HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

 

2:57 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Patricia Arab

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply to order.

 

We are continuing with the estimates for the Department of Community Services. We finished off yesterday with questioning from the NDP caucus. You have 24 minutes remaining in this first hour.

 

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

 

            MS. LENORE ZANN: Thank you, hello again today. That was a really interesting conversation that we had yesterday, I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on some of the things that aren't necessarily part of your budget, but just to hear how you feel about the way things should go to try to improve it because I know you've mentioned that the system obviously needs some improvements.

 

            I do want to go back to where I started which was the freezing of the income assistance rates. The budget does mean that income assistance rates are frozen again this year. Correct?

 

            HON. JOANNE BERNARD: Yes.

 

            MS. ZANN: So since the government has just raised over 1,400 user fees, citing the cost of living, I still don't understand why the income assistance recipients don't deserve an increase for the same reason that was given for the user fees. How is the freeze justified?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Like most government departments, but particularly hitting our department, the cost of each case for income assistance recipients, even though it may be going down in terms of the amount of people coming onto the system, the cost per case is added. So that puts a tremendous strain, as you can see from the deficit that we ran last year, and there is just simply no room in our budget to increase rates at this point in time. I'm putting tremendous faith and confidence in the work that's being done with the benefit reform now that will change the way we deliver our services, including benefits in the future.

 

            As I said last night, even with the rate increases that have happened over the last four to five years with the previous government, 80 per cent of the people who are coming back onto the income assistance rolls every month in this province are previous recipients of income assistance. Clearly, raising rates isn't bringing those people out of poverty; clearly, the system that we have right now is not working.

 

            MS. ZANN: However, if 80 per cent of the people are coming back, they're obviously coming back because they need it, I would imagine. It's like food banks - people don't go to food banks because they want to, they go because they need the food. So I don't understand how we can justify freezing these rates for the people who need the money the most and need to be able to put food on the table and all of that.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Raising a rate from $2 to $5 is not going to stop individuals from coming back onto income assistance, but doing a hard look at changing the way people exit income assistance will. So instead of stopping benefits directly, let's look at a bridge program; let's look at a transition program. That's what the benefit reform exercise really wants to do.

 

            In my opinion, when people leave income assistance at this point in time in this province, there is not a lot of support to set them up for success and so we see a perpetual return and a high recidivist rate of people coming back into the system. Maybe they simply weren't ready to leave the system or their skills weren't at a level where they could get better than low-paying service-sector jobs. There are all kinds of mechanisms that could be put in place that we're currently looking at to make sure that when people leave the system that they're doing so for long-term self-sufficiency.

 

            I know people don't want to come back onto the system. I know that it's the last choice for many people. I also know that when I was campaigning, I talked to many people - mostly women, mostly single mothers - who said to me, I have a job that I love, there is a three-week interference in the job that I'm doing that doesn't qualify me for employment assistance, but in order to get any assistance from social assistance, I have to quit that job. That's absolutely absurd that we have a system in Nova Scotia that would encourage somebody to quit a job when there is a job interruption so that they can get services from us. So that is all part of the benefit reform as well.

 

            MS. ZANN: So the benefit reform exercise program - is that what you're calling it?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Benefit reform.

 

            MS. ZANN: Is there any cost to that?

 

            MS. BERNARD: One of the things that I really - and certainly the senior management within income assistance wanted to ensure that when we did this benefit reform, we didn't have the skill set within the department to do a transformation of benefits. So we hired, I believe, four term staff whose specialty is actually looking at transformation and strategic development because, quite clearly, we didn't want this extraordinary overall benefit reform to be done off the corner of someone's desk. We wanted staff that was focused on it; we have funded it within our own envelope, within DCS, and we are serious about changing it. To prove that seriousness there are dedicated staff, and that's what they do: they work on the different complexities of the benefit reform.

 

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. When did they start work?

 

            MS. BERNARD: They started approximately six months ago.

 

            MS. ZANN: Okay, and what is their term?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Benefit reform is structured much like the transformation in the disabilities program, in a gated form. The first gate will be finished this Spring. The second gate will begin - so we're looking at about a three-year term. They are not permanent employees of the department.

 

            MS. ZANN: What is the cost to the department this fiscal year?

 

            MS. BERNARD: For Employment Support and Income Assistance, $1.708 million.

 

            MS. ZANN: That's how much the salary is for these people?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Salaries and professional services, yes.

 

            MS. ZANN: My next question is - so you're saying that even though 1,400 user fees are going up, and they're going up because they're citing the increase in the cost of living, have you ever maybe expressed to your Leader that it may be unfair to raise user fees, because of the increased cost of living, while the poorest of the poor are not getting the same benefit?

 

            MS. BERNARD: User fees are user fees; if you use them, you pay for them. User fees were raised during your tenure in government - for the most part it's cost recovery. It's not an easy decision to leave rates the way they are, but at this fiscal reality and with my determination to reform this system, that's where we are at this point in time.

 

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. So are you saying it was your decision then to freeze the income assistance rates?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. I'm just wondering, last Spring and Fall you spoke a lot about the program reviews and making sure that organizations that received money from DCS were able to answer to what it was for and who it was serving. How many groups received funding last year but are not receiving any this year?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Last year 95 grant organizations were all funded and they will still be receiving funding this year, with some reductions.

 

            MS. ZANN: So you're saying that there were 95 grant-receiving groups last year and all of them are receiving funding this year? None of them were cut?

 

            MS. BERNARD: No, I didn't say that. I said 95 organizations received funding last year, and all 95 will be receiving it again this year but there will be some cuts to some of them - to 10.

 

            MS. ZANN: Right. But none of the groups were cut?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Ten organizations have received notices over the last couple of weeks that their funding from the Department of Community Services will be reduced, and that is an extraordinary exercise so I give a lot of credit to my staff. We did a very, very comprehensive program review, looking at everything from the outcomes, the historical relationships with the department, our priorities in terms of our client base within the department, and I was quite satisfied in making the decisions that we had to make as a department.

 

I would also like to note that many more than 10 organizations received increases over the last year - many more, probably quadruple that.

 

            MS. ZANN: You're saying of those 95 organizations that 10 received less funding and 40 of them received more funding?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Every transition house in the province, every women's centre in the province, every family resource centre in the province, SHYFT - those are well over between the 30 and 40 range. There will be an announcement in the coming weeks about six more organizations that will have their youth outreach increased. The net increase for funding for organizations this year is $3.5 million.

 

            MS. ZANN: So was it mainly women's organizations then that received the bump?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Particularly organizations that were part of the campaign platform, and certainly organizations that are aligned with the priorities of the department and help families in crisis.

 

            MS. ZANN: Could you please list for me the 10 organizations whose funding was cut?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Absolutely, we can get you a list.

 

            MS. ZANN: You don't have that today though?

 

            MS. BERNARD: We'll get you the list.

 

            MS. ZANN: I think you had mentioned previously that it's not part of the mandate for DCS to fund recreation programs for clients, and an example was the elimination of funding for Camp ReachAbility. How many recreation, experiential, education programs have had their funding reduced or eliminated as a result of this new mandate?

 

            MS. BERNARD: We fund various recreational programs all the time. What I did say is that ReachAbility is an extraordinary - it was and still is an extraordinary organization. That funding particularly was embedded in the Department of Community Services to help youth at risk. Over the years, for an explanation I can't give you because I wasn't minister, it had morphed into an organization that provided a great service to persons with disabilities, many of whom already resided in homes of service providers that we were already funding, so in actual fact, we were giving respite to the workers we were already funding in some of these homes.

 

            I took the money, which was $500,000, and I will be announcing in the coming weeks six new outreach workers for youth at risk throughout the province, and the other half of that funding went right back into persons with disabilities supports.

 

            I have had many conversations with ReachAbility, as I have with staff, and it's a program that I'm sure they could find support for in the community, like Easter Seals does, but at this point in time it did not, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, mirror the priorities within the Department of Community Services at this time. I wanted to bring the funding back to a place of what the original intent was, and that was for youth at risk.

 

            MS. ZANN: But it was still helping youth at risk, wasn't it, as well as people with disabilities?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It was completely used for recreation camps for persons with disabilities, which is the clientele base of ReachAbility.

 

            MS. ZANN: I believe - I would imagine that the department would still provide funding for Brigadoon, right?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I don't remember seeing any funding for Brigadoon; I believe Brigadoon is completely community funded. We've had conversations with the board of directors of ReachAbility - we do fund other aspects of ReachAbility, as do other government departments, but at this point in time I wanted to make sure that the money was used for the original intent, that the money was going back to youth at risk. So, no, I don't believe that we fund Brigadoon. They're not on our grants list.

 

            MS. ZANN: Could you find out for me and get back to me if Brigadoon was on the list at one point, please? Just going back to ReachAbility then, you took $500,000 that was going to Camp ReachAbility, and then you told them that they couldn't have any funding anymore?

 

            MS. BERNARD: They were told that we wouldn't be funding that specific program, but they still get hundreds of thousands of dollars from both our department and other departments as well. We simply weren't funding that program. But if they wanted to continue on with it that would be their choice, and they could do that through fundraising or through grants, like many other non-profits are expected to do - they did not do fundraising for any of their programs - so if they wanted to continue they certainly could.

 

            MS. ZANN: With the expansion in funding for disability programs that your government is putting more money into, are there programs there that they will be able to qualify for to be able to help fund that camp? I haven't visited it but I've heard about it and it certainly sounds to me like, even if these kids are being paid for and their families are being paid a certain amount of money, kids need to have fun and to get out into the country and be able to enjoy nature. I think it's very, very important so it saddens me to think that they're not going to get that opportunity now.

 

            MS. BERNARD: A one-week camping experience for persons with disabilities, I agree, is extraordinary. But I'm really taxed with providing services for the other 51 weeks, so that's why I invested back into the disability program. There are many, many, many other organizations that are just as deserving and do just as good work that need funding, they need maintenance of their funding, and they also need increases. Governing is about making tough decisions; for me, this was a decision to bring back the original intent of that funding and to reinvest it into youth at risk, and that's what I'm doing.

 

            MS. ZANN: Not to belabour the point, but are you saying then that you believe that you shouldn't have to put any money into any camps that are for recreational purposes?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Part of the funding within the disability program is for respite funding and parents have the freedom to use that money to put their children into recreational camps that are not provided by the department. No, I'm not saying what you suggested, what I'm saying is that I'm going to take that money, and I have taken that money, and reinvest it into youth at risk and other areas within the disability support framework. We provide tremendous support to families through the respite program, and they can decide with that respite money if they want to enrol their children into camp.

 

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. Now I would like to go back to something that I started asking you about yesterday, which is the fact that now I'm hearing from the ground, from out in the field, that the department has provided travel subsidies for recipients under the ESIA Act and that the policy states that recipients with special needs can receive up to $150 a month for special needs transportation.

 

            We have heard recently that individuals who received the subsidy are having their funding cut and being told that they need at least 12 medical appointments a month to be eligible for such things as a bus pass. Why are the travel subsidies to the province's most disabled individuals being reviewed and why are these parameters being put on it?

 

            MS. BERNARD: They're not being reviewed, there are no parameters except for the ones that have been there for years. If you have specific cases, you could bring them to me and I can certainly make sure they're investigated.

 

            Right now 85 per cent of the people who are on income assistance receive a special benefit in some way, shape, or form. That will be part of the benefit reform, as well, but there has been no policy change about travel. If there are specific cases, please bring them forward and we will look at them.

 

            MS. ZANN: I will do that. I do know of a few actually. So there are no changes to that. You haven't heard this about the fact that they have to have 12 medical appointments in order to be able to get these bus passes?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I've known of that standard for years. That's not new.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Your time has elapsed.

 

            The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.

 

            MR. LARRY HARRISON: I want to re-establish my own concern with this once again, just so we get off on a good footing again. The main reason I took this calling - I'm going to call it that - was to be a support to people in the rural area.

 

            I'm a city guy, I was born and raised in Saint John, but in my ministry I've come to realize there are so many different problems with rural folks than with city folks. City folks have access to a lot of things; rural folks, not so much. I'm a lot of things, but I don't think I'm completely stupid just in the fact that I realize the government is in a very tough position. The money is not there to do the kinds of programming that might have been done 20 or 30 years ago. It just isn't there. Of course, with the societal difficulties, more and more people are requiring special care.

Realizing all of that, and what I want to see happen with the rural folks, I'm going to continue asking a few questions and then I'm going to hand it over - two or three of my colleagues want to ask after that.

 

            I'm just going to give you a few examples of calls that I have received. I don't know whether they're reasonable or not reasonable, but you can perhaps give me the answer. I know one lady called and she indicated that special allowances were taken away, including medical transportation allowances, special diets, and over-the-counter medications. Would there be a reason for that, or is the truth somewhere in between?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I appreciate the question but it is entirely unrealistic for me to be able to speak to specific cases. Anything that you have, please bring it forward to me. I've always been extraordinarily open on all sides of the floor in dealing with specific cases and I absolutely follow up on every one of them.

 

            MR. HARRISON: Very good. I'm going to put that page aside.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Please, give it to us, we'll deal with it.

 

            MR. HARRISON: We talked about some of the people leaving programs, and so on, because of fiscal restraints. Have there been many specialists losing positions?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Last week five specialists throughout the province lost their positions, yes.

 

            MR. HARRISON: What kind of work did they do?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Specialists within each office, they're not front-line workers. They provide policy support within area offices but they don't work directly with the clients of DCS.

 

            MR. HARRISON: Even in the city, I guess, there are many - realizing that there are housing difficulties in the city as well as in rural, I understand that almost 2,000 families are without low-income housing at this point, is that reasonable?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Currently the wait-list for public housing, low-income housing, is hovering around 4,700, and about one-third of that is families. It's interesting to note that in some areas of the province there are units that sit empty because there aren't families to fill them because the need is for single people, and vice versa, in other areas. Oftentimes people aren't willing to move, and I understand that, but that generally is the genesis of the wait-list right now.

 

            MR. HARRISON: Is there any particular plan in place to try to reduce that number within the next five to 10 years?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Announced about five months ago, 10 years' worth of rent supplements each year, and we've been able to leverage with the private sector to perhaps increase that. That, in my opinion, is the fastest way to move people off of a wait-list because they don't have to wait for the build. They just simply have to apply through whoever they're working with at Housing Nova Scotia. The average subsidy is about $375 so for instance, if it was a family of four, and I believe the income assistance shelter rate is about $620, so we would pay the $620 and $375 above that to make the market value of the unit that they may need. Over the past couple of months, since that announcement we've had 90 people move off of the wait-list, and by year's end we'll have a further 300.

