HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2011

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

5:00 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, members, and guests, we will resume the Subcommittee on Supply with the Department of Community Services. The start time is five o'clock, and I would like to welcome in attendance today the members of Local 47 of the Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union. Thank you for being with us today.

 

We're going to begin with the Liberal caucus. There are 44 minutes remaining from where we left off on Friday. We will begin with the member for Glace Bay.

 

MR. GEOFF MACLELLAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, minister. I'd like to also welcome our guests from Local 47. In that vein, I just want to start with a few questions related to the wage parity issue that we discussed on Friday. I guess to open, what consideration has been given to the parity in wages and benefits for similar groups of employees across the various authorities? If parity exists for acute care employees, for home support workers, and within the civil service, why not for the regional housing employees?

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much, member, I appreciate the question. I realize that these are very difficult and stressful times for people. I can relate - growing up in a household where my dad went on strike several times, and how stressful and difficult that can be. My husband has been in those situations in the past, so I certainly understand the stress level, and at the same time the level of stress for those people living in the apartments and in the units. For us as a department, it's key for us to be prepared to make sure that the services are still available to those individuals, because we don't want to disrupt their lives.

 

 

299

 

The one thing that I have to say to you is that these issues can be extremely complicated. What I learned over the years, from the experiences that I went through in my family, is that at the end of the day the resolution has come at the collective bargaining table. There is a reason for that process, and it's a process that we do have to respect and allow both sides to work out their issue without any interference. That's what we have to do in all cases, in these situations. We've seen more than one, and if you look back they have been resolved at the bargaining table.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Does DCS have any sort of feel in this particular case - could the department identify what the additional costs would be to reach this parity in wages and benefits? Have you been presented with any numbers to show that this is what it would take for this local to achieve parity? Do you have anything related to that, or does that department?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again, you can break it down and look at each individual case that comes to the department, but you also have to look at how there can be similar situations throughout the entire province in all different areas. I'm aware of the issue; however, as I just said to you, it really isn't my place to be interfering in a process that has worked over and over again, and that's at the collective bargaining table. It is a process that has a purpose and a reason, and if you analyze how many employers and employees have resolved their issues, it has been at the bargaining table.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I understand that part. We did speak on Friday about this, and then at other times we've had the opportunity. I sort of struggle with how - and I called it a sub-department, but you used "division," which makes sense, and housing is a division of DCS. The housing authorities - certainly the one in Cape Breton that I'm so familiar with and so aware of the importance and vitalness of their role - are not technically - would you classify them as employees? They're part of the DCS family, if you will, in terms of the work they do, but then when it comes to wage issues and parity, I know that the Cobequid Housing Authority and Eastern Mainland have different wage levels and wage structures than other parts, say, Cape Breton Regional or metro. How does it work? Are they part of that family, and why aren't the wages and benefits reflected in that relationship?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: As you know, in our discussions back and forth, I expressed my concerns and my feelings for the individuals who are on both sides of this, on those who are striking and how that can affect them, emotionally and personally, and their families, and also those people who live in those apartments and how they must feel. I also expressed to you that it is very complicated, and that's why the issues - you can't pull out just one issue and focus on that. It may seem to be the prime issue in people's minds, and they feel that way and rightly so. However, there are many issues that come to the table, and that is why we really shouldn't have interference in that process. Both sides know their issues intimately, and that's why it is not fair for somebody in my position to not regard and respect that process.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I do understand that. It's just, for me, at the end of the day, it's a budgetary issue and it's a human resources issue and this is under the DCS envelope. So other than the housing authority being a division, there is no direct involvement in these issues in terms of DCS? It's just the results of collective bargaining? They stand and there is no other involvement from the minister or the department?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: As I said, it is very important for that process to take place. We're hoping that both sides will see and understand that and come to the table. That is the appropriate place for discussion. Many things can be taken out of context that a minister may say, so that can be unfair to one side or the other side. I do not want to jeopardize either side's ability to negotiate for what they want, and that's why it needs to stay at the bargaining table.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I guess I'll switch gears a little bit and talk about the affordable housing struggles we have in the province. There are certainly some major challenges, and for me, again, part of our previous discussion was about the cycle of poverty and how we deal with those things. I can honestly say that with respect to the other social challenges in this province - and in the country, in fact - affordable housing is one of those key components that breaks the cycle. What I understand - well, I don't understand, I know - from my time, my 10 months in Glace Bay as the MLA, is that we get literally hundreds of constituents on housing-related files and we've got a waiting list in the ballpark of about 300 just for Glace Bay and area.

 

I know the waiting list for affordable housing for the Cape Breton Island Housing Authority is about 800. From what I understand from the metro region, we're in the vicinity of probably 2,000. I've just sort of guesstimated that we're in the range of 3,500 on the waiting list for affordable housing. Do you have any kind of numbers in terms of the aggregate, of how many people in Nova Scotia are waiting for affordable housing?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Presently we have about 5,400 eligible applicants, and it includes 5,070 new applicants and 350 transfer requests from existing public housing tenants. Some of the challenges in addressing the wait-list include the factors about availability. I know when you say wait-lists, one of the things you have to also look at is the fact that on the surface a wait-list sounds like the individual is waiting for a housing unit and hasn't had the opportunity to go into a housing unit, and that's not the fact. There's many times where individuals will select particular housing units that they want to live in and they might be offered a housing unit that they have declined. We do have people who have declined because it's either not the housing unit that they want or the community or the location that they want.

 

Presently under our numbers there are about 500 vacant or unallocated public housing units, which is 4.5 per cent, but there are many factors around the vacancy also. The vacancy is supply and demand. There are some communities where, when we do those types of statistical figures, there are some areas where people no longer want to live. So then that's why those housing units are vacant, because there's nobody waiting to get into those particular spots.

 

As you know and as I've said in the House, in the last two years, because of the stimulus funding we have had the marvellous opportunity - the first time in decades - to invest $128 million into housing in the Province of Nova Scotia, and that is substantial. Along with that, we are working on a new housing strategy and some really interesting initiatives to work toward reducing the number on that waiting list.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I do see that in my region and across the province, as the critic. I think they're termed chronic vacancies, and there certainly are a number of those, although in my own experience, in my own riding, I would say that the people I deal with are literally sleeping on family members' or friends' couches, or they're sleeping in a car in drastic, desperate cases. The lion's share of the people I see will go virtually anywhere. So it becomes a transportation issue and a disconnect with family and supporters if they're in a chronic vacancy sort of area and they're out away from the major bus routes and those types of things. It's certainly a problem, and I don't think that's a major issue in terms of the policy or the set-up of these units. Because of their location, chronic vacancies are a small issue, but I don't think it's the major cause for the waiting lists.

 

One thing we do see often, and again, this is something we've discussed before - it's probably a perception issue just about as much as it is a problem with the department, in terms of getting vacant units ready, and I know that my colleague the member for Victoria-The Lakes brought up an issue on Friday. People are waiting, and again, they're resorting to desperate measures to keep a roof over their heads and for their children. Houses are vacant, and I know with absolutely no question that some of these houses can be there a year or longer, depending on the circumstances. I know they can need significant amounts of improvements and there are standards. I realize that. People drive by these units and they see them vacant, and they're saying, we've been on a list and they're still not being repaired and they're boarded up, or there are problems.

 

So what specifically, in this budget and in some of the decision making around the budget, has been done to address those maintenance issues? It doesn't look like there has been any initial or additional investment into those, the maintenance crews or the maintenance programs. However, was money readjusted or reallocated? Was there any part of the process that focused on those vacancies to get them up to par a little bit quicker in terms of overtime hours or additional crews or anything of that nature?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: When you look at the $128 million investment, that investment has moved along housing opportunities and vacancies with that type of investment.

 

This is not a simple problem. There are many reasons why the turnaround times could be slowed down with respect to renovations. We can always do a better job, and it's one area that we do focus on. I think it's important when you look at the whole housing component that you don't look at just one particular issue, as with the vacancy rates. There are many different reasons for that.

 

What we need to look at is an overall strategy that has never existed in this province. It's this government that has taken the lead on that, to look at the strategy, and also I've mentioned many times over that this is something a province cannot do on its own. It needs its federal partners at the table, and unfortunately it has been very difficult to get the federal government to the table with regard to a housing strategy. At any of the federal-provincial-territorial meetings that I would attend, whether I represented Status of Women or as the Seniors Minister or on social services, this issue continually is brought to the table, that we have to have a housing strategy to be able to support the issues surrounding housing and the housing needs that are there.

 

You are also aware of the fact that this minister and this government have been very open to work with partnerships to see if there are any opportunities, which we have done specifically in the Cape Breton area with the university. We've had meetings and many conversations and are working on some strategies in that respect. We also have brought housing and homelessness advocacy groups together for the first time in Nova Scotia, along with some of the landlords.

 

There are many new things that are on the table. It does take time; you can't take 250 years of a certain way this province has been governed and those areas that have been very sadly neglected, and that's why. It took years to get to the position that we are in with the numbers that I recited to you. Therefore we cannot resolve that overnight. I wish I had a magic wand to do that and resolve many issues in the Department of Community Services.

 

What it takes is to develop relationships, invite people in to present their suggestions and to work together in partnerships and to be very strategic. We can all, as humans, be very impatient, and I know it's difficult because of the many years that these areas have been neglected. People have a right to be impatient, but you have a new government that sees things differently and is there to work with the people, to be able to develop a strategy that will work in the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

I would also encourage you as a politician to work very diligently to put the pressure on the federal government level to come out with a - this is a perfect time, when we're in an election, to put that pressure on. Where do they stand, each and every Party, on a housing strategy?

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I certainly agree with the idea of partnerships. You did briefly mention one, and I just want to delve into that specific partnership, if I may - the Affordable Housing Renovation Partnership from Cape Breton University and the Faculty of Political Science, Tom Urbaniak being the lead.

 

Basically, to paint a picture as a review, in Cape Breton, as you know, with a waiting list of 800, there's certainly a very crucial and I would say urgent need for affordable housing. We also have a very proud legacy, which I'm certainly a part of, of a mining history in our region. What we have in many neighbourhoods in many parts of the Island are abandoned company homes. There are hundreds on the Island just in the industrial area alone.

 

What AHRP looks to do is they've identified and constructed a very comprehensive - and very modest, I think, in terms of how we get to the finish line - business plan for dealing with these company house vacancies as well, with the goal of providing affordable housing. So they take these abandoned company homes and they look at which ones would be demolished because they're beyond repair. They would look to create some funds for the CBRM to help with that, because the CBRM has a budget of, I think, about $50,000 a year. At $5,000 per unit, that doesn't get you very far when you have hundreds. What this does is it saves a legacy in our community: these company homes that the miners and their families lived in for generations and generations. Again, I feel very fortunate that I live in a company home, and my mom still does.

 

Creating a plan that takes these homes that are salvageable and making modest improvements that first and foremost fit with the code in providing affordable housing for families is a pretty lofty goal, but it's a great start. It protects these legacy homes and it provides affordable housing. There is a component to the business plan that creates ownership so that the families don't just rent there; that's their home, and it could be a rent-to-own or a purchase situation, depending on the circumstances.

 

Another important part of it that is a socially-minded concept is that they take away from some of the stigma of the regional housing units. They make the community broader in terms of what the demographics are and those kinds of things. I think it's an incredible idea, and again, the ask to the province is very modest. They talk about expediting the transfer process, creating a tax credit for donations so these things aren't caught up in process and allowed to continually deteriorate, and also a revolving fund that would provide for some of this demolition and some of the improvements to the homes. Finally, the flexibilities to the RRAP, which you were very familiar with - you did meet with this group and we do appreciate that. I know you were interested in the concept.

 

In general, where do you see this going? What were parts of that business plan and the presentation that you thought were doable, and which ones do you think would have to be left on the back burner?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: There are several points. You've made quite a few there that I need to address for you. First, I think it's important to note that in 2009 alone, we invested $13 million in social housing in Cape Breton, and that $13 million created 79 new units. When you look at the number on the waiting list versus how much it costs, that $13 million equates to 79. As you can understand, we would like to be able to do more. One of the other issues is actually because of the election. It is holding up the AHRP agreement with the federal government, so we're not quite sure what's going to come down the pipeline with regard to that.

Now as you mentioned with this group, the AHRP, not only have I met with them, I have e-mailed them back and forth quite a few times. They will tell you that as soon as I got an e-mail and they asked to meet with me and gave me some information, there was a stream of e-mails going back and forth - not only to coordinate the meeting but also to discuss what their recommendations are.

 

They've done a report. What we asked them is - once again, I have discovered quickly in this job that there are more than two sides to a story. There are 10 different sides. If you're going to do a good job you have to turn over every bit of information and make sure that when you're making a decision you're making it on good, solid, factual information, not rumours, and not what people want you to think of. It has to be on factual information. We had some good heart-to-heart talks with the group.

 

There were two areas that they were looking at. They were looking at homes that would come on the market and how we could assist them in purchasing that home before it was lost off the market to somebody else, because they would see that - like a new home or an older home that was being sold, that might be in a great position for them to purchase. We also talked to them about who the clientele are, exactly. It's very important to not just look at, okay, we have a structure that's a home and anybody will want to live in that home, because that's not the fact - people have particular areas that they want to live in in a community - and who would fit the criteria and the needs of that home. So that was another area that we talked to the group about to make sure that they're very clear on that, and I know that they've worked with some non-profit groups.

 

The other issue that we saw, too - and I personally went to Cape Breton to have a tour and to look at the homes that you're talking about, the company homes. I know that they're very traditional and there's a lot of history behind them. People are tied very closely with those homes. Some of them can be renovated, but others - and I'm sure you've seen this, how because of the way that they were structured and built, they're falling in the middle where they're joining together - because they're a separate home, so it's two homes in one.

 

So we have to be very careful that we just don't say, okay, we're going to create that into a home for somebody, just because it's empty. There are going to be a lot of issues down the road, particularly insurance issues - whether an insurance company will even insure the home - and also the structural. How long will that particular structure last? You can see how they're settling in and how the roofs are caving in in some situations. So we don't want to take public dollars and put them into a home that somebody only has 10 years in, and then the home - you have all these structural issues.

 

This group is a very good group to work with, and they understand that. They know that there are some areas where we may be able to do some new housing and some cluster housing. So we asked them for a proposal. We have met with them many times and have been very specific on what we need. They have come back with another proposal. April was actually the deadline for that proposal, and they have come back. I haven't had an opportunity to review it because it's new.

 

I think that you made comment with respect to houses looking like public housing, that people recognize that, and I invite you to go with the staff to see some of the new housing that's being developed in your area and in Cape Breton. It's just incredible. There are some that look like Victorian houses that fit right into the landscape of the community. Going by, you would never, ever identify that that was public housing.

 

We're looking at all sorts of aspects of housing. We're looking at what's called visitability in housing, and that means that you may be young, but if your family members or parents are elderly, lots of times they cannot visit you because it's not accessible. So we're trying to educate people in that respect. We're looking at all those areas when we are building public housing. It's different than it was years ago, when there were two or three storeys. We have to take our aging population into account. We have to take into account people with disabilities in the province.

 

On top of what I was mentioning to you, we are presently building another 15 new homes in the Sydney area. Those will be completed in the next two years. These are the Victorian-style houses that I'm talking about, and as I said, I invite you to talk with our housing staff and have an opportunity to visit those houses. You will be quite impressed with them.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I am familiar with the new units. You know, an injection of 15 is certainly great, and I don't disagree that those steps are significant investments, but again, when you look at the aggregate number, I think there has to be some kind of an accompanying partnership and some kind of relief that comes from outside the DCS, as we've said.

