MADAM CHAIR: Keeping people on schedule, I think we will start. Good evening. It is very nice to be in Sydney and in Cape Breton. I am Maureen MacDonald, I am the MLA for Halifax-Needham and the chairperson of this committee. Perhaps we will go around the table and each member can introduce themselves, and we will do it this way.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. We may be joined by one or two other members of the committee and if and when that occurs, we will stop for a moment and have them introduce themselves to guests here this evening.
I assume that you have been given the order in which people will be asked to come forward and present to us. The process is really one as informal as we can possibly make it, so people will feel comfortable. If you have written briefs, you may wish to read from them, but you don't have to read from them, as you may just want to summarize the points or speak to particular issues. If you don't have written briefs, that is fine as well. You may just want to come and talk about your concerns and some of the issues or recommendations that you want this committee to hear. At the end of your presentation, members of the committee will either ask you questions, maybe ask you to clarify points you have made, or speak to further issues that you have touched on that they would like to know more about.
That essentially is the process. I think people have been given a fairly limited period of time in some way to speak on what is a very complicated and important issue. Individuals have been asked to speak within a 20 minute time period, and groups that are presenting to confine their remarks to 30 minutes. If at all possible, we are hoping that you will be able to do that so everyone will have a chance to speak.
If there are members out there on those chairs who would like to speak, who haven't been added to the list, it is possible to speak to the committee tonight while we are here, if you would like to do that. Darlene Henry, who is the Clerk of the Committee, who has just come in, will take further names and let us know.
Now, without taking up any more time, I would like to start by asking Glenda McIntyre to come forward please. Okay, the Family Rights Association of Nova Scotia, William O'Neil. He's here, but in the hallway, so we will come back. How about Corinna Dupuis? Lillian MacEachern? Okay, thank you.
I should just say before you start that the select committee is one where everything is recorded in Hansard, just as if we were in the Legislature and this is why we have people from the Legislature, the recording people here, the microphones and what have you. Thank you.
MS. LILLIAN MACEACHERN: Excuse me. You will have to forgive me if I am a little bit nervous. I am not used to public speaking. I am great at talking, but I am not too good in groups like this.
I would first like to say good evening, Madam Chair, guests of the committee, and to the ladies and gentlemen in back. My name is Ms. Lillian MacEachern. I would just like to read over what I have written down here as to how I feel as a recipient of social assistance and just read off what I have and then, if you want to ask me some questions on it, I am a little bit nervous about that, but go ahead.
I am here tonight to give my views on social reform as it relates to individuals receiving social assistance or applying for assistance. I have encountered the social service system and have a few concerns as to the delivery of services and what services are available to whom. I do not find very much uniformity in the system and it is not user-friendly in my opinion. I am aware of cases where policy and regulation were not properly implemented. I feel that the workers delivering the services to the client need to be better trained in their positions and better aware of policy and regulations. There needs to be more uniformity in the system province-wide and also more respect shown to the clients entering the offices at Community Services in any part of this province.
The programs in place at present need to be enhanced and other services offered to both the unemployed, the single parent and also the disabled. The implementation of these programs and the eligibility requirements have to be gone over rigorously and the workers that take the information and okay the client to access the service or enter into the program have to have the knowledge of how to determine eligibility and placement of that client.
The worker is the core of providing any service, and focus should be on having better trained workers who have the proper knowledge of their duties, the programs available and how to implement the services and programs. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. Perhaps we can start and have some questions then. Mr. Muir.
MR. JAMES MUIR: Ms. MacEachern, you mentioned about a program needing to be enhanced. Do you have any specific suggestions about that?
MS. MACEACHERN: Programs being enhanced. I feel there are certain needs that people have, a point in fact - maybe I am not answering your question properly here, Mr. Muir, but I'll do as best as I can on this - I have a case right now, a family member, and I am just giving an example here to you and the committee, he's in hospital and he just found out he has diabetes. He is on social assistance disability for schizophrenia and has been for the past number of years. I found out today the boy will be released from hospital. He's 24 years old. He will be released probably on Friday.