 

            MR. HARRISON: How are landlords with working with Housing?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The housing supplement program has been around for a long time. Currently, in addition to the ones that I just announced, we had about 1,000. Landlords are comfortable with it, they certainly understand it. I think the one difference this time - and I made it very clear when I met with the investment property owners - that long gone is the time of government coming to the table with everything. I wanted to see them have some skin in the game and we have been successful in being able to leverage that, because for them it was a win-win, and we wanted to be able to increase the number of rent supplements by having the private sector also meet us partial way if anything.

 

            MR. HARRISON: I agree, I mean the private sector is really the sector that we need to bring on board, even with some of the programs that used to be in place years ago, the government put them in place in communities, the government can no longer afford these. I am seeing some communities actually picking these up or putting something in their place and I encourage that every time I go into a community and I see them doing that, I just want them to keep doing it because we could be in this for a while and if the communities are going to grow together then they need to take some responsibility; where unfortunately government took it years ago, probably, we need to give it back to them for sure. I am really encouraged by that and with the private sector.

 

            MS. BERNARD: One of the things that I really noticed in this portfolio is that in the rural areas - and I think I should have introduced Dan Troke, sorry, who is the President and CEO of Housing Nova Scotia - there is a willingness in the rural areas for private developers to work with us in nurturing developments, and in coming to the table and saying we understand what we need in our community, we really want Housing Nova Scotia as a partner. I have seen housing developments over my tenure really be able to be leveraged financially through the partnerships that we've formed. It's much harder in the urban areas, perhaps because that sector doesn't need us like they need us in the rural areas. I've been very encouraged by the work that has been done with rural development of housing developments.

 

            MR. HARRISON: One other area here is the accessibility legislation. There was a panel formed to have a look at that, could you share some of the results?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The panel was formed last June and it came together very quickly. It had a very constrained timeline, and they were industry experts from all over the province: from the transportation sector, from EmployAbility, and from the construction sector. Then they actually did subcommittees and there were travelling consultations throughout the province. Without a doubt, I have never seen a committee work so diligently or effectively in garnering information in a concise manner and presenting me with the report.

 

            The report was presented to me just before Christmas, and work in the department is currently being done on drafting legislation, which I will introduce next year - it takes about a year for the legislation. Just this past February I received the accessibility legislation on time, to the day - that doesn't happen very often - and we're expecting to release the report in June 2015.

 

            I believe on our website there is substantial information about what we heard through these consultations. I believe there were 11 consultation sites throughout Nova Scotia that were attended throughout the winter, people within the community coming in and talking about what they feel is the responsibility of government and community together. Mr. Speaker has been extraordinarily supportive in moving this forward and has taken a very active role in assisting, when needed, the committee as a whole. I'm so very proud of the work that has been done by the Disabled Persons Commission and Ann MacRae, and the committee that released this to me in February.

            MR. HARRISON: So we're going to have to wait for a little bit to get the information - I look forward to it.

 

            These are just tiny questions but they just kind of struck me when I looked at them. Funeral homes, for instance, there was quite a few thousand - what was the exact amount? I guess it doesn't say - that was paid to funeral homes in the past year or so. Could you just explain how that comes about? I think I know but I'm not sure.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Persons who are on income assistance, low income, have that benefit through our department and we do pay, I believe the total amount - this isn't gospel but I believe it's around $2,300 or $2,700 to help with burial costs for persons who are on income assistance or any one of our programs. It's paid directly to the funeral home. It's a program that is so very necessary for people who are low income.

 

            MR. HARRISON: I've actually conducted a lot of those services with funeral homes. If you get a chance maybe you can write some of them and give them a thank you, because I know that doesn't cover the full cost and they do absorb it. They really don't seem to mind, they know that's the amount and they're willing to absorb some of the cost. It might not hurt just to say a thank you to some of them.

 

            The other is the IWK and that has to do with the Compass Program that we alluded to last night for troubled children. There is a program . . .

 

            MS. BERNARD: I don't believe it's under the Department of Community Services.

 

            MR. HARRISON: Oh, okay. My notes may be wrong. I'm going to hold off for now and I'll invite the honourable member for Pictou East to ask some questions.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East.

 

            MR. TIM HOUSTON: Thank you, I accept the invitation. So nice to see you, minister, and have a chance to ask you some questions about the budget for the year, so I appreciate your time. I did want to ask about a construction project you might be familiar with at the Riverview home.

 

            The construction project was meant to take place in three phases; Phases I and II were completed, and Phase III was cancelled, I guess is probably the correct word for that. I wonder if your department has information on how much it cost the province to cancel that. I ask that question thinking about some of the signed contracts that were in place with the people to do the construction that would have had to be terminated. I also understand - I was around the site quite a bit - there were quite a few materials on-site that would have been necessary for Phase III. In many cases, I wouldn't have thought these wouldn't have been able to be returned as they were pretty big, specific items.

 

            I wonder if you just have a chance to tell us how much the cancellation cost.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Currently with Riverview, the original estimate for Riverview was $22 million. The projected cost to complete the work is now approximately $26 million, with about another $1 million expected to completely finish the project.

 

            The original estimate was $22 million. The projected cost to complete the work increased because of unfavourable bid prices, extraordinary environmental remediation, additional design and management fees, and because HST, furniture, and equipment were not included in the original estimate. The final phase of Sunset is on hold until after the environmental assessment is done and a revised budget is approved. That's for Sunset.

 

            I made it clear that we were adopting the road map in terms of transformation for persons with disabilities. A huge component of that road map is that we would not add institutionalized beds to the inventory of the Province of Nova Scotia. This project, I believe, started back in 2006. The way it stands now is that the final phase of Riverview was the one that was cancelled and it's simply being finished up without additional beds.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: I just want to make sure I understand the finances of it. So $26 million so far on Riverview; $1 million in incidentals remaining, I guess, will bring the total investment in the whole Riverview to $27 million. I wonder if you could break that down by X dollars for Phase I, X dollars for Phase II, and X dollars for Phase III because there will be a cost associated with each of those phases, including Phase III, even though it wasn't finished. I know there were some costs involved in Phase III even though it won't be finished. I just want to try to understand the $27 million between the three phases.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I don't have the phased amounts. I do know that the demolition of the wing, which is the last part of the reconstruction, is ongoing and there is about $1 million that will be used to finish that.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: That's helpful. A million seems a little light to me, to be honest. I think that the costs associated with walking away from Phase III or cancelling Phase III, whatever the case might be, are more than $1 million. So there's still $1 million to come, but I wonder if you can shed any light on the materials that would have been on-site. They still have to be paid for. I think the whole HVAC system was a specialty order and that was sitting on-site ready to be installed. That was well into the hundreds of thousands.

 

            It's kind of $1 million around the demolition and the incidentals that would still be - I guess that would kind of be Phase III-ish, but I think there's $1 million more. I wonder if you could just shed any light on that.

 

            MS. BERNARD: The $1 million actually is the cost directly from the contractor that they provided us. They're settling right now with the subcontractors within that project.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: Okay, fair enough. I think initially in the plan of the $22 million, which then subsequently escalated up to $26 million, I think I heard, there was a dollar amount for each phase so there would have been a dollar amount for Phase II. The reason I'm sticking on this is because I remember when Phase III was cancelled. The minister indicated, well, whatever money is kind of left over or made available through the cancellation would be available to be invested in the community under the new road map.

 

I don't know how much Phase III was going to cost. I have $6 million in my mind, but I don't know - somebody might know - but if it was $6 million and $1 million was spent on the cancellation wrap-up, am I safe to say that would leave $5 million? We can correct the numbers if the minister has them there, but let's say for the sake of argument, if it was $5 million, is that the amount that the department is ready, willing, and able to invest in housing in Pictou County?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Nice try. I'm not going to commit to $5 million on an estimate that I have no idea of how much it's going to be. That process is still unfolding, so we clearly are away from a bottom-line number on that, but I made that commitment at that time and that will be the commitment going forth. If there is anything left over from that construction phase, it will be reinvested into housing for persons with disabilities in the area.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: Thank you. In all fairness, I don't know that the number is $5 million but I'm hoping one of your staff might know and I just want, more so, to get the mindset into the theory of the commitment. The theory of the commitment as I understand it, and I believe as the community understands it, is whatever was the dollar amount, the budget for Phase III, subtract what was used, and the rest is what's available. I'm just trying to make sure that I understand that we're on the same page on that and I did understand that $1 million was the used amount and probably not expected to go too much higher given that you said that's what the contractor - that was his expectation. So $1 million is kind of the used amount, so I'm trying to get a sense of how we're going to determine the leftover amount because that's the amount now that we need to focus on.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I don't have those numbers because the process is still unfolding. We are going to work with the residential facilities that are already there so that they can adapt in providing housing options to that area. I clearly cannot give you an answer on what the final total will be.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: That's fair that you don't have the number to hand but I'm just trying to understand which part of the process is still unfolding. If you had a budget for Phase III, and I guess we don't have those documents to hand as to what that budget was, that's a given, that's a finite number, that was set in stone, that was the budget for the project. Now we're talking about what might have been used before, and my first series of questions were trying to figure out what might have been used before. I took it from your comments that $1 million is what was used and that that was pretty set in stone as well. The budget is kind of set in stone, what was used is kind of set stone, so I'm just trying to figure out the residual and it's not clear to me which part of A minus B equals C, if A and B are set in stone, I'm not sure which part of that process is still unfolding.

 

            MS. BERNARD: We have to wait for the demolition to be completed, we have to wait for the subcontractors to tell the contractors what their needs are, and at that point in time we will have a solid number, but this is a process that's still unfolding. I'm not going to sit here and give you a solid number. We have estimated a million - it could be higher, it could be lower - but at this point in time that process is still unfolding.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: Thank you, minister. The million dollars, does the million dollars include something for subcontractors or is the million dollars only for the general contractor?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The million dollars is the demolition cost to finish up the project. So in answer to your question, no, it wouldn't include what the settlements with the subcontractors will be.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: Thank you. So the cost to cancel Phase III, as I understand it right now, is a million dollars for demolition, give or take, plus a payment to the contractor to break the contract, which as we sit here is unknown - to me, at least - plus costs to break the contract with subcontractors, which is unknown, and I'm thinking there's one more plus in there and it has to do with the cost of equipment materials that were purchased by the province for Phase III, which are now no longer of any use. So I guess I'll go back to where we started, and the question is, what is the cost to walk away from Phase III, its bare minimum, $1 million, and probably well into the millions when you consider the cancellation fees?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The cost to do the demolition is $1 million. As I said, we're still in negotiations with the contractor and the subcontractors. I think what's important to remember is that to finish the renovation in its initial form would have been far greater than what we're looking at in finishing up the project at this point in time, so the cost to add on that wing would have been far more substantial than any cost that we will see in cancelling and closing the project to where it is now.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: The obvious difference being that if the decision would have been made to spend the money on finishing the project there would be a building, there would be an asset, and when the decision was taken not to finish it and instead to spend money on cancellation fees and demolition, you don't have any assets and still the money is gone.

 

            The reason I'm concerned is because when we hear that whatever money is left over will be invested in the community, I have a very bad feeling that there will be no money left over and we will have no money invested into the housing needs of the community and we will have spent money on fines and penalties and cancellation fees and demolition and have nothing.

 

That's a great concern to me that I was hoping to alleviate in some way, shape, or form, in some little measure today. When this cancellation came I did some kind of back of the envelope figuring as to how much it would cost to cancel and I thought it would cost as much as $2 million to cancel and walk away. In those numbers I thought it was $100,000 for the demolition; I now learned today the demolition is $1 million, so I know the cost to cancel this whole thing is well into the millions and we're no further ahead. I just wonder if you could shed a little bit of light on the decision-making process there.

 

MS. BERNARD: I'd just like to correct you, there actually was a $26 million investment in your community because you have a residential facility that has been upgraded, $26 million worth, and that is a substantial investment in your community by the Government of Nova Scotia.

 

This started in 2006, the transformation road map came out in 2013. It was clear through that transformation road map, which your Party endorsed as well, that adding to institutionalized bed inventories in Nova Scotia was a thing of the past and putting the price of the outcomes that people in institutions are paying now far outweighed anything that would go into bricks and mortar in any community in this province.

 

Riverview and the board of directors are working very closely with our staff to develop a way forward that fits the needs - not only their needs within the community, but more importantly, the needs of the people who live in their community. We know that institutionalized care in Nova Scotia is a thing of the past so completing a bricks and mortar project just for the sake of having an asset is disingenuous.

 

Twenty-six million dollars has been invested in Riverview, and the $1 million to cap off a wall to make it a complete building instead of adding more beds is responsible, so that organization is very keen on working with the department to figure out how they will fit into the road map. More importantly, families in every community, including yours, have endorsed this road map for persons who are living with disabilities and want person-directed, community-based options for their loved ones - they deserve no less - and institutionalized care is not the way forward for this government and for most governments in Canada, quite frankly, at this point in time.

 

MR. HOUSTON: I think when you consider the financial realities of the province and the decisions that are made in terms of staffing across the departments, when you consider how much money the government thought it might save on the Film Tax Credit and the industry ramifications, consider all those ways that the government kind of scrimps and saves money - and look at the situation in health care: a severe shortage of beds for long-term care and a severe shortage of housing options for seniors and stuff - and then to think about a government department spending $2 million or more in the middle of a construction project to unwind what was done and say, let's just throw that $2 million away, we don't need it, there were a lot of options. That building could have been finished and used for long-term care beds. That building could have been finished and used for any number of things, it absolutely could have, and now we have nothing on that.

 

The investment in Phases I and II, nobody is questioning that. It's a beautiful facility. It's remarkable, the transformation that has happened in that facility. But now we're talking about the last $2 million or $3 million that has just kind of been really thrown away, and the demolition costs and fees to cancel a contract? There's no benefit to the province there. That's kind of my disappointment on that.

