HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

4:05 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Becky Kent

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I'm going to call our Subcommittee on Supply to order at this point to continue with Resolution E2, Department of Community Services.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Madam Chairman, I want to welcome the minister again today and her staff. I'm going to jump right into it. I want to just go back to my opening comments in regard to thanking the staff at Portland St. and both George and Dave who are again here with you. The first question I want to ask, however, is around the fact that I've been involved in a number of Estimates Debates over the last four years, mainly as Critic for the Department of Community Services, and since the deputy has taken over the responsibilities of the department, I've yet to see her participate in Estimates Debates. I'm just wondering if you can enlighten me as to why again this year and this particular budget she is not present.

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, Madam Chairman, thank you very much and absolutely I can enlighten you with regard to that situation. You have a great deal of knowledge with respect to the Department of Community Services and the workload that flows through the department each and every day. We did have a discussion surrounding whether the deputy minister would be here, and I do have my senior staff who are covering the areas and I know that they have the extraordinary knowledge base to be able to assist me today, along with the deputy minister. However, we need somebody to run the ship while we're here and there are many things that come up.

237

The Department of Community Services is, of course, a department where crisis can happen within minutes and so it's very important for us to make sure that when we're doing the estimates that we have somebody at that senior level who is actually in the department, at home base, running things there to make sure that the services that we provide to our clients are top-notch. We often have to turn things around extremely quickly. We have to be able to access information extremely quickly. The deputy minister, of course, is very knowledgeable in all those areas, she knows the key players that she needs to get in touch with to make sure that everything is flowing accordingly. It's a good strategic way for us to do business, to make sure that we do have somebody at that high senior level remaining back at the department and doing the work that needs to be addressed.

MR. ZINCK: I'd just like to, for the record, make note that at the Legislature currently the Health Department budget will continue in their debate and the deputy minister of the largest budgeted department will be in attendance and has been in attendance assisting the minister. I appreciate your comments, I still have great difficulty accepting the fact - every department that's called before the budgetary process, the minister is always accompanied by the deputy. That's in no way a slight on the role and responsibilities of the current Deputy Minister of Community Services but perhaps you can take my comments back to her.

I will continue on in regard to our discussion yesterday around the taxation strategy, the Affordable Living Tax Credit. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the fact that the department - now, I'm not sure whether it's policy or practice but recipients of income assistance don't always get their taxes done on time, whether it's finding somebody who can do it, affordability of the process, and many caseworkers hold on to and maintain the client's records and assistance. However, there is pressure put on recipients to have their up-to-date current tax assessments done. That being said, with this new Affordable Living Tax Credit, low income tax credit, I'm wondering if the minister realizes or recognizes the fact that a large majority of people on IA will have great difficulty in receiving those three-month quarterly payments, whatever we want to call it. Are you aware of that?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, thank you, honourable member, I'm absolutely aware of it and that is one reason that we are looking at an educational component. The information is filtering throughout the entire Department of Community Services and so when we make these decisions at a senior level and at a government level, one of the key aspects to be successful with our programs is to make sure that the communication system is a good strategic process, that the information filters right to the caseworker level and that the caseworkers will be on their toes to be encouraging individuals to get their tax returns done. I know that it will also be an incentive for those to get their tax work done because it's a more efficient process for us to use the Canada Revenue Agency in order to disseminate the cheques through the Affordable Living Tax Credit so it makes absolute sense.

The other area that is very important is the fact that the individuals who are on income assistance, this is a very uncomplicated process for them. They will automatically receive that tax credit so it's not an extra burden for them to worry about, that they would have to go in and get involved in filling out any type of application or paper. I feel it is very streamlined, it's very easy. We also offer to take care of the taxes too, so the client doesn't have to go out and seek that resource in the community. We're available to do that with them and help them with that. Actually our stats show presently that 90 per cent of our IA clients do file their tax returns so we're looking at 10 per cent and it's very important to us, that 10 per cent is extremely important to us, and I think that this will be really an incentive for them.

The information will be flowing and we'll be repeating it over and over to our clients, that you need to get your tax return done and we're here to assist you to get that completed. I think that gives a good message and also for those on income assistance, I think sometimes all of us have a fear of taxes and putting together our tax papers. I know even me, I keep putting it off and it's my husband saying, do you have that done? Once you do it, it is a good exercise and I think that it's encouraging that we will be taking this route because what we'll be doing is empowering people on IA to know how important this is and once they go through the process - because I think sometimes it's a fear that they don't take it upon themselves to do it, just the fear of the unknown and thinking it's complicated. I think it's a good thing too because of the fact that going through this process will give them a sense of empowerment to know that it really isn't that difficult and encourage them to continue to do it from year to year.

MR. ZINCK: I just want to go back to something you said there. I believe what I heard was you said the department has a process in place that would allow an individual on IA to have assistance from the department to do their taxes. Am I correct that you said that? What would that program be?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: There's not an actual program but we work on every case on an individual basis and you've probably heard that over and over again, that every case is individual. We will work with that individual and actually when it's tax time, there's a volunteer base that the Canada Revenue Agency puts together in communities for seniors and for low-income individuals. There are a lot of resources out in our communities that will allow people to have that service provided free. We are the resource people that will make sure that's set up and the caseworkers will follow through with the individual to ensure that it was completed.

[4:15 p.m.]

MR. ZINCK: The reason I bring it up, we talk about trying to make this seamless and not so cumbersome for folks. I don't know if you're aware, but my office over the last number of years - my former assistant - we had a standing agreement with the department, that anybody in HRM basically that needed their taxes done could come and my assistant would do that if it would enable them to have their assessment done.

I guess what I would ask is, is it policy? I know a lot of clients are waiting for their assessments. Is it a policy or a practice to have somebody cut off if they don't have their assessment done?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: If they don't have their assessment? I'm not quite sure of the question.

MR. ZINCK: Basically what happens is a recipient goes in and until they have the most recent, current, up-to-date assessment, the caseworker will - either by policy or practice - identify to that individual that they will be cut off if they don't have that in their file. So is it practice or is it actual policy?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It is a policy. However, as always, we are flexible in that aspect. It's very difficult for us to be able to provide income assistance if we do not know the level of income that an individual has so you can appreciate the fact that there has to be some type of rules or regulations there or some type of guidelines that we use as our base, guidelines to go forward in order to identify that the person is eligible.

As always, it is our practice to make sure we can do whatever we can to ensure that individual does fill out their tax return. I think for the majority of people, it would be a motivator for them if they are in need of income assistance that they would certainly bring that issue to us and that we would work it through for them.

MR. ZINCK: Often the recipient is nervous about doing their taxes. A lot of times what we find out is that they actually end up getting a refund and then getting them back in line where they're doing it on a regular basis, it is definitely helpful.

I still believe, and maybe you can again go back to some of your comments made yesterday with relation to how this is set up, traditionally, the department has always seen fit to either increase personal allowance or, as was stated in a question raised by myself yesterday in the House, in 2006 there was a $15 increase in the shelter allowance. Was it the department's design or your government's design, in relation to the 2 per cent HST hike, to have it set up so that there is, every three months, payments to individuals on IA?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: One of the important factors to note is that we do not work in a silo, that we have a definite communication, a very good communication relationship. As part of the government we discuss these types of things around the table, always keeping in mind that our ultimate goal is how best can we service the client, how can we make it easier for the client?

This is a good system to have because you have the Canada Revenue tax system already set up, they're already doing payments through GST. It's a cost-saving too for the government, it's a wise thing to do. Instead of reinventing the wheel, what we're doing is we're jumping on board with a system that's already in place, it works well, it has been in place for several years and people know the system - that's another important thing. You have to make sure that people have an understanding of the system so if you come out with an entirely new system for them, it can be actually quite confusing, so this is why we selected to go this route. As I said, it makes it a better system for the individual because a cheque will arrive in the mail.

The other important factor to also know is we are following the federal law where we're all required as Canadians to file our tax returns. We are just following the law and the fact that we use that as our base system for being able to go forward and to be able to have this program. I feel that because it's a program that has been working through the GST system that there's no reason why this will not just flow as easily as the GST rebate-paying system.

MR. ZINCK: Well, I can tell you that 95 per cent of the work that I do in my office is in and around the Department of Community Services. Rural Nova Scotia, large cases are around roads and whatnot. I can honestly tell you that I really believe it's going to be a tough sell and I'll tell you why. At the end of the month when somebody on income assistance receives their cheque, we call it king for a day, and actually king for a couple of hours now because of the rising rents and the costs and now the tax is going up.

I believe what we're going to see are individuals who are used to having that monthly increase and now they're going to go three consecutive months with paying the taxes and paying out of pocket, not being able to afford the food or the travel. Then for four months of the year they're going to have two payments come in to their bank account so they're going to be king for a day or queen for a day for two days of the month. I really think it's going to be a difficult sell.

Now, I will obviously keep you informed as to what's taking place in light of opportunities to raise questions in the House and conversations I'll have with you but I just think it's going to be difficult for people to understand how this is going to work. A lot of times in my community, there are apartment buildings that they advertise as secure but they're not really secure, people's mailboxes are being broken into so I think it's going to be a challenge. Hopefully it will work because, especially in light of the tax increase, we need to get this money in people's hands. Hopefully they will be able to budget that money accordingly but I do think they're going to have a huge struggle for the three months leading up to every time getting that cheque.

I want to touch on something that has been very important to me over the last number of years, very important more so in HRM than rural Nova Scotia and that is centred specifically around shelter rates. Right now there's a landlord in my neighbourhood that is raising their rents upwards of $80 to $100 for a one-bedroom. When we look at that and we consider what our IA rates are for shelter - the last raise was in 2006 by the Progressive Conservative Government of $15 - I'm wondering, with the ESIA design, are we going to see something next budget, the next year or is it going to happen at the end of the current government's run? When will we see the next shelter allowance increase?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much for the question and I appreciate your concern with the shelter rates. In fact, that's one of the reasons that I'm excited about the ESIA redesign, because of the fact that we will be looking at everything not in a piece-meal way that tends to happen because you're always in crisis mode and you're looking at how you can resolve an issue of the day. I think in the past, sometimes decisions had to be made based on that so the real challenge is to change that way of thinking. When I say, change the way of thinking, that's not only just the Department of Community Services or government, that's the change in the public's way of thinking too.

What we need to do with the ESIA redesign is look at it in a holistic approach to also plan long-term rather than just, do we have enough money this year, which means maybe next year we won't. There's a lack of consistency for the individuals who are receiving our support. So I think it's very important for us to really strategically plan.

I know that one of the challenges is the fact that as you plan, you have to take time to plan. You also have to be realistic on how long you take to plan and when you also move into action to implement your plan. I'm very conscious of that because it is very difficult every day of my life realizing what some people are living on and that's where you're in a crisis mode but just to adapt a way of doing business based on crisis modes means that you'll never get anywhere going forward, there will not be a consistency in the lives of those who we are supporting.

So, you know, I cannot sit here today and tell you that next year or the year after in the budget what will happen to the shelter rates because it's not a fair comment for me to make. We need to look at the entire ESIA review and have a look at all those components and how they fit together as a puzzle, sometimes what I relate to myself is how they fit together as a foundation, as if you had building blocks that you're putting together and you're building a foundation. The weaker that foundation is means that once you get the top part of your house put together, it will fall apart. That I think is the problem with this system and the way things have been because of it being driven in crisis mode and just because of the way things are in the political world. I'm hoping that I will have that opportunity and I'm moving towards that direction to change that, that we do have to have a solid foundation.

One of the things that I express with individuals that I meet, or advocacy groups, is that we all know that we're in quite a difficult financial time in the province. However, that does not mean we put up our hands say, well, we can't do anything until we turn around the ship and we have more revenue coming into the provincial government. What we do now is we encourage people to come to the table and work together to develop a framework, and a strong framework, that when the day comes that we do have more dollars to put towards the many hundreds and hundreds of needs that we are facing, that we have done our planning, we have the framework, everyone is on the same page because we've worked together, and it will make it much more effective in rolling out those plans because there will be an understanding.

There's also an educational component that comes into play any time that you are developing a strategy and making changes and that's another important component, is the educational factor, the communication factors. It's extraordinarily important that you have a very strong communication plan. So, you know, I am hopeful that we will be able to turn things around and we will be able to address the concerns that are there and address those with those individuals and with the advocacy groups and do a strategy that is a partnership.

MR. ZINCK: Well, you know, I really, I'm holding out hope for the ESIA redesign. I had put in a bill several years ago to have it looked at and reviewed and I'm happy to see that it is going through. The key point here, I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can't wait. There are individuals in our communities who cannot wait until four or five years down the road that they may possibly see a shelter increase. Shelter is a human right and there are, well, last year the report card on homelessness stated that there were 1,718 people who were homeless and living in shelters at any one time.

Sadly, we don't record or keep track of the number of individuals who are at risk of being homeless and that's the working poor, that's individuals on IA who for some reason, if their rent is not paid direct, fall behind because they're poor money managers. We need to see and, you know, a case in point, I just recently had an individual come into my office who at the age of 22 just came out of the prison system. He was living on his grandmother's couch - $223 a month and $214 in his pocket. The difficulty that I have with this is that he's plopped down in the community of Dartmouth North, which is very impoverished, a very concentrated portion of poverty in my community, and his grandmother wants to help him out. He wants to get a job but he has got $223 a month to find shelter.

[4:30 p.m.]

Now, yesterday I raised a question in the House around an individual, able-bodied, receiving $300. I can tell you that I believe about 12 years ago that shelter allowance component was $230. So we've raised it $70 over the last number of years and I hear your comments, and I was glad to see it in the Speech from the Throne, because it can no longer be the department of last resort, we can't throw a little trickle out there in hopes that people are encouraged to get off the system. We have to allow them at least, you know, two key components of a healthy lifestyle are income and shelter and right now shelter is lacking. So I guess what I would hope, and I know you've taken it upon yourself to meet a number of organizations and, I will meet with another organization again tomorrow around the homelessness piece and shelter component of people's lifestyles.

People need it now, Madam Minister, and I know that you can't sit here today and tell me how much or when but I want you to go back to your government - I guess the answer I want is to know that you're going to go back to your government, and I've said this in the past to previous ministers, how big is your voice at the Executive Council Table? Shelter is crucial in order to get people to move on and move forward in their lives, to have a job, to have a decent lifestyle. We need that and the people of Nova Scotia need that.

I'll give you one prime example and you can comment on this part of it for sure. The department currently, if somebody is in rental arrears, does one of two things; the individual approaches the landlord and makes arrangements; if that's not acceptable, the next part that has to happen is the individual, the department will not assist them unless an eviction notice is given. Why does the department wait until somebody is at their weakest point, and bringing in a third party, being the landlord, upsetting the landlord, before they will help? Why do we put that person in complete crisis and I'm not talking individuals. In a lot of cases it's single moms with children who have to wait until they get that eviction notice before the department will move. Why do we do that, because the stress that it puts between tenant and landlord is not necessary and the stress that it puts on a young mother raising her children worried about being homeless is not necessary?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I appreciate what you're saying and your concern. Just to go back a little bit about the homelessness, to formulate, so you can get an idea of what I'm talking about in going forward and not just the fact that it's long term and then I'll address your question about the eviction notice. I totally understand that, you know, we cannot wait four or five years, I mean that's the reality, and we are focused on that. That is one reason why I have been involved in bringing various groups together and, in fact, it was this week that I went to a leadership breakfast on homelessness. I must say I was very proud because when I left, I was thanked and I was told I was the first minister who ever went to one of their leadership breakfasts and they've had several over the years.

