[Page 425]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will now be called to order.
The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. CHUCK PORTER: Mr. Chairman, would you please call the estimates of the Department of Community Services.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue with the estimates of the Department of Community Services.
The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.
MR. STEPHEN MCNEIL: Thank you, and first of all I want to begin on behalf of my constituents of Annapolis to thank the minister and her staff. I want to acknowledge, on behalf of my constituents, the front-line men and women who are in her office in Middleton who, on a day-to-day basis, deal with the reality of what many Nova Scotians are facing and the challenges Nova Scotians are facing, particularly in my riding of Annapolis. I want to commend and compliment you on the staff who are on the front line. It is a very difficult job in the Province of Nova Scotia and they do it day in and day out with the kind of professionalism we would all want to receive as we engage the government of today. I'll start by thanking you for that and you can pass that on to your department. As we acknowledge them on a regular basis in the riding of Annapolis, I'm sure it's the same all across Nova Scotia.
[Page 426]
One of the things I want to begin talking about today is the Poverty Reduction Strategy. As you know, it's been something I've been talking about for a very long time - long before becoming Leader. I know your government accepted a bill we brought in a year ago around the Poverty Reduction Strategy and I noticed in the budget it was announced - a one-line item on Page 20. I wonder if you could lay out for the House just where we are with the strategy. I know it's the end of June when the report comes back to Nova Scotians, and I'm wondering if you could just let us know how far into the process we are and when we can expect to see that report.
HON. JUDY STREATCH: I want to thank my honourable colleague across the way for his kind words for staff. We all certainly do agree that the front-line staff are truly the unsung heros. It's extremely gratifying for me to be able to receive those words on behalf of the department and take them back to the staff. I thank my honourable colleague for those words - I also thank my honourable colleague for his co-operation and his work. We often say that it is politics that we do, but when there are issues it's about people and I know my honourable colleague certainly has made that very clear and I look forward to continuing that level of that relationship with my honourable colleague.
In particular, I want to thank the Leader of the Liberal Party for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Working Group that was legislated in our last sitting. We all recognize and acknowledge poverty is a complex issue - no easy solutions, no easy answers. So it was extremely important that we begin the consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. We did that, we had some very successful consultation meetings held across the province. We certainly embarked on a very successful input via the Internet site as well as the consultations that were held in person, and so we were pleased with the feedback.
As my honourable colleague is well aware, this is a 15- member working group. They encompass a wide range of representatives from government, labour, police, district health authorities, community economic development agencies, women's groups, the disability community, the Black business community, advocates for the homeless, and certainly those who have first-hand experience living in poverty.
As we move forward, we anxiously await their official report. Although, while we await their official strategy, we certainly haven't been standing still - the recommendation for the increase in the minimum wage was one we accepted as a government, as well the 5th consecutive increase for income assistance is certainly being well received, Mr. Chairman, and the advances we've been able to make with the child care dollars, reducing the daily parent fee to $1 a day, increasing the household income level to qualify for subsidy. So, again, we're pleased with those advances and we certainly look forward to the report coming back the end of June.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that. As we were looking at budget estimates, there is not a specific line item for the Poverty Reduction Working Group,
[Page 427]
and I'm wanting to know if recommendations are brought forward on June 30th, where in your budget can we see that there are monies committed to implement some of those programs? You had made reference to a few programs that are being implemented now, and part of the strategy was that the working group would be looking across Canada and other jurisdictions at programs that are working to make sure that low income, in our case low-income Nova Scotians are getting the services that they require and people living in poverty in the Province of Nova Scotia would have an opportunity to move forward. So, if you could answer both of those.
This is a little bit like Question Period so I'm going to get them all in one swipe - if you could answer the one in terms of where is the line item in the budget, and if programs would begin to be rolled out, brought in in June, the end of June, the first of July, and also looking at across other jurisdictions to contrasting programs.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, absolutely, I certainly don't want anyone to misunderstand. The line item is not a specific line item in the budget because we did not want to prejudge, of course, what the working group would come forward with. Having said that, we certainly recognize that should the opportunity arise to be able to allocate resources, as we did with the child care dollars for example, we recognized that would be an initiative which would lead in the right direction, that we certainly anticipate will be part of that working group's report, that the more subsidized child care we can make available for those low-income families the better, and so, as we did within our resources, the reallocation or the allocation within that portfolio would be the way that we would move forward. So, certainly we would anticipate that that will be the case in a wide variety of instances.
As far as the cross-jurisdictional, you know, it never ceases to amaze me what wonderful things are going on across this country. I know that the working group has been pleasantly surprised when they looked at other jurisdictions' official strategies. They've been able to take and compare side by side and say, well, whereas we thought this province - I'll use Newfoundland and Labrador for an example - we thought Newfoundland and Labrador was so much further ahead of Nova Scotia, and when they've taken the strategies and they've put them side by side, they've been able to say, oh, we're doing this or, oh, we're doing that. We didn't realize, we haven't packaged it all under that one umbrella and so as they move forward - and I know they're using other countries' strategies as well because there's no sense reinventing the wheel.
So, certainly as they do that, we've been pleased, pleasantly, in some instances and we recognize that we still have quite a ways to go, Mr. Chairman, and we're committed to seeing that through.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, one of the interesting things that I discovered, over the last four years as MLA for the riding of Annapolis, is how many programs are available to Nova Scotians of all income levels that are just not well advertised. I can honestly believe
[Page 428]
and see how programs are available to Nova Scotians that they don't know are there and access. What are you doing, as part of this group, to make sure that Nova Scotians know what's available? As you quite rightfully stated, Newfoundland and Labrador is being held up as a model on how we deal and create a poverty reduction strategy, but how are we communicating to Nova Scotians if your belief is that we now have done may of the things that they've been doing, and getting credit for, how are we communicating that to Nova Scotians and how are we about to communicate to Nova Scotians? Can you also commit that on June 30th, if recommendations are brought forward, that we will not be taking money out of other line items to implement those programs?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, you know, the entire issue of communication is one that I'm sure every member of this House will admit is frustrating at times. We know, even as members, that there are programs out there and yet actually accessing them and getting that to our constituents can be a challenge. So I recognize my honourable colleague's comment about ensuring that we do deliver the information at the level that it needs to be delivered, and I would offer a couple of suggestions and a couple of commitments that, as we have done in the past, in our department particularly - and I will certainly encourage the other departments to do so as well - we have taken some heat for communicating to Nova Scotians some of the programs that we do offer. But we know that we actually are victims of our success, because our phones were ringing and we had more applicants and more people interested in our housing programs and our child care subsidy programs, et cetera.
So I think a key part of this is that communication piece. I think that needs to be, I'm certainly hoping that it's part of the recommendations that come forward from the working group - how they feel we could best communicate with those who most need this information as well as we have done with our staff, that front-line staff that my colleague referenced earlier. As we have gone through training programs with our front-line staff, I think it's extremely important that we take that ownership, that we ensure they are given the resources, they have those tools in their toolbox to ensure that they are able to deliver that information so the programs and the services can be accessed by those Nova Scotians who need it the most. So certainly I would see the communications plan as a key component to the recommendations coming forward.
Mr. Chairman, to the second question, it would certainly never be my intention to take dollars from well-deserving programs and services that are out there and reallocate them at the detriment of a program. It would simply be my expectation, and certainly if recommendations come forward that make sense, we would use the resources that have been allocated, as we did with the child care reduction of the daily parent fee. That was something that was part of that $200 million envelope. We were able to do it within budget but it didn't take money away from another child care component. So I would certainly commit that to my honourable colleague.
[Page 429]
[4:45 p.m.]
MR. MCNEIL: On March 5th you had an on-line questionnaire for people to make suggestions around the Poverty Reduction Strategy Working Group. I'm wondering what kind of information you received, how many people took you up on that, and whether or not that same questionnaire was sent out to non-profit organizations in the province. It was March 5th and I think March 31st was the deadline. I'm wondering if you can give us a sense of what kind of response you received from Nova Scotians, as well as whether it was sent out to non-profits and if that same deadline applied to the non-profit organizations in the province.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague for reminding me that we do have that Web site access as well for individuals in organizations to receive the information. I can indicate to the member that yes, the questionnaire did go out to non-profit organizations across the province. I would have to get back to my honourable colleague regarding the number of responses we received. I'm not clear on the number of responses that we got back, but I certainly would be prepared to provide that to him at the earliest possible opportunity.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, I apologize but did you speak of the non-profit? Did that same questionnaire go out to the non-profit and was the deadline March 31st, the same? As well as, maybe you could just let us know whether we will meet the timeline of June 30th that the report will be in your hands and you will be able to communicate that to Nova Scotians on the direction we're going to take.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, yes, indeed, the same questionnaire did go out to non-profit organizations across the province and they were working with the same deadline. It would certainly be my expectation that the Poverty Reduction Strategy Working Group would have their work completed and prepared to present the report to me by June 30th.
MR. MCNEIL: Just one further question. If you receive the report on June 30th, when can Nova Scotians expect to see a reply, or actually see the report, so Nova Scotians then can view the recommendations that were brought forward and find out when the implementation time will be for those recommendations?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague for the question and, as with all reports that will come in, it is my expectation that this will be a fairly complex and all-inclusive report. As it is, two departments that are co-chairing it, as well as the fact that it really involves every department in this government, I wouldn't want to pre-judge the amount of time that we would need to look at it. I would not keep it longer than I would have to and I certainly would not delay any action that we could take on behalf of Nova Scotians.
[Page 430]
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for referring to the fact that it's not just her department that's responsible for the implementation of the recommendations that will come forward. When I say that, I know that her department has been the lead department, but I expect other ministers who are affected by this to be part of the financial solution as to how we implement some of the programs to make sure that Nova Scotians living in poverty have an opportunity to move forward - particularly young Nova Scotians, to have an opportunity to begin to build and create a successful life for themselves here in Nova Scotia and be given the same equal opportunity as each and every other Nova Scotian has been given.
A couple of other programs that we had spoken about a year ago, Career Seek and Harvest Connection. We have had a number of disagreements on the issue of Career Seek and the fact that the ceiling that was put on it by your government at 50 people - and I know the uptake wasn't the same, there were a lot of restrictions around that program. I'm wondering if you can give the House an update on what has happened in that program - how many people have actually taken up the province on Career Seek to move into a four-year degree program and is there a waiting list?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague for the opportunity to talk about these two programs that I know are extremely important to him and his constituents. We certainly recognize that the Career Seek program, as it was initially rolled out, was not as successful as we had hoped. It was one that was of particular importance to me as an educator. I have certainly a firm belief in the importance and success that education can bring and it was disappointing that we did not have more success. Once we recognized that there were barriers, we then set about a consultation process, met with numerous individuals to find out how we could break down those barriers. So as we moved forward with those changes, I took those changes to Cabinet. I was able to get Cabinet support, recognizing that this was a good program that needed some adjusting.
So I'm pleased to just review quickly, Mr. Chairman, those changes that did occur, if my honourable colleague would permit me, to indicate that we certainly have hope that the program would be more successful this Fall. So as a result of those consultations, we saw a decrease in the length of time that people need to be in receipt of assistance before applying for Career Seek. We also made a provision of continued income assistance for eligible costs related to shelter and personal allowances. We broadened the definition of the types of undergraduate programs that can be supported. It was a more comprehensive awareness and promotional campaign in partnership with community agencies, again going back to that point that we did not communicate well enough at the level where we needed to.
There is recognition of the unique needs of re-entry adult learners and an attempt to reduce the costs for eligible recipients by increasing awareness of other departmental programs such as the lone-parent housing program and subsidized daycare. We removed the
[Page 431]
cap to the program, ensuring that any recipient who is eligible will receive the supports of the Career Seek program.
While we made those changes, the academic year had already been in progress, so therefore we did not receive additional uptake on the program. We have done our due diligence of ensuring that we have gone back out and reconnected with those individuals who were not successful the first time. It would be our expectation that we would receive successful applicants for the Fall of 2008.
MR. MCNEIL: Has it been communicated to your front-line staff to identify those Nova Scotians who this program may be of benefit to? If you could, as well, you had said that you would be going back to Nova Scotians who would have been denied perhaps a year ago or didn't fit into the program. Could you give me an idea of how many Nova Scotians were denied a year ago, who we'll be going back to now and asking to see whether or not this new program, the new changes, will fit them?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, again, we have committed to finding out exactly the number of Nova Scotians who had interest in the program and I'll provide that information to my honourable colleague. We've also committed to reporting back on the number that have been contacted to ensure that all of those who were denied entry into the program would have received that information.
I do want to mention, as my honourable colleague would understand, that sometimes there were multiple reasons for the individual not being able to gain access and so we certainly don't expect that 100 per cent of those who had expressed interest will be able to gain access, because there were multiple barriers in some cases. But we certainly have made the commitment and we have ensured that staff receive the training on the changes so that those front-line staff, who needed to know the details in the changes, received that information and were then able to go back to their clients.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, I would acknowledge that not everyone who applies for the program will be eligible, but I do believe, as you've already acknowledged, it's important for those Nova Scotians who applied last year, that it's communicated to them to have an opportunity to know that the program has been changed, there have been some modifications to the program, that they may be eligible this year. It's important that they know the opportunity is there for them, as you and I spoke just earlier in the estimates here, that oftentimes Nova Scotians don't know the changes that have taken place in programs and they're missing out. So we want to make sure that those Nova Scotians who took the time last year to apply for the program, have an opportunity to make sure that there have been changes and to apply again this year.
There was another program that was brought in a little over a year ago called Harvest Connection, and it dealt with the agricultural sector as well as the forestry sector. It was an
[Page 432]
opportunity for Nova Scotians on income assistance to have a chance to work in those two professions without being penalized on their income support. There was a very low uptake. We spoke about part of that, in my view, was around the administration process that the farmer, or the forestry company, had to go through in order to hire that person. I'm wondering if there have been some modifications to that program, and whether or not your department is seeing a much greater uptake on this program this year or not.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, just on the last program that we chatted about, Career Seek, I did want to mention to my honourable colleague as well that we did prepare a brochure that outlined some of those modifications and changes, and made sure that we got that to our front-line workers, as well, to ensure it was clearly laid out, and so I wanted to make sure he was aware of that as well.
The Harvest Connection program, again, Mr. Chairman, one of those programs that my honourable colleague took great interest in and was instrumental in getting in place, again, had its challenges. At the base level, it had all the right intention and all the right components to the recipe. Unfortunately, there were challenges. One of the biggest challenges that we heard about, aside from the actual administering of the program, was the transportation challenges. Following the lower than expected number of participants last harvest, I met with representatives from the Federation of Agriculture, the Nova Scotia Christmas Tree Producers, some farmers and Christmas tree producers from the Annapolis Valley, as well as the South Shore, along with employment support staff in the department, to truly understand what those challenges were; what those representatives from the resource sector were hearing from their membership, were the real challenges.
So it was a very honest, frank discussion. We took the information back and staff have been working on recommendations. As I mentioned earlier in the House, it's quite opportune. I know staff are anxious to brief me on those changes, and then I will be moving forward with those changes to Cabinet, should Cabinet approval be necessary, if we can't do it through regulation. It would be my hope that we certainly could have a broader uptake on this program and that the true intent of that program could be fulfilled, providing those workers in those agricultural and forestry sectors where we know they are so needed. So I look forward to those changes coming soon from my department and, should the House be in session, certainly I will report back to the House as I'm able to, should the House be in. If not, then I will report back through Nova Scotians.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister could give some indication and perhaps some department staff could tell her when Nova Scotians could expect those recommendations to come forward, whether or not they will be in place for this harvest season as we move forward. I'm wanting to make sure that Nova Scotians on income assistance have an opportunity to earn that extra income. I'm wondering, as well, if while they're looking at this program and how it fits in the agricultural sector and the forestry sector, are they looking at it across other sectors of the province, for example in the tourism
[Page 433]
and fisheries sector, or whether or not it's just still solely focused on the issue of agriculture and forestry?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, it would certainly be my expectation that any changes that would increase uptake would be in place for harvest. Harvest, of course, will be rapidly upon us. Regardless of how cold it feels today, summer is rapidly approaching. So it would be my hope and expectation that staff would have those prepared and, if possible, as I say, if they don't require a formalized process, if we can do them through regulation, that would be much simpler than an order-in-council. So that would be my hope, that they would be in place for this harvest.
Certainly we have discussed, it's challenging, and we've had these open discussions, my honourable colleague and I, regarding the potential slippery slope that you head down if you do expand it beyond the agricultural sector and the forestry sector that we have in place right now. I'm always up for suggestions and I have asked staff to look at whether it could be expanded, and if it could be expanded, into which sectors. Again, when staff come to me with suggestions, if they've had a chance to look at that, in particular, we would certainly consider that. But the priority, I would say, for this round of recommendations to me should be getting the changes in place in order to not lose this harvest season.
[5:00 p.m.]