 

In terms of the units and the stigma, this is where I grew up, so I'm not necessarily referring to the home or the style of the home. I'm talking about the neighbourhood in itself, and that becomes the area of town that has certain demographics and certain perceptions about what that is. It's not so much about the unit, how it's built, or how it looks. It's more about the perception and the fact that it ties into the social structuring and the social layers that we don't want to see, not necessarily the home itself.

 

In your reply you mentioned new homes and the purchasing of new homes, or relatively new homes. I've never heard that. I didn't see that as part of the business plan component, so I'll have to take a look. It is a lengthy document. Any homes that would become part of this stock, or potentially, I know full well - again, they're my stomping grounds. I know that many of them wouldn't be salvageable. Then they're looking at the land components. So the house is demolished because the joists are sinking and the roof is coming down. I wouldn't expect or suggest that homes aren't following code or that that wouldn't be the target.

 

What is happening here - and you're making the point for me - one example, and it's the example that they used as their first model home for the AHRP program, is that these homes are purchased for literally $3,000 or $4,000 on a tax sale by a developer who may or may not develop that property. What happens is you have a 100-year-old company home and it sits for five more years because the developer can't decide whether or not he or she's going to make it into a rental unit, and then says, you know what, it's not worth the effort, I'll just let it go to tax sale. It ends up back in the tax sale and gives the developer another five-year window. Then all of a sudden a home that would have been usable 10 years ago has now gone so far beyond repair with no heat, no attention to the plumbing, no attention to anything, and then it becomes destined for the wrecking ball. We can thwart that much earlier if we have some kind of strategy.

 

I do invite anyone who wants to come and take a look at what I mean in terms of these clusters of homes that are salvageable but currently abandoned. If we let them go based on whether or not they're adequate or what their style is, then I think we're missing an opportunity. That's one I don't think we should let go.

 

Can you discuss the revision you mentioned about the new proposal? What was it that you were looking to change, or what kinds of alterations were necessary to have something that's acceptable or workable from DCS's perspective?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before calling on the minister, I would just like to point out that there are 10 minutes remaining in the Liberal caucus time frame.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: There were a variety of issues that we had that we brought to the members. I think I mentioned some of those to you, and that was with respect to ensuring that this wasn't a project of just renovating a home without having the idea of who would go into that house. We wanted more clarification. What you have to remember is that this is a new partnership with us, and I think that what's also very important to note is the fact that you have a government here that is willing to look at and develop partnerships.

 

It takes time. Once again, you've got years of not having that style in government, and now you have a government that is saying, yes, we're willing to hear your proposal and talk to you about that proposal. We spoke to them about the fact that we needed to make sure that we had identified where the houses would be, and who would be the clientele to go into those homes. That was one area that we looked at.

 

We're looking at a project that is a cluster of housing right now and how we can work with this group with that. When it comes to the company homes, our concern was that some of them, like you said, are very costly, and it's very costly to tear them down too.

 

I know that the ones that could be salvaged are the ones that we said, yes, certainly we would work with you on that, but you also have to remember that that doesn't mean every one of those company houses is suitable, because of the cost of renovating versus the cost to tear it down. We have to look at the dollar amounts and if it's viable to buy one and tear it down or viable to fix it up. So are there other opportunities in the community?

 

I think the most important thing that you need to take away from this is that there are new partnerships that never existed before this government came into place. Another one we're developing a partnership with, which you probably are aware of, is New Dawn. We presently have six units under the affordable housing agreement that we're going forward with. I think that's what you need to take away: the fact that there are new partnerships here and new opportunities and that we are strategizing together and developing a plan of action. I think that's the most important thing: there is movement on this, we recognize that there are severe issues, and we're doing something about it.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Thank you. I still struggle with it. I've had this conversation with members in your department before. I don't know what the issues are, again, with a waiting list of 800 and with those investments - which are appreciated - and with what regional housing is doing.

 

I don't really understand the arguments that it's hard to find the clientele. I'm not seeing where - there is clientele to meet the needs that AHRP has set out in terms of the lease agreement or the rent-to-own agreement or anything that they'll put together. I don't really see where we're going to have a difficult time or any issues with filling a home that's adequately remodelled or revamped and put together.

 

Again, there is no one out there, including the AHRP organization, that has a better understanding of the state of these homes and the state of the neighbourhoods that they exist in. For me there's no question. I understand fully the expense and I know it's in the ballpark of $5,000 to tear one down. I know the CBRM has $50,000 max and that's all they can do. That's for the municipality, not just for Glace Bay or Sydney Mines.

 

I do recognize the challenges that you bring up, but I think the structure that AHRP has presented in terms of the revolving fund for renovating some houses - and they're not looking at taking on 100 or 150. They're looking at taking on five as a pilot project to start that. I'm hoping for a little bit of clarification in terms of what the issues are with clientele.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think it's important to know that when I'm discussing the fact of the wait-list, you have to look at the demographics of that wait-list and the situation. You're saying rent to own. Well, that may not be an income assistance client; it's somebody else in the community that we have to find who has an interest to rent to own, where we deal more with the income assistance clients. That's why we're talking with the AHRP group to identify - it doesn't mean that there's any resistance there. It's just doing good business by identifying who the clientele are, what demographic, and what supports they need.

 

It is not enough to just take a structure as a house and take an individual or family and say, here, this is your new home. There are many things where people need wrap-around service, and you've heard me talk about that very often. People have more needs than just the home itself, if they are going to be able to keep that home and keep it sustainable and pay for that home or live in that home. That's an important part of what we're looking at, and we're working very co-operatively with this group. There's no animosity whatsoever. They are absolutely tickled with the fact that they have a department and a minister who said yes, come in and visit me and let's work on it and let's see.

 

It's like any plan that you're going to develop: there's back and forth the whole time to make sure you're doing it right. You don't want to do a knee-jerk reaction without any long-term strategy in place, or you're going to be in the same mess as you are today with the number of people waiting to get housing. That did not happen overnight. It wasn't just two years ago that suddenly there was this huge waiting list in Cape Breton. That was years and years and years of neglect. That was years and years and years of not having a strategy in place.

 

We don't want to make the same mistake, and what's different this time around is that we're bringing partners to the table. I think that's very important for you to understand, as well as the complexity. We're being very transparent, open, and honest with them, and they're respecting that. They see that this is a growing partnership that's going to be a strong partnership, and I know they want to do it right from the start. They want to be able to be successful in this. They put a lot of heart and soul into the report, as you know - and a very good report - so they want to make sure that they're successful when we go forward with this in partnership, and we want to be successful too.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time for one more question and one more answer.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I certainly do realize that this is a problem that has been developing and building for a long time. My approach, and I think that you have seen that during my brief stint here, is to look to the future and look forward. I know that those problems exist; I know it was previous governments; I know that this department and the services and housing - the housing authority more so than most other components of DCS, in my opinion - have been neglected. For me, again, those investments - you'll never keep up with those things if you're trying to build new homes all the time.

 

What I'm saying is that, for me, this is a partnership that I see as invaluable, and I do see that they have a structure plan. Now, if you're suggesting that there have been some modifications and things and they're happy about the requirements that DCS puts on AHRP, then that's fine. I am aware of the challenges, and no one is more aware than I am of what's happening on the ground in Cape Breton. The investments are appreciated.

 

Just to close on that one, can you tell me specifically if there's any kind of timeline in terms of the AHRP, where the next meeting is, or what the next steps are moving forward before they push ahead on the modified business plan?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Since the proposal has just come back into our hands, I'll have to have an opportunity to read that. What I can tell you is that it will go forward as quickly as possible. We go back and forth, so once I have an opportunity to read the proposal and discuss it with the staff, then we'll be back to AHRP and take our next steps together.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now turn to the Progressive Conservative caucus for one hour. The start time is 5:44 p.m.

 

The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

 

MR. KEITH BAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and if I do have time left I'll be sharing it with the honourable member for Dartmouth North.

 

Good afternoon again, Madam Minister. I'm going to get right into my question. The first question: in the Estimates and Supplementary Detail book, there's a separate page under estimates on Page 5.9, and it's called Housing Authority and Property Operations. I'm just wondering if you could explain why the estimate for Housing Authority and Property Operations goes from $324,000 in 2010-11 to $0 in 2011-12.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I need to give George a little bit of time to bring up his spreadsheet, if you don't mind.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly, minister. We'll just pause for a moment.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much for your patience. The explanation is the fact that we merged that division into Employment Support and Income Assistance and Housing. It's under the direction of Dan Troke now. It was a merging together.

 

MR. BAIN: How many regional housing authorities across the province?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Five.

 

MR. BAIN: Are the overall roles and services provided by the housing authorities the same in each authority - what the roles, responsibilities and services are?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The general responsibilities are the same but you can see some regional differences.

 

MR. BAIN: There is a broad description, I guess. Would that be fair to say?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes.

 

MR. BAIN: Each authority would have its own budget and I'm sure that would vary depending on where each authority was located. Would I be correct in saying that?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Could I ask the member to repeat the question? I'm sorry.

 

MR. BAIN: Sure, not a problem. I'm just wondering about the budgets. I know the budgets would probably vary with each authority depending on where they're located. Would that be a fair assumption?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You're correct. It varies depending on the geography and the number of units in those particular areas.

 

MR. BAIN: I guess Cape Breton Island Housing Authority would have a different budget than, can we say, Cobequid, just as an example?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Correct. The other very important factor to keep in mind is that each one of those is a separate legal entity in itself.

 

MR. BAIN: The number of staff - how many staff would work in total for the five regional housing authorities across this province?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Approximately 400.

 

MR. BAIN: Would the roles and responsibilities be the same in each authority?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It depends on the housing authority, once again, because it's a legal entity unto itself. It would depend within that housing authority.

 

MR. BAIN: Since it's a legal entity unto itself, what is the department's involvement then, as far as housing authorities go? If it's a stand-alone, what is the department's involvement?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The way that it's set up, it almost sounds like we're arm's length in the sense that we are one of the funders along with CMHC so we fund the housing authorities. I guess you can relate it similarly to how we fund daycare centres. We're the funder. Also the residential facilities throughout the province - you might have heard me comment in the House on the fact that we're the funder but not the controller, we're the funder.

 

MR. BAIN: So if I could, Mr. Chairman, how much of the budgets of the district housing authorities are covered by the department then, percentage-wise?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It typically works out to 75 per cent and 50-50 with the municipalities. (Interruption) Yes, 75 per cent is CMHC and then 50-50 with the municipalities, and that's for the remaining of that 25 per cent of the 75 per cent.

 

MR. BAIN: The 25 per cent would be split between CMHC and the municipalities?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: No, CMHC is 75 per cent and then there's the 50-50 between the municipalities and DCS, which is 25 per cent out of the 75 per cent.

 

MR. BAIN: Yes, okay, clear as mud.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, I know what you mean.

 

MR. BAIN: I guess my next question then would be concerning wages and benefits in each authority. How do they compare among the five authorities? Is it a common scale, wage scale and benefits?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It would depend on the position, and they are separate entities, but it depends on the position.

 

MR. BAIN: Just so I'm clear, it's possible that a position - I'm going to keep using Cape Breton Island Housing Authority and Cobequid just for the sake of discussion - is it possible that a position could exist in Cape Breton that doesn't exist in Cobequid?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: George was talking to me so I didn't catch the question, sorry.

 

MR. BAIN: No problem. I'm just wondering if it's possible that a position could exist in Cape Breton that doesn't exist in Cobequid or vice versa.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, it's possible.

 

MR. BAIN: And those positions would be determined by the housing authority because they are all legal entities?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes.

 

MR. BAIN: I guess my next question is considering wages and benefits that are paid to housing authority staff and I'm just wondering if any consideration has been given to parity in wages and benefits for similar groups across the various authorities. Parity does exist now for acute care employees, for home support workers, and within the civil service. Is consideration being given for regional housing authority employees?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think that one of the important things - as I said to the other member earlier - is that I respect the questions that you were asking. This is one of the issues that comes down to, once again, the collective bargaining process and the discussion there and what can be discussed between both parties in terms of what beliefs they have with regard to their situation. As I mentioned, the housing authorities - I mean it's not one of those situations that just occurred overnight. This comes from a long time of these things that should have been addressed years ago and they weren't, and now we're faced with it. Where they should be addressed presently is at the collective bargaining table; that is the place for them to be addressed.

 

MR. BAIN: Mr. Chairman, well, I realize negotiations have broken up right now, but I guess I use the Cape Breton Health Authority and the Cobequid for a reason. There's no dispute going on there, so I'm going to ask, is parity being considered for those groups?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again, that delves into the issues that are at the table. Believe it or not - some people may not remember or know this - there used to be 50 housing authorities. They were brought down to the number we have today, the five, and they were brought down still as legal entities. Individuals who work for the housing authorities are not civil servants. So some of the discussions that took place over the years kept those two separate - versus having civil servants and people who were not signed up, basically, or the agreement wasn't as a civil servant.

 

Once again, the whole question that you're asking me is really questioning that is part of that bargaining process, where both sides - you have a legal entity separate from the Department of Community Services that is dealing with wage parity issues and other issues. That's where those discussions need to be kept. It's not fair for me to make comments with regard to those situations, because there's not just one situation. There are plenty.

 

There's a lot of complex information that is involved in this process. That's why it needs to be kept where that process is better handled, and that's at the bargaining table.

 

MR. BAIN: I'll ask this question, then. What's the department's involvement in the negotiations? If we're talking separate legal entities and we're talking negotiations that are going on, what is the department's involvement in any negotiations that take place with the authorities?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Our involvement is with respect to the fact that we are funders, so we would have interest in the process. We have an interest in the fact that we want the people who both work at the housing authorities - and in the particular case that you're bringing up, that it is resolved at the bargaining table. We also are concerned about the people who live in those units. That's why we have worked with the metro authorities. They have put forth to us what their contingency plan is.

 

We're more of an umbrella group watching what's taking place, but we do have an interest in the fact that it's tax dollars that go into the units, and so our concern lies with the funding aspect. That's where our involvement lies.

MR. BAIN: Pardon my ignorance on this, I just - when negotiations are going on at this point, it is between the union who might represent the workers - regardless of what that union might be, whether it's CUPE or NSGEU - and the local authority. That's where the negotiations are. Where's the province? You say you're the umbrella, but what's the umbrella covering?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Each side, the union side and the housing authority side, has a negotiator. The Department of Community Services has a negotiator that is concerned about those aspects that I just related to you and is watching the process and being a part of that to make sure that our concerns as funders - that we're there as part of that process. The two main negotiating bodies in this are the Metro Housing Authority and the union. They are the two main negotiators.

 

MR. BAIN: So the department negotiator who's there is negotiating with both parties, the authorities and the union?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: She's called a negotiator, but she's more observing. (Interruption)

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

 

MR. BAIN: I guess that's what I'm wondering. We were talking about an umbrella, and firstly, it's a negotiator, it's not a negotiator. It's really difficult to understand where things stand, because we're talking to a legal entity representing each separate housing authority, and we have unions on the other side - NSGEU or CUPE. The department is the umbrella, but doesn't participate in the negotiations; it's just an observer. That's where we are on this?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: No, I was incorrect on that, talking with Dave. It's a very complex situation and our department has a person there who, as I said, is there for understanding both sides to negotiate the process, but she's not the main negotiator in this process. It's Metro Housing Authority and the unions that are the main negotiators. So I'm correcting myself in using the words "as an observer."