What we did is, it was not just the breakfast and not just a general talk about things that we should do, it was an action-oriented breakfast. It was like a little mini workshop with a variety of people sitting around the table, people like Paul Pettipas, people like Claudia Jahn, and people like the gentleman from the Killam, Bill Fraser.

So what we did is we broke off in several groups and we discussed what we could do and what we could take action on and that was the key because I'm sure I know that a lot of the advocacy groups have heard it over and over again that here's what we should do, this is what we're doing, this is what we should do, but when they leave, there's no really strategic, results-oriented action. What's our next step?

The group I sat in, they had various categories - they talked about food security, employment. You know all those things are linked together and they're never separate. We talked about housing. So I sat in the housing group and we have made a commitment to go forward, working together I believe for the first time that you bring the different sectors together. Now you have government involved with those people who are building affordable housing, who are contractors, sitting around the table. They were very realistic in the fact that we can do targeted numbers of increasing housing within a year and within two years.

I'm very pleased about that because that's what we're going to go forward with. It almost will be like Target 100, we'll set a target of new housing developments that we need. We will focus, initially, of course, in HRM, that's where a lot of the advocacy groups and these individuals are located. My thought is once we're able to do that and we have a system in place, it'll be a good model to roll out in other parts of the province.

The other aspect that we looked at, and this is the approach that I take and once again it's on that holistic approach, what we looked at was the fact that is there a way to engage the individuals who do need support and need new housing, to engage them in the process of their home being built. Almost something like Habitat for Humanity. There was some talk around the table that there may be opportunities to develop trades or employment programs, at least short term, to teach somebody and the contractors would take them under their wing.

There are a lot of issues that need to be worked out, safety training and all that, but I was very pleased with the fact that we were looking at it in a very different approach, it wasn't just about increasing the housing, but it was also increasing the housing units but also about how we could engage individuals that are able to do it, to teach them to be part of the trade and there might be some work opportunities for them at the end of the day.

We talked about that in other areas too, not just in the housing aspect. I think I'll never be able to address the needs that are there exactly today. We do that on an individual basis as best as we can through Community Services. I think the other important aspect too is that with our economic stimulus package and our support through the federal government, we have 100 new affordable housing units that are already now being developed in the metro area. We have seven metro co-ops which are about 305 units. They are presently getting financial assistance for upgrades.

I know I was involved in one of the announcements for the co-op and it was a real feel-good announcement because the co-ops had been working and two of them came together and now the homeowners are getting new bathrooms and upgrades in their home and they were absolutely thrilled about that because your home is your castle. That's your place of security, that's who you identify who you are.

We have 70 new low-income senior units that will be completed this summer. There will be 6,675 public housing units in metro presently that we have and there will be more coming. We are the largest landlord in all of the Province of Nova Scotia. I know it's not enough, but I think we have to give credit for the fact that we're going forward and we've been very fortunate to have the economic stimulus plan through the joint partnership with the federal government. There is good news on how we're going forward.

As I said, right now, on a daily basis, we look at each case individually and try to do the best that we can. We always wish we could have more money but I feel we're on the right track with the stimulus money. Presently we're probably halfway with the program. We're at $70 million that we have committed and we're using every cent that we receive in the housing. There are also 150 new affordable housing units that are under development presently in different ways throughout the province and that's under construction. I think that all this investment is really making significant advancements in our housing portfolio. I do recognize the fact that we have issues each and every day and one of your goals is the fact that some days you're hoping that you can close shelters, that you don't have a need for shelters. It's very complex, as I know that you can appreciate.

With respect to your question about the eviction notice, as I always mention, we work on an individual basis and that is something that I certainly do not mind taking a look at, gathering more information. That's one of the areas very important to me is to look at the policies that we do have in the Department of Community Services now. I know that over time, policies sit there and that things have changed and we have to be able to recognize that and go forward with changes in regulations and policies. That is one area that certainly I will take a look at and find out more information about and I will make sure that I inform you of what I have discovered and discussed with you. You might have some suggestions of how we can alleviate some of those stresses on individuals with respect to the eviction notices.

MR. ZINCK: That would be great because I definitely think it's a stress that can be alleviated, especially for the IA client.

You talked about the federal stimulus money around housing. A large majority of that is going to refurbishing the co-ops, the public housing. There are wait lists that are extensive and that's, I guess, the biggest problem and that's all around the province, not just in HRM. The housing issue that we had over a year ago in Yarmouth, the wait lists in Cape Breton, HRM. Actually, I find it shameful that when approached by somebody who wants to get into housing because they can no longer afford their rent, I'm at a loss. Well we can fill out an application and put it in and that's basically it, you're on a whim.

My whole point here is that if we don't figure out and have some sort of movement within government - and obviously the current government now because they're in for a number of years - there are people who will be on the streets. I had a case this morning, an individual who suffered from family violence and I cannot find her a landlord that will take her in and she's no longer with her partner and that's a frustrating piece right there. I've exhausted all possibilities, every organization we have. Alice Housing is selling off some more housing stock now because of lack of funding.

I have an individual now who will run out of options, basically couch surfing, a lady who is 45 years of age. I have another lady who is 50 years of age who attempted suicide the other night because she had no place to stay. She was evicted, she stayed with a friend who she later found out had a massive addiction to crack cocaine. Now she's in the short stay unit, calls my office today and says, when I get out, I need help finding a place. The whole point here is, $300 for a single, able-bodied person is nowhere near enough, $535 for a disabled individual is not enough. The rents keep rising and, you know what, I'm not going to fault the landlords there.

The reality is, yes, we have had successes with Killam Properties and working with the DHAs and Capital Health to keep the rents at $535. I'm running out of places to put people and that scares me. In my community, for people to live in a one-bedroom apartment in a somewhat safe part of the community, in a somewhat decent apartment, have to pay upwards of $600 and when they're on IA, getting $535, that money comes from somewhere. That's my whole case in point, waiting three months to get money. These folks deserve to live in a decent place and improvements and, yes, the federal stimulus money is welcome. The co-ops haven't seen any funding for probably 15 years to 20 years and I'm happy that some of that money is coming into my community.

[4:45 p.m.]

The public housing, it has been deplorable, I mean there are people over the years that have said the Nova Scotia Government is the biggest slum landlord in the province and now we have an opportunity to go back to those communities and retrofit and, hopefully, those folks will again have pride in the situations and communities they live in but the very key point, and I'll end off by making a comment, I think it's great that you as a minister has taken it upon yourself to meet with as many organizations as you can but ultimately, Madam Minister, it's going to come down to you as an individual trying to encourage your government and the rest of those decision makers around the table as to the direction that we go in, that we believe that the people of Nova Scotia deserve to go in, we, as a government, have to take them there.

I'm going to leave you with a quote, I'll let you respond to it, and then my time will be finished. It's a letter from Pamela Harrison, a letter that went to Darrell Dexter on February 5, 2010. Pamela, as you know, is a long-time supporter of the transition homes of Nova Scotia. She had received an Elizabeth Fry Holly House Heroes Award last year. This is an individual who contacted me during the last campaign and suggested that finally a government had the courage to put in their platform a commitment to the transition homes - and subsequent to that, six or seven months later, she is now no longer a New Democrat.

I'm going to read a quote from her and then you can respond. It goes like this: "I believed that the party's stated vision of 'a better deal for today's families' actually included those with mental health concerns, lesser ability in the areas of both physical and mental health, single moms and their children, the homeless and women experiencing violence and abuse in their lives. Wrong again . . . and how foolish I feel, to have imagined that the hundreds of resolutions passed at provincial council were actually more than an exercise in the creation of 'NDP Believers.'"

I think that sums it up, Madam Minister, and again I would continue to encourage you to visit as many organizations, visit as many shelters as possible, but ultimately I hope you have the strength and conviction to go back to your government and Executive Council to really push forward on the social justice issues that the Nova Scotian people, the grassroots supporters of the NDP, believed they were going to experience if the NDP actually came into government.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: A few comments that I would like to make with respect to that, one thing is realism. We have been the new government for nine months and there was a refreshment for having a new government in, a new way of doing business, and sometimes those who have supported us are harsher on us than others because of their expectation level. In all due respect, I would say that the expectation level of being a new government, new ministers, new MLAs, to expect us to turn around a sinking ship that has been sinking for 250 years versus nine months is unreasonable.

What I'm saying is the reality because you can see even in the United States with the Obama effect, how everybody, the day after the new president was elected, everybody in the streets, you know, coming together and saying what a wonderful thing that the United States, the world has changed, and you've heard it over and over again that one of the biggest challenges for the Obama Government was that expectation level that suddenly things would change.

What I have discovered as a new politician and somebody with the responsibilities that I have is the fact that people, it just almost meshes together of who is really government, who was there before and who's there now, they say the word government and they relate it back to every government that was in this province for 250 years rather than looking at the fact that we've only been in power for nine months. It's humanly impossible, it's truly humanly impossible for any government to make those kind of changes that have taken us 250 years to get where we're at today. It's like a huge ball of twine that is very tightly wrapped and you have to unwrap that and start all over. You cannot do that in nine months, unfortunately. Everybody has the right to their own opinion, that's why it's so wonderful to live in the country that we live in. We certainly don't always agree, but I would challenge anybody to think that you can make the changes that some people expect to be made in that short period of time.

As you know, the slate is not wiped clean when you come in as a new government and the fact is that when you come in as a new government, you have had decisions that were made in the past, decisions that were made years ago, and decisions that were made months before the election was called that you need to deal with now and commitments, whether they're verbal or written commitments that were made, or how people have perceived a commitment, that you are challenged with trying to deal with those types of situations and the reality is what you're trying to do is unravel that tight ball of twine. People have to understand that that takes time. I mean, they know that Rome wasn't built in a day because that's why everybody says that statement.

So, therefore, with respect to the letter that you read, it's wonderful that we live in a country where that particular person can express that. In fact, I met with that individual around the table with regard to transition houses and one of the things that I requested of those sitting around the table is to look at the fact that we're on a new page and we need to go forward although I know that history, every one of us as a human being carries history with us and that history has formulated how we think, how we make decisions, and it's very difficult to start anew and wipe the memory bank clean.

That was one of the messages that this particular lady gave me. She said it is difficult for me to start on a new page because there's so much history and I said I wasn't involved in that time and I am a different person. So I know it's difficult to put in trust when promises have been made and promises have been broken but all I can do is ask people to work with me, work with our government, and the fact that what makes us stronger is when you work together. If an advocacy group is challenging you all the time, and I respect the fact that that's why advocacy groups do that because that has been part of the way the world has been and results have come from, you know, being the loudest and pushing the cause.

So it's very different to work with a government that is open to sitting down and having discussions. We're not always going to be on the same page because the fact that the money part, of course, we all know is the challenge and that is no different than any one of us in our own personal lives, you know, money issues can cause great grief in families and in marriages. So, therefore, when you have so many groups fighting for the same little bit of money that we have, I think that we need to take a new approach. Now, some people may not agree with me but at least I asked them to give me the opportunity to try that new approach. That new approach is I have asked the groups that are concerned about the finances, we'll work together but let's put money aside for now, we're not even going to think about that. What we're going to think about is how can we go forward and be creative, make new changes, develop new partnerships.

I totally believe that when you look at the province as a whole and you see the many groups that are in the Province of Nova Scotia, there are a lot of similarities in what they're fighting for. So the first thing when you as a minister say, well, can you tell me what your services are, they get very fearful about that and they get very fearful about that because, once again, that whole thought process of, oh, if I start telling the Minister of Community Services what we do, she may identify some services she thinks we shouldn't be offering so that means we will have a reduction in our grant or in our funding.

I tell them up front, no, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for your strengths, I'm looking for your weaknesses and all of us have strengths and weaknesses. If we, as a government, can be leaders and identify those weaknesses - we know that one organization's weakness is somebody else's strength. Therefore, we could take those weaknesses and give them to the organization where it is a strength and build on that. The same with the organization that you're talking about, that you're taking those weaknesses away.

So what you do, you develop what's called a hub model and then you're able within the hub model to all work together with your strengths. This is not going to happen overnight. The way of thinking in terms of a hub model in partnerships is very challenging. You have to identify that and acknowledge it and respect that it will take time for people to have confidence that there is a different way of running the government and doing business.

That's what I have asked of some of those groups, to go away and think about it and you're going to be stronger too as an organization if you want to come together in partnership because the fact is, I'm your representative around the Cabinet Table. If I have a strong knowledge base of who you are, what you are all about, then I'm going to have a stronger voice at the table for you. Rather than me being unaware and only knowing a few of the services you offer and you're on the other side of the fence, it makes it much more difficult for me to be that advocate. That's what the groups want me to be around the Cabinet Table.

I know you mentioned that as one person, as the minister, I can't do it all and I recognize that. But I'm very comfortable, I'm very proud with the fact that I'm in a government that supports very strongly Community Services. You can see that in our first real budget in the fact that we're looking at an increase in the budget of Community Services. Over the years, if you look at the trend, Community Services received very little of an increase, yet at the same time the pressures continue.

The increase in our budget, we have identified the fact that we are going to have an increase in IA rates in the next year. That is due to the fact that things go in cycles and although we hear the economy is getting a bit better in Nova Scotia and in Canada, when you look at the trend cycle though, you have individuals who are eligible for Employment Insurance and suddenly now their turn is up with the Employment Insurance. That means they need another source of income and they're going to come to us for income assistance.

With respect to that, we can see that the trend will be that we are going to have many, many more pressures in that area. That's why our government has recognized that pressure. Rather than recognizing it, we would have just been over-budgeted next year. But there was a recognition that, yes, we have to put more money in Community Services.

The other area where we saw a trend was in our complex cases. The cases are getting much more complex because our society is getting older so what you're having is more complex cases with seniors and the fact that they may have a disabled adult that's their child and suddenly the senior parents pass away and there is no other family members to take on the need to look after that individual. Therefore, it comes into play at Community Services because we're legislated and that's what we're here for.

When I'm talking about the increase in IA, I'm talking about caseload. That's what we have seen and that's why we have increased our budget because we see there will be an increase in the caseload. We realize too that the government, I'm very proud, because of the fact, as I said, in this new budget, not only giving the Department of Community Services an increase, we also - because of the fact that we know we've been on a sustainable financial path - have to make a decision where we are going to get the revenue, what are we going to do? Instead of just cutting services, that's the other alternative, we had to look at increasing the HST as one means of bringing income into the government. The other means is doing an expenditure management review of all our departments and we've taken that on. That's another area that you can understand you can't do overnight, that we have identified what we could do in this particular (Interruption) I have an hour.

[5:00 p.m.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: She has the right to respond similar to every member here, that's been clarified.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time I would have left on that particular answer? (Interruptions)

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Minister, at this point I'm going to proceed with offering the floor to the Liberal caucus.

