. It makes us more aware that this problem is going on, that bad things do happen to women and children, and that there has to be some provision there to take care of them.

So I would suggest that by doing it in this manner, it provides much greater benefits than just writing a cheque from the Department of Community Services to the transition house. Even though we fund the vast majority of their operating budgets, they still make a very constructive contribution not only financially but, perhaps more importantly, by informing the community that there is a problem and that we should all collectively be vigilant in addressing the challenge of violence against women and children.

MS. MORE: Madam Chairman, I have to say I take exception to your remarks. (Interruptions) To suggest that transition houses serving women and their children who have faced abuse in their homes, that those boards and staff should be out begging for funds in their community to provide necessary services, I think is offensive. There's also inequity in the province, because a lot of communities don't have the fundraising capacity that other

[Page 442]

communities have, nor, I would suggest, are transition houses often the popular cause in a community.

So we would have a very ineffective, unequal system across the province. Communities where perhaps the economy is a little better might be able to support these facilities, and lower economically based communities would not be able to. To think that this government - and I'm unsure actually when it happened, but I know there was a family violence prevention initiative that was cancelled, and I wouldn't be surprised if it actually had been during the Liberal Regime, these community groups are trying to pick up the slack after the government has refused to take its responsibility, and to suggest that this is good for them to be able to reach out and directly ask for money in the community is just beyond my understanding.

I'm going to leave it at that, but these are organizations that are protecting women and children, that are providing essential services. A woman in Yarmouth or Advocate Harbour should not have fewer services in this regard because perhaps their boards of directors cannot provide the money available from the community. As well, part of the problem is the outdated funding formula that's used for these organizations. It's based on a per diem, assuming that all women and children seeking these services are actually going to move into the transition house and stay there overnight. The minister himself referred to the outreach initiatives that a lot of these transition houses and women's centres are undertaking, and that reflects particularly the needs of rural women and families. They don't have as easy access to public transportation, if there's even any, so they can't get into these facilities. So it's important to have the services and programs going where they happen to live so that they can access them during the day and not necessarily stay overnight and receive the help and support that they need to turn their lives around.

I would suggest that the department needs to take a serious look at the provision of services by these organizations and make sure that there's some stable long-term funding. For them to lurch from year to year, not knowing if their programs or their staff are going to be in place places an unbearable burden on those volunteers and staff, and I think it's quite unnecessary.

I want to move on to an issue that I brought up yesterday during Question Period, and that is the lack of ability of women and men on social assistance to get a university education. I'm particularly concerned about how this impacts on women, because it has been proven in Canadian research that women who graduate from high school and go into the job market earn much lower wages than men who graduate and go into, often, the skilled blue-collar sector where the salaries and wages are considerably higher than the jobs that most women go into. Research has been done in Canada to suggest that women with a bachelor's degree actually earn 50 to 80 per cent more than those with a high school leaving certificate, so women just graduating from high school have a much bleaker future and this impacts significantly on their children.

[Page 443]

I don't understand the rationale of dropping women and men from social assistance if they chose to go on to university. I think it's cost-neutral in that if their benefits continued they would then apply for student loans to cover the educational books and related costs; they would then bear the responsibility of paying back those amounts after they graduate. So this would only impact on a few of the people actually receiving social assistance because not all people would want to have the qualifications or have the motivation to go on to university, but it's an excellent way to break this poverty cycle. So, I'm wondering, is the minister considering changing his mind and bringing back the opportunity for men and women on social assistance to pursue university education so that they can break this poverty cycle and be able to support their families and be productive citizens in our province?

MR. MORSE: Honourable member, you've brought up three points I would like to speak to here. First of all, I'd like to go back to your point about the fundraising on the part of the transition houses; in fact all organizations that provide valuable services in the community. I want to tell you that I will support three causes every year and I'm proud to go out and do that, to knock on doors to be an advocate for those valuable services in the community. People appreciate it and, when asked in the right manner, they do want to give.

I do understand what you're referring to when you say the point of begging because, until you've got it in your own head that it's an appropriate thing to do, it may be difficult. A friend of mine who is the executive director of L'Arche, a wonderful organization in Wolfville, she sent me a letter and in essence she was encouraging contributions at the end of the year. I felt that she was being too submissive in her letter, that she should be proud of the service they were providing, so I called her up and said you need not apologize, of course I would like to contribute to L'Arche. It's an honour to be asked to do so and if asked properly, a lot of other people - and I suspect that you would be one of them - would be happy to do so for a like organization in your community.

Again, this is a chance as well for the transition houses to augment the service delivery, because we do fund the fundamentals. The member might or might not be aware that on April 1, 1998, the province uploaded the cost of the transition houses and the men's treatment centres. Previously, as I understand it, the province funded only 75 per cent and the municipalities were supposed to fund the balance, and you mentioned per diem and other methods they could do this by, but in actual fact the level of commitment from the various municipalities did vary across the province.

Using that as a barometer of the support for the community, we uploaded the entire amount. So if the municipality wanted to fund them at 103 per cent - which was the case, I think, with one of them - in actual fact that then became their annual operating grant. Last year we added 9.3 per cent to that for a wage increment for the staff. I think that we've been more than supportive of transition houses and men's treatment centres. With regard to the women's centres, again the federal government was walking away from them and on seven occasions we have stepped in there and we've made it part of our annual operating budget

[Page 444]

to the tune of $700,000. I think these are very significant commitments on the part of the province.

You brought up the question of a maximum of two years post-secondary education for clients on employment support and income assistance. Implicitly in your comments you recognize that we do support clients to go to community college, to get them up to a level where they can have some sort of professional career. The community college, which is something that you know this government is investing millions of dollars in with its expansion because that is an area where there is a tremendous demand for the graduates, and a growing demand, and I think a lot of the future is going to emanate from the graduates of the community college, or at least a lot of the future job demands, there is a recognition there that we will take our clients and we'll work with them, we'll help them get their senior matriculation and then we'll support them beyond that.

