HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012

 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

2:45 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Becky Kent

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will come to order. We are debating Resolution Nos. 3 and 33 with the Department of Community Services. There are 39 minutes remaining in the Progressive Conservative caucus.

 

The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

 

MR. KEITH BAIN: I want to just follow up on what transpired during Question Period today. During Question Period, we pointed out some inconsistent comments that were made and they caused a great deal of uncertainty among private operators in the child care sector. My question is, could you explain both the rationale behind your department's decision to conduct a review in the first place and the details of the review as well?

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: First, may I table some information that the member asked for yesterday? There are three things that the member requested and that was the communications budget. We have that here provided with a listing; the FTEs for the corporate services; and the credit cards that are distributed within the Department of Community Services. I would like to take the opportunity to make just a quick comment on the credit cards because I think it's important for Nova Scotians to know that when the NDP Government came in, we made a decision to cut Cabinet Ministers' monthly car allowance of $700 plus the gas card. So we're the first government that has made that decision and have stuck by that. You won't find any credit card on this list in my name whatsoever.

 

 

427

 

Now with regard to the member's question in terms of the non-profit and the profit daycares. Since I have been Minister of Community Services, I have taken the opportunity to meet with both of those organizations. I do know previously, the previous government and the minister would meet with the organizations - non-profit and profit together - in the same room because there are differences of opinions between those two organizations.

 

I made the decision that there was no reason why I could not meet with each one of them individually as a group because I felt it was important for each one of them to have the opportunity to express to me what their positions are with respect to the services they provide.

 

I've also been very open and frank with both groups that what we want to do as a department is to look at the whole, child-care development in the province, which would include daycares, but that is one element of it. You would also have early years, early intervention - are we providing the services in a correct manner now, and where can we improve on those services? So that means to look at what other jurisdictions have been doing.

 

I know that the member mentioned what I said about Prince Edward Island. Yes, Prince Edward Island went a route and made the decision as a government to just support non-profit organizations. What I was referring to was a model that we can look at, as there are many other models across Canada that would focus on having profit and non-profit working together. Just because I said that Prince Edward Island was one model that we would be looking at, does not mean it shouldn't taken as meaning that's the direction that we're going in. As I said, I've had several meetings with both organizations to express to them that what we need is to be able to look at the services today and allow Nova Scotians, through a consultation process, to inform us of what they feel would be a good service in the Province of Nova Scotia for child care.

 

When you are looking at any change, I think it is important to note that people have desired change; that was one of the reasons why I believe they voted us in. Change can be difficult because change is exactly that, doing something different than you've done before. If you analyze a situation or a service that you're providing and that service is a good service and there seems to be no need for change, then you won't change it. But if there is a way to improve the services - and I think that everybody understands that every day is a different day, things change - it's important for us to take a leadership role, to not just sit on a situation and say well okay this is the way service has been for 20 years so it must be a good service in the way that we should offer it. Really there shouldn't be any more that is read into the non-profit verses the profit.

 

We understand, and I have said this to the profit organizations - they play an important role in the Province of Nova Scotia. There is a large percentage - over almost half of the service that is provided as a daycare service in this province is through profit. Also one of the other aspects, and this has come forth from those in the profit sector, they expressed to me that they actually have a concern for the "big box" daycare services themselves because a lot of these - if you want to look at the type of business that is offering daycare in the Province of Nova Scotia - the majority are small business people who are offering that service, or it may be somebody who is doing it from their home. We understand and realize and appreciate that, and I've expressed that to them. They've been very opened with me to say that, in fact, they also have some issues with the larger box-type daycare services.

 

What we plan on doing - and I know the member mentioned in his question today about me saying to the group that there will be changes in the summer. What I did say to them, actually, was that there would be more information that I would be able to provide to them in the summer. I met them before the Throne Speech so I didn't have the opportunity to tell them what I thought was very exciting news, that this government was going to go forward and do a very big consultation process that was not just a Community Services process but a government process and I think that's very important to note. The different departments - with respect to Education, Community Services and Health and Wellness - were coming together to invite people, through a consultation process, to come out and speak in communities and have parents come out, and non-profit and profit organizations, to express their opinions on how they see the early years rolling out in the province.

 

Once again when I talk about early years, we're not just looking solely on daycares, we're looking at how are we doing with early intervention in terms of - are they receiving enough support in that sector? Is there a better way we can do business? Is there an overlapping of business in the services, or are some areas of the province receiving more service than others? It's really important. I know that when you represent a constituency your mind set often is on that constituency but for us at a government and a ministerial level we have to look at it in a holistic manner and how are we performing throughout the entire Province of Nova Scotia and how those services are being provided.

 

So that's what we're talking about and as I said, I have met with both groups many times and I have been very open with them. I know that we did a press conference with CUPE to support the fact that they were bringing forward the need for a government to look at the early years. I did say at that time it wasn't any particular model or their model that we were supporting at that time, but what we were supporting was the fact that this is an issue in the Province of Nova Scotia that deserves much more attention than it has received in the past and as a government we were willing to provide that type of support and go forward with a framework of consultation.

 

That's what I want to be very clear about. There have been no decisions made supporting what sector because we want the people of Nova Scotia to be able to participate in that decision making process. Then when we hear from Nova Scotians, we'll be able to work on a framework and we'll know which direction that Nova Scotians, parents and grandparents want us to go forward with, within this province.

 

MR. BAIN: Let me first of all thank the minister and her department for supplying that information for our questions from last night.

Minister, you talk about consultations that are ongoing. I'd like to know who you are involving in this consultative process. You mentioned the private and not-for-profit daycares - are parents part of this consultation process?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We haven't started the consultation process; we had just announced it in the Speech from the Throne. We are working now on our framework - how do we go from here in terms of having an advisory group that can bring together the community? It is my wish, as a Minister of Community Services, that it is as open as possible, that parents have an opportunity. They're the ones who are affected by the services they receive from us. It would only make sense that parents would have that opportunity.

 

What format that will be in - presently we haven't gotten to that point. As soon as we do, I certainly do not mind at all to let the member opposite know how that's going to be put in a strategy, in a framework.

 

MR. BAIN: The minister, in the past, has indicated there is a possibility of the private daycare owners being grandfathered into the funding formula. Again, this is in reference to the P.E.I. model that she mentioned earlier. However, in P.E.I., grandfathering was the term used to describe the five-year phase out of the funding.

 

I would like to ask the minister if she can confirm whether or not this might be one of the plans that her department is looking at. You did mention the P.E.I. model, and only as a suggestion, that it was a model that was out there. Is it being considered at all and is it the same process as the five-year phase out plan that they do have in P.E.I. now?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: No, we haven't gone into details of the Prince Edward Island model at all. As I said, we don't want to have a preconceived idea of how this will be formed. We want the public to be able to do that.

 

I mentioned the words "grandfather clause" because of the fact that I was concerned with how the profit sector would feel in terms of - I know it can be scary. You have a business, you're receiving funding, and I didn't want to create any fear in that sector to think that we did not feel that we needed them or anything. We know those that are established now are very vital and very important to the role they play in the province and so it would be important to provide them with a sense of peace, that we want to be there to support them.

 

We haven't made any decisions based on any models. Once again, we want the people of the Province of Nova Scotia to help formulate what they see and what kind of services they want and who provides those services.

 

MR. BAIN: I guess my question would be, minister, do you plan to go into the details of the PEI plan?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Not at this point. What we would do is look at what other models are out there in Canada. That's what we tend to do when we're looking at any type of changes. We need to see what other jurisdictions are doing, whether it works for them or if it doesn't work for them. The PEI model was just one example. I mean, I could pull out models from other provinces. We give it the same consideration as what we would do with the Prince Edward Island model.

 

Plus, I think what's more important than actually what's taking place in other parts of Canada, there is no reason there cannot be a Nova Scotia model. A Nova Scotia model could look quite different than any other model within Canada. The most important thing, I believe, for a Nova Scotia model is that it is a model that has been designed by the people of Nova Scotia.

 

MR. BAIN: In Question Period, we also pointed out a chronology of the different statements that were coming out concerning the review: it was taking place, it wasn't taking place; it wasn't affecting funding, it was affecting funding. I guess I'd like to ask the minister why she has gone back and forth so much in those comments.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What I'd like to say with that was that I have been consistent. It is how things that a minster says are reported and I often tell people - and I'm sure the member opposite knows - that what you read or hear, or read in the media, for example, is not always word for word of what you are expressing. The same as a clip on the radio or on television, you don't have control over what has been edited so it may come out differently.

 

From day one I have told both of those sectors that this is exactly what we would be doing, that it was very important for us to look at all different models across Canada, to look at what kind of model we may create in Nova Scotia, and also the key element was to include as many as possible in a consultation process. So my answer to that is I have been consistent, it's just what's being reported doesn't always come out in that manner.

 

MR. BAIN: I bring that up only because in some of the quotes that were tabled today the department is also saying there is no review so it seems that there is differing statements coming out from the minister and the department, so I guess I have to question that.

 

I'm going to move back to the private daycare centers. We know that there is a review taking place so I have to ask this particular question for the benefit of the private daycare centers that are out there. If the phasing out of funding for these private daycare centers - is it still on the table, despite the fact that you've said nothing been decided? Is it still a possibility that the funding for these private daycares can be reduced or even eliminated?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I do want to go back and clarify. I think what people get mixed up with is terminology. You may use the word "review" and it means one thing to you, I may use the word "review" and it means something different. I think that's what the underlining issue here is with people when they hear a particular word. Really "review" may not be the best word to use. What we are doing is a strategic planning and a strategic analysis of how things are today and where they should be in the future and how do we get there. So I will just caution that it's very important. What we need is for people to understand, to ask more questions in terms of what you mean when you say the word "review". I think that's where some of the misunderstanding comes from.

 

At this point, as I said, no decisions have been made because this is something that we want the people of Nova Scotia to make a decision on. Right now, there are absolutely no plans in the works to cut any funding to profit or non-profit organizations. We have 223 for-profit daycares in the Province of Nova Scotia and 171 not-for-profit. That would show you the significant role that the profit plays in providing services. I'm sure that ultimate goal of both the profit and the non-profit is the best service possible that's being offered to children and to the parents of those children.

 

That's what I think is important to know. We'll know much more once we go through the consultative process and we hear from people and then we can have more discussions back and forth of how we frame this up and what we're going to do as a province in terms of the daycare services that are provided.

 

MR. BAIN: I agree with the minister when she says there's a difference in interpretation of the word "review". I think that's very evident as discussions have been going on with the case of Talbot House. Interpretation of "review" is certainly left to the person who is doing the speaking, I guess.

 

I want to go back once more to the private daycares. These entrepreneurs - that's what they are, they're small entrepreneurs - some might have more than one particular daycare centre, they might have multiple. They also have to look at the possibility of spending capital money to refresh or to do whatever to their buildings and the programs they offer. Not knowing the certainty of what's going to happen, I think, has put pressure on the private daycare operators. My question is, can you give us a timeline? Can these daycare operators be assured that there will be something coming out soon, and when, if it comes to them having to make capital purchases, investments or anything like that?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What I would say to the profit sector is, number one, I do respect the fact about capital investments. Over the last several years there's been millions of dollars, as you would know, through capital investments in profit and non-profit that they have received.

 

With regards to us moving forward, we're doing that as quickly as possible. We're hoping that it will be very soon that we will be able to go forward with our framework. I know the member opposite understands that when you're developing a consultation process or any strategic plan, you need to put a lot of thought into it to make sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted and that you have the right strategy, the right process in place so that you will ensure that everybody has that opportunity to give their opinion. That's very important. You don't want to do something too quickly that doesn't provide people with that opportunity plus you don't want it to take too long because then your consulting for a year or two and that doesn't help anyone in that respect.

 

But I can tell you that we are working very diligently on that and that you will see, within this year, that process being rolled out and what the framework will look like and what the consultation process will look like.

 

MR. BAIN: I'm sure the minister can appreciate the concern of the private daycare owners because there is still an uncertainty as to whether or not they're going to be there. They have no assurance, from this minister or from the department, that private daycares will still be operating in this province. I'm sure you can appreciate that concern.

 

We know not-for-profit daycares are going to be around because the majority of them are supported by the funding and I realize too that, yes, there is funding available to the private daycares but a lot of private daycare owners put that little bit extra there. I think as a result of that you have a better operation. Parents are looking where they're going to send their child and if there is a not-for-profit here that's top of the line, the private one might be a little bit above the top of the line, so they have to make a decision.

 

I'm sure you can appreciate the urgency - I guess urgency would be a good word - of these private daycare owners finding out what will be happening to them. I wonder if you would comment on that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm sure the member opposite understands I can't speak to what happens in the future. I'm not going to say something if I can't make sure that what I say happens. That's very important to me. I was brought up to speak the truth and to make sure that when you make a commitment, that commitment is seen through.

 

I do respect the fact that people would be wondering. I guess it's a fact for anybody. I was in small business myself. I didn't have a crystal ball to see into the future either so I had to make decisions around that. However, we do understand that when you make change that change can create fear. I don't think there are many human beings who don't get a little knot in their stomach if something's changing in their life that they're not used to. That's why we become creatures of habit. That's not a good thing either, it means we're not improving on ourselves.

 

That is what we want to do here and we respect that fact. I would say that in the immediate future there is no reason for the profit sector to be concerned at all. Once we go through this process - and I am sure they know that, because of the consultation process, they have the opportunity to come out and speak about their business, about the importance of their business and the service they offer along with the parents who utilize those services, who can come out and support them - we'll be able to look at that in a holistic manner.

Honestly, I do not have any preconceived outcome here in my mind. That might be what the profit sector is thinking, that I know where I want to go. I don't because of the fact that I need to know, from those sectors and the people of Nova Scotia and the parents, where they would like to go.

 

Where all the knowledge will come from is what people would like to see in the province in terms of childcare support. I can't predict where that would go. Presently, as I've said to the not-for-profit, they are not going to wake up tomorrow and find out that we have cut off their source of income, that's certainly not in any plans whatsoever with this department.

 

MR. BAIN: I can appreciate that private daycares can feel comfortable in the immediate future because you're just beginning the consultative process so no decisions have been made. Maybe it was my interpretation and I can be wrong, but you mentioned about gradually going along in the future, and it's almost like you're implying the possibility that P.E.I. model might become part of this process.