The honourable member for Clare.

HON. WAYNE GAUDET: Madam Chairman, I understand my colleague would like to ask one last question. I will allow the member to do so.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, I just want to have clarification. You're offering two minutes of your time to the member for Dartmouth North and then the time will revert back to the Liberal caucus and those two minutes will be applied to your one hour?

MR. GAUDET: That's correct.

MR. ZINCK: I want to thank you for that response, quite extensive, absolutely. I'm going to go back and quote the letter by Ms. Harrison, the second paragraph after the one I just quoted. I think this is the most crucial part, the problem that I believe people are having with the current NDP Government and their philosophy around their social beliefs. I'm going to read it into the record: "Let me be clear. I am not talking about money. I am referring to a deliberate decision to keep those of us who work (both voluntarily and for pay) in the social justice community, from experiencing a different kind of process, a process whereby up front clear communication is the rule, not the exception, and collaboration and negotiation are the norm. You promised this, again and again and again, and you did not deliver."

I believe those words ring true and it's not in direct reflection to you as a minister but to Darrell Dexter, but Darrell Dexter leads this government and I think these words will ring true to Nova Scotians over the next coming years if they do not see the changes. There is no magic wand that's going to eliminate it but that very paragraph you take back to the Executive Council and your Leader and let him figure out what path he really wants Nova Scotians to go on and you might survive. I'd like to thank the honourable member for sharing his time.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Madam Chairman, give me a ruling, what time do I have to answer the question?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: It's my knowledge that you have up to one hour to respond. (Interruption) We'll need clarification on that then folks. (Interruption)

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'd like clarification before I answer, I want to know.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I asked those very specific questions. Perhaps I can refer at this moment to the Deputy Speaker of the House to see what he could suggest.

MR. GAUDET: Madam Chairman, from what I understood from my colleague, he asked me for a couple of minutes to make a comment and I agreed. I didn't agree to allow him to use my full hour. I would suspect the fact that he has had a couple of minutes to make his comment, then the floor would revert back to me.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. To be very clear, he was not asking a question just on the record, that's fine. Can I ask one more question while I have you, not to take any more of your time but just for clarity, that you would be now finishing your hour and any question you might pose, the minister would then also have equal amount of time or up to an hour to respond? That's the way I understand it to be done in the main Chamber as it would be in our Chamber.

MR. GAUDET: That is correct. (Interruption)

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What is the difference between a comment and a question? I don't have the opportunity - and I would think in a democratic process that I would have the opportunity to address the comments made by the honourable member. I thought that's what this was all about. These comments now are left up in the air without the Community Services Minister having an opportunity to address them.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: It's my understanding that there was no question posed so at this point he's reverting back to a colleague who will take the remaining time. If he asked a question you then would have the floor to proceed and speak to that question or any other comments that you have, up to an hour. If you should deem fit to respond in any way, I mean, you have the right to talk to whatever you see fit. That's my understanding.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So the rules are that anybody, if they have the time, they can make a comment and in their comment they can say things that you feel you have the right to address, but you don't have the right to address in a comment.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You do, at the time when it has been allotted to you. At that point there was no question raised.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I realize that but what I'm saying, it was a comment and I don't get the opportunity to . . .

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You would.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: When? I would, but when?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: When there was a question posed, the member for Clare will now take his time and he will ask a question and when he's finished, whether he prefaces it with information before or after the question, when the microphone is then returned to you, you then have up to one hour to respond.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I can respond based on the other honourable member's question?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's correct.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, I'm clear now, thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You will have an opportunity.

The honourable member for Clare.

MR. GAUDET: Great. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to ask the minister a few questions. Every week, I'm not the only MLA, I'm sure all my colleagues in the House receive calls from constituents with regard to income assistance policy. I know every week I get calls and every week I turn over to the minister's staff through the Digby office, Tammy White, Tracie Dugas, Janet Thibodeau, Marie Comeau - many, many times they have helped me. I certainly want to acknowledge their work this afternoon.

Many times I hear back from constituents, of course, they're upset with the caseworkers, for the answers they got back. I try to make these individuals understand they're employees, they don't write the policy. The department basically provides them with guidance and clear policies in terms of what they can do. I want to acknowledge the good work that they do down in Digby County and they have an office in Meteghan in the Municipality of Clare where they come down every Tuesday from the office in Digby to meet with constituents. I'm very grateful for the good work they do and the assistance they provide me.

Madam Minister, what I would like to focus on in the next few minutes is around special needs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has encountered some of these questions, but I'm looking for some clarification or guidance in terms of what's possible or what's not possible that I'm sure would come in handy. I'm just going to touch on a few of these cases.

I want to look at special needs for phones, for example. I had one individual not long ago who called up very upset. His monthly benefits were reduced by a few dollars and he couldn't understand why. I didn't know either why his benefits were reduced. After speaking with his caseworker, I found out that he was allocated some extra dollars to have a phone because of medical reasons or medical conditions that he had. I found out it was his responsibility after a year to contact his family physician to get a medical note in order to provide to his caseworker that he continually needed a phone because of health reasons.

He hadn't been told so I guess what I'm looking for, is it the policy of the department to alert income assistance individuals who are provided phones, are they notified in advance, to make sure that if they do have a phone that they have to provide the medical information needed, in order for that individual to continue to receive those extra few dollars, in order to keep the phone? I guess I'll start with that one.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much. First I would like to be able to respond to the comment that was posed. I won't do it for a long period of time because you deserve the respect to have the answer to your question.

I just want to make it very clear to the honourable member, as I mentioned before, that the individual that you are referring to, Pamela Harrison, it is her opinion and I respect the fact that it is her opinion. I strongly believe exactly what I said, it takes time to be able to come in and make changes in a new government. Can you imagine the time frame, where in the letter what you are referring to, it is about people being involved in a clear communication process. That is happening in my department, that is happening in other departments, that is happening through our Premier.

However, it takes time to get to that point. You are coming in and there's a learning curve and people are busy setting up the government, learning about their portfolios, learning about their departments and so forth. I would suggest that the expectation level of this particular individual was really unrealistic and a bit unfair to expect that those things would turn around and suddenly there would be communications immediately because what happens is before you communicate, you have to make sure that you are knowledgeable and know what you are going to communicate about.

I would say that Pamela has already seen this by just coming in and visiting with me, and I'm talking about the communication and inviting her and what she is passionate about, that the door is always open to communicate. I know that is with our entire government level. I think we have one of the most accessible governments in a long, long time. As I said, I cannot formulate why an individual feels the way they do but I think that you also find many more people who would think completely differently than Pamela. So I will just close with that and answer the honourable member's question.

With regard to the special needs and income assistance, as you probably could appreciate, I know the phone request within income assistance is a great pressure and it's logical for people to say everybody should have a phone, it does make sense. The cost pressure is an $8 million cost pressure to the province. You don't think that, right? See, that's the thing, everything is about information and as much information as you can get. I know that if I was an individual on income assistance, I'd be wondering, too, why I don't have access to a phone, but it is $8 million. You can appreciate the many other requests that we have that are very logical requests.

It is the practice of the department to annually review an individual having a phone, under special needs. I do respect and appreciate that the person you are talking about didn't understand that. I can tell you that that is one thing I have already directed staff about. There are several things, I want - because I want to take the department in a direction where the Department of Community Services is not a department of last resort, it is a stepping stone. In order to do that, our communication has to be better, we have to work on it each and every day. We need to improve it.

I have staff people who have been working within a particular type of system and policies that have been in place for years, in some situations there's too much flexibility, in others there's not a lot of flexibility. What we have to do is become very knowledgeable and myself, as the minister, with what those policies are. That's why I encourage you and anybody else to bring those policies to my attention because I can't make change unless I know.

[5:15 p.m.]

The directive that I have given staff is several things. One thing is I want staff to start thinking in a solution-oriented manner. So when you're working with an individual or working with a family, your prime goal is that you are working on a solution for their circumstances. Number two is the level of communication and awareness.

I agree, I have come across cases where I am saying why didn't the caseworker inform the individual. If we have policy in place and if we have services available, they should know about every one of those services that are available to them. So in that case, I feel that individual should have been aware and should have been told that, and I don't know what transpired, you never know. People relate information to you sometimes differently than what has happened, you get that little portion, so I did learn very quickly in this job that there are 10 sides to every story, most definitely. The key is to hear every side of that story.

I appreciate that you brought that to my attention. If there is any difficulty with that particular person's situation, feel free to let me know and I will go forth to take care of that.

I agree with you, that's one of the areas where I would love to see improvement is with our policies. One thing that I have done is I have created a new position - and I've satisfied our Minister of Finance that it's not a new position that is going to cost money, it's a secondment - I'm looking at creating a position within Community Services that would be termed a navigator's position. The navigator's position will be doing two things - well, way more than two things but two main areas that I am interested in is, number one, helping people navigate the system and, in particular, our MLAs because you are faced with that all the time. I think you need somebody who is a key resource who you can contact, so that your needs are addressed quickly. I think that is very important for you, as representatives of the government and your constituents.

The other area is to be identifying policies. I know we do have teams of people in the department who review policies. I'd like to see things go a little bit faster and what I feel is the only way I'm going to know about those policies that people are scratching their heads about, they might have worked 20 or 30 years ago. What I need to know is, I need to know about them. That is why I'm always encouraging not only staff but people like yourselves, MLAs or social workers, anybody, or advocacy groups, that they're finding policies that are frustrating them.

Whether I can fully change them, you don't know until you analyze them, sometimes you do discover that there's very valid reasons why that particular policy is in place and must stay in place. However, if they can be changed, to either streamline the system or makes lives better for our Nova Scotians, I'm more than willing to support that. Thank you.

MR. GAUDET: I want to move to another special request that came to my attention last month, it has to do with cataract surgery. This individual is on income assistance, lives in Clare, doesn't have a car, needed to travel to Kentville for cataract surgery. Community Services did provide him with $80 to help him travel to Kentville. He certainly appreciated the assistance for his first appointment.

Just before he went for his surgery, the surgeon's office called him up - by the way, you have to bring some money in order to pay for your lens. So, of course, he contacted me, I contacted your staff in Digby, to find out basically how much they would allocate to help him out. Well, I was told there was no coverage provided because under your policy it says no coverage will be provided under any circumstances for any cosmetic purpose. Of course I started arguing with the caseworker because this individual's eyesight, he had some difficulties. I couldn't really understand why the department didn't help out.

There are two kinds of lenses when people go for cataract surgery, the most expensive one and the least expensive one. This individual had no means of coming up with the money so when I contacted the caseworker in Digby to try to discuss this matter with her, I was surprised that the department did not help in any possible way. We turned back to the community, we made a few calls and were very grateful - and I'm sure we're not the only community, there are a lot of nice people out there throughout our province who come out and help out in many different sorts of ways.

I guess my first question to the minister is, I don't really understand the department's policy , especially in this case, all the facts were there. This was to help this individual with his vision. It was definitely - as far as I'm concerned - money well-spent and well-invested. How come the department does not help individuals who need to have cataract surgery with their lenses?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: First what I would like to say in respect to staff, it didn't take me very long as the new Minister of Community Services to see the passion and the dedication of the staff in the Department of Community Services. Unfortunately that perception is not always there. It's not there sometimes with ourselves in government and not there at, of course most definitely, the public level. What I discovered is - and you can relate to this - people have jobs to do. There are so many needs out there and I know that there's staff that it must be extremely difficult at the end of their day when they have to refuse something of that nature because it's within the policy.

Once again, as I mentioned in my last comments, these are things that I'm learning about that I think that we need to have discussion. I know that one of the concerns, again, comes back to finances in relation to the fact that we hear of all sorts of different needs. That doesn't make any difference to that individual who has that need at that time. We know that there is a huge financial price tag to all the needs that are out there throughout our province.

I think the other challenge for the department also is it's very difficult - and we need to work on this but we need to work on this together, and if you have any suggestions, I'm more than willing to talk to you about that - and that is, how do you balance between a staff person having the flexibility on a policy versus having a stringent policy in place? You need some sort of flexibility because every person is an individual but at the same time, if there is too much flexibility, you're going to have the situations where people are going to say, well that caseworker allowed this and my situation was absolutely similar to that and I wasn't approved for that. There's a real fine line and balance that we need to address and that is a challenge but I think that we can overcome some of those challenges if we come together and discuss that with respect to policy. That's one area I really want to focus on, the policies that we have in the department.

I guess I would have a question, do you know whether that lens was covered through MSI? Is that something that's not in the formulary of MSI?

MR. GAUDET: Apparently, after checking with your staff, we were told that the department did not cover that. We turned to some charities in our area that provided him with the assistance, gave him some money to pay for his lens. I haven't checked with MSI to see whether they do or they don't.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's, once again, where I would encourage you to contact myself or my executive assistant or any of the senior staff members so we can do further investigation. Sometimes all the facts are not there. We want to work with every individual to turn over every stone possible in order to help them. I invite you to have that freedom to do that and then that way we can check into it and we'll make a note of that today, too, and find out from you who the caseworker is and get more facts on that, see what we can do.

MR. GAUDET: Thank you. I'm going to be sharing my time with my colleague for Kings West. I have one more question I want to bring to the minister's attention. I had a lady not long ago, she's 58 years old, her husband is 66 years old. She needed a pair of glasses. She contacted the local office for assistance and after looking at the household income - her husband had some medical challenges of his own - after they looked at the household income, this lady didn't qualify for glasses.

She was very upset, hearing from the caseworker, policy says we need to look at the household income. Unfortunately there's too much income coming into the household for us to be able to help this lady out. In the end, she did get her glasses because, again, some charities from our community came forward and helped her get her glasses.

She brought a good point to my attention. Why am I being penalized because my husband of his age, of his pensions, he has to support me and at the same time I can't reach out to Community Services for a pair of glasses. I thought to myself, this is a really good point. Because of her family situation, she's being penalized by the system because the department was unable to help her out.

I know the staff in Digby, I've contacted them on many occasions with some of these special needs, I know they have a small reserve. I know the staff sometimes will look at these special requests. Sometimes they're able to help and make a difference in some of these people's lives. I know the policy does not cover everything, even after having been in this business for a number of years, I'm still learning. I still meet new challenges. I just want to bring this to the minister's attention.

With that, I will pass my remaining time to my honourable colleague.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to be able to ask the minister and her staff a few questions today. One of the first areas, I was really pleased to hear the minister state just a few moments ago that she wants caseworkers to be informing clients and potential clients of Community Services what is available to them.

[5:30 p.m.]

I actually have to say that in my six and a half years in office, I do have a wonderful relationship with the office in Middleton, less so in Kentville because the Middleton office serves a big part of my riding, and there are some wonderful, dedicated people there looking after needs, but it was actually a couple of weeks ago - in fact the first time that I lost my cool with a caseworker and I did make sure I fully apologized - but I was amazed that there would be somebody today in an office dealing with somebody on Community Services, pregnant and in a very difficult situation of having a mentally challenged 24-year-old, an 8-year-old with just a very basic means, no support from her partner in this case at this stage of her pregnancy, and came to my office looking for help beyond the food bank for food. She had never been informed that she could have had some food supplement through that period. I questioned and in fact she was never informed of that whatsoever.