 

            I'd like to switch gears a little bit and talk about the funding for the family resource centres. Last year we went through an analysis that looked at the funding for family resource centres across the province and the number of families and children that are served by them, and I did an analysis where I broke down the amount of funding per user of those facilities. I saw some big disparities across the province. I'm just wondering, first off, how many family resource centres are there across the province that receive funding from the province?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I'll get the exact number for you, but every single family resource centre in Nova Scotia received $75,000 to increase their funding. There were urban family resource centres, which serve proportionately more children than any other family resource centre that got the same amount as the family resource centre in East Preston, as in New Ross, as in other rural areas, because we wanted to build and increase the capacity within those rural areas to be able to increase their catchment areas because we were clearly told by family resource centres that what they were working with in terms of funding - and they had not gotten an increase in the last 10 years - that they needed help in meeting the demand in their communities.

 

            That's why smaller resource centres may have looked like they were given the lion's share of the funding, but in actual fact, at that point in time, different resource centres across the province have all had different levels of funding. Some of them were funded extraordinarily well to meet the needs of what they had, and others weren't. So in an effort to be fair, $75,000 was given to each one of them. Every one of the family resource centres have all introduced either new programs or reduced fees within their organizations.

 

            I have had absolutely no complaints from any executive director of any family resource centre. In fact, I've had nothing but good-news stories about how they have expanded their programs and they have been able to have a farther reach within rural communities - something they haven't been able to do before.

 

            If I were to base it in a proportional way of family resource centres, based on the amount of children or mothers who walk through their doors, the lion's share would have gone to urban centres and I did not want that to happen.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: So the $75,000 specifically is in reference to the additional $2 million - okay, there was $2 million and that's the same. So you got $75,000 per last year and $75,000 per this year - okay, I do appreciate that $75,000 goes a long way no matter who you are, I do certainly appreciate and respect that fact. But I wonder if the department, now thinking of last year's amount with the benefit of a year's experience - the department has heard some good-news stories and that's a good thing, I'm happy to hear that but I wonder, and I understood the theory still seems to be the same, which is to help those centres increase their reach, so I wonder if that has happened. In other words, if I were to run my numbers again, would I start to see the $75,000 bringing in more people?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The work of family resource centres, if you understand it correctly, isn't always measured by the amount of people who walk through the door, it's measured by the impact that they have in the community just by being there, through phone calls, through outreach programs, through visits to schools, visits to other non-profits, and visits to daycares. If you run your numbers you will see an increase in all of that.

 

            Family resource centres throughout Nova Scotia are funded on a formula both from the Province of Nova Scotia and they're also federally funded. I wanted to bring some consistency and some fairness into an extra funding envelope that was available to them. I have had no complaints about the funding formula except for yourself, so I really have had no blowback from anyone. I'd be happy to talk to any executive director who is not happy with a $75,000 increase in their yearly operating budget on a go-forward basis.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: With all due respect they're a little afraid to talk to you about it because they're afraid that might disappear and I got a hint of that there, I think.

 

            We looked at the numbers of families in the entire communities and tried to say, well, if there are X number of families in this community and X number in that community then you kind of do it that way. A lot of these things are hard to measure, there's no question, but I don't think that should discourage the department from trying to have some measurement of them.

 

            I had the same situation with Big Brothers Big Sisters last year in terms of their funding, and their funding per child matched per child reached and stuff like that. I'm just wondering if the department does do any kind of looking at, well, this is the money we're handing out and how many people are using the services that receive it, so with Big Brothers Big Sisters, it was the same type of situation. I'm just wondering if you can shed any light on the funding for Big Brothers Big Sisters in the coming budget.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Every organization over the next couple of years will be entering into multi-year funding agreements with the department and also service-level agreements. So when I walked into this role as a former executive director I was absolutely shocked at the lack of accountability, and quite frankly the lack of respect, that many non-profit organizations treated a major funder.

 

            As an executive director after my annual report each year, after my AGM, I submitted to the Department of Community Services, to the United Way, to every foundation, to every corporation that funded my organization, my statistics for the work that I had done, my outcomes, my audited financial statements, and my annual general report.

 

            I asked those questions when I became minister and I was quite shocked at the amount of non-profits that do not provide that information, even after several urgings by staff. I believe that multi-year funding agreements, along with service-level agreements, when you are a major funder of organizations you have an obligation, particularly when you're using public funds, to make sure that the outcomes that you have identified in co-operation with the community organizations are being done. It's not always about the quantity of work; often it is about the quality of work. I ran an organization that only had 18 units but you couldn't measure it only by the amount of people that walked through the door. Some of the measurement is subjective. My point being is that we have to capture it all, and we will going forward.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: Thank you for that. Leading up to the budget there was some talk about the daily stipends that would be paid to organizations like Summer Street to pay their daily rates to their customers and clients, and there was a lot of talk that the province might institute - I think it was new, it was going to go from zero to $5, and it wasn't clear to me if that happened in the budget or not.

 

            MS. BERNARD: That was added into the budget and the minimum is $5. That has been a substantial change for many organizations across the province because some were paying 50 cents, or $2 or $3, so bringing it to $5 was incredible. I had the pleasure of actually visiting Summer Street last May when they were just opening up their new store and the extraordinary social enterprise that they have within that industry, and the amount of support that they have from the community really is probably one of the best prototypes for the province in terms of structured workshops and social enterprises for persons with disabilities. It was extraordinary.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: It's a very impressive organization and I almost feel like I should have left that for the end because it was a good-news thing and you always like to leave me with a smile, so I should have left that for the end. But I'm really happy to hear that, I appreciate that.

 

I just have a couple more questions. In terms of the $2 million for the sexual assault strategy, firstly, I just want to make sure that that's still there; secondly, I wonder if you can shed any light on how that strategy development is progressing.

 

            MS. BERNARD: As you know, over the last year the two leads on the sexual violence strategy, Rene Ross and Jean Flynn, have done an extraordinary amount of work on consultation. This just wasn't going to be a government-driven endeavour, it had to involve community, it had to certainly involve victims, and it had to involve different populations for which perhaps services are few and far between. Over the last year they have consulted with many different demographics throughout the province. Over 1,000 people responded to an online survey and we have done a what-we've-heard document. I'll be releasing the strategy next month.

 

The $2 million for year one - it was a gated process - has not all been spent. That money will carry over into the next year, and because of previous obligations of demonstration projects throughout the province, we're able to fund organizations that have applied for that. We were also able to stabilize some funding for the sexual assault centres that are in existence now, but I'm looking forward to being able to release the details of that strategy next month.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: Thank you. I want to rewind - I got so excited about that $5 stipend I forgot to ask, when would that start?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It has actually started. I was just informed that we got an email today from Summer Street and they are now selling dog treats, just to let you know.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: They are innovative. On the strategy that's expected to be released next month, would that strategy give an indication of where the $2 million is going to be allocated? I guess major target areas where you see you're going to allocate money, is that kind of what falls out of the strategy?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes, it will certainly be clearer when the strategy is done and there will be time frames and dollar amounts associated with the different aspects of the strategy. If you'd like, I can give you a breakdown of where money was spent this year during the consultation. For salaries and consultation there was $200,000; youth engagement - that was a contract through HeartWood - $85,000; the actual public engagement that happened all throughout the province was $20,000; bridge funding to existing sexual assault centres was $270,000; discretionary grants to support a variety of training opportunities, awareness activities, and support to organizations that support victims and research was $220,000; and professional services, $80,000, such as a consultant for readiness analysis, a training consultant, and then strategy support and a corporate consultant.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: Thank you to the minister for that. I think I was able to write all those down but I am certain that I won't be able to read my writing later. I wonder if the minister might table that - okay, thank you.

 

            I have heard some talk in the industry that the strategy will include two committees and there was a call for nominations for members of these committees. I wonder if these committees have been formed yet or if you're still evaluating the nominees.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I believe they are being filled as we speak and the applications have come forth and they're being analyzed and they'll be slotted to the two different committees that were earmarked for the work going forward.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: I did hear from an executive director that said when the minister stood up at one o'clock last Thursday to give the Budget Address, pretty much right at that same time they got an email advising them that a mental health and addictions project had its funding reduced - in this case it was a $6,000 funding reduction. The comment was made that it was a three-year project and this was year three, so the organization had already kind of budgeted and allocated and planned. This was a big challenge for them to get that email kind of at the eleventh hour as they're starting their year. Was the minister aware that these things were happening and what they might - any feedback she might have on that?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I believe that was a project of the Department of Health and Wellness. So I have no input whatsoever on that.

 

            MR. HOUSTON: The last thing as I wrap up, I guess, the merging of the offices. Obviously these - I know that's a decision that wouldn't have been taken lightly but it is a stressful thing. There is a concern in the communities, especially in my area, about having some things coming out of Sydney, as an example. We're worried it means a loss of - it means it is going to be harder to meet the needs of people in the smaller, outlying rural communities and I wonder in the last couple of minutes if you can give your thoughts on the need to merge them and also what you might say to those people in those small rural communities that are worried about a degradation of service.

 

            MS. BERNARD: There hasn't been a major restructuring within the Department of Community Services for about 30 years. So what has been allowed to happen over the decades has been an inconsistent series of four silos of which inconsistent interpretation of policy, of benefits, of efforts, is different in each and every region. By collapsing those regions, and northern and eastern were combined because, quite frankly, the caseload historically is going down in the northern region. Regional administrators don't go to homes in rural Nova Scotia, so homes in rural Nova Scotia are not going to see any change whatsoever in the number of caseworkers or front-line service providers available to them.

 

This was something that needed to be done on a higher level management-wise system so that we could focus better on consistency, transparency, and accountability while making sure that what was available in Sydney is available in Yarmouth, is available in Amherst, is available in Truro, and is available in Halifax. That wasn't happening through the silos that we had at four different regions.

 

            We now are going to have an executive director of service delivery in Nova Scotia focused on client needs. That has never happened. There will be directors in each of the three regions, and then additionally there will be a director that will deal solely with service providers in which the service-provider community has been telling this department for years, we need one-door access; we don't want to deal with different people at different levels, we want one person that we can talk to to meet our needs. This is a new way of delivering services and those services will be delivered much differently, and in my opinion, much more effectively. It's never easy in any situation - and we've seen this in other government departments - to eliminate positions. In this restructuring, there were no front-line positions eliminated so people who are in receipt of front-line services will not see a difference.

 

            It didn't make sense to have 26 district managers in a province of this size delivering those services. I was quite happy to see a reduction in that with a level of that really focused on service delivery, something that perhaps hasn't happened in this department in a couple of decades. I'm excited about these changes. I believe that the services will be delivered now more effectively, more efficiently, they will be more consistent because there has not been one MLA in this Legislative Assembly who has not told me of an inconsistency in policy interpretation or something that has happened with a caseworker that he knows doesn't happen with his neighbour in a riding next to his. We're trying to eliminate that. This was an innovative way of doing restructuring service delivery in a huge department that, quite frankly, needed an upgrade.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.

 

            MR. LARRY HARRISON: How much longer do we have?

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have two and a half minutes - lots of time.

 

MR. HARRISON: One of the areas where I do get a lot of calls in my office is with respect to electricity bills. People are just not - they're not necessarily on social services but they get into one month and then they get into two months and then they get into three months, and then they panic and don't know what to do or where to go. Is there a strategy that you have worked out with Emera to address this difficulty?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Emera has a very good program. They actually have staff dedicated to working with folks who are in arrears with their electric bills. There is also the Good Neighbour program, or whatever, which is instituted through the Salvation Army. I believe that's administered through Service Nova Scotia; I believe persons can apply for $500,000 a year in relief of electric bill arrears.

 

            For persons who are on income assistance who are, of course, the priority of the department, I know caseworkers work every day with clients to arrange for overpayments so that the arrears can be taken care of. If there is no resolution with Emera, I know that there are many non-profit organizations that also provide relief to individuals in terms of helping them pay their heating costs.

 

            The women that I used to work with that had this issue, I would always try to encourage them to live in an area where they didn't have to pay for electric heat because the bulk of arrears for most people is when it's electric heat, because most apartments - specifically in the urban areas, I don't know about rural towns - have the heat and hot water included and so electricity is not a bigger burden in an apartment if the heat is paid for. So there are many different programs that are available through Emera, through Service Nova Scotia, and other non-profits in the community that can assist folks with heating. We certainly work with our clients in terms of arrears with overpayments due to electric bills.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Time has elapsed for the PC caucus. We will now move on to the NDP caucus.

 

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

 

            MS. LENORE ZANN: I'm going to be sharing my time with one of my colleagues who will be coming in about 30 minutes. Hello again, how are you doing? I was just saying that I think I'd like to talk at this point about rent supplements. Who is getting it currently in metro and is it being funnelled through to the larger property owners? Is it going to new landlords? Are there lists of landlords who get it?

 

            I know that there have been some issues about people who, for instance, have a certain need for an apartment - they have been told that you can't necessarily go out and find an apartment and then ask the landlord if they will turn it into a rent supplement/ affordable housing apartment, yet I do know that has been done in other parts of the province. So in Halifax, what is the case when somebody needs to get an affordable rental apartment?

 

            MS. BERNARD: If they're on the wait-list for Housing Nova Scotia - we're going down the wait-lists so it's for persons who are on the wait-list, depending on where they are on that wait-list. After the announcement a couple of months ago, we actually put out a proposal for landlords to submit their apartments. We were very astute in making sure that the landlords that we did approve were running safe and clean buildings because we were very clear that we were not going to provide rent supplements to landlords who weren't respectful to their tenants.

 

            We had 60 landlords apply on top of the landlords that are already in the rent supplement program. I don't know if there is a list that's available for that. I can check and if there is, I'll certainly let you know. Right now we have moved 90 people off of the list, and by year's end are hoping to move an additional 300 off of the list.

 

            MS. ZANN: And when you say "moving them off of the list," you mean that they will have housing? Right. How many people each year are applying for affordable housing and rental supplements would you say?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Currently we have a consistent yearly rate of about 4,700 persons waiting on the wait-list for affordable housing. We have approximately 12,000 units within Nova Scotia. One of the things that I know from working in the community is that once people get into affordable housing, they don't leave. Thus, the wait-list would appear, even with the best efforts of government to move that along - I think affordable housing should be in, up, and out once you're settled and things can move on, but it doesn't work that way. We often find generational folks in affordable housing, and unfortunately people who are on the list pay for that.