In conjunction with Human Resources Development Canada or their successor departments who will pay the tuition for the community college, we pick up the room and board and other living expenses, which is the lion's share of it. But, again, where I can be critical many times of the federal government for some of their programs where they start things and then abandon them, I want to compliment them here for the working relationship that we have with them in working with social assistance clients and trying to put them through educational programs that give them that start, to bring them up to a level where if, after going out and starting that job, they then would be in a position where, like everybody else, they could then apply for university, and take out the student loans.

[12:00 noon]

Yesterday, in Question Period, this question came up again on the floor, or maybe it was Wednesday, and I made reference to an example of a single parent with two children, and by the time you get $6,000 in for the National Child Tax Benefit, if they apply for public housing, that could easily be an $8,000-a-year benefit; subsidized childcare for two children, you're looking at approximately an $8,000 value there; plus you've got an interest-deferred student loan, $10,000 - actually over $10,000 because that's an income-tested program. So you've got $22,000 in a direct grant to support that family unit so that the parent can go to university. That's a substantial investment on the part of both the federal and the provincial governments and, indeed, the municipal governments because through the affordable housing, the public housing, the municipalities pay about one-eighth of the cost of the deficit - they make a contribution as well to public housing, be it a smaller one, but still an important one.

So there are significant supports that are there for single parents who wish to go to university and, in addition to that, should they not be able to get employment between their semesters, the end and the start of the new year, they could possibly qualify to get their room and board covered through social assistance again. So it's not that they're cut off for sure, it's just during the time when their student loan is not only supposed to cover their tuition,

[Page 445]

but also the parents' room and board. So I would suggest that we do make a very significant investment in single parents, or it is available to them.

I would also like to point out that if we were to say that it is appropriate to cover the room and board, because that's what we're talking about, it's the ongoing costs of the client, not the children - because the children still get the National Child Tax Benefit - we stopped that practice in Nova Scotia. We are one of the provinces that has stopped that practice. That still flows through to support the child for food and clothing, but what in essence you're suggesting is that the food and shelter components, which are covered in the student loan, should continue and allow them to stay on social assistance.

To that you've got to answer the question - maybe you have a son or a daughter who's interested in going to university some day. I'm not sure if you have children, I suspect you do, and I don't know whether they're of university age yet, but if that was the case, if they're working three summer jobs and part of that is not only to cover the tuition, but the food and shelter costs of going to university, is it right that they should have to work three jobs in the summer to raise that same sum of money and somebody else, by virtue of the fact that they're on a provincial program, should get it for free? I mean, that's the question: If you do it for one, should we not be doing it for everyone?

MS. MORE: Well, you raised a number of points, I'm not going to respond to all of them, but even the two-year cut-off for community colleges forces clients on social assistance to go into the programs that pay lower wages when they come out. There are a lot of three-year programs that these people are not eligible for because they're three years rather than two.

It's a huge issue. You compared it to other university children - and I appreciate the compliment that I might have university-aged children, actually my children are much older than that, but thank you. I think we have a responsibility to be taking a longer-term look at the people we're trying to encourage to become self-sufficient and independent through the programs of the Community Services Department. I really think that this one, what we're doing is forcing people to stay on social assistance basically for the sake of the family income, or to take a short-term educational program that will then probably force them to come back into the cycle of dependence on social assistance. But I realize I only have about 10 minutes left and I want to move on to another area of concern, and that's Employment Support and Income Assistance.

According to the impact report, which I think you are familiar with, it was produced by the Community Advocates Network in partnership with the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers last year- this particular program, Employment Support and Income Assistance, doesn't provide enough money for daily necessities. The rates are lower than the family benefits under the former two-tiered system that you referred to earlier, and the shelter rate of $225 for a single, employable person is actually 30 per cent less than the previous rate.

[Page 446]

Even your business plan from last year recognized that vacancy rates are down in metro and rents are up, so increasing numbers of Employment Support and Income Assistance clients cannot find safe, affordable, or appropriate housing. It's resulting in a higher percentage of their income being used for rents and that's often coming out of their food budget. So I'm wondering why the department is not adjusting its rates to help with this situation and how are recipients expected to cover actual costs of basic food, clothing, personal care, shelter, food, regular dental and eye care - I understand emergency treatment is covered - school supplies, et cetera?

MR. MORSE: Honourable member, I share your passion in this area and it's something that we have been discussing for some months now prior to the creation of the budget, but before I delve into the adequacy of the social assistance rates, the Employment Support and Income Assistance rates, I would like to point out with regard to the previous subject - and you were talking about employment support, the other half of the program - is that before August 1, 2001, in essence the employment support component of the budget was for all intents and purposes non-existent, and this year we're projecting something like $16 million being invested in that area, just depending on how you want to account for it, but if you look on Page 411, the first three lines are all employment support, and I think that even if you discount the head office contribution, which is still a very legitimate contribution because that's where policy and other things emanate from, that is a very progressive step in assisting our clients towards a career.

There are many other things besides education that comes under that and, as the member would be aware, the employment support counsellor works with not only the client, but in some cases with the employers, and they deal with the schools in the local area to assist that client in reaching his or her potential. So I think that implicitly in your comments, you agree with the approach that there should be more employment support and, in fact, there's dramatically more today than what was there just some three year's ago.

With regard to the adequacy of the rates, the basic personal allowance is $180, as the member would be aware. I'm not very happy with that number and I brought it forward to my colleagues, and I made some arguments that it should be larger. I understand that it has been stuck there for something like 10 years and the honourable member, I know, will be pleased to hear that there is a very modest amount which I want to kick in on October 1^st, a $4 adjustment to everybody's basic personal allowance. It's not a tremendous amount. I would rather do it August 1^st than just have it as a $2 spread over the year, because I want to have the forward-going amount into the next year pegged at $184, and then we'll continue to work on that to make sure that there is some acknowledgement about addressing the cost of living.

