HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2014

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

3:53 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Patricia Arab

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd like to call the committee to order. This is the Subcommittee of the Whole House on Supply. We have the honourable Minister of Community Services and the Department of Community Services here, and we're looking at Resolution E3.

 

The honourable Minister of Community Services.

 

HON. JOANNE BERNARD: One comment - going back to the resolution, can you please put in "Housing Nova Scotia" instead of "the Housing Corporation of Nova Scotia." Housing Nova Scotia is the correct name of the entity. Thanks. We corrected it with the Treasury Board but I don't think the correction got to here.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you. We left off questioning with the NDP caucus yesterday and just for the sake of order, we have 32 minutes left in this round of questioning. Your time can start now.

 

The honourable member for Chester-St. Margaret's.

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions about the grant program. I know she had been asked that by some of my colleagues, but I wanted to get a little deeper into the grant programs that are supported through Community Services. My first question is, how many organizations are presently receiving grant program funding?

 

MS. BERNARD: Currently, right now, over 100 in the discretionary grant area.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's over 100, okay. Is there anybody in that list of 100 receiving any increases in this budget or are they all frozen?

 

MS. BERNARD: Many of them have received increases; the family resource centres have, the transition houses have, and second stage housing has. But in terms of discretionary funding for this year, we have not increased funding because of the review.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So we're probably over 100, but three out of that would have gotten increased funding - three groups?

 

MS. BERNARD: Three groups, which adds up to about 40 organizations - 35 or 40. I can provide a list for you at some point.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, because that would leave 60 organizations - is it 60? - that are not receiving any increased funding? I don't expect you to list them all but can you tell me who some of those organizations are that won't be getting any increase?

 

MS. BERNARD: It would be Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers Big Sisters, men's intervention programs, and some of the smaller ones that I'm not aware of - many of whom haven't received increases in many years. The family resource centres haven't receiving a funding increase in 10 years; Alice Housing hadn't ever received a funding increase.

 

We wanted to do a review because as a minister who came from the community, I wanted to know two questions: who do you serve, and what difference does your work make? What I found when I asked those questions within the department when I became minister is oftentimes they didn't know the answer, my staff didn't know the answer, and it's simply because they hadn't been told.

 

I had many organizations that I was absolutely surprised, didn't even do the basic, minimum reporting of providing an annual general report to one of their critical funders. So I immediately said we need a review of the system, and we need to make sure that it's transparent and we need to make sure that it's accountable. There were organizations that the department was funding that they had no idea of not only the work they did, but who cashed the cheque. That's what we're trying to change.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know we had discussions about that and that was one area that we were starting a review process, because I'm sure you know the history of the grant programming is it came from a transfer of services from the municipalities to the province. Along with that was a commitment to continue providing funds to those organizations.

 

I do agree with you on the fact that a review is necessary. I'm just wondering with the review, do you have a time frame on that, when you expect it to be finished? From there I'm assuming you're going to identify programs that should not be getting grant funding - how will you notify them?

 

MS. BERNARD: We're doing the internal process first on our end. Organizations will be receiving - and I recently wrote an op-ed on the review the department is doing and the capacity-building that we want to build in the community. We sent letters to every single organization that receives funding. We're looking at an internal review first of how we do business and how we fund these organizations and what measurements we want to look at, and then we'll be working with organizations. So the review will probably be about two years, but there will be review of funding - certain funding organizations ongoing over the next two years as well.

 

What we have found and what I know as a fact is that many organizations have been receiving funding for years just because that's the way you did business, or it was a secret handshake with a good old boy in the back office - we're not doing that anymore. We want to know: what is the work that you're doing and how does it change the lives of the people that you serve? There are scarce dollars and we want to make sure that the great organizations that are out there that are being stretched to the limited because of scarce resources from the department, we might be able to reinvest some of the money that we have. I'm not looking at mounds of new money. I'm just looking at taking the money that we have and making our funding agreements and service agreements as transparent and as accountable as possible.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think that's a very good move forward. It's going to be challenging. I guess my question is, how are you going to deal with those grant programs? I'm just going to use one as an example, and I won't even name it. I know there is a senior program that receives funding and it is a good program. However, you have dozens of very similar programs throughout the province and the reason they receive funding, even though it has not increased over the years - it has been frozen - is because of the transfer of that agreement.

 

I'm just wondering what approach you will be taking. Like after the two-year period if you discover that there might be 20 on that list and now you have to notify that they don't fit the criteria anymore, suddenly they're not going to get funding from Community Services and they relied on that funding over the years, I'm just wondering what kind of approach you and the department will take with that.

 

MS. BERNARD: When there's a provision of direct service like that, we would never, ever cut organizations off at the knees. There will be dialogue, which often doesn't happen with the department, and that's not the fault of the organizations. Oftentimes the department itself works in a silo between the regions and the head office, so there will be communication to help those organizations build that reporting mechanism, which is very important. That's all we're asking; it's a very reasonable ask of organizations.

I'm not even looking at duplication of services. If there are 20 organizations doing the same thing all throughout the province, I don't see that as a duplication; I see that as capacity that's spread out. If there are 20 organizations doing the same work in a two-block area, then yes, that's duplication. But we would never take a direct front-line service and give them no notice or not work with them to help build that reporting mechanism into their work.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What will your approach be - I know that you have a lot of pressures from other organizations that may be similar. I know - and we've kind of had this conversation the last couple of days - there's a great amount of inconsistency throughout the province just from the way things worked over the years. Communities would see that there was a need, they would rise up to that need, and come to Community Services.

 

A lot of times those decisions were sort of a one-off rather than looking at it in a holistic manner. That's why you will have a group like in Sackville or another part of the province receiving funding, and then in Sydney a very similar program is not getting anything. It's a real challenge for those organizations that cannot understand why that is, and then if they come forward with the ask, there's no new money to give them. What are your plans to try to decrease the inconsistencies that exist in the province now with the grant funding program?

 

MS. BERNARD: I think the review is a good start because at the end of that review, when we have the service agreements and the accountability and the transparency built in, I think we will find that there are some organizations that we'll thank for the work that they do, and they don't align with the priorities and the commitments of the department.

 

I'm really focused on front-line services; unless you provide front-line services, I don't know if this government department is the best fit for a funding partner. That is going to help us realign our priorities in terms of funding agreements with organizations across the province.

 

The non-profit sector is, unfortunately, very much like the business sector in that there's always competing interests. Is it fair? No, but in some ways some organizations don't have the capacity and the engagement of the communities they live in. I know that many organizations that don't get any funding, they don't get any funding because they simply don't need it from the government; they are supported within their communities.

 

I'm confident that this review is going to help level that playing field over the next couple of years.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Now I know that you are extraordinarily knowledgeable about Alice Housing with your background and it is a wonderful organization. I'm just wondering, are there others in the province that have a similar mandate that are also looking for funding and are not included in that group that is receiving increased funding this year?

 

MS. BERNARD: Alice Housing is the only stand-alone second-stage housing in Nova Scotia. Other second-stage housing is associated with transition houses so they will be getting funding.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: How is that funding being divided? I know it's $500,000.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's $500,000. The staff presented me with three options; I chose the middle option. Alice Housing and Bryony House, which are the two organizations which have the highest occupancy rates, will be receiving $115,000 each in a bump. The rest is going to be divided equally among the women's centres and the rest of the transition houses.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What does that equate to for the others?

 

MS. BERNARD: About $16,500 for each one.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Now the funding that's being distributed, are there any particular stipulations or criteria around that funding where they will be able to choose where they feel . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: They'll be able to choose whatever their need is. For Alice Housing their need will be - this is an organization that has gone from $45,000 now to the regular funding plus the $115,000; they have decreased their inventory stock over the last eight years. Hopefully that will give them the opportunity to buy some back. They are usually at 90, 95 per cent occupancy so that is one area, and also to increase the capacity for outreach and also to fund Healing the Bruises which never was a government-funded program at all.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Will they be required to do a report back to you of the funding envelope: where the money went and what the successes were, like a service agreement?

 

MS. BERNARD: All of those organizations are extraordinarily efficient in reporting. I know that when I left Alice Housing I had one eight years in a row, my outcome measurements in a national stage. That reporting will continue even in my absence.

 

The Transition House Association had the same vein of reporting that I did; very simply, my personal mantra is, if it matters you measure it. So those organizations have always been very good with working with the department in what their outcome measurements are.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Is that annualized or it a one-time?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's annualized.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So that $500,000 will be distributed every year now to those sectors?

 

MS. BERNARD: Every year, yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm going to move to a different topic and one that I know there's a lot of sensitivity around, and that's with respect to Bill No. 37. What I'm wondering about, I was actually quite surprised when the bill came forward and it included Community Services employees. I'm just wondering if you can tell us, how many employees does the bill affect across the entire province?

 

MS. BERNARD: I believe 46 organizations.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, that was my - what organizations? So it's 46 organizations.

 

MS. BERNARD: They're not DCS employees, they're service providers.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I do understand that, I'm sorry. You can take your time.

 

MS. BERNARD: I guess you're surprised that it was included; my surprise is that there never was essential service legislation for organizations that provide services for youth in care and persons with physical and intellectual difficulties.

 

Any threat of any type of labour strife for organizations that provide that ongoing 24/7 care, even just the threat of that, the upset of the structure, the stress around any type of negotiations has a negative, negative impact on the persons who are the clients of these homes. Organizations such as HomeBridge, where child protection employees from my department, who I've seen many, many times over the years take children into care in the middle of the night, need to know that HomeBridge is operating and that they have a safe place to place these children.

 

Any type of strike situation in any one of these homes would have a detrimental effect on child protection services in this province, as well as the most vulnerable of the vulnerable people living in small options homes who rely on the service providers to provide their safety and their care 24/7.

 

Where you were surprised that it was included, I personally was surprised that it had never been.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I guess it's like anything on the difference of philosophies because of the fact that my concern would be that history has shown that it doesn't prevent strikes, that you could have wildcat strikes which actually could be, as you said - I totally agree with what you're talking about in how no one should go without those services under Community Services and there's a fear that that may happen. The difference in the philosophies is the fact that 97 per cent of collective bargaining results in a positive outcome and forced essential services, there can be wildcat strikes which catch you when you don't even know it and it leaves you in a very vulnerable position as a government or a department, scrambling to find the care level. Whereas when it's in negotiations you can be preparing yourself that something is going to happen here, it's not working out really well, and at least put an emergency plan in place.

 

I guess that leads me to the question, will you require that all these organizations, the 46 organizations, have an emergency plan in place in case there is a wildcat strike? Will you require that they provide you with that plan and that it's an actionable plan that if tomorrow one of them with this new legislation goes on a wildcat strike that immediately you can implement that plan?

 

MS. BERNARD: My hope is that every organization implements an essential services context to the delivery of their services. Each organization - they're not employees of DCS, they're service providers - I would think that within their own service provision that there would be that plan there.

 

Quite frankly, if anybody goes on a wildcat strike on an organization that provides care for children who are coming out of abusive situations at three o'clock in the morning, to me that is personally offensive. There have to be those plans in place and I think that was the genesis of including it into that legislation, so that we would never be in that situation. And you're right; it is a difference in philosophy.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: History shows that it has occurred, but would you not include it in your service agreement just to be double - rather than assume that the organizations themselves will fulfill that commitment?

 

MS. BERNARD: Emergency care and essential services are two different things. There is more of a level of care in essential services. I'm comfortable with the fact that those organizations were included in this bill.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: At the end of the day though, when you look at the 46 organizations would you define - I know they have to work this out in negotiations, but would you not define that all of those would be considered essential, as you have said in terms of the service that they provide to vulnerable youth?

 

MS. BERNARD: The caveat of that bill is that it doesn't take away the right to strike to the bargaining units, but it certainly gives the responsibility to the bargaining unit to have essential services in place so that the disruption of care for children in child protection and for persons with disabilities is minimally impacted.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I have to be honest, this is where I'm confused when you say - or your Premier says - the right to strike hasn't been taken away. If they're all defined as essential, the legislation says that if you're defined essential, you no longer can strike. On the list - when you go through the 46 organizations and the different jobs that are required to fulfill the services in those organizations - who actually has the right to strike? I'm very confused about that.

 

MS. BERNARD: Maybe this is a discussion we can have somewhere else. I don't have notes with me because this wasn't part of the estimates; it wasn't budget related. It's actually in my briefing book, which I can get, but the bottom line is that essential services for child protection and for persons with disabilities will be covered off now under this legislation where they previously had not been. We can sit here and debate this all day because it truly is a philosophical difference.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: If we can - just for the record - that perhaps you could let me know who, because that's what I keep asking. For the entire legislation, I would say that by the time the negotiations are finished you're going to find that essentially it might be close to 99 to 100 per cent that are deemed essential, so you really have taken the right to strike away if your job is essential. Like you say, we could go back and forth for quite a bit of time and probably fill another four hours of that discussion, so I'll just leave it up to you to maybe provide that.

 

MS. BERNARD: I'll give you a list as well.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'd really appreciate that. I want to go back to income assistance, and as we talked about the other day, there is no increase in income assistance rates. Certainly I know that you understand this - the stresses of the cost of living and how it continually goes up. I know that anyone here who makes a trip to the grocery store, as I said the other day, it's almost like on a weekly basis you can see some items that really increase in cost.

 

I know that you're going through this whole ESIA process and review, but while that's taking place, what are you recommending to those who are on income assistance what to do as these costs go up and they still have that same envelope of money?

 

MS. BERNARD: A cost of living increase to a social assistance cheque is not going to help people in poverty. A 2 to 3 per cent increase of a couple of dollars is not going to make much of a difference on the bottom line. We've reinvested $450,000 into the Nova Scotia Child Benefit so that 1,300 more children can take advantage of that tax credit.

 

I'm not happy that the income assistance rates didn't go up. I'm okay with the fact that we're looking at this over the next year and looking at income security as opposed to income assistance. I'm happy with the direction that the department is going into.

 

There is never going to be enough money in the Province of Nova Scotia to adequately fund people who are living on income assistance. I knew that back in 1991 to 1999 when I was on income assistance. I guess the biggest eye-opener I got is when I arrived at the office and realized that just a $1 increase across the board for income assistance was $400,000. A dollar is nothing; $10 dollars is nothing. I think we have to very much look at the root causes of poverty, which include everything from homelessness to addiction to domestic violence.

 

I was very happy with the investment in the family resource centres that have boots on the ground and work with families in crisis with the majority of whom are in some type of income insecurity. At this point in time in the first 185 days of my mandate, income assistance levels will not be increased this year, but a total transformation of the system will be in place for next year and then we'll re-evaluate.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: When you say that you're going to have the ESIA transformation that we had initiated when we were in government, will that be completed by next year?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Will the budget reflect what the recommendations will be from that report?

 

MS. BERNARD: A transformation doesn't necessarily equate to an investment. The first thing we're going to be doing is looking at the transformation within the processes within our own department. Whether or not there's an increase in income assistance next year, that's for next year's budget; I can't speak to that right now. I only know that for this budget that we're presenting this month, there are no increases.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I do know that it is amazing when you become Minister of Community Services and you are given the math formulas that when you're on the outside you never think of - like you say, the $1, what that equals in terms of the budget that you have to deal with. You mentioned income security, which I guess is the same definition of guaranteed income - is that the same definition for you, income security and guaranteed income?

 

MS. BERNARD: No.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Could you explain?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's part of the approach that we're taking in terms of looking at the funding envelopes that we give every person who is on income assistance and taking out some of the criteria, the reporting. If someone gets $1,000 per month instead of saying, you have to spend this or you can only spend this on shelter, this is what you have left, please provide these receipts. Everything that has the paternalistic nature that is in the system right now, that's part of the transformation that we're doing internally this year.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to let you both know that we're down to five minutes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think that's a good direction. We had started that direction because it's very restrictive, as you know, and I think it creates a lot of administrative work that doesn't need to be done.

 

I just want to visit, very shortly, guaranteed income. Is that something that's on your radar screen? I know you can't flip that around in a year, but is that something that you see as a goal to work towards in the province?

 

MS. BERNARD: It is not on my radar at this time, no. Supporting people so that they can live comfortably on income assistance and deal with the barriers and challenges that they have, and help support folks attach to the labour market is very much my focus right now.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The second part of my question is with respect to food security. You know how critical and important that is and that people on income assistance and low-income Nova Scotians are having a real struggle with food security. That's why there's an increase in the food bank usage. You'll probably see that throughout your entire mandate, that increase of usage at the food banks, and then people relate it to: you're not doing enough because the numbers are increasing in the usage of the food banks. Are there any discussions around the table also, as a long-term vision, to try to tackle the issues of food security?

