HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2014

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

 

4:41 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Patricia Arab

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply and we are continuing with the estimates of the Department of Community Services. I believe on Friday we ended with questioning from the NDP caucus.

 

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

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Good afternoon, everyone. I want to thank the minister for her presentation the other day - and also including the staff. I've had the privilege and pleasure to represent, as you know, the Department of Community Services. I know the challenges that the minister faces and the number of people lined up at the door all wanting and needing something, and how difficult that is - and also with the staff. I know that I couldn't have done my job without the tremendous staff and how dedicated they are. They always take hard knocks in that particular department. They deserve a lot of kudos and support for what they do each and every day. Their hearts are definitely in the right place.

 

I couldn't have been prouder to represent a department and I know that our new minister probably already feels that way. As she goes forward as the minister, she'll experience that on a daily basis where she'll say wow, look at them! I just wanted to make sure that I mentioned that starting today. What I'd like to do is I think it's really important to look at what has been done in reference over the last four years. The reason I'm going to do this is that I know, when we were elected as government for the first time, there were many areas in Community Services that were neglected over the years.

 

I know the new minister probably has seen that already and the areas that need to be focused on and how much work has to go in to get us even at a level playing field. I always say we didn't start with - we were way behind the eight ball. A lot of those areas - and you can even look at the history in our province - there wasn't a lot of discussion about those poverty issues 15 years ago, there wasn't a lot of discussion about housing or child care. The focus was not really on that social element.

 

There were a lot of things that faced us and with the support and hard work of the staff and the support of the NDP caucus and the Premier, we were able to do a number of things. I think it's important for people to have this knowledge base, so I'm just going to review some of these things that were accomplished from 2009 to 2013 because it really will set the story for us going forward and what needs to be focused on and what we were able to accomplish, what we had started in terms of social policy, the areas that we know that need a lot more work.

 

Under particular government investments, I don't know if people know here today that during our four-year mandate - four and a half years - we actually took an approach which I do encourage this government to take, that with respect to Community Services, there's so much interconnection between the different departments. So we worked very hard to take those silos down and to also do funding projects that we shared between the different departments, because of the fact that at the end of the day the result is what we want: to help Nova Scotians.

 

There was a lot of work in starting to peel back those silos and make people understand publicly and also encourage staff to work together. The overall total investment in those four and a half years was $420 million, which is a lot of money focused on community services and the focus on reducing poverty in our province.

 

Here's a few. We invested $7.3 million in the child tax benefit, so approximately 40,000 children in 23,000 low-income to modest-income households benefited. It was about a 20 per cent increase. That was actually the first increase in over a decade in our province. About 7,000 more children became eligible for the Nova Scotia child benefit and the Pharmacare benefits. We invested $5 million in the child care subsidy. So the NDP created 1,000 new child care subsidies which would allow more families to access child care. And $7 million was invested to strengthen and expand the child care sector; of course, that was to encourage parents - making it easier for them to be able to go to work and have a place for their child to be taken care of.

 

They are all dear to my heart, but one in particular was the $2 million investment to help over 800 foster families receive an increase in their per diem - it was about 20 per cent. I know that I've heard the minister talk about the importance of foster families to her, so I do encourage her to look at that sector that really supports us in the province.

 

I know there are a few requests that they have. One of the issues that they have brought to the table is to have a few more dollars when it comes to special occasions for their foster child. Often you'll find foster families have their own children, and then they'll have several foster children and they find it very hard financially when it comes to Christmas and birthdays, to try to make sure they match up in terms of what they're giving for a gift.

 

The other thing I want to say is I was very proud that the staff agreed with and did a lot of work on - as the minister I had asked for a survey to be done on foster families. It's the first one that was done in the province, and I know the minister knows about that and she knows that it came right from the heart of those who foster children. There were some tough questions and there were tough answers, but that's what we wanted: we wanted it to be truthful, we wanted to hear. When you ask for input from any person in the public, you want to expect that you're going to hear some harsh things, but there were some good things too. I think that's a good template for the department and for the minister to go forward with the foster families in Nova Scotia.

 

It certainly makes a difference for us because if we have foster care, it really - we have those children who are looking for forever homes and it is at least a step towards that, rather than just be solely under the care of the minister or in a poor situation for living arrangements.

 

The other - we actually invested $8 million into a long-term treatment centre for children that were 18 years and over, and that would have been in Truro; and $5.2 million was invested in the first mental health and addictions strategy. What we did, too, is we had a focus on looking at the school systems, with the mental health strategy, and looking at the youth component. Those particular investments added up to $34.5 million.

 

Within income support, $3.6 million was invested so there were approximately 15,000 income assistance recipients. They received what we created as the Poverty Reduction Credit, which was actually $200 more, which increased to $250 in 2012-13. There was a $13 million investment for 31,000 income assistance recipients to increase their personal allowance.

 

Now I'll get into this later on but I didn't see anything in the budget in terms of an increase in income assistance but I will ask that later to the minister, which was quite concerning for me because we worked very hard to make sure - and I think it has to be many, many years since any government has increased the monthly amount for income assistance. I know even under the Progressive Conservative Government, although they took heat for it, their increase one year was like $4. We made some major increases, like one year $17 and another year it was like $20 in income assistance. That's very important in terms of the reduction in poverty and also the pressures that are on people on income assistance as everything goes up all the time.

 

Also, $70 million was invested and that was - it's amazing, 240 Nova Scotians actually received the new Affordable Living Tax Credit and that equated to $255 per couple or individual and $60 per child in 2012-13. So I am pleased to see - I haven't seen that taken out of this new government's budget and I would encourage you, as you go forward, to not do that. That had a major effect positively on many low-income and working-poor Nova Scotians. That is one area that we did a lot of work to help those on low income and we also started to do a lot of work for those who would be deemed working poor. That's another area that I would definitely encourage the minister to look at.

 

It is a balancing act because you're working very hard to increase the level of income for those who are on income assistance, but you also have to be mindful that if that becomes so attractive that those who are working poor, it can create problems. It actually makes it attractive to leave your minimum wage job and maybe go on income assistance. So as we move along the continuum to support those who are on income assistance, we also need a formula or a strategy to ensure that those who would be more working poor have some type of programs.

 

We did that through the Affordable Living Tax Credit, to keep them at that level, and I do know that the increase from 2009 to 2013 for a family with two children would have been roughly around $3,200 annually. We did it in sort of a multi-program approach whereas the child tax benefits increased. You had the Affordable Living Tax Credit to access, so there were a number of different programs that a family had available to them.

 

The other important group in our communities is seniors, of course, and $12.5 million was invested for 18,000 low-income seniors receiving the GIS. That meant that they no longer had to pay provincial tax, and that was quite a benefit for the seniors. They are another group in our society that I know you understand are really pressured being on a fixed income. I'm sure that everyone around the table knows every time they go to the grocery store are probably horrified with what it's costing you for a cartload of groceries. I feel guilty when I go grocery shopping because I think, oh, my gosh, this has gone up another $5 or $10 total this week. How do people really do it - young families or people on income assistance? How do they really pay that grocery bill?

 

That equates under income supports, $99.1 million over a three-year period, which is quite incredible that the province never saw before the NDP came into government and, of course, support the social aspect of our society. Training and employment, as we know, is another key service that the Department of Community Services provides. We did a lot of work in terms of we do have to change the system in providing those supports for those that we're trying to find work for because one of the things that I found - and this is just something to offer to the minister - is that we're really good at helping people create a resumé and design a very strong cover letter, but what we don't do is we don't have our staff out at the grassroots level actually networking and developing relationships with employers.

 

So we may have people well-prepared to go into the workforce and come off income assistance, but they find it very difficult to find work because we're not out there - we have relied on the job-accessing companies that through the funding of the province and the federal government do that, but they actually are not also out there pounding the pavement the way that it needs to be done. Of course, for income assistance recipients the needs and the supports from that employer can be quite different from the average person who may be somebody who has graduated from university or has worked for 10 or 15 years and has lost a job and then goes to a job-readiness company to help them find employment. Income assistance is very different so you need to take a more personal approach, and that's just a recommendation.

 

We had many discussions about that - that we need to actually have staff being out there, right in the community, developing a strategy and developing relationships with our small businesses, our employers, and encouraging them and talking to them about what kind of supports they need in order to be willing to hire somebody who is coming off of income assistance.

 

During that time we did invest about $100 million into that entire area, along with investments in the workplace educational program. Also, $22 million went into 52 community agencies receiving funding to deliver those employment services. That's what I'm talking about too. I think we can do a little bit better in how those services are provided to those who are on income assistance.

 

As well, $7.5 million went into the Skills Up! pilot program to help 300 African Nova Scotians return to school to get the training they needed for good jobs; $1.5 million was invested to expand access to and strengthen day programs for persons with disabilities. That's another area that I'd like to address with the minister, that there are many, many challenges, as she knows, with everything around what we need to do with the disabled community and how behind as a province that we have been and the catch-up game that she is going to be playing, as I did.

 

I really believe that the day programs are a very, very good option in order to help move along the issues with people with disabilities because we want to encourage families to keep their loved ones at home and many want to keep their disabled adult child at home as long as they can. But as we know, as people age and some of the conditions that they're dealing with, it can be really difficult, and the respite is so important for the parents to have an opportunity to have some time for themselves.

 

The day programs do a number of things. They provide that respite care to the family and, at the same time, it gives the individual with the disability the opportunity to learn to socialize, become part of the community. There is a percentage, too, that are able to be employable, so I really feel that the day programs - one of the big challenges and I know that she'll see this, too, is that there's so much competition for the almighty dollar that it actually sets a lot - not just the day programs, but a lot of issues around the table. They're actually working against each other and they don't really realize that but they're trying to do it in order to be able to get their little piece of the pie because often the funding and the increased costs are really difficult for them.

 

The other challenge is the federal government always likes to swoop in and give a nice bit of money to open a new facility and then they swiftly walk out the door. What it leaves is that the Department of Community Services, the province, is left with the operational cost and all those pressures around the operational cost. Then it affects the decision of Community Services because it makes it very difficult, because they have to find that money somewhere - very difficult because the fact is that everybody in society wants to have those services expanded, so you have a very long wait-list. So it is a good-news story but the part that the public does not understand is who pays for that afterwards? It is through Community Services and through the government that has to pay for it.

 

Then the Department of Community Services looks like the bad guy because they don't have it in their budget to do but the federal government have come down and made big fanfare over the fact that we have this beautiful, wonderful facility and it should be able to - now that you have a newer facility, you have more room, you should be able to expand your intake, take people off the wait-list, but nobody ever answers the question: how are you going to pay for that part? Of course, that's another huge challenge that our new minister will be dealing with.

 

Also, the $3.7 million was invested for about 3,000 income assistance recipients who work part-time and now they can keep more of their income before it's taken away from them - and I know the department doesn't like using the word "clawback" but that's the word on the street. That was an important incentive because to be able to go out and work and keep a little bit more of the dollars in your pocket was seen as an incentive to encourage those on income assistance to get off the - to be able to move towards getting off the program because they're becoming more employable. And $620,000 was invested to ensure that income tax refunds received by income assistance recipients are no long treated as income. That benefited about 3,000 recipients. That was another very important change, so that totalled $136.9 million.

 

I guess what I would say out of that for the minister is that one of the things I know she probably discovered, the first thing as minister I asked for was the policy book. I think about three staff fainted when I asked to see a policy book because there are hundreds and hundreds of policies. As she will discover, some of them are very old and we don't live in that day and age that those were created. I'm sure that when they were created that there was very good reason around it; you do things with the information that you have at the time.

 

To me, as a former minister, that is one area that really needs to be addressed if you're going to be able to change anything because that will change the core of the department and the way that the staff do business. I always felt that it was so difficult for staff because many of those policies do not make sense and they are required to enforce them. The flexibility was not really available. We have a lot of inconsistency across the province because of that. You may go to Yarmouth for particular services and be denied them, but if you live in New Glasgow and go to the Department of Community Services there, you may be given that same service that somebody asked for in Yarmouth and was denied.

 

What it has been left with is that those inconsistencies have come out of the fact that staff are trying to be really reasonable about these stagnant policies. I think if we can get the province to be on a level playing field from one end to another, that no matter where you live and go for services, you're going to get equal services, plus, at the same time - and this is a difficult thing to do - create a system that gives some flexibility in it. What that actual formula will be, I'm not quite sure but I know it is something that the minister will look at.

 

Quickly - I won't go through each and every one of these under housing supports. We were able to put $152.7 million into housing initiatives; initiatives that include tax rebates for seniors and also energy-efficiency repairs that were done - and I'll talk a little bit more later when my time comes back around - the Bloomfield initiative and, of course, the housing strategy - to create the first housing strategy in the history of the province.

 

I'm not going through this to say hey, this is all that we did and brag about it, it's not about that. I think it's very important that people know how much was invested in four and a half years, what we tackled, what we started a foundation for that this government now will have the ability to take some of that. Just because it's a different political Party that is doing the job now doesn't mean that we stop it because the NDP did it.

 

I don't think this minister is like that, I've heard her talk about the housing strategy and how she's continuing with the housing strategy, et cetera and the disability strategy. I think it's very important that people know we did a lot of work. There's still a great deal of work to do. I will have questions but I do want to wish the minister all the best in her portfolio because it is a very challenging one and there will be nights that you will not sleep, I'm sorry to tell you, because of the emotion and the worry. There will also be days that you will be on a high because you've been able to succeed and you've even helped one person who has smiled back to you and said thank you very much, it's made a total difference in my life.

 

I will come back later with more (Interruption) I have three minutes? Oh, my goodness, you shouldn't have told me that. (Laughter)

 

Well, I guess what I'll say is still on - I do understand what the minister is facing and it is a difficult one, but I think that just being transparent and having your heart in it - and I believe that you do. I think you have had a lot of experience on the tough side of life, so you will bring that to the position. I think that if there's any time that I can help in terms of any of the knowledge that I've gained over the years, I am certainly willing to do that. I'm sure as we go forward there will be things that I personally would think should go another way, but that's what it's all about is that we have the opportunity to debate and we have an opportunity to bring forward our opinions and suggestions, but I do think that Minister Bernard will do an excellent job in her role.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We will move on to the Progressive Conservative caucus for the next hour.

 

The honourable member for Pictou Centre.

 

HON. PAT DUNN: Welcome back, minister, to the table and your staff. You're providing some good answers to some of us who are asking questions and we'll continue to go forward. The response I'm looking for from you is the same for a couple of situations so what I'm going to do is look at my notes, describe a couple situations - I know you're very familiar with those types of situations.

 

I don't understand why we can't help people in these situations - what the rules and regulations are and so on. In fact, talking to some people in the Department of Community Services in the province, some of them can't understand or realize; however, I will do my best to describe the two situations as quickly as I can and then I'll ask you for a response, and that may lead to another question.

 

Both of these situations are dealing with students who are attending the Nova Scotia Community College in Stellarton. Student No. 1 at the Stellarton Campus - both of them actually arrived at my constituency office and that's where this all started. Student No. 1 was having some financial difficulty - no support from home and her student loan ran out prematurely due to her having to pay extra rent and of course child care, which she did not have in her budget or had any plans for. She arrived at our constituency office - she was down and out - and had no money for anything. She had no money for food for the weekend or for any of the essentials that she would need.

 

We ended up suggesting that she sign - I guess you would call - an assignment of funds, which she was quite open to do. However, this was not approved by the superiors in Halifax. This information was forwarded to your office and on December 2^nd, we were advised that this decision was held up by the senior analysts in the office and they would not be providing her with any assistance or help.

 

So with some help from the principal at the Nova Scotia Community College in Stellarton - and we talked to her landlord, and he ended up being very good as far as delaying her rent until such a time as she was able to pay for it later. She received her child tax credit which really helped the situation.