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, I would concur. It's important that this program be modified to ensure that it's running smoothly in the initial stage that it was brought out in the agricultural sector and the forestry sector. We need to make sure that we can implement that and the fact that it is working for Nova Scotians and it gives them an opportunity to earn that extra income.
I do think we can, if we look at how this is being implemented in those sectors, that we could spread it across sectors, allowing Nova Scotians on income assistance of varied physical ability, various levels, could also earn extra income to support their families and quite honestly, provide Nova Scotia businesses with employees that they're looking for, having a real challenge finding. It's happening in the agricultural sector as well as across in the tourism sector. All Nova Scotians in small businesses are having challenges meeting the workforce demands. We both know it's only growing, the challenges, for those companies to find those individuals to fill that work term. So I would agree that we should make sure it's working properly in the agricultural sector, but as we're focusing on that and looking at that, we should be trying to see if it could go across sectors to make sure that Nova Scotians have a chance to find an opportunity to earn that extra income.
Just to change gears a little bit, I want to know if the minister could tell this House a little bit about the housing programs that are available. Could she give the House an indication of whether or not the housing grant part of her budget, in this fiscal year, has been
[Page 434]
increased and whether or not the waiting lists that are attempting to access housing grants across this province, that those people on those waiting lists have any hope this year of seeing their grant approved, brought forward.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, before I get into the housing update, I would state again for the record that we were very pleased with the success of the employment support menu of programs this past year. As members would recall in my opening statement, I made reference to the fact that approximately 1,200 individuals had come off - as the expression would be - income assistance for various reasons. But one of the factors, certainly, was the success of our employment support programs. So we know that's a tangible method of measuring the success of those employment support programs, and so we certainly are encouraged by those numbers and certainly would anticipate that those numbers would remain either at that level, or even climb, which would be welcome.
In the overall budget for housing, we have an increase of approximately $13 million in the entire housing portfolio. We know the housing portfolio is multifaceted. We know there is the Canada-Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Program, of which Phase I was $37.3 million; Phase II was $18.9 million; we know that the trust represented $23 million; we know that the off-reserve trust represented $7.8 million; and then of course we have the repair programs, the approximately $18 million in the 13 home repair programs. That's perhaps more along the lines of what my colleague was looking for, an indication of the success of those programs, because that menu, that portfolio was where we see some of the challenges with our wait lists.
We serve approximately 2,500 individuals each year on home repair grants and loans. Of course, we are successful with those individuals, but very rapidly our wait list filled back up again. We did have $4 million transferred last year from the Department of Health; this year it was a $3.5 million transfer, I believe. So while it wasn't a decrease because we weren't having success, it was simply that those were the funds the Department of Health was able to transfer to us this year. So, again, not a decrease in funding but actually an overall increase of approximately $13 million to the housing portfolio as a whole.
MR. MCNEIL: Madam Minister, really what I was focusing on was the RRAP and the programs that many Nova Scotians apply for of low to modest income to be able to improve their housing stock, to improve their ability to stay in their own home. I'm wondering if you could just tell this House, how much has that particular program increased in this fiscal year?
MS. STREATCH: In particular, on Page 4.7 of the Supplementary Detail book - it's under Home Ownership and Repair Programs. As my honourable colleague finds his way to that page, I would indicate that the estimate for the last fiscal year was $14.180 million and next year's estimate is $14.280 million.
[Page 435]
MR. MCNEIL: I'm glad we made it to that page. I'm curious, the estimate was $14 million and the forecast was $9 million. Could you explain the increase and the difference?
MS. STREATCH: It's always a challenge to explain out the dollars that come in a forecast lower than the estimate, but in this case it's quite simply a matter of the availability of contractors, the availability of the individuals of that sector being able to provide the services. The dollars were allocated, the applications were approved, but it was simply a matter of manpower, or labour power, and not being able to get to the repairs or the commitments the programs fulfilled on the private sector component.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, the fact that we have budgeted for the same item this year - what steps have we done internally to make sure that those grant applications are out now, and they are being costed, and that Nova Scotians are having an opportunity to access that money? It's somewhat disheartening to see that there's that much money left on the table, knowing how many Nova Scotians have applications in front of the department, whether it's for a roof, windows or any other type of housing repair. I'm sure each member of this House, on all sides of this House, are getting calls from constituents who have been trying to access this program. So I'm wondering if you could let us know whether or not, in this fiscal year, we have already begun to accept and release contracts to contractors to begin this work so that we don't get caught against the winter or running out of the capacity to be able to do it.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, to my honourable colleague's question, we did recognize that the contracts weren't being fulfilled as quickly or to the number that we would have liked, and I can indicate to my honourable colleague that we did make adjustments. We went to one quote, and we did ensure that it was one quote with the approval of the inspector to take some of the burden off, to ensure that in those areas where it was not physically possible to get multiple quotes, that we did lessen that burden. Certainly we would be committed to do the same if that were the case, if we find that the contractors and the inspectors are in the same situation, we certainly would recommend that for this year as well.
We are receiving applications and will continue to move those as best we can. As my honourable colleague sees, we did not decrease the budget and so we're anticipating that perhaps some of those changes we have made, and perhaps a rejuvenation in the contractors or in the ability for those jobs to be done will take place, but we will not reduce the budget.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, one of the challenges that has been brought to my office around the program, particularly the RRAP program, has been the fact that the permitting of all of these issues - whether you have to go through the building inspector, and of course your inspector doesn't follow that program and it's up to the client to go and have the building inspector come to make sure that all of the rules and regulations are being followed by the contractor - at the end of the day when the client signs off, your department says they're on their own. If there's a challenge around the work that has been done, or the
[Page 436]
challenge is with that, it's up to the client to make sure that the building inspector has done their job and it's up to the client to make sure that the building inspector has been on-site, not your inspector.
There is a real disconnect there. I don't think it's a question of blaming one over the other, I think it's a question of how we coordinate when a Nova Scotian is fortunate enough to receive the RRAP program - they have been waiting for a very long time and they have been in desperate need of having the repair done. Your inspector is not a qualified building inspector, but they can become a liaison with the building inspectors in the individual areas across Nova Scotia to make sure that work is being met to the standard of the Building Code, that the client is not being left high and dry.
One of the challenges is once that client signs off on the cheque, then it's up to them. By signing that cheque, and turning it over to the contractor, they are acknowledging that they're happy with the work. Some of the shortcomings may not show up for a period of time and no one in the department, then, is prepared to stand there and provide some support to those Nova Scotians who feel they are being left on their own, not knowing any different. As an individual Nova Scotian, they don't understand the Building Code. They assume that the contractor is meeting the standard that's in front of them. They also believe if your inspector is signing off, your inspector is acknowledging that.
We need to make sure that the inspector is a real liaison, in my view, with the building inspectors across Nova Scotia to be able to make sure that each one of these housing programs are meeting provincial standards and that when we sign off on them, as a government, we're signing off on the recommendation of a building inspector who has certified that the project has met the code, that we all expect had been in our homes, and that the recipient of the RRAP grant knows that if there are challenges, we'll stand beside them because it has been certified by a proper building inspector.
There are many challenges, you know, when you hire a contractor, that you meet all of these different codes and all of the inspections have been done in due time. They are assuming, when you use the word "inspector" out of your department, that person is making sure that every code in the Province of Nova Scotia is being followed, and the work that's being signed off on has met the standards of the Building Code of the Province of Nova Scotia.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, certainly the issue that my honourable colleague raises is one that is a very serious issue. As I'm sitting here reflecting upon it, I know that we, as a department, view it as the client being the customer and, therefore, we provide the inspection to certify that it is okay for us to flow funds. But I understand what my honourable colleague is saying, that there needs to be some co-operation, or a level of understanding, between the two inspections, that if one is ensuring that it's okay to pay, then that level of expectation of quality workmanship should be there. So certainly, I will take that under
[Page 437]
advisement, and take that back to the deputy minister and staff, and ask that they investigate what that level of co-operation could be to ensure that at the end of the day Nova Scotians know that the work is of a quality and is of a standard that is acceptable.
[5:15 p.m.]
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, one of the challenges is the term "inspector" and so, of course, a Nova Scotian who applies for a RRAP program, and receives the funding, and receives the program, and receiving the co-operation of your department, and receiving the co-operation of the inspectors within your department, are believing that they are going to shepherd them through the permit issues, and are going to shepherd them through making sure that the code is being met. It's a false assumption, you know, and the problem with that is there are Nova Scotians who have signed off, believing that the project met the Building Code or met the standard and it has been a year later, it has been six months later, and challenges have shown up. Then they're left there by themselves because the department says, well, you transferring the funds to the contractor is an acknowledgment that you are happy with what has been done, you are happy that it has met code and standard.
Mr. Chairman, I would dare say many people in this House wouldn't know whether or not the contractor met code. Why would we view any other Nova Scotian would be different, especially when we believe we've entered into a contract with an inspector in the department of housing who is helping to shepherd us through that, and by the very term of being an inspector makes us believe they are Building Code inspectors? They are the person who will be inspecting this project to make sure that it meets every code that the province requires, making sure that at the end of the day, when that contractor drives away and we sign off and hand that cheque over, that we are in receipt of a quality project.
The vast majority of them are top-notch, top-quality projects, but there are some that Nova Scotians are being left in and it's wasteful on our part because it is money coming out of your department. It's money that we're spending, and we want to make sure we're spending it in getting the best value for that dollar because there are so many Nova Scotians who could use the money. We want to make sure that Nova Scotians who are receiving that cheque are getting top-quality service, to make sure their families are living in a safe environment.
So I would encourage you to really find and have that conversation with building inspectors across Nova Scotia about how you can improve that relationship between the actual building inspectors and the inspectors within the department, to ensure that each and every time a Nova Scotian signs it - because it has gotten to the point in my constituency office that I was cautioning Nova Scotians in the RRAP program to make sure that you are happy with that project before you sign off on your final draft because that's your only recourse. If you hold back money, then it seems to get people moving, but immediately, once you sign that final draft cheque, then they're finished.
[Page 438]
Well, that's not the way Nova Scotians do business. Nova Scotians normally operate in good faith and believe that we'll be there for one another to make sure we shepherd this project to its conclusion. So I would encourage you to look at that. It's a way to improve service for Nova Scotians and a way to improve that program.
One of the other questions around this program, I'm wondering when the parameters are put out for projects, housing programs and projects, are you looking through an environmental lens? Are you ensuring that the furnaces are meeting those standards? Are you ensuring that the insulation is being put in under the environmental lens to improve - the operating costs for that Nova Scotian could be lowered if we're going through that environmental lens. I'm wondering if your department is doing that through those projects.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague. Again, the issue around inspectors, we will take back, because it really is, when you look at the personal belief that an inspector would be inspecting for the quality of that job, not inspecting for having had sign-off. So I thank the honourable member for that suggestion and we will take that back.
Discussing, in general, the repair programs and whether or not they have that whole energy efficiency and environmental requirement, certainly we can look to the success of the program that we partner with Conserve Nova Scotia on to provide those 150 homes across the province with upgrades, and we did it in partnership with Conserve Nova Scotia for that very reason. It would be our expectation that we would continue to have success with those types of programs. By the very nature of a lot of the work that we do, windows, doors, those types of repairs, ensuring that leaks, et cetera, just by the nature, one would perceive and assume that they would all have that energy efficiency component to them.
Whether or not it's written in the policy, I have to acknowledge I don't know at this point. I will check and certainly if it isn't, I would say that should be a requirement, that it be part and parcel, but by the very nature of the repairs that we make I would say that's the intention. But if it isn't written there in words, then I would suggest we take that back to the department and have it actually part of the contract of the program.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, one of the parts which is not part of the program is that when we are coming in to do an assessment of a project that an individual Nova Scotian applying for having a new roof put on, applying that windows be put in, whether or not we are looking at that property through an energy audit and energy efficiency situation, which is limited in terms of - a very limited expense really to the province, if we were looking at those individual projects from an energy audit perspective, and then being able to say as we are improving the windows, the roof, that perhaps with an additional small amount of money we have improved the energy efficiency of this home which, in turn, would reduce the operating costs for a Nova Scotian family.
[Page 439]
One of the challenges for many poor Nova Scotia families is the fact they just don't have the ability for insulation, the ability to reduce those operating costs on their home. Much of their income is going through the chimney or out the walls because they just simply do not have the funds to do that maintenance. So it would be interesting to see if, as you're reviewing this program, whether or not a simple energy audit could be provided at the same time that contractor was going out to do an estimate on the needs that Nova Scotian was looking for?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, as my honourable colleague knows, is well aware that the menu of housing programs would allow that in some instances that certainly could be a component that we would factor in, for example the RRAP, but when we look at a program like PHERP, the Provincial Housing Emergency Repair Program, we would certainly want to ensure that any emergency repairs we are making, if they were emergency for emergency's sake, we wouldn't want to slow those down, so I know that's not his intention. But when and where possible, I would suggest the energy audits be part and parcel of that evaluation.
Again, I'm not sure of the number of energy auditors in the province, and I wouldn't want to slow down our programs or increase our wait lists by adding an extra regulatory burden to the programs. When possible, I would suggest that we include those energy audits and that we work to making that part of the normal process of our repair programs.
MR. MCNEIL: As we all know, the emergency fund programs that are being offered to Nova Scotians, of course, we don't want to slow them down, and the very nature of what they're called, the emergency programs. But where possible, these energy audits provide, if nothing else, that family an idea of where they can, if they have any additional resources, to try to reduce, because an energy audit, in itself, is not a huge expense, when we're looking at a project of thousands of dollars, to be able to provide an energy audit. I think if that was part of those programs, that you could find - and there are Nova Scotians who are providing energy audits through the federal program, there are some provincial programs, it just makes good sense in terms of dollars we're spending to make sure the projects we're doing are meeting the very needs of what we're trying to do.
This isn't punishing anybody, this isn't to say what we're doing now is not right, it's saying how we can improve what we're doing, to make sure that Nova Scotia family is getting the full benefit, because as you know and your department knows, once that family receives a grant, they come off - their opportunity to receive one in the future is quite limited for quite some years - I think it is five years out. So if we can improve that project and even leave them with some minor recommendations that say, here's the project we've completed for your home, if at any time within the next five years you find you want to invest in your property, have some money you want to put into your property, here's what we believe is a list of four or five things that would not only improve your property but would reduce your operating costs in an energy-efficient way.
[Page 440]
I'd hate to have someone come to me and tell me what would be the most energy-efficient thing to do to my house, because I don't know, I would need someone else to help me, to tell me. That's what I think, this envelope would give us an opportunity to be able to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the minister and the staff, and I look forward to asking a few more questions as the night goes on. Thanks very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth South-Portland Valley.
MS. MARILYN MORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also appreciate this opportunity to ask a few questions of the minister and her senior staff, so welcome.
I'm going to start off in my capacity as the Critic for the Disabled Persons Commission. I searched the budget, I didn't find any budget line for the commission. I understand that the operating costs are lumped in with senior management. I'm just wondering if you could give me a breakdown of what money is being allocated for the Disabled Persons Commission this coming year and how that compares to last year's budget.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I welcome my colleague to the discussion and certainly look forward to discussing the Disabled Persons Commission and the other various components of the services for persons with disabilities which, of course, are of interest to my colleague, as well as various other components of the department.
The specific line item is Page 4.3, Commissions and Agencies. I would be pleased to indicate the exact dollars for my honourable colleague. I have the estimate, the actual, and then I have the budgeted next fiscal year, so if my colleague would care to take a few notes.
Salaries and benefits - $254,000, actual - $200,320, budgeted next fiscal year - $261,900; travel, estimate - $34,200, actual - $36,244, budgeted next fiscal year - $53,500; professional services, estimate - $10,100, actual - $11,134, budgeted next fiscal - $11,000; supplies and services, estimate - $16,000, actual - $52,927, budgeted next fiscal year - $18,400; other - $14,900, actual - $23,512, budgeted next fiscal - $12,300; total gross expenditures, estimate - $329,200, actual - $324,136, budgeted next fiscal - $357,100.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that breakdown, thank you very much. I'm just curious, I didn't catch the category but the actual of $52,927, what was that one again?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, that figure was for supplies and services - $16,000 was the estimate, $52,927 was the actual, and then the budget next year is $18,400.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, so was that over-expenditure related to their move?
[Page 441]
[5:30 p.m.]
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, yes, indeed, my honourable colleague is well aware of their successful move to their new location in Dartmouth, and that's where you will find the moving expenses that were incurred by the commission.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that I think that was an excellent strategy. The commission is now in the community, it's accessible, it's seen to have some arm's length from the department and I think it is a win-win for everyone, especially the disabilities community.