 

There are assurances for non-profit daycares in this province. We have a lot of private daycares in rural areas where not-for-profits do not exist. I'm going to ask this question, and you can answer yes or no - can you give assurances that there will be private daycares operating in this province in the future?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: As I mentioned, I'm not employing the P.E.I. model and I can't stand here and say I can assure any business is going to be in existence in the future. I can say several things. For-profit is a very important sector in the Province of Nova Scotia. They run over more than half of the daycare services in the province so they have as much of a stronghold on the daycare industry as the not-for-profit has. There are certainly opinions on both sides. There are opinions on how some not-for-profit daycares may operate and we're always looking at how we can improve the services they provide. It's not that we just look at for profit, we look at both sides because we're looking at it in a holistic manner of the services.

 

What I'm saying is that we really truly understand and appreciate and support what they offer. I cannot predict six months; I can't predict 12 months; I can't predict if there's going to be not-for-profits one, two or three years down the road. I'm going to be honest about that. I'm not going to make any commitment but nobody should read any more into it than the fact that nobody can predict the future. I think what the comfort is, is the fact that I've been very open and honest with both the profit and non-profit. I've told both of them, as we move along with this process, we will maintain communications with them - very good, open communications.

 

In fact, they are going to be part of the process in making the future decision. They have as much opportunity to be out there formulating a new model if that's what is decided by the people of Nova Scotia. They will have just as much peer input into that as anybody else.

MR. BAIN: Again, I have to talk about the uncertainty. You say that the review is not going to be forthcoming this summer but it's actually going to be the consultative process that begins this summer. Am I correct in saying that?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again, I guess we're getting tangled up in the terminology of review and consultation. What we're developing now is the framework, how do we go the next step, which would be consultation. While we are developing the framework, what we want to do is look at the timelines. As I mentioned earlier, it's very important to be balanced in your timelines. Sometimes consultation processes actually take too long and you're not getting to the outcomes because of that. There has to be a balance there.

 

We haven't gotten to that point yet. We are just developing that framework. I think you will see things move along much more quickly once the framework is put together and that once the decision of the consultation process is made and how we can make sure that all those who have an interest in being consulted, have that opportunity. Then we'll have a better idea and be able to explain what these timelines look like. It's very important to us, as we know we respect the fact that because it may or may not be a change in the system that we have today, that people always feel uncomfortable because they're worried. I understand and appreciate that. That's why we want to do this within a reasonable timeframe and we certainly have that as a prime concern for ourselves too.

 

MR. BAIN: I realize it's hard to set a time because of the processes that are taking place. In reality this could be a month away, it could be six months away, it could be two years away. Again, that's what's creating the uncertainty with all the organizations out there.

 

I know you can't give a firm commitment but do you have, could I say a drop-dead date as to when this might be coming forward? It might happen before then but what's the latest possible time that you will be bringing this forward?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I don't have a specific date because we're working on the framework right now. I know that I would like to be able to provide you with a date but I know that it is - you know in anything that you're working on and we have multiple responsibilities and tasks, this is a very important one. This is not just a Community Services initiative, this is a government-wide initiative, so I think that that should express to yourselves, along with both of those sectors, the importance we put on the early years and the daycares and the early years in development.

 

We know we want to move this along, we don't want this to drag on for several years, so I can say that. You're not going to be standing here two or three years down the road and find that we haven't gotten anywhere because we realize how important it is and that's why we want to move it along.

 

It would be unfair for me to put a time frame in at this moment because we're not far enough in the framework process to be able to do that and I'm hoping that within the next several months that we'll be at that point, that we would have more concrete dates.

 

There are many things that you have to also consider, like if you're doing a consultation process, when is it going to be. If you're ready to do it in the summertime, is that really a realistic time to do it, when people are on vacations and they are typically not thinking about things like that, so we have to respect that, too.

 

We want as many people as possible to have the opportunity to come to us through that process. Therefore, we also want to make sure that when we decide to have the consultation process in the province that it's done in a time that gives most individuals or businesses that opportunity to bring forward their recommendations.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, I wonder if the minister would comment on what grants are available to child care centres for enhancing playground equipment?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: There was actually a grant for playgrounds available two years ago but that is not available presently.

 

MR. BAIN: Is the department looking at reintroducing that program for playground facilities?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Not at this time and I haven't received any interest coming back to me from the sector to say that they are looking at it, that there's a need presently. So that's why it hasn't been brought forward on the table for discussions.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time allotted to the Progressive Conservative Party has elapsed.

 

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

 

MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am very pleased today to be able to join the debate on Community Services. I'm going to take a little bit of time here in the beginning just to acknowledge some of the individuals within the department, the Portland Street office and some folks in the community who, after going into seven years as an MLA in Dartmouth North, have been able to and actually willing to assist me with helping my constituents and many other individuals who have approached our office from around HRM.

 

I also want to thank folks like Dan Troke, from head office on Spring Garden Road. I've done a lot of work around housing pieces, ESIA program with both Dave and Dan over the years. I want to thank people like Vicki Wood, who is in probably one of the more difficult positions in the department, dealing with issues of child welfare. Vicki has been very accommodating when I have requests and concerns and issues and basic guidance, when I have questions that I need answered for constituents and families that come to me.

 

I want to thank people like Linda Butler-Fox in the department at head office, who has been more than willing to get back to me on a number of occasions when I've had concerns or needed to get in contact with particular people, including the minister.

 

Lynda Tabbiner is a very friendly voice on the other end of the phone downtown, Spring Garden Road. Linda has been very helpful to me and the question always is, what can I do for you now, Trevor, whenever she picks up the phone. I want to acknowledge Lynda's efforts over the year.

 

The folks at Metro Regional Housing Authority, people like Jecca Lewis - Jecca is on speed dial in my office and has been more than accommodating.

 

Another individual who has spent many years at a number of levels of governments and is currently working down there, I think she is going on 40 years now, Deborah Way. Deborah and I have had many conversations about issues and concerns around housing and accommodating some of the folks who are trying to enter into the system. Deborah brings a wealth of experience and knowledge and has always been very helpful.

 

Dorothy Langthorne is another individual who deals with housing grants. Dorothy has been tremendous, working with a lot of families that come to our office for the home repair grants, a lot of seniors who have been successful in receiving help to stay in their homes and have their homes fixed through the department.

 

When I talk about Community Services, I represent a community that is comprised of probably the - well, I know for a fact, the highest low-income concentration in all of HRM, so to come here as an Independent, I'm allotted two hours of debate and those two hours will be exhausted with the Department of Community Services. For individuals in the public who might be watching this or checking on Hansard, the reason I do this is because 98 per cent of the cases that come through my door and the work that I do is on behalf of people who are affected or who are funded through the Department of Community Services. So this is, indeed, my opportunity to hold government to account, question issues and concerns that constituents have brought to me.

 

That being said, the main office that I deal with in Dartmouth is the Portland Street office. There are a number of individuals down there that I'd like to recognize today real briefly, who have again been more than willing to pick up the phone, contact me back, work with constituents and getting them what they need to be moving forward in that process.

 

I want to start by acknowledging three main supervisors over there and I've already warned them, even though most of them have spent over 30-plus years in the department, please don't retire as of yet, there's still more work to be done. Individuals like Greg Cromwell, who I know has been in the department for well over 35 years, Mike Caswell, who is into 32 years, I believe now, and Sheila Lenaghan who has come over most recently from the Halifax office over the last year.

 

These supervisors have a daunting task when it comes to dealing with caseworkers who have caseloads of upwards of 200 individuals and some real tough decisions and tough decisions that have had to be made in the last six months that have greatly affected my community and constituents who, again, rely on the funding of Community Services.

 

I also want to acknowledge the director, Barry Schmidl. There were major changes within the department, let's call it tweaking the policy, back in the Fall. I brought that to the attention of the minister and, to her credit, she put the wheels in motion and Mr. Schmidl had more than willingly come into the office, met with me and my assistant personally, to go over some of the mandate that had been put in place for the department to address. Also, again, any time we have called from our office, my assistant Cathy and I, in relation to issues that either the supervisor or caseworkers weren't able to address, Barry has been more than willing, especially long after the four o'clock or four-thirty bell, he has been more than willing to contact us.

 

I just want to briefly mention some caseworkers. I know I did this last year and I'm hopefully not going to miss some folks or I don't want to make people feel bad because we do work with everybody down there and I appreciate their efforts but I do want to mention a few individuals who we consistently deal with, caseworkers like Cheryl Rodgers, Shawnna Lacey, Ivy Bui, Jennifer MacLeod. Jennifer has been with the department for a number of years and is very straightforward, very frank in her approach but has a wealth of knowledge in assisting clients and constituents and our office.

 

Troy Musseau is another individual who has recently come over to the Dartmouth Office. Troy originally was working in the Housing division downtown, on Spring Garden Road. Troy over the last year has really made some good inroads and has really worked on something that I believe has had to take place in the last number of years and have been pushing and that's building that relationship piece with clients, what we call clients.

 

Troy is famous for his home visits and really trying to wrap around services that individuals need and pointing people in the right direction. A direct reflection of his success has been the fact that his caseload has actually gone down, so I want to acknowledge Troy.

 

Gabriel Adeoye, Terry Lewis, Kim Crowe - Kim Crowe is a real champion for individuals on IA and also a real champion for staff and the way that staff are treated and their expectations. Kim is a wonderful worker and again, I hope someone like Kim doesn't soon depart.

 

I want to touch base, we had a lot of individuals in the Fall, a lot of slots open. Again, I brought this to the attention of the minister, unfortunately we lost a couple of senior members who were caseworkers for many years, due to serious illness and very stressing situations. But we went through a process and now we have some success and we have some new members I just want to touch base on. I'm real encouraged and hopeful that they do continue to apply for the full-time slots - they are temps right now - but people like Jennifer Willis who originally started in the Halifax office last year. She went out on maternity leave and I was very pleased to pick up the phone one day and find out that she had actually filled one of those slots in the temp position. I have been made aware, as of yesterday, that her temp position is now extended into May and I really encourage her to put forward a motion to become a full-time caseworker.

 

Jennifer has a background with Service Canada. She's very, very thoughtful and again, as far as building relationships with constituents, finding out what their real needs are. She's very policy-oriented as well.

 

Gyasi Symonds and Jennifer Myra are two other individuals I want to make mention. In the Halifax office people I've done work with, one individual in particular from the New Waterford area, Karen Blackwood, I want to make mention of her. Karen works with a lot of individuals, women in particular, who come out of the transition homes. Oftentimes our office does get a lot of calls from women who are in homes or coming out of homes like Bryony or Barry House, women who are trying to find housing services often end up in Dartmouth North and Karen ends up being the worker on the other end that we have to build that relationship with and Karen has been fantastic.

 

Scott Hart is another individual. We lost a key caseworker who was in Dartmouth for a number of years, Laurie Jacklyn last year but it was for a good reason, Laurie has now become a supervisor out in Lakeside, so I want to mention Laurie.

 

After going into my seventh year being an MLA, I know there's a lot of people, members and people within a department, who know I am a pretty hands-on person. Sometimes we have to hold people's hands, to make sure that they do take those steps but my success and their success comes at the hand of other individuals as well.

 

These few folks that I just want to take a quick mention of are individuals and organizations that give their heart, they give their all in the service they provide. When folks are in need and we make a call on their behalf, these are folks who really have come to bat and have really helped us accommodate these individuals with their needs, people like Mel and Yolanda. Mel Boutilier at Parker Street and I know that Parker Street is in Halifax but many times I've called at the last minute and asked Mel if he could put together some food and we drive over and we pick up that food for that individual. Mel has also helped with power bills and oil.

 

Yolanda is a key staff person there and Yolanda has always been great, and the many volunteers there as well. It's a unique program, it's a fantastic program and Mel, as I made mention in a resolution last week, has received many honours and deservedly so.

 

Locally, the Hester Street food bank and outreach; the folks there, Frances and Tom; Gordon McKeen was the executive director and Gordon has finally retired after a number of years; all the volunteers that open up on Wednesdays, they take the food in on Tuesdays, they work it on Wednesdays, every week. These folks are seniors, they are wonderful folks who provide a great service for the community of Dartmouth North and continue to do so.

 

St. Anthony's Church, St. Vincent de Paul, the Victoria Road United Baptist Church - I want to thank the guys who open up on Wednesday afternoons for those people who missed the mornings. They open up at 3:00 p.m. and that's very accommodating for a lot of individuals.

 

I want to commend the Salvation Army. In the last two years I know they've received a tremendous amount of funding from the government for their Good Neighbour Program. Our office has reached out on a number of occasions to the Salvation Army, whether it was for home heating or electric bills being paid or merely taking an individual in, when they're in crisis and they are without housing. I've called and without question, they've been able to accommodate me and my request and help that individual.

 

Halifax Housing Help is another organization that has taken on a lot of help with our office. I want to make mention of Donnie Bennett; Tess Warner as well. Donnie runs a trustee program there with Tess and with some of the recent requirements and changes with policy within the department, we've seen the trusteeship grow with a lot of constituents who rely on the department for funding, but they also help with the housing piece, they also provide supportive services as well. I can say that when I make my trips to Halifax, it's either to see Mel and go around the corner and it's to see Donnie and Tess.

 

I want to make mention of Pastor Yarn and all the folks at another local church in my community. Again, late into the evenings, our jobs as MLAs never end, as many people in the department and in society might believe, it's 24/7. Oftentimes we have individuals who come to us in crisis, at all hours of the night, any day of the week and folks like Pastor Yarn and the folks who run the clothing bank there have been tremendous at providing whatever little bit of food of clothing that our constituents need.

 

I know Nova Scotia Power is a bit of a poison word to some folks in the province - the power rates, no question, are very high. It has made life very difficult for constituents but I want to acknowledge the fact that going into my seventh year, I've lost count of how many power bills my name is associated with in trying to get help, but I want to commend the people who work in the call centre for Nova Scotia Power. The level of compassion that they have now, compared to six years ago, has definitely changed. They are very understanding, as far as the approach and what it takes to actually solve an individual's disconnection notice. They have a clear understanding now, I think, as far as the process between the MLA's office and the department itself.

 

I also want to acknowledge the individuals who work in collections at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. It's probably one of the worst jobs that you have to have, a collection agent, but I've had the opportunity over the last number of years to speak with a lot of individuals who are collecting what were former overpayments with the Department of Community Services, be it for seniors or folks who go on Canada Pension Plan Disability and have those amounts. Those folks have been very great in trying to work out and accommodate those individuals with payment. There are still some issues there but it's not entirely with them but they've been very receptive.