 

MS. BERNARD: Not immediately - that may be a long-term goal. I read a couple of weeks ago a report that came out of Mount Saint Vincent around food security. They do a lot of work around food security.

 

I can remember when I was on income assistance and I very much was attached to the Single Parent Centre in Spryfield, that I actually taught a class to other single moms on basic shelf and how to cook and buy groceries on a budget, within the budget that we all had.

 

I know that food prices have gone up, but I reintroduced that program 20 years later to the women of Alice Housing. A lot of it is education around food security; instead of buying the cheaper, low-cost processed foods, to be able to buy fresher foods which cost more but which you can do more with over a longer period of time. So I was able to do a lot of - I wish I could patent that program we had, to share it with other people. The women were making meals on a budget that I had had 20 years previously, when you put in inflation, but their food dollar was going further.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's probably not a bad suggestion to actually try to patent it and to have it as a program within Community Services that is disseminated by the caseworkers because I would see the caseworkers' role of trying - well, maybe the roles will change when you do the review. But the role of the caseworker is to provide information and knowledge, and that's a key element to the individuals who are utilizing the services of Community Services as they often don't have a wide range of information and knowledge on particular issues that could certainly help them. Do you think that might be part of your discussions, the role of the caseworkers and how that may change within the department?

 

MS. BERNARD: It will be part of that discussion. As you mentioned a few minutes ago, the tremendous administrative responsibilities that caseworkers have now, chasing receipts or looking for doctors' notes, that time can be reallocated into something that is going to be far more beneficial to the client at the end of the day, whether it be food security education or budgeting or employment support or anything else that's going to help folks have a better outcome, other than just chasing receipts and doctors' notes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's it. Thank you, Ms. Peterson-Rafuse.

 

The honourable member for Argyle-Barrington.

 

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much, it's my pleasure to ask a couple of questions, some very simple questions which revolve around a service in southwest Nova Scotia and Yarmouth, to be specific, which is Yarmouth Life Skills. Yarmouth Life Skills provides training and life skills to multi-handicapped individuals in southwest Nova Scotia, in Yarmouth, and basically supports a number of individuals from my constituency of Argyle-Barrington.

 

I know there are a couple of individuals who are looking for placement in that program. Executive Director Sherry Robertson tells us that the program is full, they need more funding in order to accept more clients. I'm just wondering if you have had an opportunity to further think about Yarmouth Life Skills and if there's any extra funding or a way for clients like Brianne and Tad and a number of pretty neat people, if they're going to be able to attend Yarmouth Life Skills.

 

MS. BERNARD: In a short answer, actually that's the first time I've heard of Yarmouth Life Skills. I don't know much about the program at all. I always feel bad when I say that because there are literally hundreds of organizations that this department funds; 1,700 employees work with thousands of people throughout the province. This is a regional program that's administered through the region.

 

In a short answer, we're not looking at expanding any programs this year; there simply are not the funds to do so. They can make application for next year when hopefully we will have some movement in terms of reallocations.

 

When I go down that way I'm going to have to look you up and you're going to have to take me there.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Well even better, there's a Cabinet Minister from Yarmouth who I know was supposed to have invited you to Yarmouth Life Skills, so I'll have to get after him for not doing that.

 

I know the concern is that there are a number of individuals coming down the pipe who are aging out in the education system who do need some kind of place to go. For example, in Brianne's case, her mom is basically looking at quitting her job in order to stay home full-time in order to take care of her daughter because she can't get a seat at Yarmouth Life Skills.

 

MS. BERNARD: Is this sort of like a day program?

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Yes.

 

MS. BERNARD: Adult service centres would be part of the transformation, the SPDPs. They very much would be involved in the ongoing transformation within persons with disabilities. I misunderstood - I thought this was a literacy . . .

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: No.

 

MS. BERNARD: I apologize for that. They very much would be involved in the transformation that will be happening part and parcel with the residential piece. There has to be a place for folks to go during the day, so they will very much be part of those discussions.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I'll hold you to that one.

 

MS. BERNARD: Please do.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I'll provide you with some information along for the clients who are looking at going there. I know Sherry Robertson who is the executive director there has been speaking to Zach in order to do this. Let's continue that discussion as we get there, but there are a number of individuals, those clients, who come from my side of the county, so just to make sure that they're taken care of as well.

 

MS. BERNARD: I've been told that it's a relatively new program.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Ten years, maybe.

 

MS. BERNARD: New for us. The regional administrator has been working very hard with them and we will continue to do that and they'll be part of that transformation.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: That is the only question I had. I'm going to let the rest of the time that we have - and I know we're not going to be here for the full hour, but I want to let the member for Kings North take a few questions as well.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings North.

 

MR. JOHN LOHR: I only have a couple of brief questions for you. I was just curious about drilling down into Early Childhood Development - the fact that that part of the program has gone out of your budget. I realize that it's one thing to look at a line on a budget and see a change, but there is a human element to that. I was just wondering if you could describe what the human element to that change was - how many staff went to the Department of Education and that sort of thing.

 

MS. BERNARD: It was a $53 million transfer with 34 FTEs - the last four of whom left our department last Friday.

 

MR. LOHR: Over the weekend, I had a constituent express a concern that going into the Department of Education would drive the cost up on that program. Could you comment on that?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, I can't. It happened before I became minister. I haven't been briefed on it. For all intents and purposes it now resides, sits and exists with the Department of Education. The move was made with all factors looked at and studied so I honestly don't have any information on it because I'm not the minister of any of those programs anymore - nor have I ever been.

 

MR. LOHR: So you can't really comment on why it was done or on how the project is going or anything?

 

MS. BERNARD: No. It started under the former minister. It has been a seamless transition, I can tell you that.

 

MR. LOHR: Like I say, I did have a constituent express concern that this would drive the cost of that program up in the future. I realize you can't comment on that so I would like to turn it over to my colleague right now. That's it.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Chester-St. Margaret's.

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Continuing along the train of thought with income assistance, I'm wondering if the department - and this relates to healthy foods because, as you know, part of income assistance will provide recipients with a special diet if they have a medical note that they require a special diet. Can you tell me how much that is on a monthly basis for an individual who applies for a special diet?

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm trying to remember from my days at Alice Housing. I can't - I'll have to get that to you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay. I do know that it is challenging, as we talked about, for people who are on income assistance and the fact is that healthy foods do cost quite a bit of money. I'm just wondering if there are any plans for the department to do an analysis of the funding for special diets, to see where it is in comparison to what the real costs are. I think that would be really interesting to know because I don't think it has kept up with the reality of our food costs. Will that be part of the ESIA redesign or is that something that people who are on special diets can be told that there might be a review?

 

MS. BERNARD: In going forward with the transformation, all of those factors will be looked at. Special diets are really case by case because I know women who have had special diets that what it consists of is just vitamins or natural herbs or supplements of some sort. It really is case by case of what a special diet is.

 

That's part of the whole paternalistic thing that I found very non-helpful when I was working with women who were on income assistance and certainly when I was on income assistance, telling me what I could and could not buy to fulfill my nourishment and to maintain my health.

 

In terms of doing a review of special needs, all special needs have been approved through the department, it has gone back in. One thing I used to joke about when I was an executive director is they're not very special anymore because almost everybody gets them, so why don't we just look at that as part of the transformation and I think that we probably will.

 

In terms of costing things out, it would be very difficult to do because most are case by case. I know of women who have gotten special needs, and they would have gotten the full amount but maybe used only one-third of that on the actual special need. I mean it varies case by case. It would be something that would be part of the whole transformation in looking at the rate review for everything within that funding envelope.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, so with the ESIA redesign - and I know that you're making internal changes so there will probably be policy changes and regulation changes that will occur from that - are you saying that that will be presented in probably a year's time? Does that mean that your goal financially is that there will be an envelope of money for income assistance recipients perhaps next year, so you're not doing that little bit of, okay, you need a note from the doctor for this and a note from somebody else for that?

MS. BERNARD: I think the fundamentals of the program will be changed within a year. The system change will take a little longer because that is not only a process; it's a cultural shift within the staffing and even for the recipients, especially if you have been on income assistance for many, many years. I can remember, nine years I was on income assistance, and probably by about year four or five I was looking at my budget based on what I was told from income assistance. So even the person receiving that envelope of money has to change that culture of being told what to spend their money on, so that's going to take longer. We hope to be done the fundamentals in a year's time and then the process will follow after that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know another area that I'm sure you're aware of that really should be supported - we had conversations and I had conversations with staff when I was the minister and gave some suggestions to move forward with - is telephones. As you know, we do not support in the funding envelope for income assistance recipients to have a telephone. In today's world with the modern technology, it's amazing that that's not part of the package of funding they receive, especially where you're working very hard to take people off this system and provide them with an employability opportunity, but yet an employer cannot reach them unless they have a telephone. It can also be a necessity, as you know, for emergencies. You would know that people on income assistance usually get a phone, but they're taking those dollars from maybe their groceries or from another area, like the special needs diet or whatever.

 

I'm sure that if you cost these out, it will probably be quite an increase that you'll have to gain in your budget to provide that income security. Has there been any sort of costing now? I know you're going through the process of the change, but has there been any realistic costing of where you see that . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: We're not at that point right now. We're not looking at costing the program; we're looking at doing a fundamental shift within the department first. We're at the very beginning of that fundamental shift of looking at that. In terms of costing things out, no, I'm not going to set up a precedent or an expectation that when this is all said and done that income assistance rates are going to increase exponentially, because that's just not the reality.

 

Will we be doing business a different way? Yes. Will it help folks manage their money in a way that might be more beneficial to them? Absolutely. Will it remove some barriers for them? Yes. At the end of the day, this province is simply not in any position to raise income assistance rates in a huge way. There will be incremental changes, but there will be nothing that will be guaranteed income or anything like that. I'll just leave it at that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think I've heard through your conversation that one of your main objectives is employability and to work on having support for those on income assistance - that there is a number of people on income assistance that could be working. Do you have that number - what that number is out of your caseload?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's generally one-third that are job-ready right now. It's usually one-third, one-third and one-third. So one-third of 40,000 individuals - it is about 12,000 people who could be job-ready right now. When I say "job-ready" - when I was on income assistance I considered myself job-ready, and I could leave income assistance and get a job that would support my son and me. It would have been difficult, but at that point in time it certainly was doable, and I would argue it's doable now.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Some of the challenges with the job readiness is to make that transition when you're on income assistance to - it depends on the jobs that are available. Often the jobs that are available are minimum wage positions. That was one reason why as a government we increased the minimum wage a number of times. The challenge with that is the fact that - I knew a story of a lady who had a daughter and was coming off of income assistance because she wanted to work. She got a job in a coffee shop, which was minimum wage; however, she lost her Pharmacare and all those things that are available with income assistance. We know that people aren't getting paid enough; however, it's very difficult to make that transition.

 

I'm just wondering what the department's plans are in terms of working on increasing the number of those 12,000 individuals to get them in the workforce. Are there targeted numbers? Do you have outcomes this year to say you want the caseworkers in the department in each of the regions to have a particular goal of numbers?

 

MS. BERNARD: Well, we have a net zero policy - I've implemented that. So for every person who comes on income assistance, I want someone moving off and attached to the labour market.

 

In terms of outcomes, my deputy is not here today and she would have those outcomes. I want to make it easier and provide incentives for people to come off the income assistance system. That includes looking at programs such as Pharmacare, so that perhaps they don't lose it in the first six months. I'm not stating policy here, what I am doing is floating ideas.

 

I had this discussion with another member the other night because it really is about trying to assist people to make it easier for them to get off the system. There should not be a disincentive to leave income assistance, it should not be a career path for people who are able to work, who can be attached to the labour market with little or no support from the Department of Community Services.

 

You used the word "clawback" and I'll use the same one because it is what it is. When somebody leaves income assistance and they work and it's $150 if you're not on disability, and I think it's $300 if you are disabled, and maybe looking at either extending that or extending the time frame of that so that people can actually get a good financial footing and there's no slide back - ultimately that's the goal. So if you can invest at the stage of transition, I think you have a very real opportunity to lower recidivism in going back on the income assistance system.

There are many folks who don't want to be on income assistance and really require that extra financial transitional support to be able to do it. I know that your government increased child care spaces 1,000-fold, and that's important because that is a barrier for women not being able to go back to work or go to school: subsidized daycare spots. If I hadn't had one back in the 1990s, I wouldn't have been able to go to university.

 

Those are the programs that I'm really interested in looking at, in making it easier for people to attach to the labour market and move away from the reliance of the system.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So that would bring me to the working poor and I'm wondering if the department will have a focus on that when they're looking at the ESIA redesign, and of course, that is a redesign of the income assistance program which is much-needed. I'm glad we were able to start it and I'm very grateful that you are continuing it in your role, but as I mentioned the other day, there's always a concern about the working poor and how much they are struggling in our society today.

 

I'm just wondering about your opinion in terms of the department looking at a program or an approach to the working poor, because they're the ones who are on the balance beam; those are the ones who normally fall off and then they become your income assistance recipients. To be proactive is to try to keep them on the balance beam so that they don't fall off and they can go forward. I'm just interested in your thoughts around that and what you're thinking as minister of the department.

 

MS. BERNARD: I guess the priority I would focus on in the first part of my tenure would be the actual clients of DCS and trying to right that system. I'm pleased that our government recently raised minimum wage, as well, and I hope that's going to be continued for many years, regardless of what government is in government.

 

At this rate right now, I think investments in organizations that we're helping, like the family resource centres, do crucial work with both clients of DCS and clients - not clients but people who are the working poor. There are many organizations that do fantastic work in the community that really provide the extra support that at this point in time perhaps we can't provide because we're focused on the actual clients within the department. That might be further down the road but at this point, at this juncture in time it's going to be focused on the people who are actually clients of the department.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So when you're doing the review, are you also looking at some of the policies that had been established many years ago? I know you talked about the paternalistic aspect of Community Services and that you'd like to have an envelope of funding so that people can make their own choices. There are a lot of other policies which you know about that probably you've scratched your head, too, and said, oh my goodness - I'll just use, for example, the one where if somebody quits their job and then they're penalized for six weeks that they don't get their income assistance.

 

I know the thought behind that is well, they quit their job and there has to be - you can't have an incentive for them to quit their job, but as you know, most people who are working do not want to be unemployed, especially those who have come off income assistance - once they get into the routine of a new life and feel good about themselves because of the fact that they're working and supporting themselves and their family. To be penalized, to me takes them back a number of steps financially. I'm just wondering, are you looking at policies like that? There are so many in there and we were trying to change them. You learn of new ones, probably 100 a day, when an issue comes forth and somebody says that's what the policy says and you're like, well that doesn't even fit in with reality, so I'm just wondering what your approach will be with all those policies.

 

MS. BERNARD: The policy review is part of the ESIA transformation. The review - and I'll just give you a little notation here - will also include looking at whether rates are adequate, especially for long-term recipients, the long-term folks who are on income assistance; the fairness between income assistance recipients and low-income earners - low-income earners don't have a lot of the benefits that persons on income assistance do so we'll be looking at that; ways to enable working - transparency and accessibility; and how to make the administration more straightforward so that the professionals who work on the front line will have policy there that will allow them and empower them to use discretion and good judgment.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay. Does your government plan to continue the Affordable Living Tax Credit and the Poverty Reduction Credit over its mandate?

 

MS. BERNARD: I believe so, yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's good, because that's very useful for helping people.

 

I want to move from income assistance and talk a little bit about homelessness in our province. You probably are aware, and if you're not, we brought in a program that was the housing support outreach program. The concept of that was to take a holistic approach to homelessness and we brought key players to the table - individuals throughout the province, and mainly here in the urban area because we were doing a pilot project here in the city - to give us recommendations and suggestions of what to do about homelessness. It has been here for many, many years, and of course it's a growing concern with the economy and the situation people find themselves in.

 

The approach was to look at providing a service that we would hire outreach workers who would work with a homeless individual in a more holistic manner and to provide that individual with more of a wrap-around service because it's not just one issue that a person who is homeless is dealing with, it can be many. We do know that the cost factors to the province increase from homelessness, because those who are homeless normally access the health care system on a pretty regular basis and we know that that has a negative effect on the finances and that it's just not a fair system for those people who are homeless.

