HALIFAX, FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 2014

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

 

9:20 A.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Bill Horne

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to get things started this morning. I thank you all for coming today. We will begin with the estimates of the Department of Community Services.

 

Resolution E3 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $903,496,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Community Services, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Housing Development Corporation be approved.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Community Services.

 

HON. JOANNE BERNARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege to be here today to present the estimates of the Department of Community Services for the 2014-15 fiscal year. Before we get underway, I would like to introduce to the committee Lynn Hartwell, my Deputy Minister, to my right; and Dale MacLennan, the department's Executive Director of Finance and Administration who are here to assist me with answers today.

 

This is my first opportunity to present estimates. I look forward to sharing with Nova Scotians our goals for the coming year and how this budget will allow us to sustain and improve the social safety net for vulnerable Nova Scotians of which they depend.

 

My staff and I, along with Housing Nova Scotia, are focused daily on providing services and programs that will ensure the basic needs of individuals and families who find themselves in hardship.

 

The Department of Community Services is committed to a social support system that promotes independence, self-reliance, and security for the people we serve. Our successes are many, but at the same time, the challenges we face are significant.

 

We have a rapidly aging society and our province has one of the fastest growing rates of disability in the country. The demand for many of our services is increasing and will remain so for many years to come. We are not a wealthy province. We are, however, a caring province.

 

My department will spend more than $903 million this year - $6.9 million more than last year - to provide direct services to more than 172,000 Nova Scotians. We are the largest direct service provider in the province. Almost one in five Nova Scotians will ask for and receive help this year from my department.

 

As I told a radio reporter not long ago, nobody calls DCS when they're having a good day. They call us because they need help. We support people in need of shelter and an affordable, safe place to live. We help individuals looking for a hand up financially because they've lost their job and have nowhere to turn.

 

Our staff are there for children who are neglected and in need of our protection. Persons with disabilities who need care or a place to live or family supports in their home or other community settings rely on us and our service providers. These are the individuals and families we hear from each and every day of the year. Every day is a day of both heartbreak and hope, and while we know that what we provide is not always perfect - for example, our wait-lists are for some services and programs - I believe Nova Scotians can be proud of the work the department does to support all the challenges our clients often face.

 

The scope of our services is broad. Just briefly, I would like to take a moment to give the committee members who are not familiar with the work of the Department of Community Services some facts and figures which will give you a sense of that scope.

 

Currently we provide income assistance to more than 44,000 people - 8,000 of whom also receive support to help them find work. We provide placement and case management for about 5,200 persons with disabilities. We manage upwards of 10,000 referrals made to Child Protection Services. As of last month, child welfare staff had conducted about 6,200 investigations into allegations of child abuse this past fiscal year.

 

The Department of Community Services provides child benefits for about 38,000 children of low-income families. The department also provides additional financial support through the Poverty Reduction Credit program to almost 15,000 IA recipients. We support nearly 700 foster families and provide property tax rebates to almost 15,000 senior households. This year we will provide funding of about $300 million to support more than 600 service providers and community-based organizations, including almost $12 million in discretionary grants to more than 90 community organizations.

 

We value the partnerships we have with the community and we look forward to working with them to help build the optimum capacity to help more people. That will include developing multi-year funding and setting up a basic concise outcome measurement to ensure that funding is being used the most effectively and to help the people we really need to help. My personal mantra is: if it matters, you measure it.

 

We are also providing safe and affordable public housing to more than 18,000 Nova Scotians through Housing Nova Scotia. There is actually much more, but I hope this gives the committee members a sense of what we do at the Department of Community Services.

 

I mentioned challenges earlier and the increasing demands of the department to meet the needs of vulnerable Nova Scotians young and old alike. It was recognized by the former government that Nova Scotia's social service system needs to modernize and to become more effective in delivering much-needed services. This government too recognizes that we must transform both our services for disabilities and our Employment Support and Income Assistance Program. Both are big jobs, but it is work that must be done and will be done to improve the lives of our clients to give them dignity and more independence.

 

My priorities for the Department of Community Services are to end the province's over-reliance on institutionalized care and to reduce the level of paternalism and dependency in the social services system. As many of you know, I've seen the challenges from all sides. I was a client and was fortunate enough to make the most of the supports that exist in the current system and make my way off the system. I've also spent most of my working life running non-profit social agencies and now as minister. Nova Scotia's welfare system doesn't have to be a poverty trap. When I see generations on income assistance, it tells me that we need to find a better way. IA should not be a way of life. It's not a career path. It can become learned helplessness and no one wants to have that. When you grow up with that, you may not see other options. I want our department and our partners to show people more and better options so that our clients can reach their full potential.

 

We need to set a strategic course, one that is guided by key outcomes. Those include: helping more Nova Scotians live independently and to free themselves of income assistance; providing more opportunities for social inclusion for persons with disabilities; to improve social, economic and educational outcomes of children in care and children of families on IA so that they can have a much better opportunity at success in life; and to strengthen the social service system so that it's sustainable and much more responsive to societal and demographic changes.

 

I will take just a moment to highlight a few of our priorities for the coming year. Two of the most significant are focused on improving delivery of our most vital services. They are Services for Persons with Disabilities, and Employment Support and Income Assistance.

 

We live in times that are much different from the way they were just a decade or so ago. Demands are high and the complexity of the cases we support is also increasing. There are high expectations on us in the system - both in Services for Persons with Disabilities and Employment Support and Income Assistance that together represent three-quarters of the entire DCS budget.

 

Our Employment Support and Income Assistance and SPD systems have to change with the times. More accurately, we must catch up with the changing face of society so we can achieve better outcomes and benefits for the Nova Scotians who rely on these two programs.

 

Let me start with the ESIA. This year, our budget for ESIA will be $383 million - almost $14 million more than 2013-14. This is an increase that reflects the cost of delivering the same level of services as last year. The work of this division represents 42 per cent of our entire budget and supports 29,000 households in this province.

 

Like other provinces, Nova Scotia has an administratively complex structure of rates, allowances and special needs. Benefits are not linked to outcomes. They are not linked to employment training, independence, or inclusion. Almost 5 per cent of Nova Scotians are dependent on IA to help meet their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. About one-third of clients have been on IA for five years or more and have little hope of a better life in their future. We know our income assistance needs to change.

 

Staff and clients alike want to see improvement in the way we deliver the program - less paperwork, better, faster access to information and consistent application of policy. Over the past year, the department has been involved in a comprehensive review of the current benefit structure that will not only examine adequacy of rates, but also will be simpler and encourage independence. Our focus in the coming year will be one of income security, of individuals and better service.

 

SPD, as you know, has been under the spotlight publicly over the past year or so, and there is recognition from all sides that we need to have more flexibility and choice in the programs that are offered. In 2012, 19 per cent of Nova Scotians reported having a disability - the highest rate of self-reported disability in the country. This year we will spend close to $299 million providing services for persons with disabilities - $31 million more than last year - to address the existing cost pressures facing the SPD program.

 

This government recognized that we could no longer under-fund a growing demand pressure. At the same time, those pressures underscore acutely that we must rethink the model, which is not only costly, but does not serve clients and their families as well as it should. There is frustration and I'm committed to making sure we achieve real improvements. There is funding set aside centrally in this year's provincial budget that will allow us to take the important first steps.

 

Transformation of SPD is a core commitment of this government. Transforming our current SPD program is a huge but exciting undertaking. This transformation will be guided by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

 

Government has promised to implement the recommendations of Choice, Equality, and Good Lives in Inclusive Communities - A Roadmap for Transforming the Nova Scotia Services to Persons with Disabilities Program. As many of you know, the roadmap is the result of a joint advisory committee comprised of representatives from the advocacy community and government.

 

We have begun the work of creating a new system that is person-directed, community-focused and much less reliant on institutional care. Currently, about 67 per cent of SPD clients are supported at home or in community-based options. Our goal is to support significantly more clients in the community. We will work with families to help develop their own innovative housing options to address their own unique needs. We hope to announce two family demonstration projects very soon. What we will learn from these projects we will in turn inform the development of a new system; individualized client-focused supports.

 

It's important to note, as important as transformation is to families and to us as a department, Nova Scotians should understand that this will take time to achieve. We are looking at a decade of change. I know many wish we could turn the system around overnight, but that would not be wise nor would it be possible. A project of this scale requires careful planning, change - even good change - must be done right.

 

An implementation plan is currently under development. It took many years to get to this point where we are today and it will obviously take time to create and fully fund a new system. We must build capacity in the communities first. We must wind down the old system gradually as we build up the new to offer the choice and flexibility families and their loved ones are looking for.

 

An important aspect of this transformation is to create as strong a foundation as possible as we move forward. Our clients rely on our service providers and I'm pleased to say that we are strengthening their ability to deliver services by activating the rate review process - the process our service providers rely on to fund their operations. Two million dollars has been added to the budget this year to address the needs of our service delivery partners.

 

I also want to highlight that in the coming weeks I will be announcing an advisory committee on sector experts who will inform and develop the province's first accessibility legislation. This will be one of the three important pieces of legislation I look forward to introducing over my mandate. They include replacing the outdated Homes for Special Care Act and update something close to my heart - the Children and Family Services Act, which will strengthen our ability to protect children from abuse.

 

In the coming year, we will also be investing in a number of other key priorities and platform commitments. Nova Scotia's 23 family resource centres provide vital services to our communities. They are instrumental in helping struggling families with a variety of issues such as basic parenting, prenatal care, housing, personal and skill development, and dealing with crises, just to name a few.

 

These centres provide vulnerable families and children with an important social safety net that can be the difference between a family falling apart or coming together to be a strong contributing part of society. Family resource centres in our province have not received a significant increase in operational funding in 10 years. That will change this year. The department will double its supports to family resource centres, providing an additional $2 million to address the increased demand for service for families and to help centres better manage the increase and the complexity and range of issues facing families who need help. This is a great investment in people.

 

Research has demonstrated that investment in prevention and early intervention with at-risk families not only saves lives and family breakdown, it results in cost savings in more costly programs such as child welfare, mental health and justice.

 

While we work to support families and to help families thrive, we know too well that some will face crisis. It is essential we have strong and effective services in place to support women and children escaping domestic violence. The province's transition houses and second stage housing provide short-term and long-term emergency help, as well as finding safe and supportive living environments in the community for women and children.

 

Although occupancy rates have been holding steady over the last five years - in some instances are below 50 per cent in rural areas - transition houses report their non-shelter-based work and outreach with children and women is increasing, especially in metro. To support this essential work, government will be providing $500,000 in funding to transition houses, second stage housing and women's centres.

 

Another key commitment of government is the development of Nova Scotia's first Sexual Violence Prevention Strategy. It is a strategy that is long overdue. This is extremely important work, which I am confident will be instrumental in opening a province-wide dialogue that I hope will change forever the culture around sexual violence in our society and, quite honestly, save lives. Right now there is a lack of coordinated services in response to addressing sexual violence. There is also limited programming available across the province. The strategy will improve services and supports for victims and their families, and also include a focus on prevention.

Earlier this year I named our two strategy co-chairs, Jean Flynn and Rene Ross. They have begun to engage the community to ensure a broad and diverse community perspective. As you know, April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and later this month they will be meeting with key stakeholders to get their input, insight and support, and to help us map out the strategy and wider public engagement as we move forward. We have a budget of $2 million per year over the next three years for this work.

 

Poverty should have no place in a modern society. We need to address the root causes of poverty and that starts by being focused on building the economy and jobs, funding education appropriately so that youth are prepared for the future, and making sure we have a plan to help provide more housing that is affordable.

 

My department is also actively working on a number of fronts to alleviate the causes and effects of poverty. For example, we are reinvesting $450,000 to expand eligibility for the Nova Scotia Child Benefit so more low-income families will get help for their children. This means 1,300 more children who were not previously eligible will receive the benefit.

 

As I mentioned earlier, we have also made critical investments to support vulnerable women, children and seniors. Research has shown that affordable housing is one of the key contributors to the overall health of people in society. Providing shelter and affordable housing for Nova Scotians in need is a critical component to addressing poverty and putting families on the path to a healthy future. This year through Housing Nova Scotia we will invest $35 million in creating new, affordable homes for hundreds of Nova Scotia families and for the repair and renovation of thousands of existing units. That's a very important factor because one of the challenges that we face in this province is that we have the oldest housing stock in Canada.

 

Some of the things that we will be doing include a $4 million upgrade to improve the province's public housing stock - $7 million in co-operatives and non-profits; $4 million for affordable housing and rental preservation; $20 million in repair programs to assist 2,100 households.

 

Nova Scotia's Housing Strategy is almost a year old. A multi-year strategic plan is in development by Housing Nova Scotia. This blueprint will help guide Nova Scotians to find a home that's right for them at a price they can afford in a healthy, vibrant community. Our business plan for Housing Nova Scotia will guide our efforts over the coming year as we continue to implement the Housing Strategy. This business plan shows our strong commitment to tackling our most urgent housing challenges. It identifies 24 clear, strategic initiatives guided by the key elements of the Housing Strategy.

 

Part of this plan is to ensure the health and safety of the people who live in social housing - the majority of whom are seniors. By using the federal dollars that are available to us we will make strategic investments in preserving and strengthening our social housing stock for this generation and the next one.

 

Just a few weeks ago, I and my federal counterpart announced $4 million from the deferred federal contribution toward repairs and upgrades. This represents the first of a number of investments from the DFC that will improve social housing across the province. This government supports the broad elements of the Housing Strategy, but we've always said it was light on details. We have a plan that provides some concrete, strategic actions along with measurable outcomes as we start the real work towards achieving our vision.

Working with our partners from the private and non-profit sectors will be critical to our success. You can expect Housing Nova Scotia to start actively seeking out genuine partnerships that strengthen our communities and increase affordable housing options for Nova Scotians.

 

One of our top priorities is to establish an advisory board that will allow new, more participatory and collaborative relationships with tenants, communities and partners. We expect to have the interim board in place in the next few weeks and to start developing the terms of reference for the board.

 

This year we will also be investing $1.5 million more into the Senior Citizens Assistance Program. This program provides a grant of up to $6,500 to low-income, senior homeowners who are at least 65 years of age, to carry out necessary health and safety-related repairs to their homes. This investment will mean that 300 more seniors are able to stay in their homes and communities longer. Sometimes the only obstacle for seniors to live well at home is needing a little help to take care of things around the house. Our government understands that sometimes money for home repairs and upgrades just isn't in the budget so the province is providing that help for seniors on fixed incomes.

 

I also want to take a moment to talk about the important work of families who offer their hearts and homes to children in need. Supporting foster parents is also among our highest priorities in this budget. Foster care provides safe, loving and nurturing homes for Nova Scotia children and youth who are unable to be in their birth families because of a family crisis, physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect, substance abuse or parent-adolescent conflict.

 

Currently we have 660 foster homes providing day-to-day care for about 950 children. About three-quarters of all children in my care live with foster families. These families provide an amazing gift to infants, children and youth every day. We owe them so much, their efforts are around the clock, day in and day out. This year we will invest $363,000 to support foster families primarily to provide much-needed respite.

 

Before I conclude, I also want to acknowledge a number of changes that have occurred at DCS since the last budget: firstly, our Early Childhood Division moved from our department to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. This resulted in $53 million transferred to DEECD. While we may have lost a valued part of our DCS family on one hand, we have gained on another with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women falling under my responsibility as minister. The budget for the Advisory Council is now part of DCS and it is $763,000 in the coming year. This is a change that makes sense and really is a perfect fit with the work of DCS which also has responsibility for family resource centres, transition houses and women's centres and the Sexual Violence Prevention Strategy. Having the Advisory Council under the umbrella of my department will ensure that women in society continue to have a powerful voice through the work of my department.

 

Mr. Chairman, I know that members are eager to ask questions so I will wrap up. Let me first extend my heartfelt thanks to all staff in the Department of Community Services across the province, as well as our many service providers who dedicate themselves every day to help Nova Scotians live a better life, whether it is in the protection of children and our youth or going the extra mile to help a family or individual with significant life challenges, Community Services staff are always there. They do heroic work every day, so much of it unrecognized, whether it is behind the scenes or on the front lines, they have the passion to make a difference and Nova Scotians truly owe them a debt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to take questions.

 

I also would like to introduce Dan Troke to my far right, who is the Executive Director of Housing Nova Scotia.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much honourable minister. I would like to make a reminder that computers, laptops, phones, cannot be used to find questions or do up questions from. It's my understanding that that is not allowed.

 

Mr. Gosse.

 

MR. GORDON GOSSE: Can the honourable chairman tell me where he got the instructions or where it came from in the Rules that members cannot use electronic devices during estimates?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was talking to one of our ministers and he indicated . . .

 

MR. GOSSE: I'm sorry, the minister is not an Officer of the House. The committee falls under the House of Assembly and I will be bringing this on a point of privilege to the committee and I'd like to see you rule on that before we start, if that's possible, please, because I did allow electronic devices, as Speaker, in both the Chamber and in estimates here. The ministers don't run committees, the House of Assembly does.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We sent somebody out to get somebody in here. We will take a short recess.

 

[9:50 a.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[9:52 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to begin. I have made a determination, in talking to the Clerk; they can't be used for props but they can use it as if it was a piece of paper, to read from.

 

I'd like to call the meeting back to order.

 

The honourable member for Northside-Westmount.

MR. EDDIE ORRELL: Thank you to the minister for her opening statements and to her staff for being here today. I'm sure they've had a long couple of weeks in preparing for these estimates and hopefully we'll move right along and have our questions answered satisfactorily and everybody will be very cordial in how we do our presentations.

 

The first thing I want to ask has to do with the budget, we were told during election time and over the last little while that every department was going to be cut by 1 per cent, except for Health and Wellness, and Education and Early Childhood Development. Looking at the estimates here, to me it doesn't look like that has happened in the Department of Community Services. I'm hoping I'm going to get the answer that it hasn't happened because we need the money to go to the people who need it in the province. Can you tell me why or how or if that has actually happened and where that money would have been cut from, if that was the case?

 

MS. BERNARD: You are right, DCS was included in the 1 per cent cut. In my department the 1 per cent cut was equal to about $8.6 million, based on the previous year's base. You don't see it like you see it in many other departments. DCS had unavoidable cost pressures of more than $50 million and the 1 per cent offset some of these pressures.

 

To give you details of what the 1 per cent was: there's going to be greater effort to attach IA clients to job market; there was reduced Pharmacare money due to smaller caseloads; reductions in health costs, like generic drug pricing; and more adoptions in the coming year, therefore, fewer children in care. We also provided more efficiencies in service delivery in SPD and income assistance. The 1 per cent is there, they are going to be projected over the next year.