 

To start this way, I think it's important because I believe that I have achieved a level of success in helping a tremendous amount of people in my community and in HRM to move forward with their lives but it's simply not in my hand. I just wanted to take that time to acknowledge those folks.

 

I want to begin with something that I know the minister fully understands that, going into my seventh year, this has probably been my one pain that I continuously bring up. One thing I want the minister to start - in her opening speech last night, she did make mention that the personal allowance increase would go up by $9.00 and I believe it is $7.00, so I'm going to get her to check that and give me the correction on that.

 

I want to being with the ESIA program and talk about the shelter component. In 2006 we saw the last time the shelter allowance was increased, it was increased by $15. It is 2012 now and we haven't seen an increase in that allowance yet. I believe my first time in the House the then minister in 2006 made a statement that well, we've increased the personal allowance by $6.00 and that equates to about $4.some million or $9 million, so we can't do both.

 

The next year when I asked the question, she put it on the floor of this House that if we do that, we merely leave it to the landlords to take that money, so it doesn't help the individual. I can tell you today that I'm going to ask it and I need - it's not for this particular government, it's for any government because we have to understand there are rising rents and that puts a burden on individuals who are in receipt of income assistance, it's more than 30 per cent of their budgets, most times upwards of 50 per cent to 60 per cent of their budgets.

 

My question to the minister today is, can she tell me why governments are not willing to increase the shelter component?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: First, Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss in not saying to the member opposite to thank him very much for his kind words towards staff in Community Services. He should know that it is recognized and very much appreciated by myself, senior staff and other staff that you've mentioned in your opening question.

 

I know when I came in as Minister of Community Services, that I always know that the reputation of Community Services and staff is a difficult one. They do not receive the accolades and credit they deserve. I learned very quickly a lot of the decisions - it's very difficult, I know, for many of those individuals to have to look at someone who has great needs and to know that the system doesn't have all the solutions or answers or the programs that individual may need and they have to say no to them. There can't be a worse situation to be in, to look at somebody who you empathize with and you know that they are needy of certain services or supports.

 

What I discovered was that it's not the individuals in the department, and I put it in quotations, it's the "system" that we've been living under for too many years that put staff in that position of saying no and then, of course, people are going to backlash at the staff. It's the system that needs to be a backlash at the system and that's what we've been trying to do as a government, to make changes to a system that's very much locked into a financial style, rather than a style of what is important for the individual.

 

So I want to thank you for standing there and recognizing that. I know, through staff, how much they appreciate you, as a MLA, in your style and that your style is very restorative. I think that a lot of members sitting in the Opposition can take a lesson from you with regards to your style, your approach to me as a minister - to communicate and come to me if there's an issue, rather than bringing it to the floor of the House and making it an issue for political points because you know what that ultimately does - it actually hurts those people you are trying to help.

 

You are an individual who has recognized that and recognized that it's the people who you are trying to help who you are standing up for. You're not standing up for yourself, to gain some type of political points in that, so I want to thank you very much for that. I think that the evidence is in the results and the fact that you have been able to help so many individuals in your constituency and also people outside - whether they live in your constituency or not does not matter to you. If they come to you for help, you turn on that help mode button very quickly and you make very smart decisions on who you need to go to within the department. I know that the staff within the department respects that and that they do whatever they can within their power to provide you with the service that you need to help the individual you are standing tall for.

 

I really believe that when it comes to Community Services, it's a very emotional department. It's a difficult department because we're talking about people's lives and people who are vulnerable. Some of us are more fortunate than others and because of that, we need to be working together, collaboratively, in a restorative approach to help individuals, rather than arguing about it on the floor, which doesn't help anyone.

 

I really want to express my gratitude and respect for you for always being very professional in your mannerism and being able to know that what you're trying to do is to help people and that is your main goal - to help individuals.

 

Our staff members work very hard, each and every day, to provide the services that need to be there. As I said, it can be very challenging because of the system. So what we're doing is working very hard to make a change. I think you have seen that over the last three years within the Department of Community Services. We've had many discussions, you and myself, with respect to this system and how difficult and challenging that can be. So I can say that I'm very proud of all the staff in Community Services and the hard work and the dedication.

 

What we're trying to do - and this can be challenging - is to create a new system that provides flexibility, that provides a service that focuses on individual needs but also we make sure that there's no abuse of that, so there's a real balancing game that we must do. We also have to respect the fact that if we take a restorative approach, that we work with the client and to be able to find out what his or her needs are and how we could support those on an individual basis, that will mean that we go outside of the way the system has always operated, that if you don't fit, I'm sorry, there's not a lot we can do for you.

 

The results are actually very negative, as you know. It does not support and help the individual to get off the system. It's very ironic to think that there's many times we expect somebody to come on the system, to provide them with supports or services. Now that doesn't make sense, does it? It does not make sense. There are times when somebody may need very little support and if that was offered to them upfront, they would have no need to go on the system.

 

I know that with respect to shelter and housing, that is a concern of yours and you've brought it up to me many times. The difficulty there - and this is another one of those situations where if you have any thoughts or suggestions, I certainly welcome them - is what we have discovered is when shelter rates go up, what tends to happen is then the rent goes up, so that shelter rate is lost in that increase in rent. So at the end of the day, it means that the individual or that family isn't any better off, they don't have extra money in their pockets.

 

What we have tried to do is to provide other opportunities for increases in the annual dollar amount that an individual on the system through ESIA would be receiving. I know certainly the increases that we have given over the last couple of years were quite substantial, in comparison to former governments. Last year it was a $15 increase per month and this year it is actually $9.00 - it isn't $7.00, it is $9.00, so that's giving a $24 increase a month in the last two years.

 

Now that, I'm not going to stand here and stomp my feet and say that's a great amount, I wish we could do more. We're working towards doing more, by turning around the finances of the province. That will give us more opportunities. We're working very hard to invest in people because investing in people is an economic stimulus, we know that. It's so vitally important that if people are working and if people have that opportunity to go to work and to put money back into the economy, it stimulates the economy.

 

Some of the other programs that you would be aware of that have increased the dollar amounts to individuals would be the Poverty Reduction Credit and the Affordable Tax Credit, taking the provincial portion of the HST off home heating for seniors, offering a tax rebate of $600, along with the other programs that we have been offering, in terms of taking taxes off diapers and items like that.

 

What we've done is look at all different areas and I can say that the amounts that have increased and the opportunity for individuals to have, I think has been a good leap. For example, one area that I've been often concerned with, too, is people who we would call "the working poor" because they get hard hit.

 

As you know, we've had these discussions. There's a balance between how much is offered through income assistance versus those people who are working poor. So, as a government, we have increased the minimum wage but yet at the same time, too, because of the variety of programs that are offered now through the Affordable Living Tax Credit and the Poverty Reduction Credit - a good example is a family making minimum wage with two children actually equates to an increase annually of $4,400 in their pockets more every year, because of what we have done in the government.

 

So you know it's very difficult to have one solution on the shelter rates, because of the fact that we know that they're going to lose those monies. I think it's really important for us to look at other means that we can get more money into the hands of those individuals who are receiving income assistance.

 

I think the other avenue is that we've got to do a better job and work harder to help people become more employable. I think that we've worked towards that, but we haven't done the sort of final part of that. We offer a lot of services in pre-employment and help with resume writing and interviews but we haven't done the part as much as we should, in terms of going out there and networking with businesses, to establish relationships and to look at discussions with businesses opportunities for individuals to work for them and to kind of seal that deal for an individual.

 

We recognize that and so we're going forward with a new strategy in the coming year, to be focused on that. But I do welcome any suggestions that you have whatsoever, in order to help with that shelter component. Thank you.

 

MR. ZINCK: I appreciate the comments of the minister and, like I said, I think it's important to acknowledge folks within the system and within our communities who help us, as MLAs and I think your comments are point on when you say it isn't about us. We're elected to what I call navigate and negotiate the systems for people who don't necessarily know how to take those steps or who to contact, so I appreciate your comments there.

 

I bring up the shelter allowance, and I have consistently done this over the last seven years, and I see and I recognize that your government has taken some strides in helping families keep more money in their budgets, single women who have children with the child tax breaks and whatnot. But my office deals with a lot of individuals who either are suffering from mental health issues or addiction issues, so they come to the Department of Community Services, and I guess what I'm going to go through here now is a little education piece for folks who are listening who might not understand or have the knowledge of what these individuals actually receive for a shelter component.

 

Currently if somebody is suffering from mental health or an addiction issue, they are funded at a rate of $535 for a shelter component. If you are a single individual - and I know I've raised this before with the minster in the form of a question during Question Period - if you are a single individual, who for whatever reason finds themselves without employment, and we consider them employable, that rate is $300. I can tell you that 16 years ago it was $230 so governments have raised that $70 over the last 16 years and I see that as a real barrier because you need a place to lay your head if you're going to have the confidence to wake up the next day and actually go out and be employable, but you can't find a place to live on $300 a months.

 

For the folks who are battling mental health issues or addiction issues - $535 in my community. In the community of Dartmouth North, to receive the opportunity to have a somewhat decent, somewhat safe apartment in my community, we're looking upwards of $600. What happens over the years - and I know the minister and I have had conversations about this - is individuals are forced to take the extra money to bump up their rent from their personal allowances.

 

I just want to illustrate for the public that might be listening and for people who might read Hansard, a little bit of an observation of breakdown of what a monthly income for somebody who is suffering from an addiction or mental health issue is in receipt of from Community Services.

 

We'll start with the $535 shelter allowance. With the increase coming of $9, we will bump up what is now the $229 to $238; that's $772. The department has recently, over the past number of months, made some adjustments in as far as the requirements to medical transportation and what we have now is a lot of individuals who are receiving bus tickets. So I'm going to put in $18 there for bus tickets, so that's around $790. Income assistance clients are able to receive special diet funding if it's medically related to an issue, and this has to come from their doctor, so we're going to add in another $27 dollars and that's around $818. So $818 a month.

 

I think what the greater part of society has to understand is that many folks who are in receipt of EIA are living on incomes of less than $850 a month and I'm talking specifically about individuals. When you take into consideration that $600 of that has to come out of rent, they have to pay power and possibly a phone, it leaves them with around $100 a month to eat on and therein lies a real problem because there is no possible way that you can eat healthy on that amount of money. We rely on food banks and the volunteers in our community to provide that service but meat and potatoes aren't always provided. We have a lot of canned goods that come through the food banks that contain a lot of high sodium content. Folks on income assistant don't have the ability to really be able to eat healthy, that's kind of why I bring up issue around the shelter allowance.

The minister asked me if I had some ideas and I talked about this over the years, I've talked about if we're able to provide an increase. I've made a suggestion that we are indeed the law makers here - we could possibly look at making an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act. Over the years, I've even had conversations with several case workers who have said, why don't we just put it in the personal allowance and then maybe the landlord won't understand, so they won't raise the rents.

 

The reason I bring it up is because people are struggling, and when you're dealing with a mental health issue or an addiction issue, nutritional healthy eating is a very important component of your overall well-being and folks on income assistance just can't afford it. With the exercise that I made mention of to you back in the Fall that the Dartmouth office has gone through - I've been there going on seven years and the former MLA was there for eight years - in and around special diet funding and transportation funding, we've seen an exercise take place where we've seen individuals have their normal $70 bus pass be taken away, actually, let's say whittled down to a point of where, based on how many appointments they have, to about $18 and if they have 10 or more appointments, $36.

 

Special diet funding, I honestly believe - and you can make a comment if the department is considering it - I strongly think that we should be looking at making an adjustment with the blue form, what we call our medical form. If a doctor can fill that form out properly, special diet funding is a key component. It gives additional money to income assistance clients to allow them to have that opportunity to have healthy foods. The problem with the recent adjustments is that we have seen a lot of individuals who lost funding for their bus pass, who lost funding for their medical special diets because the doctors - honestly I don't believe the doctors have a full understanding as to what their requirement is when it comes to filling this form out. Some doctors have taken it upon themselves, unfortunately, to not want to address the blue form and put it off for an individual.

 

What has happened in our community and over the last year, we've come up with this saying - individuals who rely on income assistance eat their bus pass and they use their special diet money to top up their rents. That's basically what - we've talked about this before - how do we educate people to what people are really living on? With this recent adjustment it has caused some real issues. I understand the finances of the province and giving somebody a bus pass of $70, and when you pull it down to $18, it is direct savings to the government. We want to make sure those people who need it are getting that service.

 

We've even seen people, recently, receive their bus passes through a P.O. and that's fine as far as tracking that. But realistically what's happening right now in my community and with a large number of individuals that I deal with, we still don't have that bump in the shelter allowance so when we take away the special diet funding and that transportation funding, they no longer have the ability to pay a power bill. They no longer have the ability to top up their rents, but rents keep rising. We have the Halifax Water Commission going before the URB for another increase and as I mentioned a couple weeks ago in the House, I have a number of landlords who are going to have no choice but to raise the rents because of the high cost of water. With the power bills going up, it falls on the back of the Department of Community Services when these individuals fall in disconnect.

 

They simply don't have enough. I don't want the greater society thinking that it's merely throwing money and putting money in these folks' hands. The minister and governments have to understand, and society has to understand, that these folks cannot afford to live in a safe environment, in a decent apartment. Housing is a right, it's not a privilege and when you have somebody dealing with an addiction, when you have somebody dealing with mental health, if they have struggles paying their power bill or paying their rent, it is affecting their overall health.

 

I'm going to get the minister to comment on this and I don't mind if she takes some time because, like I said, this is very important work that I do every day and it has been a frustration of mine for a number of years. I can honestly say, even though we've made some strides - and I did last year, I believe I gave your government credit for a number of the initiatives and we've seen a few more this year - but I have to be realistic in telling you that going into my seventh year, I haven't quite seen the struggle that I'm seeing today.

 

We in Opposition talk about the rising food costs. Is it your fault? Well we have the HST increase, but food costs are going up. Is it directly related to you? Probably not, the NDP doesn't set food prices. Power bills - is there room for you to step in and intervene? Well in Opposition, we say there is. Realistically, folks on income assistance and especially those individuals dealing with addiction issues and mental health issues, individuals who are coming out of the prison system, men and women - they aren't getting what they need as far as a basic right, which is that housing piece.