I want to talk a little bit or ask some questions around the account billing mechanism between the commission and the Department of Community Services. I understand that the minister is the chairman of the coordinating committee of ministers to which the Disabled Persons Commission reports. So I'm just wondering, how often does this coordinating committee meet, and are there any details on the activity of the coordinating committee and how the commission reports or passes along information to the department?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the comments of my colleague regarding the successful move of the commission. I concur completely that it's extremely important that the commission do their great work at arm's length. Their location in the office, though, was welcome and it provided for an opportunity to perhaps see members of the commission on an informal basis, on a regular basis, which was very valuable and was nice. I think it's very important that they have their independence at their new location, because they truly are independent of the department. Too, I think it is really important that they are accessible. It was just so very important that they be true to their true nature, and the accessibility of their site is one of those components that I know they find most successful.
As the minister who is the lead minister on that coordinating committee, there are numerous other departments that take part in those meetings and those briefings. We met - and I need clarification on this. I remember the meeting in June of last year, but I'm not certain - and I know that some might say it's a senior's moment, of which I am not - but I'm not sure if we've had another meeting since. So I would need confirmation from staff if we've met since last June. I don't have a briefing on our meeting schedule, but at the meeting of last June, we did have an opportunity to receive information from the commission and then to provide an update of what we were doing individually, in our own departments, that had a connection with the commission and how they saw their role as advocate and as a resource and a research for the different departments.
So I know that Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations played a large role in that discussion. I know that Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal had a large piece in that presentation and, of course, the Department of Health, et cetera. So we meet, the minutes of the meeting certainly are recorded, and feedback is provided to each department on what
[Page 442]
then the commission would like to see us do in the future. So we would look forward to that upcoming meeting. I am sure that there's one scheduled for June, and I could get that exact date for my honourable colleague when I have an opportunity to look at my schedule in my BlackBerry.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. So it would be fair to say that the coordinating committee meets, perhaps once a year, with the commission. I ask that because I have some concerns about two aspects of that: one is the frequency of hearing from the commission and receiving their input and their recommendations, and the second aspect is just how seriously their recommendations are taken.
It's a little difficult to get information on the commission. They haven't published an annual report in five years. I know they're doing good work but it's difficult, I think, for people to find out exactly how they're implementing their plans and acting on their mandate. I do know that, for example, in June 2004, the Disabled Persons Commission made 32 recommendations to the department as part of their response to the department's renewal discussion paper on community supports for adults. I'm just wondering, would it be possible to find out if any, or how many, of those recommendations are included in the renewal strategy?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, certainly, while the formal meeting of the commission and the coordinating committee would be an annual meeting, I wouldn't want to leave my honourable colleague with the impression that the communication with the commission was only once a year. There are numerous opportunities where we communicate on an infrequent basis. There have been times when I've gone looking for their advice and their input. We certainly rely on the commission quite heavily when it comes to our housing component, how we incorporate the various challenges within our housing portfolio to the Disabled Persons Commission.
There was an instance where I was investigating the number of self-service versus full-service gas stations across the province whereby I didn't have the information, and it was to the commission that I turned to assist me in getting that information. So certainly that informal communication exists, and is certainly an opportunity for the ministry, as it would be - I know the deputy minister communicates frequently, as well, with the commission. So to the point of the 2004 recommendations, I would certainly be pleased to get that information for my honourable colleague, report back what part those recommendations played in the renewal process, and certainly bring that back to the Legislature, if not specifically during this sitting and this estimates discussion, to my honourable colleague at our earliest convenience.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I think that would be very important because I would consider the Disabled Persons Commission one of the most critical advisory bodies to your department in the whole area of disability issues. Certainly they see their mandate as
[Page 443]
representing the over 150,000 persons with disabilities in this province, including the approximately - I think it's 5,000 clients who are served directly through other programs in your department. So I think it would be important to get that broad perspective.
I guess the reason I'm wondering if any of those recommendations motivated decisions by the department is the fact that it seems the department is turning back on its commitment regarding deinstitutionalization in the province. Certainly a couple of announcements within the last couple of years, $19 million going into Riverview and $3 million going into the renovations of the former Cobequid Multi-Service Centre - raised concerns.
I've had the privilege of attending a couple of sector forums, all-day forums, on this topic where experts and resource people from across Canada have been brought this issue in to discuss with our sector here in Nova Scotia. The information was extremely interesting. I must say, everything I heard, both formally from the resource people and certainly informally through the discussions, seems to indicate that we would be going backwards by doing this.
So I'm just wondering, since the Disabled Persons Commission has come out so strongly in support of deinstitutionalization, why is the department continuing with that mode of providing accommodations and residential placements in this province?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, to certainly give credit where credit is due, the Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities, as well as the Disabled Persons Commission, were absolutely fundamental key players in the government's decision to put into this year's budget the additional $300,000 of core funding for the Abilities Foundation for the wheelchair program. I think that speaks volumes about the influence, if you will, or the ability for NSLEO and for the Disabled Persons Commission to influence government action and government spending, because that $300,000 of core funding is, indeed, just that, core funding every year.
So it's very important that we recognize it was in large part due to the work of the Disabled Persons Commission and NSLEO - they were instrumental in helping to guide government policy. So I certainly would mention that in response to my honourable colleague's concern about their ability to influence government policy.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there are few topics which provoke such extreme ends of emotion as the entire issue of the continuum of supports that need to be provided in our community for our clientele who would fall under the Services for Persons with Disabilities. You know, I have immersed myself in the complexities involved in this part of the department because indeed, the word "complex" is barely even justifiable for some of the challenges that are faced within that sector.
[Page 444]
Certainly the continuum of services is extremely important. It would be irresponsible, I believe, as a ministry, as a department, as a government, to turn our backs on any of those who fall within that continuum. That's why it's so very important that we recognize that the complex cases are valuable, the complex cases require us to challenge ourselves and to look for best practice and to look for creative solutions, Mr. Chairman.
I believe this government has demonstrated its understanding of the need to provide for independence and community supports, everything from our programs that involve alternate family support, to independent living support, to direct family support, Mr. Chairman, ensuring that individuals are supported in their communities.
As well, Mr. Chairman, when my honourable colleague mentions the $19 million renovation at Riverview, I think it's extremely important that we all acknowledge that the addition of the community homes that are part of that renovation is key to that continuum of support. Along with renovating the wing, and ensuring that Riverview is a quality, safe environment for those very vulnerable Nova Scotians who call Riverview home, we also want to ensure that the continuum of services that we provide to those folks is available to them. So we're very pleased with that addition of the community homes that will provide for that independence for those individuals who are able to.
Mr. Chairman, the issue of Cobequid and the necessity for us to have a home here in the Halifax Regional Municipality that's able to care for those very complex needs of those Nova Scotians who will call Cobequid home, under the service provider quest, again, it's our responsibility to ensure that the quality level of care that we provide for those Nova Scotians is indeed just that, a quality level of care.
So while we might disagree on the importance of that continuum, Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased with the government's commitment to provide $6 million this year in our budget, an additional $6 million, for the Services for Persons with Disabilities, to ensure that the continuum is spread out across the province. I look forward to bringing more of those community homes and more of those independent programs to Nova Scotians.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to stand here and lecture the minister but I am aware that every review, every report done in this province in the last 15 years, the experience and best practices and decision making of almost every province and territory in Canada differs with the view just stated by the minister.
[5:45 p.m.]
Isolating persons with disabilities in larger institutions is actually taking away some of their civic rights as citizens in our province. I would urge the minister and her senior officials to review this kind of expenditure. It's going backwards, it's not serving the people
[Page 445]
it is meant to serve, and it has just caused so much worry and upset for the disabilities community in our province.
There actually could be some legal implications here if one wanted to look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so I suggest that this is a major philosophical shift and it would really upset me if I thought we were turning our backs on these citizens of Nova Scotia just to contain costs in this area, it would really, really upset me. I'm not suggesting that's the case, but certainly it has been suggested to me by people who know a lot more about this issue than I do.
If you wanted to go back and take a look at the report of the Collaborative Strategic Planning Process for Adult Residential Centres and Regional Rehabilitation Centres, the Report of the Minister's Advisory Committee on Services to Children with a Mental Handicap, the Review of the Children's Training Centres, and the establishment of the Early Intervention and In-Home Support programs - I could go on and on and on, but certainly a lot of the national work that's been done by very valued members and leaders within our own disabilities community here in Nova Scotia on the national scene, they all reaffirm that we need to be going toward smaller homes in the community, where people are more fully engaged as citizens and better supported and more able to enjoy their quality of life and their rights as citizens.
I want to go back - and the minister raised the issue of the wheelchair program that's being administered by the Abilities Foundation. I understand that in year one of operation, $1 million was given to operate that program, but the bulk of that money went to provide wheelchairs for clients of the department. When you talk about the $300,000, is that additional, is that new money to the program, and does it have the same restriction which limits most of the use of the distribution of those monies to clients of the department?
MS. STREATCH: I respect the fact that my honourable colleague will refrain from lecturing me on the importance of providing that continuum. In that same vein of respect, I will respect my honourable colleague and not continue the dialogue on a difference of opinion. Mr. Chairman, I will not apologize for meeting the needs of Nova Scotians and, certainly, I know my honourable colleague would not expect me to do that.
I would like to indicate for the House that the philosophical shift we are seeing in the Services for Persons with Disabilities, that's a philosophical shift. That's the ability for individuals to maintain their independence, the ability for individuals to use our programs such as the Alternative Family Support community residence, which has 195 clients; the Independent Living Support supervised apartments, 607 Nova Scotians; the small options, 624 Nova Scotians; or indeed the Direct Family Support, which includes children and adults, 1,750 Nova Scotians.
[Page 446]
So those Nova Scotians certainly do appreciate the continuum, along with those other individuals, as I mentioned earlier, who may find themselves as a more complex case, who need the additional resources that we provide.
That philosophical shift that I spoke of within the Services for Persons with Disabilities is one that I know the good folks at the department are extremely pleased to be able to move forward, for these folks in the department have the best at heart for those Nova Scotians who are part of that program. So as we look at changing from how an individual, or shifting the idea of where an individual, might fit in the continuum, we're actually looking at that very individual, themselves, and deciding what works best for them. That shift toward looking at the needs for the individual is one that is extremely important, valuable, and will be part of the move forward by our department.
Specifically to the increased funding for the Abilities Foundation, we certainly recognize the need for this and, since 2005, our department did provide $1.5 million to the Abilities Foundation to administer the two wheelchair recycle programs, helping children and adults with physical disabilities. Certainly we're pleased to be able to continue our partnership with the Abilities Foundation in this as we invest the $300,000 in core funding, making it easier for children and adults with physical disabilities to access a wheelchair. The Abilities Foundation are the folks we look to for the expertise. We fund and funnel the money through to the Abilities Foundation, and it is through them that the recipients are in receipt of the wheelchairs.
MS. MORE: I do want to move on, but I am confused, because is it not true that the department has put a restriction on the distribution of those monies, that clients of the department have to be served first? I understand that 60 per cent of the first $1 million that was allocated to that pilot program in April 2006 was used on Department of Community Services income assistance recipients.
MS. STREATCH: Again, through the capable folks at the Abilities Foundation, the dollars are flowed through them, Mr. Chairman, and of course there is an income tested component, but it is not a requirement that the individuals who are in receipt of the wheelchairs are income assistance clients.
MS. MORE: I'm going to be sharing my time with the member for Halifax Citadel, but before I do, I want to ask the minister briefly - there seems to be a moratorium on residential options and work programs in this province, and has been for approximately 10 years, except for a few minor exceptions. When is that moratorium going to be finished and what plans have you to expand the residential options and other parts of the continuum?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, we have certainly seen the success of the day programming that is provided from one end of this province to the other, a key component to the program, and certainly that's a piece that's all part of the renewal and the Services for
[Page 447]
Persons with Disabilities plan that, again, as I said, the government has committed $6 million in this budget and will be pleased to get that budget through and be able to flow those dollars through to the various components of the SPD program.
MS. MORE: I will now share my time with the member for Halifax Citadel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel.
MR. LEONARD PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to confine my remarks mostly to my critic area, the Child and Youth Strategy, youth issues in general, the Nunn Commission and its recommendations as they relate to the department, and to some constituency questions. Maybe I should start with my constituency questions and then get them out of the way before we move to the Child and Youth Strategy.
Very specifically, I have a question about metro housing and seniors. Last year around this time I was asking about the provision of superintendents in seniors' homes and manors, and I was told at that time that there was a hiring process underway, and that there would be superintendents in those buildings. But over the year there has been some considerable backsliding and now the seniors are being told there will be no superintendents hired; in fact, there will be some security in the evenings, but no superintendents as such. I have seen an increase in the number of seniors coming with questions and issues that occur during the day. I'm wondering, is there a conscious policy adopted in metro housing that says there will no longer be full-time superintendents living in buildings?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I welcome my honourable colleague to the discussion and am pleased to discuss some constituency issues because I know that those are always the ones that are most valuable in these debates sometimes, those constituency issues.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly am not aware of any shift in supervisors versus security in our seniors' complexes. I will take it under advisement and ask staff to please check with the metro housing authority to provide us with an update and I will certainly provide that to my honourable colleague at our earliest convenience. It is not my understanding that there was a shift in that, so I will verify that and get back to the honourable member.
MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that offer. If I can make that question more specific, then, if you would look into the situation, Madam Minister, at Joseph Howe Manor in my constituency. There has been a considerable delay. Last month I was called because an ambulance had to wait for a half-hour to get into the building to serve a senior. Mind you, this was information I got from a resident and not through the authorities, but I think it's something that needs to be looked into, and I would like an answer to that question about Joseph Howe Manor, and I thank you for your offer.
[Page 448]
I also had a question about Spencer House. I did ask you last year and you were kind enough, Madam Minister - through you, Mr. Chairman - to come to Spencer House to look at the facilities. As I recall, you were very impressed with the services being offered, but they haven't really seen any result from that meeting, and I'm wondering if they can expect some additional support, because they're serving a growing clientele. They're providing more services and at the same time there hasn't been that similar growth. I know the minister has been encouraging seniors to live in the constituency, you know, to live in their communities, and this is an opportunity to demonstrate that commitment, I think, by providing some additional support. I'm wondering, is there a strategy in place for meeting the needs of places like Spencer House?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my honourable colleague for the very nice invitation and the very nice visit that we did have at Spencer House. It was a delight to be there and interact with the seniors and see first-hand the good work that's going on there. It never ceases to amaze me, the work that is being done, and I know it's not the same category, but I often talk about the family resource centres and how our family resource centres are able to stretch a penny beyond what most people can imagine. I think the same thing can be said about places like Spencer House, and other spots around the province, that take those dollars that we provide to them and stretch them to provide the absolute maximum services and programs for those Nova Scotians who take advantage of those services and programs.
So while we always would like to be able to do more - and I always have that opportunity where I say, is it enough, would we like to be able to do more? No, it's never enough and, yes, we would like to be able to do more.
[6:00 p.m.]
I certainly am pleased that this year, as a budget item, we received in the Department of Community Services a 3 per cent increase for some of those community grants and organizations that have not received an increase in funding from us in some years now. As a result of that, and on successful passage of the budget, we will see a 3 per cent increase to Spencer House for their funding and that exact dollar figure would be that they would have approximately $1,800, Mr. Chairman, as part of that budget line item.
MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I do have a third question, somewhat of a constituency question but a more general question, and that's about the Employment Support and Income Assistance Program. I note from the estimates at Page 4.2 that the estimate for 2007-08 was $348 million and, in fact, only $339 million was spent. Next year there will be less estimated and I'm wondering, why is that program being cut?
[Page 449]
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I was getting the information because I was on a different page than my honourable colleague. Could he repeat the question so I know exactly to which line item he was referring?
MR. PREYRA: It's always important that the minister and the person asking the question be on the same page. Employment Support and Income Assistance - I'm looking at the estimates for 2007-08 - in 2007 the estimate was $347.902 million and in 2008 it's $344.881 million. That's at Page 4.2 in the Estimates Book.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, on the surface one would never like to see a decrease in budget but it's because of the success of the decline in the caseload that we would see the decline in the anticipated budget line item. So while we see individuals come off - as we would call it - coming off the income assistance caseload, we see those dollars reflected in the line item.
MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, some people say - and I'm referring here to particular groups in my constituency - that the decline in the caseload has been a result of a changing interpretation and application of the Employment Support and Income Assistance Program. Let me ask specifically about the Career Seek Program where a great many spaces in theory were opened but, in fact, there were only two or three. Now, since then the minister has revised that program to make more people eligible and I'm wondering what happened to those people who applied last year? I believe there were close to 50 people who applied last year and didn't get in ostensibly because the conditions were too onerous for application. What is the current take-up rate for the Career Seek Program?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, though there are numerous reasons for the caseload decline, I would never pretend that they are all, you know, phenomenal successes for one reason only. There are numerous reasons for that decline. Economic factors certainly factor in. Relocation would certainly factor in and transferring to other programs, I would acknowledge would certainly factor in as well. So there are various reasons why.