 

In a short period of time, I think it was within 18 months, we were able to find 240 people a place to live. I'm wondering if that program is still continuing.

 

MS. BERNARD: It is. I'm happy to report it's up to 590 now.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Wow - that is good news.

 

MS. BERNARD: So it has been a real success and it will be ongoing - if I could duplicate that in other areas of the province.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I was just going to ask you.

 

MS. BERNARD: The cost-benefit of it is incredible because what it does is it allows folks who do have multiple barriers and sometimes are considered hard to house, to work with these outreach workers to not only find a safe place to live, but to also have the wrap-around services within the community. It has been an extraordinary success and it's delivered by organizations that are the experts in the field.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, you're right. Oh, I'm really pleased to hear that. I'm just wondering, do you still have the same number of outreach workers in that program?

 

MS. BERNARD: I believe so.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Boy, they must be working really hard to increase that to 500. That's pretty amazing.

 

MS. BERNARD: There are eight workers.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's pretty incredible. Is that an area that you may increase their budget? If we had more outreach workers, like when you think that eight outreach workers have been able to accomplish that - I'm trying to remember when it started. Was it 2010 or 2011?

 

MS. BERNARD: I don't have the date, but I want to say about two and a half years.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So that really is pretty incredible - in two years to find homes for 500 individuals. Is there a follow-up evaluation in terms of making sure that - that's the number of placements, but after two years is it sustainable? Are those individuals still carrying on in having those services?

 

MS. BERNARD: I would suspect that there would be a follow-up. As you know, they're embedded in housing organizations in HRM that would have their own process and follow-up like they do with their own clients. I would like to see it increase, but I would also like to see some of those housing organizations like Adsum that have it maybe contribute as well to the funding. Currently we're at $0.5 million for those eight individuals. At the end of the day, we'd all like to see people housed and have the wrap-around services that they need.

 

In terms of the follow-up, that would be the responsibility of both the outreach workers, who I believe are employees of those organizations so it would be under the purview of the executive director and her team to make sure that there was follow-up.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Will they be reporting back to you so you can see an actual report?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, annually.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I would really encourage an increase in the number. I don't know if the actual organizations would have the financial means to be able to hire more outreach workers, but I would think that within two years to be able to place 500 people, that's pretty incredible. It seems that may be a pathway to a solution for homelessness. I don't think you'll ever have it all resolved, but it seems that that was one program that has - I would say that's successful.

 

MS. BERNARD: There are other organizations that do that as well. Housing Help, which is located in Halifax, does very much similar things. The Public Good Society of Dartmouth actually has an on-the-ground staff member who meets people where they are and connects them to a host of programs, including housing. Actually, Housing Help is in the process right now of setting up shop in Dartmouth under the genesis of the Public Good Society of Dartmouth, so that range of services will be available on both sides of the harbour. They do very similar work to what the outreach workers do here.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Homelessness was one of the pillars in the housing strategy, and I'm just wondering, is it possible for funding that you have set aside for the housing strategy to look at increasing the outreach workers here in the city and maybe also across the province because of the fact that - I mentioned the other day about the youth outreach workers and how the model that we were trying to establish for the youth homelessness was sort of the same type of concept. A little bit different approach in rural Nova Scotia, but where that seems to be very successful here in Halifax, it would be nice to increase the number of outreach workers here, but also to see if there was an opportunity to roll out a similar program throughout rural Nova Scotia, which we did by hiring the eight outreach workers, but we know that it wasn't enough.

 

Some of the stories that you will hear - and I hope you'll have an opportunity to speak with some of these outreach workers that have been supporting the youth - you'll hear some very emotional stories and successes. I'm wondering - that was a pillar in the housing strategy, so why could you not take some of the funding that has been allocated to the housing strategy to be able to support the increased number of staff? Is that a possibility?

 

MS. BERNARD: Much of the housing monies are allocated towards actual bricks and mortar, that's one of the restrictions of using a lot of - especially DFC money or something like that. I think it was started, rightfully so, in the central region because the capacity was already here; Adsum Centre was here, Turning Point was here and the United Way, which as you know has changed its focus and homelessness is a huge pillar of the work they do now. They're actually building capacity in smaller organizations to address homelessness. The funding that comes from the new Dartmouth Housing Help is completely funded by the United Way.

 

I think duplicating the idea is something I'd love to see, but I'm not going to drop outreach workers in rural Nova Scotia unless they have the capacity of an organization to partner with so that they can work together on that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Like the South Shore would have been Empire House. Do they have one outreach worker there? I'm not sure - there was one on the South Shore but I don't think the person was coming out of Empire House. I'm just wondering - I know you said the other day you didn't have the information for Empire House.

 

MS. BERNARD: I do have the information on Empire House.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh, do you? Would you take the opportunity to let me know?

 

MS. BERNARD: Empire House, which is run by the department and has four youth in there right now, will cease to exist on June 30^th and the money is being - we have partnered with Alternatives in Bridgewater and we are now doing a children's hub, a child and family service hub that will look at the wrap-around services in the areas of poverty and homelessness, domestic violence, relationships within that area.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So what is the communications plan? Has the community . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: It's very preliminary, we haven't . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, I know that there will probably be some push-back because it is such a change and suddenly you're not providing that 24/7, the same as we talked about SHYFT, there was big push-back there and I know that that is kind of a sensitive issue, in terms of when you have something established in a community and you try to change even though all the players feel it's for the benefit, people have a real difficult time with that change.

MS. BERNARD: I think the difference between Empire House and SHYFT is that there's actually going to be a replacement service model that is actually going to be unique in Nova Scotia. It's really going to focus on families, youth outreach, and all the barriers and the root causes that at the end of the day cause kids to leave their homes. It's a meaningful, unique partnership with a well-established non-profit in that area.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Do you know how wide the geographical area will be that they will cover? I don't think it's just focused in Bridgewater, are there other communities?

 

MS. BERNARD: The South Shore area.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So it would stretch like the Chester part of Chester-St. Margaret's, Lunenburg, and Mahone Bay?

 

MS. BERNARD: The catchment is quite large.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, I did think so. Okay, that's good. I guess what I would say about all this in respect to homelessness is that if there's anything you can do to increase those outreach worker numbers - we're talking about 500 individuals and that's pretty incredible. I know that it's more challenging in the rural areas because you have to look at what organizations already exist and that's where the family resource centres will be very good partners for you because they'll - you don't have the time to be able to identify all the little organizations in all our many rural communities, but that's a job that they could provide you with that information and do for you.

 

I would also like to ask - we were talking about the housing strategy and I know about the funding and the partnership with the federal government and so forth, but there were four pillars in there and I'm trying to bring them back to my memory. I know that the pillar was about homelessness, it was persons with disabilities, it was the partnerships, and was it seniors, to keep people living - is that good memory? Did I hit them all?

 

MS. BERNARD: There are five.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh, I missed one. What's the other one, I'm trying to think?

 

MS. BERNARD: Seniors and disabled, vulnerable Nova Scotians, building partnerships, and providing passive equity in home ownership.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Ah, there, I don't think that was too bad after all this time to remember that. Dan drilled it into my head, that's why I know it. (Laughter)

 

I wanted to ask about the funding envelope - I know that you have some restrictions with the federal dollars but was there a new agreement signed that gives you more flexibility in terms of what you can use the funds for? I think that was part of it that was happening.

 

MS. BERNARD: I literally just signed that agreement maybe two weeks ago. That's until 2019 and there is going to be more flexibility in that on what the money can be used for. I believe that at the end of the day in 2019, $102 million at the end of the day in cost sharing with the feds.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: How much has that decreased from before, in percentage? I know they're trying to provide less funding, is it the . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: No, that's the exact same.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So then after 2019, is that the drop-off period that we have no idea where we're going to go because I know that . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: No, that's a different pot of money, that actually goes to 2034 but that's decreasing yearly.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, the cut-off. Can you explain to me again the different pot of money?

 

MS. BERNARD: One is the social housing agreement which is the one that I just signed - no? The affordable housing agreement is the one I just signed; the social housing agreement is the one that is part of the DFC where the federal contributions have been tucked away in an account. That is the one that is minimizing and going down year by year by year to 2034, which will be depleted by then.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, so which one are you using for the housing strategy?

 

MS. BERNARD: Core operational funding is what will be used for Housing Nova Scotia going forward with any of the new builds that we have. It will be corporation money; it will be the money that we have, the mortgages and loans that we are able to loan to folks to develop.

 

The social housing money will be used for just social housing, where it has to be social housing. The DFC money that is socked aside has to be used for social housing, which can include upgrades, maintenance, and new builds.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Is there a pot of money out of that - I know there's not a pot of money anywhere but are there any funding opportunities in there for those other pillars, or is that where the challenge is for you?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, there's $3 million right now set aside for those pillars, specific to those pillars, specific to the strategy of those five pillars.

 

I find the funding envelopes for Housing Nova Scotia to be extraordinarily convoluted. I would love to be able to put everything into one bank account and just go from there, but unfortunately the federal government doesn't like that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: And Dan wouldn't let you either.

 

MS. BERNARD: And Dan wouldn't like it either.

 

This is probably the only part of the department where I'm confident that money will be there when people come forth and say this is what we want to do. So for home ownership, for new builds, for social housing, for upgrading, for persons with disabilities, the way it is structured now I know that at the end of the day everything is entertained.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That brings me to the - I'm going to look at the different pillars, so for example under the seniors - I know that you're not the Minister of Seniors, but the tax rebate program is within the department and we increased that a number of times. Is there any indication that may be increased another year for seniors?

 

MS. BERNARD: I don't think it will be increased. I think it will be maintained but it will not be increased. I always found that to be an odd little program because we're basically subsidizing a municipal government program. It's stable.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What about the goal of encouraging and helping seniors to stay in their homes longer? Through Community Services, what focus is on that in the strategy? What do you see that you'll be doing this year and next year to be able to increase the supports to enable people to stay at home longer?

 

MS. BERNARD: We've increased the SCAP program by $1.5 million, so more folks will be eligible to expand that program so that seniors can stay in their homes. In conjunction with what our department is doing, there is also the home care increase in the budget through the Department of Health and Wellness, which is not the bricks and mortar side. We take care of the bricks and mortar; the Department of Health and Wellness is really increasing its home care so that people can stay within their homes with the clinical supports that they need.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Are you aware of the HIL formula, the formula that is utilized for the cut-off to support people who are applying for assistance in the repair program? That's what the department uses. The problem is that there needs to be another formula because it's too low. It's an income level cut-off and then you'll find also, it's very interesting to know that the level is different from rural Nova Scotia to urban because they think that the costs are more in urban, but that's not necessarily true if you've lived in rural Nova Scotia - the cost factors.

That is an area that would certainly help Nova Scotians, and in particular seniors because the income level is so low. Has there been any conversation around that?

 

MS. BERNARD: Unfortunately it's set by CMHC. I'm sure that staff in our department have brought that issue forward year after year to CMHC, but unfortunately it's their program to be able to raise that cap. I'm just looking at them now and you're right - the difference between a Halifax income limit and small towns is $6,000 for a one bedroom.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Maybe that didn't drill in my head when I was minister because I don't think anything is impossible. Is it impossible to change that because it's CMHC? Can't the department follow their own formula if they wish, or the province bring in legislation? Dan probably told me 500 times you couldn't do it and I just wouldn't accept it.

 

MS. BERNARD: He's probably just telling me what he has told you 500 times. It's a statistical calculation and it is set by them. From working with CMHC and the federal housing folks over the length of my career, it is probably written in stone somewhere. It's based on Stats Canada data.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, but realistically it's too low and it really cuts off a lot of those individuals who require that support. I guess that throws out the question - and when I was minister I would say this to Dan - can you not create something else also on top of that? You go by the CMHC program, but you also have your others to fill that gap of those individuals at a higher level - could you not create a program in itself? I know Dan is going to tell you that he's working on it.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well no, if Dan could have fixed it, he would have fixed it when you were minister because he's that good. There's not a lot of flexibility around it so whenever we can tweak around the edges, we do, but at this point in time it is what it is.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Is there a wait-list for any grant applications or is everything up to speed?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's about a three-month wait-list.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's not too bad.

 

MS. BERNARD: That's not terrible, no.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What about public housing? I know that's another challenge, the wait-list for public housing. What are you looking at for public housing wait-lists now; has that gone down any or is it going up?

 

MS. BERNARD: The wait-list right now is about 4,200, it's about stagnant. I also want to - that picture is not a true picture because it's also people who are waiting for specific locations and have turned down, so they just keep going through the wait-list.

 

I guess my frustration with social housing is that the real philosophy and genesis of social housing has always been that it should be in, up, and out. In Nova Scotia it has not been that way; it has been in and stay in. So there has been a real failure of our system to move folks along, so now we have generations of folks living in social housing and so why wouldn't the wait-lists just keep burgeoning?

 

There has been a real decades-long failure for that and I'm not going to be the minister who fixes that in four years, but certainly the outcomes that we've attached to the housing strategy and looking at mixed income now, long is the time where you're building any social housing hubs in terms of Mulgrave Park or Greystone or any of those areas. That's a time of the past, so moving forward with different ways of making partnership with developers and looking at mixed income is the way forward.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know that's something that you get hit on about, the numbers, but people don't understand the fact that some of the individuals have specific requests and it's sort of a revolving door. But it is a big challenge.

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm a fairly pragmatic but reasonably tough person and if I was paying anywhere from $80 to $320 a month for rent, I wouldn't want to move either. If I was paying $4 a month to have my laundry done, I wouldn't want to move either. If I had my electricity paid, I'd stay where I was, and I'd raise my family and then hopefully I'd be able to have a unit for any one of my children who wanted to live close to me.

 

I think when you set up unrealistic expectations we have set up people to fail. I never lived in social housing; I always lived at market value so I really want to get back to that philosophy of in, helping up, and out. I think that's something that over the next couple of years we'll truly be looking at how we can integrate that into the strategy.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So it is something that is in the forefront of your mind to be able to address?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's a huge frustration.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm just wondering, too, about the federal funding as we talked a little bit about the decrease of that federal funding. What is the department doing in terms of challenging the federal government on that? I do know and you probably have already been to one of the provincial-territorial . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: They won't meet with us.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: They won't? Okay, maybe I created that, I don't know. (Laughter)

 

MS. BERNARD: No, they won't meet with any of the ministers.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: They don't want to talk about it so that makes it really difficult. I know that we had some discussions among the provinces on how we can tackle that together as a unit, even though those provinces are - you know we have different political Parties but everybody, even those who are Progressive Conservatives on a provincial level, are very concerned. If you have the reduction in health transfers, I personally do not think that the federal government understands the ramifications and if they do, they don't care. It's a big challenge for the province to get that message across, so it's stagnant at this point. They won't even - because I do believe at one time we did have a meeting of the provincial ministers to try to figure out how we can tackle this.

 

MS. BERNARD: I know in talking with Kevin Malloy, the CEO, it has been an ongoing source of frustration for him. My thought was there was supposed to be a meeting coming up in June. Is that still happening? Unless there's a federal counterpart there, I believe the frustration was we're not going to waste the time of bringing ministers together if the federal minister was not willing to meet with folks because we can do everything else through email and telephone calls and conference calls, but that has not materialized. I have not been to a federal-provincial counterpart meeting in the area of housing, which is a source of disappointment for me.

 

In terms of the declining DFC, the mixed income that we're doing where you're building 30 per cent rent-to-own and then 60 per cent market, that is going to really help generate the income that will help supplement that declining revenue stream over the next 20 or 30 years. That is really going to be the source of revenue in terms of substituting for what we're not getting from the feds.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: If I recall what the provinces were talking about though was whether they should collaborate on a public relations strategy to put pressure on the federal government. I'm assuming that didn't go anywhere because that was what the discussions were - like if all else fails, which it sounds like it, that we would be stronger together than separately trying to convince. Especially with an election looming, it may not be a bad thing to pursue to put those pressures on.

 

MS. BERNARD: Absolutely - and hopefully there will be. I'm very hopeful that the next federal government will have a commitment to social housing across the province.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So you're hopeful that we will not have a continuation of Mr. Harper. (Laughter)

 

MS. BERNARD: There you go, we philosophically agree here. When Claudette Bradshaw was the minister of housing - and whatever it was called - and I developed the Marguerite Centre through the SCPI, which is Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative, there was a tremendous building across the country of social housing, and not only social housing but looking at organizations that dealt with a population that was very vulnerable to being homeless. We really haven't seen that over the last eight years.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's a real shame.