 

If we don't look at this, what happens is we're going to be paying for it in the end because individuals are going to be selling their medications to make up for a loss of funding. I've had individuals come to me and say, they've taken my bus pass away; I can't get to my NA meetings or the community club for social meetings for mental health. We've tightened it up so much and I know the minister has talked about getting to a more individual approach.

 

What's happened in my community, it's been very stressful. I don't quite know what to do anymore, who to call on anymore when it comes to people who are in disconnect, who are unable to pay their rent. Again, I'll say it comes back and falls in the hands of government because we're bailing them out. We're no longer paying damage deposits; we've had people clawed back on people paying a damage deposit if your rent is above the allotted allowance. I don't understand that.

 

In a way I do, because if someone's paying $575 and they're only getting $535 and they fall behind with the landlord, again, we have to bail them out. That's why we have trustees in a lot of situations. We have an individual right now who can have an apartment for $550 or $575; I believe we still need to put that damage deposit in place, or at least a portion of it. I've seen a number of cases where we've neglected to do that. What happens is we have an individual who is homeless.

 

I'm going to finish off by saying that, specifically around the medical blue forms and the diet - it's been a real frustration for me, my office, my assistant, and I believe for the medical profession as well. I don't think that doctors fully understand what is required of them. The individual who is approaching a doctor might not necessarily understand the language that is required in order for them to receive a special diet.

 

In the past what we have done, to my knowledge, in Dartmouth for the last 14-15 years is we've taken the word of the doctor when he writes on the prescription pad or writes on a piece of paper and sends it off to the department that this individual requires a high-fibre, low-sodium, high-protein diet and medical transportation. For 14-15 years we've taken that word of the doctor and now it has changed.

 

I think we've done a disservice to a lot of doctors because they don't know and are frustrated with the department and the fact that now we require individuals to do this every year - why are you coming back to us every year? Doctors are frustrated. I've had individuals, and a few of them are seniors - and I know I made mention to you recently - I've had seniors in their late 50s and 60s who have been to their doctors two or three times in order to have this properly done. Their doctors have been really frustrated. Of course, the frustration levels of the individuals have gone up as well. Again, a lot of these individuals have health issues.

 

I have taken it upon myself to do my own research and in one particular case, a gentleman who, after 36 years of being an alcoholic, had finally taken steps to put himself in detox with the encouragement of his family and my office. He came out, he attended programs. We did some research in my office around nutritional requirements for an alcoholic. I summed it all up in four pages and sent it out to his physician. His physician agreed with it; we passed it on to the department and he was denied medical transportation because he didn't see the doctor more than four times a month, but he was going to his programs every day and he was committed to this.

 

It's basic knowledge. It's in print that an alcoholic requires, basically, the five basic food groups in order to get his/her system back to being somewhat normal. It's not science that somebody in the department can't figure this out. We talked about a holistic model and the individual approach. This individual, sadly, today, has relapsed because we don't have the funding for transportation for him to get to his meetings and we don't have the special diet funding because his doctor - actually, we're in the process of trying to find him another physician who is willing to take on the challenge.

 

That's a real bone of contention for me and I think it's an opportunity for the department to go back to the College of Physicians and Surgeons or Doctors Nova Scotia and have that conversation. We have a lot of these medical clinics setting up and when these individuals approach them, the doctor needs to get to know them. For a lot of individuals, with the addiction piece in place, a lot of them don't want people who are taking narcotics. A lot of doctors refuse to treat new patients who are on narcotics - many of these walk-in clinics. Finding a doctor that has the time - and we know that when we walk into our family physicians, you're allotted about 15 minutes with that family physician, so is it fair for him or her, as a physician, to fill this medical blue form out and fully understand what the requirements are and the terminology and the wording the department requires? Is it fair to send an individual to a doctor two or three times to have this in place for a mere few dollars?

 

I know we have to live within our means. We've heard that. Realistically, we have people who are struggling. Realistically, what we've done by taking away transportation funding - and I know that if we take the 40,000-plus people who are on income assistance and we give everybody a bus pass, we're looking at probably $4 million to $9 million a year.

 

But what I've seen is a lot of individuals have that right taken away from them to leave their communities, to venture out to try new things, to seek out services. It's unfortunate and it's been mandated. There have been some real tough decisions made by some of the supervisors in the Portland Street office, and I don't envy them, but I would be remiss not to stand in my place today to tell you that yes, your government has made improvements, and it's appreciated by those individuals that it affects. But for individuals who are on income assistance who have addiction issues and mental health issues, the shelter component, the fact that they cannot pay for their rent, that's what society has to understand - $800-plus a month, $600-plus for rent, throw your power in there, a possibility of a phone, which I know the department funds to a point, but in Dartmouth North we eat our bus passes and we use our special diet money to top up our rent. Now that has been removed.

 

What we have are people on the verge - and there's no number for this real piece - we're on the verge of seeing people possibly homeless. When this next round of increases comes in rents, I don't know what I'm going to do anymore. I don't know where we are going to house people. We know about the wait lists and I'm encouraged by the housing strategy - it can't come soon enough. But now we're talking about having seniors wait until 67 to be on Canada pension, and I know I brought that issue up last year, the transition from 65 off income assistance to Canada pension. Housing is going to be a crucial piece.

 

It's not going to be just a crucial piece for people who are going to obtain the successful jobs and the high paying jobs with the Ships Start Here, but for those individuals, those 40,000-plus individuals who we know we need to take care of - we know we need to put more resources in place to get them employable and the fact that they can't pay their rent is a huge problem. I can only stress that it's not just your government - I've seen it with the Progressive Conservative Government in the past in my tenure here - but it remains an issue and I'm running short of places to put people.

 

I'd like you to comment on the doctor piece, I think it's a real opportunity for government to go to the College of Physicians and Doctors Nova Scotia and talk to those folks as to why individuals have to do this. It's part of the process and a doctor should embrace that process and look at that individual's overall well-being. If that physician doesn't understand what's required of them, who suffers? We save a little bit of money, but that individual suffers. The shelter component is very important. As long as I come to this House and I have governments that aren't willing to increase it to at least where folks can afford to pay their rent without taking it out of personal allowances, I'll continue to raise the issue.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you to the member opposite for his compassion and his passion with respect to the individuals and the families that he's working hard for.

 

I understand what you are saying. I find it very difficult in my job, every day, to know that there are that many individuals with the needs and the dollar amounts. You're absolutely right, I wouldn't stand in this House and argue that they are getting enough money. It was very unfortunate. There were many surprises for me coming in as a new Minister of Community Services and I think one of the very unfortunate parts is that years ago, under previous governments, there were no strategies for the future in terms of where we need to go; in terms of the increase that happens within our world each and every year; the increase of living; the housing component, and I could go on and on and on.

 

I think that's what was very difficult because I felt like we were starting behind the eight-ball when we came in as government, because the amount of dollars that individuals were receiving were not where they should have been in 2009 - in reality, they weren't - so we're playing catch-up. That's why we have been working diligently, in a creative mode, to bring in initiatives that can help individuals and families. There is so much out there, in terms of needs, when you look at the Department of Community Services. It's not just one group of individuals or people; there are many needs that I feel were really quite neglected over the years. So we are trying to get to a better position.

 

I respect the fact that you are talking about living within your means because of the fact that what we have to try to do is turn around the economy in this province and the finances that we were left with - the aftermath of the previous government. It's true. I mean the fact is, you owe so much money and you're paying a billion dollars out a year in interest rate. Well that's the amount of money that I have in the budget for Community Services and boy wouldn't it be nice to have that extra $1 billion that's being paid down on the interest.

 

So I think that is the reality. We have to live in the reality, yet at the same time the struggle is that we know that people are suffering out there. For myself and for the department and for yourself, that's what you see each and every day and that's what really difficult.

 

I guess what I'm expressing is that, number one, we truly recognize it. We truly, truly recognize it. We are truly working to try and make a difference by offering the variety of programs that we have been offering. With regards to the shelter component, having a housing initiative will certainly be of a great benefit - to have a strategic plan. There has been a lot because of the stimulus funding invested in housing and affordable housing, but yet, I truly understand. I mean you have to pay the rent and the cost of the rent goes up, and the amount of money that people have, at the end of the day, to try to feed themselves - it's not right. It's unfair, and I will be the first to admit it but I would have to say that I am working very hard in the department every day to see where changes can be made. I know staff is working very hard.

 

I think one of the other challenges that we've had is that we're trying to change the way that the entire system is working. You're looking at decades and decades of a particular way a system has worked and then we're coming in and we're saying that's not good enough and we've got the proof that it's not good enough, that we have to be different in our approach. It's challenging. We have about 2,000 staff within Community Services and as a minister I can't know what each and every one of those staff are doing each and every day. What I can do is to try and change the culture and the model that we're working within, but I can't force it on individuals either. That's not going to work.

 

We have a plan that focuses on individuals services plus a restorative approach and that's the framework we want to work around. What we're doing now in the department is, we're encouraging staff members to embrace that plan and to not be fearful to make a change and to do things differently.

 

One of the other areas of inconsistency that I discovered in the department was that we have different regional offices throughout the province and because there wasn't a real clear-cut strategy for the Department of Community Services, you were often dependent on that region and maybe they did business - I've discovered that what might have been done in the central region could be done quite differently in the western region. So to me there was an inconsistency throughout Community Services and what might be provided at the grassroots level.

 

I think you've experienced some of that in terms of those changes that you're speaking of and, as you know, as soon as you came to me, I immediately went back to the department to ask what was happening there. I encourage you to keep me up-to-date because I know that I have to respect the fact, too, that those staff individuals at a senior management level are burdened with that whole financial picture. There are reasons on both sides of why it's very difficult to be able to make change, but we're working towards it. We do have a plan and that plan is moving along, as we speak, and we're seeing more staff understanding the importance.

 

One of the things that we also had to look at was our own internal communications. I mean, that's key. You have to have two strategies. You need an internal communications strategy and you need an external communications strategy and you have to be sure with that many employees, that people understand their role. They also understand other colleagues' roles, other department divisions within the department, what they're doing and to be able to feel free, that there is a mechanism within the Department of Community Services, as an employee, that your voice can be heard and that there is a feedback to that. Because of the fact that with any large organization, people often feel like they're out in the wilderness and no one's hearing them.

 

You have to be very strategic to make sure - and that's what we're also working on, the first real internal strategic plan that the Department of Community Services has ever had. That's very important because if we want people to carry that philosophy of being restorative and to work very diligently with individuals on that individual-needs basis, that's what is really important. They have to understand, as a caseworker, that you have that freedom.

 

The challenge when you have a flexible system is to make sure that you don't go overboard in one area, that once again you find in one part of the province that people are getting a particular service more so than in others. There are a lot of challenges there but I think that to succeed you have to make sure that your communication system internally is very good and people have a feedback mechanism and feel very free to be able to offer their opinion.

 

I think that you're right on with the medical aspect. I think that we always need to be understanding that things need to be reviewed. I think it's a very good point. You had brought it up to me the other day and I made it as one of my notes that we can certainly look at. As you said, the time for a doctor is very challenging for them and they're not going to take the time to find out all the ins and outs. They don't have the time for that particular individual so sometimes the individual is left in a situation where they should have maybe got more than they did because of that.

 

We have to clarify the medical forms. We have to clarify what can be available to individuals. So there's work to be done, there's no question. I think there will always be work to be done in this department because you're involved with the human element and that always changes. A need today might not have even been something you would have thought of as a special need five or 10 years ago and then what that cost would be to support it.

 

There are also opportunities, as we discussed, in terms of transportation. I think one of the areas that we could do better work on, too, within government, is more corporate relationships and bring in the corporate factor to see if there are partnerships there. We have done that. I'm really pleased with one program that we were able to initiate that hasn't been done before and that was to the homelessness initiative, and that brought together shelters, advocates for homelessness in Nova Scotia, along with the corporate factor.

 

With that partnership, with government, we were able to come up with a model that is being implemented now and that model is looking at what you were talking about in terms of people with addiction issues or mental health issues, to provide housing for those individuals but don't leave it at that. I think that was the way of looking at things in the past. The solution was to provide a home, that's only part of it. What you need is wrap-around support, so it's like a hub model.

 

What we've done with that is have outreach workers who are able to look at what that individual needs in terms of support. Many of those supports already exist in the communities anyway so you can bring them together under one hub model to provide that support for the individual. It's not just the housing component; it's also other supports that they may need. Whether it's some types of medical supports, or maybe they need a counsellor or maybe some employment support, it's developing a plan with that individual of where he or she feel they would like to go and how they can reach their goals and how we can assist them in reaching those life goals.

 

I would not stand here and not say that there couldn't be other things that we could accomplish in terms of maybe corporate partnership being on the transportation. You and I had a good discussion about that just yesterday. I thought it was a wonderful combination of minds that came up with a potential opportunity that I will go back to staff with. I think what is so important is to have the opportunity to sit down and brainstorm on what we can do. It must be very difficult for you because you're dealing, on a daily basis, with individuals who - you know - I'm standing here saying things are getting better. We're working towards it but the people have immediate needs and that's the part that breaks my heart because I know there are those immediate needs.

 

I know that we're working very hard and that we've made really good and positive change and we're moving in that direction and as we get our feet back on the ground financially, as a province, that we can do more investments. In a time when we have great financial constraints, last year I was fortunate that my colleagues supported my department in receiving an extra $22 million to use for initiatives within the department.

 

This year our budget is reflecting $36 million in some key initiatives that we're going to be implementing. I've been very fortunate to work with colleagues and have a government that understands the importance of investing in the people of Nova Scotia with the greater needs. The truth of the matter is that we were so far behind when we came in that we're still running to catch up and I have that hope that we will catch up.

 

In the meantime, for those individuals who are suffering, that's where it's really important to come to the department, and come to me, and we need to discuss those cases one on one. I'm willing to do that. As you know, one of the first things that I did within the first year as minister was - I saw that there was a need for the focus on the one-on-one service. When an issue came forth, rather than to say it just does not fit within policy - I'm sorry, you're going to have to wait because we're working on changes - was trying to come up with something that, for an interim basis was able to help individuals, to relook at their situation if they received a no.