 

MR. ORRELL: So that's only a forecast of the 1 per cent cut, that's not an actual 1 per cent cut in your budget. We're hoping that we get more adoptions, we're hoping that the use of drugs is less - that's not an actual 1 per cent cut in your budget, it's a forecast cut in your budget.

 

MS. BERNARD: I think the confusion is around when the 1 per cent was going to be done. The 1 per cent is for the plan for the coming year, every department has that. We have $8.6 million to meet that 1 per cent cut but there is a $50 million cost pressure in our department which had to be right-sized as well.

 

Those things that I just gave you about the 1 per cent are the things that are planned in the coming year to meet the $8.6 million that would meet the obligation. However, they are counterbalanced with an uprighting of the department which has been underfunded over growing pressures over the last couple of years.

 

MR. ORRELL: So it is a projected cut and not an actual cut.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: Okay, because in the forecast in the Budget Book on Page 5.1, from estimate to estimate, the budget has gone up by $6 million and from actual to estimate for this year there's a decrease of $33 million.

 

MS. BERNARD: Is there a question there, in terms of the way you want to see . . .

 

MR. ORRELL: Like I say, in the forecast to forecast, the $6 million.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's like taking and then adding, so the $8.6 million is the 1 per cent that is being planned for the next year in certain areas that I just outlined.

 

MR. ORRELL: It's planned, though, it's not actually cut.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's planned. In all departments it's planned.

 

MR. ORRELL: So that promise of a 1 per cent cut in all departments for this budget year is not happening.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's planned.

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes, but it's not happening, it's planned. I plan on losing weight, as Alfie MacLeod said, but it's not going to happen without a lot of work. And if it doesn't happen, what happens then? I have to buy bigger clothes but you can't get bigger budgets.

 

MS. BERNARD: It is up to staff to present the budget, to meet the budget goals. The problem, why they haven't been meeting the budget goals in the past couple of years is because the department has been underfunded. We have alleviated those challenges, increased funding in many areas that had significant cost pressures, but we truly believe that we can make the cut in the next year. And every budget that goes before this House is a forecast.

 

MR. ORRELL: I appreciate that, I don't think it is a department that needs a cut in the budget because I think there are a lot of people who need the services, but when I worked in a hospital we had a 2 per cent budget cut one year and we had to cut services. There was no doubt, we couldn't think that we "may" be able to cut that over the next year, we had to actually cut the service. We didn't have any choice; your budget was $10 million and now your budget is $8 million, you find the ways to do that. And you don't have a year to find it, that's the cut. So it's not an actual 1 per cent cut, it's a forecast cut, that's just basically all I want to ask.

 

MS. BERNARD: In a budget that's $903 million, 8.6 is doable. There are efficiencies, we are working to attach more people to the employment, there are real savings that will be made through the generic plan. We have hired two extra assessors in the adoption field so that there will be more adoptions in the coming year so we're quite confident that we will make that 1 per cent without it affecting front-line services - I made that very clear.

 

MR. ORRELL: I just wanted to clarify though that there is not an actual 1 per cent cut - it's a forecast cut. So that promise of 1 per cent cut in all departments except for the Department of Health and Wellness and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development hasn't happened and won't happen until the end of this year supposedly.

 

MS. BERNARD: The end of this year, yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: We talked a little bit about housing a few minutes ago and last year there was a demonstration out front here about housing for people - I'll say with disabilities, but not necessarily people with disabilities, so people who are living with aged parents. Parents are getting concerned because the person needs the support from them and they're worried about what happens to the person if something happens to their caregiver. Their concern is that the person will have to leave their community and go to another area where the housing is actually available.

 

Has there been any consideration to, we'll say, a small options home or a group home of some sort for individuals who would like to stay in their community, but are living with an aging parent now that is being planned for in the future?

 

MS. BERNARD: Right now there is actually a moratorium on small option tenders because we're beginning the roadmap transformation. We want to know what we have and what we need to do, so putting the tenders out for those right now is not something that is in our forecast.

 

For aged parents, I don't know if it's the Department of Community Services that would be the right place holder for aged parents. We do have programs to help aging folks stay in their homes. I would think that might be the Department of Health and Wellness through nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

 

MR. ORRELL: But these people with disabilities, do the parents not receive funding to keep these people at home through the Department of Community Services?

 

MS. BERNARD: Are you talking about children who have disabilities?

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes - who are being cared for by an aged parent. They are quite capable of living at home, they just can't live on their own. Their families are worried that their children are going to be shipped into another community. The next door neighbour might be their best friend and take them out and they may take them for a walk down the street or they may go out and bring cookies or whatever it is - it's home for them. If they're moved from that community to another community, the welfare of the child or the adult even who the aged adult is looking after is at risk. Last year there was some talk about that being checked into by the former government.

MS. BERNARD: That's part of the transformation - looking at the individual choices to allow folks who have grown up in one community to stay in that community. That is all part of the development plan - part of that roadmap.

 

It is not advantageous for anyone and you're going to have poor outcomes for folks if they are not only losing their parents because they're aging, but to move them out of the community, the outcomes would be much poorer. So that is part of the transformation of looking at what can be done in the communities across the province to keep these folks there. That is where we're moving to and that doesn't mean putting them in institutions. That means having those supports in the family - whether it is with a family friend, whether it is a small options home.

 

I want to clarify something. There is no moratorium - I thought there was - on small options. It's part of the SPD transformation and individual planning. There will be development plans made to cater to the unique needs of people in different communities. Moving them out of that community will be low at the bottom of those options.

 

MR. ORRELL: So if the funding the person receives being in that home, in their family home, and the parent was to die or whatever, could there be funding available for the person to stay at home who could have home support come in?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: Or if it's another home in the neighborhood that has a family member or a good family friend, could that funding be transferred to them so that person could stay in that community?

 

MS. BERNARD: That is the golden example of what SPD will look like. The services will come to the person in the home. They'll be able to purchase a suite of services to meet their needs in their home.

 

MR. ORRELL: Housing is a big concern of a lot of people and as Mr. Troke will know, we met with him earlier in the year and we also met with residents from McKeen Manor here in Halifax. They're telling us it's in need of dire repairs and renovations and maintenance. As I say, as we went with those residents, they outlined a few of the concerns and problems there and we did convey that to the department. Have you yourself met with those residents or someone from the department to hear their concerns?

 

MS. BERNARD: I actually have met with Allan Rowe and Labi Kousoulis, both of whom represent Alderney. Minister Kousoulis has three major senior housing apartment buildings in his riding. We actually are on a very tight timeline right now. I went to the department back in October to please come up with a plan on what we are going to do to renovate and bring to a level that is appropriate, healthy and safe.

 

The other piece to that is that I wanted boots on the ground on those four major buildings, so working with the Department of Health and Wellness and our department we actually are putting staff in those facilities to make sure that not only their physical well-being is done but their health and safety, checking on them to make sure that they are not declining in mental capacity, making sure they are meeting with the supports that are in the community. So there is a very, very dedicated plan right now to work with those four entities.

 

There's also going to be a tenant meeting at McKeen Manor on April 14^th when we're going to outline the changes that are going to happen specifically in that building. Investments will be outlined to the tenants first. That will be in four buildings. It's sort of a little - it has become very near and dear to my heart because I've heard very loudly, very clearly from both the Premier and the minister that attention needs to be given to the seniors' housing. When I hear the words "slum landlord", which I have heard, based on what people are seeing in these seniors' manors, that's very concerning. It should be very concerning to all of us, these are aging people. Some of the things we really have to look at are making sure that the people in there are the right people, that they do not become a dumping ground for people who have multiple challenges and multiple barriers, such as mental health issues, addictions. They need other supports.

 

What we have found in these four buildings is that persons who are going in with multiple challenges are, for lack of better words, upsetting the apple cart. So we really have to make sure - it absolutely astounded me that when you have huge housing units such as that, that there aren't staff actually on-site staff 24/7. That was a huge concern for me and that is changing.

 

MR. ORRELL: So when can the residents expect the repairs and renovations to begin, or will that be outlined to them in your April 14^th meeting?

 

MS. BERNARD: We've had Ed Lake, who is part of Housing Nova Scotia, go in and do sort of an audit of those buildings to see what the priorities are in both aesthetics and real health and safety needs.

 

MR. ORRELL: But the residents didn't know that was happening, so they have been informed along the way, I guess, is the best way to ask it.

 

MS. BERNARD: The MLAs have been communicating with the tenants and then we are going in on April 14^th.

 

MR. ORRELL: When the Housing Strategy was announced last year, the Community Services Critic from the Liberal Party at the time was really critical of the plan. It was a big concern that she said the strategy had no measurable goals. Have you addressed this with the Minister of Labour and Advanced Education now, who was the critic then, and have there been some goals put in place around this strategy and could you explain it for me?

MS. BERNARD: Well that wasn't just Minister Regan's criticism, that was a criticism across the board from community, of which at that time I was part of. So one of the first things, when Kevin Malloy came onboard, was that this is a great framework, this is a wonderful strategy but let's put some details into it.

 

I ran my non-profit organizations with outcomes and measurements and then evaluations. I didn't see any of that in the strategy. I want to know how many homes you are going to build, I want to know who you are partnering with. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

I was very happy when the business plan came to me last month with that direction, that outcomes and performance measurement are front and centre with it. So we will have some ability to say at the end of next year - this is what we've built, this is who we've helped, this is who we've housed, this is the money that we've spent in these certain areas.

 

MR. ORRELL: When will we get to see some of those?

 

MS. BERNARD: I believe it's in our budget - it's in our business plan.

 

MR. ORRELL: Can you tell me how many people are right now on a wait-list for affordable housing?

 

MS. BERNARD: Across the province there are 4,000, but also keep in mind that within that 4,000 there are people specifically waiting for certain addresses, so a real clear picture is a little less than that. We have emergency housing so when, for instance, women are leaving domestic violence, they jump the queue, they go to the front of it, but generally it's in the range of 3,500 to 4,000.

 

MR. ORRELL: Is there a breakdown regionally on that, on where the most are?

 

MS. BERNARD: I can get that to you. I would say most are in HRM, in central region.

 

MR. ORRELL: I wouldn't have thought that. We're hearing a lot the last few days in the Legislature about your energy plan and the energy retrofit that's going to go on with low-income housing in the province. We've been told that every low-income house is going to get a retrofit. I know that's going to involve your department somehow because if they're in low-income housing, some of them are going to be receiving benefits.

 

Would you be able to explain to me - and maybe it's not the place or the time - what that retrofit is going to look like on each of those houses? Is it going to reinsulate the houses, is it going to improve the heating system, replace windows, replace roofs? What kind of money is going to be spent on each of those houses if that's the case?

 

MS. BERNARD: Housing Nova Scotia has always worked with Efficiency Nova Scotia so I think whatever the audit would show in each home is what would be needed, so all of the above with what you're saying. In terms of a dollar amount, I believe it was $6,200 per household.

 

MR. ORRELL: This is probably a question Mr. Troke can answer better than anybody. Is $6,200 going to be enough per household to be able to achieve the goals that we're looking for as far as efficiency goes?

 

MS. BERNARD: When the audit is done, it will be based on what the needs are of the home so it could be more. I think the average is that. I don't think that's the cap.

 

MR. ORRELL: Is this going to be income-tested as well?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, it is. I'll ask the Minister of Energy, but for some reason $65,000 comes to mind.

 

MR. ORRELL: Per household?

 

MS. BERNARD: Per household income, but I will check that.

 

MR. ORRELL: That's going to be a huge amount of people who are going to be able to access that program.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, that could be wrong - I will check. Was it $37,000? I will double-check.

 

MR. ORRELL: I guess my last question on that part of it is - and I've asked this question before and I was happy with the answer, I guess, but I want to hear it - if the circumstances dictate so that an income of a family is $37,000, but the outgoing is a lot more and puts them down into kind of a - we'll just say a person who needs injections in their eyes are paying $1,000 per month for eye injections and that comes off the bottom line, is that going to be a little flexible so that the income would be less than $30,000 because of what has to go out?

 

MS. BERNARD: That would be a question to the Minister of Energy. I don't set the rates for that. It would be delivered through his department, not mine.

 

MR. ORRELL: But the income test on the low-income housing would be set from your department?

 

MS. BERNARD: I haven't been approached by the Minister of Energy to set that up, no.

 

MR. ORRELL: No, I don't mean that. I mean, the income test you said is $37,000 to be able to access the program - that comes from your department, does it not? Is that set through your department as low income?

 

MS. BERNARD: We set the threshold for the home repair, not for Efficiency Nova Scotia.

 

MR. ORRELL: No, that's not what I mean. I mean we're saying you have to be under $37,000 to access the program. What I'm asking is if there are other circumstances where yes, a person makes $39,000 but there's $5,000 going back into something that they can't avoid out of their pockets, so it basically puts them down as $34,000 income, will they be able to access the program because of that?

 

MS. BERNARD: This is a program that has been released only in the last few days. I have not sat down with the Minister of Energy to know what our participation will be in that program. There is income testing to it but also, if folks have disabilities they are eligible for higher income thresholds. That would be worked into it as well.

 

I can get those answers to you but at this time, we have not sat down with the Department of Energy to figure out what the income testing will be.

 

MR. ORRELL: So basically the income testing could be a little flexible.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, very much so.

 

MR. ORRELL: Thank you. We just talked about the income testing for the low income is $37,000, that's good to hear. Now, the estimate in Administration and Operations and housing services increased by 17.7 per cent from last. That's on Page 5.8. Can you explain to me why the administration has gone up by that much?

 

MS. BERNARD: Most of it is due to the appointment of the CEO of Housing Nova Scotia, which previously had not been contained in that budget.

 

MR. ORRELL: If I could move on now to things such as Services for Persons with Disabilities. Last June the Nova Scotia Joint Community-Government Advisory Committee on Transforming the Services to Persons with Disabilities presented their report which is entitled, Choice, Equality and Good Lives in Inclusive Communities. Could you provide an update on the initiatives that will be undertaken this year because of that report?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. I'm happy to report that over the coming year there has been a $31.2 million increase over the budget from last year. A considerable part of that increase is due to the extraordinary pressures that were on the department. It's more about right-sizing it. We have increased $5 million to add back the 12 months of SPD service provider payments that were prepaid and deducted from the previous budget. There was $15.8 million to recognize utilization pressures; $1.7 million was also to re-establish funding for the wheelchair recycling and repair program through Easter Seals and $2 million for a rate review for the service providers and an increase of almost $8 million for cost-of-living wage increases.

 

SPD is currently working on three particular transformational initiatives. In the coming weeks I will be releasing two demonstrative projects which will really set the tone and the direction of where the transformation will be going over the coming years. We're establishing a level of support policy to ensure supports and placements for clients maximized independence, self-reliance and security and social inclusion in a structured environment.

 

We're designing flexible funding and support models for a limited number of families and individuals to create innovative support solutions, so that will be part of the demonstration projects. That goes back to what you were saying before, if there is a disabled child or young adult or adult and their parents are no longer with them, they will have a funding envelope where they can go out and purchase the services they need so they can stay in their home.

 

We will be developing new legislation in the coming couple of years that will replace the outdated Homes for Special Care Act. This new legislation will enable a more person-directed approach to service delivery, with the emphasis on supporting people to live in their homes.

 

MR. ORRELL: So in the budget where it says "improve the range of supports available for people with disabilities" that's one of the initiatives. Is there anything more that is going to be improving the range of supports? Is that going to be an increase in budget? Is it going to be an increase in supports?

 

MS. BERNARD: That increase in budget, the $31 million, was to right-size and to add to some other initiatives that hadn't been properly budgeted for in previous years. The actual bulk of the funding for the SPD, we have asked to be held and gate-kept centrally, so that we go to the Treasury Board and Cabinet when that money is needed to be released. When we have a development plan that is costed out and is well on its way to delivering the desired outcomes that we want, we will then go to Cabinet and Treasury Board.

 

This has been an agreement, it's unorthodox but we didn't want that money sitting in DCS to be used for something else, we wanted it gate-kept and that's what we've done. We will go to them and say okay, after a certain amount of time this is the amount of money that we need for this particular part of the transformation.

 

MR. ORRELL: So how much money is there that's going to sit there waiting to be used for that? Is that over and above your regular budget that is shown here?

 

MS. BERNARD: Over and above, yes.

MR. ORRELL: So that's over your budget?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: So technically your budget that is $903 million, it could be more?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. If we have our plan ready for June, we will go to the Treasury Board and we'll say this is the cost for the coming year of what we need specifically to SPD transformation.

 

MR. ORRELL: So you have an agreement with Cabinet for that?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: For how much money, or is that being discussed?

 

MS. BERNARD: We don't know because we haven't costed it out yet.

 

MR. ORRELL: No, but if you go to them, we'll say in September, and say we need another $100 million for people with disabilities - or we'll use $1 million for that - for an electric wheelchair program for people who lived in their own home, they need it in order to live, do you think that's realistic that they'll approve that or is that something that yes, we'll approve $100,000 but you can't get any more than that?

 

MS. BERNARD: The agreement was made that it will be centrally kept and that we can go and draw from that, draw from the Treasury when we need to fill in the funding gaps with the SPD. We did not want it in DCS operational funding. We absolutely did not want it to be lost in a $903 million budget, we wanted it separate.

 

MR. ORRELL: So technically your budget is going to be a little more than $903 million.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: Okay, that's good. Do you intend on following most of the recommendations from the advisory committee that came out?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. The document, the roadmap actually is the lens we use now for decision making in anything that has to do with SPD.

 

MR. ORRELL: And do we have any timelines on how and when most of them will be?

 

MS. BERNARD: I've been quoted as saying it is a decade-long change. We hope the bulk of it will be certainly done within the next couple of years.

I'm all about making change but I'm all about doing it right. It is a huge, huge system and you cannot ramp down one and wind up another unless you have the bridge at the top because we don't want to leave folks not supported and not having the services they need. It really is crucial that this be done in a way that's pragmatic, purposeful and in a sense that while we're winding down one system, the other one is ramping up and that nobody is lost in that time.

 

MR. ORRELL: So we'll be able to see some measurable outcomes to justify those changes?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, absolutely.

 

MR. ORRELL: Okay. I guess in one part of the budget it says that the government is planning on a rate review process for providers of residential services. There's $2 million earmarked for this in the budget. Is there going to be an increase in what a person will see on a monthly basis?

 

MS. BERNARD: No. It's service providers so it's people who run small options homes, facilities such as those. The rate review had been started last year. Some organizations had been addressed and taken care of. We're just finishing up that process this year and we have $2 million. This is not for individuals; this is for service providers.