 

Rent supplements, in my estimation, are the fastest way to get people off of the list, because it utilizes housing stock that's already there and it takes time to build, so it just makes sense to increase. We had 1,000 rent supplements already in the province and we've just increased them, depending on the leverage we can get from the private sector, another 300 to 500.

 

            MS. ZANN: Could you update me a little bit on the affordable housing strategy? As you know, we started an affordable housing strategy under the last government, and part of that strategy was to leverage land and buildings that were already owned by the department or the province and there were some places - I believe there was one in Black Point Beach or something like that, some area where you couldn't really build on it but it's worth a lot of money, so it could be leveraged, sold, and then that money could be invested into buying more places where affordable housing could be built and used. Could you update me on that particular piece of that puzzle?

 

            MS. BERNARD: One of the things that I appreciated about the housing strategy is that it was a way forward but a little short on outcomes in terms of actual numbers, so one of the things that I've managed to do over the last year is that we are developing home ownership programs for persons that perhaps would never, ever own their own home. I've asked staff many times over the last year or two to update the inventory that we have so that we know exactly what is available.

 

We've made extraordinary partnerships with the non-profit sector, particularly Habitat for Humanity, where I have said, quite clearly, that if we have land in an area in which Habitat wants to build, we will donate it. We've done that in East Preston; there are two builds going on now. We also provide start-up funding for Habitat for Humanity groups in any area that has a presence of $25,000, just to get them started in building the capacity within their communities.

 

            We are also working diligently with the private sector on partnering predominately in the rural areas where we can have smaller builds of affordable housing. There is an extraordinary amount of activity going on in Housing Nova Scotia right now with the private sector, which quite frankly is unprecedented. It really has worked out well.

 

            We also have an advisory board that is made up of industry experts and also tenants of affordable housing and the affordable housing community that advises in the direction of where we want to go. So there are lots of different pieces to the puzzle of the housing strategy. I wish more people would come to the table. We're working on that but it takes time.

 

            MS. ZANN: When you say you wish more people, do you mean in the private sector?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The developers, especially smaller private developers who may have problems leveraging bank funding and financing, they can certainly come to us and we can help them with that. I've seen that in Amherst, I know that it has happened in other areas. We also have many revitalization programs that are going on: one that happened in Truro on Alice Street, we'll be announcing one in Glace Bay in the coming months, and one in Yarmouth. So there's lots of activity going on.

 

One major focus over the last year has been my commitment to strategically invest the money from the deferred federal contribution. In the past year we've invested close to $42 million in different investments that really needed to be done, particularly in the infrastructure that we already have, so for maintenance - I made a very clear decision when I became minister that I was going to take politics out of the housing strategy and I asked every housing authority regardless of where they were, what are your priorities, what do your clients need that is above and beyond the regular maintenance allowance that you would get? So we've made strategic investments in that.

 

            The other project that I'm extraordinarily proud of is the Manors project within Halifax-Dartmouth. We have had aging buildings that take care of some of our most vulnerable citizens, and Minister Kousoulis and Allan Rowe were extraordinarily proficient in advocating for the seniors' manors in their ridings. We have been able to invest $4 million in helping all of the seniors' manors in HRM, and I believe in Sydney as well, in terms of everything from upgrades to lobbies, elevators, health and safety, sprinklers, windows, interiors, bathrooms - these manors have been neglected by previous governments of all stripes for many years. It really needed to be addressed, so that has personally been a priority of mine over the last year.

 

            The housing authorities, on top of the work they already do, have also been given an infusion of deferred federal contributions to increase the maintenance of things that ordinarily wouldn't have been done, would have been patchworked. We've seen some real upgrades of aging infrastructure that really needed to happen.

 

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. I think that's all really important work as well. I remember back when I was a kid and seniors' homes were very decrepit and depressing; it was really, really sad that our seniors would have to live in those kinds of places that - it was just so sad, so I think that's very important.

 

            The affordable housing strategy, I was very excited about when we announced it in government. Part of that strategy was to also add on to the co-ops, do more co-ops, to do more rent-to-own homes, and to also develop community areas which was what Alice Street is kind of trying to do. In a sense it's a bit like a poster child really in an area of east Truro where there had been some drug houses, slum landlords, some areas where the school had actually been torn down and there was nothing there. A lot of kids were hanging around doing not necessarily good things. In fact, there were a couple of murders; one young man was beaten to death with baseball bats in the area, and another gentleman was shot.

 

This is an area where it used to be - there are a lot of row houses, it was a company town, like a train town, the hub. So it's a heritage area and there are some houses that people are very proud of and they love their homes, but there were also patchworks of this really rough area.

 

            So the idea was to turn it into a place where the Alice Street school was, we would have this affordable housing, I think there are about 16 to 20 units and they would be on a sliding scale, so depending on whether you could afford, what you could afford, and also have a little store, some retail, and a park and a flower garden - and luckily we're at the stage now where the structure has been built and, also, it was done with a local developer, Mr. Ron Meech, who does very good work in Truro. We're at the stage now where the flower gardens and the park are being built.

 

            Part of the agreement there was to have a beautification process, as well, in the area with the homes that were already there, to try to make people proud of where they lived, and I believe I was just told that this is going to be going on until August, they're going to be stretching out the time when people can apply for this.

 

            I think this type of idea, which is what we came up with when we were in government. We were going to invest $0.5 billion in affordable housing over the next 10 years. I believe that part of that money, the deferred federal contributions, that's what it was going to be going towards was our vision of $0.5 billion, over 10 years, right across the province.

 

            The Truro area, I know the Alice Street area was one such experimental poster child to see whether it worked, and I believe Bloomfield was going to be another one. Before I ask you about how the Bloomfield project is going, I do want to also say on the record that I love the idea that there's an area where people can live that's affordable. It doesn't necessarily mean you're on income assistance, as some people think, it's a mixture. So you have people of different economic backgrounds, you have young people, and you have older people. There are seniors' apartments as well.

 

            It's not like the old-fashioned tenement idea where you can point to a bunch of tenements and say, oh, all the poor people live over there, because you can't tell who is poor, they're all mixed together, and I think this makes for a very healthy, thriving community and environment.

 

            With that said, could you update me on where you are with the rest of the province, where else are you now doing those types of - and how is Bloomfield going? I've heard there have been some difficulties there so if you could update me that would be great.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Within the last couple of months I announced funding in co-operation with the federal partnership, $8 million in co-ops to refurbish co-ops through the Co-operative Housing Federation, and made available $24,000 per unit for co-ops throughout the province that applied for this program.

 

            There are various different builds going on now that have either spades in the grounds and the structures are ongoing, or they will be shortly. We have eight units on Circassion Drive in Cole Harbour, we are talking with developers in Port Hawkesbury, we are looking at putting a subdivision in the Valley, and we're also building on Alice Street in Truro. There is extraordinary work going on through different ways of home ownership and both in that mixed income towards what we need to do in terms of affordable housing.

 

            In terms of Bloomfield currently, right now, the development agreement is now before Cabinet, and Housing Nova Scotia and HRM will conclude the sale of Bloomfield after completing the development approval process and we're hoping that that will be done by summer. We've worked very closely with HRM to make sure that that's a seamless process. Phase I will be approximately 140 units and our goal is to be completed by 2017, hopefully, and it will be the mixed use, mixed income prototype that we talked about and you talked about.

 

It is moving, it's moving slowly, not as fast as I would like, but it is a huge project so it has to be done prudently. So with all of those various activities and of course with Bloomfield, which will also be a rollout of home ownership and home ownership programs for folks that, like I said before, traditionally wouldn't be able to afford the purchase of a home within their monthly income - there is lots of work that is ongoing, that will be starting, and is just finishing up.

 

            MS. ZANN: How many units are you expecting will be in the Bloomfield Centre when it's finalized?

 

            MS. BERNARD: There are three phases, and when it's all said and done, in the area of 470 units.

 

            MS. ZANN: Will they all be of various sizes - one bedrooms, two bedrooms, bachelors, three bedrooms, that kind of thing?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes, and they will also be accessible and universally built for visitability because we're in a perfect position with the accessibility legislation coming out next year to be the leader in that construction development of units that are accessible.

 

            MS. ZANN: That's great, thank you very much. I'd also like to ask you about, when we're talking about manors, like fixing up all the manors, have you heard of the PAL model, the performing arts lodges that they do across Canada? I know that the artists here in Nova Scotia have been trying to get money together to build a performing arts lodge here. In Vancouver and Toronto and other cities across Canada they've built these, or bought buildings and fixed them up into a beautiful place for seniors where again, they are places on a sliding scale and usually it's supposed to be for artists who have retired and are aging, but you can also rent places if you're younger as well.

 

There are a certain amount of places for younger people and this is because they believe that it's better for seniors to have a mixture of age groups around them so that they're not all seniors all stuck in one building together but there are young people and they are coming and going. They oftentimes have a common room where they have performances, they do dance, they have ballroom classes, ballroom dancing classes, they have a cafeteria; in Vancouver they have a rooftop garden which is gorgeous. They say that actually this model should be a model that other people can adopt for seniors, that it's really healthy for them.

 

            In fact, some seniors that live in these particular ones can still work, they don't have to be retired, some of these older performers still perform but maybe not as much as they used to when they were younger. They say this keeps the place lively and healthy and just a great energy. Have you ever thought about that or looked into it?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I personally have not heard of that model but apparently, during the development of Bloomfield, there certainly were some conversations around that model here.

 

            MS. ZANN: Are they going to go ahead with anything like that, do you know, in the Bloomfield model?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Those conversations are still ongoing.

 

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. Well, I recommend that if you go online and look at PAL - performing arts lodges in Vancouver and in Toronto - it will give you some really good ideas about where the future can go for seniors in Nova Scotia and I think that the model would be great for people who are not artists as well, so just an idea anyway.

 

            I'd also like to ask you a few questions about the Status of Women before my colleague takes over. There has been an increase, as you know, in the budget for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and I understand that the money isn't new, as such, but it has come from other programs that are now housed under the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Is that correct?

 

            MS. BERNARD: That is correct.

 

            MS. ZANN: It seems like there's a dramatic increase in the budget but only 1.1 additional FTEs budgeted for this year. Could you explain that, is this money just coming in and going out again?

 

            MS. BERNARD: One of the strategic directions that I wanted to move in with the Status of Women was to transfer over all transition houses, women's centres, and second stage housing to the Status of Women. I wanted to do that because as someone who previously had worked in the community I know first-hand that sometimes the challenges, the circumstances, the work is not always understood in a large department like the Department of Community Services. I wanted to ensure that the work of those organizations that primarily served women was always seen through a feminist lens.

 

            It was a very easy decision for me, it actually is one of the first things that I wanted to do when becoming minister, so their capacity has been extraordinarily cemented within the Status of Women. The staff there, that addition of staff would be to be the service provider, the liaison, and we know that many of the projects that happen concerning the area of women have often been done in partnership with the Status of Women and women-serving organizations.

 

            I'm attending a girl's round table on Saturday that's a partnership of five women's centres, the YWCA, and the Status of Women. So it made perfect sense, logically, to me to move those over from a department where they were just one of many to now where they are the only programs that are delivered under that advisory council.

 

            MS. ZANN: What are the criteria for groups to actually access that extra money?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It's not extra money it's just the money that was administered to transition houses, Alice Housing, and women's centres has just simply been taken out of DCS and put into the Status of Women so that we can focus primary on - we look at it as a women's policy directorate. We know that the programs there will be analyzed with a gender-based analysis. We are working with the advisory council to bring that into DCS and then eventually all of government, but at this point in time I wanted those organizations to always be assessed and analyzed and partnered with under a feminist lens, and I know that will happen in the Status of Women.

 

            MS. ZANN: I think that's great, I'm really pleased to hear that. So we've been waiting for the sexual assault strategy to be released, could the minister please give us a hint about when that will be ready?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It will be ready next month, I'll be releasing it in May.

 

            MS. ZANN: Do we know how much money has been allocated for that this year and is it a multi-year strategy?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The platform commitment was $6 million; approximately $1 million has been spent this year on the development. That additional $1 million will be rolled over ongoing so there's approximately $5 million left for the strategy.

 

            MS. ZANN: Are you saying it will basically be a five-year strategy?

 

            MS. BERNARD: No, there was a three-year commitment - $6 million - so $5 million will be spent over the next two years.

 

            MS. ZANN: I've also heard that two more regions will be getting sexual assault teams and specialized nurses. Will funding for those come out of the Department of Health and Wellness or from the Status of Women?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The Department of Health and Wellness, so it will not impact the money that is left.

 

            MS. ZANN: Is there any talk about adding more SARTs around the province?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I will be releasing the strategy next month.

 

            MS. ZANN: So that's going to be part of that strategy underneath that?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I didn't say that. I just said I'll be releasing it in its entirety next month.

 

            MS. ZANN: Does the Advisory Council on the Status of Women do any outreach around the issue of murdered and missing Aboriginal and indigenous women?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I am the provincial representative on the National Roundtable on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and recently attended a round table that was held nationally in Ottawa last month. I believe next month I will be going to Yellowknife, representing the Premier on both that round table and also discussions around the Aboriginal children in care.

            MS. ZANN: Did you hear about the stunt our NDP cousins in Ottawa pulled recently to take over the House and talk about the missing and murdered Aboriginal women for a whole day?

 

            MS. BERNARD: No, I didn't, but I was pleased to see two federal ministers there. They did a lot of listening. They certainly didn't do a lot of talking, but there was certainly pressure exerted on them. This province, with the support of all three Parties, has been quite vocal in the call for an inquiry.

 

            MS. ZANN: Well, yes - Megan Leslie told us the other day that they actually planned a coup for the day in Ottawa, the NDP there, so that they could come into the House on a Friday when there were less people there and commandeer the House and take on and talk about missing and murdered Aboriginal women for the entire day, because there were more of them than there were of the Conservatives. It was good that they were finally able to get it up on the floor of the House and be talking about these issues. I think that anything we can do and any pressure we can put on the federal government to actually do something is urgent, so thank you.

 

            One last question before my colleague is ready to take over, will any of the increased funds for the advisory council be spent on encouraging women in leadership roles and running for public office - any mentorship programs?

 

            MS. BERNARD: One of the priorities right now is talking about the importance of having women on corporate boards. As you know, we run a campaign school for women every three years. We delivered that program last year. It was sold out like it is every time. We do that usually a year before the federal election. It's an extraordinarily popular program. I'm a graduate, the Mayor of Yarmouth is a graduate. There are many women who will run at all three levels of government who are graduates of that.