 

MR. BAIN: That negotiator, observer - whatever name we want to give it - is dealing with both sides?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That is my understanding, yes.

 

MR. BAIN: Mr. Chairman, with that, I'm going to turn it over.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The remaining portion of the hour is now with the member for Dartmouth North.

 

MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Mr. Chairman, how much time approximately is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have about 42 minutes left.

 

MR. ZINCK: I want to thank my honourable colleague from the Tory caucus for sharing his time. I'm going to stay on the same subject while we still have some guests here.

 

In the last couple of days we've heard how important housing is. I've heard you talk about the importance of the national housing strategy, which I think all of us around the table currently share in respect to the federal government ponying up some dollars for that. We talked about affordable housing and homelessness in the last couple of days. We talk about the individuals who are currently benefiting from the dollars that have come down through social transfers, and today we're joined by individuals who serve those clients, those constituents of all us MLAs.

 

It has been two years - I raised the question in the House last week around this very subject - since Local 47 has been able to achieve any success. It has got to be frustrating. When I think back to 2009, when your current government came into power, there were a number of unions that had threatened striking, right up until the last minute. Strikes were avoided; negotiations were successful.

 

I think of one recently with Northwood Manor that was supposed to take place about two weeks ago. We were looking at a large strike, possibly on a Friday and Thursday night. Miraculously and thankfully they came to some agreement. However, we have 33 individuals who I believe would probably cost the government, on average, around $30,000 to $35,000 per year to rectify this and put wage parity in place, where these workers who are joining us today have a collective 400 years of experience.

 

I guess the frustrating part is that we have seen other unions, but today we have a union that is out on strike. Who would we talk to tonight? If we were to walk out of these chambers tonight, who would we talk to? Who is going to push the envelope to have this - what I consider to be a small issue, a small group that's not asking a whole large dollar amount, considering the surplus that was announced a number of weeks ago. Who would that person be who would direct this organization and these workers?

 

I called the office today and someone did answer the phone, just to let you know. She was very timid; she couldn't answer my question. Someone's going to get back to me, but I don't know at what point. I know that there are a number of individuals in the crowd tonight who I've talked to over the last number of years, who've been providing an invaluable service to my office and to the constituents I represent. In regard to what the honourable member from the Tory caucus was trying to get at, who would that person be who we would have to push, seeing how this group does work in part or carries out the services on behalf of the government through the housing authorities?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: As I related at the start of our budget estimates earlier today, I respect the fact that there's a lot of stress when you are in the position that you're striking. We also know and appreciate the work that has been done, but as I have said - and I don't have a new message for you - both sides are negotiating back and forth, and it is very complex and very sensitive. For me to get into details of what is taking place is not fair. I made the statement that I don't want to jeopardize one side over the other.

 

This is not a situation where my involvement and my comments are going to help, and that's why it's very important that the place for this process to work itself out is at the collective bargaining table. The reason I continually repeat that is because you have seen over and over that that is where the resolution takes place. It does not take place in the minister's office. It takes place at the bargaining table, where both sides can negotiate and present their issues and have full discussions and be fully knowledgeable of what is taking place on both sides.

 

Once again, the answer is - and I would encourage both sides to come to the table for further discussions. I know that they've been doing that, and they've been working very hard in trying to come together. I think it can happen if they go back to the table.

 

MR. ZINCK: Thank you, Madam Minister. I know we heard that response last week in regard to the collective bargaining agreement and being at the table. The fact is that tonight - actually, last week - these individuals are on strike now. Therein lies the frustration, and my comment in my opening line was the fact that we've seen other unions successful. This is one group that in the last two and a half years - be it a small group, be it a one-issue group, which is wage parity, which doesn't come with a huge dollar figure.

 

What would it take for the department's negotiator, if it's not the minister - and it's not to put the burden strictly on you, because obviously what we hope tonight is that you take this message back to the Executive Council, for one. But if it's a one-issue, small dollar tag to the issue, how long are we looking at until the government or the department's negotiator would actually look at getting involved? What's it going to take? Is it going to take subsidies to not be paid out to certain landlords? Is it going to take more contractors not to be receiving their monies, or applications not being processed? We're coming into a season where those home grants are going to be very important. So at what point would the department's negotiator get involved?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Number one, there is a contingency plan in place to address those issues you just brought forward. Number two, again, I will stay on what I'm saying, the fact that what it's going to take is both sides understanding the importance of collective bargaining. That is what the process is, and that's the process that has been in place in this province for many years. You can go back over history and look in the history book and see how many have been resolved at that bargaining table. That is where the discussion needs to take place, and that will make it fair for both sides. As I said, there's a process there and people have expertise on both sides on how to address that process. So that is the best place for it to take place.

 

MR. ZINCK: Thank you, Madam Minister. I'll just finish off with a comment and then go on to some other questions. Again, such a small group, one issue - which is parity - with the same responsibilities in roles as other housing authorities so I guess the frustration really is, why can't we?

 

I think the group here tonight would be more than willing to sit down, but if a negotiator can't wrap their heads around the fact that they're doing the same amount of work, or have the same responsibilities - the amount of work in the Metro Housing Authority is intense, and I can attest to this because of the constituents I deal with who reside in the 5,000-plus homes. The stories that these individuals have to hear, have to see when they're dealing with clients who are dealing with addiction and mental health issues, and frustration that we can't - I hope that we can rectify it very soon, I really do. I don't want to see it go any further, and for the simple dollar figure of $30,000 to $35,000 a year to bring these folks up to par - folks who work hard every day, and like I said, over 400 years of experience between the collective group. Hopefully you'll take this message back to the Executive Council, and whether it's influence or not, I think you should share your burden with the Premier and the rest of the Executive Council.

 

I'm going to move on to another line of questioning. Madam Minister, in the Fall the Premier had sent out a task for the Departments of Education, Community Services, and Health and Wellness to make budget cuts anywhere from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. Can you specifically point out cuts that have taken place in the department over the last number of months?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: First, I want to respond to your former words in respect to the employees of the housing authority. You know me, and you know how much I care about people and the frustration and the situation. I know that the individuals who are here today are very hard workers. They're dedicated. They put their heart and soul into their work, and it's my wish that this is resolved and it's resolved soon. As I had said before, the process is truly at the bargaining table and I do wish them all the best. I know that these are very difficult and stressful times for them, and it is certainly our hope and my hope that this gets resolved very soon.

 

Now, with respect to your question, you were looking for the actual budget cuts. Most of what we have focused on has been within the department. What we did is we looked at what areas we could make some decisions in that would not affect people in the communities or on the front line. So most of our cuts within the budget are looking at the vacancy rates that we have and the positions that we have there and how we can - of course, in some areas there are positions that have not been full for quite a period of time. What we did is we spoke with staff and got their advice on areas where there might be a position that we could make sure that, if we didn't fill that position, it would not have any direct impact on any of our clients. Our clients are our number-one concern, and as you know, I think the proof is showing in all the strategies that we're working toward to transform the department, that we have a single service delivery service in the department. When we looked at the actual areas that we can reduce, those are the areas that we focused on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some of the members of Local No 47 have left the room, but as Chair I would like to comment about how orderly you members have been today. I really appreciate that as Chair. I thank you for attending today, and Ian, it's good to have you here as well. Thank you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Some of the other areas that I can go through for the member - this is what the member needs to keep in mind, that this is a 5 per cent reduction based on a three-year period. Some of the areas that have been announced are through the fair drug pricing strategy that will save $2 million. We also have private agencies that are now part of DCS, so there were some positions that were redundant when that move took place, so there were savings there. We also were able to look at creating capacity in our existing children's residential centres, and that was a change for the good to better serve our most difficult children.

 

I think that's what you need to keep in mind, that this process - as you always hear, there's good that comes out of negativity. I think the negative part encouraged us to really have a good look at the department and look at where there are areas where we could save dollars but not affect our clientele, and how we could be more efficient and effective. It doesn't hurt anybody to stop and take a really good internal look at themselves. We're also, as I've mentioned before, looking at ways that we can deliver our services better to our clients, which would mean streamlining the process, and by doing that there will be savings. We've looked at administrative efficiencies in the department, and that's created savings for us. We've looked at some of the programming going over to Labour and Advanced Education in terms of employability. That's really important too, because it's in a better spot with Labour and Advanced Education.

 

That is the whole way that we analyzed the budget, and that's what we worked on. That foundation was the fact that our first concern, of course, is our clients. We want to improve the service. We don't want a reduction in the budget to decrease any service, and that's why we're so committed to the transformation of service delivery of the department. Like I said, we have gone through every little aspect of the department to see where we can be more efficient and effective. We were able to find that 5 per cent over the next three years by doing that.

 

MR. ZINCK: Madam Minister, it's good to hear that. Obviously the initial concerns were to programs that could assist individuals coming off the system, so it's good to hear you say that you were going through that and promoting that that didn't happen. I agree that it is a good exercise, the same as ESIA being reviewed. At a certain period of time you have to look back at things and see how successful we've been and if something is working or not working. So yes, it is a good exercise.

 

My next question is in regard to a letter dated February 9, 2011. It was sent to you as Minister of Community Services, and it came from the Dartmouth Community Health Board. Interestingly enough, I had had a similar case to the one that was quoted in the letter. Just to give you the roundabout, we unfortunately lost a very valuable senior in our community in Dartmouth, a wonderful lady who was homeless at the end of her life because of falling between the cracks of coming off Community Services and going on to Old Age Security and turning 65. Helen worked at Margaret's House, the soup kitchen, and was a valued person in the community.

 

I had a similar situation with a gentleman who had turned 65. We had done all the paperwork for this person, sent it out six or seven months in advance so that hopefully when the time came that he turned 65, his cheques would be activated. However, when he turned 65, sadly, he waited two months to come back to see me, and that's when he said to me, I haven't had money for two months. We immediately called the Canada Revenue Agency and Old Age Security to find out what had happened, and they hadn't processed his paperwork. So he was under the realm of DCS up until he turned 65, but just like Helen, there was no way, or if there was a policy, there was no way the province could look after this person, even for a short period of time until Old Age Security had been activated and was processed.

 

Do you remember that letter? So maybe you can just make some comments. Sometimes a lot of it has to do with a senior's capacity. I know the gentleman that we helped, there was a literacy issue. We were able to rectify that in a short period of time, but unfortunately we didn't have any further assistance from the department. They were more than willing if they were able to, but under the guise of him turning 65 they weren't able to get the help. With Helen, unfortunately, she had ended up homeless because she fell through that crack.

 

Is there anything that the department is looking at, or that policy in particular, that we can help folks transition from Community Services? I know a lot of times what happens is every year we lose people off the roll and the caseloads get smaller because certain people turn 65 and they transfer over to the federal program. Is there a way that we're looking at, how we can maybe help these folks to make sure that they are taken care of?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again, I believe that by undertaking the huge job of doing the transformation of service delivery, what we're looking at there is twofold. One, it's a single-entry system and wrap-around service, and I truly believe that this is where it will make a difference. What's happening with those types of situations is that the typical way that business has been done is that you provide the services that are offered through DCS to that individual and that's where it ends, rather than looking at people in a holistic manner and what all their needs are.

 

That's what the new approach will be. It would have taken those two individuals you talked about and looked at what their needs were as individuals in that continuum of lifespan care and support through DCS. So there would have been an identification that, okay, so-and-so will be turning 65. We have to make sure that we advise him or his family members that the paperwork has to get in to the federal government to make sure that there's not a lapse of time between when they come off IA to when they go on to the Old Age pension. That's where we have to change the culture and the way that we do business to ensure that we're looking at the person with what their lifespan of need that we can provide them is.

 

I think you will see a difference once we're able to roll that change out. We're always open each and every day to any of those situations that come forth to us, to look at ourselves and see what we can change. Anything in life changes every day, and what you may think one day could be completely different two months down the road because you have more information to work with. I think that's very important. I think the department understands that now, that we're going to be doing business in a different manner, and we're also open to listening to people like yourself.

 

It's a terrible shame that those two people had to be in that situation. Those are the gaps that really make me feel very sad that those situations arise. They're the areas that we have to tackle. If that means that policies need to be changed, then we need to address that. The only way we're going to do it, though, is to put the discussion on the table. Knowledge is power. If you don't have the knowledge, you're not going to be able to make the change. That's where I do encourage you, and you do a good job at letting the department or myself know where you see there are gaps in the system. I certainly appreciate it because, as you know, it's a very complex system with so many different policies and so many different ways of doing things and thousands and thousands of clients.

 

We do have many clients that are happy, out of the thousands that we serve. But still, those who are falling through the gaps are not being served the way that they should be served. We need to address that.

 

MR. ZINCK: That's good to hear. I bring the point up because of those two particular cases. When I think about our aging population - I know the majority of folks who are residing on ESIA are predominantly single families and single women with children. In my community I see a lot of men between the ages of 40 and 55. The literacy levels aren't the greatest, or the addiction issues and the mental health issues. Of course, they are funded through Community Services, so with the aging population in a couple of years, we're going to see that transformation.

 

It is a crisis point. Helen struggled, as I said, and as I know you fully understand, and the other gentleman, sadly, he came two months after. I guess he was waiting for the cheque and working with his trustee and trying to get him adequate funding and it wasn't - the staff at Portland Street felt bad, but there were no sort of guidelines for what they could fall back on, whether it be a food voucher. He was at risk of being homeless, so we had to negotiate with the landlord to keep him there. I think it's a good thing that we need to look at with the aging population coming up.

 

Another letter I want to go on to is a letter that was sent out. I believe it just went to the Premier; it didn't go to you exactly, but I know you're well aware of the situation. I think you were probably well aware of it before you even came into the role of being minister. It was from the wardens and the churches, the pastors, down in the Yarmouth area, with the closing of The Cat and the member for Yarmouth being so passionate about it and his community and the effects of it. Whether it was a business case or not, we understand that, and we heard the minister and the Premier talk about that. The end result was a community that struggled the year before with the housing crisis when absentee landlords - let's call them slum landlords - vacated.

 

Then we go into a year where we've seen a real downturn in the economy and the churches have had to pick up the slack. We've talked about this - I know I have, and the different poverty groups that have come before the House and different committees over the last number of years about the reliance of government on the churches in particular. To have as many church organizations come to the forefront like this, to actually take time to write a letter to the Premier and express their concern, not just for the loss of revenues and income in the area and businesses closing, but they see - as I know you're aware - the real social aspects, the families who are under financial stress because an individual in the home has lost their job and can no longer provide. We often have the department saying, call the churches, or the MLAs saying, let's try the church. It's usually the first thing we go to. St. Vincent de Paul, God love them, they're big, but they run out of money too. Are we ever going to see a point where we stop relying on the churches?

 

Before you comment, I want to put out there a comment and thank you to the Salvation Army, who I know has received some government funding over the last number of years. They do a tremendous job with their shelter and their heating program and overall help. Are we looking at or hopefully going to get to a point where we no longer have to rely on the churches, maybe making the churches the place of last resort? Financially, they're getting tapped, not just in the Yarmouth area but all around, with the rising cost of food, heat, and shelter.

 

I've been fortunate enough to have - I won't put this out there too loudly - certain church organizations help out when it comes to an individual who is struggling with rental arrears, who is trying to flee a domestic violence situation. They partnered up and helped this individual - an unusual situation because they didn't normally do that, but they did. Maybe you could make a comment toward that?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I wish I had the answer for all of the social challenges that we have in this province and throughout all of Canada, and if I did I might be the Prime Minister - whether I would want to be the Prime Minister or not, I don't know.