 

I guess with Student No. 1, the most upsetting aspect of her situation is that if she had dropped out of school in the Fall instead of pulling every resource together that she could, there would have been funds available to her through Community Services. That's where I'm having difficulty understanding that it seems like there's something truly wrong with a system that cannot earmark some funding for this type of support. This particular young female, trying to better herself, trying to get some education, seemed to be a very intelligent young lady and she just could not understand how if she had left school, dropped out, she would have help but if she continued, she wouldn't.

That was the first situation, and if you'll permit me, I'll just slide over to the second one. (Interruption) Sure, okay.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Community Services.

 

HON. JOANNE BERNARD: That is one of the conundrums of the system. What I also know from working in the community is that when someone arrives at your office, you're often getting only half of the story. There would be questions that I would ask this young woman, such as: were you a client of income assistance; why didn't you borrow enough to cover your expenses over an 8- to 10-month educational period; or, what mitigating factors came up in terms of emergency use of the money that was allocated? I would look at underlying things; otherwise, Community Services would have a glut of people who spend through their student loans and then come looking to government to help them with that. That's not the situation the department should be in either.

 

Each case is case by case. There may be many reasons why she was told no. One of them may be that she had defaulted on a student loan before or had not taken - like, I don't understand why she wasn't on income assistance and going to NSCC because there are seats available where women do both, I've seen it many different times.

 

I guess I'm a little - I don't understand why she wasn't in that situation because it would have been so much more financially better for her. Her living arrangements and child care would have been taken care of and then she could have borrowed just her student loan money for her tuition and her books. There are always all kinds of mitigating factors that happen with each case. I can't address it because I don't know what those mitigating factors are.

 

Are there inconsistencies in policy? Yes. Could we do better in many areas? Absolutely. I think there also has to be an onus on the individual in terms of what their planning is for the time that they are in university or in community college.

 

I was on social assistance when I was in university. At that time my living expenses were taken care of by the income assistance and I borrowed for everything else. I also know that as a young, single mother, if I had to have borrowed everything like I did in my last year in university during my master's, I made sure each month I had enough to cover. Now if there are mitigating circumstances where an emergency came up and that money had to go then yes, sure, you would reach out and try to get the help you need.

 

We have to be very careful on a case-by-case scenario that we're not setting people up to always come to government when they make bad decisions in their lives. I don't know what the situation is here so it's unfair of me to give you an answer, but that would be my first-case scenario of getting all the information and then making decisions from that.

 

It may not be as black and white as you think it is, it may be very grey and the only reason it's grey is because the income assistance person who was dealing with this person may know other things that you weren't privy to. I see that quite a bit from working in community.

 

I can give you another instance, when I was on the campaign trail I had a young mother come to my campaign office. She had lost three weeks' worth of work due to a workplace incident that had nothing to do with her. She had three children and in that three weeks her child care and her rent were falling behind. She went to income assistance and said, can you help me with bridge funding - anything? They said, quit your job and go on income assistance.

 

That is not the message I want to be giving. I do not want people to give up school or to give up jobs to go on income assistance. This isn't a third career choice here, especially when the person is already involved in the first two. Again, it's case by case, and I don't know what the circumstances were in this young woman's life. Did she ever get some help?

 

MR. DUNN: We were able to get her through. My concern was there have been more than these two cases. These two cases didn't seem to be as grey as some of the other ones were. I was having difficulty understanding just why they would have to leave school, and if they did, I was under the understanding that they could get some assistance but if they stayed in school, they couldn't.

 

MS. BERNARD: Well I think it all depends on whether or not they are a client to begin with. Otherwise, we would have hundreds of kids spending, you know, on whatever and then coming to income assistance saying hey, bail me out until the end of the school year. So it really is case by case.

 

If this was escalated to the head office in Halifax, I'm assuming that there was quite a vigilant lens given to this young woman's case. You may not have all the information because usually there's more flexibility by the time it gets to my office. If that happens in the future, I really want you to reach out to my EA and we'll work it that way. Next one.

 

MR. DUNN: Thank you for that answer, minister. Again, Student No. 2, very similar, a severe diabetic and was enrolled in a course last year but due to health problems, had to drop out. Apparently attempting to work and go to school at the same time just wasn't the right thing to do. When she reapplied to start her program again, she knew she just couldn't continue to do what she was doing the previous year so she decided to stop working, just go to school and do the best I can.

 

Anyway, she applied for a student loan and took for granted that she was going to get it and started her classes, not knowing the extent of the reply for the loan. However, that didn't happen because she had worked full-time in the period prior to going to school and the time when she applied for the student loan. She was advised by the loan board that the amount allotted to her wasn't going to happen because there's a formula where you had to save one-third and she wasn't able to save one-third because she was making very low wages and she still had to pay for her rent. It was a retail type of job so she had living expenses and rent and so on and she just wasn't able to save.

 

She was given consideration for a disability grant of $2,000, which they did give her but the money didn't come directly to her to pay for her rent and food and so on, it was deducted from the balance of her student loan which, in theory is great but, at the same time, it didn't help her immediate needs and some of her outstanding expenses.

 

She's saying that she was advised through Community Services that there are no funds available to assist people in her situation. She was willing to make any kind of arrangements to pay back any money that she would receive from Community Services once she got into the desired field of work that she was looking for.

 

Again, I guess listening to this type of story it just seemed to be that there's a crack in the system where some people are falling through and where an individual like Student No. 2, if she dropped out of school, it would be one way and if she stayed in, it would be another way. Since this she has moved back with her parents, she has done whatever she had to do in order to stay in school and complete her program. That's a synopsis of the second scenario.

 

MS. BERNARD: Again, I would look at that case by case. I'm not really familiar with the student loan program as it exists today in Nova Scotia because it's not under my purview, but like I say, I would have to look at it case by case.

 

MR. DUNN: I guess my last question is, in your opinion, is there a problem with - let's say everything is above board. This student is doing everything they should be doing and they don't fall into what we would call the "grey area" - is there something that should be changed in our system, perhaps?

 

MS. BERNARD: There is. In my estimation, it can go either two ways and it's a very fine line. You say the words "above board" and you hate to use that judgment, but I've worked long enough in the community to know that people will use the system to get what they can to get out of it. It's a survival instinct. What that does is facilitate learned helplessness, and that's not what we want to foster as a society.

 

However, in saying that, there are people who do fall through these cracks and ones that want to lift themselves out of poverty or they've had a marriage breakdown or violence in a relationship and they do need those supports. Sometimes I think that policy is so rigid that it negates our staff to be able to do what is predominantly the best outcome. When that happens, if staff are following policy, they can go to their district manager or they can go to their regional administrator and make the case. I mean, it just doesn't stop at that level. In terms of MLAs, they can certainly come directly to my EA.

 

Would I like to see a system where there was some sort of bridge funding for folks who find themselves in a situation through no fault of their own? Yes, I would, but I want to be very careful in setting precedent, and I want to be very careful in not opening up a floodgate of giving people another opportunity to access monies that they shouldn't have access to.

 

MR. DUNN: I certainly agree with that answer also. I'm going to pass this over to my colleague.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings North.

 

MR. JOHN LOHR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would just like to recognize how important your department is to our many thousands of ordinary Nova Scotians and the contribution it makes. I would just like to maybe drill down into Pat's question. You mentioned - I believe the term was "learned helplessness." Could you just elaborate on what you mean by that and maybe describe how prevalent you think that is?

 

MS. BERNARD: I've worked in the non-profit sector with very vulnerable communities for about 15 years. I see it in my work in that area. I see it in my client base in the different areas that I worked at. When governments or when organizations or when individuals sweep in and fix the problem, rescue the person, not allow them to take control or make decisions, you are tacitly telling the person that you don't think they are smart enough, brilliant enough, or independent enough to make that decision on their own. So what happens is that they lose hope, their self-esteem goes down, and they go into a cycle of learned helplessness because everything is done for them and they don't have to do anything for themselves.

 

I have seen it generational. I have seen it in communities. I have seen it in different demographics. It is very, very disturbing to watch someone lose that level of life efficacy because you know they can do it, but they don't know they can do it because everybody has always done it for them. That is something that quite often many people who work in the non-profit sector with very vulnerable populations witness every day.

 

MR. LOHR: Thank you. I'm just wondering, what would you see your government doing to address that issue?

 

MS. BERNARD: The Employment Support and Income Assistance section of my department within the next couple of years will be going through a very steep, very pivotal transformation. That starts with things as simple as language, as simple as structures, and as simple as changing processes. I'll give you examples.

 

What we want to see, a framework that we want to work towards in the next couple of years, is a new approach to income and social support. In the old system, which we have now, you have rules; in the new system, I want to see outcomes. In the old system, you have recipients; in the new system, we want to see participants who are actively engaged in either improving what's in their life now, moving away from income assistance, or staying on income assistance and improving the supports that surround that.

 

We want to get away from the marginalization and social exclusion which this culture of social assistance in Nova Scotia, which has been there for decades, fosters, to more community participation and inclusion. We want to get away from passive income support and into participatory employment support. We want to work away from dependence to independence.

 

One of the things I have talked about consistently as minister has been what I have not only experienced but witnessed. It has been the paternalistic nature of income assistance. I am given an envelope of money, I am told how much I have to spend on rent, I am told how much I have left for anything else, I have to supply supports or receipts. It is just an administrative - always telling the client what they should and ought to be doing. That is going to take a while to move away from and transform. That is something, very seriously, that we are going to be doing in at least the next four years.

 

We want to move away from income poverty to financial security, intergenerational poverty - which is tremendously one of my areas of concern - to children with a future. I don't want to see a family, like I have in my riding, of a 60-year-old grandmother, a 40-year-old mother and a 20-year-old kid, and they're trying to get the 20-year-old kid to be the third generation of income assistance. When that 20-year-old young woman thinks that is a source of income or career path, it's bothersome to me because there is no excuse why that young woman could not have the supports that she needs to be able to be employed. But because she has grown up with learned helplessness in her family, it's what she knows.

 

I talked to your colleague, Chuck Porter, last week. We had a 40-minute discussion on generational poverty in his riding. We both were so on the same page of what we need to do to address that. Instead of focusing on disability and the barriers with disability, we want to look at the strengths and ability. Government responsibility, we want to look at mutual obligation so that government is not the saviour. It is still providing the safety social net but it is not the saviour that comes in and swoops in and makes everything okay.

 

Program-centred to citizen-centred, multiple access to an integrated access, last resort to lasting support, and ESIA recipients to low-income population. Those are the new approaches and new language and new systems and new processes that we want to eventually move over.

 

At this point in time, there is a new minister, there is a new deputy, there is a new associate deputy, there is a new director of finance, there is a new Housing Nova Scotia CEO, and there will be four new executive directors, hopefully by the end of the month. We are at a beautiful time in the Department of Community Services to make this transformation happen because all of us wanted to move away from the way it has currently been to a way in which we know is going to be better.

 

MR. LOHR: Thank you, Madam Minister. I'm just wondering if you would foresee then that the budget for the department in the future - I expect it would continue to rise for inflationary reasons - but would you see substantial increases in the budget in the future in that new model? I'm just wondering.

 

MS. BERNARD: In my estimation, if there are 40,000 people who are on income assistance right now, I look at them in three different ways. The first way is the person who is never, ever going to leave our system because they have multiple barriers. They will spend their lives attached to income supports. Then there is a silo of folks who need a little bit of help, need some supports around literacy or employment supports in getting ready to be attached to the labour market.

 

Then there is the group that I fit into when I was on income assistance. I was job-ready. I chose to go back to school, but I was job-ready. Those are the folks that we really in the next couple of years want to focus on, attaching them to the labour market, because in my estimation, the more that happens, the more you can take the monies that were there and focus them on the first two groups who really, really, really need the support of the Department of Community Services in terms of making their life a little better in both the supports that are in their income security and the supports that they need just to live their lives every day.

 

MR. LOHR: I guess I'm still trying to figure this out in my head, what you're saying. I would think that if someone was a third-generation person on income support and you want to move them to - rather than this learned dependence, that would involve a fair bit of stress for them. How do you see your department working through that sort of stressful transition? I'm just curious.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's not something that's going to happen overnight, for sure. I mean, you're talking generational change, generational stress and pressures to get to the point we are today. It's not going to happen in the next four years.

 

One of the things that we might look at in the future is more incentives to get off of income assistance. Instead of letting them keep a certain amount of money, maybe let them keep a little more so that for six months they can actually have some critical ability to save, to get themselves out of the hole, type of thing that they may think they're in. I would rather make it easier for people to get off the system than to make it more enticing for them to stay on it. That's going to take strategy and it's going to take time.

 

MR. LOHR: To go back to what my colleague was asking about where a person was in school and was - I mean in essence, was told that if they were to step out of school they would have been looked after, which seems like a case right there . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Contradictory.

 

MR. LOHR: Yes. So that may be that type of situation you were talking about.

MS. BERNARD: And that's where we look at the case by case because there are cases where, yes, the policy doesn't work for those people and it should, but we also want to make sure that we're not setting precedents so that every person who goes to university and spends their student loan feels that in the month of February they can come to DCS and get bailed out before the end of June. It's really, really a fine line in making sure that we address the real urgent needs at a time when we know exactly what we're dealing with. So case by case is always the best way to do that.

 

MR. LOHR: I do admire that you are coming into the portfolio with a vision for change, but I'm just wondering how you would get away from the rules-based. I realize that one of the issues that with my colleague's question, it is very difficult to make a rule for every single situation. That's where you are in now, I realize that, and it's impossible because there's always a new sort of different category that all of a sudden arises in that rules-based scenario.

 

But I wonder, how would you get away from that rules-based scenario? You mentioned it, but you didn't drill down into it. How do you see that working? I'm just curious.

 

MS. BERNARD: That would be looking at every policy that affects income assistance and formulating it, changing it, tweaking it, or getting rid of it so that it works into this new approach.

 

It's not going to happen overnight and it's not an easy process. Some of this process needs to be gatekept. There need to be provisions in place so that the right outcome for the right person is happening at the right time, instead of opening up an income assistance floodgate and flooding a system with people who aren't interested in meeting the outcomes that perhaps they should be meeting. It's not easy.

 

Do I see income assistance increasing over the next couple of years, in terms of the people coming on it? Honestly, I don't. I have instructed my department this year that I want to see a net zero, so that for every person coming on, I want to see a person coming off.

 

We have special projects within the department now. One that has been extraordinarily effective over the last couple of years is working with young adults who have never been attached to the labour force because of anxiety and depression. They have been working with a Dr. Avis, working on one-on-one counselling to work through that and then attaching to the labour market in a holistic fashion. Their attachment to the labour market, I believe, is in the 60 to 65 per cent range, which is an incredible outcome.

 

We've had extraordinary success in Cape Breton attaching folks to the labour market, out of all four regions. I know that Eddie likes that. We really have. So whatever is happening in Cape Breton in terms of attaching people to the labour market, we need to get on board everywhere else.

MR. LOHR: Thank you, minister. I guess what I'm wondering is, just to drill down into this a little bit further, when would you be considering like a pilot project in some area on some of these changes or when do you think you will be ready to bring these changes in? I'm just wondering.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's interesting because Nancy MacLellan, who is to my right, is the associate deputy minister. My deputy is sick today, that's why Nancy is stepping in. Nancy's sole focus is strategic strategy and transformation. That is her job. Nancy started in December and we are now in the process of hiring an executive director for ESIA. So the fine-tuning and drilling down isn't going to happen here today just simply because it hasn't been done in our department.

 

What we have to do first is change the culture of the staff of our department because for years we've been telling them follow this policy. Now we're going to be saying, use your judgment. That's going to take a cultural shift within our own department before we can even look at shifting it outside.

 

MR. LOHR: Right, you have just as much of a cultural challenge within the department as you will with the clientele, I'm sure.