 

MR. ORRELL: Is there a formula of what service providers are going to receive what? Is it specific areas of the province or can any service provider apply for this pocket of money?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's for service providers all around the province. It's service provider by service provider - it's individual. We want to move towards a more formalized system of this. I don't like doing business of such high nature in an ad hoc way. I want it more formalized with service agreements and structure around that, and that's what we're moving towards.

 

MR. ORRELL: So how did we come up with the $2 million increase?

 

MS. BERNARD: Based on who is left and what was done previously.

 

MR. ORRELL: Is it on a first come-first served basis then?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, we know who we need to go to - we'll go to each one.

 

MR. ORRELL: So if there is more of a need, could that part of the budget increase as well?

 

MS. BERNARD: We will look at the service providers that have not had their needs addressed, in terms of rate review, for a long time, regardless of what region they're in, and then we'll work down from that, but each one will be finished in the next fiscal. If there is a need for more than $2 million - we're not anticipating that, many have already had their rate reviews and they've gone through - we'll address it then.

 

MR. ORRELL: So the $2 million money . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: We weren't conservative with that.

 

MR. ORRELL: No, but if you've done 20 already and it cost $2 million and there are 20 left, you're assuming it's going to be around the same area and the same type of budget, I guess.

 

MS. BERNARD: I think that's a safe forecast.

 

MR. ORRELL: Or did you come up with $1.5 million and add $500,000 just in case?

 

MS. BERNARD: It was based on who was left.

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes, and according to what was done.

 

MS. BERNARD: Some are huge and some aren't.

 

MR. ORRELL: The hot topic in the last little while is the threat of cuts to the Labour Market Agreement. I know from experience that this could leave a number of people with disabilities in a very odd and awkward situation because they've been receiving supports, job coaching, and had been able to hold a job. It has been a very good program. Certain organizations like we heard here one day, like the CPN, the Collaborative Partnership Network, which provides the mentoring and assistance to help these people to make sure they find and keep the appointments - they're going to be at risk. We know there has been a bridge put in place to allow this to continue for now. Have you had any conversations with the Minister of Labour and Advanced Education about what's going to happen when the bridge funding is finished and what could take place in the future?

 

MS. BERNARD: Well the LMA has expired and so that has turned to the jobs grant. The LMAPD, we have $1.4 million that is allocated to DCS. Right now we're actually making a case to get more money that's available through that program - that currently goes to the Department of Health and Wellness - over to DCS because the guidelines that have now come out with the LMAPD actually don't meet the guidelines that the feds have set. They are more in line with what DCS does. We actually have staff dedicated right now to trying to move that money from the Department of Health and Wellness over to DCS.

 

We are also working with LAE to assess the impacts on IA clients and the service providers, but I think the real pivotal point will be making the case to move the $3 million that traditionally goes to the Department of Health and Wellness. It generally goes to persons with addictions, but that's not falling under the new criteria for the jobs grant. It fits more in line with the clients that we have at DCS.

 

MR. ORRELL: So could that $3 million that's going to come from the Department of Health and Wellness be spent on persons with disabilities who are underneath the old LMA agreement? My impression is that it's not a pile of money that, say, the Collaborative Partnership Network is using to maintain their services. If that $3 million was to come from Health and Wellness, could it be put into part of the LMA - the former LMA, I guess, is the best way to put it?

 

MS. BERNARD: Those agreements are specific to the specific clientele to the agreement so that $3 million coming from Health and Wellness would have to be earmarked for people with disabilities; however, when you have that covered off, it is possible to then move a little bit of funding to the previous LMA folks.

 

MR. ORRELL: So have you met with these organizations to explain that to them?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, because it's not done yet. We can't explain something that hasn't happened yet, we're still negotiating. I think we have a very strong case. It's going to be up to the federal government if they'll allow us to move that money.

 

MR. ORRELL: My understanding was the federal government was going to allow them to take money from whatever pot of money they allocated to the province for stuff like the LMA.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well then I should have you go in and talk to the Department of Health and Wellness because that's where we're at right now.

 

MR. ORRELL: I'd be willing. I guess my big thing is that these organizations coming up to the end of the LMA funding had started to lay people off. Because of that, some of the supports that were available for those clients, some of the families and the clients were very upset and very concerned. To some people this job - any job is a huge deal to an individual - but for a person with a disability who now gains a purpose and can get up and go to work in the day is off income support, is out of the Community Services budget. My impression is it's something like $3.6 million of your budget would go to these people if they weren't in the job situation. So that $3 million coming back would then be used on people who need assistance through Community Services. If that funding could be used for that it would be good if they knew that's a possibility so they could leave the services in place, ramping up or down into that situation.

 

I know it would be well over $2 million and probably well over $3 million that would happen if this was gone and that service was discontinued. Have you considered this as a possibility? If the money is not able to be used for that, where would the funding come from in your budget for the increase in the people needing assistance?

MS. BERNARD: Well as you know from my budget, there's not a lot of wiggle room because the need is great. At some point in time provinces have to stand up and say we can't do this, particularly this province with the budgetary deficit that we have, and say to our federal counterparts to stop downloading, we can't handle it.

 

I was pleased when the Premier provided the bridge funding but this is money that is federal that is funnelled through the province to help people who need to be attached to the labour market. At some point in time there have to be negotiations between the Department of Labour and Advanced Education here and her counterpart on what's best for these clients.

 

Can we pick up the slack? No, it's not as simple as that. Can we manoeuvre the monies that are already here and leverage them in a better way? Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: So that money that's going into Health and Wellness from the . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: That's what we're trying to do.

 

MR. ORRELL: But if that's the case, that's a Health and Wellness budget, that's not a person with disabilities budget. I just can't get my head around that that money is sent down from the federal government, goes to the Department of Health and Wellness. It's a health issue, that is, that's not dealing with people with disabilities as far as the income supports go that they need it.

 

MS. BERNARD: My understanding with the money that goes to Health and Wellness right now is that that particular pot of money is geared now mostly towards persons with addictions - for mental health and addictions. What we're saying and what is clear with the new eligibility requirements of that federal funding is that they are not going to meet that requirement because that money is not meant for mental health and addictions.

 

What we're saying is let us have it then and use it for what the original reason was of having that money available, which was to attach folks to the labour market. My concern with that is that the caveat will be that it can only be used for persons with disabilities.

 

MR. ORRELL: So that's the plan, then? That will go to that type of organization funding, which would solve all the problems that they're having and we're having as far as people with unemployment issues.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: So that's not budgeted in your current . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: It's not right now, because that's an ongoing negotiation. But in saying that, when you move that money over and you've covered that off, maybe there's money left over for the original LMA clients. That's what I'm saying. It all depends on what happens with that $3 million, if we're able to get it from Health and Wellness.

 

MR. ORRELL: So knowing that that's a possibility, you haven't accounted for that in this current budget?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, we have not accounted for that whatsoever.

 

MR. ORRELL: Those people who may be coming back into that program.

 

MS. BERNARD: We have not accounted for that whatsoever, because it would be unfair to set up expectations that may fall through. It is our hope and our desire, and we're working on it. We've been making a great case. We have someone dedicated to those negotiations. We're hopeful that it goes our way.

 

MR. ORRELL: Has this conversation gone on with the Labour and Advanced Education Minister?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's a table of three. So it's us, Health and Wellness, and Labour and Advanced Education.

 

MR. ORRELL: From what I understand, it's not a great big pocket of money that's needed to maintain that program, so I hope that you guys are able to come to an agreement on that. It affects more than just disabled persons in the province. It affects 10 or 12 other people - there are job coaches, who do a great job. I know the gentleman in my area with the EmployAbility Partnership, he finds employment for 60 people a year in Cape Breton - in Cape Breton. I mean, Cape Breton has the highest unemployment in the province, and is probably one of the highest unemployment areas in the country, and this gentleman is able to find 60 jobs a year for people with disabilities.

 

It would be a real shame if that were to come to a conclusion. I know the people who provide those services are dedicated. They work in conditions and long hours, and it would just be a real shame if that were the case. I hope that you're able to work out that agreement with the Health and Wellness Department and the Labour and Advanced Education Department.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well, I mean, if we were to do a true cost-benefit, of course this is the best way to go. Governments aren't always in that position, to be able to do that with scarce budgets. That's why we're pushing so hard to get this money. In terms of Cape Breton, actually, out of the four regions, the greatest success we have had attaching people to the labour market has been in Cape Breton.

 

MR. ORRELL: On Page 5.6 of the Estimates and Supplementary Detail, it says that field staff have increased their budget by 13 per cent this year. Can you explain that to me? What does that mean in practical terms?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orrell, 15 minutes.

 

MS. BERNARD: Can you repeat your question?

 

MR. ORRELL: Sure. On Page 5.6, under Services for Persons with Disabilities Field Staff, there's an increase of 13 per cent in this year's budget.

 

MS. BERNARD: Each year the department budgets for expected savings in salaries and benefits due to staff turnover. It occurs naturally in every organization, and despite the best efforts to replace vacant positions as soon as possible, that doesn't always happen. Last year, the department spread the vacancy savings across all divisions. The estimates were reduced in each division, and what actually transpired did not match what was forecast. So in some cases we've saved more than projected, and in other cases we've saved less.

 

This year, we're changing the way we track vacancy savings. Instead of spreading it across divisions, we are centralizing it within Children and Family Services and ESIA. In this we'll be able to better monitor it. So the number that you're seeing in SPD is not an actual increase. It is just a leveraging note of the vacancy rates of FTEs in that department.

 

MR. ORRELL: It's an increase in the budget line here, from $6.2 million to $7 million, estimate to estimate. And actually, forecast estimate, it's increased by $500,000, I guess, by the looks of it there. So if you did the job with $500,000 less last year, there must be an increase in the budget if you're going to go up $500,000 more this year.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's primarily cost-of-living increases. You're looking at the money amount?

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. Cost-of-living increases.

 

MR. ORRELL: And you're increasing the FTEs by five, in staffing the department.

 

MS. BERNARD: That's the vacancy factor that I just talked about.

 

MR. ORRELL: The job was done with 92 last year?

 

MS. BERNARD: There actually has been no change in FTEs. It's 98.5. The vacancy of FTEs of 4.6 has been . . .

 

MR. ORRELL: The estimate for FTEs in 2013-14 was 9.3 people. It's going up to 9.8 this year. That's not an increase in staff? Is it a misprint, I guess is the best question?

 

MS. BERNARD: No. In 2013-14 we had an FTE rate of 98.5. The 4.6 difference is actually the vacancy assumption of positions not being filled. When we take that out, which we have, we're actually at 98.5 this year. So there has been no increase or decrease in the amount of FTEs in that department.

 

MR. ORRELL: You're going to have to explain that to me a little better. I'm not getting it. The forecast last year was 92.1 FTEs. You're saying that was a misprint?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, it's not a misprint. I can get you something that's clearer. FTEs are not people, they're hours.

 

MR. ORRELL: I understand that.

 

MS. BERNARD: So I can get you something that's clearer, because clearly I'm not explaining it to your satisfaction.

 

MR. ORRELL: No, I'm not that bright.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, I'm not that bright with this either.

 

MR. ORRELL: If I see an FTE of 92, that would be 1,000 hours, and 98 would be 1,500 hours, so that's got to be an increase of FTEs.

 

MS. BERNARD: What DCS had generally done with the vacancy rate is spread it throughout every single division of the department. What we're doing is not doing that anymore, we're centralizing it into SPD and IA so when you right-size it and you take what you have been spreading out and you take it away, that's what we've done with this division. There has actually been no increase in FTEs in this division when you look at the forecast versus the estimate.

 

MR. ORRELL: See, I don't see that, because . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: We're going to put it in a brief for you.

 

MR. ORRELL: If it's printed there that it's going to be an increase . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: You're going to see that in other divisions as well, and it's the same thing. So we're going to put that in a briefing note for you.

 

MR. ORRELL: So with no additional staff . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Not in this division, no.

 

MR. ORRELL: The increase in the budget, then, where is that going?

 

MS. BERNARD: Cost-of-living wage increases, the bulk of that.

 

MR. ORRELL: Okay, thank you. Again, on that page, Long-Term Care is increasing by 13 per cent in this year's budget. What does that mean in practical terms, as far as long-term care budget increasing, and where is that going?

 

MS. BERNARD: The increase in budget has to do with the facilities aging. There is maintenance that needs to be done to that. We also had a cost increase as a result of the rate reviews and other requests across the region. The bulk buying and transportation initiative savings that were hoped for last year were not realized, and the budget initiative to delay prepaid monthly service provider payments and push these payments out a month, which was in the last budget, we right-sized that and put that back, so that did not occur. So that's why you would see that increase.

 

MR. ORRELL: If we move on now to Family and Children's Services on Page 5.7, Child Welfare and Residential Services are being increased by 125 per cent. More than $6 million is being added in this line item. What's the reason for such a drastic increase?

 

MS. BERNARD: Can you repeat that, please?

 

MR. ORRELL: Page 5.7, Child Welfare and Residential Services is being increased by over 125 per cent, from $4 million to $11 million, and it only used $5 million last year. So what's the reason for that over $6 million increase?

 

MS. BERNARD: The estimate increase has to do primarily with the platform commitments: $2 million in new funding to initiate the sexual assault strategy, $2 million in new funding for family resource centres, the transfer of almost $1.6 million from family resource centre core funding from early childhood programs. So those are the major reasons for the increase.

 

MR. ORRELL: So you're saying there's money going to the family resource centres?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, $2 million.

 

MR. ORRELL: Is that all family resource centres in the province?

 

MS. BERNARD: All 23.

 

MR. ORRELL: So split up equally among those resource centres?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. Each resource centre, regardless of their scope, will be receiving $75,000 each in additional funding from this day forward. We've also put $50,000 aside out of that funding to help the smaller ones build capacity, because that, in some cases, is doubling their operating budget. So in the small, rural communities we really want to help them build capacity in program funding. I'm not a big proponent of just giving organizations a sizable increase without helping them meet the capacity of the needs, so that's what will be happening with that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Four minutes.

 

MR. ORRELL: So how many children are actually under the care of the Department of Community Services in the province?

 

MS. BERNARD: Right now, approximately 1,200.

 

MR. ORRELL: Again on here, Direct Grants are going to decrease by $440,000 this year, on this budget item here.

 

MS. BERNARD: Are you talking discretionary grants?

 

MR. ORRELL: It just has Direct Grants under Programs and Services here. Why has that decreased?

 

MS. BERNARD: I've been the recipient of discretionary grants with the department, and one of my questions as somebody from the community has always been, who gets what, and why? I have directed staff to take at a very strategic and very intrinsic look at who they give money to, what they do, and what the benefit is to the clients and the families we serve. So the decrease in the estimate reflects the department's commitment to review the discretionary grant funding policies and procedures with an eye to eliminating and/or reducing funding to organizations whose services are not consistent with our mandate, and whose outcomes are not consistent with expectations.

 

MR. ORRELL: So if you're going to have a $440,000 decrease, there must be some organizations you feel are getting discretionary grants that don't necessarily need them or deserve them?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: Do you have a list of what organizations will no longer receive that?

 

MS. BERNARD: We are in the process now of doing that for this year. I do have a couple of ones that we are not funding, and I can get those to you.

 

MR. ORRELL: If you would, because if it's the assumption, again, that those organizations . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: There has not been very good control of discretionary grant funding in the Province of Nova Scotia through DCS for many, many years. As a former service provider, the level of frustration I brought into my ministerial role really - and I wrote an op ed piece yesterday which details what we are going to do - we are not going to be funding organizations that do not provide front-line services or a benefit directly to the clients and the people of Nova Scotia.

 

Our role is to provide direct service and that's what we're going to do. I'm going to ask every single organization that we fund, both directly and indirectly, two questions; who do you serve and what difference does it make in their lives? If that outcome monitoring cannot be answered, then we're going to look at the funding situation for them. Every organization, for every funder, should be able, at the bare minimum, to answer those two questions.

 

MR. ORRELL: There's a very interesting question I want to get to but I think with one minute left, I'll just start a little preamble with it and we'll ask it in the next hour, if I get a chance.

 

I had a young lady in my office probably a month ago - three weeks ago now - who was receiving income assistance and wanted to take a cosmetology/hairdressing program to get out of the system, I guess, for lack of a better term. She went to the Department of Community Services and was told by one of her caseworkers that she could receive funding - great, perfect. The only way she could receive that funding was if she went to a community college in Sydney that is probably about 40 minutes away.

 

There is a private career college in our community that offers the same program, a little more expensive on the tuition part but her tuition includes all supplies, all necessary tools . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time is up.

 

MR. ORRELL: I'll give you that later.

 

MS. BERNARD: I know where you're going. I'll answer it when he comes back.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Sydney-Whitney Pier.

 

MR. GORDON GOSSE: Thank you very much. I thank you very much for seeing the error of your ways when we started the committee earlier, realizing that electronic devices are not allowed only in Question Period. They are allowed to be used everywhere else. I just wonder if you could tell the committee members what minister advised you of that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think it's appropriate discussion about the minister, not on this issue. We were talking, it was discussed about using electronic equipment as a way of formulating questions and then asking them. I found out that Question Period was the time that you should not use that. It was my fault, I apologize.

MR. GOSSE: That's okay, thank you very much. I just wanted to know what minister advised you of such ill mannerism about that.

 

My first question to the Minister of Community Services is probably one of the most obvious ones; why is the overall budget of this department decreased by $32.5 million over what was spent last year? Is it strictly the reduction that came as a result of the early childhood programs being moved to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development?

 

MS. BERNARD: There's actually an increase. Last year the spending for the department was $896.6 million. This year it is $903.5 million, which is $6.9 million more; $53.1 million came out of the department in the transfer that went back to early education and the FTEs that were, I think it was 34 that were associated with that.

 

We added back the 12 payments of $17.5 million which were taken out of last year for IA and SPD payments. Our platform commitments are actually $6.35 million, which include $4.5 million for new grants for women's centres, transition houses, family resource centres and second stage housing - an extra $1.5 million for SCAP and $300,000 for SHYFT. Then also $2.2 million to get the rate review going again.

 

We also added $28 million to recognize other mitigation pressures for the existing cost of services, so $17.5 million for SPD, $7 million for ESIA, and $3.3 million for Family and Children's Services. What has been happening is the department has been chronically under-funded in the past couple of years, but the pressures have grown, so we have made a very conscious effort to right-size that, and the budget reflects that this year. I think I've answered your question, but the bulk of the difference is the $53 million.

 

MR. GOSSE: Yes, I'm looking at the difference on Page 5.7 in Family and Children's Services. I looked at that in 2013-14 estimates of $183,771,000, and then I look at the estimates for this year, 2015, it's $142,536,000.