 

MS. BERNARD: It is a real shame.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's a real, real shame. Like you said, it's very sad that that's the direction, but it's really good that being proactive and in the housing strategy the focus on mixed housing and the major changes that were changed from the Housing Corporation to Nova Scotia Housing to enable it to be more like a corporation where you can do investments - you can lend money, and you are able to buy and sell. It will definitely be a different way of doing business, but it's very much needed in order for you to have the resources to be able to make up the difference.

 

MS. BERNARD: Absolutely.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So the main project for that is Bloomfield and I'm just wondering if you can provide an update on Bloomfield - what's happening? I know there was a lot of consultation with the Bloomfield committee into making sure that the community was a major part of the design of Bloomfield. Is there an actual date of when you feel that it will be . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: The RFP has been issued. The technical and the creative teams have been hired. The consultations will be within the next two months and shovels in the ground a year from this summer.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: A year from this summer? That will be great. And what is the construct period - a year or two years?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's in phases, I believe. The first phase is two years; all three phases it will be eight years but the first phase will be two.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Now in other communities throughout Nova Scotia - I know it's a little bit easier to do projects in Halifax because of the partnerships that you can create. I'm just wondering, what's happening in the strategy in terms of real rural Nova Scotia. I know that we have like a suburb, you know Truro, we opened a project there but I'm a bit concerned - as you mentioned, we have the oldest housing stock in the province as a government, but I believe we also have some of the oldest homes when you travel rural Nova Scotia and you see those homes basically falling apart.

 

I know we have a few of these grant programs that we just talked about, but the income level is such a low cut-off and I'm wondering what is being discussed now with - I know there are a lot of things on the plate, but what is being discussed in terms of a focus, especially with the presentation of the Ivany Report, which I would think would have an impact on some of the decisions now about that housing strategy, to ensure there is a focus on rural Nova Scotia? Can you kind of update me where the department is with that?

 

MS. BERNARD: I have found that rural communities are much more inviting of meeting with our staff to look at development. Smaller developers in rural areas often, I have found in my tenure and I'm sure it happened during yours as well, that they will come to the department, offer a business plan but may have been turned down by traditional funders. So that's where we can step in and help with the construction funding piece of it.

 

I was able to open up rent-controlled, for lack of better words, housing in November in Amherst. I know that our staff are working with folks down in the Digby area, in Cole Harbour, I'm looking at Preston, and we'll be looking at areas in Cape Breton as well. There seems to be more openness towards the department in the rural areas to invite us in and create partnerships that are a little more tough in the HRM area, so I'm really pleased. I think that will be the area that we will see probably more housing stock being built in the coming years in the rural areas.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's nice to hear and that will really fit well with the Ivany Report. I know in Chester-St. Margaret's, the constituency I represent, that it certainly is an issue, not just on the senior component but also for young families that are looking for housing, and it can be very difficult. I know the seniors is really an issue so I know that the department has basically the same programs that it had before, but there's more discussion in the rural area because of the housing strategy. Part of that strategy when we initiated it was for me, as the minister, I travelled around the province and we went right into the communities and had fabulous discussions with community leaders, community members, a non-profit organization and a wide range of different interest groups and individuals. We said as a follow-up as we go along that the strategy will always be evolving because you get new information all the time. So to think that you follow that strategy word by word is not realistic, and that's where we had talked about the importance of individualized outcomes, which I mean by community, because what may work in one community will not work in another community and vice versa.

 

We did say that what we were going to do is go back and do another sort of road trip as we go along with the strategy because the communication is critical to make sure you have the support and that you're on the right track. Is that in your plans in the next little bit, to do another part of the housing strategy road show and go as minister?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, not at this time because those conversations are happening. I am all for consultation, but I'm also for action so I want to see those conversations and the inviting of my staff into those communities now, which is happening - maybe in a couple of years. You're right, the strategy is organic - it does change to meet the needs of the demographics that are around, but at this point in time, what I've been doing is visiting offices throughout Nova Scotia.

I have actually not been invited to talk about housing within those communities. I would go if I was, but I have not been. Basically at this point in time, I want to see the strategy work. I want to give staff the opportunity to do their jobs in reaching out to those communities. I think at this point in time that is the way forward.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You mentioned the other day that there wasn't - am I correct? - you said there weren't going to be any changes to the housing authorities in the province.

 

MS. BERNARD: Not at this time, no.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Is there a reason why that has been changed? There was a direction going that needed to look at the structure of housing authorities in the province and if there was a better way to restructure.

 

MS. BERNARD: At this time we're going to leave the structure. We're looking at the cultural changes within that. For the housing authority in this area we've just hired a really extraordinary mover and shaker. I like her management style and she's going to be able to make really meaningful change in the housing authority for this area, so I don't want to change the composition of housing authorities at this time.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What about within the staffing and within the relationship between the Department of Community Services and the housing authority? I often talked with staff and I knew it was a little bit of a contentious issue because they would be treated as part of Community Services, but some of the actual services that they received as supports as employees were not the same as in Community Services. They kind of felt like, you know when you want to promote them as being part of Community Services, we would do that, but when it came to providing them with the same supports or the same level of a staff person in DCS that was . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Time is up. We'll switch over to the PC caucus if there are any questions. (Interruption) Okay, Ms. Peterson-Rafuse, you have the floor.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Is that an issue that has come to your attention?

 

MS. BERNARD: It isn't. As you know, the staff there are not civil servants. I have no desire to bring them in under the fold of DCS. The only difference is they will be reporting to Housing Nova Scotia, which is moving away from the Department of Community Services. I have no desire to change that relationship at this point in time and probably never will.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you give me a little oversight on Housing Nova Scotia - where their offices will be?

 

MS. BERNARD: When we know we'll let you know. (Laughter)

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh, that's still up in the air, is it? That's the great debate.

 

MS. BERNARD: It is. They're located across the street from the head office right now and I think you've put out your - have you put it out yet? Soon it is going out, they'll put out their tender of where they want to go. It will be somewhere on the peninsula.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, I knew that was something that we had talked about. It is a representation of the whole province, that's the key. I know that employees will want to sort of stay more central, but yet at the same time the perception is really important and the visibility of where it's actually situated, because as you know, often there is a difference of feelings between rural and urban and that everything is in urban.

 

I know that it's necessary to be in this area, but whether right across the street from DCS is appropriate versus at the grass-roots level . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: It's not.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So you're thinking the way that I . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: We're actually going to be moving, as well, next summer - I believe August 2015. I would think Housing Nova Scotia would be out before that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So do you know where you're moving to at this point? That's still up in the air too?

 

MS. BERNARD: That's being looked at, yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm going to move towards another topic. I want to thank you for all the time that I'm drilling you, but that department was dear to my heart and the staff that you have, and I'm just really interested in the progress and all the different - there are so many things that Community Services, as you know, is responsible for and the service of Community Services, you as a minister and the staff, really affect people's lives. It's an incredible department with a lot of challenges, and it's all about emotions too.

 

There's an awful lot of work that the staff does, and I know as you go along you'll see how incredible - and you probably have seen already the dedication that staff give and every decision they want to make and provide you with advice is the best. It doesn't always work out, but what they're providing with the information that they have is the best they can do at that time.

 

I wanted to talk a little bit about the adoption strategy that we initiated, and that was to look at a strategy for older children to find a forever home. There was a lot of work that was put in, and we also had some outside assistance with people who have a lot of information. I can't remember her first name but Rick Mercer from This Hour Has 22 Minutes, his sister was much involved in the development and helping us with that strategy.

 

I'm just wondering where we are with the strategy in terms of increase in numbers from the time the strategy was introduced to the point right now of the older children who have been adopted - not just all children but this strategy was specifically looking at the older children. Do you have a breakdown of the number of children who are ready to be adopted, from age eight and up? I believe that was the focus, age eight and up.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, I have no information.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, but you don't also have the numbers of how that strategy is . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: I've never actually heard it called a strategy, nor has Nancy, it was just a way forward. I do know that for this year we have the number of adoptions that have been granted, including private adoptions, which is 165, and within DCS it has been 126, which is a slight increase - certainly not where we want to go.

 

I believe we have two new assessment positions and one new casework supervisor position which now are addressing the backlog that had built up over the years, for the completion of assessments to move the process along. They are also focusing on the families that might want to adopt in the priority areas, which are generally kids over eight years, sibling groups, and African Nova Scotian children. So the dedicated team has increased for that but everybody still wants that cute little baby at the end of the day, and it's really about a public education piece built around families to be able to increase the knowledge of the other children that are available.

 

I was able to go to - it really was one of the most heartwarming things. About two months into my tenure I was invited, as minister, by a family to go to a restaurant to celebrate the work of one of our caseworkers who had gone above and beyond with this family. This little girl was three, adorable, but also had a disability. So there has to be public education around children who may have certain limitations or physical or intellectual disabilities and how that outcome can be just as meaningful and satisfying to a family as that healthy little newborn. That's a public education piece that we are currently working on with the folks within the department.

 

It's an ongoing struggle. The demographic of kids who are coming into permanent care is changing; unfortunately, the desire for that new baby demographic is not changing. So trying to balance those two needs is something we will continue to strive for.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The strategy, just for your reference - and I know that you have an enormous amount of documentation to read - was drafted in 2012. It was a strategy focusing on those older children, and you're exactly right in the sense of the importance of education. That's kind of why I'm asking, because you know as a Nova Scotian, I haven't seen much in terms of educational materials or promotional materials to be able to say that I was aware of this strategy as an average Nova Scotian.

 

Some of the things that they were looking at in that strategy: that the department develop a strategy to increase the rate of adoptions of children in care, with the primary focus on children over eight years of age; and to increase the adoption rate in Nova Scotia through a series of departmental practices, so there was a lot of consultation to specialize in training for staff. I'm wondering if that training took place because it was looking at if we were going to try to increase those numbers and it was a different approach than the department took in the past, that there needed to be some focus before you could go out and start talking publicly for staff training. Can you tell me if that was completed?

 

MS. BERNARD: I believe it has been. The strategy - I think the confusion was it was internal, it wasn't anything that was made public, so there was no formalized adoption . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: No, there wasn't. I should have clarified that.

 

MS. BERNARD: Okay, so that's where my confusion was. I'm going to say that the training has been completed, because that strategic part within the government happened before my time. I do know that within the last year there has been an increase in FTEs of three dedicated to - because one of the biggest complaints I hear from friends who are trying to adopt is the backlog in assessments. Oftentimes there will be people in that backlog of assessments who are interested in adopting the high-priority children that we're trying to place, so streamlining that system was a critical priority for us. In terms of a public education piece right now, I have not seen that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It says here actually that the implementation started in 2012, but there were also some recommendations because at the start, of course, they're trying to make some internal changes, as you said, that didn't really have a cost factor except a little bit for the staff training. But here are some things that were recommended that would actually have some costs to them - additional resources. I'm wondering if there have been discussions about this and where this may go.

 

If I may, I'm just going to read a little bit here where it says: While many changes can be made to work towards the outcome of increasing the rate of adoption for children in care without additional resources, it is recognized that new resources will be required to make meaningful change. As we place more children who are older, who have been in care for longer periods of time, and who have significant special needs, we must be able to continue to provide support to families well after the adoption is granted. At present, there is only one position for the entire province, significantly limiting the quality and quantity of support that can be offered. There remains an ongoing need to recruit African Nova Scotian and biracial families.

 

Here are just a couple of the recommendations that I'm wondering if you can update me if they took place. It is recommended that time limited, one- to two-year adoption teams, modelled after Wendy's Wonderful Kids be set up in each of the four regions. These specialized adoption teams would share with other members of the child's planning team responsibilities related to in-depth file reviews, adoption preparation, network building, recruitment planning, and searching for families.

 

Given the short-term nature of this work, it is further recommended that social workers from other programs be reassigned to these teams based on the individual being able to quickly acquire the skills and ability to work within the mandate of the team. It's also recommended that the number of assessment workers in the central region be increased to better reflect the distribution of work. Another recommendation is that a post-adoption support position be established in each region. Finally, it is recommended that a pilot project be established in the central region with one full-time social worker to recruit African Nova Scotian families. Do you know if any of that has . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm sorry, I need to have a break in a minute. I'm not sure what you're reading from because it's not anything that I've ever been briefed on. All I know - from what these two lovely ladies have told me and from what I have experienced - is that we've hired three staff and that we will get a province-wide approach to recognizing the need of trying to place children who are harder to place.

 

In terms of a coordinated strategy, I've never heard of that term before when it comes to adoption. I think it might have been something that was in your tenure and the work was done, and then we just . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: If you didn't mind, if I could get an update from you later on, because this was implemented in 2012 and we're only looking like a year in. When it was implemented, I'm pretty sure that those recommendations at the time were not fulfilled because they were financial recommendations and so you had to wait to another budget year, which would kind of bring us into this period of time. I know that I haven't seen in the budget any funding specifically for these positions, or maybe there are and I haven't been able to pull them out of your budget - if I could get some information.

 

MS. BERNARD: Sure, we'll get those back to you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: And if you have the opportunity to find out from staff to maybe have a read of that strategy because there was a lot of work put in and it was really to try to focus on the children who were eight years and older, and then if there was a domino effect of other children younger being adopted, that was great. But as you know, we have quite a few children who are older that are looking for a forever home, and so it was felt that you needed to have a very targeted approach to that.

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm not unsure that the work is not ongoing.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, I know there's so much.

 

MS. BERNARD: I just don't think it's . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: How about we take a recess until six o'clock?

 

[5:50 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[6:02 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If everybody would take their seats, we can get started again. I believe the questioning is moving on with the NDP caucus.

 

The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River.

 

MS. LENORE ZANN: Good afternoon, how are you doing? It's nice to see you here and thank you for letting me ask you a few questions today about the Status of Women and some of the things that I've been thinking about lately.

 

I'd like to start, just to begin with, why did and when did the Status of Women slip over to the Department of Community Services? (Interruption) March 8^th, okay. It used to be that Kelly Regan was the minister, right? Is it that you are now just like the minister of a separate department or is it all under one roof?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's all under the Department of Community Services. The advisory council is not its own department. Over the years it has floated around, and moving it from LAE to the Department of Community Services, which funds the majority of women-serving organizations in the province, just made practical sense. I think in the previous government the advisory council actually followed the minister because it was Minister More.

 

MS. ZANN: I know that the advisory council does do a lot of advocacy work around domestic violence, so are there any new initiatives that are planned for this fiscal year and what will these initiatives cost?

 

MS. BERNARD: The Status of Women doesn't do any direct service nor do they provide funding to any direct-service organizations. They have four planks of focus for the coming year, which has actually been their focus over the last year, of which domestic violence is part of that.

 

Four key areas are women's leadership, women's economic security, freedom from violence against women, and women's health and wellness. Those are the four planks that have been there for the last little while and will continue to be an area of focus in the future. But the advisory council does not run programs; it often will provide opportunities for scholarships and bursaries, and the bulk of its research will be in these four areas.

MS. ZANN: What budget does the Advisory Council on the Status of Women actually have?

 

MS. BERNARD: I think it's currently $763,000 with seven and a half FTEs.

 

MS. ZANN: Is that an increase from last year, or is it lower than last year or is it about the same?

 

MS. BERNARD: Actually, the Status of Women has been decreasing over the past four years. That is something that I would like to right-size within the next four years.

 

MS. ZANN: Thank you - that would lead me to my next question. I know you've done a lot of work with women, with underprivileged women, and with poverty issues, so in your view, what would you like to see happen for the Status of Women and the department, that particular advisory council going forward?

 

MS. BERNARD: I would like to see in the next four years that every policy that comes out of every department have a gendered lens; that every policy that is done from one end of the government to the other end does - that those policy decisions are made taking into account the experiences of women in this province.

 

I would also like to increase its capacity to provide scholarship funding to innovative and non-traditional areas of women's work within the province. I would like to ask every department to seed grant money - and I'm not talking major money, I'm talking $10,000 - so that we could provide scholarships for people in environments, so that would come from the Department of Environment or women who want to work in transportation or automotive. That's my goal.

 

My other goal is also to make sure that women-serving organizations are treated fairly and not mired in the bureaucracy of DCS, which sometimes happens, and that their work is exemplified more and more relational to the Status of Women.

 

MS. ZANN: I would agree. I think that sounds fantastic. It seems to me that in my meetings with the directors of women's groups from around the province, I asked them, what do you feel at this point in our province's history is the number-one problem for women? To a T they all said poverty issues would be their number-one concern.