 

MS. BERNARD: We have extraordinary staff - and I have witnessed this first-hand as both a recipient and as a service provider - who are compassionate, smart, strategic, but hamstrung by a policy that they are simply following and not being able to bring their own judgment into it.

 

I've got 1,700 employees in our department. That takes a tremendous shift in culture to turn that around so that the policy there is guiding, but your judgment is just as important. It really allows giving people the trust and the freedom to do their job in a different way.

 

MR. LOHR: Yes, I would echo your sentiment about your staff. The ones that I've had contact with are extremely dedicated and I admire the job that they're doing. I realize that your current model of operation requires them to enforce the rules and sometimes that's very difficult, but I do think they do an admirable job at working within the framework of what they have. I would echo your comments on that and maybe would just let the subject go now except to say that we would await further news on your new strategy with great interest. I'm sure everybody in the province would. I appreciate you drilling down into that.

 

I had a couple more questions before I turn it over to my colleague. I had noticed in your message - regarding your ministerial message on Crown Corporations for Housing Nova Scotia that one of your key priorities for 2014-15 will be to fulfill the government's commitment to invest federal contributions available to the province. I'm just wondering if you could tell me what the full amount of those federal contributions were, and would you fulfill that commitment? That's sort of a numbers question, but I'm just interested.

MS. BERNARD: Over the years - since 1997 - the fund that I'm actually accessing is called the deferred federal contribution. Previous governments up until ours have chosen not to spend anything from that account, so it now sits at roughly - well, I just spent some - $62 million and there are requirements and eligibility requirements around it that it has to be used on social housing. Part of the mandate that the Premier and our government have set for me, and one that I fully support, is accessing that fund and actually using it across the province.

 

I have recently released $4 million of it; it will be used for upgrades on our social housing/public housing stock from one end of the province to the other. That will be the first of many strategic investments over the next four years and I will not be depleting the account, but I will be using a considerable amount of that money to not only renovate and provide maintenance to our existing housing stock, but also investing in new social housing developments as well.

 

It has always been characterized as a rainy day account by previous governments. From someone from the housing community, I've been saying for years, as have many, it has been pouring for years in Nova Scotia when it comes to social housing.

 

MR. LOHR: Just to clarify, there are $62 million of federal dollars available?

 

MS. BERNARD: Roughly, yes.

 

MR. LOHR: And they're not attached to any one year? They've just been building up?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's built up. It has been building each year.

 

MR. LOHR: What does the province have to contribute to access that? Is that 50-50 dollars?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, at this point in time it is not matched, so that $4 million that I just took out of that account to spend is all federal money and not required to be matched by the province.

 

MR. LOHR: So there's $62 million that doesn't require any matching and all we have to do is write a program for housing?

 

MS. BERNARD: It has been matched since 1997, so the province has spent what it was supposed to spend on social housing every year, but the federal money that was matched went into this account. The federal money has been building up. The provincial portion of what we've been matching each year since 1997 has been invested in social housing, but the federal part hasn't been. I'm now spending the federal part.

 

MR. LOHR: So the federal money has been in its own account somewhere generating interest, would that be correct?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. The contribution from the federal government each year for social housing in Nova Scotia will be declining, and I think by 2034 it will be completely depleted. So that money is all the more imperative to spend wisely in that amount of time.

 

When I spoke to my housing folks, I said take politics out of this. I don't care what riding it goes to, you go to the four regions, you go to the housing authorities and you tell me if they had a wish list of things that they know they couldn't possibly put in under normal circumstances, what are the priorities? That's what they came back with. I have a map of where that money is being spent and what area. It has nothing to do with political stripe; it's about the need and the priority.

 

MR. LOHR: There are so many things to ask about this, but I would commend you on the rainy day. I think it is a rainy day. There are some deplorable housing conditions around the province so I would agree with you totally.

 

I guess what I would ask about your map, so to speak - I commend you on that, too, and being non-political about that - I'm wondering, will that be released? Will we see that map?

 

MS. BERNARD: It has been released. It was two weeks ago, but we can make sure that you get it - it's public.

 

MR. LOHR: Okay, I hadn't seen it. Maybe my colleague has seen the map. No, he hasn't. Is that on the website?

 

MS. BERNARD: It was actually on the press release when we did it. It is out there. We'll make sure you get it.

 

MR. LOHR: No, we can find it. I apologize for not knowing the answer to that myself.

 

One of the big concerns in my constituency would be what I would call the need for renovations all across the board. I know that your department does a lot with seniors with renovations, but there is a fair bit of - I guess the word would be "low-income" housing. There is a fair bit of renovation requirements in that too. Can you tell me if that's part of what this fund will be used for or is it new construction? I'm just wondering.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, that's not part of the $4 million that I just released, but I actually just signed an agreement with the federal government where in the next five years, $102 million will be invested into renovations of low-income housing and public housing, so that's a different pot of money and that's cost shared. I think it's $51.5 million from the federal government and $51.5 million from the province for the next five years. I just signed off on that about two weeks ago. That will go to 2019.

 

MR. LOHR: So the $62 million - just to back up - you've released $4 million of that for renovations.

 

MS. BERNARD: Not for renovations. I want to say enhanced maintenance. That will be the first of many for that. It won't be $4 million at a time, but certainly when there's - because there is an ongoing maintenance budget anyway with Housing Nova Scotia, but certainly we're going to be doing above and beyond in the next four years with that money.

 

MR. LOHR: So just to be clear - and maybe I'm getting mixed up - I think I heard you say the $62 million will be spread out until - you gave a year there.

 

MS. BERNARD: I don't know if I'll spend it all in the next four years. I'd like to. (Laughter) It will be used, definitely. It is something that has just mystified me as a service provider for many years, because everybody knows it's there and it's never touched. I think one of the first speeches I ever gave was, you know, we're going to spend this money; it's part of my mandate. The Premier - and it was part of our Party platform. It just didn't make sense to us to have all of these federal contributions sitting there without having any strategic investments being used for them. So within 160 days of my mandate we had $4 million out the door and the housing authorities were absolutely pleased, is my sense from the messages that I've been getting, that they've actually put requests in and they were met.

 

MR. LOHR: So the $62 million is now $58 million?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, about that - $58 million, $59 million. I think it's about $800,000 a year in interest. I thought that was what I read one day.

 

MR. LOHR: I just wonder in that Housing Nova Scotia strategic - your message in the next paragraph down says you will ". . . initiate a number of strategic actions to help low- and moderate-income individuals access home ownership specific to our Bloomfield development project." I'm just wondering if you would tell us what those number of strategic actions - just tell us briefly what they are, I'm just curious.

 

MS. BERNARD: Any development in a huge measure - and I'll talk about Bloomfield, which is happening in the north end of Halifax. The time of building public housing in the vein of Uniacke Square or Mulgrave Park or anything like that is long over for this province - they certainly aren't going to be done under my watch.

 

North America is really moving into a mixed-income area of housing whereas you may have a facade that serves as a hub that may have any number of small businesses or non-profits, then you would have a couple of storeys with a percentage of units that are completely social housing and for persons with disabilities. Then the next tier you would have, for lack of better words, "rent to own" so that folks who have a modest income could actually work with Housing Nova Scotia to apply for mortgages in a situation where they probably wouldn't be able to. Then the top tier is "market value" and that's complete market value, no help from government or anything.

 

Those types of situations have worked all over North America. Bloomfield will be the biggest project of that scope. We're looking at 478 units that will be built over the coming years - I think shovels in the ground in 2015. If I had my way I would have Bloomfields all over Nova Scotia because that really is the best way to get away from gentrification and ghettoization. It really is the best housing model to be built that's going forth anywhere. So that is what we're looking at in terms of mixed housing.

 

We have a couple of projects. One of the other things that we really want to do is to work with local developers. We really do have more success in smaller areas in Nova Scotia than we do in HRM in working with developers who want to partner with Housing Nova Scotia. Basically Housing Nova Scotia becomes the bank. They provide low-income rental units. I opened one in Amherst in November. We've had more success with local developers in smaller areas in coming to Housing Nova Scotia and saying, this is what I want to do; I can't get the construction funding, can we work something out? Business plans are presented and vetted and we go from there. That's what I really want to do.

 

Another strategic area I want to look at is partnering with Habitat for Humanity because Housing Nova Scotia actually owns a ton of land throughout Nova Scotia. So I have absolutely no problem donating land to an organization such as Habitat for Humanity and having them build the structure. That is a win-win situation - win-win-win - for that organization, for our department, and for the person who gets a home.

 

We're looking at parcels of land right now in the Preston area. I would like to see that throughout Nova Scotia. I think that is a realistic and doable outcome for partnership with an organization that basically has the same desired outcomes that we do, which is housing people.

 

Those are just a few of the things that we're looking at right now. Housing Nova Scotia doesn't go into communities, they wait for the invitation. That's when you have the best performance outcome in what's going to happen. Right now there's a group in my riding called Wyse Decisions, and they want to see mixed income on Wyse Road. So Housing Nova Scotia will work with community groups that want to look at development in their areas and try to do that, lend our expertise, our financial ability. I say I'm like the Pope, I'm actually incorporated. I'm the only minister who is incorporated, I can lend money. You're looking at me like I'm crazy but, really, I'm not crazy. I'm only going with what my housing guy says - I'm like the Pope. I have the ability to lend money. (Interruptions)

 

It's a really unique position for Housing Nova Scotia to be in, to work with developers from all over the province who may have a hard time getting the construction funding from the traditional ways and they are able to come to us and we work together in building those developments.

 

MR. LOHR: I'm interested in that. What you're saying is that well, I'm just thinking like I know there are groups in my constituency that would want to have housing developed that would have maybe different priorities and be more inclusive for disabled people and so on, and maybe have in them components of like L'Arche communities or things like that. You're saying that you would be able to provide assistance in the financing of that through Housing Nova Scotia? Likely they are aware of it and I'm not, that would be correct?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, probably. Our housing folks meet, I would say, probably on a weekly basis with people throughout Nova Scotia who have housing development plans. It has to be a strong business case; you can't put us into a situation of it not happening or investing in something that's not part of our vision as well.

 

People will come up and say hey, great work that's going on with Housing Nova Scotia in Cole Harbour and I don't know about it but I know it's going on, or great work that's going on in Truro on Alice Street and I've got to go and look and find out what it is. So I know it's happening all over Nova Scotia.

 

That's exactly what the goal is: how many homes do you want to build this year? This is how many people we're going to help, this is how many people we're going to help, and these are the partnerships we're going to make. That's what the business plan is.

 

MR. LOHR: Just from what you've described, I know that there's a significant amount of that happening in Kings North too.

 

I guess one question I would have about that and this is just - and maybe you can confirm whether this is true or not - that in some cases there would be a subsidy to a builder to provide an apartment for what we call a low rental, and then after a number of years it would be - that obligation would last five years and then that apartment would maybe be sold as a condo or something. Sometimes people in the community would question that so I'm just wondering, is that true that that happens, that these apartments attract a certain subsidy for a certain period of time, are low rental, and then obviously that agreement is over? We've seen them - I don't know if I have an actual example but I've heard that then they get sold for a condo. I know the public would question whether that was really a good investment of your money.

 

MS. BERNARD: I had heard of that too. The agreement that we have in terms of subsidies for capital development - they must remain part of that agreement for 15 years. After that, the agreement expires.

 

MR. LOHR: I thought it was five years and if it's 15, okay.

 

Habitat for Humanity, one of the issues - and maybe your department isn't the department to address this, but I know that one of the issues for Habitat for Humanity is that as they work - when they are ready to hand that house over to the new recipient of that home, one of the problems is that all the way through, all the GST, the HST that it has attracted has to be paid for by the new recipient. When you start to look at the value of the land and the value of all these donations, there's sort of an HST component and it becomes a fairly significant sum of money, and it's one of the problems that Habitat for Humanity would face and maybe you're aware of that. Can you comment on that?

 

MS. BERNARD: I can't comment on it, I wasn't aware of it. I do know that it happens in many other provinces in Canada, a very clear partnership. I don't know if there's a way to address that or not. It wouldn't be something that would be part of the Department of Community Services.

 

MR. LOHR: I wouldn't think it would be. I suspect that it would be a federal issue, almost, the Department of Finance, but I know that it is a big issue for Habitat for Humanity. I would applaud you for working with them.

 

MS. BERNARD: One of my concerns with Habitat for Humanity in Nova Scotia is their capacity. I want to make sure they have the capacity to fulfill the dream that I have for them, so we're meeting with them, I think next week, a preliminary meeting to talk about what that partnership might look like. They don't even know what I'm thinking so we really want to help build capacity within that organization, to be able to do bigger things on a bigger level.

 

MR. LOHR: I would commend you for working with Habitat for Humanity. I have some more questions that maybe we'll get into. I was wondering why your department's estimate for 2013-14 - the budget, I guess, for 2013-14, last year in other words, for most of which I realize you weren't the minister - was nearly $900 million and why the actual for 2014 came in at almost $40 million higher, at $936 million. I'm just wondering where was that in the last year, in 2014, where was that $40 million increase? What happened there?

 

MS. BERNARD: Well $17.5 million of it was actually putting a payment back into the system where there were going to be only 11 payments for the fiscal year by the previous government and I brought that 12^th payment back in, so that's $17.5 million of it. That was done in December.

 

The rest is basically pressures that exist in the department. We're an eligibility department so if you're eligible for the program, you qualify. So that and also tremendous pressures within the services for persons with disabilities, which really have been underfunded for quite a while, had to be right-sized, so those pressures came to a head in December. That's why you see the $40 million increase. It percolated over, it had nowhere to go; it was just going to burst. So that's where that $40 million came from.

 

MR. LOHR: Now I heard you say earlier that you had a goal of one in, one out.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. LOHR: I'm just wondering how those kinds of pressures would jibe with that kind of a goal.

 

MS. BERNARD: It is an ongoing pressure. Is it realistic? Yes, it is, it most definitely is realistic. If 55 people a month are coming on to income assistance, it is not unrealistic to expect the many lovely, dedicated, committed people who work in the employment support sector of DCS to find 55 jobs from one end of this province for 55 labour-ready persons. I think that can be done, and going forward that's the focus that we're going to really concentrate on.

 

MR. LOHR: I would applaud you for that goal. I'm just wondering if you would apply that one in, one out - I'm just asking, would that apply to persons with disabilities too?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, absolutely not.

 

MR. LOHR: All right. I notice that you've budgeted a substantial increase in persons with disabilities, I guess, and you've just sort of, I realize that - well, I think it looks like a $10 million increase. Can you just explain why, if you addressed some of those issues in December, you're still budgeting an increase?

 

MS. BERNARD: For many years that particular - just one second. One of the things that you have to realize with the budget is that we've actually transferred out the Early Childhood Development section. That was a $53.1 million transfer out into the Department of Labour and Advanced Education. We added back the 12^th payment that I talked about - so that was $17.5 million. We had platform commitments, as well, of $6.35 million.

 

MR. LOHR: Could you describe those to me?

 

MS. BERNARD: I can - $4.5 million in new grants to women's centres, transition houses, family resource centres, and second stage housing. We have a $2 million per year sexual assault strategy; $1.5 million investment into SCAP - which is a seniors program; and $300,000 for . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time for this caucus is up. We'll switch over to . . .

 

MR. LOHR: I just wanted to say - I know the mike is off - thank you for your answers.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The NDP caucus has one hour.

 

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

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I want to continue - I talked earlier about initiatives that we brought forth as an NDP Government in a short period of time. One of them, as you're aware of, is the transformation for people with disabilities and the 10-year road map. I'm sure you know how it - a lot of work to get to that point.

 

One of the approaches that was very necessary in that department - and I know that you will continue that approach in a restorative manner - was to bring all the players to the table, even individuals in organization sectors that never talked before. It was really quite uncomfortable for a while, but staff were very good. Originally there was some resistance because it was never a way that business was done in the department so it took a little bit of convincing for staff too.