In particular to the Career Seek pilot program that my honourable colleague raises, it was one that I expressed disappointment with the uptake in the beginning and we realized there were numerous barriers that were in place. Because of those barriers, we did not have the uptake we were looking for so we have made some changes. We made changes that decreased the length of time people needed to be on income assistance before they could apply for the program. We made changes related to the continued income assistance for costs related to shelter and personal allowance so they could continue to receive those. Certainly we broadened the definitions of the types of the undergraduate programs.
We made a more aggressive attempt to do comprehensive awareness and a promotional campaign. We took that cap off that we discussed. It was an artificial cap because the removal of that - we certainly didn't have anywhere near the 200 - and so we
[Page 450]
took that cap off. We made sure that we recognized the unique needs of re-entry of adult learners. So all of those changes were made in hopes that we will now have a greater uptake. Of course, the academic year was already in play and so we did not have the uptake. We are anticipating that uptake to be increased this Fall, September 2008.
I do not have a figure at this point because our front-line caseworkers are still gathering information. They've gone back to the individuals who were not successful the first time around. As well, since we have broadened the requirements and we've done a better job of communicating it, we recognize there will be an increase in the interest in the program. So as soon as those numbers become available, I'll be pleased to report to this House, should we be in session, or report to Nova Scotians as those numbers become available. Certainly it would be our expectation that we would have a much more successful uptake for the Fall of 2008.
MR. PREYRA: Could the minister tell us then, Mr. Chairman, how many applications have been received to date? I understand that there might be particular reasons for there not being a flood of applications. I'm wondering if there has been any evidence of any improvement. In part I'm concerned because there is a perception that the Employment Support and Income Assistance Program, particularly Regulation No. 67, discriminates against students who want to go to post-secondary institutions to improve themselves. There's a concern that that discrimination and that prejudice against students in post-secondary institutions is still there and it hasn't really been dealt with, even though the paperwork may be a little different.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, again, I do not have the number of applications at my fingertips. I can certainly put the call out amongst our staff now that the academic year has finished and we'll be moving into the next phase, certainly put the call out to the front-line and the area administrators to find out what type of uptake, what the numbers may look like. I'm pleased to ask staff to get a preliminary figure for the House and report that back to the member as soon as that's available.
Mr. Chairman, in particular, respecting Regulation No. 67, I would have to take that under advisement and ask staff to have a look at that to ensure that that is not the case, that indeed Career Seek is meant to do just as we have laid out, that it is meant for those who are ready and able to participate in a post-secondary program. To be able to do that and removing those barriers that prevented that certainly was our intention. So if there are continued barriers, I would appreciate hearing those from all of my colleagues in the House and certainly, I will have a look at Regulation No. 67, in particular.
MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, and I thank the minister for that answer. Maybe if I could use that for a segue into my youth policy questions, starting with one of the promises in the department's business plan 2008-09, at Page 18. The department promises to strengthen the child and youth social policy research capacity, working with policy research
[Page 451]
personnel to build a working relationship with other foundations, evaluation criteria and establish mechanisms for tracking strategy outcomes. If you don't mind, I will move from that to ask you specifically about some of the tracking that is being done on the strategy for the Child and Youth Strategy.
Again, I applaud the minister for establishing these pilot projects. They seemed very promising at the time and some of them sound very promising. This is not so much meant by way of criticism as it is meant to see where this is going and where you have been. Now the strategy says there will be help for vulnerable children and at-risk youth. I would like to know a little bit more about A Place to Belong Program that is happening in Annapolis, Hants and Digby Counties and Eastern Shore. The program promises to use non-traditional approaches like art, drama, music and recreation. Ironically, as the minister knows, these are specifically the programs that are being cut in school and they are now being used as a social policy tool. I am wondering where we are with that and what evidence do we have of any success, or what needs improvement there.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague for the other questions but thank him for the shift into the Child and Youth Strategy. Because, indeed, it really was a phenomenal and, I believe, a very sincere and tangible example of the commitment of this government and of the commitment to Nova Scotians. Certainly, Justice Nunn provided us with an opportunity to do a better job than what we are doing. We appreciate the opportunity, we accepted all of the recommendations and we accepted them knowing that it would not be an easy task. We also accepted them knowing that it would not be fixed overnight.
So the support from all members in this House for that strategy certainly has been welcome. We appreciated the support at the launch of it and we appreciate the support as we continue to invest in it. Of course, the budget this year has been increased $2 million to ensure the successful rollout and the successful implementation of those programs. The 10 initiatives which involved over 25 partners is a huge undertaking. Those 25 partner agencies are really the key component to ensuring success of those 10 initiatives.
So the program, specifically, that my honourable colleague mentioned, we do have the four regional specialists in place. They are working to coordinate the work of the strategy, the exact rollout, of course my honourable colleague knows full and well the sites were Annapolis, Hants, Digby and Eastern Shore. So we are working with those community partners to ensure that those programs that were laid out are successful. Then the additional dollars fill the gaps for the rest of the communities in Nova Scotia who weren't part of that initial rollout in the beginning, Mr. Chairman.
MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I have read the Child and Youth Strategy so I do know the background and context in which it was developed, particularly as it relates to the Nunn Inquiry. I was really asking more about the social policy research capacity, whether or
[Page 452]
not we have evaluation criteria for the pilots and initiatives of the Child and Youth Strategy where there's a mechanism for tracking these strategic outcomes. Specifically I was asking how that applies to A Place to Belong, and whether or not we do have the criteria in place and whether we do have a mechanism for tracking it and what the outcome of that tracking has shown.
MS. STREATCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In particular the reference to the social policy research, the 2008-09 budget would be $90,000 for that component. We are working at signing service agreements now, with our community agencies, with our partners and, in particular, the question regarding a method of verification will be part and parcel of that service contract that will be signed.
MR. PREYRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some questions about the other parts of the business plan talking about establishing working relationships, both between the various departments that are partnering in the Child and Youth Strategy and between the Child and Youth Social Policy Committee.
I must say that I've been disappointed over the last several months, I've been trying in Halifax Citadel, along with the business commissions, to help establish an outreach, a navigator program in the Capital District. We have called the office coordinating that strategy several times, asking for advice and asking for someone to sit in on those meetings and we have not even received a phone call. So it has been disappointing to see that level of response when reputable groups in a constituency are trying to do things for youth at risk on the streets.
I'm wondering if perhaps the program is just taking too long in getting up and running. We really haven't seen anything in the Capital District of concrete accomplishments, or even a presence.
[6:15 p.m.]
MS. STREATCH: My honourable colleague raises the point that is often frustrating for all of us in the House and that is the speed at which great initiatives move forward. So we do have these wonderful initiatives in the 25 partnering agencies but again, Mr. Chairman, I know that there is some frustration regarding the speed or the rollout.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we want to make sure that we get it right, we don't move too fast, we don't move too rapidly to defeat the purpose. However, having said that, I do want to let my honourable colleague know that the navigators will be located in our district offices, as indicated - Halifax, Sydney, Truro and Kentville. Those jobs are being classified currently and will be posted soon.
[Page 453]
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my honourable colleague to provide me with a contact number, date, and I would be more than pleased to arrange for someone to come and meet with the group that my honourable colleague mentioned, to ensure that those cracks are filled now.
MR. PREYRA: Thank you very much. Again, I appreciate the minister's offer to help us with that, to make that program get underway quickly. I do have a question about early intervention programs. The minister knows that this lies at the heart of the Child and Youth Strategy and also at the heart of the Nunn inquiry.
In looking at the estimates and Supplementary Detail at Page 4.6, I see that the estimate for 2007-08 for Early Intervention Programs was - in any event, there has been no great change in the commitment of resources to those Early Intervention Programs. I'm wondering why that is, given the certainly professed importance that the department has placed on Early Intervention Programs, should we not see that in the estimates?
MS. STREATCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Certainly the Early Intervention Program funding is absolutely a key component. We all know the importance of that early detection, that early ability to successfully intervene and, indeed, Mr. Chairman, in mid-March we increased funding to the Early Intervention Programs by approximately $46,000, so that was in addition to the 2007-08 budget amount of $2.3 million. So there was an additional increase there and certainly that's reflective of the importance and the value of those Early Intervention Programs.
MR. PREYRA: I have a article that I am holding here from the ChronicleHerald dated March 20, 2008. It talks about Kelly Swinemar, whose daughter Brittany, has turned 16, she has had a history of issues, some of them dealt with through Community Services, and she says that her daughter now, because she has turned 16, no longer has the support of the Department of Community Services, the only ones who are able to get her daughter back into secured care. As soon as she went into the adolescent centre program, Community Services terminated her file. She was no longer their responsibility. I was kind of apprehensive about that, she says, and I called her social worker and she said, well, the file is closed.
So I am wondering what can be done for cases like that, where people essentially will fall between the cracks? It is supposed to be what the Child and Youth Strategy is designed to deal with.
MS. STREATCH: I know that my honourable colleague raises the issue to talk about programming because, certainly, I would not be prepared to speak to the specifics of any case, be they in the public spectrum or not. I know my honourable colleague respects and understands the need for that, specifically when it pertains to child welfare issues, as we've discussed time and time again in this House, Mr. Chairman, and I know that my honourable
[Page 454]
colleague, the member for Dartmouth North is, as I said the other day, passionate to the point of personal care that even he acknowledges sometimes keeps him up far too late at night than it should. But when it comes to child welfare issues, I would ask that my honourable colleague give me the opportunity to speak specifically outside of the realm of the public in response to the specific services that we could provide to an individual in any case, to ensure that that individual remains in receipt of the best possible care that we can provide. So I would encourage my honourable colleague to have that discussion with me so that we could ensure that those answers are provided. Thank you.
MR. PREYRA: Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister. My question was really a question of policy, whether or not that, in fact, was the policy, and it appears to be the policy, and the case is just an example of a problem in the policy that the Child and Youth Strategy is supposed to address.
I have a question about some of the data about the general increase in children in care. The figures show that the number of children taken into permanent care and custody of the minister since 2004 is 8.6 per cent. I'm just wondering what accounts for that increase, given that earlier, the minister was saying that economic conditions and social conditions have improved, and numbers have fallen elsewhere in other areas, but here, the number of children taken into care has, in fact, increased.
MS. STREATCH: The issue of youth in care is one that is challenging, for we aren't alone in this jurisdiction, it's challenging for other jurisdictions. I made reference the other day to a meeting I was attending with my colleagues from across the country. We began to discuss the issue of child welfare and the increasing challenges that come along with the child welfare portfolio.
Unfortunately, we all were experiencing those same challenges. We are experiencing an increase in the number of youth in care. We're experiencing an increase in the complexity of the individuals, the complexity of the challenges of those individuals. While there is no magic answer to how we deal with that, we know that here in Nova Scotia - I was pleased to provide for my colleagues some of the programs that we are rolling out through the Child and Youth Strategy. At the end of the day, it is about recognizing that the challenge is there and then putting those programs in place in the beginning, at that early stage. Through our commitment to the strategy, it would be our hope and my hope for the future that we would see those numbers decline, you would see those numbers decrease.
However, until that's the case, until that is the reality, we will continue to provide the care needed for those children in care. They don't come with a simple recipe for how to solve the issues. Certainly the child welfare staff and my colleagues across the country tell me that it is increasingly more challenging to deal with the complexities. We have to be prepared to look - if I can use the expression - outside the box and try to be creative and to be proactive and be on the ground and ensure the work that Health Promotion and Protection is doing, the
[Page 455]
Department of Health through the Mental Health Initiatives, to ensure all of those in partnership with what we do provides the foundation, so that at the end of the day we can see those numbers decrease.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time for the NDP caucus has expired.
The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.
MS. DIANA WHALEN: I welcome the opportunity to have some questions and dialogue with the Minister of Community Services and thank you for being here today to take our questions and go through these very important stages.
I wanted to start - I have quite a few questions and I know the member for Halifax Citadel said some of them are constituency related and I will say that's true, too. For me, a lot of them come up in our offices as we're doing our work and advocating for our constituents, but I'm also interested in some of the financial aspects of the department as well.
This one is of importance to everyone. I wanted to go to the housing allowance and one of the notes I had was the monthly basic income assistance rates which start with the maximum for shelter for a single parent, one child, $570; single person under special circumstances, no dependent, $535. I'm not sure if we have more children, how much higher it goes, but I don't think anybody gets much more than about $650 - perhaps you can correct me when we get there, because it's not on this list.
My real point is that it's very difficult in HRM to find a place to live for that amount of money for shelter. It's probably no surprise to the minister that people are using every other bit of money for personal allowance, they're using their food money, they're using any of their special needs money to supplement the income. My riding has quite a variety of housing available, lots of apartments - over 8,000 apartment units in Clayton Park - and I can tell you there's scarcely any under $700 - that would be almost the lowest you would find. It just seems that we're not in touch with reality if we're providing a basic rent allowance that doesn't match what's available.
It was mentioned during the poverty forum that was held a couple of years ago, I think one of the recommendations that came from that - at least it was one we discussed - was that there should be a different rate depending on where you live. The market is very different, it may be that in New Ross you might find a rental for $600 a month, it is possible. Some of the rural areas that don't have as many people available to rent to and the market would allow for that. I just feel that in almost every corner of HRM, I see the members from Dartmouth nodding as well, almost everywhere in our city it's very difficult to find anything under $700 or $800 a month when you're talking about a two or three bedroom. We're talking here about families, as you know, there are many families on assistance.
[Page 456]
I find it very difficult when I'm sitting down with people and they're showing me their budget and explaining to me some of their difficulties. It really all ties back to that basic roof over their head. If they can't afford that, they're getting their power cut off, they're not able to pay their other bills, and they just get deeper and deeper into a hole and it's really difficult. So I wondered if the minister could let me know if there's any move afoot to look at differentials by region or possibly to look at an increase in that amount? I would like to say I'm in favour of differentials.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I welcome my honourable colleague to the discussion this afternoon and if I may, I want to recognize that my honourable colleague is certainly one of the many colleagues in the House who, when she has issues, is always prepared to bring them and deal with them on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the benefit of her constituents is achieved and that it truly is about those constituents that she advocates for. So I wanted to make that public and say thank you to her for that.
In particular, when it comes to the income assistance rates and the shelter allowance rates, although I know my honourable colleague knows, I don't need to repeat it but I do for the record, the income assistance rate this year will increase again. So we will see a 15.6 per cent increase over the last five years with the passage of this budget. Again, it's a recognition, it's a tangible recognition that the department understands the challenges out there are great and increasingly more challenging for families every day. So it is a commitment that we made to increase annually and we intend to fulfill and follow through on that commitment.
[6:30 p.m.]
The issue of shelter is one that does cause me some concern, the shelter allowance. It was brought up earlier on in the discussion and we had some discussion and some debate on how we might better allow for that shelter allowance to be spent. I have a couple of concerns when it comes to the shelter allowance. As we've said before, actually no disrespect to landlords, but I wouldn't want an increase in the shelter allowance to simply equate an increase in the rent which would then simply equate to an increase going to the landlord.
So one of the suggestions that was made last week was that we look at the Residential Tenancies Act to see if there isn't some ability within the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure that when there is an increase in the shelter allowance, it doesn't go directly to an increase in the rent. So that's something that I referenced last week that I would have a discussion with the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to see if there's some way to ensure that that doesn't automatically occur.
However, to my honourable colleague's point about a differential or an increase, it would be my expectation that that certainly will be a key component to the Poverty Reduction Strategy. I can't imagine that that isn't being discussed and that that won't be part
[Page 457]
of those recommendations. So we will have a look at those, if indeed it is part of those recommendations, have a look at that to see if it is a market value or to see if it is a differential. Certainly we'll take all of those considerations under advisement and ensure that we include that in our response to those recommendations from the Poverty Reduction Strategy.
MS. WHALEN: I'm not sure I fully understood what the Residential Tenancies Act can contribute to this. Maybe I will ask for the minister to, well, you can take some of your time and explain it if you would like because what I'm saying is here in metro we know what the base rate is. Actually, at the moment in my riding there are more available apartments than there have been. Up until now there has been a very tight market. I think there are more available and I think that the market will determine where that rate will settle. Right now you could have a third party tell you what the market is to determine what makes sense. So maybe you could explain what you thought the Act would have to do with that?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague for the opportunity to expand upon that. The issue that was raised last week was that there have been cases where the experience has been when an increase in the shelter allowance was made to the individuals, in some instances the landlords then raised the rent that reflected that increase. Therefore, the gap continued to stay the same and those individuals who were using their income assistance personal allowance to make up that difference were still finding themselves in a position where they need to fill that gap with other resources. So that was the issue that was raised and that's what I'm asking the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to look into - is there some ability through the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure that when that increase is put in place, that there's not automatically an increase in the rent that would continue to have that gap incur?