 

We know that the face of poverty is often the face of women - oftentimes single mothers. How do you foresee being able to address the issue of poverty in Nova Scotia with keeping the lens of women in mind? Do you have any specific ideas for programs that will target certain types of women? In general, we know that about 52 per cent of the province is women. We also know that about 52 per cent of the province lives with $35,000 or less. Do you personally have any vision of how we're going to tackle this problem?

 

MS. BERNARD: Under the Status of Women or DCS, because it's two different things?

 

MS. ZANN: Well, I think it would really be mixed, wouldn't it? It would be both.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well, the Status of Women doesn't provide any direct funding to any organization so taking them out of the mix. We made investments within the Department of Community Services specifically to women-serving organizations over the last couple of months, including transition houses, women's centres, and family resource centres, where the bulk of the clientele are women and children. Those are really key investments in women-serving organizations, many of whom hadn't seen a bump in funding in over a decade. Working with poverty reduction within the Department of Community Services right now, we're doing a transformation within the ESIA - the transformation link.

 

I do want to correct something that you said. Coming as a single mother and certainly working with single mothers over the years, I would argue that single women are the face of the most vulnerable of poverty in this province because they do not have the benefit of a child tax benefit - both federally and provincially. It has always been my experience that working with women who are aged or women who are single or disabled women, those are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. Single parents and single moms absolutely have their struggles, but my expertise tells me - in what I have experienced - is it has been single women.

 

MS. ZANN: Yes, I would say single, older women, in particular, are usually the face of poverty. My question is, I know that the department gave out about $500,000 - was it to women's centres or women's transition houses? Who did it cover?

 

MS. BERNARD: It was three: transition houses, women's centres, and second stage housing.

 

MS. ZANN: So transition houses and women's centres - how many women's centres would you say received money, or was it split fairly among all of them?

 

MS. BERNARD: The bulk of the funding went to Bryony House and Alice Housing, both of whom are centrally located and have an occupancy rate of anywhere from 90 to 95 per cent. The rest of it was split evenly among the women's centres and the transition houses, and that will be a bump in their funding going forward.

 

MS. ZANN: How much went to the other women's centres?

 

MS. BERNARD: The others - $16,000.

 

MS. ZANN: So $16,000 each to all of the different women's centres.

 

MS. BERNARD: And transition houses, but $115,000 each to Bryony House and Alice Housing.

 

MS. ZANN: We did give $500,000 to the women's centres when our government first came in, in 2010.

 

MS. BERNARD: You did, but you selectively left out Alice Housing.

 

MS. ZANN: But the rest of them all did get . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. ZANN: That was, I think, the first time in 20 years that anybody had received a bump. I still personally think that $500,000 from our government and $500,000 from your government are drops in the bucket.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well, I'll have to back you up there because transition houses and women's centres traditionally don't do a lot of their own fundraising. When I was executive director of Alice Housing, my income from the Department of Community Services was $45,652 on a $450,000 budget. I personally - without professional fundraisers - raised $200,000 per year. We don't ask women's centres and transition houses to do that. They should be. I'm glad that Bryony House has always had a wonderful reputation for raising money in the community, but I have never seen fundraisers for women's centres and we fund them extraordinarily.

 

When I looked at the amounts of money that each women's centre receives before this bump, quite frankly, for organizations that do excellent, extraordinary work, but aren't 24/7, I thought - and they also get grant funding from different other sources as well, including the federal government. I was quite surprised at how high it was, not that I'm looking at decreasing that but I was pleasantly surprised, I guess I should say.

 

MS. ZANN: Actually our Central Nova Women's Resource Centre does hold fundraisers all the time.

 

MS. BERNARD: Good, I'm glad to hear that.

 

MS. ZANN: I helped them last year, we put on a show, we put on a play where we raised money for them and we did a day that was called "Pamper your body - empower your spirit" where we offered a beautiful meal and massages and getting your nails done, getting your hair done, things like that, all within the centre. That was the "pampering your body" part of it. Then they came over to the fire hall and I had about seven different women speaking about various ways of empowering women; one was a financial manager with the Royal Bank, because I find that a lot of women that are perhaps in lower income situations don't know how to manage their money. It's a learning curve; if you weren't taught as a young person how to do it, then it's very difficult.

Then we had someone talking about food and what kinds of nutritional things we need to do and exercise. Then we had somebody talking about - we had Linda MacDonald and Jeanne Sarson come in and talk about the human trafficking and the non-state torture. Do you know those ladies from Truro?

 

MS. BERNARD: I have met them in the past, yes.

 

MS. ZANN: They're pretty amazing, they've been to UNICEF, they've been all around the world for about 23 years. One of them has been working on this issue. Even now it's not recognized by the federal government as a problem, it's not in the Criminal Code, so if somebody is tortured and if it's not done by a state or in a state of war, they don't recognize it as torture. But yet children and women and young people are being tortured on a daily basis even here in Canada, especially in the human trafficking blight which we're just starting to find out more about now - Highway No. 102 from Halifax through Truro and beyond, they call it the "Highway of Tears."

 

I met a woman in Bible Hill. She fell in love with some guy and very quickly, of course, they got married, and he whisked her off to Ontario. She got off the plane thinking that they were going to have a wonderful life, and there were four men waiting for her in a car and got her hooked on drugs. She became like a sex slave and was basically tortured and humiliated, I think it was for something like 10 years before she managed to escape and made her way back to Bible Hill. Now she tells her story.

 

Before I knew about this recently, I would never have thought that this goes on in Canada, let alone in Nova Scotia or Truro-Bible Hill. I think it is a huge problem and the more we can make people aware and make women aware of the issues that affect not just them but other women, the more we can start to change things.

 

What, for instance, do you see as being the best way to deal with the ongoing violence against women and the domestic violence? I know we have programs and I know we are putting money into it, but in your opinion, what would you say is the best way to try to change things as quickly as possible here in Nova Scotia?

 

MS. BERNARD: Public education with men. That's why I was pleased to bring in Jackson Katz at the end of March. Jackson Katz, of course, is internationally known for his work with men and the bystander approach, and talking about violence against women and naming it for what it is: men's violence against women. I was able to bring him in to Nova Scotia, in partnership with Saint Mary's University. He spent a night with an open forum here in Halifax, then he went to Bridgewater, and then the next day he spent completely with Saint Mary's, their senior administration and their sports athletics. That was the goal of that, to really bring that MVP program here.

 

He has worked with professional sports teams, the Marine Corps, teams of many different natures that are male-dominated throughout the world, and he is extraordinary. He has been to Nova Scotia a few times. I was part of a group that brought him in a couple of times but I was really pleased that he was able to come in and particularly focus on Saint Mary's at this point in time.

 

As cliché as it sounds, it's about men taking a stand, it's about men saying - you know the earmark of saying, I don't rape my girlfriend or my wife is not good enough. That's not the benchmark that you want to strive to, you want to be able to go over that benchmark and stop misogynistic talk, stop harassment on the street, stop the off-colour jokes, and stand up. Unfortunately we don't see a lot of that.

 

MS. ZANN: Well it's interesting because all you need to do is go to even a few fire hall banquets and you see municipal politicians getting up and telling sexist jokes. When I first got into government and I saw this, I was shocked, really shocked. I looked around the room and I saw these women who had been going to these things for 40 or 50 years and their faces were kind of blank . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: They're not shocked.

 

MS. ZANN: . . . because they've just become numb. I'm thinking to myself, they're not enjoying this, I'm sure they're not enjoying this. And if they laugh, it seems very hollow because they're just so used to it.

 

There was part of me that felt like standing up and saying, excuse me but this is entirely inappropriate. However, for a new NDP MLA in a traditional Tory town, I thought well, I might as well just pay attention to things and then see how this goes and figure out how I'm going to deal with this. Eventually I actually took aside the emcee shortly after this initial baptism and said, you know I found it offensive when you said this, this and this, and I think a lot of other women would too. He said really? Oh my God, I wouldn't want to offend anybody. I said well unfortunately you do and, you know, times have changed. I found it offensive when you said this about me so I would really appreciate it if maybe you would think a little bit more before you speak next time. Since then he has been so much better and he thanked me.

 

It's systemic, it's endemic, it's in our culture and I think we also have to teach our children because boys are so easy to just repeat what they hear, either at home or on television. A lot of the stuff we see on TV these days is this gangsta stuff and it seems to me like the kids and the teenagers love to act like these gangstas and talk to each other like gangstas, going with my bitches up to Halifax - excuse my unparliamentary language.

 

It's kind of sad. Check out Twitter and you'll see it, it's all through there. I'm going like wow, are they aware that the whole public can read this stuff, and what if their parents got hold of it or their schools?

 

The other thing is that again, speaking to a lot of students and student organizations, it does seem to be a problem with the jock mentality whereby a lot of them feel that they can get away with that locker room humour or talk, obviously among themselves, but then when they start tweeting it out or putting it on Facebook or whatever, as we've just seen recently, they're starting to realize that they're not alone in the locker room anymore; in fact, there's a whole world out there that can see and read and hear what they're saying.

 

When I was speaking to some of the organizers of the student federations they were telling me that it is a huge problem on campus and that sexual assaults are still happening. Unfortunately they find that a lot of it is happening through the jocks.

 

When I had my experience just before Christmas with the cyberbullying incident, I didn't make a big deal about it at the time but the fact was it was a jock, a basketball player. It turned out that the young man in question - he was 17; he turned 18 a week after he started harassing me - he and his friends jumped in on it and they were all on a basketball tournament that weekend. They weren't even at home; they were in Moncton on a basketball tournament with the school, in hotel rooms, and that's what started it. Then the football players jumped in on it. I found all this as time went on and when it first happened they were all anonymous. I didn't know who they were or how old they were.

 

Again, once I met with the young women who were with the student organizations and started putting two and two together, and hearing from them that they were having problems with this, I thought - okay, there's a connection here. Why did these young men feel that they are entitled to be able to treat other people with such disrespect? So I think it's good that we are trying to take care of this problem and it would be great to have Jackson Katz come back and do more tours around. Where is he from?

 

MS. BERNARD: He's actually originally from Boston but he lives in southern California, and he's very expensive. (Laughter)

 

MS. ZANN: How did you know about him?

 

MS. BERNARD: I knew about Jackson when I co-chaired the Metro Interagency Committee on Family Violence and we brought him in - I think it was about three and a half years ago. I had just learned about him through the work that I had done at Alice Housing.

 

MS. ZANN: Does he do any of the non-violent communications? Does he use any of that?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, he uses a lot with language, but his actual suite of educational programs is called MVP and it's about the bystander approach.

 

MS. ZANN: I see - and what is MVP? Sorry.

 

MS. BERNARD: I knew you were going to ask me that. Most Valuable Player - and it goes to that sports jock thing that you were talking about. The bystander is the most valuable player - see how he makes that play on words?

MS. ZANN: What is his main thrust? What's his main idea about that? What is the connection? Why is that?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's interesting, whenever you hear about - if a male student at Dal was accused of a sexual assault, it wouldn't be a male Dal student; it would be - if he were on a basketball team or a football team it would be a Dal football player. So that's where his onus is: working with that jock mentality.

 

He really is urging men to take a stand and really own the issue of men's violence against women, so that is in every aspect of life whether it's language, whether it's a rape culture, whether it's victim-shaming - any of those areas. He has an extraordinary TED talk, if you go on TED talk. He is also very well-known for a book that he published called The Macho Paradox. It really hits home with women and men. Mostly it's women who come to his things, but when we brought him in two and a half years ago we actually had an all-male event and we had 300 men at the Fleet Club. At that time we had the Premier, the mayor, we had the police chief, and we had the commander of the Armed Forces. We had the most powerful men in one room to listen to Jackson Katz and that really was extraordinary, and that doesn't happen often in this province.

 

MS. ZANN: It's interesting because I was just - well, my mom and dad right now are visiting Spain, where they try to get for a couple of months every winter now that they're retired. They sent me some information about the new government there and how they've cut all the funding to women's groups and to any kind of thing that is against women's violence and that violence against women has been growing there and people are getting away with it. A lot of it has to do with the very high rates of unemployment and alcoholism and desperation and anger, of course, but that's no excuse. They say that it's a macho culture, and the whole Latino culture when it comes to gay, lesbian, and transsexual people is very scary still.

 

I was recently on a visit to Cuba and met with the woman who is in charge of the women's federation there. There are 40,000 women in that federation and I also met with the director of the gay, lesbian, transsexual centre. Mariela Castro, who is Raul Castro's daughter, is - this is in Cuba, she's gay herself - and Raul Castro who is Fidel Castro's brother, who is now the President, his daughter is gay and she has done a lot of work in the country to bring awareness to the issues. In fact, they've invited me back to a conference they're going to do; it's going to be an international Latin American conference on women's issues and gay, lesbian, and transvestite issues. She's leading the whole thing. They're going to be doing a big march - I think it's May 10^th - through Havana.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's exciting. Do you know what, it's exciting but not surprising because as a lesbian woman, I've been to Cuba three times and have been very comfortable in being with my partner but there are other areas down there - in fact, if we were handholding, it wasn't Cuban people who looked at us, it was fellow Canadians.

 

MS. ZANN: There you go, isn't that nice. Oh, they love Canadians. We've been so good to them and just coming and doing business with them. Without us, they would be suffering even more than what they have been under the American embargo.

 

Yes, you would be very excited about what's happening there, there's a real movement afoot. I'll pass on some information to you in case you are interested in checking it out.

 

They are starting, they are nowhere near where we are at this point, even we have far to go. I was talking with her assistant and I said so are there any drag shows that we could check out while we were there? Drag shows, is that where men dress up like women? I said yes, that's right, some of my best friends are wonderful drag queens. And he goes, oh, we're not supposed to take officials to those kinds of shows. (Laughter) So it's still coming but they are very excited. She has been working at it now for at least, I'd say, 15 to 20 years. He mother was the one who founded the women's federation 50 years ago, after the revolution.

 

Again, it's really interesting to see where they are. Then you look at Spain, as I said, where things are getting worse. I think we have to be very careful not to go backwards. Even in the United States, I was reading yesterday that the Senate blocked - they voted along Party lines, Republican and Democrat, not to agree to having women have the same money as men, that they were going to pass a bill where they assured that women - they said it was 77 cents to the dollar in the United States, that women make 77 cents to every dollar that men make - they were going to pass a bill saying that they want to have parity no matter what. The Republicans blocked it; in fact, one Republican said I don't know why you people are making such a big issue of this still. Obviously there's a lot of learning to be done there as well.

 

Going forward, I'm actually very excited to see what you're going to be coming up with in the next few years. I just wanted to know, was there any cost associated with moving the advisory council from the Department of Labour to DCS?

 

MS. BERNARD: No.

 

MS. ZANN: Are they going to stay in the same offices where they were?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, it merely is just a departmental change in a high-level move from one department to another. I'm their minister now, they have access to my communications people and my finance people, they have access to everybody in my department, and there was absolutely no cost to that at all.

 

MS. ZANN: In some of my notes it actually said that the spending for the advisory council in 2013-14 was $808,000 but now the budget has decreased a bit, to $763,000. Is that $45,000 decrease a result of staffing changes or are some programs being downsized?

 

MS. BERNARD: The budget has actually gone up from last year. That was the actual, the forecast that you're looking at, $808,000.

 

MS. ZANN: So that was a forecast?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, so cost of living, wages would primarily make the difference from $745,000 to $763,000.

 

MS. ZANN: So it's $763,000 - it has gone up then, you're saying?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, and those are cost of living - my goal over the next four years is to further increase that.

 

MS. ZANN: Really? Okay, that's good. So there's no idea about just getting rid of it and sucking it up into the department?

 

MS. BERNARD: Oh my God no; if anything, just the opposite.

 

MS. ZANN: Good, glad to hear it. I also know from personal experience about the benefit of having female role models. Is there any money in the Status of Women budget to promote women in leadership roles?

 

MS. BERNARD: That's one of the four planks that they're focusing on. I think one of the focuses in the next coming year will be particularly women on boards, corporate boards.

 

Again, we don't fund programs within the advisory council but we do provide small research grants and bursaries and scholarships.

 

MS. ZANN: And the research grants are for?

 

MS. BERNARD: Project funding, which I know has been done before so I know that.

 

MS. ZANN: Research grants for what?

 

MS. BERNARD: Whatever the application is or whatever the focus is at that time.

 

MS. ZANN: Okay. Are there any types of grants under the Status of Women for, let's say, performances or something like that, doing things that will help to promote women's issues?