 

I'm really proud of the staff and everybody who sat around that table because there were really hard discussions, and there will be in the future too. For those who do not know, you have individuals who are very pro to move towards community options, and then you also have those who are representing the larger institutions. You have to be very careful with respect to people feeling that their jobs will be lost and so it has to be worked out together. My question with respect to that is, has your government made the same commitment as our Premier did and I did as minister to deinstitutionalize?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. One of the platform commitments was a continuation of the work that had previously begun under your leadership and under the previous government to stick to the road map, to move that transformation forward. I've talked publicly a number of times about our commitment, and that work is starting. The demonstration projects will be announced within the next two months and that will inform a lot of the work forward with that.

 

This quite clearly - politics aside - is the right thing to do. It is the only way forward to make sure that persons with disabilities in this province have a quality of life that everyone else does, that they deserve, and so this was the way forward. The deputy, Lynn, who was the co-chair at that time, often calls that committee "magical." She calls it magic, because really what you just described is what happened. It was about balancing the needs and the interests of so many, but coming out very quickly and very thoughtfully with a plan that was realistic and doable.

 

I'm trying to duplicate that now with the new accessibility legislation that I'll be tabling in the next two years, but it's difficult. Again, that's work that's right and needs to be done as well.

 

The commitment from the Premier, this minister, the government, is to build on what was started and to see it through. If in four years' time it's another government, we'll be five years into that process and it will be impossible to undo.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much for your support, I really appreciate that. I'm wondering also about the demonstration projects. My understanding is that what you're looking at is - part of that transformation is actually looking at moving towards a system that has individualized funding and has that flexibility because when you look at the reality, sometimes the department is paying even up to $16,000 a month for a person with a disability to be housed, whereas their family may be able to look after their loved one for $6,000 or $8,000 a month.

 

I know you just said it was going to be announced in two months; do you have any more information, like how you're selecting? Is it two families that you're doing?

 

MS. BERNARD: I believe it's two cases. I think the criteria had to be that we were familiar with the cases. Beyond that, I have not seen what the options are going to be but yes, they will be two families. It will showcase what we hope to duplicate in the future.

 

You would know that 67 per cent of persons with disabilities are already in community; it's the 32 per cent that we really need to move towards. I'm sure you would agree, too, it's the right thing to do fiscally, but it's more than that: it's the right thing to do for persons with disabilities.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The challenge in the fiscal part is like anything, that you have to have extra dollars to invest while you're still on the old path but while you're trying to transition, the difficulty is that newer investment until it parallels off.

 

Do you know how long the project will actually be piloted? Are you talking about a year and then you'll review it after a year?

 

MS. BERNARD: The two families or the two cases that we're looking at right now - we actually hope it might be one more - it's going to be so new to what we do now. I know the other caveat is that we really want them to be rural families because as you would know, the need is so much higher in the rural areas; they don't have access to the supports that might be in the larger centres. What you do is you take the hardest cases first and you make that the demonstration project and then you work back from that.

 

I would say probably a year would be generous. I would think that we could inform our work more quickly than a year because I know that they've been working on the criteria for this since last Fall.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Do you know, minister, if out of the families that you select, will they already be in the situation where their loved one is at home and you're just expanding the financial resources, or are you going to be taking some of those very high needs, which are the challenging cases, that are in the more institutionalized settings and seeing if they can go back with their families, because that would actually be the real test?

 

Now whether you want to do your demonstration projects first, before you go there, but that is the real logjam in the system, those that are in the higher level of care.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's not going to be the easy cases, so at the end of the day I'm not going to stand in front of a demonstration project and say this is the way forward when it's just an easy case. It has to be something that has the substance in the challenge so that will inform the work going forward. It will be families that are strong with support but have multiple barriers and challenges.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I wish you the best with that project.

 

MS. BERNARD: Thanks. It will be interesting to see it roll out.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The other thing that I'm wondering about in terms of the road map is - I know that one of the critical crises that exist today is the wait times. I know those individuals who sit around that table on that committee, what their desire . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Excuse me, just one second. Madam Chairman, I can't hear her.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: If the members of the audience could just keep their conversations down a little bit so that the minister can hear the questioning.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: With respect to the wait times that we hear about all the time - I know that the individuals sitting around the table that are facing this challenge and put together the road map, what is really critical for them is to see that there is actual action taking place with community option programs, because that is the ultimate goal: that individuals with disabilities have choices and that they can choose to live in the setting that they prefer.

 

I know you said that there is money set aside in Treasury Board. There hasn't been any discussion about how that is going to be used in the next step, but I'm wondering - I think all the grassroots-level groundwork has been done in terms of small options. We have some very good small options in the province. I know that L'Arche in an instant can open another new small option. I think that they have a desire to open another one here in Halifax, but we also have a need in the rural communities.

 

I'm just wondering, how long do you think it will be before you're able to start looking at that infrastructure we don't have? That is the biggest problem. We have a desire; we know where we need to go. We don't have the bricks and mortar to make that happen. Could you tell me if we might see something in the next year that would be opening several new small options?

 

MS. BERNARD: One of the frustrating things that I face is telling a group of folks who have been waiting forever to be patient. What currently is happening within our department - and I know this work was being done today - is going through the service providers that we have and looking at where they fit in this road map. I think we're just looking at four beds - no more than four persons. That's the goal; we don't want anything larger than a four-person facility. Service providers are now looking within their own structures to see where they fit within this road map.

 

Putting a timeline on the build of new places is difficult. Some of the places don't need to be built; some of them are going back into families and giving them an envelope of money with a suite of services, saying you purchase what you need. Those are going to be cases that are going to be much easier. Ones that have multiple barriers where they actually need to come out of a hospital and go into a smaller facility - those are the ones that are going to take a little longer. Can I give you a timeline today? I cannot - sorry, I wish I could. I hate telling people to be patient, but it really is.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I respect that. I know and I just wanted to have your opinion and insight on this.

 

Another real issue that has to be dealt with, and we always talk about it but we really have to see action, is in terms of our aging parents looking after their aging adult child. The way the system is today is we're in more of a reactive mode than proactive. Therefore, what happens is if there are parents who are elderly and they're having difficulty looking after their adult child and they also want to know if in a year or two they happen to pass away that their child is taken care of, that's not happening in the province. There are a lot of worried parents because the only way we react is if we're in crisis.

 

I knew of a case where the elderly son, the only way he would move up to be able to get into a place close to home to the parents is if he actually tried to commit suicide. That's pretty sad because that puts him in a crisis situation, rather than the parents being proactive and saying to the province look, we can look after Johnny for three more years but we would really like to have him in small options, say in New Glasgow, because that's where we're from. How do you feel you'll tackle that? That is really difficult and it's happening more and more because we're aging.

 

MS. BERNARD: I go back to a conversation I had on the doorstep during the campaign with an elderly couple and she was working on restoring a bureau in her driveway. Her oldest daughter who lived with her was 43 and very challenged with intellectual disabilities and very clearly articulated to me, we're in our 70s, hitting 80, and we're not going to live forever. We're okay now, but we need to know that our child is going to be taken care of. We have 5,200 people in this program right now. That is only going to rise because as you say, the aging. That's why this road map is more crucial.

 

In terms of being reactive, I foresee this department being reactive in the near future, and hopefully being more proactive in changing so that those services are there before they're actually needed - that's going to take a while.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's a good goal to have. It's hard to do but it's the way we have to - there's no question.

 

There was one pilot project that we had initiated at the Bonny Lea Farm and that was aging in place. Also it's not only the families that have their loved ones, it's our service providers who are facing the fact that their clients are aging, and often moving into a senior citizens home can be very traumatic for them when they've essentially lived almost all their life with an organization like Bonny Lea. It's not something that really works well to do that.

 

I'm just wondering, is that project - what they were doing is they were going to do a two-part of this project to look at what the status was today and what they recommend going forward as a service provider through Community Services for people with intellectual challenges and how they would try to approach them also.

 

The other thing, minister, that they're finding is that they need to have more health care services provided as a service provider. Then that's a cost factor, too, but they're dealing with the fact that their participants are older and there are more health concerns. Is that project continuing - do you know?

 

MS. BERNARD: Neither one of us know, so we'll get back to you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, it was just like a little funding project and then they were going to do it in several parts and I haven't heard any more. If it's not established or if it fell off the rails, I'd really recommend it. It wasn't a big, costly project but I think you need almost that kind of pilot project with actually the service providers, too, because they are facing that aging in place and it's becoming very stressful for them.

 

Do you have the numbers of those who are on a wait-list now to get into - and are these for small options? Are these the total wait-lists to get services for housing or is this for people who want to go into a small community option?

 

MS. BERNARD: I think I have all of that. The current situation as of last week: a total of 1,062 individuals on the SPD wait-list requiring a residential support option. Of those individuals, 347 individuals right now are not receiving any supports; 437 are receiving support in their family home; and 278 are receiving other types of residential community supports.

 

So the 347 are the real critical ones that we need to look at. Of those individuals with no supports, 59 are hospital-ready for discharge, and 35 of the 59 require the highest level of support. At the current time there's no capacity in the system to accommodate these folks.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So the wait times, is there an average wait time on the list?

MS. BERNARD: I don't have an average wait time but I can tell you that that number has not changed since I became minister.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Based on that, minister, do you think that you'll try - I know you will try; again, I'm just concerned that it takes time to build the community option homes. They're not going to happen overnight so if you put that factor in, they can't start until they're given the go-ahead to start. You can be looking at even four years down the road from now and you've got those lists.

 

I guess my question is how the department is going to approach this, because really your resolution is trying to - and then part of the problem, as you probably know, is that as soon as you take one person out of a home support situation, there's somebody waiting to go in.

 

MS. BERNARD: And that's how it is right now: it's one in, one out.

 

The work that was done today, there just happened to be an executive meeting today on this very topic: seven projects were green-lighted by service providers to carry forward with their renovations. Some will be ready in a couple of months; some will be ready after that.

 

I know and so you would know and everyone else knows that when you ramp this system up and you ramp the other one down, my biggest concern is the bridge, making sure people aren't lost in that bridge. There was a doctor - and I can't remember his name but he was on CBC about three months ago. He had done some work 20 years ago in Nova Scotia and then came back to read this road map.

 

We're not doing anything different that hasn't been done everywhere else; we're just slow and last at doing it. He talked about the real dangers of moving too quickly so that that bridge was not put in place for folks. When people ask me, I give the worst-case scenario, I say a decade and I'm really hoping that it's going to be half that time.

 

I met with my provincial counterpart in Saskatchewan; back just around Christmas she was in the province. They had done it in four years and they had an institution in Saskatchewan that had between 1,400 and 1,500 residents in one of the largest institutions and they were down to under 100 in four years, doing the exact same thing that we're going to be doing in the next couple of years.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Did she say what the budget amount was to be able to do that transition?

 

MS. BERNARD: She probably did and I probably - yes, I blocked it out. (Laughter)

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It was probably too scary to stay in your head.

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm not sure if she ever did tell me or if I ever asked that because I was so enthralled with the fact that they had done it so quickly and that it was such a success.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: In other parts of the province their deinstitutionalizing didn't work because they moved too fast. Then what happens is that you have quite a large number of those who - people will say, well, you have no institutions but they're on the street because there was nothing available to them, so I do understand.

 

MS. BERNARD: That is my worst fear, as minister, that that bridge - if I do anything right in four years it's to make sure that that bridge is solid.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's great to hear. I know that's why it's so important to have all those players around the table and those individuals who actually work in institutions, so they are actually part of the resolution and don't fear for their jobs, because they know there are opportunities in the transition for them because there's always a concern with that.

 

MS. BERNARD: That doctor's name was Dr. Michael Kendrick.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh, I know him very well.

 

MS. BERNARD: He spoke very highly of the direction the province was going. I listened to his interview and I was so struck by his warnings, basically, of making sure . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Originally when I first came in there was a little bit of fear about Michael Kendrick because he wrote the Kendrick Report 10 years ago . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: He did - which was highly critical.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: . . . and the government of the day didn't do anything about it for 10 years. So he actually - I invited him around the table, the same with Michael Bach - is Michael Bach still involved in your committee, do you know? He's with the research institute in Ontario. He was a key component to - Lynn would know.

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm thinking no - no, we haven't met him.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: A very good resource for you, the same with Michael Kendrick, because he actually has a residence in St. Margarets, in my constituency and he spends a lot of time in Australia. But he's around the world and provides advice on how to move from an institutionalized to a non-institutionalized society.

 

I wanted to talk a little bit about the housing strategy. There was a lot of work, as you know, when we put that together and a lot of consultation. I travelled around the province and we had a lot of good conversations to pull that together. I know there was some criticism at the time that there weren't specific outcomes, but the reason that there wasn't is because part of the strategy was to actually go into the communities afterwards and work with the local municipalities and non-profit organizations and create the targets out of their discussions. It really will come to play what works in say, Windsor, versus what would work in Sydney would be completely different.

 

Are you continuing that train of thought in terms of - I know that there are some major projects that are well underway like the Bloomfield school and there were some announcements when we were in about Truro. I knew there were a lot of little pockets around the province that we wanted to get in and have conversations with the local non-profits and municipalities. Is that still part of the housing strategy?

 

MS. BERNARD: It is, and we've used the strategy as the framework and then the work forward is sort of filling in those hard numbers. Those conversations are happening - they're happening in Dartmouth; they're happening in Cole Harbour. They really happen more in rural communities, as I was saying before, where developers are much more enthusiastic with working with Housing Nova Scotia as a funding partner than they might be in HRM.

 

So yes, those are going forward and I am really encouraging a strong partnership with Habitat for Humanity in trying to leverage the land that Housing Nova Scotia owns with Habitat for Humanity so that we can have new builds on land that we donate and make really good partnerships that are going to be beneficial all the way around.

 

Those many conversations happen, oftentimes without my knowledge, but the mixed income way of building like with Bloomfield is the way of the future for any community in the province, not just for HRM, not for the bigger areas.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know we brought Habitat for Humanity to the table and it's an incredible organization, but I'm wondering for the senior component - because normally, as you know with Habitat for Humanity, they'll involve more younger couples or a younger individual who has the capacity to be able to participate in the build. With respect to rolling out more senior housing under the housing strategy, where does that sit?

 

MS. BERNARD: In the work that I've done in the community - and certainly the work that was done in your consultations - it was mostly single persons, and that went across the board in the demographic of age, so that's what we're looking at. In terms of seniors-only housing, in my estimate we don't have anything on the horizon for just seniors only. We certainly need to fix the seniors housing that we have, but in terms of single persons, it's not specific to age - mixed community.

 

One of the things though that we're on the very bottom level of a partnership with Habitat for Humanity going forward is that if - talking to them about our desire to see if we have five projects going forward, to see one of them specific to a demographic - whether that be a person with a disability or a senior, anything like that. Those conversations can happen and they can be worked into those partnerships.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You'll find - and I know you'll know - especially in the rural community, you have multiple pressures on housing types and the seniors in the rural communities is really in a critical stage as you try to build long-term facilities plus increase programs to allow people to stay in their homes longer, but there are quite a few seniors that actually need a place to live and they want to live in their community, so it's another pressure area.

 

MS. BERNARD: There's one facility. I think it's in Middleton where one side of it is sort of like housing for seniors, and then as they age they move to the other half and it's more supportive. That's perfect.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's a wonderful concept. With the housing strategy, I think it was the first two years that we were in as government that we had the stimulus package from the federal government, so staff were working very diligently - very hard and committed - to use that money because of the 50-50 match. It was important to utilize every cent that was available, and they did. They succeeded in doing that so there was a lot of retrofit and fixing of senior houses and disability issues that they went in and fixed, and built too.