MS. WHALEN: I would like to go to the federal program on housing that has been in place for some time, for affordable housing. I know there were some millions of dollars - I don't have it before me, but I know the minister knows and her staff know the amount. I would like to know, if you could tell me, how much is currently available to Nova Scotia but unspent? It was a multi-year program, I believe, to stimulate the building or provision of affordable housing. Hopefully you have it there. Thank you.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, my honourable colleague is referring to the Affordable Housing Program that was the Canada-Nova Scotia program and $56.2 million was the final figure. Of course, Phase I broke down to $34 million, I believe it was, and Phase II was $18 million. We have over 1,070 affordable housing units that have been created or preserved for Nova Scotia families and individuals, and at the end of this fiscal year we will have exhausted the $56.2 million.
MS. WHALEN: I thank the minister for that. Mr. Chairman, most of the information I have on this has come from Public Accounts Committee meetings that I have attended as
[Page 458]
a member. So I don't have it at my fingertips but the initial announcement of this program, the department and the government boasted of 1,500 units that initially were going to be built. We were going to add 1,500 units to our stock. Over time, there were several more different press releases that came out and announcements that came out, that scaled it down so that it was yes, they were going to be renovated or improved or refurbished or maybe a few new ones built. So can the minister break down for us how many units were built and how much was public housing that has been improved, because I know the state of public housing needs improvement as well?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague. Certainly some of the factors that I know my honourable colleague is well aware of, we, here in Nova Scotia, have some of the oldest housing stock in the country which creates its own challenges. We also know, from cross-jurisdictional research and information, that it's not always a matter of money most wisely spent building new units when refurbishing and renovations can take place. We also know that here in Nova Scotia, a large part of our success has been the rent supplements which has provided housing as well for Nova Scotians.
So I'm pleased to provide for my honourable colleague a breakdown by region and a breakdown by program, if she would so care, or perhaps just the central region. I'm not sure which my honourable colleague would like, but I do have it broken down per region and I do have it broken down per program. So the whole proviso or just the central . . .
MS. WHALEN: I would be happy to see the whole thing or anything . . .
MS. STREATCH: I would be happy to give a total number per region and then I can table the chart or give it to my colleague afterward. So we have the New Rental Housing Program, the Rental Housing Preservation Program, the New Home Purchase Program, the Home Preservation Program, and the Rent Supplement Program. So in each of those categories - and I will go a little bit slower because that wasn't very fair, it's hard to write when you're going that fast.
So New Rental Housing across the province would be 547 units completed or under construction; Rental Housing Preservation would be 116 units; New Home Purchase, six units; Home Preservation, 245 units; and Rent Supplement, 70 units. So that would be a total of 1,069 at the end of the programming, and we also have 85 that are in the planning stage, currently.
MS. WHALEN: Can I just ask, the 85, in addition to all of those, would add up to 1,070?
MS. STREATCH: Yes.
[Page 459]
MS. WHALEN: Okay, just for the total, so 85 still outstanding, I understand. Actually there are more elements to the program than I thought. Under the Rent Supplement, my question would be this - and I understood that of the millions of dollars we were getting from the federal government, some of it is going to 10-year, I guess they are rent subsidies, to provide a supplement to lower income people living in new apartment buildings. In fact, there may even be arrangements with builders that a certain percentage of them will be supplemented by the Department of Community Services. I don't believe these are people on social assistance, I think they are low-income supplements. Could you give me a rundown on that program please?
MS. STREATCH: Indeed, my honourable colleague is correct, the Rent Supplement is a program that is available, it is low-income Nova Scotians, not public housing, per se. So the breakdown of the 70 units per rent supplement, I must admit I do not have the exact community locations at my fingertips right now, but I certainly would be happy to get those for my honourable colleague.
MS. WHALEN: Yes, I would very much like to have that. Can I ask for a clarification, that these 70 units that are being counted are really going to be finished after a period of years, because your commitment to supplement the rent on those units is for a fixed period of time. My concern, in terms of that aspect of using the federal dollars to provide shelter for low-income Nova Scotians, is it isn't long term. I'm not sure if it's 10 years - that seems like a long time - but we're not really developing or providing something long term that is tangible.
We've been given millions of dollars by the federal government to provide some homes, we have the oldest housing stock in the country, we have some public housing that like many other provinces, I know it's not unique here, but some of the public housing is extremely substandard and it does need that improvement. If we improve the substandard public housing, we would have much better homes for people in the long term. We need to invest and maintain what we have because, like any homeowner, if you don't look after what you have, it very quickly deteriorates and becomes major and that investment is lost.
I have some philosophical difference, or problem even ,with the rent subsidy idea and I'd just like to understand how much time people will get that subsidy for or what the nature of the arrangement is with the developers that are building a building. Do we have a commitment to them for a period of time, so they will always maintain units? Do we help them pay for the building in the first instance? I'm not sure how you do that.
So there are a couple of questions in there to the minister. One of them would be, going back to if I'm a developer and building a new building, can I come to the Department of Community Services and allocate a number of those units that I say will sort of be preserved for lower income, and you help offset the cost of building? That would be one
[Page 460]
question - is that how it is done? Or is it after the fact that certain building owners are able to make an arrangement with you? Thank you.
MS. STREATCH: There were three or four questions in there, Mr. Chairman, so I'll try to get the three or four of them all at once and, if I don't, certainly I would encourage my honourable colleague to ask me again.
Yes, the Rent Supplement Program is one whereby, as a request for proposal, an RFP goes out per area, so it's not just at the whim of the developer - we do issue an RFP, and the RFP goes out. The federal dollars flow through to the developer now, and the provincial commitment is a 10-year commitment to ensure that the affordable rent is maintained. The landlord is beholden to this agreement and it guarantees that 10 year.
We can always agree to have differences of opinions on philosophical programming. One of the points that I would like to make, one of the successes I've seen with some of these rent supplement agreements, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, is the mixed housing, the mixed income levels and the success that has brought. I know first-hand how important it is to ensure that families, that children, that parents have that whole community environment. So that's one of the successes that I've seen with the Rent Supplement Program, because all of the units in a complex wouldn't necessarily be rent supplement. You'd have a variety of income levels and a variety of family situations which I find to be a positive outcome from the Rent Supplement Program.
MS. WHALEN: I'd like to ask about the financial commitment for the 70 units that would be rent supplements. Do you have a financial total that would attach itself to the 70 units? We can go to the other types later but I'd like to put a dollar figure behind 70 units under rent supplement. Because it's a 10-year commitment, do you have a total, an aggregate figure for the 10-year commitment that you made? I'm not sure, I know you have financial people with you today.
MS. STREATCH: Yes, my extremely capable financial wizard is telling me that I don't have that at my fingertips. But I can certainly get a dollar figure for my honourable colleague, the commitment to date and certainly what that projected commitment would be for the 10-year agreement.
MS. WHALEN: Yes, thank you very much. I would like to see that because there is quite a difference in that kind of arrangement over perhaps the rental preservation, where you would go in and really refurbish and rectify buildings that would be paid for in one given year and done. So it's a different kind of thing. I do appreciate what the minister says about having people, I guess the choice between people being in a public housing complex and being mixed into other communities so that you have just a different nature of a community. I think, when you don't group people all together because they happen to be disadvantaged, that doesn't make for the best society, I would agree with that.
[Page 461]
[6:45 p.m.]
Certainly, I think there's a lot of evidence that says that families do better, there's a better chance of escaping the cycle of poverty if you live in a community where there are other people of all backgrounds together, the diversity and the economic and otherwise is helpful. I think there's probably less crime and less danger and less negative influences if you have all people mixed together. I know, again, you also run into troubles in integrating sometimes in some neighbourhoods they may not welcome that. But I think we do need to have a broader understanding that it's in everyone's best interest for all of us. We all live in the same society, whether we're in a neighbourhood that has a stigma or not, and that should be in all of our best interests. So I like that idea.
I am concerned about that model where we are doing something that might be of short-term benefit to the province, so I would like to know what kind of investment we have to make to get 70 units of subsidized rent. The other question I have is, for the families who live in those subsidized rents, what is the income cut-off for receiving assistance to go in there and how many people - there are only 70 units, do you have others that are in play that were not part of this Canada-Nova Scotia agreement? Throughout the province are there more than 70 families that are able to benefit or is it only through the Canada-Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Program?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, other than the 70 units we do have other programs. The Rent Supplement Program - on Page 4.7, I would draw my honourable colleague's attention to $2.6 million under Rent Supplement Program. So we do have an existing program now and yes, as with all of our programs, those are income tested, so they do have household income limits attached to them. I would be happy to get those exact household income limits for my honourable colleague as soon as I can, perhaps by the end of this dialogue.
MS. WHALEN: It says here, again going to the new rental, I'm actually very surprised, I should say, that these are all available, these units, and only 85 are outstanding, because the last time it was at the Public Accounts Committee there was a huge number outstanding and very few that had been built or made available. I think other members of the House may remember that in the discussion we had at the Public Accounts Committee.
So I am curious, are the 547 units you refer to that are new, actually built? You said they are built and available, will they be available this year if they're under construction? The program was off to a tremendously slow and unwieldy start. Nothing had happened for several years except that the number had gone from 1,500 down to about 800, as I recall, where we left it. Now today it's up to over 1,000 again, but it had really been significantly pared down in terms of the impact and the progress had been very slow in the initial few years. So could you tell me about those 547 new units?
[Page 462]
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. The household income limits, I can provide a chart for my honourable colleague at the end of our discussion that I would table for her to reference and to not mislead my honourable colleague, the new rental per region: 38 in the Cape Breton region; 138 in the northern; 139 in the central; and 232 in the western. So 547 units have been completed or are under construction, so we have allocated those dollars and we're moving the project.
There are occasions when the contractors or the developers, the monies have been secured but because of various challenges they have, the projects haven't been completed. But those 547 are either completed or under construction. The other 85 that I mentioned are in the planning stage. So I didn't mean to mislead my honourable colleague. Those are in the planning stage and we would be moving forward with those, again in partnership with our developers, understanding that all of our dollars will be out the door by the end of fiscal 2008-09.
MS. WHALEN: I would like to find out a little bit about the nature of these new rental units. They're clearly not in public housing areas. They're, I would imagine, empty lots that have been developed in different neighbourhoods. Number one, can you tell me how many are in HRM ?Secondly, can you confirm that they're not grouped together, that they're spread throughout the province - not the province, but throughout communities? Are they, again, dependent upon developers building it on your behalf? Are they dependent upon calls for proposals where these new rental units will go?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, in the central region, which would be HRM, we have four regions in the department, so in the central region there are 139 new rentals. I do not have the list at my fingertips where each of those 139 are. Again I will ask staff to provide those addresses to my honourable colleague. Of course, we wouldn't want for privacy reasons to issue every street and civic number, but I will provide that list certainly to my honourable colleague for her information. Whether or not they're all together, they wouldn't all be lumped together because, of course, this encompasses the entire central region. So we will make sure that we get those exact locations to my colleague.
MS. WHALEN: My question around this would be, I have seen some of the announcements where the minister has been to an area and new buildings opened. There was one in Fairview not very long ago that I believe you attended perhaps with your husband, if I may say so, Mr. Chairman. But what I'm wondering about is, would that building be dedicated forever to low-income housing? Is it privately owned by someone else, and has it been built - again, because federal money went in to help build it and because provincial money helped the builder, so is it done by RFP where you decide to go and is it forever? Would those buildings be protected as low-income housing or affordable housing?
MS. STREATCH: I'll have to clarify that. Mr. Chairman, yes, it was a pleasure to be in Fairview with my colleague, the member for Halifax Fairview, if that's the name of his
[Page 463]
constituency - I believe, yes - and our federal counterparts and the developers. Because that one - and I'm not going to take my honourable colleague's time to talk about the success of that project, but it really was a phenomenal success story because they used some amazing technology when it came to geothermal. They used amazing technology when it came to energy efficiency. All of the units are accessible, not all of them are accessible to visitors and, indeed, they had specific units that were completely accessible for their residents. So it really was a success story. The family themselves, the developers who were the family, were a tremendous group to work with. Sorry to digress, but I did want to make that reference.
Yes, they are all done by RFP and they are done by area. So the regional administrators and the provincial coordination look at the stock that is available, look at what needs to be new rental, or what needs to be preservation, or which component of our menu would best fit that area, and so the RFP is done by area. I will get confirmation - I am getting the nod. We believe it's for 15 years that they are kept with that agreement, but I will get confirmation. I wouldn't want to mislead my honourable colleague, so I will get confirmation for her.
MS. WHALEN: I would like to ask a couple of questions around second-stage housing. Again, being a metro member and representing Halifax Clayton Park, I'm really concerned about affordable housing. My area has a mix of housing, but we don't have enough affordable housing in Clayton Park, and I believe the costs are getting very high. So there are a lot of issues around that. I'm glad we touched on some of them; there is certainly a great deal to know on every segment of your department.
Second-stage housing is what I mentioned and that's because I have a great deal of interest in the whole gamut of issues that face women - women in domestic violence, how we can help women who face any domestic or other violence, how we can help them to re-establish in the community. The evidence is clear that we need longer term supports and it's definitely important that we have transition houses and a safe refuge, but those have a limited period of time where the women can stay and I believe, too often, the families are almost forced to return to a home situation that is not safe because they don't have the long-term support to get just the counselling, the life skills and the employment skills necessary to re-establish themselves.
So we need more second-stage housing in the province. I believe Alice Housing is the largest in Eastern Canada and you may know the exact number, it is double digit, but it's not 100 units that they have under their management. We need literally several hundred, I would say, in the province right now. I'm wondering if you have any plans on second-stage housing that will help to provide more stability, and frankly more success, for the other programs that you administer.
[Page 464]
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to have this dialogue. I know that the complexity of the issues around second-stage housing, second-stage residency, goes directly to the point that my honourable colleague made in her very end remark in that the other programs that we have in place are part and parcel, key components, but are out there in a void without that second-stage housing.
I bring up the success of SHYM in an acknowledgment, and the program over in Dartmouth is really, what I think to be, one of those opportunities where we looked outside the box. We found an opportunity with the federal government to create housing for young, single mothers who then were able to avail themselves of those other programs that we have in place to ensure they get the resources and the services that are available in the community while they are in a safe environment and an environment that allows them to gain that independence and that self-confidence they so desperately need.
I know there are some restrictions: they can stay for up to two years, they have to take part in other programming, and there's an age requirement there as well. So I think we use that type of a program to show the example that we are committed. That program was funded through the federal government. We support it through our per diem and through our funding, the same way that we support Alice Housing.
So to the specific question of my honourable colleague, is it something we're looking at, absolutely. Is it something I think we need to do more of, absolutely. The key is making sure that we do it in partnership with those other programs and services because the housing alone is not enough. It has to be in partnership with the programs that are in place, by the women's centres, by the transition houses, all of those other groups.
MS. WHALEN: Can the minister tell me how many second-stage housing units in the province that you support or help - wouldn't be entirely supported but, you know, that you give some assistance to?
I think it is worthwhile, while the minister looks for that, to make note of the fact that every one of the organizations, not just serving women, but really serving our community, all of them are so hard-pressed to do fundraising on their own in order to make ends meet. About two weeks ago I was at an Alice Housing event, an art auction evening which they do . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is a little noisy in the Chamber. I can't hear the honourable member speaking, so I would ask some of the conversations to be lowered. Thank you.
MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is very much the case with all of these organizations that they spend a large amount of their time, and their board's time, to raise money and make up the shortfall in per diem, which have not risen for a long time
[Page 465]
and which really aren't in line with what the costs are to provide that shelter for people. As I say, I just feel that the pressure and expectations we have for those organizations to continue to operate, when they are so dependent on fundraising, is really a difficulty that's obvious throughout the province.
[7:00 p.m.]
I attended, Mr. Chairman, a meeting of community organizations, recently. It was executive directors who meet to share knowledge. They all said they spend about half or more of their time worrying about fundraising and trying to access either community support, or raise money in fundraising events, or fill out proposals for government programs. So it is really difficult, and at the end of the day I would like the minister to let me know how much second-stage housing we have some provincial support for.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, the issue surrounding the second stage housing is one that, as my honourable colleague has said, is extremely important and it is important to ensure that we have all of the components lined up. So it's in that manner that our department provides funding for income assistance clients. We would provide funding for programming and, of course, the federal government would be who they would look to for their construction. Operational isn't the word I'm looking for, but it is not construction, I guess it's their start-up.
So, specifically, I mentioned the SHYM in Dartmouth and I know my honourable colleague wants to know exactly how many, and I don't have that information at my fingertips. But staff are looking for how many beds are available at each: Alice Housing, of course, in Dartmouth; we know that Bridgewater, as well, has second-stage housing; Antigonish would be home to second-stage housing; Cape Breton; and then, of course, the Port Hawkesbury-Inverness area. I will get the total number for my colleague at the earliest possible convenience, Mr. Chairman.