 

MS. BERNARD: The advisory council, and it shames me to say this, only has $20,000 in discretionary funds to give out to organizations for different areas. For instance, anything to do with International Women's Day, if an organization wants to do something. I was at an event today at NSCAD where a group of artists looked at the four pillars of the advisory council and then developed public education posters around those and then we chose a winner.

 

It's ad hoc because of the lack of funding, really, lack of the ability of the advisory council to do anything more in any bigger capacity.

 

MS. ZANN: So who do we need to talk to to increase your budget? Do we have to talk to the Premier or the Minister of Finance?

 

MS. BERNARD: All of the above. I have a pretty big voice and I am quite okay and comfortable in approaching my colleagues with a plan. I think moving the advisory council back to Community Services under my ministerial tenure was part of a long-term plan.

 

I know it needs to be done. I've only been the minister of it for a month. I don't have a plan in place but I have a vision in place. Stephanie and I have talked about that vision and I've certainly shared it with her staff. Certainly the deputy within the Department of Community Services, we're all very strong women in senior leadership positions at the Department of Community Services so I have very little resistance.

 

MS. ZANN: And you all get along?

 

MS. BERNARD: We do, we actually do. The only albatross actually is my executive assistant who isn't here today. I hope his ears are burning.

 

MS. ZANN: Male or female?

 

MS. BERNARD: He's a feminist. But no, we actually all have the same vision for what we would like to see the advisory council move forward.

 

MS. ZANN: Would you mind sharing it a little bit, that vision with us today?

 

MS. BERNARD: Well I shared a little bit of it, in terms of procedural. Until I work that out within the department I really don't want to divulge that publicly. It involves some of the organizations that we work with, so I would give them the benefit of laying that vision out to them first. But really strengthening the capacity in many ways for the advisory council, both in terms of being able to provide meaningful money in the form of scholarships to women in innovative and untraditional and even traditional fields. They have an innovative fund that I was able to go to at NSCC the day that I actually assumed the role of minister and talked to single moms who are on income assistance who are in very untraditional fields of study at NSCC.

 

I know what - I was a recipient of a scholarship when I was in university and a single mom on income assistance. I know the difference that makes in a budget and we want to be able to increase that capacity throughout the province in different fields. Those are conversations that I will have privately with my colleagues over the coming year.

 

Also the gender lens of policy is something that I will be striving to do in the next while as well, so that every policy that comes from every department is made with the experiences and the impact of women in mind.

 

MS. ZANN: I think it makes a big difference; even just having women in a Cabinet makes a difference. I know that when we were in government, Maureen and a few of the others have pretty strong voices, too, and have pushed for a number of things that I don't think the men would have thought of, really, to be honest.

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm very blessed to be in a Cabinet of five very strong women but also 10 very like-minded men, led by a Premier that what is important to me as a woman is important to him as a man. That's very important for any female candidate to put their name on a ballot; you have to have that synchronicity. So I'm very happy with that direction.

 

MS. ZANN: I think that for women just putting their names on a ballot is oftentimes very difficult. They see what happens to some of us when we get dragged through the mud and it disheartens them and makes them afraid to put their names forward. That's a really sad thing. I think, too, even in the media oftentimes it still is the fact that they'll describe what you're wearing and what your hair looks like instead of what you're saying.

 

MS. BERNARD: And the advisory council - and I have been a pupil and a graduate of this - does a campaign school and that will be coming up in June. Out of my graduating class there's a Cabinet Minister and a mayor - the Mayor of Yarmouth. That is an intense weekend of structured workshops with other female politicians coming in and a mentoring component. It is an extraordinary piece of work that the advisory council does on that weekend.

 

Not every woman wants to put their name on a ballot but they want to know how to support women who do. That is also for them as well.

 

MS. ZANN: It's interesting because on Facebook the other night a friend of mine who is an actor has a little girl and she is adorable and she became sort of a sensation overnight, a Facebook sensation. He put some video up of her and all of a sudden the TV cameras were there and she was on every talk show. She is just so cute - Ella. She had this little thing and she thought Andy Warhol was Andy Warthog, so she goes Mr. Warthog and she really became this little overnight sensation.

 

Then a couple of weeks go by and then he writes, well I think my daughter Ella is starting to realize what it's really like to be an actor because all of a sudden the phone calls aren't coming, the television cameras have all forgotten about her, and she's feeling a little sad because Mr. Warthog is not getting any attention anymore. But I'm thinking this is the best lesson she could ever learn about what it's like to be an actor.

 

A bunch of people wrote in and I wrote, well why not just tell her that she has a fan in Nova Scotia who is an actress and a politician. In fact, maybe if she wanted to look into politics and become a politician someday, she could talk about putting more money into the arts and culture so that we could have a television show for Mr. Warthog and for Ella and start to get the kids thinking in terms of not just being the actor, but about getting to the point where we can create the community, the world vision around it so that we can create the world that we want to see for women and for children and for non-violent communication.

 

As a young actor myself, many of the jobs I did in the early days in the 1980s, unfortunately for me, were horror films. In the 1980s in the Canadian film scene that's all we were churning out, horror films. Partly it's because they're cheap to make and they had really good tax writeoffs at the time. I used to call them tax writeoffs for dentists because a lot of dentists seemed to suddenly get into the movie-making business. Yet there was part of me that was like why am I doing this? I don't like watching these movies, let alone being in them, I can't stand the sight of blood.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, I think time is up.

 

MS. ZANN: Already? I thought I was supposed to go until 10 minutes after.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well the last note I had was 6:42 p.m.

 

MS. ZANN: I think we started late, sorry.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so what time do you expect to finish?

 

MS. ZANN: Until 10 minutes after.

 

Anyway, yes, so we were doing a lot of these horror films in the 1980s but - and I've lost my train of thought - it's sad because I just find now that I wonder if a lot of the things that are on TV that have gotten more and more violent as time has gone on and more real looking and more of these games where they're killing, the whole idea is to kill something, if that has actually had an effect on our society and made people more just deaf and dumb and not feeling as much, not as empathetic to the violence when they see it or they see it portrayed.

 

I was reading recently about cartoons because I do a lot of cartoons as well - I went through the movie phase, the television phase, the theatre phase, and I did a lot of voice-overs for cartoons. They say that cartoons today - they've done studies - 80 per cent of cartoons are extremely violent and teach bullying. So they teach kids how to bully, and not only that, they teach that the good-looking kids get away with it. Do you have any comments about that part of our society and what we should do or what we can do? Obviously I'm sure you're not for censorship.

 

MS. BERNARD: As a parent - not of a toddler anymore - I was always very cognizant of what he watched on TV so I think a lot of it has to do with parental discretion. I'm not a sociologist so I can't speak to the effect that it would have or wouldn't have on children, but just parental discretion I would guess.

 

MS. ZANN: It's interesting, too, because I just find that I know a lot of the producers of these shows and for a while there they were producing shows in order to make toys, because the toys were the things that were actually making the money. Now it's not even so much the toys, it's the games. So they devise cartoon shows for children basically because they know a game is going to come out and they're going to make a fortune on the game.

 

Again, I would say that this attitude of attacking and killing people, when that's put into their heads from an early age, I can't help but think that it has to have some kind of effect on them.

 

MS. BERNARD: It desensitizes them to violence.

 

MS. ZANN: Exactly. So the more and more that we hear about these young women here in our province who are being found in, as I would say, gym bags floating down the Mira River, it's so sad and it's so sickening and it makes me just wonder where our society is going and how we can stop it.

 

So you believe in teaching the males who are the adults, but we obviously have to start in the schools, as well, correct?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. ZANN: Are there any programs that you might be thinking of talking to the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development about introducing into the schools to also teach respect for women, from an early age?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, I haven't. As you know, I was the architect of Healing the Bruises. Healing the Bruises was a unique and well-known program that looked at the trauma that children who witnessed violence lived with. We know that little boys who grow up in violence are five times more likely to be abusive men.

 

We actually, through Lori Morgan, who is the child/youth counsellor, wrote a book and we published it. It is now available on the Internet, but at that time we actually published on our own dime 3,000 copies, which we gave away, including to 800 elementary schools in Nova Scotia. At that time the Department of Education would not put it in the curriculum. Is that a conversation I can have with Minister Casey? Absolutely.

The reason we wrote the book is because when we went into classrooms, 80 to 90 per cent of the time, at the end of the two-hour seminar, somebody in that classroom would disclose. Another reason why we wrote the book is that because of the 317 children who came through our doors in a relatively short period of time, only two had ever told a teacher about the abuse they were seeing in the home. We knew that children were not seeing teachers as a place of disclosure, for whatever reason, and it had nothing to do with the quality of education; it had everything to do with the stigma of living in violence.

 

Children who live in violence tell other children. Those are the secret-keepers. Oftentimes an abuser will tell a child that if you tell, somebody will come and take you away. There's a lot of shame associated with it so oftentimes these children can go two ways: they become invisible in the classroom or they become the bullies. That program, I am very proud to say, is now fully funded.

 

MS. ZANN: What's that one called again?

 

MS. BERNARD: Healing the Bruises, from Alice Housing. We would really like to duplicate that, working with child witnesses of family violence throughout the province. That's an ongoing conversation that will happen.

 

That book, which details the journey of a young girl named Julia who lives in violence and then leaves the home, goes to a transition house and then eventually comes to Alice Housing, or a second stage - it could be as generic as you want it to be - really highlighted the psychological, physical, spiritual challenges that young children are really encumbered with when they live in violence, because they don't tell. It shows her journey of healing and then some reconciliation with her father.

 

It really was an extraordinary piece of work that I'm very proud of. If I leave this earth tomorrow, one of the best things I've ever done was develop that program because it literally has helped hundreds and hundreds of children in Nova Scotia. We need more of that because I believe in prevention more than being reactive, I believe in being proactive, and that program was part of that.

 

MS. ZANN: Did you say it started off as a book?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, it's actually a therapeutic program that's at Alice Housing now for the children.

 

MS. ZANN: And you developed it yourself?

 

MS. BERNARD: And the book. If I can remember, Lenore, I will show you my hardcover copy tomorrow. It is now available for $13.95, or $14.95, on any of the big online sellers.

 

MS. ZANN: It might make a good TV animation series.

MS. BERNARD: The thing is it's in graphic novel so it's really - it was actually illustrated by Kathy Kaulbach so it has very Nova Scotian connections. It really is an extraordinary piece of work.

 

MS. ZANN: That's beautiful. It's interesting, one of the characters I played in the cartoons was Rogue on the X-Men. I still get letters today from children and adults alike, actually, who relate to that character because she was thrown out of her home when they realized that she was a mutant, when they realized that she was different. She had to search the world for herself and she's always alone, she can never fall in love because if she touches anybody skin-to-skin, she'll kill them because she sucks in all of their life force and becomes stronger herself. She is this kind of tragic figure who is always wandering through the universe, but she's the strongest woman in the universe so you don't want to mess with her. But she's vulnerable inside in that she can never really connect with anybody. I think a lot of people relate to that.

 

It's interesting, I get a lot of letters from kids, especially kids who say that they have been bullied or picked on and they feel different; a lot of people in jail, interestingly enough, who feel the same way, that they've been isolated and ostracized by society; a lot of soldiers, both men and women, who are at war, on warships and are feeling very lonely and very frightened, but yet they are supposed to be these strong heroes.

 

It's interesting how life sometimes imitates art and art imitates life but to be able, as an actor, to put your soul and your compassion and caring into these different characters that can then be seen throughout the world and change lives, really, is very powerful. I think you could look into the idea of maybe getting somebody to look into it as a series sometime.

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm not the ED there anymore but I'll pass it on.

 

MS. ZANN: I think I've pretty well found out everything I need to find out at the moment. Would you like to take over now? Thank you very much, minister.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.

 

MR. KARLA MACFARLANE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to mention to the minister that it looks like I am ready to ask 100 questions but I actually thought that maybe the Minister of Environment was coming in and we were moving on. Apparently we are not.

 

I will take just a moment, I believe that you answered all my questions the other day and I thank you for that, but I will take this moment to just thank you again for accepting the invitation to come to Roots for Youth . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: And Summer Street.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: . . . and Summer Street and, as well, because I don't want to belabour going on with the Status of Women since you are coming to the county, I'm hoping I can add one more and make your visit most pleasurable by going to Trueman House . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Tearmann House.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Trueman House, I think that's at Mount Allison - memories, oh no. If we can add to the list and we'll have some discussions then around women, so thank you.

 

MS. BERNARD: No problem.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I could offer a 10-minute break before giving it back over, is that what you guys would - no? You want the next hour?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a little over an hour to do. You are going to cover until somebody comes back? (Interruption) Sure, I'd like to continue on.

 

The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River.

 

MS. LENORE ZANN: Actually this particular letter that I received a copy of does involve the Transition House Association, so I guess it is actually more Status of Women.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, it would be DCS.

 

MS. ZANN: It's from Pamela Harrison.

 

MS. BERNARD: She's the coordinator of THANS.

 

MS. ZANN: It's to Minister Glavine, dated February of this year - sorry, please forgive me, I don't have my glasses, I couldn't find them. She says:

 

The Transition House Association of Nova Scotia provides crisis and transitional services at 13 locations across the province to women and their children experiencing violence and abuse. The THANS provincial office works with the three levels of government and other equality-seeking organizations to increase opportunities for women and their families across the province. Your article that appeared in The Kings County Register on February 6, 2014, was forwarded to us. We have real difficulty with both your perspective and your message.

 

To suggest that people on income assistance or low incomes or in fact anyone who struggles with their weight and exercise regimes, do so consciously and with disregard to their own or others' health is problematic. Imagine, if you will, a young mom who is a resident in one of our shelters, she has a high school education and three children, ages two to eight years. Not only is safe, affordable housing limited to her and her family when she leaves the shelter, so is access to a job that would allow her to pay rent, feed her children, and cover child care costs. Income assistance is often her only recourse.

 

Income assistance and low-income child benefits are not sufficient to maintain eating at optimum health levels. Add to that the challenges again of finding transportation and child care in order to access the highest quality, lowest cost food, and let us not forget that many of the women and their children who access our welfare system often have the added barriers of low literacy, physical disabilities, mental health issues, and a variety of other barriers that make a successful entry into the workforce and the ability to provide health and eating role models unlikely.

 

Because the young mom in our example has limited shopping access, most of her food has to be bought once a month - no hopping into the family car for a quick trip to the grocery store or the farm market for this mom.

 

It is one thing to enrol your child in a sports league but who pays for the equipment and uniforms? Who takes this child to practice and games in various locations when you do not have a car or there is no public transportation and you have two younger children who either need to be taken along or who require child care, particularly in a rural area? Added to this young mom's challenge is dealing with the trauma that happens in violent and abusive relationships and impacts her children as well, so mental health support is usually necessary but difficult to access and includes the realities of finding transportation and child care as well. You can hardly take your children to a counselling session with you, with no one to watch them while you are in session.

 

Moms on income assistance are not only financially poor but also time poor. Everything takes longer because most available supports are not in your home and may or may not be available outside the home. Women with careful planning and a whole lot of luck manage the best they can. At the end of your quote, if health care worked like banks comments, you said, "but copying this approach would be archaic and inhumane and it is not for me to judge those who are dependent on the system." Your article, in fact, did just that. You suggested that people misuse our income assistance program, are careless of their health and fitness, and are headed for disaster and taking the rest of the province with them because of the costs that they incur.

 

We respectfully suggest that an apology is owed to those on low income or income assistance who are doing their very best for themselves and their families within the constraints of limited funds, housing, transportation, and mental and physical health supports. We are available for discussion of this important issue.

 

My question to the minister is, has this minister actually written a response to Pamela Harrison and mentioned any programs or services in the budget that might help people that the Transition House Association advocates for?

 

MS. BERNARD: I have no idea. I don't monitor or police what my colleagues do. I had a discussion with Minister Glavine over that article, I had concerns with it. He heard me out, we had a great discussion, and to me the case was closed. You'd have to ask him.

 

MS. ZANN: So you don't know if he actually sent a letter or not.

 

MS. BERNARD: Just like he doesn't know what letters I write, I have no idea.

 

MS. ZANN: Right, and you haven't heard from Pam since?

 

MS. BERNARD: Pamela Harrison is actually a colleague and good friend of mine. We've had this discussion, which I'll keep personal, but we're good.

 

MS. ZANN: Okay, so she didn't let you know whether or not she had heard back from him.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, and I didn't ask, that would be inappropriate.