So I mean, while you made that statement, you know, are there occasionally reminders to the office managers, people like Lisa Gillis in the Middleton office, to review those basic components of the policy around income assistance so that those situations do not have to occur?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much for the question. As you can understand, the number of employees that we do have working at the grassroots level, and with everybody's different personalities and how long they've been in the position and doing the job the way they always have been doing it and then they have a minister coming in and saying I want you to, it's a part about accountability. I think that we can do a better job at getting that information out to staff to make sure that it trickles down to the caseworkers and make sure that it's a priority for me as a minister and that's what we need to do.

I'm very sorry that individual was not told that. Absolutely, if we have that as a service, that's what it is, it's a service and we need to be providing it. You cannot ask for something if you don't know about it. So I've taken your comments in high regard and will make sure that we work harder at ensuring that the staff are informed, that I want them to let people know about what is available.

MR. GLAVINE: I'm pleased to hear the minister respond in this way and it was looked upon as a serious matter and it was corrected by the senior caseworker there, or the manager of the caseworker. So it was something that should not have happened and I just raise it to see what kind of perspective you do have and what kind of direction that you, as the minister, want to see how the income assistance workers do approach clients. So I thank you for that.

One of the areas that I have brought up, and a number of my colleagues, especially when the deputy minister has come to the Standing Committee on Community Services, is around the clawback when a member on income assistance does have work. There are a couple of cases now, you know, just so fresh in my mind and I related one during the last meeting on Community Services. I'm absolutely convinced that there has to be some kind of a change, a transitional period to work, let's say, for example, it's a six-month period where if somebody goes to work, and the last case I had was at McDonald's and, bless her heart, she was doing her very best and she gets that first cheque after not working for quite some time and then realizes how much was pulled back, the 70 per cent by the Department of Community Services that she realized that, I don't think I can continue to do this. It is actually, when you get that 70 per cent pulled back, I believe, it becomes a deterrent. It meets the reality of their situation and a new attempt and they realize that they still need some attachment to the Department of Community Services. They're not there yet in terms of having sufficient income to make the break completely and there would be no clawback. We also know in many cases the connection with being able to get assistance with medications very often.

I'm just wondering - and I believe the minister is taking a look at this - where is your review and generally do you see the need to change how this part of income assistance is carried out? I'm an absolute believer from my work in this office - less so in my previous career as a teacher and school administrator - in dealing with many families on income assistance but I've really seen where this issue here, if addressed, can take some people off community assistance. I am absolutely convinced that if there is a right transitional period here - because my view of income assistance is that it is a service and one that makes us just a little bit more of a civil society in what we do and, in fact, becomes a measure of support that may lead to much more deleterious events in these people's lives if they didn't have this basic income.

I would really like to see those people engage in something more productive, more valuable to their lives and once again feel the value of getting to work and experiencing work and that the income, even if it's minimum wage, can be a better deal for those people. I'm wondering if the minister has really taken a good long, hard look in this area.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much, and Opposition member, may I agree with you?

MR. GLAVINE: That would be wonderful.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I agree with you and that's part of my excitement with the ESIA review is that's one component that we will be looking at. I can't move it along fast enough. We need to change the way that society and we as a government look at community services and income assistance. We need to make the change that it is seen as a stepping stone to a better life, not a last resort. Although I know this will take time, it will also take the leadership and the willingness of everyone in government, which I feel that we'll have that support and the willingness from members like yourself, all the MLAs and I know that support will be there.

It will take time in educating people. When I say, take time, I'm talking about that whole concept of what Community Services is because you can appreciate all the years that it has been seen as one thing and it has often been they and us. I really want to get rid of that and it's working together for the better lives of people of Nova Scotia because that's what we're here for, each and every one of us. We may sit on different sides of the House but I know that everyone who has dedicated themselves to this particular work has done it because they have a passion and they want to make a positive difference in people's lives.

I agree with you that there needs to be a transitional period. We need to come up with a strategy of how you do that, that it encourages individuals and gives them the empowerment and the good feeling that, yes, I'm being rewarded for going in a more positive direction in my life, I'm working hard to make a difference.

I agree. I mean, if I'm trying to improve my life and part of what I'm earning is taken away from me, how else am I going to think but where's the value in that? As I said, the ESIA review will be a big component that will be looking at that. It is one area that I have brought up to the staff because I think it's a disincentive the way the system is set up right now. We definitely need to change that.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that response and also your keenness to move in this whole area. Even some changes will mean a better day both in terms of reliance upon government and shifting to more self-sufficiency of those people.

One of the other areas that I have found really frustrating, and there may be something legally that prevents this situation I'm going to tell you about from happening or just civil liberties, I'm not sure. In just the past six months I've had three Community Services recipients get - for different reasons, two were accident victims - a lump sum payment. Actually the lump sum payment wasn't in the last six months, the trouble they got into was in the last six months.

Very often, one of the very reasons that these people are often on Community Services is low levels of education, very immense challenges around handling money. That's why, as you know, the direct payment to landlords and so on are all a way of preventing further trouble for them. I've had three cases in six months where there was a lump sum payment - and I must say, in trying to bridge them back to Community Services again, this is why my opening remark was to applaud the staff, to try to deal with them and get them through a tough time. Really, the money they had was supposed to be for the next nine months or 10 months, whatever the cases were, but it got used up very quickly.

The question is, is Community Services permitted to take the lump sum and be able to provide the same monthly benefit to the client? They're no longer getting the Community Services monthly income assistance benefit. Is the department able to take control for the income assistance recipient and parcel it out in the same manner as if they are on income assistance to prevent the kind of situations that I've just described where they're simply out of money?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Actually, we are looking at that right now. We are pushing for more policy reviews so we are looking at making a change and whether we can or what areas or what parameters we're able to make those changes.

[5:45 p.m.]

MR. GLAVINE: One other situation that does arise is where somebody takes a job, and I have had a couple of recent cases of this as well, where they started a job but they weren't very long into the job and literacy and being able to follow a chart as to how you prepare food and so forth was not able to be followed and the employer gave them a period of time for adjustment, a month and a half, a couple of months and so forth. So during that period they were making money and were taken off income assistance and their rent was to be paid from their income. However, they didn't quite have enough to meet their rent requirement from the work they were doing and the rent got in arrears by a couple of months.

I'm wondering, you know, is there a defined policy then where a person had to go back on income assistance because they never really had the ability to handle the job, as was determined after a probationary period, but yet their rent wasn't paid during that period because they simply weren't making quite enough income, so they were shut off from income assistance? Now they're in that position of possibly losing their rental accommodations. I'm wondering if there's a policy in Community Services that covers that area? Is it able to be, in some way, you know, even clawed back from future income assistance income? What way is that able to be handled because I have the landlord calling me now wondering what happens to the two months that were missed along the way.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: This is another one of the areas where I'm always stressing the fact that we need to look at all the individual cases and one of the things that we need to also do is to encourage people to talk to us before they get in trouble or they get so far in trouble. That will take time and we need to do that. We can certainly, in this particular situation, again if you wanted to give me that information, I would be more than willing to look at that client's situation.

As you expressed earlier, you think that you know all the different circumstances that could happen out there and then you get a new one. So I think that's one of the difficult areas where I mentioned earlier about the flexibility in a policy versus making sure that everybody gets treated fairly and what that balance is because a flexibility in the policy allows for the individuality of people's lives and circumstances. So that's a very fine balance that we need to be able to strike but, once again, a lot of things come back to communication and I think the overall perception and almost a fear of dealing with Community Services makes people reluctant to communicate or come forth until they're really in an emergency situation that they know that there's no other way about it but to discuss it now.

So, hopefully, we can change that attitude and work with all levels, from our own staff to working with the many fabulous groups in our community which are vitally important. It's just the reality that we can't do it on our own as a government. They all play such a vital role but we don't also need to exhaust their volunteer base and their fundraising base. So I think that's where those open community discussions are vitally important but, once again, feel free to give us that information and we'll see what we can do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have just seconds left.

MR. GLAVINE: Yes, I just wanted to thank the minister and her staff for her responses and I was wondering if, over the next while, staff could provide me with an update on the housing waiting list information for the Annapolis Valley/South Shore Housing Authority. I think they're both combined in there or if it's just the Annapolis Valley, if I could have an update? I know there has been a lot of pressure in that area, in the western region, so if I could have that.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Absolutely, no problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will begin an hour of questioning from the PC caucus.

The honourable member for Argyle.

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Minister, it's a pleasure to see you today, look, the sun even came out. That's how exciting it is here today after a grey day. I get up to ask a few questions and the sun comes out. So I'll just take credit for that.

I'm going to talk a little bit, I'm going to try to structure myself a little bit here to ask some questions about Argyle, maybe ask a couple of questions on some programs that I got to touch on in my very short time at Community Services and then maybe some budget questions because I know you have George with you and if I don't ask any real numbers, I think he would be upset with me because he does prepare for days to be sure he is ready for every question. I know that he really wants to be asked stuff like that.

I'm going to lob one quickly here and I know that you could probably spend some time on it. I'm wondering, maybe a quick update on the Poverty Reduction Strategy and, more specifically, how the structure on review of IA is going to be. I thought a big component of our poverty strategy was basically taking the way IA payments are done to our clients, blowing that up and creating something new.

I'm very happy with the way you talk about it, very excited, how you want to get going on it. I'm just wondering, in your nine months now, since you've actually been in the department - double my time - so I'm just wondering how things are going, in the review of IA?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you for the question, I appreciate it. With the Poverty Reduction Strategy, the committee that I co-chair with the Minister of Education, and you know we have other ministers sitting around the table, we have met several times and we are planning another meeting in May and moving forward with that.

What we are looking at, too, is to make sure that, I know it's a balance between how fast you can go and how you can also make sure that every component is taken into consideration and that everybody's thoughts are taken into consideration and those who want to voice their opinion. So that is the area we're looking at because we do have other organizations that felt they should have participated before, so you can understand that. We want to make sure that people are comfortable that they've had that opportunity, so we're working through that process.

Yet, at the same time, the Minister of Education and myself have taken the opportunity to meet with the Coalition Against Poverty in the province, so that they are aware of where we're at. I know that when you're in an advocacy group that your passion is that you would like things to move along much quicker. I mean I do, too, but we have a process in place and once we are able to identify and feel that everybody has had the ability to contribute to that, then what I would like to see is to establish a results-oriented strategic plan. That's what I like in strategic planning, is to have the result-based type of planning where you set timelines and goals to reach them and it keeps everybody accountable.

I know there are things that may drive you off course but it always brings you back on course because you know that you've set specific time frames and within those time frames there are certain goals and accomplishments that you want. So it doesn't become so overwhelming because you have so many goals that you need to accomplish that if you do it in this manner, you know that exactly you set reasonable, attainable goals. I think that's sometimes where we get off the track, that we have such a high goal that we want to reach but we don't know how to get there. So having those smaller achievements makes a big difference.

My knowledge base is very important for me, too, and to be discussing those issues around the province. I'm not quite sure, are you meaning on the IA? Are you talking about the ESIA redesign and where we are at with that?

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Exactly.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, we are moving forward, I'd like to move faster. Once again, I'm sure I drive staff crazy because I'd like to speed it up a little bit faster. In the meantime, I think that we are - what I'd like to see and I think that we are accomplishing this, is doing things in the meantime when we're all on one side strategizing and doing our planning but also, at the same time, making sure that we are doing things that can be done in a quicker manner. That's why I am pleased with regard to our budget, that this government identified and saw that we needed to put the Affordable Living Tax Credit in place. The Poverty Reduction Credit, I'm very pleased with that. That is going to hit 15,000 individuals, primarily those who are disabled, so that will be an increase - they'll be eligible for both of those programs so you're going to see $26 extra a month in their pocket. I think that by doing those types of strategies, it is starting to turn us around and looking at Community Services as a stepping stone, that it's not just one-off crisis management.

That's a difficult challenge to make those changes because you're trying to address the everyday needs and that consumes a lot of time, addressing those everyday needs. So that's why some of these strategic things take quite some time but I'd like to push it along and that's what I have been doing and I am very appreciative of the staff.

We have a staff with such wealth of knowledge and I know that even in your short period of time that you were able to see that very quickly and you were able to see their passion and to know that that's what they're there for. I mean if you get up and go to work every day in a very difficult place to work because of all the pressures, you have to have a passion or dedication to get through the type of work that is being done in Community Services.

We know and I know that the staff are dedicated to making these changes and are very pleased that we are supportive of those type of changes, so we are moving along. Any time you ever ask me that, I will tell you not fast enough for me.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: That was one of the things, if I could have done anything while I was in that department, it was to try to get some of those pieces going. I know a lot of those things are - we've been talking about it for a long time, we've always understood that this is where we need to go because even though you talk about, and I talked about being client-focused, individual, it's not quite true because we have to fit within certain policies and guidelines which impede, in some cases, and save certain things for other people at the same time.

You're not trying to be mean to anybody but, at the same time, there's only a certain amount of money to go around in order to share. That was always the difficult part because those policies, I think, are very stringent in the way that they're designed. I think a new way of ESIA or even working with clients is trying to get that focus back on the client.

It's good to hear that Community Services needs to be looked at as a stepping stone, it can't be the place of last resort. I think that's why, when we were government, that we tried to make sure there were pieces there that helped people transition into work, to be contributors to the Province of Nova Scotia, not just users, to work towards child care, to work towards some kind of drug plan. These little tiny steps which impact people a heck of a lot more than a $4 increase or a $6 increase in ESIA.

You look at the dollars you need to invest in that large an increase, I think it was David Morse who took the heat with the $4 increase. Well, quite honestly, I can't remember how much that increase was actually worth but it was probably $9 million or $10 million, in that range. Maybe I'll ask that question, how much was the $4 increase in ESIA worth? Let's get it on the table, how much is that worth?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It was $1.5 million to $2 million.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Quite sizeable. You know when you talk about the situation that we find ourselves in because of the recession, dollars are scarce, so to go and say I want to take that from Education or I want to take that from Health, well that never flies. What little dollars we can get we need to use them smartly. That's why the tax credit is a good idea. I can go on record and say, that's a really good step

The challenge, of course, will be making sure that there can be a flow of dollars to the recipients. If it's going to be every three months or whatever, I think that's a good thing, but if they have to continually apply for it and then wait, maybe that might be counterproductive in the case because a lot of times you need the money now, you don't need it later, which was always the challenge I saw with tax credits. The same thing with the tax credits, we'll talk about that one in Education which is the tax credit for new graduates. Students don't need it after they're done, they need it during the time they're in school. That's always the challenge with that.

[6:00 p.m.]

What I'll do is I'll talk about one particular client that I have. It's kind of funny, Argyle is a very self-sufficient area. I think if you talk to the people working with our clients in Argyle you'll find their client load isn't really that high. I rarely hear from people on Community Services, I think maybe because our Yarmouth office does a phenomenal job, and they do. On the record, I commend them for the work they do. I can probably count the number of times that I actually have to call a caseworker or I have to call in. It's very seldom that happens. I did get more when I was Minister of Community Services, all of a sudden people thought they could bypass. But for the most part we have a good staff.