 

It's not an easy answer. I understand the role of the churches, and we truly appreciate their role. Just knowing my church that I go to, I think that they would always have some role in the community, that they would feel that it's such a vital and important role. Of course, if we had that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, we would be able to put all the resources into these areas. There may be a day in Utopia that we would be able to support everybody's needs.

 

I very quickly became aware - being Minister of Community Services - of the fact that there are so many needs. We could probably spend days here if we wanted to go through each and every need that has been heard in the Department of Community Services. There are many, many needs in communities. That's why in the last two years we as a government have invested a great deal in the social fabric of our province. I've talked about some of those investments with respect to income assistance and how some people are receiving up to $2,400 a year more than they did two years ago, which is quite an incredible jump in their income level. It's still not always enough and we still have a ways to go, but I think if you take in the last almost two years, what has been invested and where we have focused our investments, it's certainly on the people of Nova Scotia and those who are the most vulnerable and those who require our support in the province. We've made an announcement recently with persons with disabilities; we've increased the Child Tax Benefit by 22 per cent; we've worked at initiatives with homelessness, and so on.

 

I do realize that it's very difficult, but more than ever we need the partnerships with the churches and the Salvation Army and a lot of those organizations we support. There are actually over 1,000 service providers that we support as a department, and people do not realize that they're receiving funding or some type of support through Community Services. We are there in every community in every way, and the need is even greater than that, and that is unfortunate. That is why I have said that this is not something we are going to accomplish on our own as a government. If we all joined forces, even Opposition, together we are not going to be able to accomplish it. We need municipalities, we need the federal government, we need the communities working together to make that difference. That is the reality of today and the reality of our future.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, less than 10 minutes remaining in the time you're sharing with the Progressive Conservative caucus.

 

MR. ZINCK: Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I agree, and in my opening comments on Friday I said I fully recognize that your government is attempting to make some strides with some of the recent announcements. We're holding out faith, for sure, and I agree that it's a collective effort at all levels of government.

 

I think, more importantly, when you have an organization like the churches coming forward with this kind of message, this particular message, and the strength they bring with it as a collective group, it gives us an opportunity to educate the greater population as to what really goes on in people's lives, what it's really like to reside on less than a thousand dollars a month or what's it's really like to basically be told where you can live because of the income level that you're in. I think if we go through that exercise - and it's an opportunity for government every time you make that announcement, now and in the future, to let society know not only that it's unacceptable but that this is what we're trying to fix and these are the reasons why.

 

A lot of people don't understand it. They don't see it. They don't see these folks' homes; they don't see what's in their fridge or what's not in their fridge. They see their children when they're going to school, teachers do, and they see the inefficiencies. One piece of advice I would give is, yeah, use that education piece every time you have an announcement. I know you have it in your heart, that's for sure.

 

My next question is centred around a policy that I've probably come up against at least half a dozen times over the last year, and it's one that I know is quite a number of years old. I have an idea as to why it was first brought in: minimum wage was quite low at the time, probably around $5.15 an hour. There was a time in society where people would find a job, and if they didn't like the job, word on the street was, well, I don't need to work, I'll go on social assistance, because it works out to be the same amount of money.

 

So we created a policy called quit/fire, and it's one that, when I look at it and come across it today - and one particular case recently was with a 57-year-old lady who was working part-time for the school board, and for whatever reason was let go. Every month she would put that portion that she was making in her income statement and would then get supplemented by the department. However, when the school board let her go, she now fell under that quit/fire policy and was immediately cut off. The frustration with that, and understanding that, yes, this is the policy, so I have to first explain it to her - her next question is, well, I have to pay my rent, and how am I going to pay my rent? Under the policy we penalize individuals six weeks. If I take that 57-year-old lady who's now cut off, has no funding, no money - I'm involved, she's involved and the department's involved. We penalize her for six weeks and now her landlord's going to be involved. She has to at some point try to keep it together to try to find a job, but we're going to make her wait and get frustrated and stressed out at the age of 57.

 

The way I look at it is - obviously I spoke to the school board, and they had their reasons for letting this lady go. The fact is I still have a lady who's 57, who is still trying to find a job, but in the meantime is at risk of being homeless again because of this type of policy. I have appealed before and I've won appeals, but I think it's a policy that, like I said, originally years ago that was the word I heard on the street, why work for $5.15 an hour when I can go social assistance and they'll pay for my housing?

 

Today minimum wage is going to be $10 very soon. People don't want to be on social assistance. Could you tell me how old that policy is, exactly, and if it's something that - I guess my hope in bringing it up today is that you might take it back to the department.

 

I think it gives us an opportunity to look at it on a case-by-case basis, on an individual basis. What has happened, though, is caseworkers always come back and say no, we have to appeal, and we don't always win those appeals. Again, we've frustrated that person, we've put undue stresses on them, and we've also gotten other players involved.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I don't know how old that policy is. It was there before I got into this seat and that has been one of the - as you know, I've talked about policies and the policies that have been there for a long time, and as you said, you have to respect the fact that when the policy was brought in, it was brought in for a reason with good intentions at that time.

 

Unfortunately, however, over the years some of them - many of them - haven't been evaluated and kept up with today's world. I know there are hundreds and hundreds of policies that I cannot be aware of, and that's why I encourage somebody like yourself to come forward to me and tell me about a policy of that nature. I will certainly make a commitment to you today to have a look at it.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time for one more short question and a short answer, perhaps.

 

MR. ZINCK: Just in relation to that policy, when an individual loses their position, they get notified by the department by letter. You're penalized six weeks. There's also another paragraph that goes with those letters that the majority of caseworkers will send out, that if you are able to seek employment and find employment within that period of six weeks, they will go back and restart you again. They won't penalize you.

 

I've had two recent successes with that. I guess my frustration with it, and people who come to us, their frustration is they are put in that stressful situation where we're going to basically wait until you're homeless or at risk of being homeless. Your power bill, your rent, and your phone are behind, and how could you possibly go out under that kind of stress and find a job until we help you?

 

There is that little caveat in there, but not everybody has that capacity to do that. I have had two successes, and one was the 57-year-old lady, who we were able to get that job. We're now working on the department to go back and reinstate her for that month's funding. That line is in there.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Point well taken. I believe you know that I am striving to change policies. There have been policy changes in the last two years, and the most recent one was with respect to the earnings of an individual on income assistance to be able to make that $150 plus the 30 per cent. There are several others that you're aware of. So you can see that I am very interested in analyzing any policy that's there and making necessary changes.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the time allocated to the Progressive Conservative caucus, shared by the member for Dartmouth North. We started with the Liberal caucus, we went to the Progressive Conservative caucus, and it's my understanding that the Independent member for Dartmouth North has an hour of his own, which I think he would like to use at this time. Is that correct?

 

MR. ZINCK: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will begin the next hour with the member for Dartmouth North, unless the minister would like a tea break?

How much time would you like - five, 10?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Two days. I'll take five minutes.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Five minutes? Okay, we will have a five-minute break. Thank you very much.

 

[6:44 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[6:59 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister and members, our little break went a little bit longer than we thought it would, but we're using 7:00 p.m. sharp as our start time. The member for Dartmouth North has one hour.

 

MR. ZINCK: Madam Minister, in the community I represent - the very first election poll in my constituency is Poll No. 1, Burnside. There are not many homes up there, but there is an opportunity to visit the Burnside Correctional Facility. Last election, in 2009, unfortunately the gentlemen residing in there and the women weren't able to vote. We found that out this past year via the report for the Ombudsman. Sadly, there are a number of individuals who are residing there currently, who had resided in my community, who will eventually come back out to the community. There is an increasing number of young men that I'm seeing coming out of the Springhill facility and out of some of the facilities in New Brunswick who, for some reason, end up coming and residing in the community of Dartmouth North.

 

Part of the frustration with that are the amounts of services that are made available to individuals coming out of the prison system. Oftentimes they come out and they're taken care of as far as when they're residing there in relation to the medications, but when they come out they're not given any, let's say, like a week's worth of medication or a month's worth of medications. They immediately come out of the system and their next step is - how am I going to get my medication? The obvious questions, also, are centred around income and housing. Last year I asked this question to the Minister of Justice and the response wasn't one that I'm going to repeat. It was kind of disappointing. I'm wondering if you can - and maybe you've already given me the answer in some of the new initiatives that you're seeing, the single-entry system and that.

 

I just want to make you aware of the fact that it is a reality to a lot of communities. These inmates, when they do come out, they have to live somewhere. I have one particular case that is before me right now - it's not a typical day in the MLA's office when they have an individual who has actually just served time for murdering somebody walk in and say, I need medication. I don't have money. I can't get set up in the system. I don't want to hurt somebody but if I have to, to go back inside and get the three square meals and my medication, I get better service inside than I do out in the community.

 

Therein lies the frustration and like I said, it's not typical that a lot of our offices might deal with these situations, but it is a reality of mine because of the, let's say, somewhat affordable housing situation, the amount of apartment units. These individuals end up coming into my community and asking for help.

 

Is there a possibility or something that we're looking at - of course, they're facing obvious challenges and I know the Minister of Justice has said that they're there, they reside there for obvious reasons because they can't adapt to society, but when we have an opportunity - and that's what it is really, the way I look at it - I have one chance when somebody walks in my door in that situation to try to get them lined up with services. If it doesn't work out, it's going to end up costing us more if they go back to the prison system, but more importantly, it also hurts community and themselves. Is there a way that the department could look at and collaborate with the Department of Justice to see that there might be a plan when an inmate is released? If they're released out into the community with no funding, no medical care for medications - and a lot of these guys are inside and they're on medications - is there something that we could look at, possibly?

 

I know it's difficult for caseworkers because some of these guys have done some really terrible things, but the reality is, if we peel away the layers, we find out really quickly why and if we don't take the chance and the opportunity to find services for them, we end up paying in the end again. They lose, the department and government loses, and unfortunately the community loses as well.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You're probably aware that somebody who has been released from prison would be eligible for income assistance. However, I think that you make a very valid point and I appreciate that point. One of the aspects within our service delivery transformation is that we have to look - when I talk about the wrap-around services, that does not mean us as the Department of Community Services just working in a silo. We need to bring in the other departments and we're working very hard to do that in many areas within Community Services and vice versa. I know that my colleagues are very supportive of that and I've seen that staff are. Like the autism report and the announcement, that was a joint venture and is a wonderful story to be able to provide that funding and to respond to a report that came to us.

 

So I think that exactly what you're doing is good. You bring this up and I have to be honest, that's not one area that I even really thought about. It is part of your life in your office and you experience a lot of it and that is something that we could look at because I know as we do this transformation and service delivery, there are all different demographics out there that we need to know how to approach. With homelessness, that's one of the areas that we are looking at in the new initiatives that actually wrap around that type of service and provides individualized services once again. So I would suggest that somebody who is recently released from prison would be no different in the fact that we would want to look at what services we could provide.

 

I think one of the key elements too, to success, will be looking at this not as just a wrap-around service but that continuum lifespan. I think what we have to keep in our minds is that these are not one-off situations. If we can support individuals in that they get off the system and they're employable, that's wonderful. However, there will be situations with people who will need support longer. Some will need it shorter. For some people there also needs to be a system in place that people can go beyond the system and come off and then go on again because of what has faced them in life. Nobody here has a crystal ball to know where they may be tomorrow. So I think it's very important that there's a fluid system too, that if you've been able to get off the system and then something has occurred that has been a challenge or a barrier to you, it's not an issue to get back on and then off again when you have those opportunities.

 

So I want to thank the member for bringing that up and it is one area that I will go forward and have some discussions with staff and talk to my colleagues in the other departments.

 

MR. ZINCK: Hello, Mr. Chairman, we have a new chairman. That's good to hear because, like I said, it's probably not something that is typical in other offices around the province. It is a reality and again, further to my comments I made on Friday about it being an opportunity, or seeing it as an opportunity, to have influence on somebody's life and what direction they go in. I guess I bring it up because what happens to these individuals, a lot of them don't have the education level, the literacy level. Maybe a lot of them have been in the care of the province before.

 

I'm seeing a lot of men who have been abused over the years. So when they approach, not just the Department of Community Services but a government entity, they automatically - it's kind of like your wind being cut off. You get choked up. You don't know what to say. You get frustrated and, again, some of the individuals have some very interesting backgrounds. I can see that when they come up against a policy that they might not understand or want to understand, it can be frustrating, pretty much in the same sense as what we do at the shelters. The department would have an individual - I know, I would put a shout out to Karen Blackwood who does a wonderful job with some of the women's shelters, a good New Waterford girl.

 

There's an opportunity there, I think, that if you talk to the Minister of Justice, despite some of these individuals' backgrounds, again, if we don't take advantage of that opportunity when they come before us to guide them towards this type of help and services, then we're running the risk of a bigger bill, which is putting them back inside and incarcerating them for anywhere from $65,000 to $100,000 a year which we want to try to eliminate. Like I said, I think it's a good opportunity, so it's good to hear.

 

I want to move on to something that your government has brought in in 2009 and we've heard you make mention of it in a number of announcements and a number of questions that you answered in the House and it's the affordable tax credit and the poverty credit. Hopefully these are a couple of simple questions in relation to this. Currently I have a gentleman on partial Canada Pension Disability and his income is supplemented through Community Services, anywhere from $150 to $200 per month. He is well below the $12,000 a year for the poverty credit, but he does not get the poverty credit. Is the reason because he is on Canada Pension Disability?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We would look at his overall income and take that into consideration. There is a cap to the poverty reduction credit and then there is a cap for the Affordable Living, certainly he would be eligible for that because that goes up to $34,000. I would say that would be the reason, if you take his income, because it's below a specific income level for the Poverty Reduction Tax Credit.

 

MR. ZINCK: So his income total for the year is around $8,500. He has been getting the Affordable Living Tax Credit, the $60 tax credit, but he hasn't been getting the $50 Poverty Reduction Credit and that would be for any individual who has an income below $12,000. Would he be entitled to that and if he was and he's not getting it, is it because he was partially being funded through the federal government with Canada Pension Disability?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What we actually should do in that case is we should take it back and review it. I mentioned Randy Acker, how he goes back and reviews the cases. If he's below the limit that we have set, then he should be eligible for it, so we should look at that case on an individual basis.

 

MR. ZINCK: I'll bring that to Randy's attention. Just to make note so that you are aware - you may be aware - there are a number of individuals who aren't receiving the tax credits for various reasons and one in particular is because they do actually have or are in collections with Service Nova Scotia. We talked about this on Friday. We need to collect our debt for sure and monies that we've been able to help people out with, but I have a number of individuals who aren't receiving the Affordable Living Tax Credit in particular because it's linked with the GST. If they're under collections with Service Nova Scotia, they will not receive the Affordable Living Tax Credit from the federal government because it's clawed back, along with their GST, because of their outstanding debt. I bring that up because it's in relation, directly, to the senior's issue I brought up on Friday, who just turned 65. She turned 65 and gets her Seniors' Pharmacare notification and the next day she gets a notice saying she still owes $27,000 to the government as an overpayment.

 

We can make a deal with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations for the $15 or $20 a month, whatever she can afford, but now she's frustrated because the way she sees it is the government is giving this tax credit, but they're taking it away as well. She knows she owes this money, too, but that's kind of the feel that is out there for these individuals.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think it's important to note that she would not be an income assistance client because she would still get it. It would be somebody who has come off the system and owes DCS money and then that goes through Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

I can understand her frustration, however, at the same time there is that responsibility and accountability to pay it back. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations will certainly work with her in terms of the dollar amount that she feels she can afford to pay back.