 

MS. BERNARD: I apologize. I find this very distracting to try to find it in here.

 

MR. GOSSE: That's why you should have a Mac there.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, I hear you. I'm sorry, can I get you to repeat that?

 

MR. GOSSE: My question is - I see the difference in the Family and Children's Services estimates on Page 5.7, and the difference from $183,771,000 to a difference that was the estimate in 2013-14 in the forecast is $187,330,000. Now I see that the estimate for this year is $142,536,000. That's a difference of $44.7 million in that department. Is that solely the transfer to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, it is. It's like taking away and then adding. The bulk was the $53.1 million.

MR. GOSSE: In this division right here, correct?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, it is. Then there were also additional investments of $8 million.

 

MR. GOSSE: For the total of $53 million from the $44 million, correct?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. GOSSE: Earlier in the presentation my honourable colleague from Cape Breton was asking about services for persons with disabilities - I see on Page 5.2 of the Estimates and Supplementary Detail document that the funds allocated for Family and Children's Services is being reduced by $4.5 million. What is being down-sized or eliminated as a result of these cuts - the one on Page 5.2, Services for Persons with Disabilities?

 

MS. BERNARD: If you're talking specifically about SPD and the significant changes to that budget, is that what you're talking about?

 

MR. GOSSE: Yes.

 

MS. BERNARD: We increased the budget $5 million to add back the twelfth payment, which was part of that $17.5 million. So the $5 million was part of that $17.5 million. That was added back to the budget - total investments of over $20 million include $15.8 million to recognize utilization pressures, which was basically to right-size the budget because it was being chronically under-funded; $1.7 million to re-establish the wheelchair recycling and repairs; $2 million for the rate review for the service providers and $0.9 million to annualize enhanced funding to adult service centres for relief staffing and then $8 million is for cost-of-living wage increases for staff partner organizations.

 

MR. GOSSE: We'll stick on the same page you just mentioned; adult service centres would be the centres like the Prescott Centre, the Horizon Achievement Centre, correct? Those are the services. Has there been any increase in funding for that organization, specifically in my riding with the Horizon Achievement Centre. You said there was an increase in funding for staff, how much of an increase for the Horizon Achievement Centre is in the budget?

 

MS. BERNARD: We can get that for you, I don't have specifics to the increases. There were quite a few done in the last budget before the election and now we're just finishing up what's left.

 

MR. GOSSE: My second thing is, the Horizon Achievement Centre is on a campaign to build a new facility in Sydney. The province has given the land to them for a new facility. Has the department met with the Horizon Achievement Centre's staff and executive director and board to discuss the building of their new facility?

MS. BERNARD: Local staff have met with them, I have not met with them, there hasn't been a request.

 

MR. GOSSE: I hope that the next time you are down in Cape Breton you'll take an hour out to have a look. They do provide excellent service, the same as the Prescott Centre here in Halifax. They are overburdened - I think they have 70 or 75 on the wait-list of people looking for services, you know when they finish.

 

Because your child is entitled to an education to the age of 21, some parents in the community - say somebody had Down Syndrome or something, they actually keep their child in school over that two-year period because they can't access those programs in either the Prescott Centre or the Horizon Achievement Centre. Is there anything in the budget this year to allow either of those centres to be able to access more clients to come into their centres?

 

MS. BERNARD: We'll get you the information on the increase in the wages but they are part of SPD transformation as well. If that increase doesn't happen this year, it will happen in the following years.

 

MR. GOSSE: There's such stress on those organizations with people because we have such an autism population and people with disabilities trying to get into those facilities that the waiting lists are astronomical. That's why I was wondering if there was any funding this year to allow those agencies to be able to accept more clients to come in for their day programs.

 

MS. BERNARD: Those organizations will play a pivotal role in the transformation because for all intents and purposes they will be the day component care for persons with disabilities. I've gone to a few in this area. I've gone to Lake City and DASC and I've met with folks from Inverness who are in the process of expanding their facility there. (Interruption) What was that?

 

MR. GOSSE: They are not a day program, they are continual.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, but their folks come out to go to Prescott for their day program.

 

MR. GOSSE: The other thing was, in 2013 I think, the Liberal Party platform was to develop a multi-year funding agreement with non-profit organizations. I have experience in working in non-profit industry for many, many years so I understand the benefits of this. I'm just wondering if there have been any extra costs involved in multi-year contracts?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, there isn't. As you know, I have a background similar to yours and it is absolutely critical. It allows organizations to do the good work they do and plan for the future. Yearly funding service agreements that can either go up or down - well they generally don't go up, they stay the same, but you can be cut off at the knees at any time. So having multi-year funding agreements allow organizations to be a little more flexible, far more sustainable and look at what can happen in the future for their program.

 

There's no cost associated to that; in fact I would think that when you have multi-year programs with a reporting component attached to them that there will be less administration on our end and certainly less administration on the end of executive directors who constantly every year have to do up that proposal or business case to receive funding.

 

MR. GOSSE: You are absolutely right, I think most executive directors - myself and yourself included - have spent 75 per cent of their time doing proposals, looking for money and core funding for organizations like that. How can you run the facility when you are constantly spending 75 per cent of your time writing proposals to anywhere or anything to keep the lights on and keep the doors open.

 

Have any of the multi-year agreements been signed to date? Can the minister share which organizations they have been signed with?

 

MS. BERNARD: They have not. The first piece of that is we want to build capacity within organizations, to be able to do outcome measurement. That's what we're working on this year. That work will form the multi-year funding agreement so it will be in next budget year, 2015-16. All organizations will have their multi-year funding for that budget going forth.

 

MR. GOSSE: So are all their budgets staying the same this year, 2014-15? Is all the funding for those non-profit organizations staying at the level it is at now?

 

MS. BERNARD: Quite a few are getting significant jumps; transition houses, family resource centres, women's centres, second-stage housing, there are quite a few that are getting significant jumps. In terms of increases to others, I want to see the outcomes first before I increase funding.

 

MR. GOSSE: You are familiar with the Boys and Girls Club in Dartmouth, I'm familiar with the Boys and Girls Club in Whitney Pier. Those organizations are seeing no increases in their funding at all this year . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Not this year.

 

MR. GOSSE: . . . until the outcomes of the people who they service are reported to the department.

 

MS. BERNARD: And those organizations already track their outcomes. Boys and Girls Clubs have a very good evaluation. So no, we just don't have it in the budget this year to increase funding across the board for organizations, not this year.

MR. GOSSE: So there's no funding for any of those for this year, so they're at the level they are at right now. Okay, so since I have left they actually joined the Boys and Girls Club. It was the Whitney Pier Youth Club so now they are part of the Boys and Girls Club.

 

MS. BERNARD: I have one in my riding which is actually bigger, they have just combined the three Dartmouth ones. They do extraordinary work. It is something that is on my list going forward.

 

MR. GOSSE: I visited that one in years gone by. I did have the opportunity to visit that one for workshops but I was never part of that organization at that time. Now, since I have left, they decided they would become that, I think with the train of thought that they'll be able to access more funding through the national organization. I see their advertisements on the radio with the reading program - Rogers reading program and stuff like that.

 

The other thing, too, is that the Whitney Pier Youth Club is currently under - I think they're going into expansion this year and I think they're expanding because they want to look at the age group through ages of 16 to 19 years, that age group there. The building is just too busy.

 

I think your minister read a resolution on the executive director yesterday, Chester Borden who was my predecessor on the job, about that. Has there been an ask of the Community Services Department for funding for the new extension of the Whitney Pier club?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, there hasn't been.

 

MR. GOSSE: Okay, so they're in the process of doing that now, they are hoping to do that, whether it is through fundraising - I think Greenbrier is the construction company, I think they are leading the charge in that and getting donations to expand. That's a very successful organization. It's probably one of the better youth centres in the province, providing quit smoking programs, teen sexuality programs, all those things that lowered the crime rate in Whitney Pier for many, many years. I think they are important but it's sad to see that there's not going to be an increase.

 

Who will determine, after you have received their submissions to the department on what services they provide, what the outcomes of this are?

 

My other question, is, are there going to be outcomes? Say if the Boys and Girls Club in Dartmouth serves 300 kids and the one in Sydney serves 100 kids, who is going to determine which are the priority services or which deserves to keep the funding up and running or which doesn't? Is there going to be a panel, an outside panel?

 

MS. BERNARD: There will be minimum criteria. Right now there are many organizations that we don't have any idea what they do or who they serve. When we ask them those questions and, as a former minister you would know that, it's like trying to get blood from a fish, it just doesn't happen.

 

Coming in as minister, I was dumbfounded that we would be handing out all of this money - and it has been over decades - and not following any type of money trail. So I hear stories, that we're sending money to organizations that we don't know what they do. They're not providing reporting. They're not even reporting their annual general report to us after multiple asks. That's what I wanted to change. I'm asking basic criteria outcomes. What do you do? How does it make an impact on the people you serve? It has nothing to do with one doing 300 and one doing 100. It's just general basic outcome monitoring that every organization should be doing - not only if they're getting government funding, but there should be outcome measurement for private funders, for United Way funded agencies, all across the board.

 

When I go to an organization and I want to see their annual general report, and we've asked multiple times and they don't give that to us, that to me raises a huge red flag - not only as a minister, but as a former executive director. Why isn't that information forthright? This is taxpayer money. We are a primary funder and you can't tell us what you do and what difference it makes to the people your services offer. My comeback to that is - what's the point? How do you matter?

 

MR. GOSSE: Right, so my point is - I worry about the outcome parts, but I worry about is there going to be departmental staff looking at the outcomes?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, there will be.

 

MR. GOSSE: Within the Department of Community Services they'll be judging to say, well, you're not meeting the outcomes for the funding so we're going to reduce your funding next year because you're not meeting those outcomes. That's what I worry about. I worry about that aspect of it. As an executive director myself in that field, I find it - I understand it but as an executive director myself in a non-profit, I have an annual general meeting. I have Grant Thornton to do the audit of my books, so when I go to present - you mentioned the United Way - when I went to present to United Way for the yearly funding, I had to present my annual general meeting and my audited financial statements to the organization for me to receive the limited amount of funding or the amount of funding I received from them. So most of the organizations would have that and I just don't understand why they wouldn't . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Many don't though and that surprises me. Many don't, and they don't report them. The flipside to that is if we have organizations that we see have tremendous cost pressures, but have tremendous outcomes, then they should be getting the money that is going to less performing organizations. For instance, if the Boys and Girls Club - and we all know the outcome measurements and the evaluations that every executive director does there - they should be able to make a case, we need more based on our outcomes.

So when we see less performing organizations that don't give us the respect to give us an annual general report, don't know what they're doing, don't share their outcomes and have no measurement or evaluation, that money should be redirected to the organizations that are actually making a difference.

 

MR. GOSSE: In that sense in the future then we're going to have non-profit organizations that will cease to exist as long as there are other service providers that are providing the same services, but at a better accountability to the funders of their organizations, is what you're saying then.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well they can find funding elsewhere. Non-profits - and I've got multiple national awards for this - non-profits are businesses, whether we like to think of it or not. They're accountable to their board of directors, they're accountable to the people they serve, and they're mostly accountable to their funders. If they can't provide a minimum level of evaluation of the very work they do, then perhaps they shouldn't exist if it can be done better by someone else who does follow those protocols.

 

MR. GOSSE: I worry about that because there might be different areas in the rural area of Nova Scotia where those services are not provided by certain areas, that only the rural areas may be under-served by non-profit organizations. The metro area and the CBRM have different organizations that - Community Cares in North Sydney, Whitney Pier Youth Club, the youth group out of the church in Glace Bay - all of those non-profit organizations. They're sometimes multi-funded and may get 40 per cent of their budget from the Department of Community Services; the other 40 per cent they get from the United Way; another 10 per cent comes from philanthropists. It might be from the TD, might be from the Royal Bank, you might be lucky enough to get $40,000 from the Royal Bank.

 

I've been through all of that aspect, but I just worry about that part of it. I worry about being judgmental to say, okay, I'd like to know at the end of it, I'd like to be able to say that - if the department does that and they say the outcomes aren't being met by these non-profit organizations, will the department submit that to the minister and will the minister make those public?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, I will. I'll also look at that criteria. I'm very hands-on in that way. You see it as judgmental; I see it as being transparent and accountable. It's guaranteed that if any rural organization is part of the United Way, they are delivering outcomes because it's required by the United Way. Even the minimal level of outcomes is required by funders such as TD and any other private institution. I'm looking at the ones that have absolutely - we have no idea of the work that they're doing. They refuse to tell us and so that is a real concern for me. It should be a concern for every taxpayer in the province.

 

MR. GOSSE: Will you send those organizations a letter?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, absolutely. I would really like to work with organizations to fix that and help build that capacity within the organization. There has to be a willingness to be transparent and accountable from organizations that get public funding. It's as simple as that.

 

MR. GOSSE: So you will send a letter to those organizations saying - whatever the organization - you have 90 days to comply with the ask of the department?

 

MS. BERNARD: Way more than that.

 

MR. GOSSE: Oh, way more than 90 days?

 

MS. BERNARD: First it would be - can we work with you?

 

MR. GOSSE: That's right - you're going to give them an olive branch and say, can we work with you and can you provide us the information? Can you provide us the outcomes that you're providing for young people in the Province of Nova Scotia or even seniors? The funding going to transition houses - in that field that worked in, I pretty well know every transition house employee in Sydney and the former executive director, Bea LeBlanc, and Helen Morrison is there now and then Almost Home, Raylene Theriault. There is nobody in the non-profit sector in that city that I don't know from my former life. So it's good to see that part of it is coming to fruition - that those are going to be able to provide more.

 

That brings me to the housing issue - I see Dan over there shaking his head. The housing aspect of it - priority access for domestic violence - domestic violence, priority access applications to get into a housing unit asap, that has changed over the years and I fought with that over the years with police records, doctors and everything else to get them in.

 

What I'm asking you, is that the only way a person can get into housing through priority access is through domestic violence? Is there any other way for medical evidence or slum landlords? Is there any way that a priority access application can be accessed?

 

MS. BERNARD: The social housing agreement puts domestic violence victims first, as they should, because we all know the shortage of second stage housing in Nova Scotia. The different housing boards work with folks to prioritize so if there are medical needs or if someone's burned out or anything that's catastrophic, they do work with them to try to get them moved up in the queue and to make them a priority.

 

MR. GOSSE: Like rodents and other things like that will get them in. I know they come in and do a home visit and say, okay, you have rodents - and just recently with all the flooding in my community two months ago, I had a strange case. There is a single mother with two children and they moved three of the families out into a hotel.

 

In this case, the single mother wasn't moved out, but they told her they would have to do repairs on her unit. So they came in one day and said, we're going to repair your unit tomorrow. Now, I'm an expert on asbestos from my former life, I understand that they wall off the room going down to the basement so they can't have access to go into the basement. So they came in and they're cutting out all the gyproc from the flooding and realize it's asbestos or mould that's in behind there. So what they did, they brought the single mother a heater - she has two children - plug in a heater. In order for her to keep the heat - and this is a pretty cold time of the year when we had the flooding, in February - they unplug her stove to plug in the heater, so she has no way to cook any meals, but it's the only way she can keep warm.

 

She had recently just fallen and had major surgery on her ankle - had bolts and pins and everything put into her ankle. She is on crutches with two small children, and realized that she had only the little heat but because the heater required 220 service, so it was either keep warm or eat out or whatever else.

 

Sometimes common sense when they were doing that - and they did a lot of repairs. That's my neighbourhood. To be honest with you, two of the houses across the street from me are wheelchair-accessible public housing units, very well used and I'm 200 feet from public housing and it's less than that anyway. I know everybody in them so that's my neighbourhood.

 

I think of that, with all the flooding that happened and all those things and people getting transferred out, was there a major cost to the repairs recently that happened in the flooding in Sydney and Glace Bay? I think it affected about 140 families.

 

MS. BERNARD: There's $60,000 that is put aside for storm management. There's money in the budget if it goes above that. I can get you the specifics for that case a couple of months ago.

 

The department and housing authorities always consult with environmental experts to see if moving out is the best way. This single mom was a tenant of ours?

 

MR. GOSSE: Yes. It was a very difficult situation. She's a neighbour, lives only two streets away and she said, I didn't know what to do, they unplugged my stove, I plugged in the 220 heater to keep me and my children warm. Then they wall-off my basement and after they do all the repairs - and they did all the repairs - her washer and dryer were up in the air so they were kind of damaged. When they did the repairs the washer and dryer are now back on the floor. That's more of a personal thing.

 

I dealt with that through your executive director at the Cape Breton Housing Authority. She was very professional in that manner to come in there and say okay, the next day they sent in a couple of heaters, they put heaters downstairs. It may not have been bad but she just had major reconstructive surgery on her ankle, so she wasn't getting along too good.

I was just wondering about would the department help pay for her light bill because the electricity to power those heaters, the four heaters I think at the time, that were put in there to dry out the stuff, will the department help or will there be an average in there to help with her light bill?

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm going to answer this without even asking. I would say yes, because as an executive director of Second Stage, when we had a similar situation, we paid because that cost should not be passed on to the client, so I'm not even going to read that note.

 

MR. GOSSE: Now staying on the theme of the housing thing, your recent announcement it was like $4 million - $2 million by the province, $2 million by the feds, am I correct, it's a cost-shared program?

 

MS. BERNARD: It was out of the DFC so it was drawn directly from that. It's 100 per cent federal, it's out of the DFC account.

 

MR. GOSSE: Okay, so it's 100 per cent federal dollars with that money that has been earmarked there. In Cape Breton, in my constituency, 20 per cent of this money is only being spent in Cape Breton, are there more funds that will be spent in Cape Breton in the coming year?

 

MS. BERNARD: The way I determined, or we determined as a department, we asked all the housing authorities to please give us their priority: if you had something that you could do that you wouldn't normally have money for, what would you do? So they did that. They came back with a list; the first strategic investment is $4 million, there will be many more.

 

We took politics out of this process. I didn't care whose riding it was, I didn't care what MLA it was, I wanted to pinpoint the need the best. It went from one end to the other. I think Jamie Baillie got the bulk of the money, if I'm not mistaken.

 

This is just the first of many strategic investments drawing down from that DFC. We have old housing stock, we need to upgrade public housing and this is the way to do it.

 

MR. GOSSE: Getting back to that, I know the upgrade of public housing. I wonder in the sense that back in the 1960s and 1970s when they were building public housing, the terms "ghettoization" came about, about building them all in one.