What I am getting at is I feel right now he's in need of an emergency cheque for food as a diabetic. Today we were told that he may have to stay in the hospital for the rest of the month, they're not going to give him an emergency cheque. Now, if he goes home with these special needs, and I feel if anyone has special needs, an emergency cheque should be issued to that person, especially in a condition like this or under circumstances like this. If he goes home, or is dismissed from hospital tomorrow or the next day, within two days that boy will end up back in the hospital. He could end up in a coma and die. He could end up in diabetic shock and that terrifies me. My heart aches for him.
Like so many others in the system - I have been one of them myself - I don't feel that we should have to fight with our social workers and bicker with them and argue with them and go over their heads. They threaten us; they tell us this. We threaten, you know, and then we rebel and bounce back. I know they're only doing their job; they're following orders. They have to go through their superiors, their bosses who, in turn, sometimes you have to go to Halifax and then Halifax refers you back to Sydney. It is like you get the run-around and I feel it is wrong, but in the situation right now that he's in - I wasn't even going to come tonight to speak, I wanted to, I had made arrangements to do so and I have done so - my heart is broken. I don't think anybody understands. The social workers do not understand how I feel.
This young man, if he's in need of an emergency cheque right now for food, special diet food that he has to have that he does not have at home, and they will not provide a cheque for him, it is wrong. He didn't ask to get diabetes.
Madam Chair, they try to make us feel as comfortable as possible, but it is like when you go in their office and you sit down and talk to them and you're trying to explain to them that, okay, this is a diabetic patient we're talking about and then you hear back, well, is he going to have that the rest of his life? Well, I mean I am not that educated, but I know anyone who has diabetes, they are going to have it the rest of their life. Then you're told, well, he may have to stay in the hospital for the rest of the month until his cheque comes in at the end of the month. Rather than give him an emergency cheque, if they keep him in the hospital, it is going to cost approximately $500 to $700 a day in a hospital. The father is all upset. I am on heart medication and everything else, and I am stressed out over this.
I am sure there are a lot of people who are on social assistance and are in the same boat that I am in, that a family member is in right now. This young man has no mother. I am the mother figure in his life and have always been there for him. I have been through hell and high water with this young man, a very fine young man, who hasn't asked for anything from anybody, but it is not his fault that he is sick right now. I feel that there should be a change there for people, if they're in need of an emergency cheque, you should not have to argue with the social worker over a phone and say, well, I am going to go over your head and call Halifax. Then you call Halifax. Some worker says, well, you go back to Sydney and go through them. It is like running around in a vicious circle and then I get stressed out and get sick over the fact that I am getting the run-around.
MADAM CHAIR: Can we see if there is another question?
MS. MACEACHERN: I am sorry, yes, I took pretty long, but it is just that I am upset over it because I have been to the hospital earlier today.
MADAM CHAIR: That's okay, fair enough. It is very stressful. Mr. DeWolfe, do you have a question?
MR. JAMES DEWOLFE: Thank you for coming, Ms. MacEachern. You have identified a concern you had that workers should be better trained and you have had some experience where you feel that the training is lacking perhaps at the front-end delivery to the consumer?
MS. MACEACHERN: Yes, I feel that.
MR. DEWOLFE: In your answer - you may address this too - you've also identified that perhaps respect is lacking in some cases or that you feel that maybe they're not as compassionate, the workers there, as you would like to see. Has that been a general feeling you've had when dealing with Community Services and so on?
MS. MACEACHERN: Yes, sir, absolutely. I have worked most of my life. I am 52 years old, and I have been on social assistance for probably the last 10 years. I do a bit of volunteer work in this community, to give back to this community. That's not bragging; that's just stating that I try and give back to my community if I can help out. However, I find whenever you do contact your social worker about anything - it is not all the social workers, I want to state that clearly - some of them I find are just arrogant. They make you feel like you're down here and they're up here and that is wrong. I am a human being like other social assistance recipients. We should not have to be made to feel less than human and, considering the fact that I live in the number-one-rated country in this world, I expect to be treated fairly. I expect to be treated with dignity, not insults or arrogance, and I think anybody in this room who's on social assistance knows exactly what I am talking about. Thank you.