I'm going to talk about one individual and see if we can get a little bit of help. The challenge I have with this individual is a guy by the name of Jules Dussault and he suffered a workplace accident a number of years ago. He was working at a boat shop and he ended up having part of the scaffolding tip over and fall on him. It didn't necessarily injure him that day, they sort of took the stuff off him and he got up and shook himself off and didn't think too much of it.

The next day he found he couldn't get out of bed. Thinking it was maybe muscles or whatever, but it just continued to spiral out of that. He made a claim to WCB, WCB I think paid him for a little bit, it might have been, I forget what you call it, when the employer goes after WCB, anyway it ended up that his benefits were taken away from him with WCB. It could be because of the issue of chronic pain or not, I'm not positive because the man still continues today suffering from pain.

Because WCB can't pay him, because he suffered a workplace accident and has chronic pain, he cannot work, he ends up on the rolls of Community Services. Being a very industrious individual, Jules decided he would try to fit into the accommodation allowance and found himself an apartment, a house, in my area. He was actually living in Yarmouth at the time, but he moved out to my constituency because the rent was a little lower and he was able to fit it within the dollars that he needed.

The challenge he has is, he doesn't have a car, doesn't live near a pharmacy, doesn't live near his doctor, doesn't live near a grocery store where he can get his specialty food - it probably doesn't pay for his specialty food - so he continually has the challenge of paying his bills. I was wondering if there was some kind of thing we could help him with, especially when it comes to the travel issue. He might have saved his dollars on finding a place that he could work on accommodation, but it has worked against him because he has to pay for taxis or find someone to bring him into town. I wonder if there's a way we could help him a little bit with travel within that file?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: First, I'd like to thank the honourable member for recognizing the staff and the good work they do. I appreciate that and I know they really appreciate that too. I also want to thank you for having the respect to understand the challenges of Community Services and what we're dealing with and that we all need to work together in order to make those changes in the province.

I do understand, coming from a rural community myself, that there are a lot of components that are challenging in the rural community, especially for seniors and people on income assistance with respect to transportation. I know we do understand, as a government and we are working in that area. There have been, in some communities, some recent announcements, projects with local Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal that have been supported federally and provincially. So I think there's a movement in that area, an awareness that we have to be looking at that transportation issue. What I would recommend is that we can, on the individual case, you can come to me and staff and we'll look at it to see if we can reassess him and have a look and find out where those difficulties are and see what we can do for that particular individual.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Minister, for that. It is tough for Jules you know, and the other thing is that we talk about government departments, we talk about trying to bring down the silos. We know that we work quite closely, even on the Poverty Reduction Strategy, working directly with Labour and Workforce Development but the challenge that this individual has is that he really shouldn't be on the rolls of Community Services. He should be paid through WCB but the challenge is that he continues to appeal it, he continues to win the award, and it keeps getting overturned by WCB.

So maybe I'll engage the member for Antigonish sometime and talk about it but I think even at this point, he has been refused for the third time or the fourth time by WCB, even after having the award, the judge actually awarding it, and it just continues to go on this way. I have a lot of individuals whom I have seen over the years, people who should be with WCB and are not, and they fall upon, of course, the rolls of Community Services. So I'm just wondering if there's a better connection that we might be able to create between WCB and Community Services?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think that's a very good suggestion that we certainly can explore. I've heard of other circumstances where people have faced those issues and if they can't get their workers' compensation, they're going to end up on income assistance. So I think that is a very good suggestion and one that we will certainly take upon us to explore.

The other thing that I just wanted to mention to you with regard to the tax credit, and thank you for going on record and supporting that, is that I don't know if you're aware that the tax credit is a program that comes out quarterly and the first year, the Poverty Reduction Credit, we'll be doing it through Community Services so we can then roll it over to the Canada Revenue Agency. Then the Affordable Living Tax Credit will be with the Canada Revenue Agency. So that will start right off with them whereas the other one, we're just working out some kinks to roll that over because we want to make sure that we're identifying all those who are eligible for the Poverty Reduction Credit and sometimes with those with disabilities, there are some grey areas there. So we want to make sure that we don't miss supporting those who deserve to be supported in that area - just so you're aware - but thank you for your suggestion and I think it's a very good one. We'll look at it.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Mr. Chairman, the last question, more pertaining to Argyle and to Yarmouth County at this point, since I'm the closest voice to Yarmouth at this point, if you remember last year, there was a bit of a housing crisis in Yarmouth. It stemmed from a number of, I would call them deadbeat landlords and unscrupulous, I'm being very nice, mortgage brokers who got into a whole bunch of interesting problems in Yarmouth. There were a number of buildings apparently that were bought by people who wanted to be landlords. They bought these buildings working through a certain mortgage broker, who will remain nameless at this point, buying let's say a $50,000 apartment building, you know, an older house that has been split up into two or three apartments, and getting mortgages that were worth $100,000 rather than $50,000 and, of course, running into monetary problems.

The effect was that the banks ended up foreclosing on the properties and throwing the people who were in the apartments out on the street. I don't think I was minister, then I was, then I wasn't. I'm just wondering if you remember, because we sort of opened up the door at the Tri-County Housing Authority to make sure that people who ended up being really stuck, we would find them placements. I'm just wondering if there was any influx of renters looking for housing because of the crisis that we fell into in Yarmouth.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, that was when I first came on. The actual number of individuals who came to us was not a high number, it was probably around 10. One is too many, as you can understand, but it probably was around 10 individuals who were seeking housing. Once again, we worked with them on an individual basis. It's very unfortunate, those type of circumstances with private businesses, we have absolutely no control over them, so we have to be sure that we're ready to assist. I know that staff are always in that mode. It's like crisis management planning, they know the actions to take when something like that happens. Even if they hear a rumour in the community, I know staff become prepared in order to help any individuals in need.

Once again, I think it's the situation of educating the public to have a comfort zone to come to us even if they think there might be something coming down the pipeline in their lives. It makes it much easier if we have a little bit more of a lead time than when it's in total crisis mode. It was probably about 10 cases.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much on that, it's good to know because it was really hard to gauge how many people we would need to find apartments for. Yarmouth is an interesting town where there seems to be a lot of houses that have been converted into apartments. You really never know exactly what the stock is of acceptable apartments within that area.

I remember when I first got married, looking for an apartment in Yarmouth, it was just an absolutely bizarre experience. I know the member for Dartmouth North represents an area that's highly concentrated with apartments. There are big buildings, it's not hard to tell what's an apartment and what's not. In Yarmouth it's not like that, it's an older town. It's a lot like Antigonish or other towns in Nova Scotia, just a lot of houses that are cut up. It was really hard to tell when some of these houses ended up being foreclosed upon on exactly what was going to happen.

That's good to hear, and not to say that through the next bit - I know through the housing dollars, as they continue to flow - that there's more consideration for the Yarmouth area. I am going to put a plug in, of course, for the Argyle area. Our housing stock isn't as high as many other areas but then again there's not as much request for it as well.

I'm just wondering, through some of the housing dollars, as we stay a little bit on the housing forum, there was a talk within the housing dollars when we signed the contract with the federal government, more focus towards people with disabilities and seniors, the idea of duplexes, quadplexes and those kinds of things. I'm just wondering if there is an opportunity or what kind of distribution we're going to see of those facilities around the province. I know Dave kind of knows what I'm talking about here a little bit. I'm just wondering what kind of distribution we're going to see around the province.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What we need to do - and I know that staff have done that - is to look at where we feel those needs are and to proportionally make sure that the housing is created or developed in those areas. I will take the chart and look at some numbers for you so we can give you actual figures.

I can talk to you about the year one of the stimulus project. We're just in the process of year two to look at where we're going. But within year one, we're in the eastern region of the province so we're looking in the Sydney, Cape Breton area for 48 units in total at an investment of $5.5 million.

[6:15 p.m.]

The Amherst region, we have four units and in the central region we will be looking at 103 units in total, which is $12.88 million and western region is 19 units, $3.5 million will be invested. That gives us a total of 174 units in year one which reflects about a $21.43 million investment.

We're starting the process of year two so if you want to put a plug in, put a plug in.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I'll use this time to put my plug in. I do talk about the usage in Argyle being very small, the requests are probably not there as much, but here's the consideration that I need you to think about, for the longest time what happened to individuals - let's say you were a senior or you were disabled and you needed to find a place, you ended up having to move to Yarmouth. If you lived in the Pubnicos, if you lived in the Wedgeports or what have you in my riding, you actually had to move to Yarmouth for at least six months before you would be considered by the housing authority.

The housing authority was still working on rules set forth by the original authority that was run by the municipalities and it was run by the Municipality of Yarmouth. That was the stipulation - you had to be a resident of Yarmouth for at least six months. What's really happening is that we're losing some of our seniors and contributors in our communities to Yarmouth. I don't think all these people want to move to Yarmouth, even though it is the economic and cultural hub of Yarmouth County.

If you take a senior from Pubnico, they're not going to be that comfortable living in Yarmouth in an apartment. But, if you put them in an apartment in Pubnico - we do have a seniors' apartment there, but I think it's probably full at this time, it has been full for awhile so there is a waiting list. Any expansion to that, I'm hoping that all of Yarmouth County would be taken into consideration. Tusket, those of you who know the Ford dealership, is seven minutes from Yarmouth. It's not that far, but it's a world apart from being in town or being the rural area.

If there are a couple of units to come along our way, just to have that consideration, not everything has to go right into the Town of Yarmouth, it can go to Argyle or it could go to the outer reaches of Yarmouth County. That doesn't really matter, but not always in the middle of town.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Am I allowed to ask you a question?

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Sure.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm just wondering do you have a sense of what type of units you're talking about or that you see a need for? Seniors versus family or disability - what type of units?

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I would probably say seniors. I'm finding a lot of elderly women living in their big, old houses who no longer can really afford to stay there. I'm sure any of our members will experience the same thing. If we could give them an opportunity to move into a duplex or a triplex, I even know some women that right now they're finding other elderly women they could go live with. They're saying, okay, let's pick a house, out of the three of us who has the better house and they try to sell theirs and move into the one house. At least they try to contain some of their costs.

I think if we had some kind of seniors availability on the duplex side, not necessarily the big apartment building, have two, three or four units put into place, I think it would have some sort of a cache. People would like that independence. What I'm seeing is they tend to be still very independent, still driving their cars, still participating in community pieces. They just can't keep up their own houses anymore.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's very important information and what we will do is we will look at all the areas in the province. I feel we need to make sure we have all the correct data and as much research as possible to make sure that whatever type of housing unit that we put in a community, it's the right one, that that's where the need is. So I appreciate you bringing that forward to us and we've made note of that.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I thank the minister for that and, like I said, any consideration that you can give to us, as the guys and girls are planning over at Community Services, I think it would be great.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Certainly.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Let me ask a few more questions on budget specifics. I was very happy to see there's a $25 million increase in the department over 2009-10. What does that $25 million, it probably is a few things, but what makes up that $25 million?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm very pleased, too, that there has been an increase in recognizing, it's really two main areas and those areas would be the increase in income assistance that we are predicting.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Utilization?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, the caseloads.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Yes, correct, caseloads.

MS. PETERSON: Thank you, sorry. So I can break it down and give you more specifics but what we're seeing is, of course, that there will be a trend of increase in need and the caseload for income assistance. That's due to the downturn in the economy, although it's on the uprise. It's the after-effects of the fact that initially there are people who need to go on employment insurance and then we're predicting that they'll be running out of that and there will be a need for income assistance.

The other area is to focus on some of the very complex cases that we're having as a society growing older and I know that you're aware of this from your time in Community Services, is that as our society is growing older, it's putting more pressure on the complex cases in our society, also those cases with respect to older parents that may have an adult child who has a disability and the parents pass on, and there's no recourse for that individual except to be part of our support system here in the province.

I will break down for you in more specifics, which I know you'll appreciate, those facts. I'm pleased to say that services for persons with disabilities will have an $8 million increase. That is wonderful in the sense of taking that Poverty Reduction Credit which is focused on individuals primarily with disabilities and we're forecasting about 15,000 people who will be eligible for that particular program and because they're eligible for that, they will also be eligible for the Affordable Living Tax Credit.

We're looking at adult service centre rates, a review, $0.75 million for that. Modernization, of course, of the Riverview construction, there are three new group homes there that will reflect a cost of $2.2 million. Our caseload, as I just mentioned and those complex cases with persons with disabilities, we're anticipating about a $2.5 million cost factor for that. The base budget adjustment is $2.5 million for KRRC. (Interruption) Yes, that's for Kings County. I shouldn't use the acronyms because that's what I asked them to do for me, like a little book of those.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Good luck.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, and they change daily, too, they add a letter or drop one, I don't know why they do that. Children and Family Services will see a $9 million increase. This one, I'm happy about all these, additional funding for foster care, $0.6 million. So there's a 10 per cent increase for foster families on their per diem and that was greatly needed, as you know, it has been very stressful for our foster families in the Province of Nova Scotia. We always like to be able to give more money but to be able to offer even the 10 per cent, I think that's a wonderful move in a good direction. We do realize the ramifications that if we don't have those foster families, we're going to have more youth who are going to be in the justice system. The security and the love of a family is so vitally important for children and young adults. The pressures have been there and a lot of foster families have been taking on extra children because we've been putting on that pressure because we've lost the foster families. We're doing an educational strategy also behind this to encourage more people in Nova Scotia to consider being foster parents.

There's an additional federal, for the early childhood program, there will be about $6.4 million with regard to that. Also, we're looking at the caseload growth and the cost of the complex cases within Children and Family Services of $1.7 million. Employment Support and Income Assistance, that's the remaining amount of $15.4 million and that's exactly what I spoke to you about, the increased load on the income assistance cases. That's a prediction of how the cycle is running so those are where the increases are reflected.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Like I said, I'm very happy to see that kind of increase because there was one that I know the department needed. I always remember the discussions that we had as we were trying to develop the Poverty Reduction Strategy is, what kind of dollars can we actually attach to this? There are a lot of things being done but to do these extra things, give us a number and that was always going to Cabinet and saying, listen guys, you've got to give me a number so I know what kind of programs I'm going to be running here. I'm very glad to see that you did get a sizeable increase from last year.

There was also though an increase - and I'm trying to understand - the FTE count in the department increased by about 111 FTEs. I'm just wondering where those 111 people or so are going to go.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That particular increase is from the fact, as you're probably aware, that there was an audit done in respect to the children's aid societies and the recommendation of bringing them over to be part of the province. That's what that budget reflection is, is to bring those agencies over to be part of the province.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: That's good to know because it did seem like a sizeable increase and knowing we always do need more staff and caseworkers, it was like, how did 111 get in there?