You brought up legitimate arguments about shelter costs in some parts of the province where the rental market is somewhat hotter - it's not confined just to HRM - Wolfville and Antigonish also have the same problem. There we are trying to deal with the question of

[Page 447]

differential shelter allowances across the province. Why should somebody in Guysborough have a different shelter allowance than somebody living in HRM? I guess we're trying to overcome that philosophical challenge to get to what you're referring to.

Of the some 32,000 cases that we still have with Community Services, about 12,000 of them are at their maximum shelter allowance. Implicit in that, it means that 20,000 are not using their maximum shelter allowance. That's where we are there, but I do agree that there is a challenge. It is something I've directed my department to look into and to please come forward with a recommendation.

There are other points that you made in terms of where social assistance recipients are today vis-à-vis under the former municipal social assistance programs and the family benefits programs. Those people who would have been negatively impacted by the new program were grandfathered at their own old rates, so your argument would only apply to new clients, not former clients, and that grandfathering remains in place. But it should also be pointed out, in fairness, that some of those who were on the old rates are doing dramatically better under the new program. Again, going back to my opening statement, we are spending just as much today, basically, in employment support and income assistance as we were a few years ago, even though there are 16 per cent fewer clients. So the clients who remain are sharing the same budget. I think that's a very progressive reflection on the work of this government and this department.

MS. MORE: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Minister, but I think some of the reports from your own department suggest the core group of people remaining on income assistance are ones facing complex multiple problems. Their needs are probably much higher than the average needs spread out over perhaps even three or four years ago, because you've been able to move a lot of people from social assistance over to the employment support side and, as you have indicated, many of them have been able to go on to become productive residents.

Just referring back briefly to the adequacy of the rates - you're probably aware because I asked this question in the House, I believe, last Fall - the Metro Food Bank Society of Nova Scotia put out a press release in October of last year indicating there had been an increase in food bank clients in Nova Scotia by 9.9 per cent over the year before. The total since 1997 has been an increase of over 25 per cent. These figures are the result of a study done by what's called Hunger Count. Every province except Manitoba has actually had more people turning to food banks for assistance over the past year. I haven't been able to get the figures, but I would suspect a fair percentage of the people going to the food banks across Nova Scotia are people also receiving social assistance payments.

[Page 448]

I think it's pretty desperate when the government can't even provide a basic level of care to the most-needy residents of this province. I do encourage you to continue to add to the daily rates. Certainly I'm not sure how far $4 is going to go with the increase in costs, but I hope you look at that very seriously over the coming year.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I guess I want to start off by looking at the Budget Address, and in looking at the Budget Address we learned that the government is looking at increasing the budget of the department by a little over $27 million this year. With this increase in the budget of the department, they're now looking at $694 million.

[12:15 p.m.]

Looking at Page 25 of the budget that was delivered here roughly two weeks ago, the government, the Minister of Finance, announced that they would be increasing the personal allowance for people on income assistance at a cost of $1 million starting in October. Then the government goes further indicating they're looking at increasing this amount in next year's budget, in 2005-06, by an extra $2 million.

I guess I'll start off by asking the minister: If the personal allowance set right now at $180 - is that a province-wide policy, that everyone on income assistance is receiving $180?

MR. MORSE: That is the provincial rate for the basic personal allowance right across the province, yes.

MR. GAUDET: Again, maybe the minister could indicate first of all the personal allowance, as I understand, it covers food for a month for that individual, and covers clothing. I guess what I'm trying to find out from the minister is, first, exactly what is this personal allowance is supposed to cover within that 30-day period?

MR. MORSE: Would the honourable member like a breakdown as to the amounts that are supposed to be assigned to the various components?

Actually, the $4 amount that I've referenced with the previous speaker brings the food component up to $135, which is the market value measure for what was to be a healthy diet. I find it hard to comprehend that one can do that for $135, but that was done by an independent group that came up with that number. The differential was $4, so bringing that forward as a case for increasing the basic person allowance, that's where the $4 came from.

[Page 449]

The balance is for clothing and other personal effects. If the honourable member would allow me to indulge just a little bit on the previous member's closing comments, because they tie in very much with his own, she made reference to the growing use of food banks, which is a concern. I would tell both honourable members and I would tell all Nova Scotians that the Premier actually came to me and asked if there was something we could do to assist the food banks. Actually the honourable members would probably both know that what the food banks wanted us to do was increase the basic personal allowance, and it has been done.

MR. GAUDET: Again, maybe the minister could give us some type of indication or a breakdown. Starting this October, the department is looking at investing an additional $1 million into increasing personal allowances. The minister makes reference to $4 - I don't know what he's talking about - maybe when the minister takes the floor again he could elaborate, first of all, where the department is looking at spending this $1 million increase, and secondly, exactly how much more money will be going into the personal allowance. We know right now, province-wide, we're looking at $180, so is the department looking at increasing that by $4, to $184, to individuals? Maybe the minister could clarify exactly what the department's looking at doing.

MR. MORSE: Thank you honourable member. It's interesting that you ask that question, because when I was asking staff about the cost of increasing the basic personal allowance a lot of the questions that you brought up were also raised by staff. We had a little bit of a discussion and this is where we ended up with the extra $1 million to increase all adult social assistance recipients' monthly budget by, in essence, $4; every adult on social assistance will get another $4 effective October 1, 2004.

Children are covered under the National Child Benefit. There had been substantial increases for low-income families early on in our mandate through the Nova Scotia Child Benefit Supplement and more recently with the annual increases in the federal component which, with the elimination of the clawback, now flow through to the children. This is addressing our adult clients and the increase in the National Child Benefit flows through to address the cost of living for their children.

With regard to the amount of the $4, currently we are coming in at $131 and I have been advised by this independent organization that $135 is the right amount. I took the $1 million and I wanted to start it on October 1^st instead of putting $2 a month right throughout the year - I wanted to increase the threshold, so that going into the next year that triggered the $2 million in the following year.