 

MR. ZINCK: I want to move on to the shelter system itself. Your government saw fit to move up the funding for the women's transition homes a year earlier and I know that was much appreciated by the organizations that benefited from that. Sadly, I want to bring this main issue up that I have - just as of recently, within the last month, and I know I made mention to you last week in passing - Barry House. It's probably the last place that I would send a woman, especially a woman in crisis or who is at risk of being homeless. Some of the comments that I have gotten over the years in regard to Barry House are centred around over-crowding, too many addiction issues, too many physical fisticuffs between the women, and a real mix of young and old. I've talked to staff as well and they are leery of talking to an MLA about these issues.

 

I guess the question is, are we giving the staff there enough support? Are they educated to the various degrees and situations that some of these women are coming to them in? If you go down the chain, you go from Bryony House to Adsum House and Barry's the last on your list. Like I said, I personally will tell people if you can go somewhere else, go somewhere else, because Barry House is not the particular situation you need to be in. Are you getting complaints? Is the department getting complaints? I've been getting a number of them over the last month or so and I really feel for the staff as to whether or not - and I know any eight-hour shift they have two on at all times. When I look at the complex situations that they are dealing with and the individuals they are dealing with, I'm just questioning whether or not they have the support. How do your discussions go with the shelters, are you talking about these kinds of issues?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Barry House would be part of the St. Leonard's Society that would run that operation and as you know it is really a very complex and challenging situation in the clientele that would go to Barry House, sort of like the last resort to find a place to stay. We are a funder and the St. Leonard's Society would provide the actual training because they operate the facility. Now we haven't received, through the department, any type of formal complaint or haven't heard anything but certainly we're always willing to have a discussion with them to see if they feel there are any particular issues with their staff or if the staff feel that there are issues with regard to their abilities or training. As always, we're willing to discuss that.

 

MR. ZINCK: At this point I'll thank the acting deputy minister who assisted me a couple of weeks ago on a particular case and we had the individual settled by the end of the day so I want to thank him for that. The Out of the Cold shelter, you made mention earlier on Friday that the government actually did fund them. How much funding did they receive?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We funded them with $40,000.

MR. ZINCK: That's good to hear. I'm sure they were very pleased with that. I know in years past they came after government so that's good to see. The reason I brought up the shelters is because a lot of the women and men who go into the shelters are obviously in receipt of community services. Whether they fall under the realm of Salvation Army or they fall under St. Leonard's Society, we are the first people that they come to because we're funding them.

 

I want to talk about some of the policies around eyewear and eye exams, which I know you changed this year, another good thing. You had made mention that we fully cover eye exams now. I know that different doctors charge different rates so how does that pay off? If you go to an ophthalmologist, an ophthalmologist usually charges you more, let's say $90, compared to a regular eye physician. Before, we had a set amount that we would cover; I think it was $40-$45. Has the department agreed to pay any cost for an eye exam or is it a set amount?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We would actually have a set amount, just for the very reason that you mentioned, because you can have a variety depending on the specialty of the eye doctor so I think it's very important for us. I mean, you have to have some level of capping and I think that there are many opportunities for individuals to have the eye exam, to be fully covered now, which I think is absolutely wonderful news. There are enough resources in our province that people can find the service for the amount that we cover.

 

MR. ZINCK: Can you tell me what that new amount is?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm not sure of the amount because we just changed that, but I will definitely get that to you.

 

MR. ZINCK: That would be great. I want to move on to something that some of us take for granted. If we look at our physical conditions, when we talk about our oral care, our teeth, and you talk to a dentist, dentists will tell you that it has such a reflection on your overall health. I believe you were approached recently by a mutual friend of ours in regard to bite planes. I know when somebody is in receipt of ESIA we cover them under Quikcard. There's a percentage that is covered, usually 70 to 80 per cent.

 

Over the years, bite planes have become a real issue for a lot of folks. I had one lady in particular who was a cancer survivor and in order to eat properly she required a bite plane. This was a number of years ago. She was denied, obviously, through Quikcard and then of course we tried to appeal it and she was denied again. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if I have to table this. If I do, I will. I just want to read you this quote from this dentist in regard to this one particular file I'm working on now. This is what he says. I'll leave out the individual's name: This gentleman has excessive wear on all upper and lower teeth. The enamel has been worn away on the inside upper teeth and the chewing edges are all worn and rounded on the lower front eight teeth. In my 25 years of practising dentistry, I have never seen this much wear on a 33-year-old man.

 

So this gentleman requires a bite plane so we put it in the process - Quikcard denied it, so now we're going through an appeal process. We are going to go back to the dentist and ask him to fill out a form and go back to Quikcard to file for an exemption for the actual fee of it. What we've been told by the department is that if they deny it a second time, we can go back and appeal it. Bite planes, to my knowledge, are usually in and around $300 to $500, maybe $600, but we're talking about someone's individual health. I see some really sad cases. People over the years haven't been able to either afford to take care of their teeth or they don't eat properly. It's really sad.

 

When we're talking about an individual like this, we're talking about his overall health. We're talking about his sense of self, his confidence. We're not talking about putting an extra $300 or $400 on his cheque every month. We're saying, you know what, we agree with this. Let's send a PO out and let's cover this for this person because this person is going to be better by this. Even if we did it as an overpayment, I think this individual would benefit greatly. Obviously his dentist believes so.

 

Is that something that the department - I know the department has looked at bite planes before and I know it's one of those things where your government is considering it and I know it's on your mind and it has been on your caucus colleagues' minds. I know it comes with a dollar value, but if we have a particular case - and it's not like hey, I'd love to fix everybody's teeth - but in particular situations it's not a lot. Every once in awhile you get somebody like this who comes in and says, look, I really need this for my self-confidence, but more importantly, my overall health, and you have a medical professional backing it up and we're going to deny it. Is that something that maybe we can go back and look at? Maybe you can take it back and maybe next year, or down the road, it's something we can look at as far as policy?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I go to the minister, I think the practice in the House has been to table documents, but it has also been a practice to protect the identity of people. It's not worth running the risk of tabling a document that releases a person's identity, so we won't ask for tabling of documents like that, but just to be safe, don't cite them or you can always talk with the minister if you have an issue.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know that the whole aspect surrounding dental care is very challenging. I've heard of many cases similar to what you're talking about, not just with bite planes, but general dental hygiene and care. Presently the policy that's in place, if a doctor deems it as an emergency, then we're more than willing to support it.

 

I think one of the challenges - we certainly are open to look at it because we're always trying to figure out - and if you have any suggestions, we certainly welcome them - we're always looking at how we can better serve the client. In fact, you're right in the argument base that it's somebody's overall health and will it cost more down the line in the system throughout.

 

I know in your area you're thinking that this is just one case, but when you actually look at the entire province and see the number of cases that come in, that's where the real challenge and struggle is in the Department of Community Services. It's that balance between a special need and what you qualify or define as a special need and also throwing into the pot the needs of an individual. I think the system has always struggled with this and always will struggle with the fact that you can always go one more step above whatever you offer. It's sort of like that - it's never enough.

 

How do you balance that with the finances and the financial constraints that we have as a province and the amount of dental care that we could be providing and the millions of dollars that would relate to on a province-wide basis? I think that's where the struggle is. It's also looking at how do we develop a system that is individualized but also has respect for accountability and policies? I think that's where we have to find that piece of that puzzle. I would encourage anyone who has that piece to bring it to me. That is the real tough part.

 

The fact is that when you see the number of cases and the arguments, not just for a bite plane but for other areas of dental work, you know as an individual, each one of us, how much dental work that we probably all have had over the years and what we're going to need as we become older. But we're always willing to review a situation. Once again, that's where Randy will come into play and look at it to see if there's anything that we can do. We are striving towards finding that balance and how we can make sure those individualized needs are served to that individual. I'm not quite sure what the solution is so we discuss it all the time, but I think the important thing is to know that we do discuss it.

 

It's not something that, okay, this is the way the policy is and we're not going to look at it. We have many conversations on any policy that you bring forth or anybody else, any of my colleagues or Opposition members. Then we always have a discussion around those to see if there is anything. Can we be more creative? Can we think outside the box? Is there a way we can do this and still live within our means? That is what the real challenge is.

 

MR. ZINCK: I appreciate that answer. Believe me, I fully understand living within our means and not being - this is just one case and knowing that if you extrapolate the dollar figures how many more cases might come after this. I understand that.

 

Immediately the thing that I think about is at some point, if this doesn't take place, it's that cost afterwards, not just to the individual, but to the next system. Maybe it's something that we can talk about in health care. It's the same as the Quikcard process, the 70 to 80 per cent coverage. How does somebody on IA cover the rest or can they find a dentist that will bill only according to that percentage or can they find a dentist that will actually allow them to carry a bill over? I appreciate that response for sure.

 

I won't get tough on you in regard to this issue, I know that you understand how passionate I am about it, but I will poke around with a few questions around the child welfare system. Last year, I believe it was in the Fall, we saw Craigmore Centre open up, through the IWK, down on Dutch Village Rd. How long are the wait lists for kids that are going into what we call the ACT program?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I don't have the exact figure, but I can get that to you.

 

MR. ZINCK: Currently I believe, as of the Fall, we have around 1,700 children in care, be it permanent or temporary. What kind of cycle or how long do we usually have when we take a child into care, let's say permanent care, how long a duration of time? Is there a goal of the department to have that child moved on to adoption? Is there an active plan that is put in place for the individual when they're taken into care and how long would that process be?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Absolutely. Our goal is to be able to have that child placed into a loving family and we have been striving towards that. Actually I can recite some figures that show you that we have focused on foster families and adoption. That focus, publicly, is actually working. In 2008-09 we had 1,639 children in care and in 2010-11 that has dropped to 1,481. I think that's showing that those focus on - like we have Adoption Week and we've had events surrounding the importance of adopting children of all ages. Also, I think that our actions speak for themselves in terms of foster families where they have received a 21 per cent increase over the last two years. It was well over 10 years since they received their last per diem increase.

 

I have worked very closely with the foster families, the provincial council and met with them many times, attend many of their events and they are absolutely thrilled. There are some days in this job that are good and those days are when you get phone calls and letters saying thank you very much for recognizing us. As we know, the foster families are critical to helping us and assisting us in terms of having a place for a child to live and be part of a family. Our ultimate goal is that a child gets a permanent family and is adopted. We are focused on that and I think the figures speak for themselves, that we are moving that along and are being successful with our strategy.

 

MR. ZINCK: Mr. Chairman, approximately how much time do I have left?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: About 25 minutes.

 

MR. ZINCK: I want to bring up a point and I will eventually draft it up and send it off officially to the minister's Advisory Committee on the Children and Family Services Act. One of the things that has really frustrated me over the last number of years is when the department sees fit, for obvious reasons, to go in and apprehend a child, or children, from a particular family. We immediately go in and we try to protect the child. I think where we're losing out, or where we could do more, is to actually offer up more services for that family.

 

I'll tell you of one particular situation where I have a family that has lost three children now and it's very difficult. Two of the children are adopted out but I still have two individuals who are struggling to come to terms with that decision. They're frustrated by the department. However the way I look at it is - let's say that they separate and go on their own way. Let's say the lady, in particular, goes on to go into another relationship but she hasn't fully recovered from having her children taken away, hasn't been able to get services, but she might have another child. Where she had previous involvement with the department, had three children taken away, the hospital social workers would automatically alert the department to this. She would obviously have to explain this to her partner. In the meantime the father of the three children would go off and have to live with the fact that he lost three children, for whatever reasons.

 

Let's say that this is a family that might have had some parenting issues. We immediately take the child but the services don't follow up for the family. What happens is, okay we've been successful on one side. We have children who are adopted out. They are in loving families but we have two damaged individuals in society now and we can't really stop her from having another child, but really we can because we know that if she does have another child, chances are she's going to be in trouble with child protection services again.

 

I guess my recommendation, and I will put it in print and I'll send it off to the advisory committee, I really strongly recommend it. Let's take for example if we have a single mom battling an addiction issue and we have to go in for whatever reason and take the child away from her for safety reasons, safety of the child. We're protecting the child but that individual who had that child is still out there and if we don't see it as our responsibility and our role as social workers to help that individual get the services that they need, we're running the risk of having that individual go down the road, a year or two later, and have another child and we're right back in the same situation where we have another child in care but again we have a damaged individual.

 

After five years of looking into this, I think that's the one piece that really frustrates me is that we don't really push enough and play as big a role as we can in families' lives in that sense. Our social workers are great at apprehending and protecting the child but we're still leaving individuals out there damaged. You can make a comment to that, I'd appreciate it, but like I said, I will put it in print and send it off to the advisory committee as well.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: A couple of points on this very difficult topic. Number one is, as you know, the Act is there to protect children and that is vitally important. If we do not do that and we do not do it appropriately and something happens to that child then none of us could live with ourselves. You may think it is extreme but it needs to be extreme so no child falls through the cracks of our system. That's why we're so sensitive and attentive to that. Number two, as you're probably aware, many of the decisions surrounding child custody involve the justice system and the court system that we, as a department, need to abide by.

Thirdly though, with respect to your point, presently we do know that once we feel the child is safe, we will work with that family. Now, if we're not doing enough in that area, we should be and we can. That brings me to the point that I have talked to you about before and invited you to be a part of, the restorative approaches. That's exactly what they do in Hull, England. You can go to centres in Hull that are called family conferencing centres and that's exactly what they're about, they are about bringing the parties together and working with the social workers, working with the resources in the community along with the family members on how they can go forward and with what supports. It's very similar to that wrap-around service that I'm talking about.

 

So I think that there will be improvements in that area and there can be improvements in that area. It will take awhile because, firstly, we have to change the culture within Community Services and the way that we've done business. That will take time for people to be able to come on board with restorative approaches, the commitment level we have to restorative approaches, and how we can build on that foundation and use that approach in the variety of areas that we're responsible for within Community Services.

 

One of the gentlemen who is greatly involved in the City of Hull will be here for the conference. I don't know if you were here when I mentioned that I am bringing him into the department for several days while he's here from England and we are going to focus on these aspects such as foster families, such as adoptions, all concerning family conferencing. So I think it will be really interesting to learn more about how exactly they're doing it in England.

 

MR. ZINCK: Madam Minister, that's good to hear. You made mention of this on Friday and I'm really excited now. I'm hoping that I can attend. If I can, I definitely will make a point of it. It sounds really promising.

How are we making out with the Wood Street expansion, the secure facility in Truro? Are we on target for that? I know I asked a question in the Fall around that. I mean in relation to Wood Street, so everybody understands, we currently don't have the capacity to have programs for some of the more extreme cases in our young people we see, who we take into care, so we tend to send them out of the province or out of the country.

 

I've been asking about this for the last two years, at least, and I've been told we do a great job. We don't make mistakes taking kids but we don't do a great job of placements, and this facility, hopefully, will offer up some support for our young people and the staff in the department to get these young people set on the right path. So are we on target for that? I believe in the Fall you had said we were about a year away.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We're actually moving along with that process. The gym is almost completed and it was a three-phased process. So the actual centre itself, the Level 3, the high level, will be finished by 2012.

 

MR. ZINCK: I'm going to throw this out there right now, I have to make mention of it because I've received a number of calls leading up to this session of the House and I just want to put it on your radar and, again, maybe you can just take it back to the Executive Council. I know you can't discuss it - it's your issue on your table now; it's the Justice Department's issue. It's the member for Halifax Needham's as well, her issue.