MR. DEWOLFE: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Pye.
MR. JERRY PYE: Thank you, Madam Chair. First, Ms. MacEachern, I am very pleased that you're here this evening. I am very pleased that, in fact, you found the time to come out. I must say that MLA DeWolfe stole my questions I was going to ask you. One, with respect shown to clients entering the office, and I would hope that you would elaborate a bit more on that if you possibly could, and the other question was, and my question is in response to you implying that the service is not user-friendly - I am wondering if you can elaborate to this committee what you mean by not user-friendly and the lack of respect shown when entering the offices? I would imagine that's the eastern region office that you're talking about?
MS. MACEACHERN: The one here in Cape Breton, yes. By user-friendly, it is when you enter the offices, you sit there and wait as long as you have to, and you know, we'll get to you when we can. I know they're busy; I understand that, but sometimes you're waiting for hours. I have seen people sit in that office up there cry while they're waiting. Some are harassed and this should not be. They are public servants. I am not saying I want to be treated better than anybody else, but I do want to be treated with dignity and I am a human being. I have paid taxes in this province and on my island. I think one thing that I have concerns about entering the office, it is like intimidation sets in and a lot of us feel that. So that makes us a little bit fearful to say anything. I am even fearful to say anything here tonight when I shouldn't be. You know what I mean. It is like . . .
MADAM CHAIR: You're doing very well.
MS. MACEACHERN: . . . I have politicians all around me and I have the honourable Mr. Downe here, you know, and I am thinking, well, I am little old me, but still I am me. I am a person. We are all persons. It is difficult; like I said, I have never gotten up and spoken in front of anybody before. I am very nervous. Right now I am shaking. I don't know if you can sense that or not, but maybe in my voice, and I know some of the questions I am probably not answering the way you would like me to answer them, but I do have Grade 9 education, not much more.
However, I know what's happening in Cape Breton. I have had to deal with it, not with just myself being disabled. I am not disabled to the point where I can't function but, like I said, I am on heart medication. I have degenerative arthritis in the spine. I think the workers could be a little bit more friendly to people coming into the offices. Not all workers are like that. Like I have said before, they're not all like that, but you do have a few that think, well, we're giving you the cheque, you know, we're not giving you anything. You're getting nothing here, go home, don't bother me sort of attitude and I don't think that's the place for it.
People have to show compassion and if you don't have compassion, you have nothing. I am full of compassion for other people. That's why I do my volunteer work with St. John Ambulance. I do what I can do. I work out of an office at Centre 200. I don't do physical work. I do paperwork and I direct other people and assign them to duties and whatever they have to do here on Cape Breton Island. That's my main job there, but I have been there for over five years now. I enjoy what I do. I treat people. I have seen sickness. I have treated it. It makes me feel good about me; it gives me self-esteem. That's something I find when I go to social services, they lack the understanding and they sort of put you in the position where you feel I am down here, but I am not down there. I am up here where she's at or he is, and I think more respect has to be given to the individuals that are on social assistance.
Like I said, I have worked for a number of years. I worked, in fact, for the federal government in this country. I worked for the provincial government in this country, but I have never experienced in the past two weeks alone what I have had to go through with a family member who is sick in a hospital and was told - he's supposed to be released on Friday - he may have to spend another two weeks there because they don't want to give him an emergency cheque and he's a diabetic.
Do I want my nephew to come home, or a family member to come home, no food in the house and find him dead in the bed because he's in a coma or shock from diabetes? No. It's wrong. Treat us with respect and dignity. We deserve that.
Some of these workers have to be told that they have to show us respect. We are not dirt, we are human beings and please treat us that way. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any further questions?
Thank you very much.