MS. WHALEN: One of the shortcomings that we have just heard is that for those second-stage housing units, there is only support if the women are on social assistance or, in some cases, it may not be women. As I say, I am focusing a little bit on women. Perhaps you have other second-stage housing, although wouldn't second-stage housing almost always be women? I think it's perhaps 100 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, the shortcoming is that if a woman is needing those services and is rebuilding her life, and is not on social assistance, if she's a full-time student or has a job of some sort, she's not getting any help. That means that those very important associations are left to subsidize themselves, through their fundraising, through their other innovative means, to try to come up with the support that they know those women desperately need. I have heard of some stories that the women are clearly not able to resume their lives without the
[Page 466]
kind of intense support that comes with living in a second-stage housing environment - so that is one of my questions.
I'm going to go to students and housing now because you have a program called the Lone Parent Student Affordable Rental Housing, I believe it is. I don't know if we would have counted it in any of our other affordable housing - would it come under any of those ones you've told me about which would have been just even the rent supplements? Is that considered a rent supplement under the federal program or would it come under the $2.6 million that you indicated? I do understand that the lone parent housing program is also federally supported, I believe, so perhaps the minister could talk a little bit about that program - I have a number of specifics based on contact with one of the people who is under that program at the moment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the honourable minister, maybe while she is looking for that information, permit an introduction?
MS. STREATCH: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Merçi, Monsieur le président, je veux avertir mes collègues que nous avons avec nous ce soir dans la galerie ouest des invités de la Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse qui sont içi pour observer nos débats.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to the west gallery where we have some visitors from the Acadian Federation of Nova Scotia here to observe our debates tonight, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in a warm welcome to our guests. (Applause)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I welcome you to the proceedings this evening.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, the lone parent housing program that we offer in conjunction with the universities across the province is one that is a pilot project and therefore caused a little bit of confusion earlier on in the year when it was indicated that it was being considered for elimination, when indeed that is not the case. It is a pilot project and therefore by its nature it's required that we review it to ensure whether it is a success or whether it is not a success. We are pleased to say it is a success and I indicated at that time that if anything I would prefer to have it expanded because it has been so successful.
So, again, as we've said numerous times in this House, an education is such a key component to breaking the cycle and to being able to access that education which, of course, leads to better employment, as my honourable colleague well knows. We've all seen the statistics regarding in particular - not that it is limited to women - but in particular to women
[Page 467]
who are able to achieve some form of post-secondary education, the success that that brings with it, therefore the lone parent housing program is a fine example of how we're able to provide assistance through the federal dollars that are flowed through for those students, as well as the child care initiatives that we would put in place to ensure that those are provided to those students to ensure, again, that every possible program that can be taken advantage of is taken advantage of.
MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister - apparently in the announcement, when first there was perhaps a misunderstanding, it was thought that the program was going to be cancelled and then you say now that it is a pilot project, it's ongoing, could you be more clear by what you mean by under review? Is the program on the chopping block or are you having good success with it and you just want to see how to tweak it, how to make small changes that are going to make it more effective or meeting more people's needs? So could you just be clear on the "under review"?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague because, absolutely, I want to be perfectly clear, this is a program that has proven to be successful. As we've stated numerous times in this House, we've put programs in place and sometimes we've created barriers or challenges with those programs. In this case, that is not the case, this program has been successful, we've had uptake. In the beginning we had partial uptake and then, as we spread the word and got the information out there, we had full uptake, so we're pleased with that. We fully intend to continue with the program, it is by no means under review for elimination, but under review to ensure that there are no barriers, and to ensure that it is meeting the needs of those students who it is designed to meet.
MS. WHALEN: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this program has a limit of your first degree only, and if you have one degree then you're not eligible to continue the rent subsidy. The case in point that I'd like to raise is a young woman who has, in fact, written the minister, her name is Aleah Maxwell. She wrote the minister at the end of March, and I know many people write the minister, but I'm hoping she'll remember that letter and I do have a copy, perhaps at the end of the day I'll give you a copy just so you have it.
She is a student at Mount Saint Vincent University and is doing very well and just finishing up an arts degree now. She has been accepted to the Bachelor of Education, which is a degree that requires an undergraduate degree in order to take. So she, as it turns out, has only had two years of the rent subsidy under the lone parent program. Because she did an articulated degree, she did two years at her local community college, if you go to the community college - and I'm not sure if this has been brought to the attention of the minister - but with the growing number of articulation agreements we have in place, a lot of students are able to have the lower tuition of a community college, study closer to their home community and get partway through their undergraduate degree at the community college, then transfer into, maybe, the nearest university, or whichever university they choose, to complete the degree and that is what this young woman has done. She had two years closer
[Page 468]
to home, now she has completed the degree at Mount Saint Vincent University, is accepted to the Education degree, but because the program says it is for the first degree, she won't be eligible - least as it has been explained to her - very shortly, for that continuing support.
Often in a lot of our programs, and even the most well-meaning projects, pilot projects and otherwise, sometimes we miss the personal flavour until somebody is actually trying to access it. We sometimes miss some of the nuance and some of the detail that becomes clear as you see it unfolding. Mr. Chairman, the minister has said it is a pilot project and they're studying it, but I think this is one area where it needs to be looked at, and I would like the minister's response to see if this is something that could be reconsidered, and that is that if you've only accessed it for two years that you be allowed to continue to at least a four year, or maybe some level as determined. In this particular case it will mean the difference between continuing her studies or not continuing her studies. An arts degree won't take you nearly as far as an education degree will take you in terms of creating a better life for herself and her child. I wonder if the minister could just respond to that limitation that applies to a first degree?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, again, to my honourable colleague who is well aware that I wouldn't speak to any specific case, but I certainly appreciate her bringing this case forward and I can indicate that when we do review programs, as I said, this one was a pilot program and so the review is to ensure that we have maximum use of the program, that those dollars are flowing where they need to. In this particular instance, I will take the specifics of the request of my colleague back and ensure that that is part of the review. It would never be the intention of the department to prevent someone from having success with a program, or having success with post-secondary education, and so sometimes it's just a matter of bringing things to our attention. So I will take this particular case back for that review process.
MS. WHALEN: Again, further to that, and really, I use this woman's circumstance as a case in point, because I think it will probably apply to others. But in this case, that small amount of support, which is less than $500 a month, I think the subsidy itself is something like $350 or $400 a month and that, in itself, has made the difference between her attending university or not, so I think it's money very well spent.
Going to the same circumstance, or the same issue of a single-parent student, I want to touch on Career Seek. I know I did hear it mentioned earlier on, so you've been having some discussion with other members of the House, but the Career Seek program has one severe limitation, I would say, and that is that you must be on social assistance for a period of time before you can apply for this help. Again, we have cases like the young woman I mentioned at Mount Saint Vincent, who need a little bit of help to maintain her standing as a student. With all of the pressures of raising a child and the costs involved, we know - and I don't even think it is necessary to say, but - people cannot afford to raise a family on a student loan and attend university full time, it can't be done. I know you're not responsible
[Page 469]
for the Student Loan Program, to the minister, but at the same time, there is a lot that can be done to help with the living costs of single parents who are students, who don't have an income coming into the household but who are working hard, nonetheless, to better their circumstance through education.
I wonder if the minister has given any thought to the Career Seek program being available to single-parent students who are otherwise not able to continue their studies and maybe up to this point in time they have not gone on social assistance, but that may be their only option to continue education?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague for the opportunity to go into a couple of details on the Career Seek program which, as I've stated before, and I know my honourable colleague has heard me say it, that I was disappointed with the uptake and I recognized and acknowledged the barriers that were in place that were imposed by the regulations and policy were a concern. For that reason, we did remove a multitude of those barriers.
One of the barriers that was removed was the duration that the individual had to be on social assistance, it was a 12-month period, and that was decreased to ensure that it wasn't a hindrance. We also abided by the regulations that would have been in place, that the federal government would use for a - it has to do with a five-year period that an individual, during that five-year period, must have been on assistance to be able to access programming. So we use that same type of formula. We decreased the time that an individual had to be on income assistance, as well, we allowed that the income assistance would continue to be provided for shelter, which was not the case related to shelter and the personal allowances, so that was a hindrance and we allowed for that component as well.
[7:15 p.m.]
The other key part that goes hand in hand with what we were just discussing was to ensure that individuals were made aware of, and were able to access, if at all possible, that lone parent housing program and of course, the subsidized child care. The subsidized child care is a key component here. Not only did we increase the number of subsidized spaces across the province, we increased the income level to allow more families to be able to access that, and then along with that, we also decreased the daily parent fee because we know that every dollar that we can provide back to those mothers, fathers and families certainly is much appreciated. So we did make those changes to the program, we are anticipating a higher uptake this Fall, and we'll be pleased to report to the House what that uptake is at the earliest that the information is available.
MS. WHALEN: I'm pleased to see that there were changes made to that program because, as you say, the uptake was abysmal. Something like two out of the 50 allowable spaces were taken up in the first year. It was a great disappointment, I'm sure, to the minister
[Page 470]
as well, because it was brought in with a certain amount of fanfare and expectation. Again, if it's not tailored to the needs of the women who need it - that's exactly what came to light, was that it needed those kinds of changes.
The idea of helping with child care is essential, again when we're talking about single parents, that's very important as well, so there are a number of components. Certainly, if you're living with a child and you're receiving the full student loan, which would mean you are taking on $12,000 a year in debt, you are still about $7,000 short of meeting all of your requirements, even at a very modest level. The student organizations have calculated that as a shortfall. Really, a lot of these families need that extra support to keep a roof over their head and food on the table while they're studying; so I would urge the minister to look at ways to continue to expand that and its availability.
The lone parent housing program, going back to that, only five students per university are designated. I understand at Mount Saint Vincent, in my riding, there would only be five students eligible and that is a university that attracts - in fact, I was told today, has the highest percentage of women of any university in Canada. In most universities now, I believe the majority of students are now women, but Mount Saint Vincent is traditionally a women's university. It also attracts a lot of mature students. There will be more women requiring support at Mount St. Vincent because of the nature of the programs they offer. They offer early childhood learning, for example, primarily women would be studying that, and they also encourage mature women to come back - mature, in university lingo, I think only requires you to be out of school a few years. They encourage women to return to university, and to seek education, and have had some innovative programs to do that.
So, I might ask, as well, that on that lone parent housing program that we look at additional spaces - 30 - again, you have a cap of 30 across the province, that's not very many spaces to provide what is really essential to the families.
I only have a few minutes left and I'd like to ask about portable child care subsidies. This is an area where, I think, we feel it's extremely important that there be portability. The Liberal Party has introduced a private members' bill that all spaces should be portable. If the province is supporting families and giving them that assistance, they should be allowed to choose what centres are closest to them and where they can, essentially, allocate that support.
It should be as convenient as possible because the low-income families who are accessing subsidized child care are apt to be taking public transportation; they certainly won't have two vehicles to drive in different directions; they're lucky if they have any. They need help to be able to integrate the child care into their lives. Allow them the choice to find a child care centre close to where they work, or close to where they live, and not to have to go to a designated centre that happens to have some spaces attached to it. That could be far from where you're otherwise travelling.
[Page 471]
I think it's putting a lot of stress on these single parents, or even low income families who are making use of the subsidies. We need to be more responsive to the needs of the parents and the children and make sure that is the measure.
Really, I predicate my support of portable child care subsidies on the fact that I believe there are strong, quality assurance controls in place for all daycares. I know I have seen some that have been closed, in fact, in the time I've been there, because they have not met the standards that are set out by the department. I know that causes a lot of problems in itself, to close one. However, the department is responsible for maintaining high standards and has laid them out, so as long as the child care centres are meeting those high standards of control and quality, then should we not be able to allow parents and children to find the best mix for their own needs. So, can you tell me where we're at with portable child care subsidies?
MS. STREATCH: I've had the opportunity to discuss with various members the issue of subsidy, portability versus fixed and I'm pleased to be able to provide an update and discuss some of the facts and figures that we have before us.
For my honourable colleague's information, as of April 2008, there are approximately 3,154 subsidized spaces across the province. Of those, 1,268 are portable, meaning, of course, the family, if eligible, can move and take that space with them. Part of the 10-year plan was to create an additional 500 spaces, and as of May 2008, we are at the 500 total with an anticipated 50 more to come.
The issue of portability is one that I struggle with myself. The issue boils down to - we talk about the family having the choice and so we've put in place some factors. We put in place the ability for the department to, as my honourable colleague has said - we work hand in hand, we work well with the centres, we know the information that's coming and going. We've worked well with the centres to ensure that if those portable spaces that are in place, if they remain fixed for a four-month period, they do have a requirement to then turn over to portability.
So, we are working in that direction and I would ask my honourable colleague to continue to have some encouragement in that; we are moving in that direction. Full portability is not something that we have put into place at this point and so it's not what my honourable colleague is looking for, full portability, but we are moving to ensuring that the accountability, and the onus upon the centre to truly have those portable spaces portable, is there. The other piece - I know my colleague wants to get back up - but the other piece that I would remind her and the other members of is the family home child care which, of course, adds for that flexibility in that choice in some areas where that child care may not have existed before.
[Page 472]
MS. WHALEN: Just one quick question would be, is the family home daycare eligible for the subsidy, and I think perhaps the answer there is yes. I'm going to ask one question from my notes and that is that the Child Care Stabilization Grant is now established and it's supposed to provide funding for full-day, child care programs, I understand. So the question is, could the minister indicate which line item on Page 4.2- I've got my Estimates Book out, Page 4.2 - would include support for this grant? So that would be the child care subsidization grant, is it one that I can find in the Estimates and I'm looking at Page 4.2, because I'm almost out of time, that may be my last question I believe.
MS. STREATCH: Thank you very much and, indeed, the answer to my colleague's question regarding the family home daycare, yes, they are eligible for subsidy and so that's a positive piece. In reference, specifically, to my colleague's question about Page 4.2, the stabilization grants are in place and her question was which line item referenced the stabilization, and it's inside both the ELCC Program, Phase I and Phase II category. So the final line item is in those two.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member's time has expired. Before I recognize the next speaker, I understand we're going to take a short break.
The committee will take a 10-minute recess.
[7:25 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[7:30 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Committee on Supply is called to order.
The honourable member for Dartmouth South-Portland Valley.
MS. MARILYN MORE: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to my question before I had to leave to go speak in the Red Room, about the apparent freeze on vocational supports and residential options. I'd like to give two examples to show the impact of this.
The minister may be aware, because I believe her office received a copy of a letter from the chair of the board of Dartmouth Adult Service Centre Association (DASC). The message, I think, is one that is shared by all vocational agencies working with persons with disabilities in this province and I believe they're all members of the Directions Council. In it the chairperson talks about a number of the issues facing these agencies: the fact that they haven't had any operational increase since 1992, and we all know how utilities and other operational expenses have increased since that time; buildings requiring maintenance, expansion or replacement; but probably the biggest issue of all is the unacceptable wait list for services and programs by persons with disabilities in this province.
[Page 473]
I understand from the letter that there was a review in which members of Directions Council took part, possibly three years ago, so I'm just wondering what progress has been made to provide adequate funding to these organizations that are providing such an important service to many members of our disabilities community.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I thank my honourable colleague for the opportunity to talk about the very good work that is going on at facilities such as the Dartmouth Adult Service Centre, DASC, as we would put the little acronym on it, as we like to do in the department, which drives some people crazy, but it's a lot easier than trying to get all of the words out all the time. And, of course, the work through the Directions Council.
We certainly make reference to the fact that we did have the Department of Community Services reports, the Adult Day Programs Jurisdictional Review, May 2005, and the Vocational and Day Program Services for Adults with Disabilities in Nova Scotia, summary report, October 2007. Certainly, as I indicated earlier, part of the go-forward with the Services for Persons with Disabilities strategy will be to get the budget successfully passed through the Legislature, to then put that $6 million into place that will be part and parcel of that strategy flow. That's only the beginning, as I indicated before.
The scope of the strategy is much broader than simply that $6 million, but this is the beginning. This beginning is so valuable and so important to the entire sector, and we know they have been extremely patient with us, and we know that they have been extremely frustrated, and I recognize that, and I thank them, again, for the tremendous work that they do on our behalf, on behalf of all Nova Scotians. We certainly have an extremely high regard for the excellent programs they offer.
It would be our intention, once the budget is approved, to have the SPD Program area meet with the Directions Council, provide copies of those reviews and as part of the SPD provincial strategy, we certainly would propose that the Directions Council be part and parcel of developing that funding model for the adult service centres with us.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't clear. Like the minister, I was doing double duty here. Is there new money in the budget for those vocational agencies this coming year? Could she give me just a little bit of detail about what the positive impacts of that would be?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, once the budget is put away, the scope of the strategy will certainly become clearer because it is, indeed, key to the $6 million investment that we recognize that we begin to make those changes, they don't all come in one fell swoop. So there will some rejigging, there will be some aligning, there will be some work with the various service providers and the various stakeholders in that portfolio of the Services for Persons with Disabilities. So yes, indeed, the $6 million commitment will have a component that will directly affect the adult day programs.