While we're on the topic of the child protection agencies, there was an issue in Yarmouth, if I remember correctly. As they decided to go over with their pensions - and this is almost completely off topic all of a sudden - the individuals who were being offloaded, let's say, some of them who were close to retirement had a choice of either staying with the existing pension that the child protection society would have had or buy into the superannuation plan. Depending on what was going on - I mean, some of these individuals probably started work in 1983 or 1984 and would be probably getting close to their 25-, 30-year marks - apparently in transfer there was only a realization of a partial amount. Let's say you started in 1983, there was only a realization from 1987 or something, there were people who ended up losing some of their serviceable years, like five or six years. What they thought they were signing onto, the superannuation plan, that would have been a better payout for a pension, they lost on pensionable years.

I was wondering if you were aware of that issue and if there is more work that could be done there. I had chatted quickly with the deputy about it awhile back but I don't know what the update has been over the last couple of months.

[6:30 p.m.]

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I hope I can explain it to you. That was part of the assets that they had when they came over to the province. Now, all those details financially . . .

MR. D'ENTREMONT: It's Finance.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's more Finance but that's sort of the baseline of reasoning.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: There were a number of individuals I ended up meeting with who were disappointed and I think during the process, I think even Community Services was caught off guard on that one. They were under the same presumption that the child protection workers were under, that they would take them on their years of service, but once they had gotten into the pension world - and it might be the superannuation only got its go in 1987 - they had to do it, something like that, but anyway the point I'm making is that there's a number of individuals who got shortchanged on their pensions in this transfer. I don't know what the department can do to remedy it but I think it's more of an issue of at least being able to acknowledge it and work with those workers.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think one of the areas that maybe we could have done a better job was to encourage those individuals to talk to their own financial planners or to go that route to discuss because those type of things are so individual and to discuss with their financial planners, you know, what would have been the best course of action for them to take. The department is aware of it and so what we're trying to do now is work with those individuals who have come to us with that issue to see if there's anything that we can advise them on.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: But I think to even add a little yuckyness to it, I think there might be a court case coming up, I don't know, there might be a few people who feel that they were sort of led down the wrong path. But anyway, and just more of a heads-up that that's going on.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I haven't heard much more of it so I think it's because it is in the hands of lawyers at this point. So I'm never too sure.

I'm also wondering, and I remember a wonderful list that was provided to me when I became minister, of third-party grant people, you know, probably a listing of 300 organizations or so that we provide to. I'm just wondering how we were able to take care of that list this year? Some of them, of course, are the women's centres and some of them are organizations like the Coalition Against Poverty and things like that. So I'm just wondering how that list is going this year?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What I can say about that is that I know there hasn't been any reduction in that which is another area that I'm very pleased that the government has been able to recognize although, as you know, when you were minister, none of them got an increase.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: That's right.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The difficulty though, I know that with respect to the list - and every one of those organizations are extraordinarily valuable - but there's also other organizations out there that are on the other side of the fence that are not on that list and I'm sure you're aware of that, just as over the course of history that some of those, or many of those grant programs were in the bailiwick of the municipality and sometimes there wasn't really any understanding of why they were chosen over another to get a grant.

So those just flowed over into our responsibilities and, of course, part of the deal when those were flowed over was that we would grandfather, we would make sure that they wouldn't be cut. So that's why we have such an extensive list and I'm sure that you were challenged, too, with the fact that you get many new requests and you know that it's a very valid request and then you're faced with the fact that there's no movement in the funding for grants and you're just trying to maintain those. As you know, the transition houses are a little bit different because we made that commitment for the transition houses and the women's centres of that $0.5 million but I am glad to say that there has not been a cut in Community Services grants.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: But I would also suggest that maybe it's time for a bit of a review to that list. It was something that I had started to undertake but, you know, really you have to know what you're paying for in some cases, why is the money going to this organization, exactly what kind of work do they do for you? Is it being duplicated by someone?

That was a challenge I had with women's centres. We tried to work with them to try to streamline some of the things they were doing. We were finding other organizations were offering exactly the same thing. Not that we didn't value the work that a women's centre was doing, they do phenomenal stuff, but at the same time we don't have enough money for 10 people to be doing the exact same thing. Just as a review, maybe it's time to look at some of them.

One of the best examples I had of things we might want to cut later on in life was a grant - I can't remember the amount - to the Halifax Coalition Against Poverty. Well, what did the Halifax Coalition Against Poverty do for us? They pounded on us at every opportunity, even to the point that there was actually a court order against them from coming anywhere near the department. It wasn't me, it was another minister. There just always seemed to be strife with that group. But we did provide the money to work on some of the programs they did do.

The other great example, and it's not even in your bailiwick but I'll take a second to do it, we had some wonderful programs with the environmental group here in town - the Ecology Action Centre. We had some wonderful programs, but they pounded on us too for other things, but that's the kind of relationship government has with a lot of these third-party groups.

At the same time, if we're looking for dollars to make sure it gets in the hands of our clients, then maybe it's time to do a review of those 300 or 400 organization groups. They all do very good things, but the time has come that those dollars need to be looked at.

My final group of questions will revolve around persons with disabilities and the other George, who's not here today. I just wonder how the programming is going over there. You did mention the Riverview home. I always got stuck between my acronyms as well of which one I was talking about, especially with the Health background that I had, we were offering the same services in different places and sharing stuff. I wonder where that programming is, where Riverview is, and maybe also what's happening in Bedford-Sackville at the old Cobequid Centre. What's happening in that facility? Some general questions to talk about here.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'd like to say thank you for what you mentioned with respect to the grant program. If you'd like to sit down over coffee with me we could go through them sometime, I would appreciate your insight.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Sure, I would love to.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's absolutely a challenge, but I totally agree with you. There will need to be some difficult decisions but if we review something like that, I think there are also opportunities to match some of those grant programs up so people are not actually losing but they're gaining at the end of the day in terms of what service they're able to provide.

With regard to Riverview, I'm sure you're probably aware, it was in the media, that I made a commitment that we will change the legislation on homes for special care. That stemmed out of the abuse cases that came to light. To put it in context, one abuse case of a staff person against a resident is one too many. However, as you probably realized too, that the Protection for Persons in Care Act was a good thing because of the fact that every little detail has to be recorded. That's why sometimes with the abuse cases when that information comes out, it sounds like there are quite a few abuse cases. But it can be as simple as a resident-to-resident, touching somebody on the shoulder and one of the residents, if they want to claim that under that Act, they can and then it's recorded.

That puts a little bit of a different perspective, although as I said, one case is too many. When I was looking at what was taking place at Riverview, and Community Services was working very diligently with the facility and the staff there to bring in training for employees and so forth, I discovered though, looking at that piece of legislation, I thought there has to be a systemic problem here, this is recurring over and over. If I look at the time and the effort that the Department of Community Services was putting in on the training element, that obviously the training element wasn't resolving all that issue.

What I discovered was the fact that the way the legislation was written is that although as a government and as a department, the Department of Community Services was providing a great deal, millions and millions of dollars in funding, however we had no power whatsoever so there was no accountability to us. All we could do is go in very politely and push on recommendations of what needed to be done in that facility or any facility of that nature in the province. That's a position where you have absolutely no control, however the public perception is that it's funded by the Department of Community Services so you must have control over what's taking place there. It was our responsibility for the care of those individuals in the facility yet we had no control over what was happening.

The way that it was set up in legislation was that the board was comprised of municipal councillors that were appointed to that board, that the actual facility was owned by the municipality. If for any reason the facility was closed down, it was their facility, their property to sell so they would make the revenue off the sale of that property. It put us in a very awkward and difficult situation so that's why I've had our legal team look at that and what can we do in terms of giving back control to the Department of Community Services. Ultimately the people living there, it's their home, we're responsible for them and we need to take care of them.

I made the commitment that I wanted that to come through the House for this Spring to become new legislation and we're getting very close that we're going to be able to do that and I am pleased about that. One thing - and once again it comes back to communication - of course that sort of put up the red flag with respect to similar facilities in the province. I assured them that this is not something where the Minister of Community Services is going to go in and do a wipe clean across the province. It was more of a protection too in the future. We have some, like Kings, the board of directors, the work, yes, they're phenomenal. I assured them that this really was to take care of what was going on at Riverview but at the same time to make sure that down the road, years to come, that that protection is there for the individuals who live in those facilities and that the minister had that control.

The other thing is that we're making changes with persons with disabilities to ensure that the small options homes are licensed, which is a very good move. A lot of people just assumed that the small options homes were licensed so they were better placed because of that but they weren't and we're going forward with that. We have budgeted that we will have a team of people who are dedicated to the licensing of the small options facilities. We will also have a team that are dedicated to go into the facilities and make sure that the individuals living there are protected and being taken care of so I'm pleased about those movements forward.

With respect to Cobequid, I haven't had the opportunity to go to Cobequid yet, which is on my list to do, as you can understand all the places. I want to go there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Slightly less than five minutes remaining in the PC caucus time frame.

[6:45 p.m.]

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'll wrap up really quickly then. I have met with parents who have children who go there, young adults, so I can get that perspective. I think that's even important before I go there. The good news on the financial part is that we do have $2.6 million budgeted for the improvements of the second floor.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much. You know there was always another thing to sort of rack in your brain because we talked about the deinstitutionalization of this kind of care, but, at the same time, there are times that we have to have a facility that works for some of these very special cases. I think that's what the idea of Cobequid was, to provide a true home and anything that I know or heard about it, it is a very nice place, a place that is caring and provides the best. It needs a little bit of an expansion and anything we can do there is good.

The last question I do have, I'm just wondering how the child care issue is going. We all received, I think, as MLAs, a number of letters from private operators. I think with best intentions, minister, you met with one group and you probably should have met with both. It is one of those things we learn, as ministers, along the way. So I'm just wondering, I know the private operators might have had a meeting, I believe yesterday or today, so I'm just wondering how that is being ironed out?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm happy to report it has worked very well. Once again, I did not understand or know the history of the two groups and that there are some real issues between non-profit and the private sector. What happened was that we were trying to streamline a grant - two grants into one - and the non-profit sector, when they received the information, identified things that just wouldn't work in that. So I have always said that I am a minister who is open to people talking to me if they have an issue, so they simply picked up the phone and called. I met with them and it wasn't long before the private sector found that out. I guess one minister, at one time when they were being scrummed, made the comment that we would never meet with either/or of those sectors, it would always be together. Well, of course, I didn't know that.

Anyway, they understand that now. I had a discussion with them and I said to them that going forward I'm going to do two things; I am still meeting separately if there's separate issues because there are issues that are very pertinent to just one of those sectors, however, we're meeting together also. The other thing that I encouraged and said that I'd like to do sometime going forward is bring them together and do some work on building a stronger alliance between the two of them and they have agreed to that, so I'm pleased.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, a final comment?

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. There are things we end up learning along the way as we go. Again, you have a phenomenal staff, I still think you have the best deputy in all of government so take care of Judith and I'm sure she'll take care of you, as I said in the little note I left for you when I left, minister.

I'm going to go visit my wife, she's in town. We're going to a wine and cheese and the guest speaker at the wine and cheese is Antonine Maillet who, for those of you who don't know, is, of course La Sagouine, for those of you who know a little bit of Acadian lore. She is a phenomenal comedian but she was also a senator for quite a while. So thank you very much and I'm going to take my leave.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I just want to thank the honourable member and make mention - I think I mentioned it in our Budget Estimates in the Fall - but I was extremely appreciative when I went in to the office of Community Services for the first time and sat down at my desk and there was this wonderful note. The honourable member did not know who he was writing it to at the time but for him to do that and to encourage that new Cabinet Minister to go forth with those positive changes and just giving that support, I thought that was an absolutely fabulous gesture and I thank you for that again. Enjoy yourself this evening.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time is 6:51 p.m., actually it's closer to 6:52 p.m., so we're just sort of a minute over. We have how much time remaining in these estimates? You have an hour coming now? So we have to stop at 8:00 p.m. for sure, so we will have only about eight minutes remaining for the Liberal caucus, then.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Quite simply, Madam Minister, how many people are currently on the caseloads for income assistance in the province?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Presently we would have approximately 28,000 cases, so it is around 44,000.

MR. ZINCK: Will all those individuals see an increase with the new tax credits?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Actually yes, they should, because the Affordable Living Tax Credit is for $30,000 and under so they definitely will all be receiving that credit.

MR. ZINCK: How long should it take and is there a policy in and around a recipient seeing an employment counsellor, how long a process should that be?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It would be like any case, we would work with them on an individual basis with their caseworker, so I'm not quite sure what you mean in terms of the time frame, like setting them up with somebody who works specifically with employment?

MR. ZINCK: Yes, that's the actual case, so when a recipient comes in for supplies for IA, is there a policy as to how long it should take before they are able to see an employment counsellor, or is there no policy?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Presently, honourable member, it would be based on their needs, there's not an actual policy for that, it would almost be like a triaging type of situation.

MR. ZINCK: So if somebody wants to see a counsellor, the caseworker should, based on the recipient applying and going through the application process, is the individual notified that they have that opportunity to see a caseworker, based on their ability to work or find employment? How long should that take?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Well, the caseworker should identify to the individual, if it is discovered that they are eligible for income assistance, then they would make recommendations to that individual of seeing an employment counsellor. Time frame, honestly I don't know what the time frame is because I think it would be based on each individual caseworker and the caseload that they have at that time.

MR. ZINCK: Over the years I would imagine all of us have had questions come to our office in and around caseworkers and the relationships they have with their clients. One of the consistent things that we've had, well I have had in my office over the last number of years, is in and around the possibility or process of changing caseworkers. Oftentimes you'll have a constituent come in and say look, you know I just don't get along with my caseworker, is there a process, can I switch? I think if we could do something around that, it would be great because it is healthy for both parts, the client and the caseworker.

Maybe there has been a relationship that has been pent up in frustration for a number of years and things just aren't moving, so I'm wondering if there is a policy or perhaps some way we can look at a procedure that an individual can go through as far as applying for a new caseworker?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Actually there's not a policy but it would be part of our process that's available upon request from the individual if they want to have another caseworker.

MR. ZINCK: So what would that look like because what we get in our office is a constituent calling and saying, look, I don't get along with my caseworker. I always try to go in and bridge the gap, have a meeting with the caseworker to try to come through that and build on a new relationship. However, if that's not successful, what is the standard or practice for the client to go about changing caseworkers if that's possible, what would that look like?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What we would encourage them to do, now whether they'll have that knowledge base or not, would be to talk to another caseworker because I know it would be a sensitive issue going to the individual that they're not getting along with. As I mentioned earlier, I don't know if you were here when I talked about that, I have created a new secondment position of a navigator, and that's exactly one of the areas the individual would be looking at because as a navigator, I want them to analyze just sort of how easy it is to navigate our system. I know that there are a great deal of challenges there.

So going forward I do know that staff person will be able to analyze those types of situations, make recommendations back to the department and to myself, and also this person will be working very closely with MLAs to help the MLAs navigate Community Services. I think that type of position will always be needed because of just the complexity of cases and the complexity of all the different programs that we do have available. So, you know, I think that's a positive direction to go to because I know that there certainly has to be challenges and frustrations there and probably every MLA would say that they encounter them within their office, too.