 

I know when you first became minister there was a discussion about finding $60 million, but the $60 million was money that was not being used at that time because we were working very hard to utilize every cent on that 50-50 match. My understanding is that $60 million was going to focus back into the housing strategy. Is that still the same?

 

MS. BERNARD: Partly. It is being used to continue with the maintenance. We have the oldest housing stock in the country.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I don't know how many times I said that.

 

MS. BERNARD: Some of our housing stock is very transitional and others, people stay there for 30 years. There is a real need to divest that account and invest it into upgrades, maintenance, and enhancements of what we currently have, and invest in new housing as well with that money. The provincial part of the DFC has always been spent, and for many governments they've just been putting the federal contribution into that account and it basically sat there. From somebody from the community who has worked in housing for years, it was always - please spend it, please spend it; the need is here, the need is here.

 

So the $4 million that I recently announced in the last couple of weeks will really be the start of the strategic investment across the province. We'll be doing upgrades, taking the politics aside, said to the four housing authorities - here is your opportunity to give me your wish list, what do you want to do? We went where the need was the greatest and we'll have very real and tangible outcomes with that in terms of upgrading and enhancing a housing stock that is really just - I represent Dartmouth North and I have a tremendous amount of public housing stock in Dartmouth North. When I was campaigning or when I've had clients that have moved to public housing from Alice Housing, it's just deplorable in some cases. It's not liveable.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know it's hard when you actually see them. I knew it was important. It's all about the information. The staff worked so hard to make sure that they utilized the stimulus package; that every cent was out of that. That's why that $60 million was there. When we developed the housing strategy, the idea was that we have that $60 million and now we have a new strategy. Don't spend it before you have a strategy. We didn't have to because we had to finalize the buildings of the stimulus money, so it's good to clarify that.

 

Can you tell me, under Housing Nova Scotia, what direction is now being taken with the housing authorities? There was a lot of discussion on what should be done with the housing authorities - what changes maybe should be done - whether it should be one housing authority in the province?

 

MS. BERNARD: It's going to be status quo. Probably the biggest difference is that all of the housing staff will be moving under Housing Nova Scotia. We're in the process now of - and I've pretty much narrowed down what it will be in terms of a governance model. It will not be part of the Department of Community Services anymore. It will be a special operating agency.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So the Nova Scotia housing will actually be separate.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, separate.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Now under your authority though, will you be bringing together - there was going to be a board or an advisory board?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, we'll be announcing that, I would say, by the end of the month. That will bring together stakeholders from the development, the non-profit, and tenants. They will be informing the work on the more governance structure as we move forward, but the quest right now is under Kevin's leadership to really make it a stand-alone, so that as it goes forward it basically will be its own operating agency.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It will be more like a corporation.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: There is a lot in the legislation that could be utilized that was not utilized before if it's set up as its own corporation . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: We have to change the legislation actually.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: With those changes you'll be able to utilize it like a corporation where you're able to do more buys and sells, so you're going to be able to create revenue that wasn't available to you to do before. Do you know what portfolio that's going to sit under?

 

MS. BERNARD: The Minister of Community Services.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So you'll still have that, but you'll have your separate corporation under Housing Nova Scotia.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I want to move along to family resource centres, and I want to thank you for providing funds for family resource centres. You have a long list. Family resource centres was on our list next. I do see family resource centres as playing a key role in your communities when you take a collaborative approach, because they have the knowledge base and they are intertwined with almost everything that goes on in your community. I'm wondering, how many are in the province and what will it break down in terms of the funding that you're giving them and when can they expect it?

 

MS. BERNARD: Those are the three easiest questions that I've had because this is near and dear to my heart. You're right - family resource centres have often been the poor cousin of transition houses and everyone else, and really haven't had a bump in funding in, gosh, a decade. There are 23 family resource centres across the province. The investment was $2 million. I had very different options that were presented to me - three or four. You know that some of them get federal funding.

 

What I wanted to do was I wanted to be fair so each family resource centre, regardless of where they are, is getting a $75,000 bump in funding from this way forward.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm sorry to interrupt - will that be annualized?

 

MS. BERNARD: Annually - every year.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So each centre will be able to count on $75,000 in their annual operating?

 

MS. BERNARD: In addition to their core, yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh, good.

 

MS. BERNARD: One of the reasons I wanted to do it that way, in terms of across the board, is that there are smaller family resource centres, say in New Ross, that get very little funding and have a small core group, but my belief was they could expand. We kept $50,000 of that money to have staff dedicated to working with the smaller ones to help them build capacity, so that we just don't in some cases double their funding and say, go to it. We wanted to work with them so that they could build programs, build outreach, use that money the most effective way they can without being overwhelmed with it - so very pleased to see that.

 

The larger ones that are in Halifax are getting the same amount as the smaller ones in the rural areas, and I thought that was really important. The ones in the urban areas are dynamic and multi-faceted and do extraordinary work, but I really wanted to build the capacity in the smaller ones because the need is there; they just didn't have the funds to meet the need and now they do. They can work with the department to help build the capacity in each one. What was your third question?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: When do you expect them to . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: April 1^st it came through. They all got letters.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So they would have got the funding already?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, they would have had their letters confirming.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's a letter confirming, but when do they actually get the . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Whatever their cycle is. Two payments, like how it usually does for - service providers usually get a bump in April and October. They would have gotten $37,500 right now, and then they'll get another $37,500 in October.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm very pleased with that and the direction that you're taking in terms of also having staff involvement. That will be critical because you probably also know that sometimes when you have non-profit and a board of directors, you never can be guaranteed, so there needs to be accountability there, too, to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are being spent the best way they can. They are organizations that really, truly are a real part of the community and can address - probably through the Department of Community Services - some changes that you're making in the future that you can partner with them. I think that's a really good thing.

 

I just wanted to also talk about the restorative approaches. As you may know, it doesn't look like it in the House, I can tell you that, but I am very pro-restorative approach.

 

MS. BERNARD: You're pointing at me when you say that. (Laughter)

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Restorative approaches are so vitally important. What I'd love to see is that it becomes a way of business of all government departments. I don't know if you know that the Human Rights Commission in Nova Scotia has adopted restorative approaches. It's the first Human Rights Commission in all of Canada that is now operating on a daily basis with the whole philosophy of restorative approaches. That was something that we were bringing to the table, to Community Services and had staff - especially Randy Acker - look at that and be involved. Is that being continued and is Randy at the helm of that?

 

MS. BERNARD: It is. As of today, Randy is seconded to another area to take care of . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Don't lose him too long.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, he's still staying where he's at, but we have Leonard Doiron who has come in and taken over with the restorative practices. I've been able to witness some of that, especially in the central region under Lynn Brogan of the restorative practices that have happened in the Gottingen Street area in her central part there. It is absolutely ongoing. Randy is on the road constantly, taking that from one end of the province to the other, and it's still a commitment of the leadership of the department so it is ongoing.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's really good because as you make changes in the department, it's just so critical. The sort of Catch-22 for a restorative approach is that you can't force it upon people because then you're not restorative, but yet at the same time people can be hesitant in that this is a new way and be a little fearful of it. They have to embrace it to make it happen, but I think the Human Rights Commission is a really good example that we can follow.

 

MS. BERNARD: We have such a new senior management team in terms of Lynn being there less than six months or eight months in her role; Nancy, Dale, and four new executive directors are going into new roles in the coming week. I think it's easier to introduce that when you have the leadership that has embraced it when they come in.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You're very fortunate - you have an extraordinary team around you.

 

I wanted to ask about the youth component in the province and the strategy around youth outreach. One of the directions that we were going was to increase the capacity in the numbers of youth outreach workers. It was sort of the first time this was established in the province - I believe it was eight or nine. What I know is that it was extraordinarily successful because they were working for the Department of Community Services, but yet at the same time, they were out and working with Schools Plus, they were right in the community and the results were very positive. We were hoping to increase those numbers. Where are you with those youth outreach workers?

 

MS. BERNARD: We have not increased those numbers. They're still doing the work in the community that they were before. I find now - and I was talking to Lynn about this about two weeks ago - that they are more imbedded, more attached to community organizations, but there hasn't been an increase in youth workers.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: One of the issues that we struggled with was the 24/7, the homeless issues around youth, the patterns that we've had in the past in the province that did not really work and the sustainability of that pattern. I know we have Phoenix House, which is a fabulous organization but they have a huge capacity to raise funds. I know that SHYFT is one that you did come in and give funding for but it was when one of the things that in discussions with staff beforehand was the issue that when they originally got started is that it's the same old thing as I talked about the day programs: the federal government comes in, gives them money to buy this big, beautiful facility, and then the operational costs become yours as a minister in the province.

 

That was the issue around SHYFT because there were a lot of other services in the community that we wanted a collaborative approach, but each political Party has their own decision and I know that you gave that funding. It almost puts an awkward position now, say, for Roots for Youth and what they're facing, because they're similar but yet they have been in existence, I think, since 2002. My understanding is that they haven't come back to the table for operational dollars. This is sort of like their first crisis, whereas the SHYFT program, they were operational with only three or four months, coming to Community Services several times for operational dollars.

 

We really tried to work hard with their board and they did agree that they wouldn't do the 24/7 and then they kind of reneged on it. I'm just wondering, what is the department going to do now? That's sort of an endorsement to that model in rural Nova Scotia and through advice from the very same staff that you have, it was no, we shouldn't go that route, we have to look at having outreach workers in the community, look at Community Services providing the residential component and all the complications around that. You're kind of in an awkward position now, how are you going to go forward?

 

MS. BERNARD: I was at SHYFT in January for the funding announcement and I was very familiar before I became minister with the wraparound services. I know some of the board members down there; I've known them and worked with them for years. In my opinion, SHYFT was the right thing to do. It's a tri-county community organization. I was able to talk to the young people who had benefited from it, they have wraparound services. It wasn't just a place to rest their head, although that's pivotal. They actually did a lot of holistic work with the kids in terms of employment, counselling, and domestic abuse - all those services that have to go hand in hand, like Phoenix does.

 

I don't mean to giggle but I had never heard of Roots for Youth and I've been in this work for years. When it was brought to my attention just last week at this table - and the reason I don't know about them is because they've never been in crisis, you only hear about the ones that are in crisis. I've made a commitment to go up and tour the facility and also Summer Street - that's in Pictou. I've had the folks who are trying to put together the Morris Street youth shelter, and I'm still not happy with the business plan there because I'm not going to fund a flophouse. I've made that perfectly clear, I'm not going to do it. You said no, I said no, we're on the same page there.

 

I think SHYFT was a political decision and in this instance it was also, in my opinion, the right thing to do. They have considerable - probably more than I've ever seen in a long time - buy-in from the community, from all levels of local government, from other non-profits, from the board of trade, the business community - everyone from every demographic was in that room that day and they had worked months and months and months for that day. So that is an investment that is due to the hard work of their MLA - I'll give Zach Churchill credit when credit is due; he did a tremendous job in highlighting that.

 

I know going forward that that is going to be a successful program and I know it's going to help a lot of kids. I've made a commitment to go up to Pictou and see what kind of program they have there, but up until Friday, I had never heard of it.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you for your honesty on that answer because the difficulty with SHYFT was the 24/7 and the fact that we did a lot in terms of - they were advised not to buy the big Victorian house because of the operational costs. I know the staff were working really hard to develop a model, like you said, the wraparound service, but it wasn't . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Five minutes, Ms. Peterson-Rafuse.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you. So that was really the issue, number one: the department staff recommended no, please don't buy this big Victorian house because the operational costs are going to kill you, which it did; and 24/7 service is very difficult in a rural community and we feel there might be other options there that the department could provide.

 

The wraparound services were wonderful. I visited SHYFT and I totally agree with you that what they were offering is a very good program, and there's another - Split Rock does a fabulous job too. I just bring it forward because I know it was more of a political decision, like you said, but it just sort of creates a little bit of a diversion from the road that I know the department was trying to take in terms of dealing with youth homelessness in the province, because if you now get 10 other places that want to open up in rural Nova Scotia with the same model, the cost factor is going to be really challenging. That's why we were trying to go with the youth outreach model.

 

I'm just wondering, are you developing some type of youth homelessness strategy that fits together so that it's not like a one-off, depending on sort of all over the map? I know it's really difficult.

 

MS. BERNARD: It is and I mean youth homelessness has so many different root causes, from addiction to breakdown in family to domestic violence, so I'm looking at a lot of those causes.

 

Am I going to open up a youth shelter in every corner of the province? No, but I also understand - and we had this discussion today. I developed the Marguerite Centre with federal money and was left holding the bag trying to get sustainability from the province. SHYFT did the same thing; child and youth advocacy, Sea Star is doing the same thing at the IWK. Lots of federal money, but in two years they're going to be looking for sustainability.

 

I stood the line on Morris house because I don't think that's the right solution for that.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I have to agree with you, there's no business model there.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, not at all. But I think for Yarmouth and the work that they do in the tri-county, the work that Phoenix does here, and the work that the Pictou shelter does, you know, these are the most vulnerable - 15 to 18 or 19 years, these are the kids that are being lost right now, trafficked, and everything that goes with that. Concentrating on outreach is extraordinary and the right thing to do but I also come from a place where unless these kids have a safe place to sleep at night, it doesn't matter what wraparound services are available during the day, because what they'll do is they'll go home, they'll witness violence, they'll be beaten, they'll have access to drugs and alcohol, and so all the work you do in those eight hours with that wraparound service goes out the window. So it really is not an easy fix.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It's really a Catch-22 because of the fact that you want to provide the service but you want to have consistency throughout the province, you want to have a kid who lives in Windsor, for example, being able to have a place to sleep, the same as a kid in Yarmouth. That's where it becomes very difficult because of the model - what model you choose and what model you endorse becomes quite a challenge.

 

Is Split Rock still partnering with SHYFT? I know that they were trying to do some but there was some friction there.

 

MS. BERNARD: I think they're working better together, in terms of the services, yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's good to hear. One of the things that we recommended for future reference was that maybe places like SHYFT, if they're in a community that offers a community college and that they have a social services program or a nursing program, perhaps some of the hours for the staff could be part of a co-op with the SHYFT organization; therefore, that would reduce their costs.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: That's your time. We'll switch it over to the Progressive Conservative caucus.

 

The honourable member for Northside-Westmount.

 

MR. EDDIE ORRELL: Thank you. I'm going to continue with the line of questioning that Ms. Peterson-Rafuse was on, talking about SHYFT. I appreciate the honesty when you say it was a political decision but it was the right thing to do. I guess the question was - you said the local MLA there was very persistent and highlighted it really well. So if we do that for a place like Access 808, could we improve our funding? They're doing the same thing with a very, very good program, a place where a person gets counselling, maybe gets out of the cold for a little while, gets a good meal, but they're going to face the same challenges when the federal assistance part of it runs out. If I do highlight that and torture you like Zach tortured the NDP Government last year, would we be able to work toward that a little bit better?

 

MS. BERNARD: Well if you form the government in the next provincial election, you can do that.

 

MR. ORRELL: Okay, that's good.

 

MS. BERNARD: No, as we go forward - and I, of all people, understand the conundrum that happens with these organizations that are funded and started, seed funding by the feds, and then they leave town and the province is left holding the bag. On the flip side of that, a lot of these organizations wouldn't be here today unless the feds came in and actually did that. It's a two-edged sword, so going forward - you know, nobody ever wants to see an organization fail, especially after they've been up and running for a couple of years. This department doesn't want to see any organization fail that is helping vulnerable people and has great outcomes. That's not the business we're in.

 

MR. ORRELL: One question I did have, in questioning earlier this evening we were talking about the $62 million that the federal government sent in on social housing that wasn't used but the provincial portion was used. Is there a separate bank account that money comes to when it comes from the feds, just goes into a separate area, and stays there and doesn't get touched?

 

MS. BERNARD: All the money comes into Housing Nova Scotia; the federal contribution goes into a different account.