MR. GAUDET: Madam Chairman, again to the minister. He indicated that the personal allowance will be going up by $4. I guess what I'm trying to find out - he did make reference to adults who are currently on income assistance, and maybe the minister could

[Page 450]

indicate how many adults are currently in the program, and if we are providing a $4 increase starting October, will that basically include the $1 million the government announced earlier?

MR. MORSE: I thank the honourable member for his question. If he would accept 32,800 as the approximate caseload today - and we are checking to see if we can get the actual number of adults in that number - clearly some cases may represent more than one person in the family unit. We're digging to see if we can get the adult caseload.

MR. GAUDET: Again, as I understand it, everyone on income assistance, starting in October, will be receiving $4 more, is that correct?

MR. MORSE: Yes.

MR. GAUDET: The minister indicates that this $135, or $4 increase, is the right amount. Could the minister indicate who - is it department staff, is it an independent agency - has indicated that $135 a month for food is the right amount? I missed out earlier when the minister was talking about this $4 increase, so I'm trying to understand the background - where this $4 came from, who proposed it.

MR. MORSE: I thank the honourable member for the question; a very reasonable question. The $135 is referred to as the market value measure, and I'm asking staff to please come up with the name of this national organization that did the studies that reached that number.

MR. GAUDET: Looking at the market value the minister makes reference to, the $4 increase a month, how many cents more a day?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirteen.

MR. GAUDET: I think it would even be better to see what exactly these people are supposed to be living on or eating. I would be interested in looking at the menu or the food choices that are being suggested for these 32,800 Nova Scotians. I'm curious if the minister has any details on what the department is suggesting for these people to live on in the run of a month with $135 to spend on food. I'm sure all members of this House hear all the time from people on income assistance calling their MLA. They don't have enough, they need more. I know many, many different charity organizations and many service groups - in our area I was talking with the past president of the Meteghan Lions Club just last weekend and he indicated that from November to the end of March they spent over $30,000 helping individuals who are on income assistance for oil, for all kinds of special requests.

When I hear that the department is looking at providing an increase of 13 cents a day to over 32,000 Nova Scotians, again I would like the minister to - maybe he has the information where this $4 increase a month, the 13 cents a day increase, what it's supposed

[Page 451]

to look after - maybe the minister could provide the committee with some information on that, please.

MR. MORSE: Again I thank the member opposite and I would make reference to my opening comments that I in no way was suggesting that $4 was a huge increase in the basic personal allowance, but I am suggesting that is about the first one in 10 years. Therefore it's welcome and it's something that I hope becomes part of the annual review of the department's budget.

With regard to where it came from, again it did not come from the Department of Community Services. It's a market value measure. I'm going to get the name of the national organization. What they did is that they had people do grocery shopping, try to come together with healthy diets and cooking and through, I would say, having a great deal of ability, somehow or other they were able to produce a healthy diet for $135 a month.

Again, I felt when this was announced this would possibly be the reaction. I cautioned my Cabinet colleagues that this is something for which we would probably be criticized, for even though for the first time in 10 years we are increasing the basic personal allowance, no matter what the amount of the increase we knew it would attract criticism, and I'm willing to accept that criticism.

MR. GAUDET: We're all aware of some individuals who are on special diets. I'm just curious, in order to help these individuals because of illness or personal situations where some of these individuals are on special diets - I guess what I'm trying to find out is earlier I had asked the minister if there were exceptions to the $180 personal allowance - I know of a few in my area who are on special diets, so is that additional money that's provided? The first question - is there additional money provided to these individuals for special diets and if so, where does the money come from?

MR. MORSE: Thank you honourable member. The honourable member is quite right. The basic personal allowance is only one component of the budget that is made up for social assistance clients. In there there is shelter and we talked about some of the return to work programs that are in place - things like up to $400 a month for child care, $150 a month for transportation, and we'll assist people if they need a pair of gloves, a hard hat, or work boots to go back to work. Now we've starting to get into the special needs aspect which could be a pair of glasses, it might be a hearing aid, and indeed as the member points out there is also consideration for people who need special diets - diabetics would be a classic example, or maybe someone who has a heart condition - available to augment their budgets. The member is absolutely right, it is not just $180, or soon to be $184 - that is the basic amount and from that there are other additions.

Again, I point out that despite the fact that there are 16 per cent fewer people on social assistance today than there were three years ago, we are still putting approximately the

[Page 452]

same amount into the program, so that amount is being shared out amongst a smaller client base, and that would account for some of the increase, the special needs.

[12:30 p.m.]

MR. GAUDET: Again, looking at the special needs, and I'm just trying to get a better understanding with regard to these personal or special needs that some individuals may have. I'm just trying to understand the process, whether it's a special diet, glasses, dental work, or for individuals to come to Halifax to see a specialist - I'm trying to find out the process. The individual certainly will contact the caseworker, the caseworker from there will take the information, and I'm trying to find out who decides - if it's the caseworker, the supervisor, the director, or the minister. Maybe the minister could elaborate in terms of how a special need gets approved.

MR. MORSE: Thank you, honourable member. That would be in conjunction with the caseworker as the first line of contact with the client and from there, if it's beyond the caseworker's authority to approve, it would go to the supervisor.

MR. GAUDET: Okay. Many times, Madam Chairman - and I'm quite sure that you've probably encountered a few of these requests as well - some individuals have gone through their caseworker for a special request - unfortunately, they get denied. As I understand, they have a choice to appeal that decision. I haven't even heard from one individual who has gone through an appeal and won that appeal, so either it's a waste of time, either it's just a format to try to hide behind some kind of policy for the caseworker, the supervisor, or the department when these special requests come forward. Again, understanding part of the process that the caseworker will either approve, if she doesn't have the approval, she will seek approval from a supervisor or someone else. I guess what I'm trying to find out in terms of the appeal process, could the minister indicate exactly what the process does involve for an individual who would like to appeal a decision? How does one go about doing it?