 

I've worked with your colleague over here - your staff, I should say - and came up with a really good plan within my riding because we have the highest public housing per capita in the province, in Whitney Pier - I think I am correct on that, I see him shaking his head. We decided with the money that was coming forward for new housing that we would spread it out and put it in different neighbourhoods. You would not believe the people saying that's a beautiful house in that neighbourhood, who owns that house? Those houses were strictly earmarked for single mothers who were working. They were earmarked for single mothers who were actually in the workforce but they were what we call the working poor. One lady has four children, I think the other lady has two boys.

 

These are single-unit duplexes and it has been absolutely amazing to see the transformation of that neighbourhood with a brand new home in it. They are spread out and their employer could tell you they are absolutely fabulous. I can see two from the window of my office. By doing that I think it kind of takes the stigma away because in the terraces, as they were called back then, or the slang would have been "the chicken coops". For people to grow up there, you had to go to school, you lived in there and that was low-income families.

 

It's strange over time - I've been here for 11 years - back I think in 2004 and 2005 there wasn't a very large amount of people trying to get into public housing so what they did with the terraces is they said okay, for three-bedroom units you can get $650, heat and lights included, and then $750, I think, for four bedrooms or whatever else and they moved the families in. All of a sudden three years later, bang, the market changes. Now you've got a list of about 140 or 150 people trying to get in but you still have the people who took advantage of that program.

 

I understand you can't remove those people out of there but I know the department at home lately has been worrying about some of these people who have been in these units 30, 40 years. Their children have grown up and moved away and they are still coming to my office all upset because the department is saying you have to move. Well now you are a grandmother and you lived in that place for 35 years. The department is trying to be gentle - three times in one case - to say we've got a nice senior unit for you. They say, I don't want to live in - this is my home. I find it a difficult approach to have to do that but it has been happening lately and I understand. That's because of the needs.

 

In the upcoming budget for housing, the $4 million, and recently I think I heard you on a radio show when I was driving in Halifax, talking about shovels in the ground for the new housing units. Would you be able to tell me where those new housing units are going to be built in this year's budget? It doesn't matter what area, not political or anything, just tell me where the new units are going to be built and how many units are going to be built.

 

MS. BERNARD: I can give you a report and Dan can do that for me, what specifically is going in your area. One of the major developments that we'll be doing in this coming year is the Bloomfield development in the north end of Halifax. We also have partnerships with communities in Truro, I just recently opened one in Amherst working with private developers, funding them, more or less being their banker and then working with them so that they open up affordable housing units. That's the direction in the business plan of where we're going.

 

We're waiting to be invited to many communities to work with private developers. Currently in my own riding there's a group that wants to look at mixed income on Wyse Road. Those are the groups we are working with. Habitat for Humanity is another partnership that I'm looking at in Preston, building five homes there on land that is donated by Housing Nova Scotia.

 

Specifically, right now, I don't have the business plan in front of me but we do have targets of what we want to build. Shovels in the ground for Bloomfield, we are hoping next summer. That will be 478 units.

 

MR. GOSSE: Are they multi-purpose - families, seniors?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, families, seniors, social housing, disabilities, market, rent-to-own.

 

MR. GOSSE: That's a good thing. With the recent letter by the Minister of Health and Wellness on health equity and everything else, I was just thinking about - will there be some avenue of maybe the people with disabilities living in there having a social worker or somebody from the Department of Health and Wellness in that facility to help those people? If you have people with disabilities in there, a strategy like done in Prince Edward Island that maybe with such a multi-complex facility to maybe involve the Department of Health and Wellness to have staff there in an office in those facilities like your department does in Sydney Mines. They offered a housing unit to the Cape Breton Regional Police to provide those services.

 

Is there any thought about putting something like that in place in Bloomfield, to make sure that resident, if he's a paranoid schizophrenic, if he's bi-polar - to make sure that resident is on his meds, to make sure that he's following his routine? Is there any thought to that in such a big multi-purpose complex?

 

MS. BERNARD: That was one of my concerns with the senior centres here, was that there weren't people on the ground doing that, and the Department of Health and Wellness is now doing that. The units that will be available at Bloomfield - the people who go in them will also be part of the SPD so they'll have funding envelopes to be able to purchase those facilities.

 

Right now when you look at the complexity of what's going to go in there, the bottom part will be the non-profit component so there will be some social supports right there in the building - huge non-profit supports because that's what Bloomfield was. There are people who live in seniors' housing - say if it's a senior - who actually have public health nurses come in as well. If it's somebody specific for disabilities, they will be part of the SPD transformation and those services, they will have funding to be able to have them come in.

 

MR. GOSSE: Some other different provinces in Canada, when they have such a complex like that and they have persons with disabilities in there - somebody is bi-polar, the outcomes are that much greater when you have a service provider actually in the facility to help that person to make sure that person is taking their meds - not just to have that person in there. It's like the high schools when you have a teen health centre in the high school, the teen sexuality rate goes down, the drug use goes down, smoking rates go down. I look at that model within the school system to say, having the Department of Health and Wellness, having the Department of Community Services, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development - the four major departments - to make sure that they have somebody available to help them with their daily living.

 

MS. BERNARD: I don't think that the idea for Bloomfield is to make it a hub of government of services. It's to make it a hub of social community supports because there will be market value units that are there as well, people who are rent-to-own, and then folks who are clients of ours. It's to provide as much support as necessary, but there will be the availability to purchase those services through envelopes through SPD for unique individual needs within those areas.

 

In Cape Breton, we're working with New Dawn Enterprises. We're going to be partnering with them in Cape Breton. There is a group in Cole Harbour actually - we're looking at development of a couple of parcels of land as well.

 

The time of building Uniacke Squares is long past. We wait to go into those communities for the invite because you never want to be government running ramshod into communities saying, this is what we think is best for you. That's the paternalistic nature of governments a generation ago. That's not the direction that Housing Nova Scotia is going into. We wait for the invite, but building the ghettoization of public housing has long since passed. That's a North American trend, and finally this province is catching up over the last couple of years. I really give credit to the former minister too because the Housing Strategy was so needed. I mean, it really needed to happen.

 

MR. GOSSE: Still on housing, New Dawn is a very, very well-recognized organization in Cape Breton that recently purchased the all-girls high school, Holy Angels High School. I think they have been diversifying. They own units all over. They own, under your department, New Dawn Guest Home up at the radar base and I think they have 34 clients in there, persons with disabilities.

 

They have a very unique organization. I'll give you an example, the duplexes, the PMQs on the former radar base, what they did is they got regular families who live on one side of the duplex but they have the three residents who have minimal disabilities on the other side, so they got a cut in their rent for providing services for the three people with disabilities who live on the other side and that's a very good program. That's New Dawn, very successful in that aspect of it, plus they have different units spread all over the city.

 

I'm glad they look forward because Rankin MacSween - and Keith Nicholson is actually the head of the housing division for those guys - and I worked with them in the past on many things and it's very important for them to be involved.

You said the private sector, the private sector in the housing division, I think maybe Dan could correct me on this; if I was to build a four-plex, a four-unit, low-income housing for the 10-year period that it is required to get the grant, those incomes, is that still $25,000 per unit for the contractor to build those units?

 

MS. BERNARD: I believe so. It is, yes.

 

MR. GOSSE: So that level is still the same.

 

MS. BERNARD: Still the same.

 

MR. GOSSE: So meeting with the contractors, is there anything that is going to try to entice them to build more units? With such an aging population, is there any incentive to meet with the private developers and say look, we need more seniors' housing units? If you look at what the department did - I think I was at the announcement twice. I think they announced it twice, it was pretty funny, I kind of made fun of that in Opposition because the minister came down to the old Town Hall in Sydney Mines and made an announcement about all this money was going to go on refurbishing private sector units, we're going to build this low-income housing for seniors. Nothing happened for a year and then all of a sudden there's a new minister and she comes down to North Sydney and goes to the seniors' units and makes the same announcement. I felt like it was Groundhog Day, I saw that last year. I kind of woke up and said okay, geez, that's the same announcement the former minister did a year ago. That's what worries me about this here.

 

The eventual outcome of that - I'm making light of the point of being announced twice but the eventual outcome of that was the original was 26 units of seniors' housing and it's called Jim Mack Court and that went from 26 to 32, there was extra money in that budget. I've been fortunate enough to visit the seniors who are in there.

 

These seniors' units are what they call barrier free; they are wheelchair accessible all the time, the washrooms are barrier free, all those things are in place for them to age with dignity in their apartments. Concrete driveways, in-floor heating, it's amazing. It's this own little community. Some of the older gentlemen there take out the neighbour's garbage and it's almost like this small, little community that has been built across from the junior high at Sherwood Park.

 

I think that's the way to go when we look at seniors' housing. Make sure that any new housing today that the government is going to get involved in, I think they have to have the building code involved so that when the building code is involved when those units are built they can actually be barrier-free. As somebody gets older, like myself, and your health deteriorates and your knees get bad and whatever else, that you'll be able to have that walk-in shower, that barrier-free access; the doors aren't 36 inches, they are 52 inches. All those things are important.

 

Is there any talk in the department to strategize in going forward when we're building these houses and these new units for seniors and people with disabilities about actually making sure that they're up to standards? The reason I couldn't finish that is because the building code is very difficult to deal with, the building code across the country and the building code is very difficult to deal with that, so I'm just wondering is there any strategy in place to work with - I don't know - the Nova Scotia Building Code, the Canadian Building Code - to make sure that these standards are met?

 

MS. BERNARD: Well in the coming month I'll be announcing an advisory council that will be putting together the accessibility legislation and building codes will be part of that accessibility legislation.

 

In going forward, we look at standards. I remember going to the Shelter Nova Scotia development on Gottingen Street and I believe there were one or two complete units like you were talking about where it was completely accessible with the wider doors and the walk-in showers and that. It is always a lens that we are going to look at going forward. The legislation that will be coming forward in the next 18 months will legislate that lens - for lack of a better word - so it will always be going forward, not just for us, but for the industry.

 

MR. GOSSE: I know what that's like - legislating all members to have wheelchair accessible units when getting elected to the province. I know the battle there dealing with building codes and that seemed to be the longest part. I met with the organizations - the McGregor Stewart Society - over the years to do that. You, as a newly elected MLA, a minister would know that you have to have a wheelchair accessible office. Those are some of the things that I dealt with, but that opened my eyes to actually the housing aspect of it - saying, we're doing this to make sure that everybody has access and make sure that your office is wheelchair accessible - your washroom, your parking.

 

You don't realize what's entailed in the building code to wheelchair accessible units. Going forward, to have a strategy for the housing to make sure that we have these units in place is a very positive thing - to look forward to that.

 

MS. BERNARD: In terms of partnerships too, I have found since being minister that the folks in smaller towns and rural areas are much more forthright in coming to the department and partnering. It's the areas in the larger cities that it's a tougher go. I mean, it's about profit. In rural and smaller towns it's about funding and making sure that you're meeting the needs more of the community. That's something that I'm hoping the Advisory Council for Housing Nova Scotia, the make-up of that will help us break into that.

 

MR. GOSSE: And take the building codes into effect so when they're going forward to build units, they will be for generations to come. I think that any young couple or anybody that's buying or building a house today should look at that. If you're going to build a new house today, whether it's the private sector or not, they should look at their future. I think not enough is done to look at that - whether it's the Department of Community Services, public housing, private housing - they should look at that in the future.

 

I think that's enough questions on housing for now. I'd like to thank your staff - Dan over the years has been a very pleasant gentleman to work with. I think I had his number on speed dial over the years. He's always there to clarify things. I've had questions about money and grants, and we dealt with many projects over the years. It's surprising enough when I look at the map of Cape Breton and the Cape Breton Regional Municipality and realize how much land Housing Nova Scotia owns in the CBRM. It's just like - whoa, they own that, they own that. It's all over the city.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's funny you should mention that because one of the first things I asked the Housing Nova Scotia staff to do was to give me a land inventory. I want to know what Housing Nova Scotia owns because that can be a real incentive in partnering with developers to start developments. That's what I'm looking at in Preston. We own the land - let's partner with Habitat for Humanity and let's put up structures.

 

MR. GOSSE: We have one under construction now in Whitney Pier. The gentleman died and left it to Habitat for Humanity, so they're actually working on it now on Victoria Road. Dan would know that. God bless Jim Mantle - he was a great man; he was a real nice guy and passed away. When they read his will it said, leave my home to Habitat for Humanity. It was a good thing and they're working on that now. I drove by a couple of weeks ago and there was construction going on there. It was nice to see the Habitat for Humanity one in Glace Bay. I think the lady moved in there with her three kids and that was a good thing too.

 

I think about those things, but I think that the strategy has to be broadened. I think it has to look at people with disabilities, senior units; I think it has to look at family units. There are no large family units anymore. I don't know if you're going to get into building four bedroom family units, three bedroom family units, two bedroom - because naturally we look at society today, there are no large families. My grandfather had 21 kids - we're not going to see that anymore in society, I hope anyway. I mean, if you look at that part of it - you look at families are smaller, one or two children.

 

Back to the housing - I just want to say thank you to Dan over the years. It has been a long time and he has always been there for me when I had a question or I'll send a contractor to him and he has always met with them. The contractor, Greenbrier, they built a three-unit down by the overpass. We can see these little units popping up all over the place. I want to thank Dan for his vision in housing in my area of Cape Breton, I'd like to thank him for that because he is a Cape Bretoner at heart, I have to say that.

 

Okay, now just one more thing because time is going by; the Career Seek program, how many recipients of Community Services took advantage of that program last year? I just wanted to know how many wanted to go back to university and that aspect of it. I think there were 50 seats set aside. I don't know if it has ever expanded or gone lower but I just wanted to know how many young or single mothers or fathers took advantage of the Career Seek program last year.

 

MS. BERNARD: We can get you that number. Through the Career Seek - one of the parts of my mandate because as you know, as a single mom I was able to go to university while on income assistance. One of my areas of particular interest was in making sure that folks who wanted to go to university weren't cut off from their income assistance and instead, having to borrow all of not only their books and their tuition but their living expenses for the 10 months, and child care as well.

 

I had child care taken care of when I was on income assistance, and we've done that. So Career Seek is universities and career colleges as well. I don't believe there's a cap on that now of 50 seats. If you are on income assistance and you want to go to university, you must borrow your tuition and your books, like most people do because it shouldn't be paid for by the government but your living expenses and your child care will be, you will not be penalized for going to university.

 

When I was in my last year of university at Mount Saint Vincent there was a flip in DCS that if you were on income assistance - it wasn't even grandfathered in - you were cut off at the legs and you had to borrow everything. I fought that change, I fought it hard.

 

MR. GOSSE: Did you appeal it at that time to the department?

 

MS. BERNARD: I did. I appealed it to the department, I worked with the Nova Scotia Advisory Council, I met with many people from the Department of Education. If it wasn't for my scholarship, I wouldn't have been able to finish out my last year.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to make you both aware that Mr. Gosse, you have about four minutes left.

 

MR. GOSSE: Thank you very much.

 

MS. BERNARD: Making sure that folks who are on income assistance now who decide that a bachelor's degree is the course that they want to go, that we support them in that, absolutely. In the past that hasn't been the case.

 

MR. GOSSE: My last question is a personal case I have been working on in the department; a single mother goes back to school. In the department she receives funding to go to the NSCC Marconi Campus. She does that and when she does that her income jumps up, she gets more for travel back and forth to the university, she gets money for her books.

 

On one hand they did that and it was strange enough, a really strange case and I'm just working on it now, when she got the money for the books and she got the money for the travel, when it went to the housing department they said your rent is going up because they included that as income. I found that to be very strange because each year at the end of the year you pass your T4 slips in or whatever to Community Services and they were saying geez, your income went from $15,000 to $19,000 - well that's the $4,000 for the books and whatever else to the NSCC for the courses I'm taking. Oh, well your rent is going up $40 a month because they classified that as interest.

 

Is there anything in the department to look at the department saying hold on a second, we're getting these young women and young men off assistance and we're paying for their books and we're paying for their travel but yet on the other hand, if they are living in public housing, it's classified as income. Have you had a chance, or has anybody in the department, to look at that . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: We're looking at that now. It's a flaw.

 

MR. GOSSE: That's right. I find that to be saying you're encouraging people to get off the system and encouraging them to go back to school but yet if they live in public housing you are cutting the legs out from under them because they are being charged and the rent is going up, but that's actually income they're using for their education. I'm glad the minister is looking at that, that's a very important part.

 

MS. BERNARD: The goal is to support - and generally we never reach the cap of 50 in Career Seek. I'm really hoping that we're going to be able to do some education around that to our clients and say - you know what, this is an option, this is a really concerted effort to driving a career and this is available to you. I truly think that a lot of people who are on income assistance may not know what's available.

 

MR. GOSSE: Yes, some of them don't and actually some of them don't know about appeals or some of them don't know about that. That's why as MLAs you're an advocate for the people that you represent. I think in my office I have every appeal application, every division federally and provincially that you can think of. I make sure to always be able to do that.

 

I think the department should look at that - encouraging young single mothers and single men to go back to school. Don't charge them because their income tax went up. Don't charge them extra money for housing when they're trying to better themselves. Leave their housing at that level until they finish. Eventually, once they get a good job and have a career, their housing is going to go up anyway.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the end of your time, Mr. Gosse.

 

MR. GOSSE: That's okay, I had quite a nice time.

 

MS. BERNARD: Is it possible to have a 10-minute break?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because the minister needs a break, we'll take a 10-minute recess. (Laughter)

[11:51 a.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[12:04 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. We'd like to proceed again, if we can - give another minute to get everybody settled.

 

The honourable member for Pictou West.

 

MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll just let the minister know that my colleague here, Pat Dunn from Pictou Centre, may inject with me on the next couple of questions, okay?

 

I'm going to bring up Summer Street Industries which I know, minister, we broached the subject the other day with you. I basically want to give a little bit of history on it; in 2012 they proposed a multi-year capital investment plan of $500,000 with your department. Of course DCS sent back a letter stating that they couldn't see a willingness right then and there to cost-share that. Unfortunately what had happened is Summer Street Industries had to go ahead and still get their roof and everything repaired and I believe incurred an operational loss of approximately $200,000.

 

Now they are reaching out once again to your department to cost share and, of course, add a new heating and air conditioning system which is much needed as well. They've done a lot on this so far, they've tendered it out and they are looking for you to cost share and you know I would have to concur with that. I would not see it as an unreasonable request. I see it being quite fair, actually.

 

My question is, what do you know about this request and what are your thoughts on it and if you feel that your department can help out?