 

MR. ORRELL: So there's a whole separate account for that.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: So why wouldn't that money have been used along with some of the provincial money that has been used? I guess my question is: I have a bank and I put $10 of my money in and $10 of your money in and I pull a $10 bill out, how do I know which one is which? So if the money was being spent, I mean to say it was federal money, or were there conditions around how the provincial money was spent? I guess that's my biggest question - the money is there and it's there for a reason, and I commend you for spending some of it already, but if it's there and the need is there, can we spend it as we need?

 

MS. BERNARD: Maybe I should clarify a little bit. The provincial money was always spent; the residual money of the federal contribution wasn't always spent. So since 1997, that residual money has built up to $62 million. Your question why it wasn't spent is something I can't answer, because that's ministers since 1997.

 

MR. ORRELL: I guess my question is, are there restrictions on how that money was to be spent at the time? Maybe there's not now, but at the time were there restrictions on that that maybe wouldn't allow the government of the day to spend that?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, it just has to be spent on social housing. There are no caveats or any type of regulatory things that would have prevented any previous government from spending that money.

 

MR. ORRELL: With the problems we have with social housing and the upkeep and the upgrades, the lack of . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: You're talking to the choir.

 

MR. ORRELL: I know, and that's why I'm asking. I thought there must have been some kind of restriction on the money if it wasn't spent because it just seems ludicrous that we have that kind of money sitting there. I use the analogy of needing a new car. If you have the money there, but you just don't get it and it breaks down on you, all of a sudden it costs a lot more because you have to go buy then - you don't have to get a deal.

 

Anyway, that's great. How much money is that each year that comes from the federal government into that program? If it's built up to $62 million since 1997, is that an average of the same every year, or you said it was declining?

 

MS. BERNARD: When it started in 1997, the biggest amount was $54 million - that was the federal contribution. It has been declining each year so it's different amounts that have been the residual left. By 2034 it will be gone.

 

MR. ORRELL: How much do the feds put into this each year? The declining amount - what would they have gotten this year compared to what they got last year?

 

MS. BERNARD: I have a great little chart, but I don't have it with me. We'll get you the chart. It's easier to explain with the chart. The residual amounts that make up the DFC right now have been $1 million, $2 million, depending on the year that it was. The contribution that is declining, and will be zero by 2034, now sits at about $51 million that we're getting from the feds. We plan to spend all of that. I'm not one for putting it away for a rainy day. I'll get you the chart because it really clearly tells you.

MR. ORRELL: I know in my area we have a wait-list for social housing and some of the buildings - and God bless the staff because they do their best and I commend them on what they do. I've got a lot of good friends who work with community housing in there - repair people, plumbers, or carpenters - and they do a great job. We ask them to get in and look at a place; they get in and fix it, but there are some that are still being repaired or aren't habitable yet for whatever reason. If that money is there and we have a wait-list, can we get to that and get it so that we can get people into housing who need it?

 

MS. BERNARD: That's why I released that $4 million, and then we'll strategically do that again and again and again. There will be a spending of that money to meet that need.

 

MR. ORRELL: Will some of this money - and we've had some great debate over the last two weeks on the efficiency programs and money being spent on upgrades to low-income housing, which I assume would be some social housing as well. Can or will some of that money be used for those efficiency upgrades, or is that not touchable?

 

MS. BERNARD: No. We haven't been in any discussions with the Department of Energy. I don't want any of that money being used for upgrades for Efficiency Nova Scotia.

 

MR. ORRELL: Even if it was to save money in the long run, where the heating would put more money back into your Community Services budget because of the decrease in money spent to live?

 

MS. BERNARD: The money that we can use for DFC we can use for our own - like I know that boilers can be replaced in public housing. The DFC is not going to fund Efficiency Nova Scotia upgrades for low-income housing. Those are two different pots of money, two different programs. I'm not going to use money that can go into social housing upgrades when I know that there's money from Efficiency Nova Scotia that could be doing the same thing - two separate things.

 

MR. ORRELL: My fear is that when they're saying there could be up to 6,000 homes a year with the efficiency program - I think they were going to spend $34 million - they're going to put a limit on the amount that can be spent per home, I think, from what I can understand. If that's the case and all these people decide they need - what are the upgrades going to be?

 

I know if you insulate a home because you're trying to increase the heating efficiency of the home, you can't just insulate three walls because you are out of money and not do the fourth wall, the ceiling, the basement floor, or whatever. I'm just wondering, if that's the case, does that happen? If it's not the case, it's going to be spent on other things.

 

MS. BERNARD: There are programs within our own department that help with insulation and things like that. Those are really questions for Minister Younger, in terms of how they're going to work that out. I haven't had any conversations with him on how they're going to do that.

 

MR. ORRELL: It's my fear that it's not going to get to the people that it needs to get to with the efficiency programs and you have the discretion to use that money, which would be great for some people who are in your own social housing and need it, and I think it's great that you're able to use that and hopefully it will continue.

 

Changing gears a little bit, earlier when you talked about the Bloomfield project, a great idea, a great project . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Just a second, I can't hear.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: If I could just remind those of you who are watching the proceedings, please keep your conversations down so that the minister and the questioner can hear.

 

MR. ORRELL: It's not very many people who ever said they couldn't hear me; that's good to hear.

 

MS. BERNARD: Stop talking - get to the back of the room or outside. I guess I can't be any more blunt than that because I really want to hear. There are always pearls of wisdom that come from Mr. Orrell. (Laughter)

 

MR. ORRELL: The Bloomfield project you are talking about, a great project, I think it will do great for social housing here in the Halifax Regional Municipality area. Are there plans for that type of project in other areas of the province where community services housing is at its greatest need?

 

MS. BERNARD: From your lips to God's ears because if I had my way - and I know the Premier is on the same page as I am - mini Bloomfields would be sprouting up all over the province. This is the way forward for public housing, this is the balance and the way to get away from ghettoization and gentrification. It is the perfect balance for public housing and the way forward, and for helping low-wage earners and medium-wage earners to buy their own homes.

 

So yes, Bloomfield will be the catalyst for this; it will be 478 units, with shovels in the ground next year. This will be the real gem piece of the way forward for public housing in Nova Scotia.

 

MR. ORRELL: Now will all the units that are being constructed there be, I guess what we would call, accessible as far as doorknobs and widths and heights? I guess the biggest thing is if we're going to do this and the need becomes greater in a certain area and the units are already made that way, it will be easier to convert it into a seniors home or another floor into a seniors wing - are all the units going to be accessible, I guess, is my biggest question?

 

MS. BERNARD: Well part of my mandate is to bring in accessibility legislation, of course. There will be a lot of consultation, which is starting very shortly about what the architectural needs will be for the units. There will be extraordinary space for persons with disabilities on every level. Whether every unit will be that way, who knows?

 

Anything that we have built has been built with visitable standards, so that people visiting have access to the places that they're visiting. Like I said before, the very bottom, the storefront areas will be non-profits, small businesses, and maybe government agencies that deal with health or whatever; the bottom tiers will be pure social housing; the middle tiers will be - for lack of better words - "rent to own" for low-income and medium-income folks who wouldn't normally qualify for a mortgage; and then the upper tier, of course, will be market. The market pieces are really what drive the subsidization of the bottom floors in terms of affordability for folks.

 

MR. ORRELL: I know it's a lot cheaper to do it in a construction phase than it is to retrofit. I know if you're buying a three-foot door compared to a two-eight door, there's probably $5 to $10 difference when you're doing construction, but to take out and adjust a wall and make a three-foot door fit in a two-eight hole would be a lot more expensive. I'm just hoping that if that's the case, the building itself then could be used for multi-purpose if - hopefully if - we get to the stage where we don't need as many accessible units or we don't need as many low-income units. Hopefully we'll get to that stage within the province if everything goes the way we'd like to see it go, but we haven't been that successful over the last number of years to have that. If it's done beforehand, it's easier to access and get into it that way.

 

Another thing you mentioned earlier was you were hoping that the people who are leaving the system will match the people coming into the system, meaning that if 55 people leave . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Net zero.

 

MR. ORRELL: Anyway, we're hoping that's the case and we're hoping more people leave than come in. If that's not the case, is there money available for that in case that doesn't happen or is that money you would have to go back to the Treasury Board?

 

MS. BERNARD: Exactly, and that was one of the pressures that we had last year - more people came on than left. It was right-sized in December because it's an eligibility program. If people are eligible you have to say yes. But the focus going forward is really working with folks to attach them to the labour market.

 

MR. ORRELL: Are there specific goals and plans to make that happen or to enable that to happen?

MS. BERNARD: We're developing those goals right now and really working in coordination with the Department of Labour and Advanced Education on more tangible partnerships to make that happen.

 

MR. ORRELL: Hopefully something like the LMA agreement would be one of those initiatives.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: I guess another question I have is, last year Early Childhood Development was taken from the Department of Community Services and put in with the Department of Education portfolio. I see the similarities between the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, but my understanding is that some of the Early Childhood Development would include stuff like child care and other areas - that way that would be as much of the Department of Community Services as the Department of Education, and equally so. Was that a good move to move that from the Department of Community Services to the Department of Education?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes. The only thing that the Department of Community Services has now is the licensing of daycares. It certainly was a move by the previous government but I do support it - moving Early Childhood Development over to the Department of Education. It broadened the continuum of education for kids instead of just school age - looking at the early intervention years. So I don't think that the Department of Community Services should be in the child education field; I think the Department of Education does that quite well. We are in the child protection field, we are in the child care licensing field, but other than that, I think it was an appropriate transfer.

 

MR. ORRELL: We talked a little earlier about funding for things like boys and girls clubs, youth centres, transition homes, transition programs. If there was something - I'll use the Whitney Pier Boys and Girls Club for example. A good friend of mine runs that program and does a great job with it and he has kept statistics to prove that the crime rate has gone down. The children have benefited immensely from different programs and different - they take them camping and they do community projects where they clean up the area, and meals and so on and so forth.

 

I know that Chester has approached me about looking into putting something like that on the Northside and truly having a Cape Breton type of community Boys and Girls Club. If there was a good case for that, a well-put-forth case, could that be looked at in the future? Would it be possible or would there be funding available or could some funding be found available to start something maybe on a smaller scale that could eventually lead into - as I know on the Northside, graffiti and youth crime have been things that are of concern to a lot of small-business owners and homeowners in the area.

 

If this has been proven to be a great deterrent - I think it's something like 60 per cent less crime in that age group - these people are going to turn into adults and hopefully with the right guidance and on the right path, they will go on to be more productive adults than a burden to the system, I guess, for lack of a better term. So if we were able to come up with a good plan, a good business case, could that be considered in the future? I know Chester has been after a lot of people to try to do that and piggyback with the Whitney Pier club.

 

MS. BERNARD: Remember last week when I talked about the review of the discretionary grants to organizations that perhaps weren't meeting outcomes or were just getting cheques because that was the way of doing business? That's exactly why I want to do that review. I know first-hand the great work that all Boys and Girls Clubs do across the province.

 

There's no new money for them this year but after I do that review, they would be at the top of my list. I have a Boys and Girls Club in my riding. There are two in Dartmouth, all three of them have since come under one board of directors.

 

What I can tell you is, put the business plan together. I know what the outcomes are, they're the same for every Boys and Girls Club across the province; they do great work. So when I do that organizational review and I can free up money on organizations that aren't meeting the needs of both their constituents and the department, we can start realigning that money and investing it into organizations that we know work.

 

MR. ORRELL: One other different thing - new, I guess - that we have in our area is on Clifford Street in North Sydney, which is a community housing development. They put a youth centre in there so kids can go there after school. They get help with their homework, they get general computer skills, they get a snack, and they get a place to get out of the cold if their parents aren't home. It's in a low-income housing development. Of course their problem is the same as every other problem: funding. They don't have a funding model as such, but they're raising money all the time and we're pushing for any grants that may come about.

 

I know, for example, at Christmas - Boxing Day - I try to sponsor a dinner for the community - homeless, people who are alone. The first year we had 100 people; last year we had 200-some people. The lady from the youth centre brought her children down who were on the go that day. Some of these children, there were orange things on the plate and they didn't know they were carrots. But the lady was there, the kids were having fun, they're in an environment where they're safe, but funding is a problem. Would the same rules apply if we could . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Is this in our public housing?

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes.

 

MS. BERNARD: Give me the business case - is there space right now in our public - there's space, so we've already allocated that space.

MR. ORRELL: You guys are paying for the heat and probably the lights.

 

MS. BERNARD: Put a two-pager together.

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes, that's great, because they don't spend a lot of money. Their biggest thing might be in the summertime if they're going to have a picnic or go on an outing to somewhere, they would spend a little bit of money. But the snack - and I know the lady who runs the program spends a lot of money out of her pocket for some of it. A child might come in and need a new pencil for school and they don't have it there. She'll go and buy a dozen pencils and let the kids use the pencils.

 

It's a great program, it works. One of the community police officers was the guy who started it.

 

MS. BERNARD: That's usually how they're started.

 

MR. ORRELL: After being the community officer he still stayed on, so he'll work a back shift and then he'll go in the daytime and stay with the community officer that's there. So even if it was a small amount of money, a $5,000 or $10,000 grant that they could get each year, it would be absolutely amazing for what they could do. And then again, these kids are the same: they're staying off the street; they realize there's something other than trouble and crime and so on and so forth.

 

MS. BERNARD: Did you say they do fundraising as well?

 

MR. ORRELL: They do some fundraising on their own, yes, like they have a walk. Last year I know just after I was elected they called and asked if they could take five or six of them into my office and ask questions about politics. These are children who didn't know what a carrot was, but they're asking questions about politics because they're reading and they're seeing and they're hearing this in the youth centre.

 

I know it's the same as justice is a big part of that, as well, because they learn right from wrong and it does deter them from going the opposite direction when they get into a situation where they think, what would Ms. Walker think now? I asked a couple of questions like that when they were in my office.

 

MS. BERNARD: Just do up a one or two-pager - how many kids they serve, the outcomes they've had, the activities they do, and measurement - like, you talked about the crime and that . . .

 

MR. ORRELL: They are doing some of that, status and outcomes.

 

MS. BERNARD: . . . and just a small budget, including what their fundraising is and give that to me directly, and I'll give it to Dan.

 

MR. ORRELL: If it's all right, my colleague, the member for Inverness would like to ask a few questions and then I'll come back after that.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Inverness.

 

MR. ALLAN MACASTER: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I do apologize. I hurt my tailbone so I'm trying to avoid sitting because it's painful when I have to get back up.

 

Minister, I wanted to ask you some questions. I had a couple of people in my constituency visit me, they have children with disabilities; they're young adults now. They've paid a lot of attention to the report that was completed, the transformational road map - choices - and I had some questions around that. I know at a recent meeting there was some indication - well from the report there was indication that they would look to try to determine the cost of the transformation, at least for the first two years, but at a recent Public Accounts meeting it was suggested that it wouldn't necessarily be in the budget but it would be funds that would be gated - so they would be performance-based, and I guess the money would flow from a separate appropriation.

 

Can you explain a little bit about how that would work and if that is in the plans for this year?

 

MS. BERNARD: It is. We didn't want to put in an amount for SPD, because quite simply we don't know how much it's going to cost. Once the demonstration projects are well underway and we have measurements and performance, measurements against that and we know how much it's going to cost. We have an understanding with the Treasury Board and Cabinet that we will go and get that money. We simply didn't want it lost in the bureaucracy of DCS. We didn't want it to be able to be spent on something else. We couldn't give the Treasury Board any specific number so there was absolutely no sense in asking for a specific number that we didn't have, so there was an understanding and an agreement that as we move forward we could go and they could gate-keep the money.