MR. ZINCK: I'm going to get on a bunch of different questions because I only have two hours to do this. In the budget, is there any funding for DASC Industries? I'm sure you're well aware of the good work that they've done. They are currently expanding, looking at building a new building, but the wait list continues, and this is something that I've asked in each of the last four years and over a number of budgets, is there any money that you can tell me specifically is being earmarked for DASC Industries to help with bringing down some of those wait lists?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Not specifically right now for DASC but there is an increase in the budget of this year, as I mentioned, that $26 million. There is a portion of the money in that budget that is going to be going towards adult centres. So I would encourage any discussion with myself and my staff on that.

MR. ZINCK: But not specifically that you can tell me would be earmarked for DASC Industries?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: No, not at this point, to be honest.

MR. ZINCK: How about the Family Resource Centres, would they be lumped into the $500,000 that's going to the transition homes, the women's centres, in particular, Bayer's Westwood Family Support Services, and of course, mine on Albro Lake?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The Family Resource Centres would be part of that granting program that a few minutes ago we were talking about, like the 300-some grants that we have, and they are a part of that granting program. As I said, there has not been an increase but there has not been a cut.

MR. ZINCK: I can't stress enough the valuable work that they do in my community, in large part with young folks in and around parenting skills. One of the things they've always said over the years has been the fact that they actually, because of a lack of increase in funding, they don't have the professionals coming in and implementing new programs for them. Another thing that the Family Resource Centres are experiencing are the levels of mental health issues with individuals who are coming into the centres that they're dealing with. So it would be nice to see some of that come.

I would imagine the Boys and Girls Clubs are in that third-party grant proposal as well? I have to have a conversation in the coming weeks with my local Boys and Girls Club, but when I spoke to the executive director recently, she just said, you know, we need to talk because I'm concerned in and around where perhaps the funding might decrease. Can you tell me where the Boys and Girls Club funding is, what it's looking like?

[7:00 p.m.]

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: With regard to the Boys and Girls Club, they would be in that same category as the grant programs and, as I said, I'm very pleased to say that going through the budgeting process and identifying that some grants in the province needed to be cut, there weren't any grants in Community Services cut at all. So, to me, that shows the commitment that our government has to Community Services and those whom we support. I'm also pleased to let you know, with respect to Family Resource Centres, I have met with the provincial representatives of the Family Resource Centres along with the child care centres and started them on the strategic process of working together to identify the needs that are in the communities throughout the province.

I do realize that in the communities there are different needs, there are different pressures between a family resource centre and a child care centre in Yarmouth versus in Bedford and so forth. So they're actually working, we have a facilitator, and what we're doing is we're trying to identify what are all the services that you offer, are there services that are similar throughout the entire province with all the family resource centres, are there services that are just unique to that community?

Then what we're doing is we're looking at breaking it down right to the community level and identifying right in the community. The Family Resource Centres are almost like this umbrella and they're touching in a lot of different areas so we want to look at - and they've agreed to do it and we are doing it - to look at what is being offered in the community and is there a repetition in services, that there are other providers in the community. Once again, that goes back to my discussion on the strengths and weaknesses that different organizations have and to see if we can do some type of an alliance of what's being offered out there because I'm not convinced that there is not repetition in services and I'm not convinced that there's not gaps out there either.

So what we need to do is to look at where we can fill gaps. So there might be services that are not available in a particular rural community that the family resource centre could actually offer. However, they're so stretched thin that they're offering services now that perhaps another organization is actually offering in their community. So I'm working through that strategic exercise as I mentioned before with a lot of stakeholders within the Department of Community Services but the Family Resource Centres is one of the groups that I have been working with and bringing in other groups.

MR. ZINCK: Well, I will just go on record by stating that the family resource centre on Albro Lake Road does a tremendous job and I would love to have further conversations with you in and around the possibilities of increasing funding. They do a tremendous amount of work, unlike any other organization in our community, very valuable in helping young families get established.

You had just made mention to the member for Argyle in and around the additional $25 million that went into the budget; $9 million went into Children and Family Services. Can you explain to me where that money will specifically go within that part of the department?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I just need to find my list where I have that broken down, if you could give me a minute. What we're looking at, honourable member, is that under the Early Childhood Program, we're looking at $57 million and another additional $7 million, so that's an increase of a little bit more than $7 million from last year and that will be going to the Early Childhood Program. The Early Intervention programs are at the same level as last year. The maintenance of children, which is where you'll find the foster parent rate increases, that has gone up from $77 million to a little bit over $79 million. The Children's Aid Societies, you'll actually see a reduction from $11 million to a little bit over $5 million and that's just from the fact that they're moving over to the province. Then the other ones are smaller numbers.

MR. ZINCK: I'm wondering if you can tell me what your philosophy is, or perhaps your government's philosophy, and again, the member for Argyle touched on it, I'm more interested in hearing what your philosophy or opinion is in regard to deinstitutionalization.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I appreciate the question because I have personal experience and there are strong opinions on both sides of this issue and I respect those opinions. I know that provinces throughout Canada have made different moves in that particular area. I really understand what the ultimate goal needs to be for the Department of Community Services and I know that what our staff works from is to take each individual and what's best for that individual. If the small options or community setting is best for the individual, that's what we work towards, although we have a great deal of pressures on the shelters that we have available.

My sister-in-law has a disability and my parents-in-law both died within a month of each other so it was pretty stressful and a terrible situation for my sister-in-law who lived with them all her life, of course. There's where my experiences come from of what the facility, the home that you're living in, how it can affect the individual. Originally she was put in different types of facilities and at the end of the day, the last one that she was put in, for us, has been a godsend and that is the Bonny Lea Farm out in my community. That experience showed me that it's like any one of us - as I mentioned before - our home is our castle and where we live makes a big difference in who we are and how we are as a person.

I toured Riverview, I've been at Riverview and it is home to many individuals and they feel that it is home. As I said with the Kendrick Report, I actually have met with Mr. Kendrick himself and I know that he supports the small options. What I have discovered though is that there are some cases that are so complex in our society that those individuals would have actually a terrible life in the small options home. The resources are not there in the sense that when you're in a small options home you don't have 24-hour medical services, having the psychiatrists and so forth. When you have the larger facilities you have more ability to offer those services that are required.

I believe it's like anything in life, it truly is a balance and in order to have the best care for some individuals - and until you actually are in a situation and become more knowledgeable, you don't realize what complex really even means. I've had people say well, isn't a complex case somebody with Down syndrome? No, no. The complex cases are individuals that have multiple disorders. A disorder where they'll eat anything they can find - I can't remember the name of it - they'll eat furniture, they'll pick at the wall. Areas where it's hard to even wrap your mind around that somebody has to have that type of existence.

I believe there is a balance. I know, as I mentioned, some provinces have gone way to one side of the argument. Deinstitutionalization has taken place in Ontario and that only took place a couple of years ago and they're seeing the results now. They're having a lot of difficulties with it. So that's why I said in terms of the balance, I've met with parents too and you will find there are parents that say thank God there's a larger facility that can be there for my child. Then you have people who want their children and understand that their children are better off in the small options.

One of the things that I recently did, probably about two weeks ago, I met with Wendy Lill, we have actually struck a new group. I met with her and a well-renowned doctor from Canada who works at looking at community-type shelters, and a couple of psychiatrists. We had a very good meeting and we're going forward to looking at what we can do in the area. One gap we're seeing is the younger individuals that need the services in that area from the IWK, what happens when they become an adult is there seems to be a gap in housing for them. At that point the family is asking, what do I do now? I've had that support.

Usually as a young adult, the individuals are living at home and have had the support through the IWK to make that happen. The best situation is to be living home with their family but then when they become a young adult and they no longer are eligible to have the services of the IWK, that's when some of the issues and the pressures are hitting. Recognizing that, I knew we needed to go forth.

That is a brand new group that have come together in the last two weeks to start looking at those issues. I know your direct question was about what my opinion was, but I think I've made it clear that there's a balance, an absolute balance, that we need to have.

MR. ZINCK: Thank you for that. I'm going to go into one of the nastier aspects of the department, well, the part of the department that causes a lot of folks frustration and that's in and around child protection. Can you tell me how many children we currently have in care, both in full-time care and temporary care?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We probably would have approximately 1,700 children under the protection of the Minister of Community Services.

MR. ZINCK: And the breakdown between full-time and temporary care?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I would have to find those, if you could just give me a moment. I don't have them at the top of my head. I don't have the breakdown, I'll get that to you. Unless we find it in between.

MR. ZINCK: Do you have the total there?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The total is 1,700.

MR. ZINCK: Can you tell me how many children that are in the care of the province are currently residing outside of Nova Scotia, either in Canada or in the U.S.?

[7:15 p.m.]

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think approximately 25.

MR. ZINCK: Again, if you could give me the accurate figure.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, I'll get it to you. It's about 1 per cent of the 1,700.

MR. ZINCK: That would be in Canada and the U.S.? Okay. The reason we send children out of the province is because we don't have the capacity or the facilities to care for these, let's call them complex cases. To my knowledge, there was a facility being developed in Truro - where are we at with that facility, as far as the completion of it?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I will find out where we are with that facility. I actually have visited it so I know the facility that you're talking about.

MR. ZINCK: No, not Wood Street. It's not Wood Street. I was informed last year that there was a new home being built specifically for children that have more complex cases so that we wouldn't have to send them out of province or out of country. It was a step three facility, I believe Ms. Vicki Wood in the department had called it.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Actually it is Wood Street, it's an approved project and it's a Level 3. But it is the Wood Street project. As I said, I actually visited that facility.

MR. ZINCK: Okay, so there's the secure facility on Wood Street.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's a part of that.

MR. ZINCK: It's a 30-day program so it's a part of that. This would be a more extensive program than the 30-day security facility?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It is a longer term program, that's why it's at that more extensive level.

MR. ZINCK: The completion of that is going to be when, and are we able to bring some of these individuals back to the province so they can stay here and we can look after them?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The projection is for next year for it to be completed, but we can confirm that for you. It would be our ultimate goal to bring any of the youth that we've sent out of the province back, but we would have to look at each case, as I'm sure you appreciate, individually to see whether bringing them back to that facility would assist them and help them.

MR. ZINCK: When we send children out of province, what sort of checks and balances are put in place to ensure families and relatives of these children that they are getting the placement and the plan that they need, that they aren't at risk? What sort of checks and balances - whether it be in another province in this country or outside the country.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Again, as you can appreciate, every case is an individual case but I do know that we work extremely closely, as much as we can, with the families keeping in mind that this is a real difficult time in a family's life. There's a lot of turmoil. Being a mother of a 17-year-old, I'm very fortunate in that I have a fabulous, wonderful son, but there are things that I have done as a parent to spoil him that I probably shouldn't have done. It's the same situation where there's so much love there and so much turmoil with what that youth is going through that sometimes it's very difficult for the family, the parents or grandparents to understand what the recommendations are in order to help that child turn their life around.

I know that it's very difficult and I appreciate that and I applaud their dedication because I'd be the same way. I'm a mom, you would fight and fight. Sometimes it's very difficult to stand back and realize that actually you're enabling them rather than helping them.

MR. ZINCK: Yes, I understand completely. I guess what I'm trying to get at is in the department, you as the minister, when you sign off on sending a child out of province or out of country, what assurances and mechanisms are put in place for you as the minister in relationship with the organization that is now looking after the child that was in your care? Is there a reporting system? Do you have somebody on site that visits with the individual to make sure they're getting the proper treatment and the proper placement? Do they report back to the department and on with what type of regularity would they report back?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Firstly, I have those numbers so I'll answer your question, I'll give you the breakdowns. As I mentioned, there are 1,700 children in our care, 1,100 in foster care, 800 would be in foster homes and that would equate to 600 in permanent care and then there are 23 children who are actually outside of Nova Scotia.

The question with respect to the system, any of the youth or children who are being taken outside the province, there is a communication system within the department. I am always briefed, they come to me as the minister and will explain that situation. I get the entire briefing so I have the knowledge base of what the case is about. There is a caseworker, of course, that is assigned. The caseworker maintains contact with the family, the caseworker maintains contact with the facility that the youth is sent to plus makes visits to the facility and so there is that level of communication taking place at all times so we can keep up-to-date with the progress of the youth.

MR. ZINCK: When a child is apprehended there is an assessment done on the family in order to get their child back. The assessment takes place, I believe, by the IWK, it's on Young Street and it's where family members will come in and friends of the family and the parents will come in and they'll be assessed. I'm wondering if you can tell me what the annual budget is or would be for those assessments?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I don't have the details here, I will get that for you. That would fluctuate because it depends on - we'll pay for whatever it costs to do that so that's why there would be a fluctuation in the numbers.

MR. ZINCK: Would it be the Department of Community Services, the Department of Health, the Department of Justice, who would pay for that? Would it come out of your budget or would it be a shared responsibility?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It actually comes out of the Department of Community Services budget. It's under that line that says Child and Family Welfare Maintenance.

MR. ZINCK: Why would the parents have to give their MSI number when they go for these assessments? Why do they have to present this to the assessors beforehand?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Honestly I don't know. I can find out. If it's done through the health care system, through the IWK, I'm just assuming that that's part of the process to keep records and data. I can find out for sure if that's what it is because I'm surmising that's what the reason would be.

MR. ZINCK: When individuals go in for these assessments, if they're not happy with the assessment done, do they have an opportunity to have money budgeted to have an outside entity or an outside professional do another assessment?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again, that would be on an individual basis and we're always open to going back to the caseworker and expressing that concern or disagreement with the assessment coming through our department. Also, we have information that the caseworker is provided through that that says, if I don't agree, how do I basically appeal that decision? So there is a mechanism in place to enable people to have an appeal of that decision.

MR. ZINCK: Some of the cases that go before the courts, the Water St. law firms, Blois, Nickerson & Bryson oftentimes represent the government before the courts and against these families. Can you tell me what the cost of the two-year contracts with some of these law firms would be to the government?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Are you looking at what specifically comes out of our budget line? That's one of those other things that will fluctuate because it depends on the complexity of the case and how long we have contracted out the legal firm and then that will go through the Department of Justice.

MR. ZINCK: Perhaps at a later time you can give me some sort of sense as to what it has been maybe over the last number of years. I know obviously it would fluctuate based on the cases.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That would be a Department of Justice budget but we can ask that question of them and get back to you but it would be a part of the Department of Justice budget because they're the ones that legal services are contracted through.

MR. ZINCK: The Department of Community Services would source it out to the Department of Justice and then they would cover the fees? It wouldn't come out of the Department of Community Services budget, is that what I'm hearing?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What happens is that the Department of Justice contracts out the legal services, they pay and then they would charge it back to us for that cost.

MR. ZINCK: Assuming that the government pays the Barristers' Society fees for these Department of Justice lawyers, what is the cost to the government for these fees? What would that look like?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I would have to find that. That would come, once again, through the Department of Justice. I wouldn't have the answer to that through the Department of Community Services.

MR. ZINCK: Yes, perhaps we can have a further discussion about that another time. When a child is in the care of the province and they find themselves in a group home, oftentimes they become anointed with a number of individuals who are also in care and sometimes they get in trouble. Once they get in trouble they are turned over to the justice system and end up usually in, let's say, a place like Waterville. Once they're in Waterville, can I assume that they are no longer in care of the Department of Community Services, that it's the sole responsibility for those individuals on behalf of the Department of Justice?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The youth, until they're 16 years of age, would always be under the care of the Department of Community Services.