MR. MORSE: Yes, thank you, honourable member. Basically, when a client or an applicant feels that they have not been treated fairly by the caseworker, they have a chance to request an administrative review of the decision. If they're not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative review, they can request to make an appeal. We try to be very accommodating - sometimes those who are appealing do not have perhaps some of the things that we take for granted in terms of their ability to write a letter and we certainly bend over backwards to try to accommodate them.

Honourable member, I'm going to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of your questioning by asking my communications director if she could please arrange to have 52 copies of our new Employment Support and Income Assistance Program brochure passed around. This is for your office, and if you need, there are more copies to give out to

[Page 453]

constituents. Just recently through the inclusion initiative led by Charlie MacDonald, with a lot of consultation we came up with this pamphlet. I think you'll find it's most helpful. Indeed, a lot of the information that you're asking for is also on the Web site. For instance, the special diet, it actually goes up to $150 a month. The information is there, but I hope this is welcomed by all MLAs. Cathy, if you could please make those arrangements.

MR. GAUDET: I want to thank the minister for offering that information. I'm quite sure it will be helpful.

I want to get back to the Budget Speech, on Page 25. The Minister of Finance indicated again on the personal allowance for welfare recipients that this investment will increase to $2 million in next year's budget, in 2005-06. Could the minister give us a breakdown of what they anticipate this $2 million will do? Will all of this $2 million be invested in personal allowance? I guess I'm just trying to get a sense and be better informed and to understand better what exactly people have to look forward to in next year's budget.

MR. MORSE: If the honourable member would consider that $1 million covers six months, therefore in order to do the same increase in the basic personal allowance for a full year it would require twice the same amount of money, assuming the same number of cases. But, honourable member, unless the cost of living is zero in the coming year, I can assure you that we'll be looking at that again during the budget deliberations. I'm not accepting that $184 will necessarily be the rate for next year, but I would like to think it's a guaranteed minimum for 2005-06.

MR. GAUDET: So actually this increase, as being proposed in next year's budget, is just to continue providing that 13 cents a day increase to these individuals in the following year.

Again, on the income assistance, I have an individual from home who currently is receiving $384 a month - just try to imagine living on $384 a month. This individual calls practically every week. We have been sending letters to the minister with regard to his allowance. Now, $384 - this guy is living in a low rental, he's paying $204, personal allowance is $180 - $384 for a month. Every quarter he gets an additional $51.25 GST. Trying to live on $384 a month - $204 goes for his rent, so technically he's left with $180.

Now, where I'm going with this, I'm trying to find out - for the last little while this individual has needed some dental work. As I understand it, the dental policy for the department has been that the department, once this special need is approved, will pay 80 per cent of the cost and the individual has to pay 20 per cent. Well, again, coming back to $384, there's $204 taken automatically off his benefits for his rent, so he's got $180 for the month to buy his food, clothing, all his personal needs, and then he is expected to find 20 per cent to cough up for his dental work. My question to the minister is - I'm just trying to find out where this individual, what's expected from him, where he needs to look for 20 per cent to

[Page 454]

pick up the cost for his dental work? Maybe the minister could provide us with some information on this. This is the department's policy as I understand it - 80 per cent once it's approved the department will pick up, and the individual is left with 20 per cent of the cost.

In a $384-a-month budget, where this individual needs to look beats me. Unfortunately, the work is being put off and put off, so maybe the minister could indicate to me - so I'll have an answer for this individual the next time he calls - where he can find this extra 20 per cent in his monthly allowance to cough up for his dental work.

MR. MORSE: Madam Chairman, first of all, I think to be fair the honourable member would agree that because his constituent is in public housing in actual fact the value of that shelter component is considerably more than the $204. I think that most people who would probably have that level of accommodation would be spending several hundred dollars more per month in order to get the same quality of accommodation. To say that his total cheque is $384 is perhaps not recognizing that he's getting a $400 a month benefit from being in public housing, or perhaps more. What the honourable member does articulate quite well is that after covering his shelter costs he is left with a basic personal allowance of $180, and that is quite so and that is what's going up by a modest amount on October 1^st.

Your specific question as it pertains to dental is very much analogous to the increase in the $4 in the basic personal allowance, because prior to August 1, 2001, basically the province was paying virtually nothing for dental. In this past year we spent about $3 million through the Quickcard which is the organization that actually manages the dental plan. So we've gone from virtually nothing to $3 million, but that does not solve your constituent's challenge; I acknowledge that.

I would tell the honourable member that some dentists will waive the 20 per cent. Some dentists will, in fact, give a certain amount of time per week for those who are unable to pay for their dental services. Some dentists reasonably, they want their 20 per cent, they're busy. I just say that the honourable member makes a good point. We made significant progress in there from basically zero to $3 million in three years. It is a significant increase in the amount that goes to dental, but it certainly does not solve everybody's dental problems by any stretch of the imagination. Like increasing the basic personal allowance by $4, it comes as no surprise that we're being criticized for moving in the right direction, but it will always be an argument as to did we go far enough. I appreciate the member's intervention on the behalf of his constituent.

MR. GAUDET: Madam Chairman, again to the minister. This individual has gone through the first round of dental work. The dentist was certainly very helpful, understood, and tried to help this individual. Certainly it took a long time for this individual to pay the dentist his 20 per cent. The next time around the dentist told this individual, I'm sorry, we've tried this once. I had to wait a long time to get my 20 per cent. No, thank you, I'm not interested, go see someone else. This individual has no transportation; there's no public transportation

[Page 455]

in Clare. So this individual, unfortunately, is pretty well restricted to the dentist in the area. Again, when he contacted his dentist to see if he could make some arrangements to have some further dental work done, unfortunately - we certainly understand where the dentist is coming from, and the difficulties this individual is having along the way.