 

Mary Jane Hampton is working very closely with the department to cost out the way forward in terms of the road map on every step of the way. The last thing we want to do is not fund it appropriately.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I heard that there was going to be a pilot project with two families from rural areas - that they would take them as cases in point where they would be able to manage their own funds. Is that the type of thing you're doing to try to determine what the . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: That is absolutely part of the transformation of where you have a family that might have someone with physical or intellectual disabilities who are given an envelope of money along with a menu or a suite of services and say, you decide what you need to provide the optimum support for your family member while they're living with you. Does that mean a renovation? Does that mean respite? Does that mean someone who comes in every day and offers care? In terms of cost benefit, it's far more fiscally viable for the province, but aside from that it is simply a better way of care for the person.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I know the current system is seen as costly, at least by way of institutional care. What is the cost for a person in institutional care right now? What would be the annual cost?

 

MS. BERNARD: Anywhere from $140,000 to $250,000, depending on what the level of care is.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So it's about $140,000 to $240,000 per year?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, if you want to do an average, you can average about $175,000, depending on the level of care. It is extraordinarily expensive.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So with the pilot project - I know there are different costs involved, but I suppose if you were looking at those numbers, you wouldn't be looking at any more than $0.5 million per year and probably a lot less for those two families that will be identified.

 

MS. BERNARD: It really depends because if you have someone now who is in an institution that's costing $16,000 per month, they may be able to live in their home with supports and renovations or enhancements or services coming in for half of that - or for less than half of that. So what it does is it really provides a lot of flexibility - both budgetary and also in choice.

 

MR. MACMASTER: What steps have you taken to make sure that you continue to phase out the large institutions in favour of more in-home based care? What are some of the steps that you'll be taking to ensure that investments don't continue to be made in the institutions if you're looking at moving away from them?

 

MS. BERNARD: Well today the senior executive team actually met with a lot of - not met with, but looked at the business plans of a lot of service providers and looked at the enhancements that they want to make within their areas. We're looking at smaller options - no more than four-person facilities - so if there are rehabilitation centres that want to build an extra wing or if there are larger small options that want to add on, we're not funding that. That is completely not happening. So that is one way.

 

These organizations also have to be given time to get in line with the transformation of the department. So they have to make decisions on their operational plans going forward of how they're going to fit, because we simply will not be putting people into facilities that are more than four persons.

 

I just want to clarify, I've been told that there are some cases in this province where it's over $300,000 per person per year for institutionalized care, which is - I've just been told that there is one that's up to $0.5 million for one person. That's a lot of care.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That's unbelievable. Is there an acknowledgement that the sooner you advance the plan, the sooner you can start to serve more people because I think there's about 1,000 people on the waiting list?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, 1,062.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I know the plan originally is to shoot for 10 years, I think, or that's what was recommended in the report.

 

MS. BERNARD: That's my worst-case scenario; I would like to get that done in half the time. But as I said before, I'm telling a demographic of families who have waited a long time, please be patient. None of us want to do this fast, we want to do it right. We want to make sure that as we ramp up one system and ramp down the other that the bridge is solid, so that nobody is lost in the cracks. That is crucial for us.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Have you experienced any resistance thus far with the idea of moving away from the institutional model?

 

MS. BERNARD: As minister, no; as department, no. Maybe the institutions aren't - truly, it has been the other way around. It has been please do this, please go forward, please continue the work so I'm going to categorically say no - if there has been, it certainly has been kept from me.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Will you continue to consult with the group that developed the road map in the "choices" report?

 

MS. BERNARD: They're still meeting, yes. That's still a working group.

 

MR. MACMASTER: And is that something that's - are there regular meetings or is it just sort of an as-needed basis, when you need to consult?

 

MS. BERNARD: I think they're meeting at least five times a year. I know when I first became minister I met with them within the first - they were my first meeting and they met two weeks ago and they're due to meet again in June, so that is an ongoing working committee of those folks.

 

MR. MACMASTER: And what are some of the outcomes? I know we talked a lot about financial - I know we are doing the Budget Estimates - but what are some of the other outcomes, other than financial, that you're hoping to see happen by moving away from the institutional model?

 

MS. BERNARD: That persons with disabilities have a quality of life that is their choice, that families are supported in providing the care that they choose to provide, and that there is a one-access for folks. Institutionalized care doesn't provide the best health, psychological, any type of outcome, as opposed to a person being in their community, being in their home, being with their family, being around people who love them.

 

The hugest by-product out of all of this will be the better health outcomes for persons with disability and the fact that they will get to choose and deserve to choose the type of care that they have in their lives.

 

MR. MACMASTER: One other question. If there are people in institutional care now who would like to move away from that, and keeping in mind I know the pilot program was really only for two families, but if there are people in institutional care who want to move towards more of an independent approach, is that something your department would entertain?

 

MS. BERNARD: It will all be part of that transformation. I mean the demonstration projects will really be the catalyst for that change. We have to create the capacity in the community for that transformation. It all comes back to patience, making sure that it's done right, that we build the capacity within the department and the service providers to make sure that the level of care that's expected is there.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay, I think I will stop at that. Thank you for your time.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Northside-Westmount.

 

MR. EDDIE ORRELL: I'm going back to a little earlier. We talked about some of the things that need to be looked into case by case instead of just using a general, here's the way it is; you can't because you don't qualify. God bless the people who work in those departments because I don't know if I could do what they do and have someone look me in the eye and not be able to provide the funding for someone who you really know could use it or who you really know who maybe couldn't use it, but are entitled to it because of whatever reasons.

 

I guess my question is, caseworkers have standards to go by. Could we or would it be possible or would it be looked at that maybe the manager in the office would get discretion to be able to - I don't mean overrule - but work with the case manager to see that somebody who may be in dire need or could cost the system a lot more money in the long run if they never did this program? Could that be looked into or would that be something that we could consider?

 

MS. BERNARD: That actually is what's being looked into. The ESIA system is going through a system-wide transformation where policy - I'm not going to say is going to be replaced, but policy is going to make way for using discretion so that caseworkers are going to be able to do their jobs, be empowered to do their job that is going to have the best possible outcome regardless of what the policy says. That's part of the whole approach that we're taking in the transformation of ESIA - taking the paternalistic nature out of the system; streamlining the administrative component of the system, which takes up extraordinary amounts of time for caseworkers as they're chasing receipts or doctors notes or whatever they need to do.

 

That transformation is - that's what one of Nancy's major focuses is in her position: transforming systems within DCS; SPD is one of them and ESIA is the other one. So there are two huge pieces of work that are probably about two to three months old now within the department that will not change overnight, but will change during the course of my mandate.

 

MR. ORRELL: That's good. I'm glad to hear that because it's something that is long overdue. I know the most difficult thing for an MLA is dealing with cases that come into my office because they couldn't or they weren't allowed to. I know when we've dealt with the manager and when we've gone even higher than that and come into the office of the minister, sometimes it changes. It would be a lot easier if we didn't have to go through the other extra steps and would take a lot less time and would save a lot more money and headache for the client and for everyone in the system, which is a great thing because they could spend their time on areas that would require more time and wouldn't take away from the valuable work that they do.

 

MS. BERNARD: Not only that, it's dehumanizing for a lot of people. I met a woman during the campaign who is confined to a wheelchair, and she said to me, do you know what it's like to have to go to my doctor every year to get a note that tells my caseworker I'm never going to get up and walk so that I can get whatever I need from my caseworker? That is offensive. That is what needs to change within this system.

 

So you've got a caseworker who is probably sitting there thinking - I can't believe I have to ask this person for this note, but this policy says I have to. That's what we want to change.

 

MR. ORRELL: One of the other cases I had just after taking my office was a young lady who came into my office who was accepted into a - and it was an Employment Nova Scotia issue as much as it was a Community Services issue. She was accepted into a nursing program, looked for funding from Employment Nova Scotia that was there, it was available, but they told her that because she wasn't on income assistance, it wasn't going to be available and to wait until next year. If she went into the system they would pay for her program, pay for expenses, plus give her - and she didn't want that, she just wanted to get the funding. And we went to the local level and with the threat - not a threat as such, I'm not one of those people. I just said listen, if I don't get success here, I'm going to go above your head and talk to someone with a little more power.

 

Of course they found a program and the lady went through school, never to be on income assistance again, so it was a good thing for her. So I'm glad to see that that's going to be looked into.

 

MS. BERNARD: On the flip side of that, then we have the 4 per cent to 6 per cent of chronic, chronic abusers of any system - it's not just of DCS, it's of any system.

 

MR. ORRELL: But in saying that, with the discretion of the caseworker and/or the manager, if it's a program that they want to take that's not going to yield them a benefit or yield the system a benefit for them or the person themselves, then that's the discretion. I always thought there might be something like - especially with Employment Nova Scotia or unemployment, that there could be a contract with a person to say okay, if you want to take a hairdressing course or a barbershop course or a welding course, make sure you research it because when you get that course, if there's no jobs, then you may not be able to get back in the system. We're going to pay for you to take it so if there was a contact to say you've researched it, you know there's a job, and at the end of that you will be one of the people who exits the system, then money spent while they're in education would be well spent because they would never be back into the system again.

 

I just think that something like that would be a great idea because that would give the person not just to take a course for the sake of taking a course and because you needed a little extra money for babysitting or whatever, so that's good that the discretion would be there.

 

Now if I could, I'm just going to go back to a little bit more about stuff from the budget part of it, from the line items. I guess when I left off before, we were talking about the family resource centres and they're going to be equally granted . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: . . . so that they're all going to receive the same amount of money, but no more grants will be available through that program. It will just be a division of money amongst the resource centres that are there. If the resource centre in Yarmouth had an extra program they wanted to run, they would have to apply for other parts of money for that.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes, okay. I guess if you go to Page 5.9 in our budget manual, funding for your head office staff is going to increase by 16.1 per cent this year. Can you give me a reason why that's so high for the head office?

 

MS. BERNARD: What is the title of the page that you are . . .

 

MR. ORRELL: Employment Support Services - Head Office. It's the very first line item there.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's no specific increase in employees - cost of living.

 

MR. ORRELL: It's just cost pressures?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MR. ORRELL: Okay, all right. The same thing under Income Assistance Payments - they're going to increase by more than $12 million. Can you explain why that is the case? Is it the anticipation of a greater need or is it cost pressures as well?

 

MS. BERNARD: It is primarily due to the 12^th payment that was added into the cycle again. That's the primary cost pressure.

 

MR. ORRELL: So that was about $12 million worth. I guess the concerning thing is the growing number of people who need income assistance or employment support. Do we know approximately how many are requiring that in the province? Is there one region that's worse off than other regions?

 

MS. BERNARD: Everybody thought when the EI changes would happen that there would be an influx into our numbers but we actually haven't seen that as a reason why people are going on income assistance. I think we have the highest rate of disability, self-described disability in the country, so I think that's a pressure.

 

Currently, right now, you want to know exactly how many people? Households - 28,759 households, which translates into about 43,751 people.

 

MR. ORRELL: So would all those households be community housing or would that be some people who own their own homes who would be on income assistance - owning their own home, I guess?

 

MS. BERNARD: These are people who are on income assistance regardless of where they live so it wouldn't just be public housing, it would be somebody who could live in Clayton Park, somebody who could live in Yarmouth. The highest rising rate - and correct me if I'm wrong - is single persons right now, specifically with disabilities, people who are having problems attaching to the labour market. That is the highest rate that we are seeing right now.

 

MR. ORRELL: Again, I'll go back to something which is near and dear to my heart for a number of different reasons: the EmployAbility programs throughout the province that are allowing these individuals with disabilities to retrain and receive coaching, I guess, for lack of a better word. They have been doing great jobs getting people with disabilities attached to the labour force. I'm hoping - and we talked about it earlier and you gave me assurances that you're going to do the best you can to make sure that that stuff continues, and I'm glad to hear that.

 

Is there one region more than another region that has a higher level of income assistance, other than EI participation? I know in Cape Breton we have a lot and it's probably to do with the industrialization over the years - the coal mines, the steel plants, and the fishing and forestry people who would be more disabled. Would a higher unemployment region, I guess, be a region of higher income assistance needs?

 

MS. BERNARD: Right now it's the central region, so Halifax County and HRM. Then next to that would be Cape Breton County. That's not you, is it?

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes.

 

MS. BERNARD: Right now in Cape Breton County there are up to 8,500, but in saying that, they also have the highest rate in the province of attaching back to the workforce, so it's a real enigma your area.

 

MR. ORRELL: But we also have the highest unemployment rate and that's why I was asking. I know the gentleman who works in the EmployAbility Partnership in Sydney is getting 60 to 70 individuals with disabilities jobs per year. In an area of high unemployment where Employment Nova Scotia and some of the other able-bodied employment facilities can't do that, I think it's amazing the work they do.

 

For a number of reasons, I'd hate to see that happen because my former job, we used those employment agencies a lot. There's nothing better than to see a person who comes in with a job, compared to sitting home by themselves, not able to, for whatever reason - no income or no money to be able to upgrade themselves and support and so on and so forth.

 

As I say, I'm glad to hear that that's going to be one of the things that we will hopefully keep driving forward and pushing and working with other departments to do that.

 

One of the other things is on Page 1.3 under Ordinary Recoveries. It says they are slated to decrease by more than $10 million this year. Is there a reason for that - that there would be less recovered because of that?

 

MS. BERNARD: Can you go to another question and I'll get back to you on that?

 

MR. ORRELL: Yes. I think I asked this question before, but I'm not 100 per cent sure. The Field Offices Administration budget on Page 5.5 is expecting an increase by almost $1 million this year. Can you provide the details as to why that portion of the budget has jumped by that much?

 

MS. BERNARD: Primarily the cost of living.

MR. ORRELL: On Page 5.7, under Maintenance of Children, the budget is increasing by approximately $2.1 million. Can you give me some details on why there's such a great deal more? I'm hoping it's not because . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Part of it - there's different parts of it - the estimate reflects the transfer of legal service billings from the Department of Justice and also the reinstatement of funding for Nexus, which is a youth home. That has been put back into the budget.

 

MR. ORRELL: Would some of that budget have to do with a place in Cape Breton called Talbot House?

 

MS. BERNARD: No, that's not under our jurisdiction anymore. It's under the Department of Health and Wellness, and it has been for about three years.

 

MR. ORRELL: The other thing, I guess, which probably could be a Department of Justice question as well, but I'm hoping . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Well the minister is right across from you so go for it. (Laughter)

 

MR. ORRELL: I wouldn't do that to you, minister. Funding for transition houses and intervention programs is climbing by about $670,000-and-change this year.

 

MS. BERNARD: Cost of living increases plus the $500,000 that was mandated through the campaign.

 

MR. ORRELL: The other thing is, how many women right now are in transition houses in Nova Scotia? It disturbs me to think that there are any there, but knowing that's the case . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: I can't give you the exact number because they change every night, but there are nine transition houses throughout the province. I can tell you that Bryony House runs about 90 per cent. I can tell you that Alice Housing, which is second stage, runs about 95 per cent. Bryony House is the largest, with 24 beds, so they're in the vicinity of 20 to 23 beds per night. Alice Housing has 18 units and they generally have 16 to 17.

 

The other occupancy in the rural areas may not be so much as heads on beds, but their increase in outreach has been incredible over the last couple of years. Their occupancy may run 50 to 60 per cent, but their pressure on services to do outreach has risen extraordinarily over the last couple of years.

 

MR. ORRELL: Would that be because the level of domestic violence has gone up in the province or is there just more awareness and more education?

 

MS. BERNARD: I think there's more reporting, yes.

MR. ORRELL: I guess this may be a strange question, but are there talks ongoing with Justice to see if we can do more to prevent it before it gets to that stage compared to being reactive when it's at that stage? I know the homes themselves are better; the counsellors that are there are fabulous, and hopefully before it gets to the stage where they need to be there they would use those services to try to hopefully prevent violence or whatever from occurring before they have to use the program where they need the shelter, as well, to go with it.