 

            Our focus this year is also young women and girls. I will be hosting my counterparts - the First Ministers for the Atlantic Provinces - next month in Lunenburg. We will be setting the course for the next three years of what the priority will be of that round table. We're recently winding down the Cybersafe Girl initiative, which talked about the sexualization of young girls and women on the Internet, in advertising, and in social media.

 

            So there is an extraordinary amount of work that's coming up on top of the work that's already being done through bursaries, women in trades, and providing educational and professional development opportunities for non-profits and women throughout the community.

 

            MS. ZANN: One last question - you say you're winding down the Cybersafe Girl initiative?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It was always a five-year plan and the fifth year was just this past year. Now the four ministers will work on a new initiative going forth. It's still on the website, but we will not be doing any additions in terms of public education within the communities. We presented last year at the UN. We will now work on a new work plan and that is how that has been happening for these four ministers for a long time.

 

            MS. ZANN: Ministers within our own government or ministers outside of Nova Scotia?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The Status of Women Ministers from the four Atlantic Provinces.

 

            MS. ZANN: I would just like to end on the note that I still think from going around to all the different schools that I do and speaking with them about cyber safety and harassment and sexual harassment and online porno sites for these young girls or they find their pictures put up on them without their knowledge, and then they find out later it's still an ongoing problem and I think we really need to still focus and put some money towards teaching and getting out as much as we can to bring our young women and men up to speed on what to do and what not to do. Thank you. I'll hand it over to my colleague.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable Acting Leader of the New Democratic Party, you have 25 minutes.

 

            HON. MAUREEN MACDONALD: First of all I want to start by talking about the program review. I'd like more detail around what we were given on Budget Day. On Budget Day we were given a list of items in terms of each department and the value of the program review, but really it's kind of left up to our imaginations in terms of what some of these things mean. So I'd like to get a little more concrete than my imagination.

 

            I'm looking at the Department of Community Services. It indicates that there is - these are the program review items alone for this coming year. Transformation cost savings of $2 million - I'd like a detailed itemization of what is entailed in that.

 

            MS. BERNARD: The detail is quite short. It's 25 full-time equivalents that were vacant within the system.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Where were these individuals working and what was their responsibility - their classification?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I have a list here, but they were vacant for quite a while. Some of them were caseworkers, some were administrative, some were program administration, and a large number were secretaries.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I would like to see that information - I'd like a copy of that information. I'd also like to know where they were located - vacancies or not - throughout the system; if they were in Yarmouth or Kentville or whatever. I'd like a detailed accounting of that.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I will get you that list with that information on it. We just want to make sure that it's the complete list because there were some that had bumping rights, so I just want to make sure the information I give you is of the actual position and the location, but we will get that to you.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I want to ask now about a couple of things here. In the budget document on Page 6.3, in the area around Senior Management, and Programs and Services, there's a line for Commissions and Agencies. I'd like if you would break out those commissions and agencies for me, please. I know the Disabled Persons Commission, for example, no doubt would be in there. So I'd like to know what the agencies are, what the budgets were for those agencies and commissions last year, and what the budgets are for those agencies and commissions this year.

 

            MS. BERNARD: The only commission that is under the auspices of the Department of Community Services is the Disabled Persons Commission, and that is the budget for that commission so there is nothing else there, it is just the Disabled Persons Commission.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: So they're seeing a slight increase in their budget from last year's estimate and from this year's forecast.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes, mostly related to cost of living increases.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: And the funded staff, the FTEs under that, have been reduced by one. What position has been eliminated and where is it located?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It's actually not one for all of that, it's for the whole - if you read the bottom it's one for the Office of Minister and Deputy Minister, Communications, and Commissions and Agencies. There has been no decrease of staff at the Disabled Persons Commission. The actual one FTE that you don't see is in Communications.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Yes, that's what I was asking. I want to go to the next portion of the budget. Page 6.8 looks at Programs and Services. In looking at this, if you look at all of the Programs and Services that fall under Employment Support and Income Assistance, there is a considerable difference between the budget for next year and what was forecast this year, probably $6 million less in expenditure.

 

            Now I tried to understand from those programs where this was coming from and when I look at Income Assistance Payments, what I see is a decrease in what's being forecast to be paid this year from what was forecast for the year we're coming out of, of about $5.5 million.

 

            My question is, I know that I heard - I think probably the deputy at Public Accounts a couple of weeks ago talked about the pressures on the department on income assistance, the caseloads had gotten much higher and what have you, and it accounted for an increase in expenditure, an additional increase in expenditure. What I'm trying to understand is, how is the department going to be able to manage in the coming fiscal year with fewer dollars for the estimates than what we've just seen in the forecast?

 

            MS. BERNARD: There is actually a decline of people coming onto income assistance but unfortunately each case is rising in costs. As you know, it's an eligibility program; if you're eligible, you are in receipt of benefits. It's very difficult to forecast what your need may be in any given year. The decrease of budget is primarily due to the vacant positions that were eliminated, and I will give you the information on all of that. That primarily is part of the benefit reform that we're doing within the department.

 

We've had a fairly steady - I would love to see a net zero where people who move off of income assistance equals the amount of people coming on so that there's no pressure on the system and in a perfect world that would be wonderful, that's not always the reality. Some months we are in a minus situation, and unfortunately in other months we are not. It's trying to forecast that expenditure the best we can but the savings that you see were due to the vacant positions that were eliminated.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I need a little more explanation. I'm seeing income assistance payments decrease $5.5 million between forecast and estimate. I'm seeing on Page 6.8, the forecast is $24 million, is that right? Oh, field staff, right - $252 million forecast, estimate $251 million, it's a decrease of $1 million in payments. Then the field staff are decreased by $4.4 million, so how many vacancies were there in field staff?

 

            MS. BERNARD: In the head office, six of 42. At head office.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think if we're going to get the entire conversation on the record we'll have to have one person speaking at a time after having been acknowledged by the Chair. I know it sometimes makes it a little bit easier to have that exchange but it's also important to create a complete record of the committee. Thank you.

 

            Go ahead, Minister Bernard, if you want to complete your answer.

 

            MS. BERNARD: It was six field staff from head office.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Okay, we have a decrease of six field staff out of 42 in head office. And what is the reduction in staff, field staff outside of head office?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Thirty-six vacant positions were eliminated out of 42, and then the remaining six were the ones that were in head office.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Okay, I just want to make sure that I have this correct. So six out of 42 were eliminated in head office, 36 out of 42 were eliminated in the field staff, for a total of 42 positions?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: You're going to provide me with the detail of the positions that were eliminated. What's the caseload in income assistance right now - on average?

 

            MS. BERNARD: For 2014-15, the amount of households on income assistance was 27,490; for individuals, 41,440. In the last two years we've had a 5.2 per cent decrease in income assistance households and a 6.9 per cent increase in individuals.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: What's the average caseload for a field worker?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Depending on what part of the province you are in and what your area of expertise is, for instance if you're a youth caseworker you may have nine on your caseload. If you're in a rural area and you have a wider range, you may have 100. It never goes over 150. Those standards are monitored very closely by the department.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: So 36 out of 42 is quite a large number proportionately of people who are in this role. Can you explain to me exactly what that role was?

 

            MS. BERNARD: All of the 36 were not front-line people, in some cases they were secretaries, clerks, and other administrative roles that weren't involved with front-line service delivery. It makes sense that if your caseloads go down in different areas that you would either not fill those vacancies based on historical analysis or you would move resources from one area to another if there was a spike somewhere else. It's prudent to do that, to make sure that caseworkers have a manageable caseload. It's also prudent in terms of fiscal responsibility.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: How many caseworkers are there that work on the front lines in IA across the province and can you give me a breakdown by region and office?

 

            MS. BERNARD: We can get that to you, we don't have that here today.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Okay. That would be useful, thank you very much. I want to ask you where in the budget do organizations like Anchor Industries and some of these other - Summer Street Industries, Prescott fall? Are they here under the Programs and Services component of the budget on Page 6.8 or are they elsewhere?

 

            MS. BERNARD: They would be under Services for Persons with Disabilities.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Thank you, Page 6.5, yes. So what I would like from the department is a breakout of how many of those organizations there are and what their annual budgets were last year and what their estimated budget is for this year.

 

            MS. BERNARD: There are 30 day programs throughout the province and I can get you a list along with the budgets, the funding agreements that go with those. I don't have those here today, but I can give you the list of 30.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I know that Summer Street Industries, and perhaps more than Summer Street Industries, had made a proposal to the department with respect to the stipend, that persons with disabilities attending or involved in these industries receive and they were requesting what was quite a modest increase, a modest proposal. Has that been factored into these budgets for this year, and if so, how much would that cost?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It has been factored in and it has been delivered. It has started already. We'll get you the exact number but we believe it's less than $100,000.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I also want to ask a few questions about the housing portfolio, although I probably don't have a lot of time to really go into great detail - probably just some initial questions. I want to talk about the operations of Housing Nova Scotia and the allocation of federal dollars that had banked for some period of time, and what I'd like to know is kind of a detailed accounting of where those millions of dollars have allocated.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Sometimes it's easy to forget when you're spending millions of dollars: $9 million was spent for rent supplements over the next 10 years; $4 million was spent for repairs in public housing units in Springhill, New Glasgow, Dartmouth, and Bridgewater; $5 million was spent to repair, upgrade, and revitalize senior citizens public housing; $8 million was spent on housing co-operatives over the next two years - it's actually $10 million for rent supplements, sorry, not $9 million; and $15 million for capital projects throughout the province. I had asked housing authorities in every area of the province to give me their wish list that was above and beyond what the regular maintenance was in their areas because the infrastructure was so failing for many, many years and so that will be spent. The investments were very strategic in terms of where the highest need was and so that's where we stand with those DFC investments.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: We have a lot of old housing stock in the province - not only social housing, but generally - but the stock that the province owns, there's a very large amount of it that is in desperate need of repair. With the time I have left, I really don't have the ability to ask for more detail, but I would like more detail. When we come back, I will do that. I will give my remaining seconds over to the PC caucus.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute it is that you have generously donated to the PC caucus. (Interruption) Since it seems to be almost a unanimous motion, we'll recess for five minutes.

 

            [5:21 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

            [5:28 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the subcommittee back to order. We're going to start with Mr. Orrell.

 

            MR. EDDIE ORRELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to ask the minister a few questions. I don't have a lot, but it could translate into a lot, depending on the answers I get. I'm going to try to go all over the board. I don't think I have any particular order because as things came up through, there are different questions that came to mind and I wrote them down, so bear with me if I jump around a little bit.

 

            The first little bit I'm going to ask is just a little bit about the finances in the budget book. In looking at Page 6.2, right at the top of the page there, it looks like there's a $9 million increase in the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Can you tell me what programs may be new, where that money is going, and if it's going to be something that's going to remain the same from budget to budget, or is it going to be something that's just a one-shot deal to pick up or make up some slack on something that might have been lacking over the last number of years?

 

            MS. BERNARD: If you look under Child, Youth and Family Support, you will see approximately the same amount of money that has decreased from that line item. I transferred women's centres, transition houses, and second stage housing from that program within the Department of Community Services to the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and that will be a permanent transfer. That's why it looks like there has been a tremendous increase to the budget of the advisory council.

 

            I did that primarily because I wanted women-serving organizations to always be dealing with government under a feminist lens, and in my experience as a previous executive director, that wasn't always the case so I wanted to move organizations that primarily provide services to women and children to create sort of a women's policy directorate within the advisory council. Over the years the advisory council has worked very closely with the women's community, it made perfect sense. We partner a lot on different initiatives within the community so this was, in my estimation and those in the women's community, a positive move. That's merely a transfer of the funds associated with funding those organizations, moving from the Child, Youth and Family Support budget line of DCS to the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women budget line.

 

            MR. ORRELL: If it means we're on that Child, Youth and Family Support line, the estimate to forecast from 2014 to 2015, about $5 million more, the forecast is about $5 million more. If you look at the difference between the forecast and the estimate this year, there is a huge decrease, about $13 million there. So is Child, Youth and Family Support going to take a cut in their services because of that or is it because all that money has been transferred over to the Status of Women?

 

            MS. BERNARD: No, there are no cuts to that budget line. Some of the difference of what's left is vacancy factor within the department. There are no cuts to services.

 

            MR. ORRELL: So those vacancies aren't going to be filled? Is that what you're saying? The vacancies that were there are not going to be filled so that's where you're saving that money?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Each year - and we have this conversation each year, I find, as minister - it has to do with the vacancy savings. Vacancies are administered to different sections of the Department of Community Services and so the difference you see there is the vacancy factor that has been allocated to child and youth services. So there would be another vacancy factor for the Housing Authority, and for the Disability Support Program.

 

            MR. ORRELL: So vacancy factor meaning that you allocated for X number of jobs that you never, ever used or is it something that - and I ask the same question every year as well, Madam Minister, and I never get the answer but I can't help myself. But if you can do a job with 10 people, why budget for 15 and then next year why budget for 12 when you only did it with 10 the year before? No one seems to answer that question for me and if you could answer it for me, you would still be one of my favourites.

 

            MS. BERNARD: The best way I can explain it is that if I were an executive director and I had 20 positions and two of them were vacant, I would be able to book the two positions of savings in that budget year until they were filled, right? So if I don't have anybody working in those positions, I'm not paying a salary to anyone, so those are savings to my organization. In our case, it was 76 throughout the whole department so they get allocated to different sections within the department. They're not all given in one lump.

 

            MR. ORRELL: So when you say that there is a savings of 80 staff, technically there may not be a savings of 80 staff because those positions weren't filled in the first place.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

            MR. ORRELL: So technically, say there's a savings of 80 in the staff, that's not actually the case. You've allocated for them each year, but they haven't been filled, so the savings are there because they're not used in the budget but they were never there in the first place. Is that correct?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I'm actually going to read something and I hope that will clear it up.

 

            For estimate purposes vacancy savings are centralized in Child, Youth and Family Support, and Employment Support and Income Assistance. These are the two DCS program areas with the highest concentrations of FTEs. This is done to enhance monitoring and control over vacancy savings across the department. As a result, full-time equivalents for CYFS and ESIA appear low in the estimates for both CYFS and ESIA. As vacancy savings are realized throughout the course of the fiscal year, they are realized across the department, not just in those two sectors of CYFS and ESIA. This is reflected in the forecast and is the reason why the 2014-15 forecast in CYFS and ESIA appears to be so much higher in the estimates.