 

I have recently been contacted by a number of individuals, African Nova Scotian men, who were abused by Cesar Lalo and there are approximately 20 cases out there now that haven't been dealt with yet. I just want to bring it to your attention and make mention of it because these individuals are feeling frustrated because they're feeling that because they're African Nova Scotians their cases have dragged on long enough. Some of the settlements aren't being - they're feeling that they're not being accommodated because of their racial background and the fact that they are residing in the Minister of Health's constituency and lack of responses has frustrated them. I know it's before Justice, but I just wanted to put that out there. It was interesting that I started to receive calls leading up to the House so it's on someone's radar. It was brought to me anonymously by a number of individuals who were affected by Mr. Lalo. I guess they just kind of wanted it on the radar so I wanted to make mention of that. Did you want to comment? I don't know if you can.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, just before you go there, again, I want to caution you about providing enough identifying information about a case to make sure that those individuals can't be identified.

 

MR. ZINCK: I wasn't commenting in regard to actual individuals. The calls that came to me were anonymous but they wanted to know if we knew what was going on. They asked me to make mention of this individual whose name has been mentioned in this House before, Cesar Lalo, and the 20 cases that are currently being dealt with and the feeling of these African Nova Scotian men that it's being slowed. I'm not mentioning individual cases. Really, I just wanted to make mention of it and you can take it back. I don't expect a response, so that's fine. I had to do them justice in making mention of it.

 

I don't have a lot of questions around housing. I know you patiently sat through the first portion of it. I have tremendous success with the staff at the Department of Community Services and housing in particular. The community has benefited with the Highfield Park Housing Co-operative situation. There is still an issue. One of the individual groups that I contacted before we came into session, Halifax Coalition Against Homelessness, I contacted them specifically because each year I attend the Report Card on Homelessness. This year they were unable to secure federal funding. They had some federal funding cut so they weren't able to do that. I was quite interested in seeing where the numbers were, actually, with the rising rents and the fact that the majority of landlords are now asking for credit checks on individuals. It has become a real plight for a lot of folks.

 

Part of the poverty reduction actions and initiatives says that you're trying to create a provincial housing strategy and it was announced on April 3, 2009. What is that going to look like? I know we talked about, and I agree fully about the emphasis on - especially now with the federal election coming up - we need to see housing across all jurisdictions. In Canada we're being affected by housing stock, period, be it affordable or not. What are you and your department trying to do provincially?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: First to put it in perspective is the fact that we have identified the need of going forward with a housing strategy. You can understand all the different issues that we need to look at within a housing strategy. One of the first steps that needed to take place was to build relationships. I know that often people think that, oh, you say the words housing strategy, there should be one out by next month, but things don't happen like that. If you want to do a good job in any kind of strategy, you have to be able to not only consult, you have to have people feel that they're part of the process. That was my first objective.

 

Rather than having advocacy groups being angry at the department and feeling that they were not involved as part of the process, not just consultation but an actual part of the process, and to identify those in our communities who could be part of the process were the first steps that I needed to take. That takes time because what you're doing is taking people from a situation where they basically did not have a good relationship with government, and some mistrust, to trying to develop a trusting relationship that we can come to the table and discuss the issue of homelessness.

 

That's what I've been doing over the last two years knowing that I want to work towards the direction of establishing a housing strategy. Part of that was bringing together the coalition on homelessness to the table. We have a group of individuals who have been meeting on a regular basis discussing the whole issue and what initiatives we can start with. Can we look at some type of model that we could utilize and as a model see how it goes and then roll it out maybe in other areas of the province and tweak it where it needs to be tweaked in a rural community? We're almost to that point that we'll be able to announce what that model will be.

 

As I said, part of it was to take the time to build those relationships, the other part was, for me as the minister - and I'm sure you'll appreciate as we're going through this process and all the topics that you've brought forth and many more that could be brought forth - is all work for us in the department. There are a lot of areas that we're responsible for. Time is very difficult, however I've taken the opportunity to go out to homeless shelters and to sit and talk to the homeless individuals. I've taken the time to go to women's centres because it all inter-relates, right? It's not just the homeless shelters, it's a lot of things that people end up in that position so you have to have an understanding - everything from domestic violence to mental health issues.

 

I recently spent several hours at a men's intervention centre which was a wonderful experience for me. It was over in Dartmouth. I sat with the gentlemen and there was no one else there, no other staff, nobody from the intervention centre, it was just myself with the gentlemen. I could have spent more than two hours. People were knocking at the door and saying - I actually missed another meeting. I got scolded for that, but I missed another meeting. I did not want to say to them that, I'm sorry, my time is up.

 

We were just in such a discussion around the table. It was really eye-opening; it was enjoyable for me to be able to hear their struggles, their successes and that all inter-relates with housing. A lot of these individuals there, some have homes, some don't. I feel very strongly that it's like when you build a house, you can decide to just lay a slab down and quickly build or you can decide to put more bricks and mortar down and have a very solid foundation. What that means at the end of the day is what you're building will be sustainable; it will be a foundation that will support the needs in the future.

 

If you don't do that, you are going to have a weak foundation, therefore your strategy is not going to work, especially housing, it's very complicated and so many players have to be involved. I think that we are doing it the right way by building that relationship. It's not going to work if we tell people what they should be doing. We need the people who experience this in their everyday life. How can we help them?

 

I also have a ministerial assistant who is focusing on housing, Gary Burrill. What we're looking at there, there are all sets of housing issues from co-operative housing, urban housing issues, rural housing issues, youth housing issues, seniors housing issues, so you can see the complexity. I'm pleased we're actually where we're at. We have developed those partnerships and that relationship is quite strong so that we'll be able to go out in the near future and make a very good announcement surrounding that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, there is only about five minutes remaining in your hour.

 

MR. ZINCK: Thank you, a couple of quick snappers. Maintenance enforcement, to my knowledge it's not taxable income through Canada Revenue Services but the department takes it off dollar for dollar and this would be child support paid out directly from a spouse for their children. The department takes it dollar for dollar but they don't count the Child Tax Benefit in there, dollar for dollar. Is there a reason why we do that? Also other situations when, if somebody on IA comes into the system and they are told you have to go through the Maintenance Enforcement program, you have to take your former partner and try to get the court order. While the department goes through that process in trying to get those funds from the individual, the person that has applied for IA is being funded from the department and then all of a sudden maybe what happens is they receive a lump sum. Can you explain why the department would take that lump sum from that individual?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What we would be looking at there is because we already gave them money to replace that but I think that there are issues that you bring forth that could be studied and looked at. As I said, any situation or policy should be reviewed. I think that's one of the aspects that hasn't been done over the past that I would like to see as part of the way that you do business, you evaluate. Evaluation doesn't mean you evaluate at the end of a project. If you're going to do appropriate evaluations, you do evaluations as you go through any type of process. I think the balance there is looking at the dollars again to ensure that if we're supporting people and then they have income coming in that that income that is coming in replaces the tax dollars that has been supporting them. But if there are issues surrounding that in some terms of a policy, it's something that certainly could be talked about and looked at.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time for one more question and an answer.

 

MR. ZINCK: The reason I bring it up is because your government's going to be announcing very soon, I believe in the Fall, about a policy or a position on childhood obesity. I look at it as a real opportunity for a single mother to further their resources in raising their child. Some of these court orders are $100 a month. I just think it's an opportunity to have that for the child whether it's for clothes or more food, healthier foods or whatnot. I'm glad to hear to you say that it's something that could be looked at.

 

I'll end off by asking you a question, it's actually around ESS, Employment Support Services, and maybe you can take this back to the Minister of Labour and Workforce Development. There are courses out there that folks can take like the survival systems courses that get them ready to go on the oil rigs, around $2,500 funding. There are courses for long-haul trucking, some courses around heavy equipment operations. These are courses that are very short in length, anywhere from a week to seven weeks, ten weeks. It's a real opportunity to have somebody come out with some real good skills, trade skills, and get right into the field of employment. Is there something that maybe an ESS worker could look forward to, going back and trying to get some funding for those types of courses? I know to my knowledge we don't fund the long-haul courses or the survival systems courses.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Actually some of those courses you mentioned we do fund. We are working very closely with Labour because we are making changes in that area, also keeping in mind it's that balance again. I know that the goal is the fact that we want people to become more employable and be able to work. We also always have to keep in mind those individuals that are considered working poor and that the system doesn't become so attractive that they say, well look, if I go on the system I will get my medication paid for. I will also get my education paid for, my course that I want to take, a short-term course. That's where the balance is and that's why we need a lot of discussion around it. The answer is not to just say because of that we have a line, a real strong division between what's available for people on income assistance versus the working poor. Once again, that is where discussion is vitally important.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The time has expired. It is now time for the Liberal caucus.

 

The honourable member for Glace Bay.

 

MR. GEOFF MACLELLAN: Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the minister and the staff that are here from the department. It's certainly my first estimates run and it's a long and difficult sort of session and there are lots of questions and lots of things to work on so I do appreciate the time. I think this will be the easiest hour as I'm wrapping up and I'm sharing some of my time with the member for Yarmouth. We'll go quickly.

 

I just have three areas and the first is one we've touched on already. It's just a question to wrap it up in my mind and it's regarding the NSGEU labour situation. Has Metro Regional Housing, to this point, asked for more funding to DCS? Have they mentioned about covering those extra funds or any of those things?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once again, that would be something I'm not privy to because it's at the negotiation table.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: So if that was the request from Metro Regional Housing, they wouldn't bring it to the department specifically?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, they would, but what I'm trying to say is that we're still keeping the faith of the negotiations going on between Metro Regional Housing Authority and the individuals who are on strike, the union.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Okay, I appreciate that. I want to ask about a very important topic that has been brought up in the House on a number of occasions by myself and by some of my colleagues through questions or through various debates and it's about the protection of persons in care. I know that in the recent times we've seen situations of abuse or suggested abuse at residential facilities in Riverton, Truro and Sydney, that being Riverview, Braemore in Sydney and the Colchester Residential Services Society.

 

Do you have any information? From my understanding, unless something has changed, I know that Braemore is still ongoing and also with the CRSS. Do you get updates on where those reviews are?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, I get updates where they are in the process.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: So is there any kind of definitive timeline that we will be hearing any of those reports for either - I'm assuming that CRSS is much further advanced than the Braemore investigations?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Braemore's report is supposed to be coming to us in early June. We don't have an exact date but we'll get back to you and let you know.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Okay. We've been in conversation with many stakeholder groups over the last several months. I've had contact in Sydney and Truro and there seems to be a bit of a trend in terms of clients abusing clients and the threatening of clients on the staff and abuse of the staff and all those things I know the minister's aware of. Sometimes those residents requiring high levels of care have to be controlled through isolation and I think that sort of signals that maybe the staff aren't trained or there's not enough information to properly deal with the very difficult situations and the staff face significant challenges with those every day.

 

I certainly commend the individual reviews that have taken place, but I just find that in terms of the structure and in terms of the whole system, they are sort of reactive and they might find problems and issues after the fact but they're not proactive in terms of how we prevent these issues and these problems and these abuses from taking place.

 

So if the clients are unsafe and the families of those residents are unhappy and certainly concerned, and the staff are undertrained and certainly way overworked, without question, is there some kind of systematic look that we could take at the residential care facilities, as opposed to going with individual isolated investigations? Is it time that maybe there is an independent audit and the investigations are at arm's length from DCS? Is it time that maybe we look across the board, province to province, and look at the whole system to see where the major gaps in the provinces take place?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Certainly we have been looking at the whole system, the setup in the Province of Nova Scotia, and we're always looking at jurisdictions throughout Canada and throughout the world and what has taken place. I think it's very important though for you to know that the increased numbers that we're hearing is because of the fact that the Protection for Persons in Care Act brought forth the protection and care and to ensure that any incident is reported. So before that time, it was February 2009, you wouldn't have had that information. So, therefore, it's not in the front of people's minds because it wasn't being reported. So, therefore, with that Act coming in place, it was very important and it's telling us that the Act is actually working because we are getting the reports.

 

Now, the reports are surrounded - it can be an incident where a resident abuses another resident but the word abuse, that's one area that we're looking at because abuse from one resident to another, if one resident does touch another resident, that other resident can say that's abuse, right? So the definition has been very wide open in order to make sure that everyone was protected and every incident looked at, but we are realizing that maybe that definition needs to be tightened up because of the fact that people see it as, you know, when you say the word abuse, you're not thinking that somebody touched somebody else, you're thinking that it was a punch or a hit, or far worse, but the Act is working because of the fact that we want to know about those situations that do occur and what steps that we can take.

 

Now, what I have discovered, and that's why we changed legislation last year, is the fact that years ago when the municipalities used to be responsible for these residential facilities and then there was a transition to the Province of Nova Scotia, there was one piece that was forgotten and not really discussed and that was who owns the facility, how the board of directors are made up for the facility, and who funds the facility. So presently what we're dealing with is the Department of Community Services, we are the funders. However, before the new legislation last year, we had no ability to go in and make any major changes because we were the funders. We weren't accountable. We were accountable for the individuals there but we didn't have the control of the staff or the organization, or the board of directors; and the board of directors are made up of the municipal councillors who would be appointed to that board.

 

Now, it's a very difficult type of board to sit on and I know that the councillors give every bit of their knowledge and ability to those boards. However, you can also ask the question, should there be community members on the board? Should there be professionals on the board? But the way that the system was set up, that is what was created and how the boards were made. Part of actually focusing on the Braemore review, we'll be looking at that too. So we saw before Braemore that there had to be a systemic problem here that was taking place and we felt that maybe part of that is how the structure of these residential facilities are made up. Also they are actually owned by the municipalities. We don't own them as a province, they are owned by the municipalities. We are working through that and we feel that through the reviews that are taking place that will assist us in discovering and having more of an open conversation.

 

The training aspect is that Community Services has been readily available to come in and help with training. We have done it over and over again in facilities when it was identified to us as an issue. Once again, because of the fact that we do not run those facilities, we do not have the ability to go in and say, okay this is what needs to be done tomorrow, we think that this needs to be done, because that lies with the organization itself which is run by the board of directors.

 

I think because of the nature of how it is set up, there have been issues that have come forth and we've seen those. What will happen out of reviews such as Braemore it will bring those to light and then because it has been brought to light, there will be discussion around it and that's a good thing.

MR. MACLELLAN: I think what you've highlighted, to me, is the exact reason for that comprehensive review. I'm sure Braemore will uncover many of those - it will open up the door to many of those problems. I know that I have spoken with staff there and they feel - in particular, the instance that brought some of these major challenges to light - that they weren't properly trained to deal with many of these very extreme situations. There is a lack of personal connection with some of the residents who have higher level of needs and they've got to establish some kind of mechanism where there is a closer relationship and be able to address those problems sooner and those issues.

 

Some of what we heard from other staff members at different points in the province was that the incident reports, also, are not being submitted, reported and followed through as well as they should be. Again, not laying blame, I just think that a comprehensive, holistic review from end to end of the province would really open up those things and, as minister, allow you take a look at them. I think that the measures you enacted in the legislation are good and they are a start but again, my personal opinion is that they are reactive and don't allow you to see the big picture in terms of what some of the issues may be and then jump in beforehand and stop some of those things.