 

MS. ZANN: I would say that affordable housing is certainly a very important issue, as well, for our lower income people. Along that line, are you going forward with the affordable housing program that our government had put in place before the election?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, we are going forward with Housing Nova Scotia and the housing strategy in a very concerted, go-forward basis with outcomes and measurements built in.

 

MS. ZANN: Which I think is what we were intending as well.

 

MS. BERNARD: Hopefully, yes. In talking with a former minister, the next year would have been her filling in the gaps, which we've done this year, so yes.

 

MS. ZANN: So that said, the affordable housing strategy that was set up for the Truro-Bible Hill area, is that still going ahead as planned?

 

MS. BERNARD: Alice Street, yes.

MS. ZANN: So we've got the Alice Street housing project and then there was going to be some beautification projects. Has the money already been spent for that yet or is that still coming?

 

MS. BERNARD: This summer.

 

MS. ZANN: And how much would that be again?

 

MS. BERNARD: The department has been working with the town to look at the boundaries around where exactly the catchment area is going to be, so the cost is still to be determined but it will be happening.

 

MS. ZANN: That's good to know because we do keep getting queries from people in the east end of Truro, wondering if they can apply. Are they able to apply yet?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. ZANN: Can you tell me where they would apply exactly - what's the address?

 

MS. BERNARD: Through the web or through the Truro office.

 

MS. ZANN: Actually at one point we were looking at the Old Provincial Normal College and it was very kind of your colleagues here to come and take a look and take a tour of it. It would have been a wonderful affordable housing place for artists, but as it turns out, the town has decided to turn it into the library and now work has begun and it's a beautiful, old, provincially-designated building in the heart of Truro. It will be nice to have the east end looking beautiful along with it.

 

I am still getting concerns from people about some of the sort of slum landlords who are in the area with some of the drug situations and things like this. We're hoping that the affordable housing strategy will be able to help us resolve some of these problems in the Truro area, especially in that end of town.

 

What's happening with the Bloomfield Centre?

 

MS. BERNARD: I must have answered this question four times in the last few days - that's okay. It just highlights one of the issues with the inefficiency of this whole process. The RFPs for the technical and creative team have been done, they've been hired. The consultation series will begin within the next two months, and shovels in the ground for Phase I next summer - a year from this summer.

 

MS. ZANN: A year from this summer, that's great. And where else in the province is there going to be the strategy?

 

MS. BERNARD: If I had my way there would be Bloomfields all over the province because I think it's a great concept. We are presently working on different developments. There's one in Cole Harbour, we're hoping to partner with Habitat for Humanity and look at a land exchange and having them come and build, and working in Digby, Windsor Park, Alice Street in Truro - meeting with developers throughout rural Nova Scotia which are far more collegial in terms of wanting to invite partnerships with the department. But the flagship definitely will be Bloomfield.

 

MS. ZANN: That will be exciting. How many units will be in that?

 

MS. BERNARD: 478.

 

MS. ZANN: Wow, that's fantastic, that's going to be great. Please invite me when the time comes, I'd love to be there.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well the first phase will take two years; all three phases will be eight years.

 

MS. ZANN: The other question I had for you: is seniors care under DCS or is that under Health and Wellness?

 

MS. BERNARD: Health and Wellness.

 

MS. ZANN: And what about long-term places for seniors?

 

MS. BERNARD: Health and Wellness.

 

MS. ZANN: We are also in Truro, we're wondering what's going to happen to the old hospital there. There have been a lot of rumours flying around about whether it's going to be used for DCS or for Health or for Justice.

 

MS. BERNARD: It won't be for DCS.

 

MS. ZANN: Okay, that narrows it down, thank you. I think I'm at my time anyway at 10 minutes after. I should get my colleague to come back. Can somebody go get them?

 

MS. BERNARD: How much time is actually left for this?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a little over an hour now is left. (Interruptions) Actually you're right, it's probably 57 minutes.

 

The honourable member for Chester-St. Margaret's.

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much for answering questions from my colleague. The first thing I would like to talk a little bit about is the Children and Family Services Act; we haven't touched on the CFSA. It's my understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong - that you are looking at the legislation, and as you're probably aware, there are opinions on both sides about the Children and Family Services Act and the challenges of opening up the Act, because when you open up legislation it opens it up for all preview, not just the one item or the several items that you wish to change.

 

As we are all aware, anybody who has been involved with Community Services or involved with child welfare is the fact that that's a very old piece of legislation. It's one of those Acts that really does need to have a look. I know that staff are very supportive of making changes and there are advocacy groups within the province that are looking for changes in the child welfare agencies also.

 

One of the issues we face in the province is that there is the gap here of 18 years of age that unfortunately is not covered off in this Act, so we have the issue that somebody who is 18 years of age, really, there are no services that are truly available to them because it doesn't reference that, so it's a gap year. I do know that the department has always tried to do their best with kind of stretching the rules and being flexible if they were dealing with a youth 18 years of age.

 

I was just wondering - I know that the minister is supportive of opening the Act and making the necessary changes - is there a time frame? Are you looking at the next sitting of the House, in the Fall, for the Act to be open? When do you think you will be able to bring the Act forward for those changes?

 

MS. BERNARD: The Fall of 2015.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So in the Act, do you know at this point the areas that you are focusing on for change?

 

MS. BERNARD: The definition of the word "neglect" and the gap that you were talking about, raising the age. There is a plethora of work that has been done over the last 15 years. In fact, I believe eight committees have been struck to look at this so there won't be a whole lot of reinventing the wheel. It will certainly be a lot of consultation, but make no mistake that this Act will be updated in my tenure.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: In terms of opening the legislation and the consultation process, that will all take place before the legislation comes to the floor of the House?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Then of course people are very aware that we have the Law Amendments Committee here and there will probably be pros and cons around that legislation. So you said you were looking at the definition of "neglect" and the gap years?

MS. BERNARD: Yes, and anything else that has been identified over the previous 15 years and eight committees. This is one of three pieces of legislation I'm responsible for during my four years here. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be the most contentious but I also have a wealth of information around the Act and how it impacts families in Nova Scotia. It is 23 years old and it needs to be updated, because at this point in time the Act does not always have the best interests of children in its outcome when the Act is used.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: One of the challenges - and I'm sure you're aware - that you will probably be facing will be those who are representing the parental side and the concerns and the issues that they bring forward of being legislated, in terms of looking after their child or sort of like having the government watching them and telling them what to do as a parent.

 

I do know that your prime concern is children in the province so I'm sure you're aware of the challenges that are before you with that piece of legislation. Can you tell me who you've had discussions with to date? I know you haven't been in your mandate that long - who have you had discussions with about the changes?

 

MS. BERNARD: The deputy. We will be striking a committee within the next few months. We know the timeline that has to be done for this. There will be lots of expertise from both within government and outside of government. That time frame has not started yet.

 

I have other legislation that will be coming before that so my thoughts are on that at the moment. We will be utilizing a lot of the information that has already been gathered and vetted. At the end of the day the safety of the child is paramount and should be the paramount pillar of this legislation.

 

There will be lots of angst, there will be opposition, and there will be support, but at the end of the day the safety of the child is the driving force behind this legislation.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Have you had any discussion with Dal Legal Aid at this point?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, not as yet, we haven't had any consultations with anyone.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Speaking of Dal Legal Aid, have there been any conversations on other issues? I know you're knowledgeable of their advocacy role in Halifax and throughout the province and I know that it's . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: No contact.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm just wondering about the relationship.

 

MS. BERNARD: You have but I haven't, as a minister. If you're asking me personally, no, I haven't, but I'm sure there has been ongoing - yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Well I know that the legislation, as I said, it needs to have changes because it's definitely not current and the language is not current. I do have to say that I wish you the best going forward to make those changes, because you are very aware of both sides of those issues.

 

I know it's something that the department and the staff have worked very hard on over the years while I was minister also, because we were looking at how we could go forward to make those changes. We were committed to the change but the change of legislation can move very slowly and the consultation process is one that can certainly be a challenge because everybody wants to have their opportunity to speak about it, and that can actually eat up a lot of time in terms of changing legislation.

 

You mentioned that you have some other legislation you are bringing forth. Do you mind mentioning to us what those are?

 

MS. BERNARD: Sure. We are replacing the outdated Homes for Special Care Act and I am developing the province's first accessibility legislation.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So where you mentioned about the accessibility, is that part of the disability strategy? As you're aware, part of your portfolio includes the disabled commission - persons with disabilities and the commission. We started the process with them to look at a framework for a strategy. It was sort of one step before you actually start putting the strategy and the plan together because there's so much that needs to be done in this province, as you know, and there's quite a cost factor to all of those issues that those with disabilities have. We felt we have to make some strides forward, so it was really important to put a framework together.

 

One of the initiatives that was discussed at the time, which I thought was quite appropriate and a good starting point, was on an educational basis. It was in terms of encouraging and setting up a process where government departments would always put a disabled lens on their decision making. It didn't matter what department you were in, when you were discussing the creation of new policies or changing policies, making any types of those kinds of decisions for the province in that particular department, that the lens for people with a disability would be placed over that. I'm just wondering what the status of that is. Are the departments doing that? Have they all integrated together? It was like to try to take the silos down and work together.

 

As you know, policies certainly - and the way a department looks at developing policies - affect each and every Nova Scotian and decision that is made. So I felt very strongly that that lens and that framework of going forward was really important. Could you update us on the status of that?

 

MS. BERNARD: I don't have an update because it's not something I'm familiar with. I'm focusing on the accessibility legislation that was part of my mandate.

 

As far as I know, government government-wide does not put disability through a lens now when making policy decision making, just like they don't put women in many other areas that they should. I'm slowly trying to change that, particularly in the field of looking at it though a feminist lens. The accessibility legislation is actual legislation of which the committee will be struck, which will be made up of 12 to 14 members from outside government. It will be sort of like capturing the magic of your transformation committee. They will be struck with developing subcommittees to look at different pillars within that legislation, on everything from accessibility to transportation to buildings - everything. It will be very, very wide in breadth, in terms of providing accessibility legislation. It will be looking at different models that are already available in Canada. I'll probably be announcing that committee - I think the timeline for that is early May.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, so the accessibility legislation sounds like it's a little bit similar to the kind of direction that we were trying to go with, in terms of the disability strategy, because accessibility was a huge part of that.

 

Will it be similar to the 10-year plan for the transformation of services for persons with disabilities in the sense that when you're talking about accessibility - and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that what you're talking about is accessibility anywhere in the province, whether it's accessibility to get into a business, sidewalk accessibility, which is going to bring in the municipal factor and the by-laws and the decisions that are made on a local-government level and the requirements of business.

 

As you know, one of the pieces we brought in was to make sure that our MLA offices were accessible. It does take time and cost to transform into that so I do understand that it's a huge undertaking. So when you talk about accessibility, that's the terminology because it's huge.

 

MS. BERNARD: It is huge. That's why we want to take our time with this and do it right. I don't have a timeline with me of when I'm bringing this forth. I think it might be the Spring of 2016 for the actual legislation.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It will take time to work on that, there's no question.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, there will be at least two years' worth of consultation and development of each legislative piece.

 

The accessibility advisory committee that I'll be announcing will be supported by representatives of an interdepartmental team that will be coming from Service Nova Scotia, Municipal Relations, Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, Health and Wellness, Labour and Advanced Education, Education and Early Childhood Development, and others as they are needed. There will be a government-wide input that will be supporting this advisory committee.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: When you say others, will that include some interest groups outside of government?

 

MS. BERNARD: The committee itself will be comprised of outside of government, but they will be supported by different interdepartmental staff that will be supporting them in their areas of expertise.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Will the commission be involved in this?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, Anne MacRae is very much involved in this. She will be on the committee; she's the co-lead.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Am I able at some point to get an update on that framework, if that is even going forward or if that has sort of been stopped with the new government, that Anne was working very diligently on? The disability strategy framework is what we call it. It was like trying to develop a frame around how we go forward with what you're talking about in terms of accessibility, but many other things.

 

MS. BERNARD: I can ask Anne for an update. Unfortunately at this point in time the commission is really focused on this and their capacity is not as - because they have limited staff and that. I can ask her for that update but it's certainly not anything that I'm aware of.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, thank you. I wanted to address, in terms of budget, a change that was made during our mandate that I know has been in the media. Of course there are different ways to look at a particular situation, and that's with respect to the income assistance cheque payment that was changed in terms of the dates that we had made the changes to and the reasons behind that, which now you've changed back to the way that it was ordinarily done. The purpose through discussion with staff for that change was to align ourselves with accounting practices that take place in all the provinces across Canada and also what those accounting practices are in terms of income assistance payments.

 

What we were dealing with at the time was that income assistance payments would be made prior to the month that they actually were to be made for, so they would be made like at the end of March for really the month of April. So the decision to change that was to make sure that we were in line with accounting practices that take place and the recommendations that it was a better system to actually pay the income assistance client in the month that that payment was supposed to be paid for.

 

We knew that when the transition was to be made that there would be a gap maybe of a week or two, so there was money put into that to ensure that income assistance individuals received that. So there wasn't a - when the transition was made it was like there wasn't a bump in the road because of the fact that I would probably surmise that most people on income assistance didn't even know that the change was being made because we inform people, but the fact is there was no gap in terms of their income at all, it just flowed through from those changes.

 

I guess I'm quite curious why the sudden change back to, you know, just within a year. As I said earlier, we take advice from our staff and we also put in what we would like to do in terms of being in government, and why we did it is because of the fact that it was just not following accounting principles and that's what I actually said in Budget Estimates when questions were being asked, that the answer to that was the fact that it was accounting practices, so we made those changes.

 

We also made the change at the time to ensure that the service providers didn't have any issues around it, so there was quite a bit of work done to that. I guess my question is, why the decision to change it back?

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm not going to comment on why the decision was made by your government to do that. I know for a fact that the staff within the Department of Community Services - and Dale was not there at the time - strongly advised me when I came in that this should be moved back because we were in compliance with accounting principles.

 

When you book a payment into a following year or back a year - I'm not going to get into the discussion about how I think it was done to help balance your budget at the end of your mandate. At the end of the day, $1.5 million was set aside to try to alleviate the extraordinary discomfort that it would have had on the backs of people who rely to the minute on when their cheque is in their mailbox, in their account, and up to two weeks for service providers that it really would have been a very detrimental financial situation for them. A one-time-only thing but needless to say, still something.

 

I was advised by every senior staff member when I came in that this was the wrong thing to do and it was a political decision and I believe that. The director of Finance was not the director of Finance who is there now. She disagrees with the decision as well because we clearly were not in - it was a political decision and governments have the right to make political decisions. At the end of the day we wanted to be accountable, open, and transparent, and that's why we moved it back.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think it's important, though, to make sure that people understand that. As I said, the advice at the time was that it was in line with accounting practices that took place elsewhere. The other piece of that is what people have to understand is that the transition already took place so it was not something that was on the table and that was changed afterwards; it had been changed and there was no - no one was put in a position of not getting their money.

 

I would think that everybody here would know that if somebody on income assistance went one day without their money coming in that we would have known in the province. The staff actually - those changes were made and, as I mentioned, there wasn't even a bump in the road because of the fact that the gap days - I think it was a week or something of that nature - were actually paid out to income assistance recipients. Then when it came to the first of the month, they were paid their normal monthly amount of funding.

 

So I think that part is misinformation because there was - if somebody would have not gotten paid for income assistance, we would certainly hear it in the public. There wasn't a word; it was done while we were still in government. The fact is that if there was an issue around that, then you'd certainly most hear it if somebody didn't get their cheque.

 

The service providers, there was also a strategy worked out with service providers. It was not a contentious issue at all. You may believe the reason behind it was political, but the reason for me as the minister was because the discussion was around the fact that that was accounting practices and we should be paying our income assistance recipients in the month because the differences are the odds - I mean if you pay out at the end of March or the middle of March or the third week of March, the money is for a month period.

 

Really, at the end of the day when you're looking at that, it's not going to affect a person in a detrimental manner because they have that money for that period of time, so there was no addition. It wasn't saying to people who were on income assistance that now you were going to get paid every five weeks or you were going to get paid every six weeks, they were still getting paid on a monthly basis, they have that income that they receive for income assistance for that month, whatever it is - let's say if it was $800 - so regardless of the changes, the changes are really internal changes to keep up with the accounting practices that take place in other areas.