MR. ZINCK: Let's say they're 14 years old, they get in trouble with the law, they end up in Waterville. Now they're under the realm of the Department of Justice. Does your department communicate with the Department of Justice in and around the specifics with that individual or does that individual reside there under the realm of the Department of Justice and then when they come back out they're back in care basically of the Department of Community Services?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: There would always be communications, there still would be the caseworker. Our responsibility is community service because the youth would still be under our care so there would be communication between our caseworker representing the youth and the justice system because they're acting like a parent, they're under our care.

MR. ZINCK: I know you haven't been in the department long enough maybe to formulate this opinion, do you think that we have a social worker crisis in this province currently? That wouldn't be a negative statement to make, I don't think. I know I've had a lot of conversations around the child protection piece in the last number of years. I personally think that we really do, simply because of the stress levels and the difficult situations that social workers find themselves in in dealing with some of these cases, that it's my opinion that sometimes we see a lot of folks fall off and it's a great loss to the department and in that particular part of the department because of the stresses.

[7:30 p.m.]

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Just to clarify, are you talking in terms of the number of social workers available in the province versus the whole aspect of the pressures of being employed in social work?

MR. ZINCK: I guess what I'm getting at is in that particular part, in the child protection part of the Department of Community Services, do you feel we have a crisis with the amount of social workers or lack of social workers that we have? I say that not in a negative sense, but only in what I've witnessed in the last four years as an MLA, because of the complexities and the difficulties that surround these cases and the stresses that it would put on an individual, do you feel that maybe we need to offer these individuals some more supports to keep them in that part of the department?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What I would say is that I do understand, it's sort of the nature of the beast, the fact of the stress level with social work. Because of the complexities of the cases that we're seeing and the increase in pressures in Community Services it certainly would be natural there would be high levels of stress.

Through our department we have an Employee Assistance Program so we do have a support system for the social workers when they need to call upon that type of expertise.

MR. ZINCK: When a child is apprehended from a family there's always a risk assessment put in place before the child is apprehended. However, one of the problems I've had great difficulty with over the last number of years is the fact that once the child is in the care of the province and the Department of Community Services, there is no risk assessment put on the government or the Department of Community Services. What happens is, you have the five-day period where the family has to appear before court to present their case, the department presents their case as to why they apprehended. The judge determines whose plan is going to work. Visitations are subsequently set up.

However, the child is in the care of the province for whatever period of time, there's no real checks or balances put in place as to how that child is treated by the province. Do you see that changing? I bring it up because I've seen a number of children go through the system in the last four years that I've personally been in contact with and families that have been affected by it.

What you have set up is, you have a child that's apprehended, that unfortunately might not find a placement that they really need. The child goes through this system for whatever number of years and they develop real attachment issues. When a child is taken and the family has to jump through so many hoops, all of a sudden when the child is taken, that's the main focus of the department. There's no real supports put in place for those parents to deal with the anguish of having a child taken away.

Obviously, what happens down the road, maybe the family will have another child. As soon as they have that child, they're right back into the hands of the department. What I'd like to see, or the difficulty I have, is part of the healing process. We have kids in care for 7, 8, 9 years and they're reading at Grade 4 levels so it's a question of what opportunities did we take or not take with that individual when they had us in care.

Often you hear young individuals say they haven't seen their social worker for a year, or they've bounced around from group home to group home. Unfortunately, when that happens, you're a direct reflection of the five people that you have immediately around you. If they're all in similar situations, it becomes damage control.

For the families who are affected by this, again, it's that healing piece, what is offered up to them with regard to healing and becoming not just better parents but better individuals as well. So if they do find themselves in the circumstances of having another child, perhaps they're able to exercise better judgment.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I certainly appreciate your experience, you have dealt with individuals who have lived that, so I will take all that into account. We do know, though, that rather than putting the children in a home of some type, a group home, that they're better off with a foster family. I had the honour of being at award ceremonies of children who have grown up through the foster family program and it was an amazing event that actually I think changed my life, to see how well many have done through the foster parent system. That is why I think we need to work as a province, but we need to work as a society, to encourage individuals to be foster parents. That's why I am very happy that we can give that 10 per cent increase.

As I said earlier, if there was a rainbow with a pot of money at the end of it, I would be the one, I think, in the province having a field day because I'd love to be standing there passing it out to all who need it. We need to go forward and that's why I'm pleased with that increase, and also doing an educational promotional marketing program encouraging people to think about being foster parents.

I certainly invite you to give me more of your thoughts in that area, any solution-oriented recommendations that you have if you see that those gaps are there and that you have experienced them personally with the work that you have done as an MLA. I think that one thing we always have to remember is that we always can improve ourselves and we can always improve this system. We should know that life is lifelong learning and that we can always learn to do better and I'm more than willing to entertain any recommendations or thoughts that you have.

MR. ZINCK: I'm glad to hear that because one of the things that I've recognized in the last four years, and again I'll go on to say that it's probably one of the most frustrating things, as an MLA, that I deal with. In large part it's because I have such a concentration of impoverished, marginalized individuals trying to raise families. Oftentimes what happens is child protection will become involved in a case, a teacher will reach out because a child is hungry and they'll call the department, not knowing the repercussions of that, and then the intrusion into that family's life that takes place, so it's an education process for everybody.

The recommendation that I would make would be the fact that when you have a family that has been identified as possibly at risk - and I'll go on record as saying look, I know and have been witness to a number of families that I honestly believe are not fit to raise a child and are absolutely in need, that child is absolutely in need, but I've seen a number of cases where families have come and said look, child protection is involved, they want to take my child but I don't have the resources. My child is hungry because I can't afford food or my partner has left and it's the daily stresses.

When they reach out for help from the department what happens is, and what has happened and what I've experienced, is that it's a trigger mechanism and we automatically go into defence mode, we automatically go in to protect that child and start building a case in order to take that child from that family.

My recommendation would be to rally as many resources around, either from the community or within the department, be it mental health assessments or whatnot, financially. Families are crying out for that kind of help, to keep the integrity of the family together instead of pulling it apart and then saying, we want to work with you so that you can have your child back. That's a real, real important piece that I think really needs to happen.

I'll ask you to please take that back, it's four years of experience of seeing too many families destroyed that way, good people.

The Minister's Advisory Committee on Children and Family Services Act has been a real thorn in my side for the last number of years. If you check Hansard, I bring it up every year in the form of a question.

I know there have been some recent appointments. Can you tell me if that is fully staffed now, is it active and are we finally going to see a report from that committee? I know it has been a struggle finding placements. I know per diems are an issue and again, I can tell you it's my experience, I've sat in on meetings, it's predominantly staffed by members of the Department of Community Services, which kind of lends me to have some difficulties with some of the responses that might come out, but are we going to finally see a report come out of that committee?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I would like to make a comment, in closing, to the other issues that you were speaking of and as I said, I will take those recommendations back. I think honestly, the Department of Community Services, as I mentioned before, the staff are absolutely dedicated. The first criterion for us is the safety of that child so there is fear there, like what if we don't protect this child, where are we going to be left? I mean, how can we live with ourselves, as a caseworker, or me, as the Minister of Community Services, if something happened to that child in that home because we just did not predict it?

But saying that, I do agree with you that there is no reason we cannot look at, is there another way of doing what we're doing, in terms of providing support around that family? I think there are things we could probably do and that we could talk further about doing. You may want to make some suggestions, concrete suggestions of what you envision that to be.

I just wanted to make sure that on record, the reason for the quick movement is the safety and well-being of that child. What was your second question?

MR. ZINCK: The minister's advisory committee, will we see a report?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That committee is almost fully staffed. The difficulty with that committee is the position of having an individual that has been involved with family services. You can appreciate the fact that there's not very many people who want to sit around a committee that people have public knowledge about that have been in the system. That has been the real challenge, is the criteria that has been set out in the past, which you can understand that when that criteria was set out it was to be able to have the perspective of somebody who has been involved in the welfare system and has had a child in the welfare system, but yet being able to find an individual willing to do that has been extremely difficult and we're almost there with that. Then certainly once that committee has been fully formed again, we will go forward with what their duties are and I'll make sure that I'll be monitoring that because I know it's very important to have that committee as a functional committee and I have the full understanding of that. So we're almost there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Approximately five minutes left for the member for Dartmouth North.

MR. ZINCK: I'll end on two questions. Last year I had a wonderful opportunity to participate in a pilot program that I believe came through the Our Kids Are Worth It program of the former Tory Government. It was a pilot project called WRAP. When there was an individual who found themselves in trouble in the community, young people, what this pilot program did was it brought all the stakeholders together - professionals, family friends, persons of influence in this individual's life and I had the opportunity to do it on a number of occasions and some real good successes came out of it, I believed, in and around mainly getting everybody on the same page, allowing everyone involved with the individual to understand their roles and responsibilities so that there is a more cohesive approach to getting this young person to where they need to be.

[7:45 p.m.]

I was sad to find out recently that the program has been discontinued and I'm wondering if you can tell us, was it successful? Are we looking at a different model of that? I found it to be a very good exercise, both for the stakeholders who participated but also more importantly for the individual that was at risk.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I would definitely look into that particular program. I wasn't aware of it but I will find out more information.

The last question you asked about the report, just so I can go back to that, I don't know, maybe you weren't aware that there is one that came out on March 7, 2008 that's on-line, but you're talking about the committee up and functioning in a new report, new information coming from it? Okay.

With respect to that particular program, I will look into it and I'll let you know what the status is.

MR. ZINCK: Mr. Chairman, that would be great because, like I said, it was definitely a great exercise for all individuals.

What do I want to ask now with such little time?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You can ask me other times too, it doesn't have to be today.

MR. ZINCK: Child care - sadly, I'm only allotted so much time in the budgetary process as an Independent - but it has been such a contentious issue over the years, private, non-profit, philosophies, beliefs, some of the lowest paid workers in the child care sector in all of Canada in this province. The funding mechanisms coming in periodically, six-month announcements. Are we going to see this government come out at any time in its first mandate with their own child care strategy?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I would say yes in the fact of when I say a strategy it will be the direction that I'm hoping that the department will take with child care. I understand that there are many challenges there, private versus non-profit and also with regard to the whole aspect of early years. There are so many components there and I do recognize the fact that there has been a lot of money invested and there has been a 10-year plan. We're about five years in the 10-year plan. Some of the directions, little changes that we've made is, I've set aside $2 million for child care centres, new ones that will be associated with a school or built on a school and I could go on for hours of the significance of that. Anytime, we can chat.

MR. ZINCK: I want to thank the minister and her staff. Unfortunately I only had the two hours to go through a number of questions but it's a good exercise and I know your heart's in it. Like I said, I can only express the fact that I hope that you continue to push on the important issues, especially around the social justice piece for Nova Scotians.

I'll leave you with one thing that I would really like to see and I know you've already started this when you first came in on some national meetings. The last $120 million that came down federally, the stimulus money for housing was much needed, the largest funding we've seen come down. I know one of our local MPs, Megan Leslie, has put a bill forward in the House for a national housing strategy. We really need to see - no matter what political stripe federally - a more consistent effort in hopes that it's not piecemeal, that every two years we would see an influx of money or every five years we would see some money because we really need to get that piece, that housing, that shelter piece put together.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Just quickly, we've supported and, believe me, I have pushed Minister Finley on it and I will still push her.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have about eight minutes remaining and I was just advised a few moments ago that the member for Cape Breton South, speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus, had indicated that the Liberal caucus is prepared to wrap up this evening. We're not sure about the PC caucus but I was advised that the minister perhaps could be prepared for a closing statement tomorrow when we resume. If we hear otherwise, we will advise both the Liberal and PC caucus if there is an intent to continue somewhat more with questioning, but if you could prepare your closing statement, that would be great. I'm sorry to eat into a minute of your time with the preliminaries here.

The honourable member for Bedford-Birch Cove.

MS. KELLY REGAN: Back to our transition houses we were talking about the other day, the line item Transition Houses and Intervention Programs estimate, the line item indicates $6.09 million down from $6.2 million. I'm wondering what is included in this line item? Is it specifically allocated to women's shelters? Where is that additional money that was announced?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The additional money actually is presently sitting in the deputy minister's budget.

MS. REGAN: So while there is an additional $500,000 that's coming from the deputy minister's budget, in fact the budget for transition houses, the regular budget, is down by $0.11 million, is that correct?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The difference would be in respect to the 1 per cent rate increase in wages versus what was budgeted at the 2.9 per cent.

MS. REGAN: Now, I know that the line was underspent the last fiscal year. The estimate for last year was $6.2 million and the forecast was, in fact, $6.02 million. Can you tell me why it was underspent?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The difference was based on that 2.9 per cent. The $6.206 million was based on the 2.9 per cent budgeted amount and the following amount that you're speaking of, the reduction is a reflection of the 1 per cent. So we paid out 1 per cent, that's where your difference is.

MS. REGAN: I guess I'm surprised that we would have decreased the funding to transition houses when we know that, in fact, they haven't had increases in years. This is a vital area and I just think it's a little disingenuous to say we have $500 million here - or $500,000, sorry, wishful thinking - that we're going to give to transition houses and women's centres oh, but we've decreased your budget over here so really that doesn't have quite the same effect, does it?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The difference of what you're talking about is operational money versus salaries. So there has been no decrease, there's actually the increase, the $500,000, and the others would be respect. Now, when you say that they haven't received an increase in years, they haven't received an increase in years in the operational funding except for this year our government coming in and giving the $500,000. What you're speaking of is in the contractual and that of the salaries but over the years the transition houses have always received an increase in salary.

MS. REGAN: I understand that, but the problem is, salaries are a part of operational, yes? This is what the transition houses have told me, their problem is that salaries keep going up and their workers keep getting increases - which is great - but the problem is if their funding remains level and salaries are going up, they keep taking more and more out of the total budget. The problem with that is they actually have to lay off staff so they can meet the salary increases.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: But the actuality of the budgeting is that the salaries have always been separate. They should be separate from operational and now if a board of directors has decided to go into their operational funding through their fundraising or whatever, that's not the way it should be set up. The way it's set up through our program and for the transition houses is that the salaries are separate and it's right across the province. Everybody knows that the increase has been 1 per cent and that's the way it is for everybody. The other money should be operational, and probably the reason, because of financial pressures or pressures in the needs in the community and the needs of their services.

I know that there's a lot of pressure on the transition houses so I can see there might have been an overlap of budgeting with respect to do that because of the service demands they've been facing. In accounting practices, actually the operational funding is separate and that's how we indicate it to the transition houses when we fund them, that is different than your salaries and it was a whole different budgeting for the salary increases over the years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, one minute left.

MS. REGAN: I think that maybe what I should just do is stop. This is my little present to you this evening.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You're sweet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, you have 30 seconds to wrap up for tonight.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm glad it's over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It may not be, we will find out tomorrow. (Interruption) She will be doing closing remarks tomorrow and then her resolution. But, there could possibly be some more question time, we're not sure about the PC caucus yet.

Thank you very much and we are finished for the night.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 7:55 p.m.]