 

As you know we created a position that is a secondment position so it's not a new FTE, but a couple years ago we seconded Randy Acker to come to the department and work out of the minister's office, to be a client navigator and that has worked quite well for any of those who have used the services that Randy has offered, so you or any other members in the House have the opportunity to contact Randy or myself. What he does is he goes back and reviews that whole individual case to make sure that if there is one bit of opportunity that we can provide the service necessary to that individual, that we take another look at that.

 

I think that has worked well; there have been many situations where we've turned things around. I've been able, as the minister, to say, let's stretch that and create an opportunity here for the individual. It doesn't make sense if somebody comes to you and they have a medical issue or say a dental issue, that we need to tell them to go on Community Services in order to get the support to have that covered. Well that doesn't make since to me because you're looking at the time of staff doing that, the fact that you are making them go on income assistance when it may not be necessary. Isn't it more logical to pay for the service they need and then they're on their way because they don't need any more? That's the way we have to look at things.

 

I wish that I had a golden wand that I could tap on this desk and make things better. I know it's difficult. I think what we have to do is work as a team. Whether you're on this side of the House or on the opposite side of the House, we're here for people and that's why we should be working together, not at each other but working together, which you have done with me to come up with solutions. If we don't talk, we're never going to come up with a solution and who loses out is that poor individual who is trying to make ends meet.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time allotted is now expired.

 

The honorable member for Bedford-Birch Cove.

 

MS. KELLY REGAN: If we could start off by looking at affordable housing, our year-over-year estimates show the budget for affordable housing within the department has gone down by 73 per cent. I've heard the minister speak about that a bit, but I would like to have her clarify as to what would account for this decrease. How will this reduction assist in reaching overall departmental goals and will this reduction result in less stock being built or fewer repairs being done, longer wait times to get into affordable housing? How will this reduction affect client access to housing? I know, for example, the wait list right now is about, I think, 1,700 people on the list.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, I did reference this in my opening speech for Budget Estimates that the reduction in the housing portfolio is a reduction due to the economic stimulus package. It's a program that is finished. The department worked very diligently, really hard over the last several years to get all the monies out and to fix up many units throughout the Province of Nova Scotia. We repaired units and we built new affordable housing units. For the first time in decades, we've had that opportunity to have those dollars in order to build new affordable housing for seniors, for people with disabilities.

 

It was a great opportunity that we had, in the Province of Nova Scotia, to partner with the federal government and be able to do that. We're very pleased, and I'm very pleased as the minister, that our department was able to accomplish that. I know that was a huge undertaking in order to be able to repair, build and to develop more housing throughout the province.

 

With respect to the housing component, I'm very excited about the fact that we are building a framework with respect to housing and going forward with making many changes in housing and focusing on different housing opportunities that you can have in the province. I think that what you will find is that our housing component in the department is in a good position now. We have finished the stimulus funding and we're in a very good position. This is the right time to go forward and to look at what we have, what we need to do and we will definitely be going forward. I think it's going to be a great opportunity for Nova Scotians to have that. With respect to seniors' housing also, it's very important. Affordable housing is a key element in the province and we recognize that.

 

MS. REGAN: I'm not sure I heard any actual indication of how this reduction would assist in reaching overall departmental goals. I'm not really clear on how the federal funding works so maybe the minister could explain that to me. The money that was in your budget here last year, did that include federal portion of the housing projects or only our matching funds? I'm not quite clear on that. Was the federal money flowing through the province here or was that separate?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The stimulus funding for housing was a 50/50 agreement. It flows through our budget so that's why you would see it in there and that's why you're not seeing it. That's where the reduction comes from. The reduction in our budget is because we're no longer receiving that 50 per cent housing-stimulus funding. It's logical then that we would have a reduction in housing and that's what that's reflective of.

 

MS. REGAN: I get that there would have been a reduction. What I don't understand is why it's 73 per cent. If it was a 50/50 split, why is the reduction 73 per cent? I'm assuming that we're also reducing the money that we would have put in to that program, in which case, I'm not really clear why that's happening because clearly the need has not diminished.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again it's because there would have been our provincial portion. We were expected to put 50 per cent into the stimulus program and the federal government would put 50 per cent in. That 50 per cent of the federal dollars is no longer reflective in the budget. The 50 per cent that we would have dedicated through Community Services is no longer reflective in the budget because that program has ended.

 

MS. REGAN: So I'm correct in taking from that, we are cutting the money that we were actually spending on affordable housing because we could still be putting that 50 per cent in to build housing. The feds decided to takes their money out, they're done, the program is over but there is no reason to say why we couldn't have continued on building houses if in fact there is need, and there does appear to be a need for that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The number that is in the budget for housing, presently, is reflective of the same number that would have been in the budget before the stimulus package was offered to us. We're back to the number of dollars that were there when the federal government came forth with their stimulus package.

 

MS. REGAN: I take it then that we are going back to pre-2008 levels of funding for affordable housing which, when you consider what $4 million buys today versus what $4 million bought then, is in fact a cut. If we look at the non-profit housing programs, year over year estimates show the budget for non-profit housing programs within the department down by 37 per cent. I'm just wondering what would account for this decrease, how will this reduction assist in reaching overall departmental goals? Will this reduction result in less stock being built, fewer repairs being done, longer wait times to get into affordable housing? How will this reduction affect organizations that work directly with affordable housing clients?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: As I said the amount that is in the budget now is reflective of the same amount before the stimulus funding. There is an increase in the fact that now we have maintenance, we have repairs, we have costs to those new units that have been budgeted for. The extra dollars that you were talking about were, once again, from the stimulus program so we have the same amount of dollars in our budget to work with that we had back in 2006. The difference is that we have many, many repaired units for people with disabilities. You cannot compare and say that we're back to the same level as we were in 2006. We are not because we have so many more thousands of units throughout the province that have been either built or repaired. So because of the stimulus package we are ahead of the game in terms of our housing than we were in 2006.

 

MS. REGAN: The minister is referencing many, many units and thousands of units. I'm wondering if it would be possible to get the actual number of units that were built during that period and where they would be located. Perhaps if the minister has a chart or something we could have that tabled, also the number of units that were repaired and where they are located.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I can provide you with the following numbers but I don't have the actual geographical locations in front of me; we can have staff provide that for you tomorrow: $48.1 million went to upgrade the province's public housing stock, $20.6 million for repairs and that was for 1,100 units in the cooperatives and the non-profits area, $27.4 million in new construction activity representing almost 196 units, $13.3 million for the creation and the preservation of 409 units, $18 million for residential rehabilitation assistance and that went to over 1,500 households.

That equates to $128 million under the stimulus initiative and for the actual geographical areas that you would find those housing units and the repairs, we'll be able to provide that to you later on.

 

MS. REGAN: So when the minister said there were many, many new units you meant there were about 600 new units and the thousands of units, those were repairs of about - I missed one number there, but I'm seeing about 2,600 repairs and about 600 units being built.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'll break down those numbers for you. New construction units, which were mostly seniors like the fabulous new construction that we opened in Millwood in Lower Sackville, we're looking at 198 units. I think this is a very important factor because it would have been a little bit silly of us if we would just have continually built new units with the stimulus package and ignored the units that existed.

 

We had many units that were in a real great need of repair and so we took that opportunity with the stimulus dollars and it was the right thing to do. For public housing, the upgrades, equates to 9,000. That's a lot in a two- year period. For co-ops and non-profit units, it would have been 1,124 that we would have repaired.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, when we talked about not this past answer but the one before - you referenced $13.3 million going to something and it was 409 units but I didn't catch what that was?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The $13.3 million for the creation and preservation of 409 units would have been ones already existing that needed work done on them, whether we had to go in and totally gut an apartment or whether we had to just go in and make some upgrades to that particular unit.

 

MS. REGAN: So, I just want to be clear here. In terms of new construction under the federal stimulus money, that particular program - what we saw was 198 new units. Is that it?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: As I said in my previous answer, yes, there were 198 new units. However, it did not make any logical sense to go out and build new unit after new unit when we had so many that were in disrepair. We had over approximately 9,000 - that's a lot - 9,000 upgrades that we had to do and we had approximately 1,124 that were the non-profit and the co-operatives. That's why the number for the new units which were mainly focused on the seniors equals 198.

 

As I said that may not sound like a lot but in a two-year period we had well over 10,000 units that were repaired. I believe if you ask those individuals who lived in those units, they're pretty thrilled with the fact that we made sure their units were brought up to good standards for those families to live in.

 

MS. REGAN: I'm sure they were, thank you for explaining that. A year over year estimates show the budget for public housing subsidies within the department has decreased by 7 per cent. I'm wondering what would account for that decrease and how this reduction would assist in reaching overall departmental goals and will this reduction result in fewer subsidies or decreased access to affordable housing?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again, that $7 million is reflective of stimulus dollars. You wondered where that puts us with overall departmental goals, where we are is in a good position because of the fact that we've had this great opportunity in the last two years to create new senior units, to be able to repair that many units which I think is an incredible amount. Just think of the work when you get your own home repaired how long it typically takes to get that done and to be able to stand here and say that we're looking at well over 10,000. We're in a good position because of several things.

 

We just renewed our federal-provincial housing agreement and that will equal another $60 million that we will have to be able to utilize until 2014 with that agreement. In that agreement there's more flexibility than there used to be in the past which is very good for us and we were very appreciative that that was heard by the federal government to have more flexibility and where those dollars can go in terms of housing.

 

The other reason that we're in a very good position is because we have made a commitment as a government to develop a framework with respect to housing in the province and how we can be more creative to look at what we have in the province and how we can make sure there's increased numbers. We do know and we do understand that there is a waiting list and so that is certainly something we want to be able to tackle. The first thing we needed to do was to repair what was already in existence, that needed that repair work done.

 

Now that we have that done, then we can go forward with our new initiatives and to be able to look forward to building and having more affordable housing throughout the entire province.

 

MS. REGAN: Would it be possible to get a printout so we can see what kind of work was being done on the houses there? I'm sure that the folks who got the work done were very appreciative of that. It would be good for us to be able to see some examples of what kinds of things were done. A figure that big, it's kind of tough to know what kind of work would have been done.

 

In terms of housing authority and property operations, year over year estimates show the budget for the housing authority and property operations within the department went up by 3.2 per cent. What accounts for this increase? How is this increase going to assist in reaching overall departmental goals? Will this increase access to affordable housing and decrease wait times for those waiting to get into public housing? Thank you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: On the first part of your question, that increase is reflective of increases in our leases. As you know when the leases of head office and our other offices, there's typically an annual increase and that's what that is.

 

If the member opposite didn't mind asking the second part of her question, I didn't catch the second part.

 

MS. REGAN: I suspect actually the minister answering the first part of it will have answered the question for me - will this increase access to affordable housing and shorten wait times for those waiting to get into public housing? I would assume since that's just an increase in the leases, that's not the case.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, you're correct. That's not the case. It's increases in our leases.

 

MS. REGAN: I'm sort of working backwards, actually; I'm going to Housing Services. The overall year over year estimates show the budget for housing within the department has decreased by 15.4 per cent. Am I right in assuming that the decrease is the result of other line items under housing services being decreased, like affordable housing, like non-profit housing programs, et cetera?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That particular number is because of two things. One is that we were finished with the stimulus; however, at the same time, we have increased operating costs within our housing services.

 

MS. REGAN: Thank you, minister, for clarifying that. Just to clarify the list of the repairs that were done, I don't think I heard it answered to whether it would be possible to get that list.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Certainly I will make sure that we get you that list.

 

MS. REGAN: Thank you. There are two items on Page 5.8 of the supplementary information, the Rent Supplement Program and the Rural Native Housing Programs. I noticed that the money from the estimate in 2011-2012 and the forecast are exactly the same and that remains the same in 2012-2013.

 

What concerns me there is when you see that all the money is spent in a program, what it often means is that there are people who are being excluded, so I'm wondering if you could speak to how that program works. Are there people on a waiting list? When you have the exact same amounts being spent in estimates in the forecast, in estimates the year afterward , that sets off an alarm bell for me.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: There's two different programs there. One would be you are mentioning is the rent supplement, so that is where we would supplement the rent to the landlord to help out the renter. The other program is a program that's a federal program. I don't know if you have a more clarified question on that, I'm not quite sure.

 

MS. REGAN: What I'm saying is, I am assuming that because the dollars have remained constant in what was estimated and then what was actually spent, and then what is estimated again the next year - there must be people who are missing out on this program. If there's a program where every single cent is spent, that just doesn't happen without there being people being left out. I'm just wondering, do we have any numbers on that? Do we know who is not getting in? Is there a wait list?

 

I would assume that with what we're hearing about rents increasing - and I certainly do hear this a lot - that it is difficult to rent an apartment for the amounts that are given by DCS. I'm assuming that there must be a lot of apartments where the rent is more than what DCS normally gives and I am assuming those rental rates are increasing because that's certainly what I'm hearing out there, so how is it that the same amount is being spent? I can't see how everyone who wants to access this program is getting in.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The Native Housing Program is a program that has existed for a very long time; it's an older program. We provide subsidy for rental units. There are 588 of those units and there is also - we have 234 units that are homeowners units and they are to low-income, non-Native, rural households and off-reserve Aboriginal households. In that particular program normally the family or the individuals or individual accessing it stay in those homes for quite a long time.

 

Now I know that you had mentioned that there is some wait-list to that. I don't have the numbers right here of exactly those numbers. If you want them, we can get them for you, but it would be like any program in the Department of Community Services - we would like to be able to do more and we're working towards that with respect to all our programs in terms of improvement. However, a lot of these programs we are helping to subsidize them or helping also with their mortgage or some of their rental in those programs.

 

MS. REGAN: Thank you for clarifying that federal program because I wasn't familiar with it. The Rent Supplement Program - I wonder if the minister could speak to it and how it is that the numbers have remained constant.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: With respect to the Rent Supplement program, it is a program that is tied into what is available in terms of the budget and how many rent supplements that we're able to provide to individuals; it's actually based on what the budget is. Where the budget is the same as it was before, that's what we'll be able to provide to the number of individuals who are already receiving rent supplement.

 

MS. REGAN: I think we're saying the same thing there that basically the program has x-amount of dollars in there and once it's spent, that's it. Would there be a waiting list for that and if so, would we know how long it is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just remind the members we have approximately 30 minutes left in this round of questions.

 

The honourable Minister of Community Services.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, I think we are on the same page and speaking the same language. We can back to you with actually what numbers we have on a wait-list. Presently I think it's important to know that we do provide rent supplements to a thousand clients at this point in time.