 

            Now, if that doesn't clear it up for you, I have no idea what to tell you. I'll do a briefing note for you and clarify (Interruption) I know, I hear you.

 

            MR. ORRELL: That doesn't clear it up for me because if you forecast to use so many people and you don't use them - anyway, I'll go off on something else. Sorry about that. If you could do me up a briefing note, I would appreciate it because I've asked that question the four years I've been here and all four years I've never had an answer. It could be partially my fault - anyway, I'll move on.

 

            In the same situation, the same area there, it says the field officers are going to be decreased - I think it's around $200,000. Is that due to the closures that are going to take place in Barrington and a few other places, or is that due to closures that are going to happen elsewhere in the province?

 

            MS. BERNARD: First of all, there wasn't a closure of an office in Barrington. There's still an income assistance and employment support office, child welfare staff were reallocated - there were five staff in that office, three of them are still serving the Barrington area, and there was a supervisor and an admin person that were - those positions were eliminated.

 

            Your question was about the decrease in field offices?

 

            MR. ORRELL: Yes.

 

            MS. BERNARD: That would be from the savings from Sheet Harbour, some of the lease costs in Guysborough. That would account for the roughly $200,000 in savings.

 

            MR. ORRELL: The last real monetary question I have is on Page 6.3, minister's office expenses went up about $150,000. Could you explain to me where those costs arose and if it's going to be something that's a one-time deal or is it something that - because my understanding was there was going to be a cut across the board in some of the departmental expenses and I'm wondering, would that be an area that might be better done than the front-line staff that I'm hearing from in my office that are concerned about losing their positions and having to take on a larger caseload?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The increase is due to cost-of-living increases; nothing more, nothing less.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Is that one of the things that's included in the freeze that's over the next three years, is the cost-of-living expenses in those offices?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The freeze is for EC staff but there are unionized staff within this head office and the minister's office as well.

 

            MR. ORRELL: A couple of quick questions around some - you spoke this afternoon or yesterday about you found $500,000 in savings that are going to go towards six outreach centres for youth, I believe, was the statement. I know there's a group in Cape Breton called RELAYS. It's Resiliency Education Leadership Adventure and Youth Service. They have a proposal into government to put on a youth program for youth at risk from the age of 12 on. It's kind of the same as the Youth Inclusion Program that they had going and the Whitney Pier Youth Club that has shown a huge decrease in justice and, I believe, in community services.

 

They've asked the government for some funding to try to put this program on over the next number of years and I'm wondering if some of that $500,000 may be put towards some partial funding from the Department of Community Services side of it, mixed with a couple of other departments that would be affected to help fund this program in Cape Breton.

 

            MS. BERNARD: The $500,000 I spoke of is actually $527,000, which was resulted in the funding being not used for Camp reachAbility. I took half of that and put it into six outreach positions into long-standing - those positions will be embedded in long-standing organizations that have proven outcomes with the department that align with the priorities of what we're trying to do with youth at risk. The other half of that money was actually reinvested into the Disability Support Program.

 

            MR. ORRELL: This program is given in other areas of the country and they've proven that this decreases the cost of outreach for children at risk for justice. So if they could prove that, would that money be able to - would there be some money found to help fund the program like this to help these people who are at risk?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I am not looking because of the fiscal realities of my department at this point in time to fund any new programs within the province. These six new outreach positions will be embedded in organizations that currently exist with the infrastructure, the policies and the programs, which we know are working - one I know of which is in Cape Breton. There are many organizations that aren't funded by government that have proven outcomes within the work that they do. At this point in time I'm not prepared to fund any new programs.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Yesterday, I believe you talked about the one-third/one-third/one- third rule for groups needing assistance, and one-third of that group being persons with disabilities and services they receive. I know right now that there's a proposal ongoing to try to change how services with disabilities are administered through the employment lens and there's talk about changing the model of delivery. I know it's kind of an employment question as well, but I know that you've been involved in that because people who receive services employment-wise have a better chance of coming off the need for benefits of Community Services and being sustainable on their own.

 

            I guess the service delivery that they're talking about - there are two models that may happen - to deliver a number of cost savings, is there one model in that? I know you're aware of the models that are being delivered. Is there one model that would be more beneficial to the Department of Community Services and the people you represent?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I think the model delivery service that you might be referring to rests with LAE and Careers Nova Scotia. We work closely with them every year to make sure that the clients that we serve have the best possible relationship with LAE, and are also able to access the funding that's available for employability programs within their funding envelope. So there's nothing specific to my department.

 

            When I talked about the one-third, I was not necessarily including persons with disabilities that want to be attached to the labour market. I was thinking of more acute persons with various disabilities, whether it be brain injuries or acute mental health challenges, acute addictions that for various reasons wouldn't be able to attach to the labour force. I don't include persons with disabilities in that group because I know that with the supports, not only can they work, they very much want to work.

 

            MR. ORRELL: The reason I asked the question was because with support in the community we can get people back to work with acute injuries, even more so needing the support are the acute injuries because they will be rehabilitated and go back. I'm just hoping, and I guess what I'm asking is, are you in constant contact with the Department of Labour and Advanced Education about how this program is going to change and how it will affect you if those services for persons with disabilities employment-wise aren't delivered?

 

            MS. BERNARD: There are probably no two closer aligned departments, sections within government, than LAE and certainly the employment support work that's being done at DCS, so yes, they are in constant contact and working collaboratively.

 

            One of the things that I'd like to highlight is the program that we started last year. I believe $400,000 was allocated to help persons with disabilities who needed whatever form of assistive device they needed to go back into the workforce, whether that was in the form of a person or any other assistive device. We've had extraordinary uptake with that program and it has given people who might not have had the opportunity to re-enter the workforce to do so.

 

            MR. ORRELL: So that $400,000 for assistive devices - I know the program for hearing aids was eliminated, a program for maybe an assistive device for someone who maybe needed a converted form of transportation to attend work was eliminated. I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong - that $400,000 was to assist an individual in the workplace. So if a person needs assistance in the workplace is going to take a person pretty well on a regular basis, pay them - well, an average of, say, $20,000 a year, that $400,000 wouldn't affect the amount of people that, say, a hearing aid for someone who may need a hearing aid to be in the workplace or can't work because of it or needs a form of transportation.

 

            So can you explain to me the difference between an assistive device of a person in the workplace and needing a device, such as a hearing aid or a walker or chair, to be able to do the job they need to do?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The funds that came for the hearing aid were federal funds, and we've since learned very recently that the federal government is looking at reinstating that. In saying that, I would want that delivered very differently because it wasn't really income-tested and so what we were seeing is people with extraordinarily high incomes taking advantage of this situation. There are only so many dollars to go around, and the people who really need it weren't getting the care.

 

            The other issue with that program was a little bit of price-fixing by the distributors of these hearing aids where they were setting the price artificially high because they knew that it was a government program. So if and when that program comes back, there will be some parameters around it about how it's going to be delivered so that the people who truly need it are in receipt of it.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I guess my question would be then - of the $400,000, could part of that money be turned into going with the assistive devices as the hearings aids and stuff, even if the federal government doesn't come on board and through a monitored process so people with - it would be income tested, which was my next question - because I know it was available to everybody - everybody used it. It's a common thing with people.

 

            I guess my question is, if they're not going to reinstate it as a federal government, will the provincial government take part of that $400,000 to help with that, and is there a possibility that the province may be able to tender those devices out to contract so that there would be no price fixing going on that people who supply the hearing aids then would have to work for their business and not be gouging the province just because it's a provincially assisted program? I guess there are two questions in there.

 

            MS. BERNARD: The $400,000 pilot program that's happening now, the uptake that we have seen has been mostly around individuals hiring individuals. So it's caregivers being hired to help persons perform the duties of their employment every day. In saying that, yes, as we go forward there is an opportunity to look at that and certainly to explore doing an RFP for hearing aids so that we don't face the situation that we faced in previous years. That's ongoing, we're happy with the way the program is going now, people are taking a huge advantage of it and utilizing it for what it's helping many people who previously had trouble breaking down the barriers to get back into their workforce, so we'll be analyzing those results and going forward from there. That would be a part of that puzzle, as well, in terms of hearing aids and the RFP.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Can I ask how many people have - you said the uptake has been good - how many people have used the program and what has the cost of intervention per person, I guess, been to date?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I don't have those figures here with me but we'll get them to you. I've talked to a couple of people who advocated for this program and have actually been able to hire folks who may have been in receipt of income assistance so it has been a win-win situation where they have provided employment to folks who are on one part of our program and they've been able to help someone else re-enter the workforce so it has been very good.

 

            MR. ORRELL: So is this funding going to be permanent then so that that person can continue to do what they're doing and is that not really a shift of money from one department to another department when a person who could receive an assistive device and be employed independently would be completely gone from the system or not be able to access the system? I guess that would be my question.

 

            MS. BERNARD: The $400,000 pilot program was really for people who needed more than just an assistive device. They actually needed a body. They needed people to come and to assist them in all aspects of the delivery of their work during the day, from getting there to getting home to everything in between. Without that person they would not be able to function within their workplace in a manner that they want to and that to me right now is the priority: making sure that people who need such acute attendance be able to have that program.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I guess my question is, yes, they need that to continue working, but if that person is taken away and that pilot program comes up or if the funding is reinstated and continues as a permanent program then the person continue working with that funding is taken away or after the pilot program, if they don't fund that program, the person then wouldn't be able to continue work. So it would be a temporary fix for a long-term problem whereas something else other than that could be a long-term fix for a real problem that would allow the person to continue to go to work. Whereas if this $400,000 is not continued, then both people will be out of work: the one who is providing the service plus the one who needs the service. If that's the case and the uptake is good and it works great and it continues, that's great, but if it's not continued and if more people need the service, will it be offered to more people? So that program cost will have to go up, and will that happen?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I won't give a commitment today but if a program is working and it is shown to work for the person who is receiving the services as well as for the caregiver, it would make perfect sense that that would fit into the criteria that comes from the moneys that are received for persons with disabilities to attach to the labour market. Do I envision this continuing? Absolutely, it just makes perfect sense.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I think that's a great idea but I think that the little things that happen that have been eliminated, the hearing aids and the assistive devices for cars that allow people to be completely independent have been taken away. Yes, the federal government has provided that money but if that was an important project as well, I think that's something that should be reinstated or allowed to happen, because I think more people could use that program for a lot less cost than the program that's being used, and I think both of them are great. So I'm hoping that if it does, that we'll get both programs reinstated so that we can put more people or continue to have more people continue to work and take them off of the assistance program. It's not really a question. I'll hear an answer though.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I absolutely agree. It was a federal government movement in eligibility. I know that Minister Regan has done extraordinary work in lobbying the federal minister; I would hope that you would add your voice to that because we have seen a real shift in priorities in terms of attaching people with disabilities who want to go into the workforce. It simply is unrealistic to offload a program from a federal jurisdiction down to a provincial one when the needs are so great across the board. Are we looking at this to try to alleviate some of the hardship of that lack of funding and funding cuts? Absolutely. I think that this pilot project demonstrates that.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I guess the reason I bring that up is because the other program was working and to eliminate that program and take the money from there to put into a program that may be beneficial just seems to me to be counter-productive. That's the reason I ask the question. If we were going to do that, it's like shifting chairs around a little bit; it's for one group to another group to another group, which to me doesn't make sense. Of course, like I said before, I'm not overly bright when it comes to that stuff but if a program is working and we can put some changes into it like an income test, and keep that program and then add another program, then I think it would be more efficient to do that.

 

To say that because it was taken away from the federal government and we added a new program, that doesn't fly with me because if a program is working we don't add a new program because that program was taken away and that's why I asked the question as much as anything because yes, I don't agree with the federal government and some of the changes they made, but when we talk about changes that can keep a person or enable a person to go to work, that the program is gone because the feds took it and then we add a pilot program that will help not as many people, then I think we should be able to do both. If that's the case, if it was that important and there was that much uptake. That was my question. I'll move on from there so that we can continue.

 

            MS. BERNARD: It was really important that when the federal government changed their eligibility criteria for the assistive devices and the hearing aids, we didn't want that money to lapse so there was a tremendous lobbying from within the community for this pilot project, specifically a young woman from Eastern Shore. I can't remember Melissa's last name but she was extraordinarily articulate in demonstrating the need to having some type of caregiver or labour attachment program, and that's why the government went ahead.

We never, ever, ever want to leave one federal dollar on the table. Never. You always want to spend it and it is the federal government that determines the eligibility criteria around the programs that they actually provide so I think that this program was an excellent response to a bad policy decision federally and we monitor everything, we'll analyze it, it's a great program, and we're working with our federal counterparts to get some more of that funding reinstated.

 

            MR. ORRELL: This $400,000 was federal money?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Okay, thank you. I guess my thing is, what are the determinations and what programs are going to be trimmed, I guess is the best way to put it, compared to what programs are going to receive more funding? We talked earlier about programs that weren't working but the funding was pushed over to other programs. Are there determining factors on what programs would be - I won't say cut, but maybe trimmed a little bit to add money to other programs and if they are, do the people who are receiving the funding from those programs realize that's going to happen and can they change their focus to make sure they were delivering the services the way you guys would prefer them to deliver so they could maintain that funding?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I just want to clarify, are you speaking of organizations or programs within the department?

 

            MR. ORRELL: Programs.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Within the department?

 

            MR. ORRELL: Yes.

 

            MS. BERNARD: All outcomes within the department, we have three sections of the Department of Community Services: Employment Support and Income Assistance, child welfare, and services for persons with disabilities. There are various programs within them. All outcomes, both internally and externally, of the department must meet the core mandate of the department.

 

            In terms of programs being cut within the department, we have restructuring and benefit reform and transformation with persons with disabilities. But in terms of programs that are being eliminated, there are none.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I'm going to shift a little bit again. Last year I had a meeting with a bunch of parents in my constituency, and in Cape Breton in general, parents of people with disabilities who are the main caregivers to these people at home. They're aging, they have a real concern about what will happen to the individual if something happens to them. They would like to see individuals cared for in their own community, but I think more than anything they would like to see if there's a chance that a family member or a friend or someone who lived in that community could provide the care or transition that care that would be there. Is there any movement made to make sure that people who have a disability, who live with an aging parent or parents, would be able to stay in their own home or stay in their own neighbourhood or in a small options home, or is that a consideration of the department and has it been something that has been asked of you guys?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Absolutely, I've met with parents throughout the province that are facing the same thing. That's what makes the transformation road map so important and that's why we don't want to build any more institutionalized beds in this province.