 

MS. BERNARD: Actually before this morning I talked to Dale about the Summer Street ask. There was a request from the region. I think what needs to happen is that we need to sit down with them because they are a reasonable group, they do great work. I know they have a little bit of a reserve, I understand, so that's always a tricky thing.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Very good at fundraising.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, you know what? Good for them. Those are the organizations that we need to be working with more, the people who are actually doing the fundraising and just not coming to us as the first ask, so we will be meeting with Summer Street and looking at what their operational needs are for that retrofit.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, so it's fair to say then that we can go back to Mr. Bennett and tell him that hopefully within the month of May or after the House sits, that we can expect a visit from you?

MS. BERNARD: Yes, I'd like to go up and see.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: We would love to have you. It's an amazing facility and we welcome and invite and will anticipate at least May or June of this year.

 

MS. BERNARD: They sent me directly their newsletter the other day where they've opened up the second-hand shop for the clothing and I read through it and I'd love to visit.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.

 

HON. PAT DUNN: Just to follow up with a couple of comments and I agree with everything that is being said, in my opinion the facility is an amazing facility. What they have done over the past number of years is totally incredible. Having an opportunity to be in the school system for 30 years, I was definitely around that particular building and so on. They've been very proactive. They do a lot of fundraising.

 

You will run into some people - not the people directly involved with Summer Street but I've heard the comment perhaps from some parents that are involved in fundraising and they'll say, are we being punished because we're so active in the fundraising part of it? My response to that was I really don't think so. I said that I think a lot of organizations similar to that across the province are fundraising and fundraising is part of it.

 

Again, I was going to ask you to make a commitment, which you already did with regard to coming to Summer Street whenever it is convenient for you and whenever you are able to, just to talk to them, to see the place. I think you'll walk away and leave being very pleased with what is happening there.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well the department makes a significant investment in them now, to the tune of $1.2 million. So absolutely, I mean it just makes sense to partner with them further. I would like to know what they do because we generally don't fund enhancements or anything that has to do with physical enhancements to a building.

 

I know when I was the ED of Alice Housing, I was required to put away each month a certain percentage of revenue into sort of a holding account for such things, which eventually became our reserve. I have a feeling that Summer Street probably does that as well, and if they don't, maybe that's part of the conversation we can have. Certainly I want to go up, take a look and meet with them, and find a solution to this because it is a good organization. It would be a great investment.

 

MR. DUNN: I think you'll walk away realizing that it's one of the great models for the province with regard to the work they do. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.

MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: The next question I'm going to ask about is Roots for Youth. We know how important this organization is in Pictou County. We know that there's SHYFT in Yarmouth and another similar organization here in Halifax - I believe Phoenix. It has been very disheartening to learn this week that in Pictou County this organization has to lay off five people. There is one man manning this facility. He works around the clock. This past year alone there have been over 250 youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who have stayed there who have been able to tap into their services from counselling to laundry to meals, and at the end of the day, most importantly, just companionship and knowing that someone cares.

 

I guess maybe because I have a teenager and I'm seeing a lot of youth who are really falling between the cracks between the ages of 15 to mid-20s, and my astute observation is I'm really, truly witnessing more and more children on the streets. It's a real visual that no one can deny and it's very concerning. I know there is only so much money, but I am here to ask if there will be any hope in getting funding from your department to help this organization stay in Pictou County. They service way beyond our borders. They've even had people come from the Port Hawkesbury area and Tatamagouche area.

 

I'm a little bit confused that SHYFT received $350,000 - that's a lot of money for one. I don't know if that was already something that had been promised before you came into government, I can understand and respect that, but that's a lot of money to give to one area. I'm just wondering if you can help me understand this better or give me any hope that I can bring back to our county and this one gentleman who is manning that facility.

 

MS. BERNARD: If I had my way in a perfect Utopia, there would be no youth shelters, there would be no food banks because the need for them wouldn't be there, because you have to look at the root causes of what put kids on the street, why people go to food banks.

 

The story around SHYFT is that it had been in operation for quite a while and the operational funding for it was not continued during the previous government. The MLA for that area - Zach Churchill - was extraordinary in advocating both the Party, the Premier, mobilizing the people in the community. When I opened SHYFT up in January, there was a packed room of political affiliation from many different levels, boards of trade, business people, volunteers, community people who really worked to get SHYFT going. SHYFT is tri-county; it actually serves kids from both counties on either side of it. It was a facility that, quite frankly, needed to move on; it has great outcomes, I talked to young people who had previously been there, who had a place to lay their head at night, including the wrap-around services that they offer during the day and so it was just the right thing to do.

 

Are there other organizations in the province that need that support? Absolutely. Phoenix, in my opinion is the beacon of homeless youth shelters in Nova Scotia and, quite frankly, in Canada. They do tremendous work.

 

I have to see what you just talked about, I am not familiar with that organization, even coming from the community I am not familiar with that organization. There will be an opportunity in the next budget year for new applications of new funding. For this year I would be hard pressed to fund anything new in discretionary funding. That's all part of the review that we're doing as well, trying to free up money on organizations that perhaps aren't meeting the outcomes or have the transparency that they need and investing it into organizations such as that.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Would you then - perhaps we can morph together to make it two visits when you come to Pictou County and we will visit both facilities?

 

MS. BERNARD: Absolutely.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: An earlier statement you mentioned, minister, that really stood out was you said "if it matters, we'll measure it". There's just no way that we cannot have you come and assess the situation because it's most disheartening to see five people laid off this week in Pictou County, especially - I mean every job right now matters in Pictou County but this is a very important area.

 

MS. BERNARD: And that's an area that's close to my heart, too, is homelessness. I know the benefit of making sure that youth have a safe place to stay, in terms of what their long-term outcome is.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: This is going to sort of bridge into my next question; a couple of years ago I considered being a foster parent. I went through the process and was denied because I had a business in my home - I ran a bed and breakfast. I see people who are foster parents who I question. I couldn't believe that I went through a process and was told at the end of it that because I had a bed and breakfast that I wasn't allowed to have children in my home.

 

I'm wondering if that is a standard rule or regulation written somewhere and if it applies to everywhere in Nova Scotia?

 

MS. BERNARD: I don't know if it's a rule or a standard but as minister, I absolutely agree with that. I think that when you have vulnerable, at-risk children, having strangers in your home - which guests in a bed and breakfast are - who are sleeping in the same facility that these at-risk children are, creates a - I'm not going to say that people who come into your home in a bed and breakfast are predators but I don't think that children need to be vulnerable in any more ways than they already are, in the area that they're coming from.

 

The foster parent focus needs to be on the health and safety of the children. The foster parents that I have met, and I've met many of them, don't have businesses in their home, especially that type of business where actually strangers are coming in and sleeping in their home. Unless you are a bed and breakfast operator who is awake 24/7, how could you provide that level of protection of people who are coming into your home who you don't know who they are?

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, so again, when people are applying or are going through the process to become foster parents, do you feel that it's a fairly strict interviewing process to decide on who gets to foster these children? Is there also an income level that matters?

 

MS. BERNARD: In terms of that, it's case by case. So you look at each family, they go through the regular criteria. It's not income-tested. There are monies available for foster kids who come in, foster parents do receive a per diem but it's really about the availability and the level of skill that foster parents can offer a child who is in need because they essentially become the parent.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So if someone came in who was - I understand that you look at it on a personal level but if someone came in, do they have to show their income tax? If someone was making maybe only $10,000 or $15,000 a year, like there's no cut-off where you say we don't feel that putting a child in your care, because of your financial income tax level, matters? That doesn't come into the formula at all?

 

MS. BERNARD: They have to be able to provide the care. I don't think discriminating against lower-income people in providing parenting support because of their level of income is something I'd be comfortable with. There is a per diem provided to cover the majority of costs associated.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I am aware of the per diem that is given to the family, I'm just wondering if when they're being interviewed their actual income tax is reviewed, like they're not determined?

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm going to say it's looked at case by case, especially if the children are related to the foster parent there is even more of a desire to have those children placed there in the foster parent situation.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: How do you review a foster parent's time with a child? Is it every six months or how do you do a review of foster parents in a certain area every year?

 

MS. BERNARD: Case workers work with them ongoing. There actually was an extensive survey done between the department and foster parents over the last year. That highlighted numerous levels of concern that foster parents had around coordination of services, open communication, respite care, monetary things, particularly at Christmas.

 

I was presented with that report about two months ago. I met with the foster parents association and we went through it line by line, so we know what we have to do better, in terms of keeping the lines of communication open and so on a go-forward basis that's happening. We've also budgeted $350,000 to go towards respite care for foster parents because that was really one of the top priorities that they were looking for.

 

Children in care don't come wrapped tidy in a bow with a rainbow over their heads, they come with severe, oftentimes trauma of what they've witnessed in the home or what they've been subjected to. Foster parents provide a level of stability and structure 24/7, so not like me who can leave an organization that deals with young children who have been abused and I can go home to my family. They are there 24/7 in all the trauma, with very little training except for their own skills as parents, so respite was huge for them, in order to be able to take a break from the child, know that the child was being well taken care of. That was really one of the hugest concerns that foster parents had.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you. So I think you mentioned earlier that there were 4,200 children right now waiting to be placed?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, there are 1,200 children in my care.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Twelve hundred kids in foster care?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, 1,200 kids under my care and I think 936 of them are in foster care.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, thank you for that clarification.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's 909 - 661 families, I was a little close and then the rest of children, of course, would be in youth homes, like Wood Street - they are not able to be placed.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you very much.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.

 

HON. PAT DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick follow-up there with the Roots for Youth again, just a few comments. I'm not sure, I think maybe the member for Pictou West mentioned that in the month of March they assisted 141 youth, which is astounding to me. If someone were to ask me for a number, it certainly wouldn't be near 141. However, that's the reality of it.

 

Of course they run a 24-hour service because of what they do. There's a funding gap with the federal government, that homeless partnership strategy. They are reviewing that in Ottawa and that's why the crisis now in Pictou County with this particular facility.

 

Again, I believe this particular strategy - think I'm right in saying it - used to fund around $150,000 and, again, because there is a review there is a stop in the funding and now there is a gap. It's not about the five workers losing their jobs, as you well know more than anyone, it's the youth who are going to suffer because the services may not be there.

 

In talking to some of the board members, and I know several people on the board, there are school administrators, teachers, town councillors on that particular board who are interested, of course, in Roots for Youth and they are going to try to keep it going temporarily by just volunteering until such time that they get funding perhaps to keep the roof on the place. Anyway I just wanted to mention that and we'll certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with them when you come to Pictou County.

 

MS. BERNARD: That has been a fundamental problem with much of the federal programs for housing, they meet the criteria in the short term but the sustainability isn't built in. I developed the Marguerite Centre for women with addictions back in 2000. I had more than enough money from the federal government through the housing partnership, but what happened is that it took a very long time to get the partnership for the sustainable part of it because these housing partnerships don't fund the ongoing operating costs and it's left to the province to pick up the tab, or if the board can do extraordinary fundraising.

 

That has always been one of my major complaints with the federal funding envelopes, that they don't work with the province to make sure everybody is on the same page so when the feds leave the funding the sustainability of the project can continue to go on. I've seen many organizations in the same spot as this organization right now.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East.

 

MR. TIM HOUSTON: Great, thanks very much, and I thank the minister for her time today - I'm sure she's having a lot of fun.

 

MS. BERNARD: I would rather not be anywhere else.

 

MR. HOUSTON: On a nice Friday morning. I do want to revisit an issue that you've already talked about, so I apologize for that, but it has to do with the additional $2 million for family resource centres. In the Pictou County area we have an organization, Kids First Family Resource Centre, and it's a very well-rounded organization and in meeting with them it's not so much that they feel hard done by or that the allocation isn't fair, but they're just worried that taking the $2 million and evenly distributing it maybe treats children across the province unfairly because they're always concerned about their constituents as opposed to themselves.

 

I'll just read some of the statistics that we've gone through to maybe give you a feeling of why that feeling of unfairness is there. So, in the counties serviced by Kids First there are 3,480 children who are under the age of four. That is 7.8 per cent of the total population of children in the Province of Nova Scotia that are under the age of four. So 7.8 per cent of the children in the province, but yet the funding that they are being provided under this mechanism is just 3.75 per cent of the $2 million.

If you compare that to - not to pick on a county, because a lot of them are similar, but if you compare that to someplace like Annapolis County where there are 820 children in that same age group, which is only 1.9 per cent of the population of children that age in the province, so they have 1.9 but they're still receiving 3.75.

 

If you start to look down at the dollar amounts per child it becomes a little more compelling as well. If you compare northeastern Nova Scotia, which I would include Kids First and Cape Breton which are a couple of organizations that work pretty closely together, pretty good together, so they have 12.9 per cent of the children in that age group and combine the receiving 7.5 per cent of the increased funding. So if you go back to Annapolis County the increased funding for Annapolis County is $91.46 per child. Well in northern Nova Scotia, which is Pictou, Antigonish, and Guysborough, for Kids First that number is $19.50 per child - that's a pretty big discrepancy.

 

If you look at just Pictou County it is $11.62 per child. If you say the additional funding going to Annapolis County is $91 per child and going to Pictou County is $11 per child, you start to see how people can feel a little unfairly treated.

 

If we look at the combined department funding for the family resource programs, which will be core funding plus the new allotment, and if we look at Annapolis County again, Annapolis County will be receiving $171,500 - that's their total funding - while Kids First, which services three counties, combined will receive $167,500. So $171,500 for just Annapolis County where there are fewer children, and $167,500 for Kids First covering three counties where there are more children all together. In Annapolis County that's $209.15 per child; it's $48.13 per child for the Pictou, Antigonish, Guysborough area; and again if you pull out just Pictou County, $25.97.

 

You know $209 per child in one area of the province versus $25 per child in another area of the province, it's a little worrisome. I don't use Annapolis County as an example because I'm not in any way trying to argue that they're getting too much or that they shouldn't get part of the $75,000, it's just we need to, as a government, make sure that these types of decisions are carefully made and not just kind of made on blanket criteria.

 

You can see the challenges that this presents and we could have - Digby County and Yarmouth are very similar to Annapolis, so the numbers would still be as kind of compelling but the difference is that they have one resource centre per county and we have a resource centre in the Kids First Resource Centre that has worked hard to make itself very well run, very efficiently run, covering a wider geographic area, and now it seems like it's kind of being penalized for that, because for purposes of this $2 million allocation it certainly seems to them, and seems to me, that they could have just put up two more resource centres, one in Antigonish and one and Guysborough, and said let's go and get our fair share of this allocation. I don't think that was your intent, obviously.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, it's not my intent.

 

MR. HOUSTON: But I don't think that that's the problem when you start to say equal distribution . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Well . . .

 

MR. HOUSTON: It's your turn, I guess, now.

 

MS. BERNARD We didn't use your comparison because not all 3,000 children in Pictou County use the parent resource centre. We wanted to look at the full picture of youth. These family resource centres haven't received any funding increase in 10 years and, as a former executive director, if the executive director of the Pictou County Resource Centre wants to call me up and complain about a $75,000 jump, I'll give her my direct line.

 

That's not how we wanted to approach this; we want it to be fair across the board; and we didn't want to give more to some. I don't know how much money the Pictou County Resource Centre gets from the federal department because many, many resource centres across the province are topped up by the feds in addition to getting provincial money.

 

I didn't look at any of that, I said I wanted to be fair and how I wanted to be fair was a broad division of that money regardless of how many children were in counties, because the Annapolis County one or the one in my riding in Dartmouth North they are inundated, they have a waiting list, they're getting the same money as somebody in New Ross who may not have a waiting list - but what I wanted to work with New Ross was to give them the capacity to increase their services so they could meet more families.

 

Your area also has a couple of very well-defined, well-funded women's resource centres which provide a lot of services that help families in that area as well that other areas in the province don't have, including Annapolis.

 

This was not a political decision, this was me as an ED who had the ability as a minister to say what is the fairest way, what is going to have the greatest impact of getting this money out across the board so that they can build capacity within their areas. I have presented to the family resource centres, I have challenged them - because they have often been ignored by previous governments - to come up with innovative solutions to any gaps in programs that they have in their area and to provide me with outcomes.

 

This $75,000 is yearly, it's not a one-time shot, it is built into the budget now. If they're able to show me in a year's time that they need more they will have that opportunity to show me and I'll look at it then.

 

MR. HOUSTON: I appreciate the response. In closing, from my perspective what I would say on that is I did appreciate your comments earlier where you're trying to require all of these organizations, across all spectrums, to show you what their outcomes are, and that's going to be how you'll determine their funding. I'm just worried there is a little disconnect on the $2 million with that philosophy, because if you go to a small family resource centre - and I presume some of them are really small, that could be maybe in somebody's basement or garage or something - and if you go to them and say . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, well . . .

 

MR. HOUSTON: I don't know, right?

 

MS. BERNARD: No. they're not that little.

 

MR. HOUSTON: If you go to some of them and say here's $75,000 and you're going to get it every year and maybe you'll find a use for it, maybe you'll build your customer base, and then say to somebody else who has a well-defined, well-run organization, who certainly knows where they would use that money and how they would do it, and say you can't have it because they may find a use for it, it is just a little concerning.

 

MS. BERNARD: We as a department actually held back $50,000 of that money and it's used for that direct initiative; we're working with the smaller ones to help them build that capacity. So for the one in New Ross that has doubled their money we're going to be able to say to them, you know what? We know that the catchment area that you have could be bigger and this money is going to help you do it and we're going to help you build that capacity - because you're right, you just don't want to give it to an organization that is not able to build a program around the money. So we're going to help them to do that because otherwise, you're right, it sits in a bank account or it gets used for things that it shouldn't be used for.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Okay, I appreciate your answer. Thank you very much.

 

MS. BERNARD. You're welcome.

 

MR. HOUSTON: I'll pass over to my colleague.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Northside-Westmount.

 

MR. EDDIE ORRELL: Welcome back. To continue on where I started before the break, before I had a little break, the young lady I was talking about had applied to Department of Community Services for educational funding, was instructed by the department to visit a local career college that is a block away from her home, and a community college that's 50 or 60 kilometres away from home. She went to the local career college, spent a couple of days observing, enjoyed it, liked it, and thought she'd like to go there.

 

She goes back to the Community Services Department and said she'd like to go there, but was told, no, she couldn't, she could only go to the community college. If she decided she was going to go to the local one, her income assistance would be cut off. Anyway, fast forward a little bit, she did go to the local career school, has been cut off from her benefits and had to get a student loan in order to take the courses she had to take.

 

A little bit of a background on the career college that she's going to - the hairdressing course alone is cheaper than what they call a cosmetology course at the community college. They were going to offer her $8,000 to travel from home to the community college, where travel, to stay in the community, was nothing. The course at the community college is two years, so she would have still been in the system for two years - the other course is eight to ten months.