 

MS. REGAN: I'm wondering if we could just look at the supplementary detail of the estimates on Page 91 and 92. There are a number of lines that indicate payments made to the Department of Community Services. It comes to just over $700,000 if you add them all up. I'm just wondering how those monies were spent and how much is budgeted to be spent on Communications Nova Scotia this year.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What the breakdown of the numbers within those categories is you're looking at six staff, individuals. Four of those are Communications Nova Scotia staff and two are departmental staff. There is just a slight increase of 1 per cent in the budget with respect to that. Now the actual breakdown to monies being spent within the communication division in the department . . .

 

MS. REGAN: Mr. Chairman , I'm having some trouble hearing.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member is having a little bit of difficulty hearing the responses of the minister so I would ask those members that if you are going to have conversations and you'd like to carry them on outside the Chamber that would be great.

 

The honourable Minister of Community Services has the floor. You may want to start over again just so she can hear the whole thing.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes I will, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The breakdown in that particular category is you're looking at six staff, four of those would be within communications, two are staff in the department. The CNS budget amount is $461,000, it was requested yesterday during Budget Estimates, a breakdown of that within communications and I tabled it earlier today so I think that would be available now for you to have.

 

MS. REGAN: Will the same amount be spent with Communications Nova Scotia again this year?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The only difference this year will be an increase of $5,000 and that is due to an increase in wages and salaries as individuals go up the salary ladder within their own area of expertise.

 

MS. REGAN: In terms of line by line estimates from Page 5.2 Programs and Services Senior Managements, the year-over-year estimates show the budget for senior management within the department going up by 2 per cent. I'm assuming that the increase is the result of people moving up the line, is that it?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just remind the members again that the chatter is getting a little loud and it's hard for the minister and the members to hear the answers and the questions.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What we see from that is as you said, actually once again the increase in salaries and also our vacancy management initiative.

 

MS. REGAN: I'm not familiar with the vacancy management initiative, if the minister could just explain that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The vacancy management initiative is a government- wide initiative in all our departments and it's a commitment to not fill a position through attrition. That's a way that we can create reductions within our budgets.

 

MS. REGAN: So to take the 'government speak' out of that, when somebody leaves, retires or whatever you look at, do we really need the position rather than just saying we're going to fill somebody in there?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, there are two aspects to that. One is whether we do need to fill that position so we would analyse that and see if there was a need for that and whether there could be a cost savings there without affecting the services that we provide to the public. So that would be part of decision making around that. The other, as you can understand when you have a position available sometimes it can take three to six months to fill that position so therefore there is money there that you are saving because that position is not filled immediately.

 

MS. REGAN: In terms of Corporate Services Unit, the year-over-year estimates show the budget for Corporate Services Unit within the department were reduced by 17 per cent. I'm just wondering how you're going to reach this reduction and what will be cut in order to achieve this target and if that will help your department reach its goals?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We will be able to achieve our goals with that because those are positions that were vacant positions that we are not filling. Once again it's that vacancy management initiative and plus I did table that information also so that is readily available for you.

 

MS. REGAN: In terms of policy and information management, the year over year estimates show the budget for policy and information management within the department going up by 6.3 per cent. What would account for this increase and how is that going to help the department reach overall departmental goals?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You may know that the Children's Aid Society used to be independent and we would provide them with funding for their legal services through their grant program. When they came over to the Department of Community Services, what we do now is we get those legal services through the Justice Department. That's where that figure comes from - it's for the services provided by the Justice Department.

 

MS. REGAN: If you still have to pay them for that but now it comes from within another department of the government, would that not just be a shifting rather than seeing an increase? I don't follow how that works.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Two points with respect to that. It would have been within the family of children's services' budget before so you wouldn't have seen it there. Plus, what was being paid for in the past through the Children and Family Services was to private legal firms so the cost factor was much higher than doing it through Justice. It was actually a very beneficial move for us because the cost for services from Justice is lower than the cost if we were going to get that service through a private legal firm.

 

MS. REGAN: That's why I don't understand the cost has gone up by 6.3 per cent. I think I got it actually. So now you're including these legal services within this part here whereas before it was money that was going out to Children's Aid. But if you look at the big picture, it's less money being paid to legal fees because you're using government lawyers which as government lawyers would know, make less than ones in private firms.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Absolutely, you're right on. It actually saved money but we have the same level of services, which is a good point.

 

MS. REGAN: Year-over-year estimates show the budget for field offices within the department has increased by 6.4 per cent. I'm assuming what counts for this increase would be the 10 youth workers who were hired or would that be something completely different?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's not the outreach workers. We had financial clerks that were in other areas of the department within employment services. What we've done is that they have gone out into the actual fields so that's why it's reflected in those particular areas. It's not within where they used to sit in the department.

 

MS. REGAN: I'm wondering - would that increase access to services for people, by moving those people there? I'm just wondering what the reason was for the change.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I wasn't clear for you and I apologize for that. We didn't actually physically move the people; we moved the way that it's set up in the books. The services are where they were before, but it's reflective in the budget of the field services, so it's just a move of the dollar figures. It's a budget move rather than person moves.

 

MS. REGAN: Services for People with Disabilities - your estimates show the budget for Services for People with Disabilities within the department went up by 2.2 per cent. I'm just wondering what new services will be made available as a result of this increase or whether more people will be eligible for funding and support services.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: As you can understand, there is a great need within SPD and it's an area that has a lot of stresses on it and those stresses have increased over the years in each every year. We have increased the funding actually for persons with disabilities. It's almost about $6 million and that would be for such things as to act on the recommendations that were presented in the Braemore report and also we'll be expanding our programming. One of the areas that we're trying to work very diligently is with respect to waiting lists to access our services because of the great need that we're finding. We also want to be more supportive of our service providers with their needs of increasing staff in their operating costs because of the increased needs under SPD.

 

We are also looking at our community-based programs such as the Alternate Family Support - AFS - and the Independent Living Support programs. Those are some key areas that we feel that if we can provide more supports for independent living and also for families that are taking care of their loved ones who have complex needs. That means that they will not have a need to maybe put a person into a facility or a community-home base because they're able to look after their loved ones at home with more resources from the department. In turn, what this will also do is decrease our wait-lists, which is vitally important for us.

 

MS. REGAN: I'm wondering if the minister could give us an idea of what the wait- lists look like. I don't know if there is a breakdown by area or whether there's just an overall number that you have, but if we could find out how many people are on the wait- list for assistance from Services for People with Disabilities, that would be most helpful.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Is there a particular area that you're looking at in terms of wait-lists? Are you looking at wait-lists that correspond with day programs or wait-lists for community options?

 

MS. REGAN: I kind of want them all.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Well I don't have them all here. I do know that we can provide them to you. I know that we do have wait- lists; we recognize that and that's why we're strategizing with SPD and putting more resources into SPD to see if we'll be able to tackle those wait- lists.

MS. REGAN: Okay, thank you. In terms of Family and Children Services our year over year estimate shows the budget within the department was reduced by 2 per cent. I'm assuming that is the legal services that we're talking about there. Is that where we see that difference?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: There would be two factors there: the one that we talked about earlier, about the legal costs and change in that; and the other factor which is good news, the fact that we have fewer children and youth within care of the Department of Community Services. I think that is showing that what we are doing in that area, encouraging more adoptions, the increase in adoptions and coming forward now with an adoption strategy for older children and for youth is vitally important. So that's what that number is telling us is that we are actually doing a good job in that area and I want to congratulate the staff who work within the Youth and Children Services. It's a very difficult and challenging job yet very rewarding when they are able to make sure that a young person has a forever home.

 

MS. REGAN: I'd like to just sort of turn the page for a bit and talk about Old Age Security. As anybody who hasn't been living under a rock knows that the federal government is planning to change the age of Old Age Security from 65 years to 67 years. This will obviously have an impact on Community Services, our clients, our model of service delivery and also the province's bottom line. I'm just wondering what's the department's plan to address these changes? Have you been speaking to the federal government about the impact that this will have on Nova Scotia?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just remind the members we have approximately 10 minutes left in this round of discussions.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think that is a very important and a wise question because it is something that is on many people's minds. The fact is yes, it is very concerning to us and we do realize that although we're looking about 12 years from now that that will be occurring, we do know that that is somewhat of what I would consider a download from the federal government to the provincial level. There is no question that there will be a domino effect and that we will see an increase in need, especially for our senior population because of that.

 

As the Minister for Community Services and the Minister for Seniors, I have been vocal about that within the media, I know that the Premier has also made statements with respect to our concern. I actually was talking to a constituent the other evening who had a great concern about this and it is really hard because people have worked most of their life. Some people started earlier than others, I think this particular constituent had started working when she was 16 and boy she is ready to have a break when she turns 65 and very concerned too because of the fact that the work and her employment over the years didn't have the luxury of having any pension plans, or great pension plans.

 

We know that a lot of Nova Scotians and Canadians are in that position. It's a very frightful position to be in and that what's going to happen in 12 years is going to be very serious. It's my hope, though, that before those 12 years happens that there will be a change in the federal government. A change in that we will have another Party in there who understands and is concerned about our seniors. The seniors who have worked so hard for our province and for all of Canada, what they have done, how hard they have worked and this is how we provide for them, that they have to wait now until they are 67. The ramification of that is very detrimental.

 

I know there was a strategy behind announcing that it was going to take a 12-year period to get there, because of the fact that when people were originally informed of this, there was such a backlash from our seniors groups. Our seniors groups, bless their hearts, are so well organized they were able to create and implement such a media strategy and get the word out through the media, contact their MPs and pound the tables that this cannot happen. Because originally the fear was that this was going to happen much quicker than 10 or 12 years down the road. The result of that pressure was to change it and to try to say it is going to be transitioned in over a 12-year period, because of the fact that at the federal level of government they know that those individuals who are going to be affected by this are not in organized groups. We don't have middle- age clubs and maybe what we need to do is create those.

 

What I encourage to anybody who is speaking to me is, yes, it does work, letter campaigns do work, pressure does work. I think that we may be looking at an election four years out. That gives the middle-age club four years to pound the table, get the message out and put a different government there that has the ability to empathize with people and know that the social aspect in our country is vitally important and seniors play such a vital role in who they are that we need to make a change.

 

It is very discouraging to think how many hundreds of hours we add up at the end of the year, that people put in over their lifetime in their workplace. They give so much of themselves, they go to work every day, they spend more time at the workplace than they even do at home with their own families, and that's the reward they get for being a senior in Canada? You now have to work another two years. That is extraordinary. How about the person who actually does not have a job? What are they supposed to do? You may have a family member that a spouse is not working and the other one is working, you have only one income-earner in the family.

 

There are many questions but I think that what people have to do is not forget it, they have to remember that this is an issue that's going to be coming forward and that they have to be very diligent in their strategy, to get people together in organized groups to let the federal government know that this is just not acceptable. If they do not want to change their minds on that, that they won't be here in 10 or 12 years to see what happens, there will be another political Party in the seat. Thank you.

 

MS. REGAN: Thank you, minister, for your answer. I suspect we were both thinking of different Parties being in government 12 years from now but they probably have more in common with each other than they do with the one that is currently there.

 

My concern, I have to say, around Old Age Security obviously it is around seniors in general but around women in particular. What we know is that lots of women either have stayed home from the time they got married and had children or took time out of the workforce to look after the children. As a result, they don't have the kind of either money in RRSPs built up or they don't have the pension income built up that men have. So women, in particular, are more vulnerable when it comes to a change of this kind.

 

I don't know about the minister but I took a few years home raising a family and just did some contract work during that time. One of my best friends is in the first year - she is 54, so she'll be the first year of the people who will be hit. She called me up one day and she said, did I make it or did I not? You know, she's divorced, a single mom and I said I think you're the first year that gets the full whammy. She wasn't happy but your suggestion about letter writing and organizing is very good because in fact she's quite an organizer. The federal government may in fact be sorry that they took on people like her.

 

I also wanted to mention to the minister that if she is putting together any kind of a strategy to present to the federal government to indicate to them what your concerns are around this particular issue, I would be most happy to join the minister in this. I have a great concern about what this will do to Nova Scotia's economy, what it will do to the budget for your department if that department has to pick up the slack or if it doesn't happen, what it will do to people who are living on limited incomes when they retire.

 

Of course, there's also the issue around workers who really can't work until 67. There are a lot of people who do physically demanding jobs and they are just waiting until the day they turn 65 to be able to retire. I think this particular change in our benefits is going to hit them very hard because there are some jobs - I remember my grandmother working and the company she worked for in Ontario, the head office was transferred to Toronto and so she would have a very long commute every day to go into Toronto. I remember she did it for about a year until she hit 63 and she said, I just can't do it anymore. That wasn't even a physically demanding job.

 

I'm hoping we'll get to speak some more, I have a lot more questions for the minister, as she can probably imagine but I do want to thank her for answering the questions today in such a pithy manner. I look forward to continuing on with Budget Estimates when our turn comes around again. Thank you.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Argyle.

 

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: It's a pleasure to stand and speak for a little bit on the Department of Community Services. First I want to, of course, welcome George and Dave. I know they were great advisers to me when I had the opportunity to sit in that chair and I definitely commend them for the hard work that they do on a daily basis in the Department of Community Services.

 

The first thing is, following up from the member for Victoria-The Lakes, I think there were a couple of questions that he had asked about when it came to the child care centres, more specifically, the grants. I think the minister talked a little bit about a framework during that time. Maybe the minister could talk quickly about that framework and provide us with a few more details when it came to the childcare centre grants and things like enhancing playground equipment and things like that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know the member opposite is aware, because he sat in the minister's chair with respect to the daycare programs and the stimulus, the federal dollars, to help new daycares and the expansion program for existing daycares.

 

With respect to the budget aspect of where we're going with that, the playground program for equipment was available two years ago while we were doing the expansion program. That has ended now. We do have a few daycares that are still committed to that, that might not have had the opportunity and things didn't work out the way they planned in order to build or expand. We're still trying to work with those, there aren't that many, but just to try to get that all wrapped up.

 

When he was talking about the framework, what I was speaking of was with respect to the early years itself and the entire aspect of that. What I was talking about was that the government, as noted through the Throne Speech, has made a governmental commitment to go forward and to develop a framework, in terms of how we're providing services now in the Province of Nova Scotia for the early years, which doesn't just encompass daycares, it also encompasses your early years, early intervention.