[Page 474]
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, what percentage of that $6 million will actually go to the community-based organizations and how much of it will be used for administration and operationalizing the strategy?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, the complete layout of the $ 6 million investment is not immediately available at my fingertips. I certainly would be more than pleased to provide that to my honourable colleague so she can see the breakdown of the investments and exactly where they're going as part of that overall provincial strategy.
MS. MORE: I certainly would appreciate getting that breakdown, but I think more importantly, I'd like to make sure the breakdown is provided to the service providers because I think they've been waiting very patiently for a number of years. They've invested a lot of time and effort into the review and I think the staff, the boards, the clients and the people on the wait lists and their families need the reassurance that there's going to be an immediate impact as soon as possible. When that information is available, I do hope it will be passed on to the Directions Council.
I want to move on to the other half of my question about the freeze on residential placements. I think we're all aware in this committee that that part of the program has been under review for approximately 10 years.
I want to tell you the story of a small business, a small, private for-profit business in the province that has been operating Windsor House in Windsor, and I believe this has perhaps been brought to the minister's attention as well. This couple has actually had to subsidize the clients who live in Windsor House for several years. I'm just wondering, how does the minister respond to people who out of the genuine love for others have started facilities like this of providing great care and a home-like atmosphere within the community and are struggling?
For example, the only increases that most operators of for-profit and non-profit in this province have seen for years has perhaps been for staffing costs but food, insurance, heat, electricity and other cost pressures haven't seen any increase in per diems for seven years or more. So I'm just wondering, what rationale could the minister possibly provide to operators, of both for-profit and non-profit, that would encourage them to stay in business and provide these necessary residential care facilities, adult residential centres, group homes and developmental residences?
MS. STREATCH: I thank my honourable colleague for the opportunity to discuss again the successes and the challenges. The Services for Persons with Disabilities, it's certainly experiencing some change as we've indicated. The financial investment is only one component to that. It is indeed the philosophical shift that we spoke of earlier about finding placements for individuals that truly meet their individual needs.
[Page 475]
Mr. Chairman, I didn't state it earlier because I know that all members in this House recognize this but I do need to get it on the record, because it's extremely important that all members recognize that individuals who access our programs do so on a voluntary basis. Our SPD Program is a voluntary program. Clients and families are made aware of the continuum of supports that we provide. They decide with our staff, and they decide as families, which option best meets their needs, and that goes directly to the honourable member's question because we do have a wide range, as I listed earlier.
There's no need for me to take up my honourable colleague's time by relisting those options, but we do have a wide range of options available. Because of the good work that was done at the beginning of the renewal strategy, looking at what types of programs and services we can put in place that best meet the individual needs, we had tremendous success with our Independent Living Support Program, with our Alternative Family Support Program, and with our Direct Family Support Program.
Now, as individuals voluntarily chose to partake in those programs - because that is what they told us was a priority and that's why we were able to get those programs out the door immediately - as individuals took advantage of those programs, Mr. Chairman, we saw some movement in the continuum and we continue to see movement in that continuum. We see individuals go from one level of care to another. We see individuals take the opportunity to take advantage of a program that wasn't in place before or to take advantage of a program that now meets their individual needs that may become more complex with age. Certainly the challenges that go along with increased age in our population of our clientele create other challenges for parents and for those clients. So we certainly do see some shifts.
My honourable colleague asks what do I feel about that or how do I provide encouragement for those service providers and those individuals who work in partnership with us. Well, indeed, we cannot do it alone and we, as a department, rely on the quality, the professionalism that our service providers and our stakeholders bring to the table. We value greatly their ability to provide those programs and to provide those options and that continuum that I speak so frequently about. So we encourage our service providers to work hand in hand with us, and as we move forward with the changes in the strategy, they will be there, side by side with us, ensuring that we continue to provide that continuum of support for Nova Scotians.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little confused with the minister's use of the word "voluntary" because I have to say that I thought up to now, when it was being used by department officials, it meant that there was no compulsion on the part of the department to provide these programs and services, it was only as resources allowed, that clients weren't entitled to these programs and services. So I would like to ask the minister, how many adults and children are on the wait list across the province for residential placements?
[Page 476]
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, again, not to cause confusion or to belabour the issue, the point that I was making was that individuals who access our programs do so voluntarily. They are not compelled, they are not forced into a particular placement. That was the point I was making. We certainly make our programs and services available to Nova Scotians who fall within the parameters of the Services for Persons with Disabilities, we make them available voluntarily. That allows them to make the choice of what is best for them, what is right for them, in partnership with the experts, with the caseworkers and our staff who would be best suited to advise them.
[7:45 p.m.]
The honourable member asks about wait lists. Mr. Chairman, there's no question that it's a challenge to have the adequate space within that continuum to allow for maximum occupancy. Our program is committed to providing folks with that range that meets their varied needs and increases in the program capacity for residential and non-residential options are being reviewed to help alleviate that wait-list pressure.
As an example, we have an increase in our Direct Family Support and Independent Living Support which, of course, would provide opportunities for other individuals to move into the system and take advantage of some of those other options. But specifically, at this date, we would have approximately 400 adults, across the province, who would be on wait lists for both residential and non-residential program options. There would currently be approximately 25 children on the wait list for residential, out-of-home placement.
MS. MORE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those figures because I guess it points to the crux of the problem that it's hardly voluntary when adults and children on a wait list for considerable time, in some cases, and an opening comes up, it's not as though they're given a choice of here, there or there. If after they've been waiting six, 10, 12 months, and an opening comes up, I think in most cases the severity of their need would probably dictate that they would accept that placement.
I'm just curious, in the last four or five years, how many public or for-profit or non-profit - I'll call them residential facilities - has the department bought, itself, to operate?
MS. STREATCH: Again, I just wanted to go back and for the record, we do recognize that those wait lists occur. We do recognize that continuum is constantly in flux, because we have individuals who come into a program area and they would come out of another. So I recognize that's a challenge for those individuals who are on that wait list. Again, for the record, the over 4,800 Nova Scotians that we are able to provide services for, it's a fact that I don't believe I've had the opportunity to say during these estimate debates, so I would like to get that number out there for the record.
[Page 477]
Specifically to my colleague's question, it is not our practice to own the residential facilities. We work in partnership with our service providers. So we would provide funding to those service providers who would then in turn provide the expertise through their non-profit and commercial businesses, ventures and organizations that we would flow the dollars through to.
MS. MORE: Well, I don't particularly want to go down that road too far, but I am aware of one in my own constituency that was bought by the department and is now being managed by the Metropolitan Regional Housing Authority. I have some questions about a government department that controls per diems which affected the availability of that place for resale, and then keeping those low and then turning around and buying that building themselves. I guess I'm glad to hear this isn't a policy or a usual practice of the department.
I wanted to get back to a concept that I've raised several times, both in the Standing Committee on Community Services and during various budget estimates, and that's about using an ombudsperson model in the department. I'm sure I'm not the only MLA whose constituency casework probably is 60 per cent driven by clients of the Department of Community Services. I won't get into all the various aspects of that, but I really think it would be an effective use of public money to have someone in the role of an ombudsperson within the department who could help clients resolve their concerns and the miscommunications and all the problems that arise internally, rather than kind of off-loading them on to MLAs' offices and community-based organizations.
Has there been any attempt to look at such a model within the department? Thank you.
MS. STREATCH: The issue has certainly been brought up, in particular by one of your colleagues, with reference to a youth advocate, I believe was the reference that was brought up earlier in these debates. We discussed that a bit, but the idea of a specific ombudsman for our department is not something that is currently being considered. I guess I would indicate that the staff at the department do a tremendous job of working with the individuals. We have an open line of communication amongst all members, and I know members on all sides of the House will make reference to the staff and how they're approachable and how they work with them. At this point, I would have to say that, if my honourable colleague would like to make the request specifically, I would take it under advisement, but there currently is no move in that direction.
MS. MORE: Okay, I have a few quick snappers, I finish in seven minutes. I'm sure the League for Equal Opportunities has made presentations to your caucus, and I'm sure to your department as well as to ours. They have some excellent ideas. One I wanted to raise is highlighting the need to have universal design and "visitability" standards in all housing in Nova Scotia, especially since we have one of the highest rates of disability in Canada. Has the department through its housing division taken a serious look at that?
[Page 478]
I understand Great Britain, for example, back in the late 1990s realized that a lot of their housing stock was not accessible and they brought in some new standards, some of which only cost about $1,000 extra, in new construction for homes, condos, apartments, whatnot. They have found that within 10 years it has made an incredible difference in the accessibility to housing. So there, for example, is a great model and Nova Scotia LEO has been promoting this and I think it makes a lot of sense. So I'm just wondering, has your housing division looked at both the need and the benefits that such an approach might provide?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member brings up a group that I have referenced already in this debate earlier. They were key in their lobbying efforts for the increase in the wheelchair funding. Indeed, they just recently presented to our caucus, in the same manner I'm sure they presented to my honourable colleague's caucus, and brought some of those issues forward. It's through those interactions that we were able to best understand exactly where they were going. So the wheelchair issue is one case where Nova Scotia LEO certainly were able to have a positive effect on government policy.
Specifically to the housing component, it is a requirement that all of the housing programs that go out in RFP, request for proposal, have an accessibility component to them. I made reference earlier to the success story over in Fairview that I attended with the member for Halifax Fairview. Not only was it accessible for those who lived there but it was 100 per cent accessible for all visitors, which goes to the quality of life again and not just for the residents who live in that home, in their apartments, but for all visitors as well. So that certainly is a component requirement of the RFP.
Then my honourable colleague, of course, mentioned the issue of elevator usage. I know that I've made this comment before during these debates but currently we are at about an 86 per cent accessibility rate with our elevators in our seniors' housing complexes. So we will continue to invest in those elevators to ensure that the accessibility is available. Recognizing that we still have over 100 units left to do, we certainly will continue to invest there. So those two or three pieces go to the accessibility issue and we'll continue to invest in those areas.
MS. MORE: I don't want to leave without bringing up the whole area of service delivery for women, whether it's women's centres or transition houses, Stepping Stone and others. I understand that transition houses, I think, got a 2.9 per cent, a minimal increase. I'm just wondering what about women's centres, was there any increase in the budget for them?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, again it gives me pleasure to speak about the women's centres and the phenomenal work they do across this province. I've had the opportunity to meet with them numerous times, as I know my honourable colleague has as well, to hear of the programs that go on in each and every one of our communities - those
[Page 479]
unsung heroes quietly working away with children and families, the women in communities across the province. So we do value the work that they do.
We value the input that they've had when it comes to policy, when it comes to information. I've called on different representatives of the women's centres over my time as minister in this department, asking their advice and seeking their input on various pieces of information - the Career Seek changes, some of the issues they brought to us as well.
As we've gone about, we recognize they have been extremely patient with us as well as others have. They have stretched their dollars to the absolute maximum that they could. We did, as the department, include the increased funding to the women's centres as a budget pressure. It was dealt with as all budget pressure issues were, through the Department of Finance. Though the women's centres didn't receive the increase for their salary increases they were looking for, certainly through the investment of the 3 per cent increase to the department, which equals approximately $300,000, they will see that 3 per cent increase on their budgets to ensure those programs and the services they deliver, again, they're able to do so with the extra dollars we were able to provide through this year's budget.
MS. MORE: I just want to finish by recommending to the minister and her officials that you take a look at the possible impact of the Labour Market Agreement devolution from the federal government to the provinces. Apparently in some provinces, depending on the criteria selected by the provincial government, it's had a tremendous negative impact on some of the voluntary sector organizations. I would hate to see any of the community-based organizations, funded by your department, suffer as a result of that. Perhaps it just needs some consultation with the sector to ensure that the criteria such as how much emphasis is put on lack of duplication and some of those other values or criteria, just to make sure the potential impact of those is fully understood before they're ratified, because we don't want any unintended consequences on this.
[8:00 p.m.]
I know you value the work of those organizations, so I know you want to protect them as much as anyone in this House. Thank you very much, I appreciate your answers.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to share my time with the member for Cape Breton Nova.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton Nova.
MR. GORDON GOSSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the minister a question on housing. In the Cape Breton Island Housing Authority, I would like to know how many units are empty and what is the turnaround time to get those units ready to be occupied? Thank you.
[Page 480]
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I welcome my honourable colleague to the discussion and am not surprised that he'd like to discuss housing issues in Cape Breton. I would be disappointed if that wasn't his question.
I don't have the information available at my fingertips as to the number of vacant units in the Cape Breton region at present date. I will get that information provided to my honourable colleague as soon as I can. My honourable colleague knows that the challenges as they pertain to vacancy, the challenge is multi-faceted. We turn the units around as quickly as we can to ensure the wait lists don't build on us but, again, those factors are sometimes beyond the scope that we would like them to be and sometimes the time frame is longer than we'd like it to be. Certainly we want to ensure that the families are in those units as quickly as possible, and so we work very diligently through the housing authority to ensure that happens.
MR. GOSSE: I look forward to that response from the department. My next question would be concerning the asbestos in public housing. The minister well knows that there are four charges against the Department of Community Services for asbestos in public housing. I would like to know, has the department earmarked any money in the budget, if the department is found guilty - or maybe the Justice Minister has money in his budget to cover those charges if found guilty - in public housing?
MS. STREATCH: I'm sure that my honourable colleague knows the issue is currently before the courts and, therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to speak to it. So I certainly would encourage my colleague to respect that fact, as I will, and we'll move forward and respect that the courts will do their job and the government will do its.
MR. GOSSE: Mr. Chairman, okay, that's an issue before the courts, but I was just wondering if there was any money in that department for if they are found guilty, to cover the expenses of that, or maybe in the Justice Department budget to help the minister pay for those charges if found guilty.
My next question would also be to do with non-elderly applicants in the department of housing. When an applicant is physically disabled, mentally disabled, but under the age of 58, when they apply for public housing they're always told your application, we don't have criteria, we will be able to consider an application, but with no eligibility for seniors - what I'm trying to say is if you're not eligible, you're under the age of 58 - and I have lots of letters that I can table right here, that residents are under the age of 58, they have some mental problems, some physical problems, but they don't qualify for public housing because they're a non-elderly resident. So I'm wondering, does the minister have any plans for people who fall in this category for public housing in the Province of Nova Scotia?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the budget line item for any expenses that would be incurred through court action, I would encourage my colleague to
[Page 481]
speak to the Minister of Finance, or indeed the Minister of Justice may be able to shed some light on that budget line item.
In particular, when it comes to public housing and the challenges that the age component brings that my honourable colleague brings forward, we have, of course, a certain number of public housing units. We work diligently to ensure that those public housing units are occupied - families, seniors, non-seniors. So as we work to ensure that those units are occupied, we take various factors into consideration. We would certainly want to ensure that the needs of Nova Scotians come first and foremost, so if there is, indeed, a challenge or a requirement that is not being met, I will certainly ask the department to take a look at that, in particular in the area that my honourable colleague has mentioned, and perhaps have a look at that policy or that regulation and make any adjustments that would need to be made.
MR. GOSSE: Mr. Chairman, my next question is to do with the Household Income Limits, HILS, for seniors in the Province of Nova Scotia. As of April 1, 2008, the minister's department had sent a letter to all housing departments in the province stating that $22,000 would be the limit for seniors to get a grant in the Province of Nova Scotia. Now seniors who are on Guaranteed Income Supplement, Old Age Security, and Canada Pension, if there are two seniors living in their home, their income is just over $23,000. I'm just wondering if the minister knows, with this policy, how many seniors, like married couples or seniors living together in a home, will be excluded from getting the seniors citizens home repair assistance program with this new limit of $22,000?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, the issue of Household Income Limits, as my honourable colleague well knows, is one that there's a component of the 13 housing programs that we have in the province. There are some programs where we have federally- negotiated household income levels. We negotiate those with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and so we respect those negotiations. There are some programs whereby the province is able to increase the income limits on its own provincial portion of that, and when able to, we certainly do that.
One of the challenges with the Household Income Limits, of course, is that we do not want to create additional wait lists. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we want to provide the maximum amount of support we can. So, indeed, my honourable colleague is correct, the Senior Citizens Assistance Program for one bedroom, the Household Income Limit would be $22,000, and homeowners who are not eligible for HILS-based programs may be eligible for assistance under the Small Loans Assistance Program, where the income limit for that program is $35,000, and indeed the Access-A-Home Program, where the income limit was raised to $39,000.
I would like to make reference for my honourable colleague to an issue that was brought to my attention. The Premier, the Minister of Economic Development and I had a conversation, and I have taken this back to the deputy minister to ask if, indeed, there is some
[Page 482]
way that we may provide assistance under these programs through a sliding scale which would take a little bit of the edge away from that, when someone is perhaps $50 over or $70, as we've heard different times in this House, that isn't the case, so that sliding scale takes that into consideration.