MS. MACEACHERN: You're welcome and thank you.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: Madam Chair, before we go on, this lady obviously faces a very urgent personal crisis. Now, I was late and I didn't hear her submission, but I gather what it is. I don't think, though, the Department of Community Services is represented here tonight. We are here to hear representations, but we are not here in the sense of being able to take action, like, immediately. Are you from Sydney?
MS. MACEACHERN: Yes, I am, Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: You are, all right. Well, I will let it go at that. I just wanted to point that out. I mean, if you want me to do something, let me know privately. I don't think this committee is in a position to . . .
MS. MACEACHERN: Oh, no. Sir, I wasn't implying that you would . . .
MR. MACEWAN: I wish it were.
MS. MACEACHERN: You know what I'm saying?
MR. MACEWAN: Yes.
MS. MACEACHERN: Like, I'm saying, it's like I have to fight the whole system in order to get anything done for the family member and I shouldn't have to find myself up against a brick wall . . .
MR. MACEWAN: No.
MS. MACEACHERN: . . . and a young man's life is at stake. No. That's not right, and my heart is broken. I thank you all very much for listening and giving me the opportunity to express my feelings and my views. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much, Ms. MacEachern.
Is Ms. McIntyre here now? Welcome.
MS. GLENDA MCINTYRE: Hello.
MADAM CHAIR: Hello. Go ahead.
MS. MCINTYRE: My name is Glenda McIntyre. I am here on behalf of single, disabled people who are being discriminated against.
I have rented houses for nine years. I was told by social services that I couldn't get a house because I had no children. In two of the houses I rented, I put up with toxic fumes, carbon monoxide poisoning, and I was froze to death with electric heat in the other house that was not insulated at all. Social services would not provide me a place to stay. I am now in a rent-to-own house. My social worker asked me why I needed a place to live. I called Human Rights stating that I am being discriminated against and that they should help me.
Someone that I know who is on a disability had to fight for two years for a wheelchair ramp and an electric wheelchair.
Why is it that people can work and have children, can get free oil while they are in the Cape Breton Regional Housing Authority - along with low rent - meanwhile, single, disabled people are supposed to stay at home with their parents?
I am currently working two hours a day because of bad nerves from staying in the house. My social worker told me to sign a paper releasing information on my bank account. I think it is disgusting that I am getting harassed to sign a paper for working two hours a day. I made an extra pay because of the months that had five day periods. They are deducting $15 for the next year off my cheque; meanwhile, the money I am allowed is lower than the amount that I need. I now have to pay property taxes and water without government help and would like to know how come other people can get government assistance.
I pity anybody that ends up sick and on a disability pension trying to survive on the amount they give us. Thank you for listening and I hope my time was not wasted.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. I am going give people on the panel a chance to ask questions by going around and around, that is the plan.
Ms. Atwell, do you have any questions?
MS. YVONNE ATWELL: On here, you talked about working two hours a week?
MS. MCINTYRE: Two hours a day.
MS. ATWELL: Oh, okay, two hours a day. That is paid work?
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes.
MS. ATWELL: Maybe you could explain to us a little bit. How does that fit into the amount that you receive on social assistance? Is that an add-on or is that integrated into your money?
MS. MCINTYRE: Well, what they do is they deduct $100 off my cheque and 75 per cent off the other amount that I make. I make $308 a month and they give me $543 to live on.
MS. ATWELL: That's in total?
MS. MCINTYRE: No, total all together is $850.
MS. ATWELL: Okay. Thanks.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Montgomery?
MR. LAWRENCE MONTGOMERY: No, I don't have any questions.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: Glenda, do I know you?
MS. MCINTYRE: Oh, yes, you were probably at my door.
MR. MACEWAN: All right, where is your door?
MS. MCINTYRE: It's in New Waterford.
MR. MACEWAN: Yes, what street?
MS. MCINTYRE: My street now is Aylesford Avenue.
MR. MACEWAN: What number?
MS. MCINTYRE: 4244 Aylesford Avenue.