 

Overall, probably the savings to the department if she had been funded for the course, to take locally would have been about $20,000 over the two years. Now she is done in the system, she has a student loan, and she's going to have an education that is going to cost her, and will probably send her back into the system.

 

Anyway, I guess my question is, is that set in stone that they have to go to a certain area? Who does the calculating on the cost, I guess, overall, compared to what looks like initial cost up front?

 

MS. BERNARD: It doesn't make a lot of sense what happened with this young woman. The only caveat that I would be worried about is the employability of graduates from either place. Maybe that's one reason, maybe this one that was down the block didn't have a higher rate of employability. I don't know if that's a variance, I would look at that. But it's case by case. That's all part of this whole review of the paternalistic nature of telling people what's best for them instead of them being able to make the decision that they feel is best for them, so that's part of that whole review.

 

Cost-benefit-wise, look, I have that story and many others, from my own career and even as a minister and I know that. Can we do things better? Yes. Can we make better decisions around what people's needs are, to help them to get to the best outcome for them quicker? Yes. So that's what I can offer, that it's case by case.

 

Has she already gone through this course?

 

MR. ORRELL: She's in it now. Actually the department directed her to check out this school as part of her education of where she'd like to go. I guess the other question is, why would they direct her to the private school if there's never, ever a chance of her actually going there and getting funded to go to that school?

 

MS. BERNARD: That's the problem. I don't have an answer for that. I do know that we do look at schools and make sure that the quality of education is acceptable and that this is going to be the best choice for her. There are a number of schools throughout Nova Scotia that are a business and their bottom line is their priority, not necessarily what their output is.

What I can offer you is that it's case by case and clearly we'll see what happens with this young woman. So she's currently off income assistance and had to borrow?

 

MR. ORRELL: She had to get a student loan and borrow from people to enable her to do that. Now the school that she's going to has a 30-year history. The lady is a master hair technician, it's registered as a career college in the Province of Nova Scotia and has to go through all the qualifications to do that. She takes small classes, 6 or 7 at a time, so they get the individual training.

 

The $9,300 that she charges for the hairdressing course is just that. The full cosmetology course that she offers is $14,000, which gives them hair, nails, makeup, aesthetics - okay, that's good. As you can tell, I'm not one who does much aesthetics. Even my hair I won't aesthetic because that's the colour that it's going to be. Once that price is paid, that's the whole course and it doesn't cost. And if she does have to sell supplies or equipment to them that they need outside that, she sells it all at cost to her and not extra, which most other colleges do. I mean it's there, it's the money that it is.

 

If I could ask - maybe I'm being a little bold in asking this - if they could look into her case specifically. The young lady is devastated, she is doing well and the last people who have gone through the course have all gotten jobs when they finished. She does that because that's part of her "I can do this and have a job when I'm done." It's going to save the province and the department because she's the only one between Port Hawkesbury and Sydney who has done the full thing. For anybody who is from the Northside to Ingonish or Meat Cove, down that way, to travel that far, it's half the distance as far as travel has to go.

 

Now if she had a couple of children, which I found out that she doesn't, the money that the department would be paying her would be phenomenal because then it's babysitting and it's an extra three hours a day because she travels that far. To me, the money comes out of the same pot of extra somewhere along the way and to have that happen to individuals, that's just one, I could probably give you another but you don't want to hear that today.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well let's just do one and can you send me her name?

 

MR. ORRELL: I will get you the information.

 

MS. BERNARD: We will definitely look at it.

 

MR. ORRELL: I did talk, in all fairness, to the department, the gentleman who runs the department at home, I have talked to him extensively and he's going by the rules which he has no control over. I did mention to him that I was going to bring it up, that I was going to ask if the rules could either be changed or maybe had some flexibility in them so that if we can figure out that it's going to save money then we can, but not everybody who comes looking for these courses is going to ever work in the field or do they want to.

 

I shouldn't say that but for some people - back 20 years ago there was a hairdressing shop in Sydney Mines that taught that and not one person who ever went through that cut hair. It was just a way to keep this and this and this and of course they ended up losing their licence, but this has been 30 years. Anyway, if that could be checked into, that would be fabulous. I will get you the details. Thank you.

 

MS. BERNARD: Thank you.

 

MR. ORRELL: Getting back to where we left off, we were talking about grants, direct grants to the residential services. We were talking about how many organizations aren't going to receive those grants and you don't know that, that's still being studied, I think was the answer.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, we're still going through that process.

 

MR. ORRELL: Most recently, and through the Community Services Committee, we had some presentations, or asked for people to present to the committee, about the Children and Family Services Act, about the definition and what the age of a child is going to be. I think that if I remember correctly - and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth - you had pledged to look into that. Where does that sit right now? Is that something you can talk about now or is it sensitive?

 

MS. BERNARD: As you know, for the last 15 years there have been eight committees struck to look at redefining the definition of neglect, the age, the scope of power within the Act with judges. I have committed, it is part of my mandate, I am opening up that legislation. I am going to take a lot of the work that has been done by those eight committees over the last 15 years and we're going to change the definition of neglect, the age. We are going to do everything we can in that legislation to bring it forward so that the best interest of the child is truly the best interest of the child because as it sits right now, it is not.

 

I've made a pledge that if you cannot do this amendment with this minister, it will never get done. I know the issue, I know the stakeholders who are involved, I know the ramifications and the shortfalls of this legislation and I know it needs to be done. It will be changed and I anticipate that to be either in the Fall of 2015 or the Spring of 2016.

 

MR. ORRELL: That's perfect. Under Maintenance of Children on Page 5.7 again, and I'll get back, there's an increase of more than $2 million. Can you tell me what that's going to entail, where that $2 million is going and to what departments? Is it going to individuals or groups?

 

MS. BERNARD: The increase is due to the transfer of legal service billings from the Department of Justice, which was recently transferred from Policy Information Management of DCS. We're reinstating funding back to Nexus, which was removed from a previous year budget, we're putting that back. So that's the bulk of the $2 million.

MR. ORRELL: In previous questioning from Ms. MacFarlane you were talking about foster families. I know it's difficult to get people to be foster parents or foster families. I've had the experience of someone very close to me who had done that and couldn't continue on that way because she had a couple of children that she got attached to, came from a real bad situation but ended up going back to the situation that was supposedly - and I don't know this to be a fact - but supposedly fixed, cleaned up and she had a hard time with that.

 

I guess my question is, how difficult is it to get people who want to be foster parents and how real difficult is it to keep them there?

 

MS. BERNARD: It is extraordinarily difficult. There is a North American trend of a downward spiral of being able to obtain and retain foster parents. In Nova Scotia it's a 22 per cent decrease. A lot of it has to do with these foster parents aging and having these children in their care just becomes too much of a strain on them.

 

We are doing things now, in terms of trying to have a new public relations strategy, to talk about the benefits of being a foster parent. That will be done through social media, through public education materials. So the onward struggle continues to try and show the benefit.

 

In my personal opinion, foster parents are the most precious human resource we have in this province because they are taking care of children who are in the care of the minister. They've left their homes, they're traumatized, they are abused, they've been neglected and these families take on this crisis within their own home. So making sure that we continue to recruit new foster parents - and that doesn't mean relaxing on the criteria, it doesn't mean relaxing on any of the criteria that's around getting foster parents - it's just making sure that we don't continue the downward slope.

 

I would like to see it stabilized a little bit and then eventually start to go up again. We're focusing on recruitment. We had that survey that I talked about currently, called the Dialogue With Foster Parents, which gave us set recommendations through a survey of what we could do better, as a department, to meet the needs of foster parents. We have taken every one of them into action, so it really is an ongoing struggle.

 

MR. ORRELL: In listening to the answer and Ms. MacFarlane had applied to be a foster parent and it came down to the fact that because she had a bed and breakfast, she was denied, and I guess met all the criteria up to that date.

 

I just can't get my head around why, because it's a bed and breakfast, and I know that people are coming and going but that wouldn't be any different than their own children, if she had children in her own home. I don't know how to really ask the question - why would she not be a good foster parent because of her living situation when she has children of her own that she wouldn't put in that situation? Why would that make a difference on the foster child?

MS. BERNARD: Because these children come from vulnerable situations and they need stability in their lives, so having different people at the breakfast table each morning wouldn't be a good structure.

 

When you open a business, specifically a bed and breakfast, where you are having people come in and the only vetting that is done is their signature and payment of their room, that is not a good circumstance to have children who are in care exposed to. I have no problem, as a minister who has worked with children in care for many years, denying who I know would be a fabulous foster parent, that ability based on her situation of having people doing a business transaction within her home that she doesn't know beyond their name. I have no problem with that.

 

MR. ORRELL: That's what I was trying to get to. I had heard the answer but I didn't quite understand. So if she had a business and was taking her child into the business in the daytime, that a lot of people do with their own families that would work the same way.

 

MS. BERNARD: She's awake during the daytime, though, unless she wants to stay up all night and monitor that her guests are in their room and their children are safe.

 

MR. ORRELL: That's just what I was trying to get my head around, the decision why because I know a lot of good people out there who would make excellent foster parents but when you hear those stories and you don't know why, but I get that, okay, that's fair.

 

MS. BERNARD: The other thing we want to focus on, too, is increasing adoption rates in Nova Scotia. I've heard personally the frustration people have of waiting a long time for their home assessments and everybody wants a baby. Well the majority of kids that are in care aren't young babies, they aren't young kids, they are older kids, they are sibling groups so we recently hired two adoption specialists who are going to help with the assessment backlog. Our goal is to place as many children into a permanent family as possible because that is the best outcome for these kids. Being with foster parents is a great outcome, being in a permanent family is better.

 

MR. ORRELL: I see in the budget that you've dedicated another $363,000 towards the fostering of children. Can you tell me how that funding may be distributed or what it's going to be used for? Is it going to be used for the betterment of the children or is it going upgrades to homes or to try to . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: No, it's actually going to be used for respite. That was the number one issue when we did our dialogue with foster parents of what they needed from the department. They take on a colossal responsibility for these children and they take it on willingly. They clearly articulated to us that when they need a break - and we're not talking weeks, we're talking a matter of a couple of days - that they need to know that when they leave their home that somebody qualified is going to be able to come in and give them a couple of hours or a couple of days of respite so they can re-energize and come back and give everything they can to that child.

 

MR. ORRELL: So there's actually a push on to encourage more fostering and more adoption, I take it.

 

MS. BERNARD: Absolutely.

 

MR. ORRELL: So how long does it take now? If I was to go through the process now to want to be a foster parent, how long would that process take? I know you have to do all the criminal checks and background checks but approximately how long could that take someone if they are interested?

 

MS. BERNARD: If you wanted a child who was over the age of eight, relatively quickly; if you wanted a child of colour, relatively quickly; if you wanted a baby, anywhere from seven to eight years. Generally it's three to six months for an assessment and for families wanting to adopt younger children, multiple years. So if you do the three to six months in the assessment and you want to adopt a sibling group or an older child or a child of colour, or a child with a disability, that is substantially lessened.

 

MR. ORRELL: Again staying on that, in the Auditor General's Report there were 13 situations where the required contact with the foster families was not followed. I guess the policy is every three months - there are situations where it didn't happen. Is that because of lack of staffing to be able to do that follow-up? Could you provide me with some information on why that happens, if they are being screened and they are deemed to be . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: At the time the Auditor General's Report came out I watched that very closely because I was still in community. It was a staffing issue. We've added specialists to that area and we've met all the obligations and suggestions of that report to date.

 

We've also done some training within the Foster Parent Association for peer support, so that situation has been completely remedied. That was part of the dialogue with foster parents, too, on looking at the lines of communication between the foster parents and the department. When I met with them a couple of months ago - about two months ago now - the movement that has gone forward as a result of this dialogue has been tremendous and they are grateful for that, so I was happy to see that their concerns were addressed.

 

MR. ORRELL: So if I understand correctly, there haven't been any guidelines or deadlines missed since then, they've all been met.

 

MS. BERNARD: They've been met, yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: The Child Protection Services Manual, the Auditor General also said that needed to be updated. Has that begun and when can we expect that to be finished and released?

 

MS. BERNARD: The work has started on that. It will be finished this year.

 

MR. ORRELL: This year, as in the calendar year?

 

MS. BERNARD: This calendar year, yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: I guess another question along the same line; how many individuals are involved with the department's child protection team? Is that on a regional basis or is it just from one area to travel throughout the province to do their work?

 

MS. BERNARD: You mean total FTEs for the province, roughly?

 

MR. ORRELL: Roughly, it doesn't have to be an exact number. I just want to know if it's regionalized so that if I needed to call on that I could have it relatively quickly in Cape Breton or Yarmouth.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's all regionalized, yes. I can get you the exact number in a minute. One of the things is a pilot program that we actually approved this year to equip all child protection workers with laptops so they can actually take their work with them, so that when they're sitting in a courtroom waiting for their case to come up, they can actually do their case notes there, so that has not attached them so much to their office and has put them more in the community. It was a pilot project that was done in central, tremendous success and now it is being rolled out across the province.

 

MR. ORRELL: We talked earlier about the department expanding its eligibility for the child benefit to include another 1,300 low-income families. Does that mean more money going to each of the families or does that mean more people becoming eligible to draw on the tax credit. The 1,300 families or children?

 

MS. BERNARD: The cap has gone from $25,000 to $26,000 and that increase in eligibility has resulted in 1,300 more children being covered. That was a reinvestment because the money that was available for that wasn't all being spent, so I was really proud of the department that instead of putting it back somewhere else in the department, they actually chose to reinvest it into the very program that it was meant for. That will continue, as children age out with families or if incomes go up. Whatever is not used will be reinvested into that program so that more children can be reached.

 

MR. ORRELL: Will that allow new people to come into the system?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: But it will also update families that are in the system already or no?

 

MS. BERNARD: It won't give them more, no.

 

MR. ORRELL: Because of the threshold it won't give any more to the families already there?

 

MS. BERNARD: No.

 

MR. ORRELL: But it will allow more people to draw on the services, because of the threshold being raised?

 

MS. BERNARD: Absolutely, yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: So basically will that get most all low-income children or do we still have some people out there who may fall through the cracks?

 

MS. BERNARD: There will always be people who will always be in need of this. That's why I'm glad that that money is going to be looked at yearly and reinvested because children age out, incomes go up, people don't qualify and instead of taking that money and using it for something else, we're going to make sure it stays there.

 

In answer to your question, across the province there are roughly 575 FTEs for child protection.

 

MR. ORRELL: I want to switch gears and go into another area but my time is pretty well up, I take it.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute, 24 seconds.

 

MR. ORRELL: I'll stop there and let the honourable member take over and then I'll resume again on Monday, if that's fine.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. There are approximately 33 minutes and then there'll be three minutes for summary for Minister Bernard, for her final statement.

 

The honourable member for Sydney-Whitney Pier.

 

MR. GORDON GOSSE: The committee will come back on Monday so I think she'll probably do her final submission on Monday, if I'm correct, to the minister.

 

Back on the theme that my colleague from Cape Breton was going on, just recently I attended a conference in Sydney. I think the gentleman's name was Paul Bennett, if I am correct, a professor here in Halifax. My colleague was there and the mayor of the municipality was there. We heard from I think it was Krista at Human Rights, and the Ombudsman's Office and their whole issue was around child advocates for the Province of Nova Scotia. I'm just wondering, what are your thoughts on the Province of Nova Scotia being the only province not having a child advocate? We do have an advocate within the Ombudsman's Office. Has the department met with anybody about the possibility of having a child advocate in the Province of Nova Scotia?

 

MS. BERNARD: The role of child advocate now is invested in the Ombudsman's Office, as someone from the community that worked with children at risk. I don't know about other child advocates across the country. Do we need one here? In my opinion, no.

 

I think the department has a very good record and very good control of the child protection issues that are in this province. It's an ongoing conversation.

 

Is it something that I have priority as, as a minister, in advocating for or instilling? No, because I'm actually quite happy with the child protection services that are ongoing in Nova Scotia now, and I also like the protection of the Ombudsman's Office as well in that area.

 

MR. GOSSE: Other provinces - Manitoba and other provinces like that - they specifically have a child advocate to deal with those. There was always, in my former job, that age group of 16, 17, and 18 and it seems to me there's no cover of legislation for them if, for example, a 17-year-old was having problems at home and whatever else, and it happens in many cases, and that person goes to Community Services, it becomes an ordeal for that person to be able to access Community Services. I think it's Section 10 of the Act where it says you have to be going to school, you have to have a relationship and you have caseworkers calling the family.

 

Has there been any movement within the Department of Community Services to look at changing that Act or putting amendments into that Act to cover that age group of 16, 17, and 18 that are falling through the cracks?

 

MS. BERNARD: I don't know if you were in the room when I said that I was opening up the Act and that would be one area that we would look at. The amendments to that Act will be brought in either in the Fall of 2015 or the Spring of 2016. We're going to look at every section of the Act, including the age range.

 

MR. GOSSE: So that's a good positive thing because many people in Nova Scotia for many years - the committee I think is called the Cape Breton Advocacy for Child Welfare - have been strong advocates. The United Church of Canada has passed many resolutions and they're looking at actually that 16-, 17-, 18-year-old falling because if you hit 19, you are automatically - so it becomes quite an ordeal when you tell somebody well here's what you have to do in order for you to get help from Community Services. So the caseworker calls up the parents and they say no, I love my daughter, send her back. Then they're saying okay.

 

It gets into a bit of a quagmire so I'm glad the department is finally, after many, many years of looking at that aspect of creating changes to that piece of legislation, that has been in for such a long time.

 

MS. BERNARD: Fifteen years, eight committees.

 

MR. GOSSE: Yes, that's right. It's a very long time. I remember myself at the Whitney Pier Youth Club trying to access that part of it and always being stymied by saying we don't have the, you know - the youth homeless rate at that time was quite high I think, back in the 1990s, couch surfing and other things like that.

 

We do have an organization now called Access 808. I think the Minister of Justice just honoured the Cape Breton Regional Police sergeant yesterday or the other day with an award on his involvement in creating that. That's a drop-in centre for youth to come in, access online stuff, maybe get their clothes done. It's still not a shelter for them to stay overnight. I think the Department of Health and Wellness is there, the Department of Community Services is there.

 

Again, we have that multi-facet of having the Department of Community Services, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Wellness, and Education and Early Childhood Development.

 

MS. BERNARD: That's a perfect model because then that breaks down the silos of departments. You know it's not just a Department of Community Services issue that should be dealing with anything that deals with youth, it should be at least those four departments working together. Unfortunately that doesn't happen as much as it should.