I'm bringing this to the minister's attention. Surely there has to be some way, a process to allow some special consideration - the fact that there are special needs that are being submitted through caseworkers to their supervisors. I guess for this individual's sake, there are special cases that need special consideration, so I'm asking the minister to bring it back to his department. I'm quite sure that somehow, somewhere, they should be able to provide some special consideration for this type of situation.

[12:45 p.m.]

I want to move on to another question that was raised. It's language barrier. Through you, Madam Chairman, to the minister. In the Digby County Community Services office we have caseworkers, we have bilingual caseworkers and we have unilingual caseworkers. I know recently, actually just two weeks ago, and I knew that we would have the opportunity to raise this in the House - I indicated that to this individual, earlier he had a caseworker that he could communicate with, was French, and he had no problem communicating, but the fact that this individual has been reassigned somewhere else in the county, looking after another area of the county, this individual was left with a new caseworker who was English. Of course this individual was very upset, very frustrated, was yelling, was screaming - it was two weeks ago when I was over to visit this individual.

I was listening to the story and at the same time I was trying to understand. Trying to explain your situation to a caseworker in a foreign language that you're not comfortable with, in a foreign language that you have a hard time to communicate in, but yet this individual somehow is able to try to establish some type of relationship that's practically, well it's just impossible before it all starts.

I guess what I'm looking for is some direction from this minister. It's certainly something that I will be spending a little more attention on. This is the first time that it has been raised, to my knowledge. Previously, as I have indicated, Madam Chairman, we had caseworkers who were bilingual. This problem never came up since I've been in this job in the last 11 years, the fact that some individual in the department who was looking after individuals from my area has been now reassigned somewhere else within that office. Naturally the supervisor is trying to rearrange the staff to try to cover and provide that service, but unfortunately this is very upsetting for this individual, and I suspect if it's happening to one, probably it's happening to more individuals from my area who have difficulty speaking English. Then, at the same time, on a province-wide scale, chances are this could be happening in other Acadian communities.

[Page 456]

I'm asking the minister if he's willing to take it back to his department and raise this concern. I know it's not going to happen overnight, but I want to bring the minister's attention to this problem. I would like to ask the minister to bring this concern back to his department and look into it and, hopefully, maybe some arrangements can be worked out to try to provide a service to these individuals who are uncomfortable, unable to communicate in English to their caseworker.

I'll take my seat and give the minister an opportunity to respond, please.

MR. MORSE: Thank you, honourable member, and in fact this has been brought to my attention on previous occasions, not only in the District of Clare, but clearly Argyle, Cheticamp, and many other Acadian communities in the province. In fact, we are looking at making sure that service can be made available, where numbers warrant, in a person's mother tongue. In essence, what we're talking about is addressing the needs of our Acadian citizens. I would appreciate it if the member opposite would perhaps provide the name of that constituent to George Hudson afterward. George has taken a note and I've asked him to please make sure that that concern is relayed back to the office, because that is a very legitimate concern and it is a service that should be available in Acadian communities in French.

Honourable member, you had asked earlier about the source of the market basket measure, and you were asking about where we came up with $135, and in fact it was developed by Human Resources Development Canada, and they contracted it out to Statistics Canada to gather the information, so it's federal.

MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the minister for his commitment to look into this and, yes, I will provide the minister with the name of the individual.

I'm going to be sharing my time with my colleague for Cape Breton West, but before I move off, I want to go back to the Income Assistance Payments, Supplementary Detail, Page 4.11., 2003-04, $223 million was spent, or was actually the estimate, and we know by the forecast of last year, $227 million was spent, so we're looking at practically a $4 million increase. Could the minister indicate why an additional $4 million was spent and then I guess my second part to that question is looking at the estimate for this current year - the budget is at $224 million, we know that the personal allowances are going up a million, so I anticipate that's the $1 million increase from last year to this year, but then I'm looking at the actual amount that was spent last year, $227 million, so could the minister indicate to us what brought this additional $4 million in expenses?

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member opposite for his questions. It's an appropriate question to be asking in the estimates. Basically the budget is based on a forecast of a certain caseload, and while we were close to the forecast, the numbers did not drop quite as much as we thought they would and, accordingly, that's where the extra $4 million comes

[Page 457]

from. We do expect a very marginal drop in the numbers again in 2004-05, but I think the honourable member perhaps had made the point earlier on that the core that's left in the 32,000 people who are still on Community Services, a great number of them are, basically on long-term disability and their opportunity for employment is curtailed as such, and so it becomes more difficult to make further progress in reducing that number. I think it's fair to say that there are always going to be some people in transition and about 50 per cent of that number would account for that. So it all has to do with anticipated caseloads.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I'd like to thank the member for Clare for his questioning this afternoon, and now at this time I'd like to recognize the member for Cape Breton West, still from the Liberal caucus. Member, you have approximately 21 minutes left in your turn and then we're going to switch to the NDP caucus, which at that time will have four minutes before the time is finished in estimates for today.

The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, just a few questions. With regard to the federal-provincial housing agreement, the minister indicated in the House a little more than a week ago that a lot of exciting things were happening in housing, and he went on to say about the new housing units that were signed into agreement. As I understand it, the total number of housing units that have been signed to date is 21. Is that correct, or is the number higher?

MR. MORSE: Yes, I thank the honourable member for pointing that out. We've had a fair amount of discussion already on that in the estimates in terms of the targets and the time frame, the rollout and what needed to be done to get to the stage where we started putting out the requests for proposals and the various ways that we're going to invest that $37.26 million.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't answer my question. How many have been signed into the agreement - out of the 1,400 so far - have been either started or signed, committed to be built?