 

There's many different aspects surrounding that and we want to know from the public and parents and the non-profit and the profit daycare providers, along with the early interventionists - all those areas - where they see the future for early years in children. That's what that's all about, that's the framework. We have announced it, we are finalizing the framework and then the next step from that framework will be, what will the consultation process look like? When will that take place? That's very important, the timing of that, to make sure that when we do that, it is a time when people are available and have that opportunity.

 

From that consultation process, then we'll be able to formulate a strategy, based on what people of Nova Scotia want for the early years in this province and how can we accomplish that and what steps need to be developed to accomplish that. That will very much involve the public. I think that's very important because I think that of course the public are the ones who receive the services, the ones what have the children and they need to be part of designing what the future looks like for children in the Province of Nova Scotia. Thanks.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I think that leads me to a pretty simple question on this - how long does the minister think that's going to take? Is this a six month process? Is it a year process? How long before she figures that the strategy should be available so that Nova Scotians can see it?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We don't have a timeline. We don't want it to be a long process, though, I can tell you that. Once we do have that framework finalized and we do have a timeline, we will certainly let you know because that's important to us. We want people to know how long a process we're looking at.

 

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes the consultation process can be too long. We need to balance that because then you're just consulting and you're not really getting anywhere.

 

I know what the challenge is, that so many people want the opportunity to voice their opinion so we really have to make sure that people feel they've had the opportunity to voice their opinion, yet not have the consultation process slow down what we want to accomplish. So as soon as we have the framework finalized, which I'm hoping will be within the next couple of months, we'll be able to provide you with more details with respect to the actual timelines and when things will be taking place publicly.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I appreciate that comment because we have been critical over time with this government, of course, with the amount of strategies and consultations that are going on. Some of them seem to take an awful long time and we just sort of look at it as possibly being a holding it off for another day or another decision or another minister or another government. But ultimately, I appreciate the minister's comments that this one is one that she wants to see go to fruition and be able to provide a direction to Nova Scotians when it comes to early childhood development processes, child care and all the things that of course fit within that.

 

I would be remiss if I didn't maybe start a conversation on some more local issues in southwestern Nova Scotia - more particularly, of course, would be around SHYFT and the homelessness problem in southwestern Nova Scotia. Over a number of weeks now there's been conflicting stories on this one. Of course we as MLAs - myself and the member for Yarmouth - have been approached by individuals from the SHYFT board and students - we've been approached by a whole bunch of people, explaining their position on SHYFT, what they felt was their program, their model, the way they felt that this was the best model for our area. Then of course we hear of the agreement, the possibility of that agreement being signed under duress, moving into the funding that they would have been receiving from the department, helping a 24-hour service for homeless youth change and going to another model. Like I said, I'm just throwing a whole bunch of things up because I know it's going to be a long discussion. Then last week with the navigator positions that went out across the province and SHYFT thought they were the ones that were going to be receiving that position, then they didn't receive it.

 

I know there is a lot in there for the minister to talk about, but I thought it would give the minister an opportunity to maybe clear the air on this one; maybe explain it a little better. I admit that I hear from one side of the story and a lot of times that's what happens to a lot of us here in this House where we hear one side of the story and we don't necessarily get the other one; and maybe give the minister an opportunity to explain SHYFT from the department's side of things, of what their understandings were with the individuals. I look forward to that conversation.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I want to thank the member opposite for the opportunity because I know that he sat - as I said earlier - in this position and he knows how difficult it is because everybody has different opinions and strong opinions and it can be very emotional and very challenging when you're trying to do what you believe is right and other people have a different opinion of what they believe is right. Sometimes if it doesn't match up, it creates a difficulty in providing the services and you need partnerships that you trust each other and you can work together.

 

I am going to relate the story behind my involvement and the department's involvement so we can clarify. I know that the member opposite is familiar with the fact that SHYFT started before we came into government and that he was presented with the same challenge, in terms that they were looking for provincial funding to open up a 24/7 homeless shelter in the Yarmouth area as the community saw a need for that type of service. At the time, the member opposite - in correspondence to them - had said he wasn't quite sure if that was the appropriate model, because there are different theories on whether a 24/7 model is really the model that we should be going forward with in the future. Part of the theory behind that is that some feel that it can actually be more of an enabler for the youth to not be able to work on what the real issues are. We do know that there are situations where youth can just not go back with their family because there may be abuse or whatever. Then there are situations where they can and you want to try to take a restorative approach.

 

When SHYFT came to the department before I was a minister, they were told very clearly that the province at that time, through the Department of Community Services, were not able to fund them because it was not a model that they were supporting at that time. Then when we came in, we got the same request. Now keeping in mind, the SHYFT board of directors were able to get funding from the federal government for the facility that they bought. It's a beautiful Victorian house in Yarmouth and I know how passionate people are when they come together and they have a cause and that they can see the need in the community and how they want to rally together and I commend them for that and all the work that they put in it. It's very difficult when you're given a chunk of money to be able to buy a place to say, no, we're not going to do that. It's easier to give those kinds of dollars and that is typically the way the funding goes on the federal level where they can give the capital dollars.

 

The real challenge is the operational dollars. Once the place is built or the place is purchased then somebody has to run it, it costs to run those types of places, any place and that is where our red flags were popping up in terms of two things. We were not convinced as to whether that was the model that we wanted to see in Yarmouth and across the province. Now keeping in mind that there are 24/7 models in the province that exist today that receive a great deal of funding from the Department of Community Services, you also have to keep in mind that those have been in existence for many years. They are well established and they also have a great means because of their being so established they have many opportunities for fundraising. The struggle for fundraising is not as great, although they work very hard at it, as is establishing a new model, or a new place.

 

So that is what we said to SHYFT that it is very expensive; it's not a sustainable model. One of the things that we have to do in our role as ministers and departments, and I know the member opposite can appreciate this, is we have to look at the benefits of the entire province. I know people are very passionate for the area that they live in and the services that they want in their community. But we have to be responsible and we have to look at what type of service. Are we providing that service throughout the province? So whether you live in Yarmouth or you live in Cape Breton, as a youth, shouldn't you have the same opportunities? To fund one organization and not another is just creating injustice across the province.

 

With this particular situation we had a solution, so it was not just leaving SHYFT high and dry - we had a solution. What we did is, although we told them point blank we cannot fund your model, they came to us basically every two or three months with an operational deficit and you were looking at about $30,000 every two or three months. Now, we did not want to put the youth out on the street, certainly. Because they were already established, we said what we would do is that we would keep funding your operational costs, however we are designing a new model for youth services in the Province of Nova Scotia for the entire province, and that we would hope that you would be a part of that model.

 

Now as the minister I visited SHYFT, I met with some of the youth and had wonderful conversations with them and I could see the good work that SHYFT was doing. Don't get me wrong, they were doing an outstanding job in the community and the youth were appreciative of that. Also what I did was, in the late summer early Fall, I met with the board of directors and at that time I said the department is ready to go forward with the new model. What our new model looks like would be a model that we would be able to provide outreach workers throughout the entire provinces, there are 10 of them, and as a model we're hoping we'll be able to expand that but we want to see how this works. So we would have 10 outreach workers throughout the province and we would be focusing on what you would call a hub model. It's very similar to what we've been modeling with the homelessness initiative here in the city where it's a model of support, not just a model of housing but actual supports that a youth may need.

 

Once again, it would be an individualized service that the outreach worker would be able to work with the youth, identify what their needs are. Do they need help with a restorative approach to going back with their family? If that was not something that was workable for them do they need employment supports, do they need mental health supports? We know that in many of our communities throughout the province, we have service providers who are offering that service and what we need to do is bring those services together. That's what was not happening, the youth themselves had to navigate the system. When they're in crisis, it's very difficult. Many adults cannot navigate the system - how do we expect youth to do it? The outreach worker would be really like a mentor who would be working with that youth on a life plan, seeing what resources are in that particular community in the province and work to bring those services together.

 

Within our new model, we also were looking at the housing component. We were not leaving out the issue that youth need housing. We have created several things, one is that there's housing opportunities that already existed in Community Services that we were not utilizing for youth the way we should have. The other aspect is that we are looking at and we are creating a family support system. It's not a foster family, but it's similar to that concept. Actually it will be the first type of its kind in all of Canada, which we're really excited about.

 

We have people in the Yarmouth area who have already stepped up to the plate. That would be people who would take a youth in for a shorter period of time so they have a place to live, they have that family structure around them. We thought that was very important.

 

This was the discussion with SHYFT. They were very adamant about keeping it a 24/7. We did offer suggestions that if they wanted to sustain it as a 24/7, we've seen some models like that where they've brought in volunteers. We know that can be challenging but we thought there was a wonderful opportunity in Yarmouth because of two things. The school of nursing and also there's a program at the community college for human resources and health. Those two programs would have been a perfect opportunity to have students come in and part of their practicum would be to work at SHYFT overnight.

 

We said what we could also do, we had thought we could bridge those relationships with the community colleges but they didn't want that. They wanted to operate the way they had planned. When I had my meeting with them, I knew they were a little resistant on changing the 24/7 but they said, we agree, we will be part of your new model. I said, it will be quite exciting because you already have the house, you could be our hub model. We went forward, we actually had two community meetings in Yarmouth and that was to bring together all the service providers, plus SHYFT, plus the youth and those meetings actually went very well. People were excited about having this new model.

 

For whatever reason, SHYFT made a decision that they no longer wanted to be a part of this. However, I think it's important to also note that what we did was we actually drafted a contractual agreement with them that they signed and I know there are been people saying they signed under duress, but I can't imagine people in the department forcing them. They told me personally as minister that they were willing to go forward with this. I would have thought if they felt that it was heavy-handed with staff that they would have come to me right away and said your staff has pushed us to sign this. I never heard a word from them.

 

The only time that I actually heard anything was through the media. It was a total shock to me, if you want to know the honest truth, when I found out that there was a press release that they had issued to say that they had rejected the model, they wanted to stay with the 24/7 model. I found it very unfortunate that everything started to happen in the media rather than coming to me as minister and having this discussion. I was quite surprised that they made that decision not to support the model after they told me personally that they would support that model. Like I said, I know people are very passionate and I think that they've seen some success there so they felt that we must have this model but as I said we're looking at a holistic model that could be provided for every youth throughout the entire Province of Nova Scotia, so I was actually quite sad that they made that choice.

 

So they came back into the city and they had a meeting with my staff and the staff told them no we still want to go forward with the original concept of a model and that we would like you - and I have said publicly and in media interviews - I really wanted SHYFT to be part of this model because I think that they had an awful lot to offer. But they still were adamant that they wanted to do the 24/7.

 

When they came into the city and spoke with staff, I actually sat down and spoke with two of the youth and one of the youth was one of the youth I had spoken to before. You know I was so impressed with the intelligence and the logic of those two youth because they understood where we were trying to go with this. But they also understood the passion of SHYFT and they felt caught in the middle. You know here is the youth and the adults are fighting and the youth are there and they are being the reasonable ones. I give them a whole lot of credit in this whole situation.

 

Then the next part was that we saw a press release saying that they hired an outreach worker and I was shocked again. I asked staff to call them and ask why would you hire an outreach worker when you broke the agreement. I guess their argument is that they feel that they kept with the agreement and I'm saying, how can you keep with an agreement when you publicly said you're not going to support the new model, and in that agreement that agreement clearly specified that you transition out of a 24/7 service. By their actions I would say you can interpret that they broke the agreement and part of not sticking with that agreement meant they weren't going to get an outreach worker so we were very surprised that they would even go ahead and do that.

 

We contacted them immediately and said that agreement doesn't exist, you broke the agreement and the fact is we haven't made a decision with you to have that outreach worker. We were very clear as we were as clear as telling them over and over we weren't going to support them from the beginning with that model. There was no misconception or misinformation provided here it's been very clear and very documented.

 

So we felt that if you're going to have partnership and relationship there has to be trust to that to go forward and that that was just not going to be workable. We went to another organization in the community that is very well respected, Split Rock Learning Centre. It was difficult for them because in a small community you don't want to set up bad relationships. We even have people in Split Rock that left, I think there is an individual on the SHYFT board because they agreed with - that was previously - they agreed with the model that the member opposite had supported as minister and the new model that we were bringing forward. So they have agreed and we have everything in place with Split Rock, the outreach worker will be through Split Rock. They will be offering the holistic services that we have spoken about and we also have within the agreement with Split Rock that there is going to be transitional housing.

 

The housing component is taken care of if there is an emergency we have emergency housing for youth in the Yarmouth area and we will be bringing together everything from educational opportunities to drug treatment services, mental health services. I think it's really unfortunate that sometimes people think that these things . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We've reached the moment of interruption. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will now rise and report its business to the House.

 

[6:00 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[6:35 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will come to order. We will now continue the estimates of the Department of Community Services.

 

The honourable member for Argyle.

 

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, I'm going to give up my turn on this one and I'm going to allow the Independent member to get up and take his time, the rest of his time, this evening if it so pleases and we'll take a turn when we sit again during estimates.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

 

MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I'd like to thank the member for Argyle for allowing me to go forward. In round two I just want to start by making a comment in response to your last answer in my first hour. I think the important thing that we have to remember in going forward with the housing strategy and my discussion around the shelter component. We have a great opportunity with the Ships Start Here program and the Irving contract. If we look at what we've done over the years as far as funding income assistance recipients we've basically told people where they can live based on the amount of money that we fund them.

 

If we go through HRM, in particular, we know those communities that have a large a number of people. Areas like Dartmouth North, areas like Gaston Road, Churchill, Kennedy, Greystone, Bayers, Westwood, Mulgrave, and North End Halifax. With this opportunity with the Irving Shipbuilding contract coming, businesses thriving and the housing stock going up there is some real positive opportunity but I think we have to be very careful with the strategy that is about to be put together. These folks are going to need a place to live and we can't squeeze them out. Rents will go up. In bringing up that point, I know that we'll continue to have further discussions in future and I know the department has also had a keen ear for my comments. Again, with Dan Troke and I having conversations with regard to future plans, that's going to be important.