MR. MACEWAN: It is 4244. Now, you're trying to get into Cape Breton Regional Housing, you said?
MS. MCINTYRE: No, I'm not now.
MR. MACEWAN: You're not.
MS. MCINTYRE: I don't need their help any more.
MR. MACEWAN: Okay, good.
MS. MCINTYRE: I'm renting to buy.
MR. MACEWAN: Good, good.
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes.
MR. MACEWAN: All right. Well, I don't know if there is anything else I wanted to ask you, Glenda, but I certainly hope things work out for you. I do.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Pye.
MR. PYE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Glenda, first of all, you indicated that you have a disability, but you did not tell us what your disability is.
MS. MCINTYRE: I am almost totally deaf in one ear; I have two discs deteriorating; scoliosis; I have a bowel problem, bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome. I go to work in pain. I throw my guts up going to work.
MR. PYE: The other question I have for you is that you said that they are deducting $15 off of your allotment that you are allocated for the next year, and is that because they consider you to have an overpayment?
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes.
MR. PYE: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Downe.
HON. DONALD DOWNE: You're working two hours a day?
MS. MCINTYRE: Because I have bad nerves, I couldn't stay in the house any longer or I would lose my mind.
MR. DOWNE: Yes, well, I would probably get to that point sometime in my life too where you kind of get claustrophobic. When you're working, you find that beneficial. Is the goal to try to get into a point where you can, maybe, even work more hours?
MS. MCINTYRE: I can't work any longer than two hours a day.
MR. DOWNE: Just because of the disabilities?
MS. MCINTYRE: Because of my disabilities.
MR. DOWNE: I see. One of the big issues is trying to find a transitional program in Community Services or any program where people that do want to work . . .
MS. MCINTYRE: I want to work, but I can't work eight hours.
MR. DOWNE: Yes, and work toward getting out of the program, that you're not penalized because you do work to the extent . . .
MS. MCINTYRE: Oh, they love doing that and insulting you too.
MR. DOWNE: Yes. What I hear back home - and from the previous speaker - I hear that a lot back home as well, but the comment about, you know, what's the point of going to work because I'm so penalized to work? Why can't you find a program that encourages me wanting to get out to work or, in your capacity, working to the point as far as you can work.
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes.
MR. DOWNE: There are thresholds, but there should be a transitional program there. I think they have been working on trying to find that vehicle. I understand there is a cap, there is only so much they can do, but try to encourage people to get away from the system who, maybe don't need it where you, in your case, do.
I would like to hear your comments about that. What do you think government should be doing in regard to changing the program to allow people some dignity when they do go out to find a job - maybe it's a minimum wage job - but to get them to the point where they want to get away from the system?
MS. MCINTYRE: Well, number one, people who are disabled shouldn't be discriminated against because they have no kids. Number two, to get out to work they shouldn't be cutting their cheques, they should be raising them, you know, like, give them the amount they had and then keep, like, I'm only making $308 and now that I'm renting to buy, I have to pay taxes and water and they don't care. That is the amount I'm allowed because I'm a single, disabled person and that's it. That's the only way . . .
[7:30 p.m.]
MR. DOWNE: So the thresholds aren't high enough?
MS. MCINTYRE: No. That's my maximum, $714 and if I starve, too bad.
MADAM CHAIR: Can I ask you if you were affected by the reduction in social assistance to single people for shelter allowances from $325 a month to $225 a month?
MS. MCINTYRE: No, I think that's the people that have children that are in the housing.
MADAM CHAIR: This was a change that affected single people only.
MS. MCINTYRE: No, I wasn't involved in that.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. I was just wondering.
MS. MCINTYRE: I never heard of it either.
MADAM CHAIR: I have one further question. At the beginning of your presentation, you say that you were told by social services that you couldn't get a house because you had no children. Can you explain that to me a bit more? Were they prepared to assist you with shelter in an apartment or . . .
MS. MCINTYRE: No, they were not.
MADAM CHAIR: So it is a question of no shelter allowance whatsoever.