MR. MORSE: The specific number is fluid because, as the member would be aware, there was a Home Preservation Program that we announced at the end of the year and by the end of the year there were some 26 homes that qualified for this and, in fact, the average amount going to each home was close to $40,000. If you take that, you take the 15 that are built and now occupied in Middleton, you take the six that are under construction in Creighton-Gerrish, those are what was done as of March 31^st. I'm not able to answer your question today because the Home Preservation Program is an ongoing program.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, in total what the minister has just indicated is that 3.3 per cent of the 1,400 homes have been constructed. Even if you wanted to expand

[Page 458]

into the home preservation terminology that you used or whatever, because you have 47 out of 1,400, that's about 3.3 per cent. At this rate, the minister and the government would have to construct somewhere close to 40 units a month for the remainder of the agreement. Does the minister realistically believe that he's going to achieve that goal?

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, in actual fact, yes, we're very conscious of the timelines and I will reiterate our commitment that we will invest all the monies that are required to fully exhaust the $18.63 million of matching federal monies by the cut-off date of March 31, 2006, and the monies actually have to be expended by March 31, 2007. This year we're anticipating $7,550,000 to go into the program and the balance will follow in the subsequent years. Of course, we've already put several million into the program, so we're starting to make progress.

MR. MACKINNON: The minister is indicating he's confident he's going to spend the $7.5 million this year. Where will those units be constructed?

MR. MORSE: Again, the program is not all for the construction of rental housing. We have four components. We have the home ownership in urban areas of revitalization and that's the Creighton-Gerrish, a very small part of the program, but it's an important part, areas where we want to encourage some home ownership and to provide that mix that creates a healthy community. In addition to that, we have the Home Preservation Program and that's for the amount that exceeds the amount of the $16,000 for the Rural Residential Assistance Program. That's what I was referencing earlier and indeed some of these repair bills are coming in very high. Basically that housing stock would have been lost to the province and to the owner unless those investments were made, and putting the $1,600 in under RRAP would have just not done the job.

In addition to that, we have the Rental Preservation Program, which actually accounts for 25 per cent of the $37.26 million, and in essence there we're talking about addressing the poor condition of rental units, and I think that I leave that to the member's imagination - you hear some stories that really need attention. I know that here in the city we hear some pretty gripping stores, and it's a concern I know of all municipalities to maintain a certain level of quality for tenants.

[1:00 p.m.]

Fully half of the program is going to be going into more affordable rental housing, and that is what the member, I think, is referring to with the recent call for proposals. That money should be allocated, approximately according to the population across the province. We did a study to determine the areas of need, and when you say need, need is not a homogeneous thing. In Cape Breton, for instance, there's a desperate need for more non-elderly single units; in the city, there's a need for more family units. So we've tried to target where those monies should go, and we look forward to the response to the request for proposals. From that we

[Page 459]

will be able to determine, through the assistance of some committees that are put together to judge those proposals, to make recommendations.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, it's a question I've asked other ministers in their estimates. You have a number of employees in the Department of Community Services. Obviously the issue of releasing names is for future debate, however my question to the minister is, how many employees in your department have received performance bonuses in the last year?

MR. MORSE: We will obtain that number for the honourable member. The honourable member knows that we're not able to divulge the names of the employees, other than the very senior ones, the deputy, the assistant deputy and my EA, assuming that they are on the list, which I think they are.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, releasing the names will be a debate for a future day. However, just shifting the focus slightly, your department is responsible for the regional housing authorities. Is there any policy change contemplated, organizational-wise or administratively, in terms of these regional housing authorities across the province coming under closer scrutiny or management from the department, is there going to be any restructuring or realignment in that focus?

MR. MORSE: There's no change in the anticipated management structure. They report to the regional directors who report to the regional administrators. So it will be the same management structure in place.

MR. MACKINNON: Who is the overall administrator or person in charge, from the department, of these regional housing authorities? Who's the person in charge?

MR. MORSE: The senior director in charge of ESAA and Housing Services is Harold Dillon. You would know Harold as the former Executive Director of the Metro Housing Authority.

MR. MACKINNON: In the Cape Breton region, I understand there's a considerable vacancy rate in many of the seniors' housing units and, indeed, some of the public housing units as well. Would the minister please confirm as to what the vacancy rate is in the Cape Breton region? You could do it name by name or just give me a collective, but I would like to get an overview of that.

MR. MORSE: We would be happy to try to obtain those numbers. What the member makes reference to is that some of the units are much sought after and there are waiting lists, indeed long waiting lists for some. Others, which by virtue of maybe their location or condition or for whatever reason, are not so sought after; in fact there can be vacancy problems there. The member for Halifax Atlantic was making reference, a couple of weeks

[Page 460]

ago, to the Greystone Housing Authority Development or the Greystone community, 252 units. The honourable member might be interested to know that it was only a couple of years ago that it was hard to attract tenants there, and we had 30 or 40 vacancies. Due to initiatives and investments made by the Metro Regional Housing Authority, that has now reversed itself and there's a small waiting list.

I think what the member is getting at is that just because it's public housing it does not mean that it's a homogeneous product that everybody wants to get into right across the board. It varies between the various developments.

MR. MACKINNON: How much money is committed by the department to do repairs to these public housing units in the Cape Breton region this year?

MR. MORSE: I do not have it broken down into regions, but I can give him a global number and we will endeavour to get the breakdown. Maybe I could give the global number, and we will endeavour to get you the Cape Breton number. For maintenance, $11,907,500; for modernization and improvements, $5,570,600. So if you would add those two together, you would get an idea of the size of the global budget.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I understand there's a considerable waiting list for seniors who live in their homes applying for emergency assistance. Can the minister confirm, region by region, what the backlog or the waiting list is? How many were on the waiting list for each of those regions in the past year?

MR. MORSE: We would be pleased to try to obtain those numbers for the honourable member. The housing repairs programs are in considerable demand. Clearly, the emergency programs should have a shorter waiting list, but in general, for the housing repairs programs, RRAP, you're looking at about a year's waiting list - unless it's an emergency, in which case they do try to accommodate those situations.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, my colleague asked, a little earlier, with regard to the increase in the food allowance. I believe it was indicated $4 a month, is that correct? That amounts to 13.3 cents a day or food. That's on top of the daily allowance which, I believe, was less than $1, am I correct on that? How much was the daily allowance prior to the 13.3 cents-a-day increase?