 

I've often heard even the government say, well we're making this decision - I think essential services is one prime example that I heard over and over again in the House, that the decision to bring in essential services legislation was the fact that we were the last province in Canada to do that.

 

It's interesting that sometimes it's used that we have to follow the rest of the provinces in Canada, and other times it's used that well we're going to be creative and innovative and we're going to do it our way, so I guess there's a desire to have it both ways. As you know with the essential services, we were able to show and document that that has not worked in other provinces. There's a lot of data behind that and proof and that's what we presented.

 

I just want to make sure that it is clear - the fact is, nobody was hurt in this change, it was all internal and income assistance recipients received their money. They get it for a month and it just rolls along for a month. I'm a little bit baffled of why the conversation has gone several times.

MS. BERNARD: We didn't do it so the reason we didn't have an outcry or no one had an outcry is because we reversed the decision in December, before it was done.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: But it wouldn't affect it.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, it would have affected people . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you explain to me how it would affect, minister - a decision of that nature, first of all, would never have been made to hurt anybody on income assistance. I mean I think that to give credit to the government of the day and the minister of the day, you're not going to make a decision - the same as you, you're passionate about the work you do, the same as I was passionate as the minister and there would never be a decision that would affect staff.

 

We could go back in briefing notes from last year when we did Budget Estimates here, that the explanation and the support to that information was the fact that nobody would see or be hurt by that because there were going to be additional dollars. I think there was $1.1-some million set aside to make that transition.

 

I know we could sit here and argue back and forth of whether it was a right decision or a wrong decision, I think what my point is is the fact that myself, as former minister, and our government, in no way made a decision that was going to negatively affect anybody on income assistance. The notes and the data and the information are in your department because I was there at the time, I sat here at Budget Estimates. We had the extra dollars placed there in order to do that transition, so there is no way that this was going to negatively impact on people on income assistance.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well I'll answer your question; it was going to negatively impact - that $1.4 million, $1.5 million bridge funding was going to have an impact on people who were expecting a certain amount of a cheque at a certain time of day. Certainly for SPD clients and service providers there was up to a two-week gap in organizations that are already cash-strapped and have difficulty with cash flow.

 

The department was already in compliance with the accounting principles. I've heard that from senior financial staff so I don't need the data, I don't need the briefing notes, I don't need anything because the people are in the room right now who tell me that it was the wrong decision to make when you were the minister.

 

We have a different kind of government now where the ministers actually run the departments, the Premier allows that and so when that decision came . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Sorry, that's time. Ms. Peterson-Rafuse, you have the floor.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I can tell you that we ran the departments too. We pushed up our sleeves and we worked very, very hard for four years and you can see it with all the changes. You would not have a housing strategy that you are able to now go forward with, all that groundwork was done by myself and the staff and the government. There wouldn't be a mental health strategy in the province; there would not be a disability strategy in the province in terms of the transformation. There wouldn't have been those changes in income assistance. There's a long list that was accomplished by myself and by the government of the day.

 

I find it very odd that you would say that it would hurt income assistance recipients because the very staff who now you are talking about who provided you with that documentation or supported you in not going forward with this change are the same staff individuals who worked with me, as the minister, to be able to provide the background information, to be able to come to Budget Estimates to talk about the fact that it was accounting principles and to also make sure, above everything, that no one would be hurt in the process.

 

I had many briefings around it. As you know, as a minister, there's a great amount of information flow that comes from a department, that a minister can't know all the details, so you rely on your staff for those details. Those are the exact details that came to me, as minister, from the same staff people who I highly respect. The details were that this change that was being pursued by our government was a change that in no way was going to hurt the service providers, anybody in SPD or anybody on income assistance.

 

Even from a - if we want to talk about the political aspect - I don't think we would have taken such a risk in terms of creating a change that would have negatively affected or impacted anybody who was on SPD or income assistance or any of the service providers.

 

As you know, as minister, those public groups are very public and as soon as there's an issue, even the slightest issues, we're reading about it in the media and we're all aware of it.

 

I can't think of any political Party that would endorse a change that would create an issue with people on income assistance, SPD or the service providers because certainly it would have been politically suicidal. That's why I went forward and agreed with those changes because as I said, the very staff people advised me that as the transition was going to be made within the department, that they ensured, and I probably can find - I kept every note that I took. I know that the staff here will be able to tell you that I was a great note-taker. I have every note from every meeting and I can go back to those notes and provide a word-for-word explanation of what was said to me in terms of that nobody was going to be affected by this change whatsoever.

 

I won't belabour the point but I just wanted to - it needs to be on public record that there was no way because that's not only a reflection on me as a minister, or the government, it's a reflection on the very staff who you're working with because they are, as we said during this process, we've commended them many times and we've talked about the hard work that they do, their dedication. Every day they come to work and their main focus is what can we do today to make sure that the lives are better for the people we are serving?

 

To say that they would give me, as a minister, one recommendation and then suddenly turn around and change that - and I'm not talking about the change in the payment schedule, I'm talking about the effect that change would have on the people who we served at the time and the people that you are now serving. It's just important for me to make sure that that information is very clear and people understand that and what the process is about.

 

I'd like to move on to - we talked about adoptions earlier and I didn't have an opportunity because I was in late debate. To continue that conversation, I'd like to talk to you about adoption disclosure. I know there is a segment of our population who would like the department to have more open adoption disclosure in the province and people have worked towards that and have asked about it. I'm just wondering if that is something you are looking at and something you might be supporting in changing the way that business is done with adoptions presently.

 

MS. BERNARD: Like your department, we have no - like your government, I should say - we have no desire to change the way adoption disclosure is done in the Province of Nova Scotia. We'll not be opening up adoptions.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, thank you, I appreciate that answer. Can I ask, Madam Chairman, how much . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Nineteen minutes left before we adjourn.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I wanted to ask you about a project that was opened in February 2013 - that would be the Wood Street treatment centre in Truro for youth. I guess I just wanted an update of how things are going with the treatment centre, how many youth presently are at the centre.

 

MS. BERNARD: I got to tour the facility in November. There are currently 18 youths, probably up to 19 now - I'm going to say it's full. It is really a state-of-the-art facility for troubled youth and then across the parking lot, of course, is the transitional piece of Wood Street which is similarly spectacular in terms of the services that it provides for troubled youth in Nova Scotia.

 

It is an extraordinary facility, does extraordinary work and it is unfortunately, more often than not, at full capacity.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know that we do have youth in the province who are at very high risk and I know that Wood Street is a fabulous facility for us, but there's a lot of youth that often we have to send out of province because of their high-risk situation and the challenges they face. I'm just wondering, do you have the numbers of in a year or in the last year that have been sent out of province?

 

MS. BERNARD: Right now out of province - and I think the only place that we send them out of province is actually Utah - there are 14 who are there.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Is there any discussion in terms of Wood Street in the future for an expansion? I know that for those parents who have to send their child to Utah, I know it's a really difficult situation. It seemed to me that many of those also who we were dealing with, children with high risk, were children or youth who had fetal alcohol syndrome. We don't really have a good treatment program in the province for those who are dealing with fetal alcohol syndrome.

 

I'm just wondering, have there been any discussions? Once again I appreciate the fact that you haven't been in your portfolio that long and there's so much information flow, but I'm just wondering if that has been something that . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: No, that hasn't been identified. I guess since coming into this one of the biggest areas of concern I have, especially in light of what occurred in the last few days in Preston and certainly the media highlighting is child trafficking of 14- and 15-year-old, predominantly young girls. I am familiar with a few cases of that and I find that as a province, I foresee that unless something catastrophic doesn't happen to prevent it, that that area really being increased in the next couple of years.

 

In terms of sending children out of province, I actually know a few parents who would prefer that their children be out of province, to break the ties of any type of illegal activity and illegal relationships that they have here. So it's probably six of one and half a dozen of the other. That is an area of concern that I have right now, hugely.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The whole issue of youth at risk and then tying in the services that we need in the province is a concern of mine. That's why we were looking at the youth outreach workers and expanding that program. There is still lots of work to be done.

 

I know that under the Department of Community Services there's a youth strategy and it was a result of the Nunn Commission. But I'm wondering - that was many years ago - what direction that particular division is taking in terms of trying to address the many issues that are faced by the department in terms of youth at risk, and how that may be integrated into some type of plan because I think that's a piece that's missing. I'm not sure, or I haven't seen, a real comprehensive plan that brings all those issues together. It seems to me that there are little pockets of plans that look at particular issues that maybe youth are dealing with, but an overall plan for the youth in our province that are at risk, is that something the department is looking at?

 

MS. BERNARD: The work that came out of the Nunn Commission, of course, has been extraordinary and has really made a systematic change throughout the province. I think what we also have to recognize is that not in most but certainly in some of the cases that have been happening with child trafficking these kids are not at risk, these kids are coming from two-parent, supportive, stable households so I think there have to be real discussions between the Department of Justice, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, the Department of Health and Wellness, about why all youth are being put in this situation of child trafficking in this province.

 

Of course children who are at risk are more vulnerable but the cases that we are seeing now are not with youth who are vulnerable, they are coming from extraordinarily supportive and stable households. I think that is an area of study that also needs to be looked at, complementing the work that's done with youth at risk.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I would agree with you, it probably needs to be more of a comprehensive approach because I guess it's what your definition is of a youth at risk. It is an area that I hope there will be some more discussion because there are so many issues around youth and there can be particular different issues in terms of rural versus the urban areas, too, and the approach to youth.

 

I believe that the SchoolsPlus program is a very valuable program. There are many very valuable programs that take place in our communities but there needs to be a sort of coming together of those programs and services, because there is overlapping in terms of services.

 

I know you're doing a review of the grant program but I think that at some point - and I know you have a long list and it will take a while to try to do the check-off of all those lists and people will ask you a million different things about a million different topics.

 

With respect to the support that the department gives to service providers, to non-profit organizations, it's a little bit all over the map and it would be nice to be able to - and we've talked about that before, how to bring them together and identify the services that are being offered. As we talked about before, there can be great competition among the non-profit organizations and that attitude needs to change in terms of sharing of resources and the ability to share resources. I think one important step in order to do that is taking the silos down between departments.

 

One of the things we created that we felt was very useful was for the first time in the province we had a committee of ministers who came together that would be the typical departments that would work on issues like health and community services and justice and education. So the topic of conversation was that all the ministers would be in the same room, hearing the same thing, and it would tweak with them that okay, we can integrate these, and we can take more of a restorative approach. Do you know if there are any plans for your government to have a similar type of - whether it's a committee or an action plan - to ensure that when you're making decisions and whether they're on programs or financial, that there's an understanding between the different departments that support each other and not this competition?

 

MS. BERNARD: There is. Actually it's funny that you should bring that up, I met with Sea Star yesterday, the child advocacy of which I am a founding member.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The IWK group?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Congratulations, that is a fabulous group.

 

MS. BERNARD: They have done tremendous work. The conversation that was started there was that there really needed to be more than just me in the room. Whether it's on an ad hoc basis at the beginning and then morph into something that's more permanent, dealing with certain issues, but certainly at least four other ministers needed to be there with me yesterday. So I'm going to strike that committee and meet with Sea Star, and we're all going to be in the same room to deal with this crucial advocacy service for neglected and abused children.

 

I've been around many governments - mine, yours and certainly ones previous to that. Ministerial committees are always struck and then they have the best of intentions. They meet for one or two times and then it just falls off because everybody else is doing what they need to do.

 

What I'm proud to say is that the colleagues I have in my Cabinet I have tremendous access to, as they have access to me. Anything we feel we need to meet on as a group, we do so at the Cabinet Table. I'm very proud to say that our collegial, co-operative, and accountable working relationship that we have around that Cabinet Table will probably be more productive than trying to get five or six of us together every three or four months.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Good. When you mentioned Sea Star, I mean I was overwhelmed with their presentation. We were talking at that time about them setting up in Dartmouth, did that take place?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We were looking at like a central place and then they can reach out eventually to the rest of the province. I know they are more focused on the urban area but through the discussions with them, it came to my mind that they would be a very, very good organization to reach out to your family resource centres and to all the communities in the province. I'm wondering if that discussion has . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: When it first started, I had always - and that sense around the table was always to have a residential structure so that when children came in it wasn't institutionalized, didn't look medicalized or police-oriented. I know that when kids went to Alice Housing it was always Lori's house because it looked like a house.

 

For whatever reason, they're not moving to Dartmouth, where the child protection from Cole Harbour is moving to Burnside. I think the space is gone or it's not big enough. We gave them a lot of direction yesterday on where they might be able to find space that's affordable or free, through different foundations, so they're striking a committee to do that. I really urged them that the next move they make be the final move they make and that that be their home.

 

They just got funding approved from the federal Department of Justice to the end of 2016, I think, so we're really going to be focusing on the sustainability after that. That's where the other ministers will come into play; we'll be working with that. That is, without a doubt, one of the most extraordinary pieces of work that I ever had the privilege to be part of, as a group. I stayed two years on that committee and they've gone so much farther than I've ever seen anybody go in such a short period of time. They're seeing children every day, they have a child advocate there, they are working with the Crown Prosecutor, our department, the Department of Justice, Policing Services, so that children who have to give statements about abuse and neglect can do so in a one-stop, one-access, child-friendly environment. It truly is incredible.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's an extraordinary model. I know that at the time they were very concerned about the continuation of their funding so I hope that if it comes to 2016 that you'll be able to support them in their funding.

 

The other area that we talked about for an expansion for them was to also maybe be an integral part of the bullying issues that we have with the schools, because they have such a great knowledge base in terms of taking care of children in crisis and that it would really be quite a collaborative, restorative approach and that at the time our discussions were about you mean like a centralized service and that when you put the IWK name on it, people respect that and understand it, more so than if you say "run by the Department of Community Services." So right away, when you hear their name you associate it with wonderful care and professionalism, so we thought that might be an avenue to collaborate with the bullying issues in SchoolsPlus.

 

I want to congratulate you . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you, you were going to say something nice too. (Laughter)

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Just ask my husband, I don't say it very often; let me finish. I have five minutes?

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We have about three minutes until we have to . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Three minutes to wrap up for the evening, so I'll be nice for the next three minutes. God bless you for sitting through all this. I want to congratulate you for your involvement in that program and I really encourage the department to embrace it. I think it could have wonderful results in the future. They already have wonderful results in what they're focusing on but I think there's a great deal of potential in that model.

 

Since I have only a few minutes I do want to say that I know how difficult it is to sit on that side and go through hours of grilling and grilling. I want to thank you very much for being open and honest with me. There are many things that are similar - you may not want to say that you have any similarities with me but there are things.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, we do.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It sounds like we're on the same because you're keeping a lot of those things that we initiated and are supporting and I really appreciate that and I want to wish you the very best.

 

As I said before, you have an incredible staff complement in the department and thank you so much for your honest and direct answers.

 

MS. BERNARD: You're welcome, and I just want to say that I owe you an apology because what I have found coming into this ministerial role is that when you are on your private time, you have no private time. Everybody who can get your ear, regardless of where you are, in a line to a popcorn stand or in line to a bathroom, will ask for something. I remember one time when you were doing something - the Canada Winter Games . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh, you remember - up there on the corner, when you grabbed me?

 

MS. BERNARD: I followed you and walked with you, uninvited, to advocate for my organization at the time and that was an invasion.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's okay, you don't owe me an apology at all . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: I really do, because I shouldn't have done that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You were working hard for your organization; you don't have to apologize for that.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Does the minister have any closing statements?

 

MS. BERNARD: Are we at closing statements now? We're done?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We have about a minute, yes.

 

MS. BERNARD: I just would like to say I would thank every member for their questions. It really is a pleasure for me to highlight the wonderful work that has been done, the wonderful work that is being done, and the wonderful work that will be done in the future.

 

The Premier and I have both said many different times that nobody calls this department on a good day. We have extraordinary professionals, 1,700 of them who work in the department. It's the third largest department and the biggest service provider in the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

I thank all members for their indulgence of listening to me drone on. I tried not to be dismissive or curt or over-exuberant in my answers. I tried to give honest and open delivery without wasting people's time because I don't think that's fair. I hope I was able to accomplish that in what seems like the three years I've been sitting in this chair. I thank you and I look forward to the work that's going to be done in the next year, until I have to do this again.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister, and thank you to the staff.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, my staff is incredible. We have dogs that are waiting to be fed and people not feeling well - my deputy is not well - and people in the back who just want to leave.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E3 stand?

 

Resolution E3 stands.

 

Thank you very much; see you tomorrow.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:09 p.m.]