 

I know it's probably one of the hardest things in the world to do for a person in domestic violence - not necessarily a woman, but a man as well - to leave a household where there may be children involved, where there are concerns about what may happen if they leave. I know legally there are challenges that if someone leaves they don't get back. There are all kinds of other programs that arise and problems that arise because of that. Are there talks ongoing with Justice on how we can eliminate or protect or prevent, or anything that goes with that, to maybe get to a stage where we won't need as much?

 

MS. BERNARD: I was part of the 2009 Domestic Violence Prevention Committee, where we put forth the Domestic Violence Action Plan, which was adopted by the previous government in 2009 or 2010. One of the biggest things that came out of that was the Domestic Violence Court Program in Sydney, but there hasn't been a lot of public education and awareness around domestic violence.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: That's your time. Thank you, Mr. Orrell.

 

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

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know before we left off we were talking about if there was a youth strategy and the whole issue of youth homelessness. I'm just wondering - and I know that this was not when you were in government, but I know staff would have this information - can you provide me with the date that SHYFT officially opened back when they first got started?

 

MS. BERNARD: Their capacity to have overnights - April 1^st - just this past couple of weeks.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Prior to that when they first bought the home that they run the services from - I think initially they started as a 24/7 - can staff give you the date for that?

 

MS. BERNARD: From February 2011 to April 2012 they were 24/7.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can staff provide you with the amount that was asked to the Department of Community Services from SHYFT - the first time they asked for dollars and how much that would have been?

 

MS. BERNARD: We don't have that history.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can that be provided? I want to get a sense of how much was actually given to SHYFT prior to the $350,000 investment, because if I recall correctly, there were several asks that they came back and they felt that they would have to close the doors. While we were trying to work out the situation, we made sure that no youth was put at risk so we continued the dollars. That's something that I can be provided with?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The $350,000 that was given recently, is that going to be annualized in the budget?

 

MS. BERNARD: It is, and I just got a note here that the original ask was also $350,000.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The original ask, okay. They didn't get the total $350,000 at that time, but I do know that we provided interim funding. I can't recollect what that was but I know - that's what I'm asking for.

 

MS. BERNARD: You want the funding of the wraparound services?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, like basically, I guess the simplest form is what did the department give to SHYFT, in total, right from the start to January?

 

MS. BERNARD: We'll get that to you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That would be great. Thank you, minister. So this $350,000 now becomes an annual budget item?

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, thank you. So I figure the expectation is that they would be able to operate within that $350,000.

 

MS. BERNARD: There will be an expectation as well that they fundraise. That's my expectation of every non-profit, to have some component within their business plan that if they can't operate within $350,000, they're responsible for making it up.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: For the additional amount.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, absolutely.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm sure they provided you with a business plan. What do they see is their annual cost to operate SHYFT?

 

MS. BERNARD: I have not seen their budget. I just know that in previous budgets that was what the operation had always been. I don't think it's an arbitrary amount, I think it was attached to an operating budget.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So for the $350,000 they didn't provide a business plan and say okay, this is what we're looking at annually it's going to cost?

 

MS. BERNARD: I'm sure the department has their business plan but was it given to me as the minister? No, but I know that it's within the department.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So in the department there is a business plan. Is that public information, since they're requesting public dollars?

 

MS. BERNARD: We'd have to ask them.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you find out? If it is, may I have a . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: And they'll have an annual general report in their first year, an audited report as well.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, thank you. I kind of alluded before that this was sort of the issue that comes - I mean you try to do your best and you have so many requests and I know that it's really difficult and every request there's certainly a large amount of information that's provided that can make the argument for the funding. That's where the challenge is because you get so many requests.

 

So as I talked about before, the difficulty to take a different path when you're trying to go a different strategy that might actually be better - it's almost like taking that Buckley's medicine that you don't want to take; you know it will make you better but you don't want to take it. I'm just a little bit concerned about the funding being consistent across the province for these issues surrounding youth homelessness and youth support.

 

My question is, I understand - and I think that my colleagues brought it up about another organization called Access 808 in Sydney, are you aware of that program?

 

MS. BERNARD: I am. I just also want to reiterate that SHYFT was a platform commitment and so that's part of my mandate and that was non-negotiable. Thankfully I was behind it, I felt that was the right thing to do. I just wanted to make that clear.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I understand.

 

MS. BERNARD: And I talked about the political aspect of it.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I understand, too, that now that that door is open, it's going to be challenging for you.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, it is going to be challenging and I've gotten those asks, and you know what? I'm going to have to say no, and that's part of being a minister. Everybody has the right to put a business plan together and to ask, and this department never wants to see an organization fail and I know that.

 

In terms of youth shelters across the province, it will be up to them to provide the business plan.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: It kind of brings me back to Roots for Youth because of the fact that they have been able to sustain themselves for quite a bit of time. Now they're in a financial crisis, and I understand they just have their executive director so they have lost their staff. This person is trying to maintain the services by staying there himself and that's not going to be sustainable. Certainly it's going to be a pressure. There is going to be a request, like you gave to SHYFT and we're very similar in terms of programming.

 

I know one of the things that is also challenging - and I know you understand - is trying to make sure our province becomes more consistent and fair in terms of programs available throughout because there's a lot of inconsistency. It shouldn't depend on where you live and what kinds of services you get.

 

MS. BERNARD: Speaking as a former executive director, I always find it very offensive when one non-profit says: you've given to them so you have to give to us. It tacitly is almost saying, they don't deserve it but we do. So it really is hard. Homeless shelters across the province that deal with youth should be celebrating the fact that SHYFT is funded and that the youth in the tri-county area of southwest Nova Scotia have a place to sleep at night.

 

We'll go case by case and we don't supply any funding right now for Roots for Youth and that's why I don't know about it, because it's not part of our - but I don't want to see them fail.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Like I said, sitting formerly in your position, that's the difficult part because the system over the years - not your fault - has created that environment where the non-profits have to compete with each other and even in the same sector, just like you said, which is a really difficult situation for the department and yourself. I know you're aware and understand that there are a lot of pressures there that will come down on you because of that.

 

I am a little bit concerned that we make sure that there is some type of strategy for youth. We had started talking about that in the department. Is that something that is on your to-do list? We had started conversations when I was minister and said, we're seeing that there are many more needs and pressures on our youth - everything from the bullying to the homelessness to the economy. Will the department be going forward with a really comprehensive strategy?

 

MS. BERNARD: I think the investment in family resource centres is part of that issue, and certainly the investment in transition houses that have children who go there, and Healing the Bruises with Alice Housing. Those are concrete areas right now in terms of - particularly the investment in family resource centres because they are boots on the ground dealing with families in crisis for the most part, so trying to help families stabilize that so that there is no youth homelessness. That's part of being preventive instead of always being reactive. There is always going to be a component where you're going to have to be reactive because kids have to have a place to stay.

 

In terms of a youth strategy right now, I think we have a lot of important investments that are happening that will look at root causes of why youth are homeless in the first place - everything from mental health to addictions to domestic violence. It's not just DCS that will be part of those conversations.

 

As someone who has been in the community for years, I get really hung up on the word "strategy" because strategies so often can be shelved. I would really like to see tangible investments made, so when I see investments made in non-profit organizations whose largest clientele is actually children and youth, then I know that we're going in the right direction.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I agree with you with the family resource centres. One of the things that I've seen in other parts of the world has been family conferencing centres. It's like the key critical point for anybody in the community. They know that they go there. Hull, England is a good example and it encompasses the restorative approach.

 

So when you live in a community you have one central place that you can go to and it can be designed through the family resource centres because as you know, when we have an issue, we often don't know where to go or how to start to get information. Those family conferencing centres are from birth right to death, in terms of the services they offer. You know immediately if you have an issue with your 6-month-old child or your 96-year-old grandmother, your first point of entry is there. The other departments, like government departments, are part of that, like Justice and Health. It would be wonderful to see us go in that direction. I think that the family resources are the instrumental foundation to grow from in that direction, if that's your choice, as a minister, that you go.

 

I'm also wondering about another organization that was providing 24/7 but as we were trying to change that model, as I mentioned earlier, to have more of the wraparound services and outreach to the youth, is Empire House. There was an agreement with Empire House that we would support them in that transition. Can you give me an update of what has taken place? They have been very patient for a long time about that transition, and has that taken place?

 

MS. BERNARD: Just one second; I just had a briefing on it last week, but four hours and I'm losing it.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I understand, don't worry.

 

MS. BERNARD: Can I get back to you on that?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh, absolutely.

 

MS. BERNARD: It was Lynn and I who had the conversation and she's ill today.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, absolutely, I do understand.

 

MS. BERNARD: We do have a note on it, though. I'll get that to you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, thank you very much. I want to move on to income assistance rates and you probably know that that was very important to us. As an NDP Government we increased it by 23 per cent, which was about $18 million. Even with all that major investment, it still leaves us in the province as one of the lowest in all of Canada for income assistance rates.

 

I'm just wondering - I have to be honest, I was a bit surprised not to see anything in the budget - am I wrong? Did I read the budget wrong? There is no increase in the monthly income assistance rates?

 

MS. BERNARD: There is no increase in the monthly assistance rates. The budget for the overall program has increased by $13.7 million because of the increase in clientele. We're doing the transformation within the ESIA and I, as a former recipient of income assistance, was quite comfortable, as minister, to not raise the rates on scarce resources in which we didn't have until we were at least a year into that transformation.

 

As you know - and your government was mostly responsible for the increases over the last number of years - shelter rates haven't gone up since 2006. We all know what happens with shelter rates when we put them up: it goes into the hands of the landlords.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Every Minister of Community Services has to have that question so I'm going to . . .

 

MS. BERNARD: Go right ahead. Then you talk about rent control. When I was on income assistance and rent control came in, I had to move because my landlord jacked my rent up before rent control came in. I mean there are all kinds of caveats that go with raising the income assistance rates.

 

If you do a cost of living, well cost of living is 2 per cent or 3 per cent so you raise the $255, 2 or 3 per cent, is that going to make a meaningful difference within a budget of someone on income assistance? Absolutely not. For every dollar it's $400,000, so $10 would be $4 million. Any meaningful raise is just not in our budget at this time. Am I happy with that? No. Am I okay for the year, until we look at everything we have within transforming the system? Yes, I can wait.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We had started that transforming of the system and one of the directions that we were looking at - and I'd like to know if that's something that you're also considering or supporting - was to take a different course for those with a disability and split that off. As you know, right now if you have a disability you receive income assistance, although your needs could be greater because of your disability. We felt that it should be a different program because right now often, too - and I'm sure you're aware of this, and this is another question after this one - is for those people who have a brain injury.

 

We do very well in our province to react immediately to the emergency of brain injury. We do a terrible job - if actually anything - for those who are recuperating and then for the rest of their life, if they have to go on income assistance, which is usually the result because they've lost employment. They are required to go to their doctor and their doctor has to write a statement or letter that they have an intellectual disability, which is not the fact.

 

I guess the split in supporting a different program for those with a disability, financially - and I can kind of see that in the 10-year road map plan and the ESIA - are you supporting that split? When do you see that split happening, that you'd almost have two different budgets: one for income assistance and one for those on disability?

 

MS. BERNARD: I do see that split coming. When I look at income assistance right now - and I don't know if you were here earlier, because I'm probably repeating myself to you but I don't want to . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That's okay. I might have been out.

 

MS. BERNARD: In my mind, there are three categories - for lack of a better word - of folks on income assistance. There are the folks who have multiple, multiple barriers that will never be attached to the labour market and need the supports. Then there are the folks who with a few supports - with literacy or whatever, upgrading - can be attached. Then there are the folks like I was when I was on income assistance: job-ready. I made the decision to go to university, but I could have gotten a job because I was job-ready and I had no barriers. I want to focus on these folks, to get them attached, because I would like to take that money and reinvest it into this first group who really, really need the support and need the liveable wage and need the extra income security to live the way that they want to live. We also can't forget the middle and support them as well.

 

So in answer to your question, yes, I do look at that in terms of - I think that will be part of the transformation as we go forward - in looking at the different needs of clients. Persons with disabilities shouldn't be caught up in the paternalist - nobody should be caught up, but specifically persons with disabilities shouldn't have to prove every year that they're not going to get out of a wheelchair or that they're not going to be able to return to work because of a brain injury or provide a receipt because they need extra support for health care.

 

Those are the systems that we want to deconstruct. That's the paternalistic nature we want to remove. So in going forward, that's the goal.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Do you have a time management plan that goes along with these other plans and strategies? I agree - I think you're on the same path, a very good path. The challenge is matching up the finances with each one of those goals that you want to reach. There are so many that are going on at the same time so, for example, if you're looking at, say, a 10-year plan, to be realistic, like you said, it's only fair to tell people to be transparent and not give them the hope that this is going to happen in two years or four years.

 

So you're looking at a 10-year plan and you're seeing all those steps that need to be taken to get there, and we often work on those steps, but then the financial component is not matched up. I'm just wondering if that's more project management - is that in the works? If I ask you, as the minister, what is your 10-year plan and all these components come together, like you have the strategy for those with disabilities, you're dealing with the housing crisis, you're dealing with all those stresses and I'm just wondering, is there going to be a plan that even next year at budget time I can say, minister, do you have a plan that kind of plots the finances with the actual steps that need to be done?

 

MS. BERNARD: Mary Jane Hampton is responsible for providing guidance in the costing structure of what the transformation for SPD will be. There is a team that's committed to that within the department and then there's a team that's committed to the transformation of ESIA.

 

The transformation for SPD is going to be the financial investment that's going to be huge over the next decade. That's where the money is gate-kept with the Treasury Board.

 

In terms of ESIA, do we have a timeline for that transition? Yes, within the next two years.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: When you speak of the money that is put aside for Treasury Board, is there actually an amount that you have estimated - like $50 million or whatever?

 

MS. BERNARD: For SPD?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Yes, is there an amount, like you say there's an amount there, has there been a discussion so they know how much?

 

MS. BERNARD: No. They know it's coming.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: They just know it's coming.

 

MS. BERNARD: Yes, and the platform commitment has been to it, so that's why these demonstration projects are very crucial in helping to inform what the costing is going to be, and that's Mary Jane's responsibility over the next year.

 

We didn't want that money because we simply didn't know how much. We didn't want to over-budget it and we didn't want to under-budget it so it was just much more practical and pragmatic to say to Treasury Board: when we know, you'll know. The agreement is that the money would be released then.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I mentioned about those with brain injuries; is there any work being done? I know we gave some money to help them in terms of educating people because that's one of the issues that people with brain injuries feel that there's not enough of education, that people don't really understand what they go through, what their needs are. It was kind of sad too; they lost their executive director because they didn't have the operational dollars, so they can't advocate on a strong level, and as you know, the squeaky wheel gets - so here we have a group in our society, in our province, that unfortunately does not get the attention it deserves or the funding. I'm just wondering what the department's plans are with those who have a brain injury to try to make a change there.

 

MS. BERNARD: It's case by case. It has not been singled out.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I think the key, minister, the biggest thing is to enable those with brain injuries to have a different type of funding, and I know you're working towards that direction, because I think that is really critical. It's really tough for them to have to go and get a doctor's letter to say they have an intellectual disability and then they're not provided at the support levels that they need, and their support levels are quite different. So it is a group in our society that has unfortunately been left behind. God bless us that it doesn't happen, but any one of us could get in our cars tonight to drive home, get in an accident, and have a brain injury. I know it's another pressure area for you. How much time do I have?

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time for the subcommittee has lapsed. Our time has lapsed for the subcommittee today. I don't want to rush you, Ms. Peterson-Rafuse, you do have more time. We can continue this tomorrow or I can put a motion forward to approve the resolution as read early on.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'd like to continue tomorrow, please and thank you.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We will meet again tomorrow and ask the minister and her staff to be present for subcommittee.

 

We stand adjourned.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:40 p.m.]