MR. MORSE: The basic personal allowance is $180, of which, currently, $131 is for diet, for food. You can do your own math, depending on the length of the month.

MR. MACKINNON: That's for one person. What's the situation - is it increased incrementally, $130 a month, for every person in the home over and above the one? Is that correct?

[Page 461]

MR. MORSE: The $4-a-month increase is going to take effect for every adult on Community Services, effective October 1, 2004. The children would be receiving the National Child Benefit, which amounts to something over $250 a month, which in essence does the same thing as the basic personal allowance except it's for the children. As the honourable member would be aware, when we stopped the clawback, that now in essence goes to fully provide for the food and clothing of the children.

MR. MACKINNON: It's an issue that has been raised by the member for Dartmouth South with regard to assisting individuals on social assistance going to upgrade their education. At one time the department would fund up to three years, so as to allow individuals to receive a university education. Now that's been cut back, and they're forcing people on Community Services benefit to go to community college. I realize there's been considerable concern by government that too many individuals in the province in general have been going to university and not enough to the community college, and they're looking at labour market issues and contemplating a shortage of certain trades and vocational training jobs over the next 20 years. Is that the underlying reason why the department has decided not to allow Community Services recipients the three-year programs like they used to, and now only allow two years?

MR. MORSE: The purpose of this is try to assist Community Services clients to have a bit of a leg up, to level the playing field with everybody else who might want to attend university. By doing this, it allows them to obtain a career - first of all, in many cases, to finish their high school and then to build on that so that they get some sort of career and, if they choose to go beyond that point and go to university, then they have the same opportunity as any other Nova Scotian.

MR. MACKINNON: That's patently untrue, Mr. Chairman, because I can attest to the fact that there's a senior director who works in government, a single mother with two small children, who had the misfortune of being required to depend on Community Services benefits at one time, and if it wasn't for that three-year university program, she wouldn't be where she is today. And the minister is trying to patronize single mothers again, here in the province, by saying they're not good enough to go to university. I think that's absolutely disgraceful for this minister to have such a condescending view of single mothers who are forced to depend on Community Services benefits, saying you take the community college career because we're going to be Big Brother and we're going to look after you. I think that's absolutely disgraceful, especially for a minister, to have that attitude.

Mr. Chairman, I think if the minister wants to do anything good, I guess maybe he should reconsider the policy that's been implemented - under this administration, by the way - for whatever reason, maybe they see it as a cost-cutting measure and, as the point has been made, the end benefit is the government gets its money back, two, three, four times over once an individual is able to get, as the minister would say, "a leg up". Really what the minister is doing is kicking people in the ankle - you're crippling people.

[Page 462]

I guess the question I have is how many people, prior to that change in policy, took advantage of that three-year program within the department? How many people, just in the last year? It doesn't look as if you know the answer, is that correct? I can take it on notice.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, the member asks a historical question that long predates my time as minister, but I would like to get up and point out that the employment support component of the Employment Support and Income Assistance Program, which came into effect on August 1, 2001, has gone from virtually zero to approximately $16 million, that the program is working, the numbers are dropping, and the response has been very positive by many who have taken advantage of this opportunity, and I've had great responses back from the caseworkers - basically this has been a success story.

The $16 million into employment support is a significant investment, and it's not only the fact that they are able to work their way off Community Services, but they are allowed to get a foot in the door to get that career, and from there they're able to build. It's good for the individual, their self-esteem, for their families, it's good for the community, and it's good for the province. This has been a very positive initiative on the part of this government, and I would like to give credit to the former Minister of Community Services.

[1:15 p.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to advise the member that the time has finished for the Liberal caucus questioning for this afternoon, but we'll be able to revisit it on Monday; indeed, Monday will be the appropriate time for that. Thank you for your questions this afternoon.

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid from the NDP caucus. You have approximately three minutes, so let's hear your best question for this afternoon.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Well, I don't know if I'll have any questions this afternoon. I might wait. I'm sure Monday will be another day. But I do want to make a few comments. It's a pleasure for me to rise in the estimates to ask questions of the minister and his staff, especially being Housing Critic for our caucus. Over the last nine months, as a new member, the anticipation, after the election, to see what critic areas you'll receive was there, definitely. I left it open, and made some recommendations and encouraged my Leader to give me some important areas to learn a little more about and, hopefully, be productive, and definitely criticize - if that's the word you want to use - what the government has been doing or hasn't been doing.

Over the last nine months, housing has been a very important issue to many Nova Scotians, especially with the rising costs of rent and mortgages and the increased costs of purchasing a home, especially around here, in HRM, in the city. It's an issue throughout the province. We've heard from every corner of this province, in our caucus, about problems in

[Page 463]

their area of affordable housing, conditions of housing, and the ability to just get a home where they can raise their family.

My questioning, especially on Monday, will pertain a lot around the Affordable Housing Agreement, this agreement that was set up in September 2002, I believe, which I think was signed out at the Airport Hotel. I may be wrong on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no. You're right.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): It's been interesting to see this development. Of course I brought a lot of attention to it over the last little while, in Question Period, to the minister. He's been trying to give me his best answers. There are many answers that need to come out of this, I think, with this agreement.

I think the federal government, when they downloaded to our province, realized that there was a need to get back into social housing and to deliver some extra help to the provinces, to get back to the people of each province. It's been a crisis over the last 10 years, and I don't think it's going away. There will be several questions around that. I hope that we can clarify . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to inform the member that the time is complete for the estimates today.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee do now rise, report considerable progress and beg leave to sit on a future day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved and agreed to.

[1:19 p.m. The committee rose.]