 

I want to throw some quick snappers in there with regard to some of the supplementary details and for folks listening at home or who are going to read Hansard. These are details and amounts that are funded to organizations and individuals through the department. Page 56 - again, if you can just maybe tell me what the organization has done to obtain this funding or what the funding is actually for, that would be great. Page 56, Beukema & Nelson Independent Consultants Incorporated received $8,375 from the department.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm just wondering if I can ask the member opposite if before I speak about this, we're looking at - if I can just kind of put closure to the topic of SHYFT. I didn't have that opportunity; I won't take very long to do that, and then I want to speak to you about the housing, as you just mentioned and then they'll be able to find that information. Is that suitable, if the member opposite agrees?

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: It's actually entirely up to you what you speak about, but I would be happy to ask the member if he is obliging of that.

 

MR. ZINCK: At this point I know the question that the former member had asked in the previous hours is important. I will give you an opportunity, but keep in mind this is my hour so I'd appreciate it if you kept your comments short. Thank you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much for that opportunity. I just wanted to say, basically in closing the issue, that when I had spoken about SHYFT I had just ended my conversation about the fact that we would be working very closely with Split Rock who will be offering those services for the new youth model in Yarmouth. I wanted to just say in closing that I am very saddened with the fact that the partnership with SHYFT did not work out. I was very hopeful that it would. I wanted it to work out, but when you're in a partnership, you need to be on the same page and that just wasn't happening. I do want to recognize, in closing, all the work that has been done through the SHYFT organization and the passion that they have for the work that they do.

 

Those were the few words that I wanted to say. I wanted to also - before I get the information that you asked on the specifics - mention going forward when we're talking about the housing initiatives and not forgetting the affordable housing with the Ships Start Here. Actually, the Ships Start Here is going to be a fabulous opportunity for the Province of Nova Scotia. With the resources and the tax, we will be in direct tax with our investment of the $304 million. In fact, we will receive, as a government, direct tax back of $2.6 billion. It was a fabulous investment and it was an investment that we needed to make because we wouldn't have made that investment with Irving Shipbuilding. We wouldn't have gotten that contract because there was a point system and that raised us above the points of the competition by knowing that the government was supporting this initiative.

 

With respect to housing, what we're looking at is having more mixed housing. Individuals will have the opportunity to live in very lovely apartments and housing units that will be mixed in with other levels of income. I think that's very exciting to go that route. If you don't mind, I'll just sit down to be able to get the other information on the specifics that you asked.

 

The information, as you probably know, there are hundreds and hundreds of lines with very detailed budget information in this particular category. The $8,375 is actually for services that we would pay on behalf of clients. To find out the actual details of those services, we would have to look into that a little bit further and be able to bring that information back to you.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 57, Breakthrough Leaders in Personal and Professional Resource Development, $207,877.89.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again that would be for services for clients. It's personnel and leadership services that they provide as consultants. The finer details of exactly what those services are and who they provided - it would have been a number of clients as you know, in terms of getting people ready for the workforce and through income assistance. Often people require that type of service or educational training but the actual details we can also provide you with.

 

MR. ZINCK: That's fine, Madam Minister. Any further details on some of the other requests you can just forward them to me, just a little snippet of what they might be is good. On Page 60, CitiFinancial, we all know what CitiFinancial is, $5,615. What would we have paid CitiFinancial that amount for?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you for your patience, as you know there's line after line, there are hundreds and hundreds, actually up to the thousands of these so it takes a little bit for us to go in and look for them. This would be something I would have to get the details for but it's again listed as services to clients. So it might be, actually, helping a client pay off a small debt or something that they have to put them back on the road to help them so we'll find out what those details are.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 61, Conserve Nova Scotia received $34,372 and I'm thinking that might be something to do with a housing piece but if you could clarify that, Conserve Nova Scotia.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That particular line item would be, it's a little complicated, and it's the relationship between Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and Conserve Nova Scotia in terms of a grant program that we had, a $5,000 grant program.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 63, $20,597 to Donovan Financial Consultants Incorporated. What would they have been consulted for?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That would have been for services from Highfield Park to that particular business.

 

MR. ZINCK: That's good to know. That's in my area, Madam Minister, and I'll thank you again for the funding from the last round of federal monies, Highfield Park did receive some major renovations there in the co-ops, that was great. Page 66, I apologize if I don't say this right, Taigh Gradhach, $811,151.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That particular line is for funding to a residential property for people who have intellectual disabilities and it's a residential facility that actually sits on the grounds of Cape Breton Regional Hospital.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 69, Irving Oil Limited $34,907 and I'm thinking it might be for fuel costs perhaps for vehicles, and also on the same page, Irving Energy Distribution and Marketing $27,521. What would Irving have been marketing on behalf of the department?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again those would be related to our clients because it's in the category of our case management. Those ones for Irving would be individuals that may be in an emergency situation for their oil.

 

MR. ZINCK: The second item, was Irving Energy Distribution and Marketing. What service would that have been for?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's actually for home oil.

 

MR. ZINCK: On Page 70, Jetco Contracting Inc., $4,933,138 - I'm going to assume that was for probably some of the renovations for the last federal funding, but it is a large amount. Could you tell me what property Jetco would have been involved in doing that work on?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That would be for the property called Mount Hope in Dartmouth.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 73, MacIntosh, MacDonnell and MacDonald, $601,569.07. Not Minister MacDonell, this obviously is a law firm, would this have been for child protective services or the court cases?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You're right. Those are all legal services for clients and it could very well be through child welfare also.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 75, Maritime Travel, $90,193.73.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Those would be focused on youth at risk that we're transporting out of the province. As you know, that is very expensive for the transportation plus the care they receive and typically in the U.S. is where they go.

 

MR. ZINCK: On the same page, Page 75, Marshland Golf Driving Range, $6,879.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That would be for a return to work program. It was a wage subsidy to support someone to go back to work.

 

MR. ZINCK: Same page, 75, McInnes Cooper "In Trust", $7,639,797.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Those are for mortgage advancements so it would be just going through the legal course, the company, to SPD facility, like residential facilities and other service providers that we're providing those mortgage funds for.

 

MR. ZINCK: I know that in a lot of these lines there's funding for taxi cabs and obviously for clients transporting them back and forth. On Page 76, Metro Limousine Services, $95,463.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Those are actually for client travel but it doesn't mean they are travelling by limousine because the limousine services have taxis, so that's what it would be utilized for.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 78, I'm going to assume this is also funding that would go for children who are in our care who we transport out of the province; Page 78, Ontario Minister of Finance, $161,185.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Your assumption was right again, that's for residential services for youth who are going out of province.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 91, Atlantica Hotel and Marina, Oak Island, $11,016.22.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's related to a federal and a provincial child care initiative that they had meetings at that particular facility.

 

MR. ZINCK: Page 92, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, $15,500.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's related to a staff person who actually worked in Truro but we needed him in Dayspring so we seconded him to Dayspring. So when we looked at the least expensive way to do that in terms of travel coverage, it was less expensive for us to rent him a vehicle than it was to pay the actual travel.

 

MR. ZINCK: There's another line item in there for the Minister of Finance for Manitoba as well. I don't need clarification, I'm going to assume that that's another child that we've sent out West. On Page 94, $6,023 to the Image Group Inc., what would that have been for?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Could the member opposite give us that page again, please and thank you?

 

MR. ZINCK: I believe it was Page 94.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That line item is actually for meetings that we would be holding. They are a catering service so it would be meetings across the province for an entire year, so it would be different meetings.

 

MR. ZINCK: One of the line items in those supplementary details was for Provo Canyon School in Utah, $506,400. Once again, Madam Minister, you and I both know that's for youth who are in care. Some of the cases are very extreme and we haven't in the past had the facilities, some would say the resources, to deal with these particular cases so, at a great cost, we ship individuals out of province and out of country.

 

I heard you mention Wood Street in your opening address yesterday. I know in years past, in budgets past, I've inquired about Wood Street. Is Wood Street close to being finished, is it finished? Is it operational? I know we're talking about 18 additional individuals who will be able to benefit from services there, which will then in that case keep costs down that we incurred at Provo Canyon, we can keep our children here in the province.

 

I know the Minister of Health and Wellness recently made an announcement about the six beds at Waterville that will benefit individuals with extreme cases who are on remand. I'm wondering if you can just give me a quick update on Wood Street as to a timeline?

 

I know, as I've said, in years past it is coming, we're close, but having you mentioned it yesterday in your opening address kind of had me excited that we're actually going to save taxpayers money and keep these kids here in our province.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you for that question. I know that you do understand the challenges that we have faced in the province in terms of having the level of care that we need for some youths who have really complex needs, have had extraordinarily difficult lives and who need greater support and services than the province has. So we are very pleased with the fact that Wood Street will be open and we are looking at August, we're very excited about that and we'll be looking at the fact that it will have 18 beds.

 

Now, we will still have youth who are outside the province because of the fact that we have more youth who need that type of support than we will have beds, but it is a huge leap forward for the province to be able to have that type of facility. I know as the minister, I often get the request form to sign for travel and I look at those forms and I don't only look at the amount of dollars that it costs to travel plus what it costs to provide that service to the youth in trouble, but I also look at that piece of paper that there's another youth that has to go outside the province, plus the fact is, what a shame, what has happened in that youth's life that has gotten them to that position that they need that kind of extreme care, to be put into facilities. I know in Utah, many of the youth, and I know you understand about this, you have a lot of knowledge, is the fact that often there are what they call "runners" and so places like Utah, the facilities there are put in the wilderness because of the fear of running.

 

We are very pleased with the fact that Wood Street - I know we kept saying it was coming because of the building aspect. As we know, any one of us, when we're renovating or building it's never done on the date that we plan it to be. That will be very interesting for us to monitor and see how that service works and it's very nice to be able to say to parents that your son or daughter can stay in the province so you have access to them if that's part of their treatment program. It has to be a terrible nightmare for a family to have to send their child outside of the province. Sometimes that child does need that connection with the family. So it is good news that in August we will be opening that facility.

 

MR. ZINCK: I appreciate that response, Madam Minister. I know both you and I have been in contact over the last three years - you being in the role of minister in regard to a number of very complex cases. It is good to see that we're going to be able to actually do that, at least in some capacity here in our own province. Again, I believe the taxpayers are saving as well.

 

If you can, can you tell me how many kids we have currently in both temporary care and permanent care?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The total number of children in care in the province presently is 1,347. I know that's a lot but the good news is that has dropped since 2009. In 2009-10 we had 1,546 children in care so there is a drop. As I said earlier, that's a reflection on the fact that the department has been working very diligently to increase the number of forever homes.

 

Out of those numbers, we have 418 in temporary care. The number in permanent care is 929.

 

MR. ZINCK: I know that in the minister's opening address, those numbers are probably a good lead-in to my next question around the new adoption strategy the department is coming up with.

 

I believe 2005 was the last time the department rolled out an initiative for adoption and unfortunately, as you had made mention, the children in care numbers increased. I know there are a lot of issues around adoption, a lot of these children who come into our care are deemed special needs, some of them are receiving numerous medications, they suffer from attachment issues. The foster families dealing with some of these individuals would see that and understand that but also trying to find a family who is willing to take on that challenge of adoption. In particular, a large number of the children who are in care permanently are of a certain age that could sometimes be seen as a difficult challenge for a family to take on.

 

Everybody in the past has wanted - you know a young family starting out would like to adopt a newborn, and that is not always the case, unfortunately, with a lot of children who are in care. With this new strategy coming out I'm wondering if there is going to be a real initiative on your part to see some of those kids who are between the ages of 12 and 18 who are in permanent care, a real focus on seeing those kids be united with a family.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know that there are challenges, as you have mentioned, however we have made a commitment to this strategy because the fact is there are many older children who are in need of a forever home, to be adopted, to have that security. I think one of the best ways to go forward with this is to be able to access information from individuals who have adopted older children.

 

In fact, I was absolutely thrilled that after we made the announcement in the Throne Speech, I received a wonderful e-mail from a lady who did that, she had adopted two older children. What we have already done because of her e-mail, the deputy minister has met with her and I think that is a fabulous starting point in terms of learning from her. We brought her in and she was able to talk with staff. She was able to tell them the challenges and the difficulties she had in terms of adopting those children, and the difficulties that she had with Community Services, so we could learn.

 

I think that her bluntness and truthfulness was very good for us because of the fact that this is something that we really want to make happen. We know that we always have to be up to reviewing ourselves and seeing if there is a better way for us to provide services. That is why we know that we can do this and we're very committed to doing that. The staff within the Adoption Services, are very knowledgeable, many have been there for years. We know that there are children who are older that certainly can go into a family if we provide the right supports for them, and make sure we're there along the journey, not just at the beginning but always being there to support them when those particular issues come up, that is critical.

 

This particular lady said that it has been the most wonderful thing that she did in her entire life. She and her husband really, like all of us, when you are looking at, or anyone looking at adopting, wanted an infant and that wasn't to be so. She was glad that she did go through the process of adopting older children and how rewarding that has been. There have been challenges, there is no question. I think that part of our strategy will make sure that that honesty is there, that people realize that this is not going to be an easy road but an extremely rewarding road. Both her children are doing very well in their lives and she is so proud of them.

 

This particular lady, from a Throne Speech to an e-mail, to coming into the department, I think that tells members in this House that we are doing things differently in Community Services now. We're not being insular in our attitudes that we know best. I have really encouraged our department, and staff have been more than willing to look at a different way that we provide services and to be more open and receptive to individuals and groups views, their opinions. So that is exactly what we're doing with the adoption strategy too.

 

I'm really excited to see where this takes us and I know we will learn along the way. There will be things that we will want to change and will need to change. I think we can't do any better than getting people who have experienced it and for them to be part of our strategy and to provide us with their insight and their life experiences.

 

It is really important for us. Part of this is going to be an education component. With any kind of strategy it's very important to provide an awareness campaign and to educate people on just what the value is to adopt older children. What that means to the children and their lives. What it means to individuals as parents or a single parent who want to adopt an older child.

 

I have to say I'm very excited about it and I'm very committed to this new initiative. I know that the department staff are too and it will be just so wonderful to have the great stories that I know we're going to have in the future from these families when they tell us just how emotional it is to bring older children in and give them a family structure and give them a forever home. Everyone deserves that in their lives and if we can provide that, that is an extremely rewarding opportunity for the department and I know staff are very excited to be able to do that.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time allotted for the Committee of the Whole House on Supply has elapsed.

 

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

 

MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee of the Whole House on Supply rise and report progress.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.

The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will now rise and report its business to the House.

 

[The committee adjourned at 7:22 p.m.]