 

MR. GOSSE: Well maybe under your leadership now we will be able to bridge the gap between the four departments. I've always said that, as a youth worker and executive director, that we have to get all those agencies involved. I think that - I don't know within the teen health centres within the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, I think they have an aspect to that in the schools now within the teen health centres. That's a good thing, that's a positive step if we can keep our young people focused.

 

I'm glad to hear that you're entertaining the fact of changing that piece of legislation.

 

MS. BERNARD: Oh, I'm not entertaining it, I'm going to do it.

 

MR. GOSSE: Oh, very good. That makes me even more pleased today on Friday to hear that, very pleased, I really am because I have been advocating for that for many years.

 

MS. BERNARD: I know, I have often said to my staff that if this minister doesn't do it, then no minister can do it. It's going to get done.

 

MR. GOSSE: Good, and I'll be looking forward to speaking on that bill when it comes forward, I'm looking forward to that.

 

The other thing I guess I'll focus on now is I'll go back to - I think you said in the field offices, regional administration is getting an additional $300,000. Will any of that be for the front-line workers, like caseworkers, or is that strictly for administrative?

 

MS. BERNARD: I think that's probably the cost of living increase.

 

MR. GOSSE: Oh, to the recipients?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, to the workers.

 

MR. GOSSE: Salary?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. GOSSE: Okay, with raises - I don't know if they received 2 per cent, 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent this year?

 

MS. BERNARD: I think so.

 

MR. GOSSE: So that would be the 3 per cent. Okay, thank you very much.

 

The next question I guess, I'll get the staff getting out their pens and pencils - how many staff have been transferred from your Department of Community Services to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development?

 

MS. BERNARD: Thirty-four.

 

MR. GOSSE: Thirty-four staff came from your department?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. GOSSE: And that went along well so they're all relocated now?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, I think by the time I came along - the last two go today - I was going to say I only met a few so the last two go today.

 

MR. GOSSE: So they're all settled in now in the Department of Health and Wellness, okay.

 

That's the other thing, too. I'll go back to what we had a discussion on earlier when I was talking about - when you said the grants, we're looking at grants and what you are going to do, as the minister, is a good thing to make them accountable for when they receive money. I'm just wondering, how many organizations are there on the grants list?

 

MS. BERNARD: Hundreds; pages of it. It depends on the grants, there are discretionary grants and then there are grants that come from the regions.

 

MR. GOSSE: Is it possible to get a list from the department - not today, I'm not going to say today.

 

MS. BERNARD: Absolutely. I've actually asked for that list as well because I want to know exactly who gets what.

 

MR. GOSSE: So there's hundreds actually.

 

MS. BERNARD: There is a considerable amount, yes.

 

MR. GOSSE: So that's the whole thing. Maybe the staff could give me a little bit of history on how these grants came about and how they were established. Were they established through the service exchange, through the municipalities through amalgamation? I just want a little history on that.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, they've really come from everywhere. Some of them are, honest to God, backroom handshake deals with the favourites of the minister of the time or the deputy or the director of finance. We're the department of last resort. I'm absolutely committed to reviewing and making that system of grants more accountable and transparent.

 

MR. GOSSE: I think what I heard from you this morning there were so many inconsistencies through the province I wonder if that falls back on the municipal agreement when the service exchange program happened, when the municipality of Sydney, for example, was the welfare office up until 1995. With the amalgamation of CBRM and HRM that some of these service exchange programs, that was in the municipal agreements, so some of them are still alive and well today.

 

MS. BERNARD: Some of them are inherited from that, yes, and others are not.

 

MR. GOSSE: Others are not, so I guess based on outcomes that it will probably be a good thing to look at that over the years, it has never been looked into so that's a positive thing.

 

MS. BERNARD: It is a positive thing. As a former executive director, I can really relate because as an executive director - and you were one - you want to do the best job you can with the scarce money you have. So when you look at outcome monitoring, making sure that you are doing the right thing for the right person, it's a win-win for everyone. Organizations that don't believe that, I really have to question their validity.

MR. GOSSE: Right, and I understand what you told me this morning perfectly clear, about the funding agreements for those. I saw that in the platform, I think, in the election that it would make it easier for those organizations to leave - so that's the direction you're going. So by doing this and making sure that they have a long-term funding agreement in place, you feel that it will be easier for them to leverage funding from federal, municipal, other - I just want your thought on that.

 

MS. BERNARD: When I started at Alice Housing they had no outcome measurement at all. Then the United Way decided to do a different way of funding organizations so that outcome measurement was part of that. I learned very quickly that when you have outcomes connected to dollars, not only were you able to leverage United Way funding, you could go to private funders. I mean I was never able to break through government but I was able to certainly fundraise through outcome measurement through private funders.

 

This is going to give opportunities like the Boys and Girls Clubs - who we all know do great work - the ability to say, this is what we do, you need to fund us more. That opportunity will happen because the groups over here who aren't making any outcomes aren't really doing anything - we're going to take hard looks at their funding agreements.

 

MR. GOSSE: The the only caution I have there - you may have seniors organizations that have been receiving this funding for 20 years now with the service exchange and they're not responsible or accountable to anybody for the funding they receive. I'm just wondering how they would feel if - okay, your funding is done because you don't abide by having an audited financial statement. I worry about that part of it.

 

MS. BERNARD: We're going to work with front-line organizations that do that. It's just not going to be a letter - you're cut off because you can't tell me what you do. We're going to be reaching out to these organizations saying, we want to come in, we want to show you a very simple, basic way to be accountable to your funder. They should be able to do that. There are organizations that provide front-line services that do that now in some way, shape or form. The ones that don't have the capacity to do it, we're going to provide that capacity.

 

MR. GOSSE: So you're actually going to provide maybe some training and have your staff go into a non-profit organization and say, here, we receive this amount of dollars - here's what we want from your organization. So that's the outcome, making sure of that.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, and to tell you the truth, we've been trying to do that with some now and we're not getting any response. That raises a huge red flag for me. As an executive director, why wouldn't you let your major funder come in and show you the reporting requirements that this funder requires or at least open your books so that we can see what you're spending our money on.

 

MR. GOSSE: Absolutely, and I think you made a comment earlier that you weren't able to open doors, when you were the executive director, in the government departments. I think that's the reason I'm sitting here today.

 

MS. BERNARD: You and me both.

 

MR. GOSSE: Yes, I got upset in that - I remember my wife saying, enough of that complaining at the supper table. If you want to do something about it put your name on a ballot. So I did that and look what happened. (Laughter) I wonder about that aspect of it. I never thought that I'd ever want to be a politician, but when yourself - your background and my background and many other backgrounds of the Members of the Legislative Assembly - to be elected and put your name on a ballot to be able to help people, I think that's why we're all here. Nobody gets elected to hurt somebody or do anything out of the extraordinary. I think that I saw last night that 99.9 per cent of elected officials at all three levels of governments, you're not in it for the money - you're in it to make people's lives better. I commend you on that - from where you came from to where you're going and trying to do the positive things, but sometimes the positive things aren't the easy road to do.

 

I talked about the funding, I mean, the Boys and Girls Club - well it was the Whitney Pier Youth Club at that time - we finally got close to almost so we could be able to keep the doors open. We had an increase from the department last year. If I'm correct, I think the increase was 25 per cent in last year's budget to the Whitney Pier Youth Club?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, we can find that out for you.

 

MR. GOSSE: Yes, I'm pretty sure, and that's a good thing. Would the department know how many non-profit organizations that received funding and the ones that you're going to look at in outcomes are under-staffed or have not been able to provide programs to the people that they serve because of a lack of the core funding?

 

MS. BERNARD: We'll know that in two years - once we do this ongoing review. Another thing is, I come from an organization that had a $450,000 budget and received $45,652 from the province. I fundraised myself, without the benefit of a professional fundraiser, over $200,000 per year. My expectation to non-profit organizations is also - show me your fundraising plan; show me what you're going to do to contribute to the success of your organization. That's where the outcome monitoring will be able to help them with that because it was through that that I was able to go to corporations, foundations, private citizens and say, this is what we do, this is how well we do it, and this is what we need to be able to continue to do it. I really want to help build that capacity within organizations.

 

Government should not be funding organizations 100 per cent. Every one of these non-profits has a volunteer board of directors that must at some point, whether it be 5, 10 or 15 per cent - in my case it was 60 per cent - fundraise what their operating is. That's not unreasonable.

MR. GOSSE: Absolutely, I'm well aware of that. I remember, back in the day, going to the government and I wanted to be able to do an upgrade to the Whitney Pier Boys and Girls Club. I wanted to get a grant and part of that was accountability, like you're saying, but also the fire marshal, as soon as he came in he said the place was shut down and it put 150 kids out on the street.

 

I remember the kids organized a protest. It's always nice when it comes from within the youth themselves. They organized a protest and I remember - mine is a strange story because it ended up on the CTV National News - I got a phone call from a guy and he said how much do you need - I said it cost $35,000 right now to operate the Boys and Girls Club.

 

I started the first Breakfast for Learning program in the province. When I went to the school boards they told me I was absolutely insane, how you can open the school at 7:00 a.m. and give kids meals on the way to school, who is going to volunteer to do that? The union has to shut off the alarm and it said no, we can't do that. So I started it in the centre and now they have it in all the schools so times have changed. As time goes by things get better in life.

 

Again, back to that part of it, the guy called me up and said look, I saw your story and I want to give you $50,000 a year for the youth centre. I said yeah, sure, mail it to so and so; I thought it was one of my friends pulling my leg. Five days later I got an envelope and a scribbler page with a cheque for $50,000. The guy who did this story is actually a Senator in Ottawa now, Jim Munson. Jim did the story, it was kind of crazy. So I took it over to Grant Thornton, which is the accountant, and the guy said yes, this is good, and I was like oh my. So this guy gave me that $50,000 a year to keep this club open.

 

Then I finally got at the government, so then I finally succeeded in getting that place restored to where it is - a strange story, really weird. As you said, it opens your eyes to actually what goes on out there, and the last 11 years being here and trying to advocate the government - you know everybody has a different point of view in here, I think that if you are providing programs for young people.

 

I remember looking at the teen pregnancy rate in the community of Whitney Pier being very high. How can we deal with that? I used a federal Department of Health program and we did a program for six months, teen sexuality, using a mental health approach. We had 65 youth in that program. And you talked about the volunteers you just said and I'm going to get to the point here, that at the end of the program we had 65 youth and we used that program so we decided to invite the parents - two parents showed up.

 

So when you talk about these non-profits having volunteers, there's a lot of responsibility and the volunteers aren't there like they used to be in my generation, they're just not there. I wonder if that's a struggle for the non-profit organizations.

 

I did attend one of your events back in the 1990s, a fundraiser. I think I bought a ticket and went there with my colleague at that time, Marilyn More, I was her date for that night.

 

MS. BERNARD: Your nephew - I think it was your nephew who was on the planning committee for that event. I can't think of his name - somebody related to you, a young fellow.

 

MR. GOSSE: I don't know, there were 21 kids in dad's family. That's a positive thing, though.

 

Those grants that we were just talking about are actually frozen right now until the outcome of this review by the department? There's no increase, except for the transition houses, the Every Woman's Centre.

 

MS. BERNARD: There's $4.5 million in new money that is going out in discretionary grants to the organizations that have been identified through the platform, yes.

 

MR. GOSSE: Okay, so in that organization the platform would be like transition houses, Every Woman's Centre . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, houses, women's centres, second-stage housing.

 

MR. GOSSE: Joanne, and then you had the Every Woman's Centre with Louise MacDonald and then Almost Home with Raylene - that's strictly female. So these are the ones that that funding is earmarked for, transition houses.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. I think it's 12 transition houses, one second-stage housing, 23 family resource centres.

 

MR. GOSSE: The second-stage housing, is that the one that's in Cape Breton?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, it's in Dartmouth, it's Alice Housing. That's the only stand-alone one, the other ones are connected to transition houses.

 

MR. GOSSE: Okay, and what about Wood Street in Truro? Does that fall under the Department of Community Services?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes it does.

 

MR. GOSSE: Has there been any increase to funding in that facility in this year's budget?

 

MS. BERNARD: All of the operational pressures were addressed. I actually toured that facility in November. It is a beautiful place.

 

MR. GOSSE: I think the department just built a brand new place, if I'm correct.

 

MS. BERNARD: Right across the parking lot from it, which isn't a lock-down facility.

 

MR. GOSSE: My old job, lock them up. I hated that, that's why I went the other way - lights out and lock them up at 9:00 p.m.

 

MS. BERNARD: If it's a locked-up facility, that would be probably one of the Cadillac in services in Nova Scotia. It really is a unique facility.

 

MR. GOSSE: I didn't like that part of my life - lock them up at 9:00 p.m. and lights out at 9:30 p.m., so I thought I'd be better off on the street with them than I was in that.

 

There was a brand new facility built, sort of like a group home, it's on Upper Prince Street. Dan would know, I'm just trying to think of the name but it moved from George Street to Upper Prince Street. I don't know how many residents are in that.

 

MS. BERNARD: Here in Halifax?

 

MR. GOSSE: Oh no, in Cape Breton.

 

MS. BERNARD: We're just talking about before our time. It's a 10-bed facility with two apartments. It's for services for persons with disabilities.

 

MR. GOSSE: So that was very successful. I wonder if there's any plan within the department to actually look at spreading that type of facility with the 10 residents and the two separate apartments. So those people are functionally okay so they can participate in society, like go to the grocery store. The strategic plan about that centre was where it was located; you had the grocery store within a five-minute walk, you had all the amenities right there.

 

MS. BERNARD: Part of the SPD is going to be not having 10 beds but having four as a maximum - smaller, much smaller - so that it's more independent living because when you get to 10 beds you're going on to that institutional care type of format so we want to keep them small. Those are the options that we're looking at right now, with the suite of services that they can buy as well. Yes, anything 10-bed is not on our . . .

 

MR. GOSSE: So there's a small options home, so there will be no more of those ones with separate apartments for individuals who are . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: If there were, it would be with a four-bed and then with the apartment.

 

MR. GOSSE: Oh, that's good, that's great, that's a good idea. That's integration at its best, actually, to keep them in society.

 

The other thing - I guess I'm very short on time - I wonder if you could tell me people with disabilities are looking to get into the small options homes, how great is the list for people with disabilities looking to get into small options homes in the province?

 

MS. BERNARD: Currently there are 1,062 individuals on the SPD wait-list requiring a residential support option. Of the 1,062, 347 individuals are currently not receiving any SPD supports; 437 individuals are receiving support in their family home, and 278 are receiving other types of residential community supports.

 

Of the 347 who are not receiving any supports right now, 59 are in hospital ready for discharge; 35 of these individuals require the highest level of support and there is no capacity within the system to deal with that.

 

MR. GOSSE: Are we looking at trying to build some small options homes or look at building something like that that will be able to look after these residents? They are the most vulnerable citizens in society who can't look after themselves so is there a strategy or is . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: It's part of the roadmap.

 

MR. GOSSE: It's part of the roadmap going forward.

 

MS. BERNARD: Going forward, I mean these numbers are offensive, quite frankly. It's a system that clearly is not working. This roadmap is the best thing that this province has ever seen in terms of persons with disabilities. We cannot sustain the level that we have now. We can't even look at sustaining the level of what we're going to have in the future.

 

MR. GOSSE: Recently I got talking to a single mother who has been raising her child who is mentally challenged and epileptic for 38 years. She was saying that he has been on a list for four years. Although he's on the top of the list, he's still on the top of the list after years and years. She works at Northwood here in Halifax and the stress is just - her job is stressful enough working with patients who are dying, but to have to come home and - he goes to the Prescott Centre. What happens if she gets sick? That's the question that I have.

 

What happens to parents who are my age who have children with disabilities? What is going to be their avenue in the future for them? I think that's a great worry on parents who are getting older with children - whether they're autistic, epileptic, whatever the psychological, mental disorder or physical disorder they have. They're worried now in this generation. I'm just wondering if there's any focus on looking at trying to just get a little dent or start on helping to get the list down.

 

MS. BERNARD: That would all be part of where we're going forward. When you have a combination of the highest rates of self-disability and then the highest rate of aging population combined, it really is going to lead us to a catastrophic apex at some point in time. So the SPD transformation - there is going to be a time in 10 years - and I know people don't want to hear that - that there won't be a wait-list because we'll have this system up and running. In the meantime, it's case by case. That doesn't sit well with me; it shouldn't sit well with anybody, but at this point in time, that's where we're at.

 

MR. GOSSE: My other thing too is now - has there been any expansion of funding for parents that have a child like that at home? Has there been any increase or any kind of help or any new programs focused on helping those parents who are taking care of their children with disabilities at home?

 

MS. BERNARD: About a year ago, under the previous government - your government - you introduced the extended direct family support. That gave folks the ability to get the extra supports that they needed in the home. That hasn't increased in my estimation for this year. It is still available, but it hasn't increased. It's utilized well, and we addressed the pressures.

 

There was a considerable part of the SPD program that was under-funded for whatever reason and the pressures were incredible. I think we added $31.5 million that we've had to right-size that part of the program.

 

MR. GOSSE: That would be a very difficult question. The other thing, too, when we talked about - I'll go back to the review coming up of non-profit organizations. Big Brothers Big Sisters - they're all faced with increasing costs every year and that has increased pressures. I'm just wondering, Big Brothers Big Sisters in particular - somebody passed away and left them money to have a little office in my area; a beautiful little place. It was very nice that the gentleman left it in his will.

 

I'm just wondering, how will the department address their funding increase needs as the grants list goes forward? Will they be in the same group?

 

MS. BERNARD: They will be required to do their outcomes, which most of the Big Brothers Big Sisters do now anyway. We're not looking at any increases this year, but next year, when we know where we are in terms of the grant review. Big Brothers Big Sisters also do a fabulous job in fundraising. They have a lot of corporate support across the province. They rely very heavily on volunteers. The people who are actually big brothers and big sisters are volunteers, so the monies that are spent for Big Brothers Big Sisters is basically around administration and they're operational of where they're at. So they do quite well. There are certainly a lot of other organizations that are more hard-pressed to meet the needs of the community than Big Brothers Big Sisters.

 

MR. GOSSE: So listening to you this morning - and I thank you for being very straightforward. I think about those Big Brothers Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Club, the youth advocacy, youth pressures and that stuff, that's where I'm at in my life right now.

 

Just going forward, if the outcomes are good for these organizations - in not this year's budget, in the following budgets - who in the department will decide that the outcomes are good, that they're really providing the services that are needed in their community? What percentage of income will raise or will there be asks from the non-profits?

 

MS. BERNARD: This is ongoing so there will be a whole process of staff that will be dedicated to that. I also want to be involved with that as well because my expertise is in that area.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, time is up. Thank you for your time - good questions and good answers.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 1:36 p.m.]