I know my honourable colleague has brought issues like that before. So we would certainly be looking at that, and hopefully the sliding scale would take into account some of those challenges that come along with two seniors or the assistance that is provided through other government agencies, Mr. Chairman.
MR. GOSSE: I'm well aware of the limits for the Access-A-Home Program. My whole point here, there are two seniors in the Province of Nova Scotia living in their own home, the limit for them to get a grant is $22,000. If those seniors are on Guaranteed Income Supplement, Old Age Security and Canada Pension, under this program, as of April 1, 2008, they are ineligible for the Senior Citizens Assistance Program. I tabled that last week, Mr. Chairman, and the minister well knows, and I do know the limits for seniors under other programs, but I'm specifically concerned about these seniors in the one-bedroom count.
Now I'll ask a question to the minister on another. The minister had mentioned Friday here in the House that her department had said that operational funding for adult day activity programs - I'm just wondering, could the minister tell me how much the operational funding will increase this year for the Horizon Achievement Centre in Cape Breton?
MS. STREATCH: Again, as I indicated to my honourable colleague, I know that his concern was around the Senior Citizens Assistance Program, for one bedroom at $22,000. I appreciate his input and his commentary and, as I indicated, I asked the deputy minister and the department to look at a sliding scale, which hopefully would alleviate some of the pressure that my honourable colleague raised regarding some of those seniors who are looking for our assistance.
Again, Mr. Chairman, to the question regarding adult day programs, we are extremely pleased to have the $6 million commitment in this year's budget that the government has allocated for services for persons with disabilities. We will be looking at our priorities and how it fits within the continuum that I've spoken about so often. So the exact dollar figure for the specific location, as inquired by my honourable colleague, will become available in due course as we see how the funding will roll out across the province to ensure that it's regional, it's equitable, that as we provide funding in one area, we allow for the flow from one component, one area of service to the other. So the exact dollar figure for that spot will be known once the budget is passed and once the dollars are allocated and we see where our priorities are within that portfolio.
[Page 483]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The chatter is getting a little loud in here. Maybe I could encourage members to either turn the volume down somewhat or maybe leave the Chamber to allow the members to continue with the estimates.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Nova has the floor.
MR. GOSSE: Mr. Chairman, now talk about sliding scales, I would like to slide the rest of my time over to the member for Dartmouth North.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth North.
MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust, last year's budget called for $7.8 million. This year it's been made mention in the Business Plan that an additional $6.7 million is due to be spent. I'm wondering, can she tell me where that $1.1 million was spent and where those housing units are going to be built in the province?
MS. STREATCH: That slide, through to my colleague, the member for Dartmouth North, is flawless, I will say. So we will continue our debate as we were having last week.
Indeed, the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust continues to flow through the Department of Community Services in coordination with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We've concluded discussions with the off-reserve representatives and we're moving forward to deliver the housing options for the off-reserve community.
Service delivery agents have been identified throughout the off-reserve community and they have begun delivering the programs. Specifically, the province, in concert with delivery agents, estimates it will provide $1.1 million in housing repairs, new home ownership, rental preservation and support services to the off-reserve community in 2007-08; another $6.7 million will be delivered in this fiscal.
The exact location of those dollars, Mr. Chairman, I would provide to my colleague after the fact, as an offside. We wouldn't want to compromise privacy or those types of issues by putting the specific communities or specific locations on the record, but I would certainly be pleased to provide that information to him.
MR. ZINCK: Mr. Chairman, recently, as of the last two weeks, it has come to our attention on the Dartmouth side with many of our constituents that the office for Services for Persons with Disabilities has now been moved to the Gottingen Street office. I just want to make it a point of clarification as to why that would have taken place and just to express the concerns of some of the organizations and individuals who would have frequented that office on Portland Street, because now the question of accessibility is an issue. I'm wondering if you can address that.
[Page 484]
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I was just getting confirmation - not to be confused, this isn't the Disabled Persons Commission, who have relocated to Dartmouth. That's what I was getting confirmation on.
As part of the reorganization, the regional reorganization, certainly that move has taken place. Staff would be available, though, to provide those services. So if there are specific challenges, I would ask my colleague to get me those specific instances and we'll ensure that isn't the case and remedy that challenge.
[8:15 p.m.]
MR. ZINCK: I want to touch on - actually it goes into another department, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations - when an individual leaves the Department of Community Services and they still have an outstanding debt, perhaps an overpayment at some point. I just wanted, for the record, to express the concerns that some constituents have had over the last year or two with the process. Whether they leave because they're on Canada Pension and they still might have an overpayment, whether they leave for further education or seek out employment, the fact is the overpayment is still there and still collected.
What I would like to express to you is that the actual process, when that phone call comes and it's that respect that's extended to the constituent, we're not hearing that. I know myself I've gone into the department, met with a number of workers and expressed my concerns. I just wonder if you can speak to that a little bit and perhaps even take it back to your Cabinet colleagues.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, my honourable colleague and I have had this discussion and it's one where, although it happens quite often where we agree, we do agree on this one, the whole issue of overpayments is a challenge. Again, the accountability and the transparency is extremely important.
At the same time, I know my honourable colleague has expressed to me, and I have shared his concern, that we don't cause any undue hardship. That's really what he is emphasizing here tonight, and I concur.
I've had the discussion with the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, I've had the discussion with the deputy and the senior management team. I will reiterate, I will repeat that in a formal manner we'll ask the minister to ensure that the good staff at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations are well aware of the importance to have that level of respect that would be demonstrated - again, to not add to that stigma that we find out there sometimes, that the honourable member and I have discussed, to not encourage that, to not add to that.
[Page 485]
So I will certainly do that. I will make mention of it to the minister in a formal manner. Thank you.
MR. ZINCK: Mr. Chairman, in this year's budget we've seen the Premier come out and increase the monies that are going to be made available to the Salvation Army for their heating program. I know I've had great success dealing with the Salvation Army and all the wonderful things that they do for our communities. I just want to state for the record, you know, that program, on its own, is a program that constituents can only access, to our knowledge, once every five years and the good work of people like Mel Boutilier at the Parker Street Furniture Bank, they are usually left carrying the burden on that.
In making that point, I want to go back to a challenge that the department had taken on back in the wintertime in reference to the Metro Turning Point and the call from the executive director to seek out some extended funding for the winter hours, for when the temperature dropped down lower. The Premier is increasing the monies being allotted to the Salvation Army and I'm wondering, have you been in discussions with Metro Turning Point to ensure that will be implemented right at the beginning of the winter?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, there are often times when I've heard my colleagues make this statement and not very often do I get to make it, but I would encourage my honourable colleague to stay tuned, for soon, very soon, I would expect that a very positive announcement would be coming forward with reference to the Salvation Army and the good work that they do in co-operation, coordination and conjunction with the Department of Community Services.
So again, soon, very soon, we would be expecting a very positive announcement for that extremely worthwhile organization. I've been there myself. I've toured the Booth Centre. I know about the capital campaign they have underway, I know about some of the challenges that they face with vacancy rates, with occupancy, with their programs and so we certainly do appreciate, very much, the partnership that we share with the Salvation Army. I hold them in extremely high regard. On numerous occasions I've met with those folks and am consistently impressed with the work that they do on behalf of the Nova Scotians who find themselves in need of their assistance.
Now, turning to Metro Turning Point, I do want to indicate that the Community Action on Homelessness certainly is a coordinated effort that involves various players. We would have Pendleton Place, we would have Metro Turning Point, and there would be other stakeholders in the community who would be part of that, and we very much value and appreciate the input that we receive from them. We know that they need to ensure that the needs are being met amongst the various shelters and amongst the various service providers in the metro area, as well as in other areas of the province, because we do also have a shelter in the Cape Breton region that would be part of that continuum as well.
[Page 486]
So one of the challenges is always, of course, working within a budget and the Metro Turning Point works within its budget the same as the other shelters do. We've worked with them to ensure that the needs are being met by the individuals who are in need of their assistance and we will continue to work with them to ensure that their budget dollars are allocated in such a way that allows for those doors to stay open and those services to be provided to the individuals who need them.
MR. ZINCK: Mr. Chairman, in the recent consultation Imagine Our Schools, it was made mention by the consultant that they were looking at having child care being provided by non-profit organizations in every high school in HRM. I'm just wondering if you can tell me really quickly, was your department consulted with that team that came in from Ontario?
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to provide information that would mislead my colleague; I don't know if we were there in an official capacity. I know that we would have had representation that would have been aware of the goings on and the information being provided as it pertained to child care centres. Whether or not she was there in an official capacity, I can't say for sure. Child care, of course, is provided through a variety of non-profit, in many instances. It's certainly a case where, if that were to be the requirement, if that were to be the interest, then they would fall under the same requirement as all other child care centres in the province. We would welcome it. We've indicated that we'll have 1,000 new spaces at the end of our five-year installation and so we would welcome that as part of those 1,000 spaces and would look forward to receiving those proposals.
MR. ZINCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to pass the rest of my time off to my colleague, the member for Shelburne.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Shelburne.
MR. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam Minister, I am pleased and honoured to have this opportunity to address some of these issues. The earlier speaker talked about the senior citizens program - I call it the home improvement assistance program - and you talked about a sliding scale. I want to assure the minister that a number of the cases that come through our constituency offices are interested in this particular topic tonight.
I've had the privilege of talking to the residents in Shelburne County and they felt so compelled about this issue that they had volunteered their names to come forward. So I have their permission, Madam Minister, to - if you hear some names tonight, I have their permission.
I just also want to point out that under that program there is a type of emergency repairs for wheelchair ramps. My understanding is that under the program, it reads that the
[Page 487]
work carried out before any written approval is not eligible. I sense this is one area that really needs to be reviewed.
I want to talk about Mr. Neil Shand from Doctors Cove. Mr. Neil Shand has put his work on hold and he's looking after his 90-year-old mother. Mr. Shand is a primary health caregiver of his mother. He's at home, he has applied for this particular grant and he is ineligible because of the total household income. The threshold of that particular application is too low. I just sense that this particular individual, Mr. Shand, is saving this government thousands of dollars and is a prime example.
Again, he needs a wheelchair ramp, he needs it now. He doesn't need it in two years' time, Madam Minister, when this application may be approved. So I think this kind of captures a couple of these situations.
Also, there is a resident in Shelburne County who appealed workers' compensation appeals over the last number of years, from 1993 to 2000. This decision was finally successfully won in the last year and because of them receiving x number of dollars, this particular money has made them ineligible for this application. Again, this is strictly - you talked about having a review panel or a sliding scale? I mean this is a prime example of where these programs are not benefiting our community.
The third person I want to talk about is Mr. Newton Nickerson from Clam Point. Now Newton, I had the honour, Madam Minister, of presenting a certificate to him and his wife of 60 years. Newton is a professional boat builder from Cape Sable Island. If you know how to build a Cape Sable Island boat, there are a lot of interesting cuts, there's a lot of interesting technology of how to make the wood fit together. You can visualize this particular individual who is the primary caregiver of his wife, and the ambulance comes there and the ambulance would have difficulty getting their stretcher in. This individual has worked for 60-odd years and has retired and looks at an opening and can't - the stretcher will not fit. So you must understand the struggle that this individual has to deal with on a daily basis.
Again, I want to emphasize that this individual is saving this government thousands of dollars, yet just because of a threshold of a few thousand dollars, they're ineligible. I just sense that this is senseless. I think, Madam Minister, you should review this particular policy because I think if you go out and these grants are approved, you're going to have a lot of impact in that community. I'd just like for you to respond and I think I'm going to use up my time in your answer. Thank you very much.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I welcome my honourable colleague, the member for Shelburne, to the discussion. I would state off the record, or straight off the top, that I know my honourable colleague brings these particular cases to the debate not for political gain, but for personal and sincere concern for his constituents, and I recognize that.
[Page 488]
There have been many opportunities in the past where my honourable colleague has brought similar cases to me and to my staff. Sometimes we've been able to help and other times we've had to say it's beyond the parameters, so I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these two. Though I won't discuss them in particular, I will ask my honourable colleague for the particulars so that I can take it back to the department, to ensure that all parameters have been analyzed.
I will, Mr. Chairman, though, bring to highlight that the Access-A-Home Program, which is the one that my honourable colleague is talking about, has undergone some changes, has undergone an increase in the Household Income Level and again, though the individuals that my colleague might be speaking of would be beyond that, we did recognize that the income levels for this particular grant needed to be increased, so we did increase those to $39,000.
As well, we did increase the maximum allowable amount for the grant, from $3,000 to $5,000, in the last round of changes.
The other change, although it doesn't particularly reference this individual, is that recognizing individuals who were not currently in a wheelchair, who might need to be in one, we allowed for a doctor, or a medical professional, to provide that information and say, it is anticipated that within a certain number of months, a certain amount of time, the individual would require that wheelchair and therefore made them eligible under the Access-A-Home Program. So those changes, I believe, are evidence that we understand there are pressures. We'll continue to work with staff to ensure any other changes that can be made will be made.
I referenced the sliding scale earlier. I commit to my honourable colleague and to all members of this House that this is something I have asked the department to look at, to see if the sliding scale would provide more assistance. We don't want to increase the wait list and make it more challenging, but we do want to ensure that those who need the help are able to get it, and I likely took all my colleague's time. Thank you.
[8:30 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West. You have about two and a half minutes.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: Well, thank you very much for your generous allotment, Mr. Chairman, and you're being very tough on me tonight, but I do know the minister has some time to wrap up.
You know in estimates sometimes it's difficult to drill down on line items and know exactly what is there or not there, so I'm wondering, Madam Minister, if indeed the time has come to fulfill a hope and a promise around a generator for Fundy Villa. You know, 75 per
[Page 489]
cent of the seniors there were there when White Juan hit and they were without power for six days and, of course, had to be removed from the facility. It's a wonderful facility and while we hope that the same weather or climate factors will not hit again, these people do need the comfort of knowing that a generator is there as a backup electrical supply, if need be. So I'm wondering, Madam Minister, where things are in that regard.
MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, it brings delight when I can anticipate an issue or a question. I anticipated this question may come up from my honourable colleague so I asked staff to provide me with an update. I'll provide that to my honourable colleague now, for the record.
Of course, my honourable colleague knows that currently the arrangements with the adjacent nursing home, Grand View Manor, which has the backup generator, would be for the residents of Fundy Villa in the event of a power outage. Should the power outage occur, residents of the Fundy Villa are to gather in the common areas of the manor, which has power supplied by the generator.
Now, not to say that ends the review. The engineering firm of CBCL Limited has been retained by the department to conduct a review and analysis of the existing generator at Grand View Manor. The engineering report is expected to be completed in June, at which time the department will assess the technical recommendations. I'll report that back to my honourable colleague should we be in the House at the time; if not, I will get it to him at his constituency.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The honourable member's time has expired. We have approximately five minutes left in Committee of the Whole House on Supply this evening.
The honourable Minister of Community Services to close debate on her estimates.
MS. STREATCH: Indeed, it's my pleasure to rise at the end of what I feel has been an extremely successful and informative round of estimate discussion, as it is more of a discussion, more so than a debate - it's less intense than Question Period and I believe the information that's provided is valuable to all members who participate in the discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few moments to again recognize the tremendous staff at the Department of Community Services. There's not an individual who has stood in their place during these debates and not made reference to the amazing work that is done day in and day out by the staff across the province.
I would say that with the two Georges, as I referenced in the beginning, the two Georges by my side, my other staff who have been in the gallery throughout, who work diligently to ensure that the information is out there, to ensure that the programs and the services that we provide to Nova Scotians are done so to the advantage of all those
[Page 490]
individuals who need our assistance. So I thank my staff once again, as I did in the beginning.
Mr. Chairman, again to simply put on the record, the government has committed what I believe to be a $6 million investment to move us forward in a program area that has been extremely patient with us - the Services for Persons with Disabilities has been extremely patient. We're very pleased with that $6 million increase and we look forward to rolling that out across the province.
The child care sector, Mr. Chairman, with an over $200 million budget line now, again we continue to provide choice child care to families across Nova Scotia, and are extremely pleased to be able to do that.
The Income Assistance and Employment Support Program - again, another successful program whereby when Nova Scotians need us we're there, Mr. Chairman, and we're also there to provide them with the resources to get them back into the workforce and to get them back into that quality of life they so richly deserve.
Of course the housing portfolio, providing quality, safe housing for Nova Scotians is, indeed, an area that we take very seriously, and we know those programs that were brought up during these debates are programs that are essential to the well-being of Nova Scotians.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E2 stand?
Resolution E2 stands.
Resolution E16 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $8,864,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Communications Nova Scotia, pursuant to the Estimates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E16 carry?
Resolution E16 is carried.
That concludes the debate on the estimates for the Department of Community Services, and the time allotted for debate in Committee of the Whole House on Supply has now expired.
The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee do now rise and report progress.
[Page 491]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
[The committee adjourned at 8:37 p.m.]