 

            We're looking for person-centred, community-based options, and whether that be small options homes and asking larger facilities to perhaps adapt to the road map. Just to give you some statistics, what we've done is add 56 additional placements in the last year, also 48 independent living support situations in eight alternative family supports. Also this year we have an increase of funding to that program of $2.5 million.

 

            We recognize the need, it is a growing segment of our population. I have people within my constituency that I met on the campaign trail who have had children late in life and have some disability and are worried what's going to happen. The demonstration projects that we are under way with in the department worked with families and to come forward and try to find situations that were conducive to our fiscal framework but also what the family wanted in terms of care for their children as they aged.

 

            I'm pleased with the gains we've been able to make over the last year in moving people off of wait-lists and making creative solutions to living arrangements and also the addition of funding.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Thank you, I appreciate that and I know the people that have children with disabilities and handicaps at home will like to hear that. That is their main concern as they get older because they are the main caregiver.

 

            I know last year we discussed education for people who receive community services and we had a real challenge with - and I'm assuming it was communication from your office to the offices in the local communities because we had a few people who had a challenge to get the funding that they needed and they had to drop it because the communication wasn't there.

 

            I'm wondering if you could update me on the changes that have taken place as far as education for people who are receiving community services, and if those changes include what is most cost effective is for the person as much as it is the department because of changes they may have to make.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I guess one of my major frustrations, as you would know, last year - because I was on income assistance and I was eligible during the 1990s to apply for a student loan, which I did, and still stay on income assistance, which I did, which allowed me to get my university degrees.

 

            We have one executive director, a new ESIA that came in after last estimates, with two new directors underneath her. That executive director was my caseworker when I was on income assistance. So I can't tell you how loud and clear the message has been from myself, from her, and from the directors under her responsibility all around this province to front-line caseworkers, district managers, and supervisors that if there is a reasonable education plan, that we will support that person to go to whatever post-secondary education facility they want, with the end goal of them reaching their full potential and getting an education to remove themselves from this system, which people who want to go to school want that more than anything.

 

            That message has been loud and clear. I talked to many executive directors and folks in the non-profit community and they are seeing that shift. This is a culture shift within this department. It takes a long time to get a message from the minister down to the person sitting across from you at a desk, because in the past they haven't always been supported in making those common-sense decisions. They have been told in no uncertain terms that that is the way forward.

 

            I'm glad to see that shift and I hear about it almost every day. I understand the difficulties we had. I think there were some difficulties with our communication, the client's communication, and the office communication, but I know that it was eventually resolved. I have seen young people who have wanted upgrade, particularly with literacy - the investments that we have made and literacy has been tremendous over the last year. People are reaching the potential that they always knew they could, and we have an obligation and a responsibility to support that.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I know you remember last year that I had a couple of people that - I'm glad that I could be part of helping to have that happen because these two - I say "children" because they're in their 20s, probably - were destined to a life of repetitive, chronic income assistance, and because they wanted to better themselves and we were able to help them do that, close to home, it made a huge difference in their lives. I hadn't heard any more since then. I haven't had any real requests so I just wanted to make sure that that had been followed through on.

 

I appreciate that because I think by us allowing people who want an education or even enabling people to get an education, if we can help push it along a little bit is a big thing to having people come off and remain off the system - through no uncertain terms of their own - it was a circumstance where they had a loved one who was sick or a family member was sick and they had to come out of school to look after them. So it's good to see that we will provide that service to them.

 

            One of the other questions I had, and we asked this question in Question Period a few times, is the age of a child, the definition of "child" - we asked if that was going to be changed and you committed to that, it would be changed. I'm just wondering if you can give me an update on when that may happen, and maybe it has happened already and just hasn't gotten to us yet.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Introducing that legislation on May 5^th and you'll be happy.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I will be and so will a lot of people in the community, thank you very much. That's a great initiative because it's going to prevent a lot of people from going into lifelong problems, so it's great to hear. Yesterday you talked about, I believe - and I might not have caught it all - a mentorship program that you sat in on with junior high girls in the metro area where you had, I think it was a mentorship, where you sat on a panel with a bunch of young ladies to discuss concerns and problems and you said it was very popular, it went over well. I wonder if you could explain that to me again if you remember, I may not have it all correct.

 

            MS. BERNARD: It's actually happening this Saturday at the Waterfront Campus; it's the first round table for girls. Last year I was able to attend a round table for young girls in the UN and the really rich experience of that round table with young girls from all over the world who had different issues facing them - anything from female circumcision to child marriage to other things, and it was an extraordinary discussion. We thought that we would bring that back to Nova Scotia and replicate it and we'll be doing that this Saturday in partnership with the YWCA and, I believe, five women's centres. That's happening this Saturday from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m. at the Waterfront Campus.

 

            MR. ORRELL: And that sounds like it's a great program and I think that it's great to get young girls talking about concerns they have, and if this is successful, will this be offered to a couple of other parts of the province where we may be able to do the same thing and get people engaged in some of the concerns? It's amazing how young people will talk to a non-family member in a group like that compared to what you might ask them at home or what a doctor or counsellor might ask them. We may be able to find a lot of the problems and a lot of the times we give the children, young adults, a chance to fix the problem or find solutions, they seem like they're the ones that will work the best because it's coming from the grass roots and the people. So if that is successful this weekend, will we be able to hopefully see some of that happening in other ends of the province and other areas of the province that may be in high need?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Absolutely, I'd like to replicate that in other areas. It will be an interesting exercise. One of the things that I also am very committed to, and I'll talk to my provincial counterparts when we meet next month, is round tables for young boys. That may sound funny coming from the Minister responsible for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women but we really need to bring young boys into these conversations about their place in the world and how they relate to girls and women, and I think that's a conversation that hasn't happened and I think it's our duty as the advisory council to maybe in the future look at implementing something similar for young boys as well.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Thank you. Again, referring to the transition houses, you said there was an extra $500,000 going to transition houses this year. Is there a pattern for how that money is going to be distributed or is it specific to certain areas of the province?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The money has already been distributed and that formula is steadfast. The bulk of the funding went to, and I'm trying to remember, I believe it was $115,000 went to Bryony House because they have the highest occupancy rate; $115,000 went to Alice Housing because they had less than 8 per cent of government funding; and the rest was distributed evenly to every transition house in the province. I believe that resulted in an increase in their annual funding of anywhere between - I believe it was in the ballpark of $17,000 each.

 

            MR. ORRELL: So this will be an annual top-up of their provincial funding?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes, it's annualized.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Thank you. Going back to employment services, especially for people with disabilities, I ask the question partially because of concerns within the department, but my wife also works in areas where they do employment for persons with disabilities. They've had a 20-year history of employment services for people with disabilities and putting them into a job situation and having them come off income assistance. With the support, as we spoke about earlier, they're able to maintain those jobs. They put a huge amount of money into the economy, something like $18 million in wages and almost another $2 million in tax income. Is this something we will see continuing? I asked a bit of the same question earlier about the employment model.

 

            Being such an important driver in the economy and an important driver to your department where they either take people, help people get off the system or prevent people from getting on the system, will we hopefully see some major discussions and some push to make sure that the way the services are delivered would ensure that people with disabilities get the assistance and supports they need to maintain that program?

 

            MS. BERNARD: As I stated before, we're working very collaboratively with LAE. We know that persons with disabilities are an untapped market within the labour market. We also know that when they attach to the labour market they perform equal if not better than other employees. They have fewer sick days, they are more reliable. Those are all markers that we're well aware of.

 

            The goal is for people who want to work that between the government departments we are able to help them with that. The goal is not to keep people on income assistance who want to have a career. We're making strides in that but it's a work in progress and I'm confident that we're moving in the right direction with some of the programs that we've had, some of the success that we've had. We work very closely with different organizations like TEAM Work and other organizations that provide those services, and we'll continue to do so.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I have a question that was given to me by the member for - anyway, one of our members in the Valley, I don't know exactly his constituency. The Community Association of People for REAL Enterprise deals with people with severe handicaps, to help them with their employment opportunities. They're funded by the Department of Community Services and for the last five years they haven't had any raise in their base funding. I was asked to ask if there would be a possibility they would be one of the groups included in some of the funding increases, and if it could be looked into, if they could get an increase in their base funding amount.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Can you repeat the name again?

 

            MR. ORRELL: Community Association of People for REAL Enterprise.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orrell, would you like to repeat the name for Hansard?

 

            MR. ORRELL: The Community Association of People for REAL Enterprise, in Canning.

 

            MS. BERNARD: We just found it - we have so many service providers that it's very difficult to pinpoint. We currently provide them a level of $140,000 for their operations and that's part of the transformation within the services for disability is to be able to - what role can these service providers provide in terms of expanding services? We'll be part of those conversations, we'll be doing that across the province with every one of the day programs. So in a short answer, it is being investigated but I can't commit to anything at this point in time.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I guess one last question. The department made 29 grants or contributions to a number of companies in 2013-14, two of which were in New Brunswick and another one in British Columbia. Can you explain in detail these grants and maybe who they went to?

 

            MS. BERNARD: More than likely it would be to landlords whose company head office is outside of our province so it would be income assistance paying those rents directly to that landlord.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Now that we're on the topic of landlords. The housing top-ups that they're being offered, I think you said a little earlier was $390 per family or per household. Is that going to be a program that's going to be continued until the wait-list has been eliminated or is that something that has a finite, indefinite end point to it?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The province currently has over 1,000 rent supplements. The investment that I made provides $375 on average in the supplement, and that's about the maximum that we could provide. That's where we ask private developers and landlords to come to the table with some skin in the game so we can leverage that. That investment was for 10 years, and over the last couple of months, we have moved 90 people off of the wait-list; by the end of the year we hope to move another 300 off. It is one of our quickest, easiest ways to move people off the wait-list for affordable housing in the province.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Can we assume that we're probably going to see the same amount of people come off the wait-list each year or is that something - it's going to be open to availability, I understand that, but with the top-up, I think that's great because individual landlords get to maintain the property with no cost to the service. Hopefully it would - and how do I say this without offending anybody? It would maybe raise the level of living for people in the community where there may not have been in a low-income housing unit and the problems that go along with those, and I hate to say it but it does happen that in the low-income housing it seems like there's more activity going on if that happens. If that's the case, can we assume that it would have more uptake on it or we can push to have more uptake on it so we can eliminate people from the wait-list, which will hopefully make other housing areas more available as people are educated and move on to greener pastures?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The way the wait-list works is that the 300 to 500 people that may come off as a result of this investment, those rent supplements have to be paid yearly. It wouldn't be aggregated 300 to 500 per year; it would be that same level. In saying that, the landlords - and we've had over 60 that have applied for this program - we're very particular about who we approve in terms of landlords because we're not going to place people into housing that is substandard and unsafe and unclean, not with the rent supplements that are available. It holds landlords to a standard that there's an expectation that they are going to provide safe, clean, and affordable housing to the clients that are in receipt of these supplements.

 

            MR. ORRELL: I don't think I have much time left.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have three minutes.

 

            MR. ORRELL: Madam Minister, I'd like to thank you for the answers. I appreciate the time. I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to the NDP and they can continue on with their questions. I thank you for being open and I thank you for being open in the Legislature so we can ask those same questions.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Thank you, I appreciate that.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.

 

            HON. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have some housing questions because you gave me some information on how money was spent, but before we move chairs we'll keep folks here for another few minutes. I want to talk about Child, Youth and Family Support and I want to look at Page 6.2 in the Budget Estimates.

 

            My read of this is that what was forecast this year was $147-plus million, and what's estimated for next year is $134 million. That's an $8 million variance. I would like to ask, why is there a variance and in what areas will we see a reduction in expenditure?

 

            MS. BERNARD: A small portion of that is vacancy factor, but the largest portion of that is the transfer of transition houses, women's centres, and second stage housing from that budget line within Child, Youth and Family Support down to the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women. So there is no reduction in any of the programs. It's just simply a transferring out of a considerable amount of money that is used to fund those organizations. It is now under the auspices of the advisory council. It's $6.9 million that was transferred out.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: So that was transitional services - no, something else? (Interruptions) Okay, great. That offers some clarity on that. In the same place on this page we have Housing Services, and Housing Authority and Property Operations. I'm looking at Housing Authority and Property Operations in particular, and I'm noting that there is a slight decrease from forecast to estimate and a fairly substantial decrease from estimate to estimate. Can you indicate how the department is going to manage that reduction - where those reductions are coming from?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The bulk of the savings actually come from - we renegotiated our lease at Nelson Place and there was substantial lease savings within the new contract that we signed, so the bulk of the savings is in that. There would be a small vacancy factor as well, but the bulk of it was the lease savings.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: My colleague formerly asked questions about the program review again. Back in the Fall, you indicated that all of the agencies that received grants from the department would be reviewed. Has that review been completed?

 

            MS. BERNARD: We've done a first round. I didn't realize there are hundreds and hundreds of organizations that this department funds. There are organizations that we don't know - there has been no reporting; there have been no audited financial reports given; there have been no program outcomes that have been shared with the department. That's why the voluntary sector, which is now under my responsibility, has basically moved into the financial services part of DCS and they are working on multi-year funding agreements, which of course the non-profit sector loves because it helps with planning, but also service level agreements so that we can just have some level of accountability about what folks do and what difference it makes in the lives of who they serve and who are demographics within the department. So it is an ongoing thing.

 

            I'm pleased with the progress that we've had so far. It's a long, arduous process and, quite frankly, we had to put our own house in order in order to do that, and I'm pleased with the progress that we've made on that.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: In keeping with that line of questioning, I do have the Supplementary Information for the Public Accounts, which I always find really useful to look at the actual breakdown of where the money has gone. There are always way more questions than you could ever ask or ever have answered in the period of time we're here, but one of the things that always strikes me when I look at the Supplementary Information is the extraordinary inconsistency, I guess I would say, across very similar kinds of organizations.