 

Were you familiar with the Kendrick Report or was that something that was on your desk since your time as minister, the Kendrick Report that was commissioned, I think it was 2001, are you familiar with that?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: A couple of things from your comment. I want you to also be aware that we have many facilities and there are facilities where the work is being done and there are no issues whatsoever. So I think it's important that we do have service providers where issues haven't arisen and that they are struggling along and doing a good job. I think that it is important that when these come to light, when we do a comprehensive review, it opens the door for us to do a better job. I think, once again, since that discussion is on the table, I'm very familiar with Michael Kendrick and his report.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I know that Dr. Kendrick was extremely interested in light of what has happened here in the last little bit in Truro and Sydney and Riverton. I want to table a document really quickly. This is what he has issued since because I would suspect that he hoped that the report that he did commission, and then put together, would have a little bit more legs in the province.

 

I'm just going to quickly run through this. This is the summary. The Premier announces a multi-Party working group on modernization of disability support systems for a five-year renewable term to develop and oversee a plan with these essential components listed below. This includes a citizen leader nominee from each part for membership on the working group; (a) Strengthen multi-year staff training on best practices, particularly in regard to meeting needs, avoiding abuse, safe-guarding vulnerability, community inclusion and partnering with service users and families; (b) Gradual reduction and replacement of institutional and congregate service settings for over a five to ten year period; (c) All new or replacement services concentrated on more individualized consumer family-directed options; (d) Establish independent community monitoring of all institutional and potentially restrictive settings; and (e) Selective but modest funding improvements in crucial areas over a five-year period; (f) Independent progress review at two- to five-year point.

 

I'll table that, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that the Kendrick Report in its entirety has to be adopted as stated and that's certainly a great summary because that identifies some of things - actually a lot of these things - that we had discussed here this evening and that are on the table in terms of some of the problems. I just think that it is certainly worthwhile, as a working document, to take a look at. In terms of the residential facilities, you're absolutely right, some of the larger ones run very well and there aren't a lot of issues that have to be delved into and be part of that comprehensive review. I just think it makes some good points.

 

Just to summarize, is there a set plan for review? By the sounds of your responses, you're going to take Braemore and start there as the foundation.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think it's very important for you to know that part of the foundation will actually be Dr. Kendrick's report. You will be interested in knowing that he is a personal friend of mine that I have met in the last two years. Actually when I became the Minister of Community Services, I sought him out and a mutual friend is a friend of his. I have met with him several times. I actually was bold enough to - because I believed in what the department was doing, they had been working very hard. People think that the report probably sat on a filing cabinet, but it didn't. They used it as a framework to go forward.

 

I actually gave Dr. Kendrick a full report of what we've done to date so he could analyze it to see if we were on track and he was very pleased with where we were at. Of course, anybody who has the passion and the knowledge that he has - because he goes around the world consulting and providing advice in this area - so he has looked at it. He knows, and I've been very open with him, that we feel we could do more, but what we have done to date, he did not even realize it because the fact is you have to remember that the information that would have gotten to Dr. Kendrick would be through the media, like most people, and the good stories, unfortunately, do not get covered. It's the negative stories. When he was able to have the opportunity to see what this department has been doing, in reality, the real facts rather than just the myth that comes through media, he was very appreciative of that. I maintain contact with him as a resource to help me as a minister to look at these very difficult situations and he has been very supportive in offering advice.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: That's certainly encouraging. I see, with Truro, Sydney and Riverton, many trends and it was interesting to read and it wasn't the summary points, it was the original Kendrick Report. I looked through it and thought, this is very relevant to what these problems are here and now so I thought it was interesting that he put that together 10 years ago. That is certainly good news that you're connected to Dr. Kendrick and you've got that report, so that's good.

 

My final topic for the night, before I share my time with my friend, the MLA for Yarmouth, is Direct Family Support Policy. I just want to quickly find out a little bit of information from the department's perspective. Families raising children with physical and developmental disabilities obviously face significant and many challenges and they face those on a daily basis. I met with a group in Truro, a large group of families who talked about the Direct Family Support Policy, and while they certainly applaud its existence and the fact that it's there for the right reasons, they have suggested that many changes in the policy itself are necessary, and everything comes down to money, but this was a financial sort of change, alteration, as well as some of the policy issues.

 

Now, the available therapy supportive programming and respite assistance are invaluable for families, without question. The problem is that the rules and the criteria for being able to take advantage of those programs, as mentioned, are rigid and they find the income thresholds are very low; if it's a dual-income family, very low. So it always comes back to money and it is about money. More money would provide more opportunities for families but the bottom line is that the families that I met with - and they had many contacts and get similar viewpoints across the province - think that there are some holes in this system in terms of the rigid policies for getting in and then the income level. So I'm just wondering, first of all, do you have any numbers on how many families accessed this program and what are the numbers of the budget for, say, respite care and for this Direct Family Support Program?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The Direct Family Support Program presently has 2,035 clients and, I'm sorry, what was your second question - what the budget is for that amount?

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Budget, like line items that are attributed and attached to that program.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: While George is getting that, I will talk a little bit on the Direct Family Support Program. This is another area that I have been focused on. As I said, we have been looking at basically every aspect, every service that we offer within the Department of Community Services within the scope of the financial reality how we can better serve those clientele. I think that, once again, actions speak very loudly here as a government that has made the major investments that we have had in Community Services in the last two years, certainly showing that families are very important to us, the whole social aspect, the services, those individuals and families who have been, unfortunately, neglected for too many years.

 

So, we're making steps. Sometimes they are baby steps but at least we're going forward; we're not going backwards, and this is actually one area where there is great discussion and we are doing a review. We'll be looking at where we can improve that particular service and the resources to families. I totally agree with you on the fact that I think that part of where we do need to invest in the families is in the fact that if they are able to keep their loved ones with them in their home, which most people want to do, and if they have the capacity and we can provide them the support to do that, that helps us in terms of if that individual would have to go to either a group home or a residential facility, it will cost us a lot more.

 

That is one of the reasons also that we have recently invested in the day programs because we do see the fact that, for example, if families have that option that their loved one can go to a day program that provides them with the opportunity to be employed, or that respite care, because the individual is at a day program. So it is an area that certainly we are looking at and I think that you can go back to the individuals that you've talked to and let them know that we are reviewing that.

 

I will give you some figures. The budget for direct family support for children for 2011-12 will be approximately $6.6 million and for direct family support with adults is almost $17 million.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I wrote you a letter probably early in the new year with regard to this group in Truro. If you are, in fact, reviewing this program, they have a wide swath of members with the organization and they would provide a tremendous amount of insight. I think it would be worth a meeting with yourself and with some of the department officials because they really, genuinely do have some great ideas that would improve the program. I think the funding required to implement the suggestions they made would be marginal.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I didn't catch the name of the organization that you're referring to.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: It's respite for families with children with special needs and the leader is Melissa Higgins.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Is it a provincially-based organization? I've met with the respite cares and many different organizations. However, if we haven't met, certainly part of our process is talking with others. You and I can get the exact information exchanged between each other to set that up.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Okay, that's fantastic. I appreciate it. I have one final question and it's somewhat connected to the conversation we've had and the questions I've asked Friday and today and it has to do with the division of housing at the Cape Breton Regional Housing Authority. It's regarding a case. I know the department members who are here are familiar with it, it's regarding the asbestos case that was in Sydney in 2009, I believe. (Interruption) It goes back that far, it has been ongoing for awhile.

 

I'm trying to get a feel and Dave's been fantastic with the information. It's one of those things that you and I have talked about. I don't understand. They still really don't understand the philosophical relationship between the division of housing and Department of Community Services. If this is part of DCS and they are carrying out this work with Cape Breton Island housing authority, because of the provisions under the Public Service, they provide legal fees and legal coverage in these instances. In this case I know the three gentlemen are building up pretty hefty expenses, on their own, to defend themselves. They are so far not being supported; they're not supported through DCS. I want to throw that out there and get your feeling on it.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm aware of the case and it's actually being reviewed at this time, the actual policy with respect to this.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: That's fantastic. I appreciate that information. With that, I want to turn it over to my friend, the MLA for Yarmouth.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's almost perfect timing, the halfway mark. You have approximately 30 minutes remaining in the hour for your caucus.

 

The honourable member for Yarmouth.

 

MR. ZACH CHURCHILL: Thank you. I want you to know that I've appreciated very much the openness on your behalf and willingness to discuss issues pertinent to your portfolio, pretty consistently, whenever they pop up, inside the House and outside. Thank you for that. I know you care deeply about your portfolio and it's the hope of all of us that we can work on addressing some of the key issues in terms of Community Services in the province.

 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for your participation tonight, you have the best voice by far in the House and it's an absolute pleasure to listen to you moderate tonight's discussions.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, the good member for Yarmouth.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: Minister, I did want to talk to you about early childhood learning. I have had some conversations with the folks from Yarmouth who are involved with the Southwest Early Childhood Intervention Program. As you know, because we've had some correspondence on this issue, there are some real concerns there about the financial future of this program in particular and ensuring that there are funding levels in place that allow these groups to provide those vital services that they do provide in our communities.

 

As you are aware, the Southwest Early Childhood Intervention Program provides specialized services and support to the families of young children with special needs and developmental delays. Whereas this is such a key component to the success of a lot of these individuals and is needed for the support in terms of helping out the families, the financial concerns that have come up around this I find are a bit worrisome because, as you know, we've learned through research that early childhood education, even preschool, is oftentimes some of the most important years we have with children in terms of their learning and with folks who are dealing with different barriers and challenges to learning. It's obviously worrisome when the organizations responsible for doing that might not have the finances they need to do that.

 

I know the province has engaged in an agreement - I'm not sure if it's with all the early childhood intervention programs in the province, but I know with Southwest - whereby that group will fundraise 5 per cent of the funds. At the beginning they thought that was going to be an okay compromise, but what I hear from them now is that it's actually quite a challenge for them to reach that fundraising goal. I'm wondering what the plans are from your department to ensure that these essential programs that we have in place that provide such a necessary component to learning for our children, what plans are in place to ensure that the funding is kept to an appropriate level whereby these groups can do the necessary work that they have to do?

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much. I agree with you with respect to early intervention. There's no question in my mind and I know in any of the staff's minds within Community Services how vitally important it is that children, from the time that they're born, get a good start in life. For some children there are some struggles and they need to have that help and there are a lot of pressures in that sector.

 

We did recognize there are pressures in terms of staffing so for our 2011-12 budget we added an additional $278,900 to help with staffing positions with respect to early intervention, so that would equate to 5.5 new positions. Our total investment in 2011-12 in early intervention would equate to $2.72 million. We actually invested an additional $111,000 into 2010-11 and that was also to address, last year, the early intervention centres came to us speaking about their pressures on operational costs. We looked at the real operational costs.

 

Presently, so you get an overall scope on a province level, the department provides support for 17 early intervention programs which serves approximately 700 children in the province. The funding has increased by $617,000 since 2005-06. The programs, as you mentioned, focus on children from zero to six years and often children who, of course, are having some issues and identifying those issues. We also provide services through home visitation to these same families, so there are additional services to them.

 

I do realize that there are pressures there and recently we had a meeting with one of the early intervention centres in one of the regions of the province with the Minister of Education because we do realize that there are pressures there. The conversation has been initiated in how we can go forth, what steps we need to take in order to help early intervention within this province. I think that when you initiate these steps, you also have to look at what's available now and are we utilizing our services to the utmost, the efficiencies and effectiveness of them. Are there opportunities to share in partnership? I think those questions need to be addressed also at the same that we're looking at what the funding issues are. Once again, we are always working against the constraint of the finances and what those balances are. I mean, just sitting here in the last several days talking in budget estimates, you can hear the great needs that we have throughout the province.

 

What is really difficult is the fact that each and every one of those stories are real stories about human beings, about people in the Province of Nova Scotia in great need and that they need support. That's where the struggle comes in and that's where we have to reach out for partnerships; that's where we have to reach out to my colleagues and to you as Opposition colleagues to help us with coming up with some of these solutions, to be able to discuss it and try to figure out what we can do. At the end of the day, if we're helping one more child, that means that we are becoming successful.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: I am encouraged to hear that there have been some additional funds allocated towards this program. I hope that the professionals in the field are being continually consulted on this because as recently as, I believe, a month ago or so I've heard from the professionals in the field that were still worried about the level of financing and their ability to provide those needed services that they do.

 

I have a letter here from Professor Gerard Kysela who has corresponded with your office and myself as well, which I can table. This is one of the essential services that government needs to be involved with, early childhood intervention and education. This is one of the key things that we need to ensure a sense of equality in our society and giving everybody the right start-off. It's definitely one of the most fundamental areas where our governments, especially ones that have a very profound social conscience, need to stay focused on. I just hope that we continue to do that. I'm happy to hear there's some funding there for some additional staffing positions, which I'm sure is very helpful to the sector.

 

When it comes to financing for the salaries of the professionals in the field right now, I know that the Hay Report, which was commissioned in May 2009, indicated that the salaries for early intervention consultants across the province were below the 10^th percentile compared to the same positions in other provinces in Canada. Have there been moves since then - I'm not aware if there have been - to increase the salary range for those professionals to ensure that we're able to compete with other provinces, recruit and retain those professionals to Nova Scotia, and also provide them with the compensation that they deserve because of the nature of their work? As we know, one way that we show that we value positions in the private sector and the public sector is by actually giving the remuneration that indicates how much those positions are valued. Has there been any move to increase the salary ranges for those positions to make them more competitive and equitable with other jurisdictions?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Before I answer that question I just want to go back to also highlight - I think it's important to recognize when we're talking about early intervention - other initiatives in the province here that have a very positive effect for those who are running the early intervention centres and that would be in the recent announcement of the autism report and the support that this government has given to the autism community. I know that there was great joy over that support that a child no longer has to be a part of a lottery system, that every child in this province who has an issue with autism will have that available to them.

 

We have to recognize the fact that these other government initiatives may not be direct dollars into that particular intervention centre but the trickle-down effect is certainly positive in the sense that that will assist them with regard to trying to support. They would have had a population of children who wouldn't have been eligible and lost out on the lottery system that would go and put pressure on that early intervention centre for resources and help for a child with autism. Now this service will be provided to every child in this province so that should lift some pressure for the early intervention centres.

 

With respect to the salary amounts, we recognize and I know that that is an issue. That's part of the process where I mentioned that the conversation has been started through that meeting with the Minister of Education and an early intervention group. Although, as I said, that was a group representing one part of the province. What they were talking about echoes throughout the entire province. So we have actually committed that we are going to continue to meet with them and work together. Then we will develop a group that will be able to advise and talk to us about how we can go forward in terms of building more resources, in terms of the salaries. We recognize it, it is an issue. Early intervention centres have lost very good staff persons to other competitors in similar areas, and definitely, we do understand it is an issue.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: Thank you and it's also about providing them a compensation to demonstrate how much that profession is valued in our society and how important it is from a government's perspective. This issue with salaries has also been brought up by another local organization, Lil' Jems Early Learning Childcare Centre, which is a fantastic organization in Yarmouth that does early childhood learning with preschool-aged children ranging from children who do not have any developmental delays or learning barriers to children who do and they are integrated in a unique setting and one that's productive for their learning process as they move forward.

 

Jodi MacKinnon LeBlanc, the owner and director of Lil' Jems, a very dedicated person and focused on really achieving outcomes with the young people she works with as her clients, has indicated to me that the salaries for her staff are lower than they should be as well. They don't reflect the designation that's required as two thirds of those educators need to take a two-year program offered by community college. Right now early childhood educators are paid below $12, according to Ms. MacKinnon LeBlanc. According to her, this salary does not reflect the value of the work in the field and the level of training and certification that is required for early childhood educators, nor does it allow for those facilities, again, to compete.

 

That group, as well, has brought this issue to my attention. I think it's very important that as we look at these programs and identify how we're going to fund, looking at the salaries should be a continual priority, in my opinion. These folks do great work. They do necessary work and the work they do helps our young people on their path to being successful and engaged in a meaningful way in our economy and society. The work that has been done has just been so important.