 

            Just to use an example - the Boys & Girls Club of Dartmouth gets $36,000. The Boys & Girls Club of East Dartmouth gets almost $160,000. The Boys & Girls Club of Preston gets $38,000. The Boys & Girls Club of Yarmouth gets $544,000. Cole Harbour Boys & Girls Club gets under $10,000. Truro gets $35,000.

 

            This kind of raises questions for me around what kind of funding formulas are in place to provide us with some consistency or whatever. I'm sure I know how the very large discrepancies have occurred over time. Organizations came into being at different points in time and what have you. Is this the kind of program review that is underway in the department to look at similar kinds of services and to do an assessment that everybody is being treated fairly, I guess is the question? There are going to be smaller organizations offering services to smaller populations and larger, but when I look at the Supplementary Information, the same is true for the YMCA, if you start looking at programs that the YMCA delivers and the department funds.

 

            So I'm just curious about that program review - how far along it is, whether or not it is actually going to take up some of these issues and result in some reassurance for the public that we do have a needs-based, fair, somewhat scientific - without being totally cold - approach to the way we provide grant funding to really important agencies doing really important work. I mean, we would all agree with that, but I think fairness is a very important issue in how we deliver services.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I couldn't agree with you more. As someone who came in from community, and when I was in community, I would often wonder how the determination was made for funding for different organizations. So I would ask those questions as an outsider, and then when I became minister I would ask them as an insider, and quite frankly, I would get: that's the way it has always been done; we inherited this; I don't know; or that was a side deal made 10 years ago with the director of finance at that time. That very much is a part of the program review because it is about fairness.

 

You know as well as I do from being in the community that there are a lot of wonderfully small shops that are doing extraordinary work with very limited government funding and then there are other shops that, even from the inside and from the outside of government, you're thinking, what do they do and how did they ever justify that type of funding formula? That was very much part of the review and my background in outcome measurement and making sure that the money that was spent when I was the ED went towards programs that worked. If they didn't work then you change them, it was as simple as that, and when you were finished with your work, you let your funder know what you did that year.

 

            I quite frankly was surprised at that lack of accountability that came from community. This also came - it was a two-way street: the lack of communication that went from the department to the community and from the community to the department. That's why multi-year funding programs are so important and why service-level agreements are so important: so that we can ensure that the fiscal monies that are scarce that are out there are being used and we're getting the best bang for our buck. Any executive director that runs one of these non-profits should want that because that is going to reflect in the work that they do, they're going to be able to leverage that work into fundraising dollars as well. So that very much was part of the program review, and it's ongoing. I'm happy with the progress that we've made but there's still work to be done.

 

I'm so pleased with the expertise that Anne Perigo brings within the voluntary sector to be able to work with Dale, the director of finance to my left, and be able to do multi-year funding agreements and really have some accountability into the multi-millions of dollars that go out our door to these organizations, most of which do incredibly amazing work and we want to support that.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: From the Public Accounts, Supplementary Information, I have a number of other questions for things that kind of caught my eye and got me interested. I noticed that last year the province and this department paid approximately $19,000 to the Halifax Grammar School, which is a private school here in metro, and we also paid $15,232 to another private school, the Halifax Independent School. So I'm wondering what that was for. Are we paying tuitions for students to attend private schools? If so, what would be the rationale for doing that?

 

            MS. BERNARD: They were actually daycare programs that were transferred out of the department. I think those figures you're looking at might be from 2013-14. Those have moved over to early education, yes.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Thank you. In the same vein, I've noticed that there are a number of fairly large expenditures at the universities: Cape Breton University, St. F.X., and Mount Saint Vincent - I think Mount Saint Vincent in particular was really large. The Mount Saint Vincent expenditure was almost $300,000; St. F.X. was $31,000. There are also expenditures at Dalhousie but Mount Saint Vincent did jump out at me, almost $300,000. Can you tell me what that . . .

 

            MS. BERNARD: Particularly one for Mount Saint Vincent would have been the daycare there. Payments to universities, we pay for the university education of children in permanent care, so that funding would be paid directly to universities.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Can you tell me how many wards we would have in that situation?

           

MS. BERNARD: In any given year it's usually around a dozen.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Okay. Another thing that really did jump out at me from the estimates is just how much money we're paying to Nova Scotia Power. I suspect that has a lot to do with disconnection notices and getting power turned back on or prevented from being turned off, $2.5 million last year. It's pretty significant. One of the things that this causes me to wonder is whether or not the basic income assistance rates are adequate if the department ends up spending an additional $2.5 million.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I think that large number is a combination of a number of things but mainly would be direct payments to Nova Scotia Power on behalf of income assistance clients. In many cases, as you would know, that's the only way that Nova Scotia Power has agreed to keep the power on is if they know that the money is coming directly from the department. Some of it is in overpayments in terms of people who are falling behind and then we pay the arrears to Nova Scotia Power and are able to keep the power on that way.

 

            We talked earlier of the different programs, one that's administered through Service Nova Scotia and the Salvation Army for folks, and Parker Street also runs one as well. Power rates across the board traditionally year after year after year are an issue, especially if people are living in places with electric heat. I know when I was in the community I encouraged women when they moved away from Alice Housing, please make sure you move into - because you will just find yourself in a hole by April. Those were some of the conversations that we've had. That would attribute to those payments, the bulk of them being direct payments from our department to Nova Scotia Power because they have said that's the only way we're going to fund electricity.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Do you have a breakdown between how much is for disconnection, how much is for . . .

 

            MS. BERNARD: I can get that for you.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I have a question about food, Sobeys, Loblaw's, $600,000 last year. That's $370,000 to Sobeys, $225,000 to Loblaw's.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Those would be food vouchers paid directly to those organizations so when people are short food throughout the month they can go to their worker and get emergency food vouchers. Those are direct payments to those - usually we use Sobeys because that's the one that's the most available in the community and that's what those direct payments would be on behalf of the income assistance clients.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Does the department track the trends?

 

            MS. BERNARD: My experience is yes they are tracked. Each caseworker would track them. Is it great tracking? No, but they are tracked individually.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: So I guess we would know food costs are going up. That's why I would ask the question.

 

            MS. BERNARD: Yes, absolutely. One of the things that I would love to see more of in community is - when I was on income assistance, and people find this hard to believe because I hate cooking, but I actually taught a basic shelf cooking class to other single moms, and really that education - I brought that to Alice Housing as well.

 

            I ran a food bank for nine years and I could bring in from the food bank fresh fruits and vegetables and for - you know, processed food - and inevitably every week I was throwing out the fresh fruit and vegetables because of the lack of education around utilizing those food groups. So I would love to see at some point in time a real concentration on food education. Is that going to solve the food poverty issue? No, but it's going to help - absolutely.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I have a question about the Nova Scotia Co-operative Council. There's a line item in the estimates for them and I'm wondering what service they provide that fits in your department. It's in the Supplementary Information. Let's see if I can find it here - no, I'm not finding it in my book. Perhaps we can come back to it later.

 

            The other thing, right at the end of these estimates, is a rather large payment to the Chief Information Office - $416,000. I'm not sure what that would be for.

 

            MS. BERNARD: It's our network IT processes that we have to pay for. It's not FTEs - it's the actual system.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: So now we can invite our housing financial friend up for a few questions. At the end of the last round, you had indicated that $10 million had been invested in rent supplements and I'm wondering if you could provide, first of all, just a policy overview of that for me, how those work; how a landlord gets - it's the landlords that qualify, not the tenants - so how a landlord would qualify, and then a breakdown of where those rent supplements are around the province.

 

            MS. BERNARD: The recent rent supplements - we issued an RFP out to landlords. We had about 60 landlords apply and then we do a matching depending on the numbers on the wait-list - so first come, first serve on the wait-list. So they are contacted, we match them with a landlord, and then we do an inspection of the unit and make sure the person is happy with it. It's very time-consuming from what I can gather, but the main goal is that this is going to provide long-term housing for them because I've instituted these rent supplements for at least 10 years. I'm hoping that eventually I can increase that, but for right now, it's 10 years.

 

Over the last couple of months we've been able to place 90 fairly quickly and we're hoping that by the end of the year we can add an additional 300. Using landlords that have already been in the system through the existing rent supplements and now the new ones from all over the province that have come forth and so we want to be part of this program.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Has there been a lot of take-up on the rent supplement program?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I remember the day I announced this - I had people calling my office asking how to qualify for a rent supplement. But we've had new landlords come forth because we really made a concerted effort this time that when we made the announcement, we worked with the investment property owners of Nova Scotia so that they could actually advertise within their own ranks. The net went out far greater, I would say, than maybe it previously had before. The uptake was pretty solid with 60 landlords, new ones, within that 60, so it's really a program that works very well.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Is there a wait, are there any people waiting for a rent supplement unit?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I would say that the wait is probably more in rural areas where the private land stock is lower. We work through the wait-list to be able to match the landlords and tenants in those areas, but it's really the fastest way to get people off of the wait-list because we're utilizing stock that already exists.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: What is the wait-list?

 

            MS. BERNARD: Currently, right now, it stays steady, and it has been steady like this for at least a decade, I would say - 4,700, and about one-third of that is seniors. It's really interesting because when I toured Cape Breton last year and talked to the housing authority folks up there, they had lots of empty family units, they had no single units. It's different depending on where you are in the province. In trying to meet the demographic needs of the people on the wait-list with what's available is always an ongoing challenge.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I know that wait-lists can be very difficult and often the composition, the size of the family, all of those things can be difficult given the stock that we have. Would you provide me with the wait-list, the detailed breakdown of the wait-list and what it looks like for families, for seniors, and where around the province? That's something that I would really like to have a look at.

 

            MS. BERNARD: I can give that to you.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: Fantastic. There was a previous rent supplement program. Is it still in place?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It is. It's generally around about 1,000. This is in addition to the 1,000.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: How much beyond what the IA budget will allocate for rent is the supplement - what is the range?

 

            MS. BERNARD: The average range is about $375 so if you're a single person and the shelter rate is $535, then we can generally go up to around $375 which can put someone in the $900 range. You can get a nice one-bedroom apartment in HRM for that and then you would add it on for family units, $620, and you add the $375 onto that. We can actually go above that, that's the average, the $375. If there is a unit that's available that goes above that we can certainly accommodate that as well.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: People essentially from the perspective of tenants, they work through their caseworker with respect to that - do they? Or an application through the housing authorities around the province, or both?

 

            MS. BERNARD: They do it through the housing authorities around the province that have access to where they are on the list.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I want to talk about the various other areas where there has been expenditure in the housing field. I want to talk about co-operative housing and what's happening with our co-operative housing stock around the province. I know there have been co-ops that have really required a lot of investment over the past number of years. I think you indicated that $8 million had been put into co-operative housing. This would be to upgrade or do maintenance work, that kind of thing, is it?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It is. It's for the co-operatives that apply and that are eligible, they can access up to $24,000 per unit.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: This is a program that requires the co-ops themselves to be kind of proactive around getting the money. The $8 million, can you tell me where it has gone, where it has been invested, or is this on a go-forward - is this money that you're looking to spend in the coming year?

 

            MS. BERNARD: It's done through an application basis and that's ongoing, and we're really hoping that work will begin on those units that have applied as early as this summer.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: The work hasn't happened yet, okay, great. I guess the same would be true for the 15 capital projects?

 

            MS. BERNARD: I announced that fairly early in my mandate so the bulk of that has either been finished or is still ongoing. The Manors Project I know is still ongoing but the $15 million for capital projects and upgrades and maintenance - that started probably close to 14 months ago.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: You also indicated that there was $5 million for seniors housing for upgrades. Has that been already allocated or is that in the works?

 

            MS. BERNARD: That $5 million is the Manors Project and that work started probably close to a year ago. I announced major renovations to different manors in August of last year so that's ongoing. That looks at many different things from upgrading of elevators and sprinkler systems and windows and interiors, lobbies, new ways to fight the dreaded bedbugs - all kinds of different techniques that are used.

 

            MS. MACDONALD: I think that concludes the questions I have. I just want to thank you and your staff for providing us with good information. I look forward to receiving some of the information that we've talked about and I'll turn it over to you, Madam Chairman.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: I believe that concludes our business with the Department of Community Services. Madam Minister, do you have any closing remarks?

 

            The honourable Minister of Community Services.

 

            HON. JOANNE BERNARD: I appreciate this opportunity to share with Nova Scotians our goals for the coming year. It has been a tough budget for the province and for Community Services. We recognize the need to make changes to the way the department operates and to achieve that we need to find smarter, more efficient and, most importantly, more effective ways of helping Nova Scotians. That's why our ongoing efforts to transform Community Services are so important.

 

            We will modernize the ESIA program so that the people who come to see us will see an improvement in the quality of their life, increase community inclusion, and enhance independence.

 

            The DSP program will evolve to enable Nova Scotians with disabilities to work and live as independently as possibly in the community. We will continue to protect what matters to Nova Scotians to support our most vulnerable people including children, youth, and families, sexual assault survivors, seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income Nova Scotians.

 

            I look forward to taking action to update the 25-year-old Children and Family Services Act and we are opening hearings very shortly into this Act. This here will also bring the release of a sexual violence strategy, which will be a first for the province. The strategy will include increased supports for victims, public education, and most importantly a commitment from government that we will continue to strive towards a province that is free of sexual violence.

 

            We want to ensure that our work is inclusive and that community is part of the process moving forward. We're continuing important efforts to create a legislative framework where people, government, and business ensure access for all, and I look forward to sharing more information on the accessibility legislation as it comes forward.

 

            I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to staff across the province, as well as our many service providers who dedicate themselves every day to helping Nova Scotians achieve their potential and live a better life. As the Minister of the Voluntary Sector I also want to extend my gratitude to the many Nova Scotian volunteers whose efforts are making our community stronger every day. Whether it's protecting our children and youth, going the extra mile to help a family facing life challenges, helping seniors with housing, or addressing difficult issues such as sexual violence prevention, Community Services will be there for Nova Scotians.

 

            I particularly want to thank my deputy minister, Lynn Hartwell; my director of finance, Dale MacLennan; my CEO of Housing, Dan Troke; Kristan Hines, my director of communications; Vanessa Chouinard, who is my director of something, I always forget; and I also have Pete Newbery here. I wouldn't be able to do this without them and my executive assistant, Aaron.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E4 stand?

 

            Resolution E4 stands.

 

            We are adjourned.

 

            [The subcommittee adjourned at 7:03 p.m.]