 

Now I'm going to jump to the opposite end of the spectrum, to adults with developmental delays and learning barriers, intellectual disabilities. There is a local organization in Yarmouth called Life Skills. They take on very high-need clients who sometimes need continual monitoring throughout the day. They provide them with a learning environment, as adults, which they didn't have when they were younger, in a productive environment where they can be engaged throughout the day.

 

I know that some of their clients who started with that program have gone from being in a state of depression and dealing with thoughts of suicide, in some cases, to being happy and looking forward to their days in that organization.

 

I don't believe that outside of certain program funding that comes to your department and perhaps others, there is no continual funding for that program in particular. I'm not entirely sure why. I know that the Kaye Nickerson Service Centre is funded and they deal with a very high-functioning client base who are able to do work. Life Skills is dealing with clients who are a bit higher-need.

 

You mentioned you come to Yarmouth. I would suggest that is one group that you could definitely meet with to talk about their challenges, to talk about their needs and to talk about the role that they've played in our community in helping people. As I said before, I think these things are very important and fundamental functions of government to ensure that all those members of our society, no matter what their learning level, no matter what their physical ability is, all have a chance at being successful and leading meaningful lives in our communities.

 

I do believe that these sectors need a champion in you and your department and sometimes that might mean standing up to our Minister of Finance when we're looking at cutting back and working towards balancing the books and ensuring that these essential services that are so important to the nature of our society and the reflective values for our country are upheld and funded to an adequate level. I would ask you to do that on behalf of those sectors.

 

The last thing I want to bring up, minister, and this is another case that you are familiar with, is the SHYFT housing project in Yarmouth. Now there does seem to be, believe it or not, in a rural community like Yarmouth and I'm sure in other rural communities across the province, an issue with homelessness in youth. We've identified at least 12, I believe, in Yarmouth who are homeless.

 

The Tri-County Women's Centre has put together quite an incredible plan and implemented a remarkable project in the SHYFT housing project through mostly federal funds and community donations and some additional support from your department, actually, which I'd like to note and let you know that's appreciated. They put together a house; they have rebuilt a house that serves as a shelter for homeless youth in our community. I know there have been a number of clients who have been using that facility already.

 

The concern is that because the money that has come in, a lot of the operational funds have come through the community in terms of donations. They received a few large donations from compassionate community members. Those funds may be drying up as early as this month, actually. I know there are concerns from the clients and concerns from the Tri-County Women's Centre that this project might not be able to continue without a more sustainable provincial funding proposal. It's the operation that's costing them a lot of money. My question to you is, is this something we could perhaps look at in the future at funding to ensure this great initiative doesn't go away? We have the facility there. We have the infrastructure in place with the house and we have a dedicated staff there to ensure the clients who are homeless and need help do receive that in our community.

I know there are similar facilities, I believe, in Phoenix here in Halifax, but this could be a wonderful pilot project to see how this works in rural communities as well. My hope is that we can eventually identify sustainable provincial funding to make this project a long-lasting reality for our community.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, there are about eight minutes remaining in the Liberal caucus time.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay. Thank you very much. Very quickly, you mentioned about Life Skills, it is supported by DCS through regional funding. We are working very hard to be able - and we're hoping that we could do something in the near future with regard to that. We're having discussions at this moment.

 

With respect to SHYFT, I know that you've brought that to my attention and certainly part of our housing strategy is to be looking at the rural communities and the demographics and the needs in terms of youth. Often when we talk about homelessness, we don't think about the youth but that's a growing concern.

 

I know they've been working very hard to have the dollars for operational funding and we have worked closely with them. I know that it's a difficult situation in the sense that we know that this need is there and we are always discussing where our options and opportunities are in order to support SHYFT. I do understand that they did receive federal funding in order to purchase the home. I will be honest; I would like to see, when these types of funding projects come forth, that the federal government would also offer some continual operational dollars.

 

That's where the difficulty is. To give the one lump sum to purchase a home is wonderful; however, the difficulty is that home is going to be there for years to come. Our hope is that we don't have any homeless youth, but that's not going to be the reality. We'll work towards reducing that factor but it's important to note the difficulty the position that then happens is that there is a need for operational funding. SHYFT is run by volunteers and they're working so hard to be able to make sure that operational funding is there in the future.

 

Those are the challenges we face as a department. We also have to recognize that some of the youth can be supported through income assistance. That part is there for them so DCS is in there to help but we can always continue the suggestions and discussions on how we could go forward.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: Thank you minister. That is encouraging to hear that we're going to continue to have these conversations. Again, I strongly urge you to consider a funding proposal for that project. The federal government has actually come through with another one-time funding offer to help to ensure the staff person that was leading the project is still there. The federal government has come to the table again to support the funding for that staff person who was contracted to lead the project. I just thought that was important for you to know as well.

 

I think when we're talking about homeless youth too, it's important to recognize that they are not homeless for no reason. They often require additional support, whether through counselling, mentoring, teaching them how to budget or personal skills like that. That's something that this program in particular, SHYFT, is working at developing. I know there's funding available through the program that you mentioned that would put them in a shelter, but that wouldn't necessarily come along with the necessary moral support and professional support as well for some of these youth who might need it and I just think that's an important fact to consider as well.

 

Mr. Chairman, that's all for me, I'll hand it back to my good friend and colleague from Glace Bay to ask one more question if that's okay.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Glace Bay will have approximately four minutes.

 

MR. GEOFF MACLELLAN: It will be very good, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to touch on one issue that means a great deal to the people in my neck of the woods, certainly Glace Bay and the Island and all across the province and that would be the grant program under the Department of Housing. In many of your responses to our questions you mentioned the importance of allowing people to stay in their homes as part of the family unit and those types of things and I think that's absolutely right. I've seen the RRAP and the slap and the suite of grants and they provide home improvement but for me the emergency component of those grants has been absolutely incredible and has had a lasting impact on families in Glace Bay.

 

Just quickly to get your thoughts on that in terms of additional funding, if any, or if there was a change to the structure and also in terms of the policy and programs, have there been any structural changes to either one of those?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What we'll be looking at with respect to this will fit very nicely in our housing strategy so before we make any commitments or changes to that we want to make sure that it works within the strategy and I think that we need to have a little patience. They are very important programs and people have been very appreciative that they're available so therefore we want to look at where those fit in to the housing strategy and just how that will work with those programs.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: One final question, have you put in for any increases in salary for your department officials? I just want to end that on a compliment and a suggestion. That was a joke, you don't have to answer that and with that the defence rests, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Would the minister like to use up the remaining two minutes to respond to the Liberal caucus?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The staff tell me that they actually appreciate your offer and you're actually on better standing grounds than you were earlier today.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: That's good, I wanted to end strong.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know, I'm glad that you came back because it was making me a little bit nervous. I was thinking that they finally got to you, in your Party, to make you mean and I don't know how I could handle that going forward because you are too nice of a guy, okay.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Thank you.

 

HON. MEMBERS: Awww.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: He is.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: But not the guy beside him.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: No, Zach's a good guy too but Zach has these little zingers.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Thank you very much that concludes the hour allocated to the Liberal caucus. There are 16 minutes remaining for our four hours for today and I understand that the NDP caucus has a few questions but I think they are going to pass on those because the minister will probably want a closing time of about 16 minutes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. As you know, appearing at estimates, generally the focus is on numbers and I realize those numbers are important, there's no question. As a government we must account to how we invest Nova Scotians' money and how we plan to make life better for families. Although we're talking about numbers, we can never forget that we're really talking about people and through the Department of Community Services it's incredible to know that we touch the lives of 40,000 people and that's every year throughout this entire province.

 

So the next time you're out in a crowd and you take a look around, chances are that the budget numbers we discussed here today are actually helping several faces that you see in a crowd. They could be individuals or families whose quality of life is better thanks to our housing programs, our programs to support families, or our income support and employment training program. For example, we help 27,500 Nova Scotians with their housing needs each and every year. There are 28,000 low income families we help to feed and house around the province.

 

Children also get a great start in life with 4,430 child care subsidies and I think that's incredible for a province our size, also those are portable so they can move around. There were 121 children who were adopted in Nova Scotia last year and now they have a place to call home and somebody to call mom and dad, and we cannot forget those children. There's also approximately 800 foster families in Nova Scotia and these are absolutely special individuals who are willing and able to provide temporary support to children who find themselves in need of a safe place until their home life becomes more stable.

 

We also support 5,200 Nova Scotians with disabilities and, Mr. Chairman, these are the people, these are the Nova Scotians whose lives we are helping improve every day. So it's much more than dollar signs. What's important to me and my ability to get up each and every day is the fact that we know that we're helping somebody else out and I have wonderful staff who are part of the team to do that. I'm also extraordinarily proud to be a part of a government that recognizes the importance of people and that people are first. We recently, as many of you know, made some wonderful announcements the last week with regard to persons with disabilities; $1.5 million to the foster families' increase of 21 per cent per diem over two years; also looking at the autism support that we have given, and the list goes on and the list will continue with this particular government.

 

I want to also recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this is because of the support of my colleagues and the Premier of Nova Scotia and with his leadership and guidance we've been able to do this. It's not just myself or the staff members here, it is a team effort and I'm so very proud of this team effort. The Department of Community Services has submitted a budget request to this House for $985,884,000. Those are huge numbers but as we heard on Friday and today, they're not enough. They're not enough numbers. We have to be looking at how we can turn this ship around from the financial mess that we have inherited and so then we can reinvest this in the people.

 

We were on - and I know the Minister of Finance will be pleased to hear this because I know this and we all know it - an unsustainable path from that crowd over there. (Interruptions) So there are many things, as I mentioned, that we've announced over the last few weeks and there will be more and I want to mention some again. As you know, we are going to be increasing the personal allowance rate for income recipients by $15 a month but in addition to that, the other services and the finances that we provide to individuals add up to even a lot more dollars than that. If you look at the lower spectrum of dollar increases, you can look at the fact that an income assistance recipient at the lower end of that spectrum has received $700 more a year in the last two years. That's incredible. In the past, you may have been looking at maybe $40 to $50 a year, that's $700.

 

You can take, for example, a single mom with two children. The increase she has received because of this government in the last two years is over $2,400 a year. I would say that's unprecedented and I'm very proud of being a part of a government that has recognized that need and in times of constraint has realized that we not only invest in business, we invest in people. Investing in people creates an economic stimulus for all our communities throughout Nova Scotia. If people are viable and working in your community, you have a viable, strong community which means you have a viable, strong province.

 

I'm very proud in the fact that we came in as a government that is absolutely willing to listen to people and we've brought people to the table for discussion. That's the restorative approach. I even brought the Opposition members, the two who are here today, and invited them for their restorative approach and their suggestions. I've had some very good recommendations and thoughts from those two members who are sitting here today.

 

But that's what it's all about. We cannot forget why we're here. I'm very passionate about that because of the fact of how do you look somebody in the eye and know that they're homeless, or somebody who does not know where they're going to get the next dollar to either heat their home or put food on their table? Or a family who has a child who has autism and previously they may not have won the lottery so their child was left out from early intervention, that's just not right.

 

I think that this government has taken the initiative and it's not easy because there are so many needs. I found it absolutely astonishing when I came into this position, as I uncovered all the aspects of what Community Services was all about and I looked at and saw where those needs were, I couldn't believe the lack of investment in the people of Nova Scotia over the years. We haven't even started at a level playing field.

 

We have been behind the eight ball. I've also discovered very quickly the dedication of the staff of Community Services and unfortunately for them, they take the brunt of the anger over the years. It has nothing to do with the staff, they work so hard. It's the system. It is the system that has developed and it has developed into a monster. We're standing tall to take that monster down, piece by piece. We will fight the monster. We also look towards the Opposition members who are here tonight, because the others didn't care enough to be here, to take that monster down together. That's the journey that we must go forward with.

 

In closing, I want to thank everybody for their support and I want to invite people to feel they have the opportunity to come forward and ask questions, as I see that there is a question, to come forward with their questions and we will work to provide the answer and we'll work together in a restorative manner to make this a better province.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

 

MR. LEONARD PREYRA: I just wanted to follow up on your comments on recent initiatives. One of the things that Justice Nunn found in his dealing with the Archie Billard case was that a lot of these services are services, particularly in Community Services, they exist out there, but people have a hard time reaching that. I wonder if you can tell us something about the 211 system and what adopting that system will essentially mean and what kinds of services will it give people access to and how it will deal with that issue.

MS. PETERSON-RAYFUSE: The 211 system is a wonderful initiative that this province is taking on through Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and it fits very nicely in the department's transformation of service delivery. As I mentioned before, what we're looking at is a service that is individualized yet at the same time also wraps around the individual, a single-entry system. Presently it can be very confusing to individuals in the fact that they come in and we'll provide them with our services through Community Services and may say, this is where you need to go for Health or this is where you need to go for Justice. The 211 will complement that because it's an easy number to call to find out information that you may have as an individual, whether you're an individual on income assistance in this province or if you're a senior. No matter where you are in the province you are going to be able to pick up the phone and find out what you need to find out.

 

I know that presently the way the system is it can be extremely confusing and you can make 20 calls and not be anywhere so it's wonderful that we are supporting, as a province and as a government, the 211 system and how that will complement our service delivery, our transformation and our whole aspect with that transformation, as I mentioned many times about the restorative approaches and encourage everyone here to participate in the conference that's coming up in June. I think it will be extraordinarily enlightening to all of us to see how social services can be incorporated under a model of restorative approaches, which initiated from restorative justice, of which this province is very far ahead in restorative justice. That is one of the reasons why we're looking at a world conference here and there will probably be 24 to 30 countries from around the world visiting us here in Halifax and supporting what we have done in restorative justice.

 

The area we want to learn more about is restorative approaches and how we can incorporate that into our social services which the City of Hull, England has been doing for the last six years. Actually, because it has been running for six years, they have been able to show the stats on how that is actually saving them in a holistic manner by utilizing this type of model and approach.

 

MR. PREYRA: I know earlier you referred, Madam Minister, to family group conferencing and it's something people have been asking for for a long time. I know the department is moving to bringing this into a pilot phase with the view sort of like the Restorative Justice Program. I think the professor from Hull who is coming is going to speak to that as well. Could you tell us something more about what the plans are for family group conferencing and what you think it will do to addressing some of these very intimate family issues?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We'll be learning from the gentlemen from Hull who will be coming here. I had an opportunity to go to a restorative approach family conferencing centre when I was in Hull and it's amazing what it does because it brings everybody around a table with the whole concept of being solution oriented. I am very excited because they have used that model in their foster families, in their adoption services, within youth issues, daycare centres and in the school system. It is proving to be an excellent model in terms of being preventive rather than reactive and I think that's part of the problem of our system here in Nova Scotia and throughout Canada, we tend to be reactive. I shouldn't say tend to, we often are reactive rather than proactive and this is what the restorative approach is all about, to be proactive. I'm very excited about all the changes that we're working on in Community Services and throughout this entire government.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That concludes our time this evening.

 

Shall Resolution E3 stand?

 

Resolution E3 stands.

 

Resolution E33 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,881,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Seniors, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E33 carry?

 

Resolution E33 is carried.

 

Thank you very much minister, thank you members, and thank you very much staff. We accept Resolution E3 and E33 and that concludes our business for tonight. Thank you all for your co-operation. Thank you minister, we're all finished. You don't have to come back tomorrow.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 9:17 p.m.]