MS. MCINTYRE: I had shelter allowance, but I couldn't get a government house because I had no children.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay.
MS. MCINTYRE: So it was a discrimination because I'm single. I shouldn't be able to have a house, I should stay with my parents, is what I was told.
MADAM CHAIR: Right. Thank you. That clarifies it. Are there any further questions?
MR. PYE: Just one question. Are you telling me, in Cape Breton or in Sydney, New Waterford, the Glace Bay area, or in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, that there are no subsidized units for disabled individuals?
MS. MCINTYRE: That's right; there are none.
MR. MUIR: What about those with children, Jerry?
MR. PYE: It's obvious those with children. Okay, but single disabled . . .
MS. MCINTYRE: There is no housing whatsoever.
MR. PYE: There are no subsidized units available?
MS. MCINTYRE: No, and we have to pay full rent.
MR. PYE: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Thank you very much.
MR. MACEWAN: I just wonder if I could get one in before you go, Glenda, because I would like you to explain to the people here, you do work, you're allowed to make, is it $100 or $200 a month?
MS. MCINTYRE: I'm allowed to make $100 a month . . .
MR. MACEWAN: It's $100 a month and you're allowed to make it without penalty.
MS. MCINTYRE: . . . and 75 per cent off each dollar.
MR. MACEWAN: Yes. After you make the first $100, the next $100, they slice $75 off your assistance? That's how it works?
MS. MCINTYRE: It's 75 per cent, yes.
MR. MACEWAN: Yes, 75 per cent, all right, okay. Well, I don't think there is much more I can ask. I know this, of course, that those numbers have stayed the same for about 20 years or more. They haven't changed, and 20 years ago $100 was a lot more than it is today.
I just wondered if you could explain to the people here how it works, because it is a point that I've been making before this meeting began - and I'm just trying to use your situation as an illustration of what is wrong - that should be changed. You should be allowed to earn more because if 20 years ago you were allowed to earn $100, today it would be $250 if you just adjusted it.
MS. MCINTYRE: Well, it's $200 if you have children . . .
MR. MACEWAN: Yes, I know that.
MS. MCINTYRE: . . . because they need more than I do. They need more housing, free oil and all kinds of new windows, new doors, you know, but I'm not allowed.
MR. MACEWAN: Okay.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Is there anybody here now from the Family Rights Association of Nova Scotia? William O'Neil?
MR. WILLIAM O'NEIL: Yes.
MADAM CHAIR: Good evening. Any time you want to start.
MR. O'NEIL: Okay, good evening. My name is William O'Neil. I'm the Executive Director of Family Rights Association of Nova Scotia.
I've dealt with a number of cases in relation to Community Services and the providing of assistance to individuals not only in the Cape Breton area, but in other areas of Nova Scotia as well. I am very glad to see that this committee has been struck to look into this issue; it is an issue that I have been dealing with for quite some time now. I have gone through the summer report concerning the improvements and efficiency in the system.
The previous two speakers have identified some of the problems that they have encountered in relation to obtaining funding through these programs. It has been identified here that one of the first problems that has to be dealt with within the system is in fact the front-line workers that are there providing both the services and also the programs in relation to the Department of Community Services.
The very first thing I have run across in dealing with these cases is in fact the lack of knowledge of some of these front-line workers in relation to the different criteria that is being used to determine: eligibility; what the policies are in regard to how much assistance should be provided; who it should be provided to, and what programs and what services are available to the individual in relation to what they do need.
The first area that should be addressed is in fact having the proper training allotted to these individuals so - and I refer to the people who enter into Community Services as clients as opposed to consumers - when these clients come in looking for the service or program that would assist them in relation to their day-to-day living, I think the individual that they approach to have this service provided should have the knowledge of what services are
available, what the regulations are in regard to the funding that is to be made available, and also how to implement the services and how to implement the programs.
Policy and legislation or regulation, I think, is a key issue that needs to be dealt with, and I think there needs to be some recommendations from this committee concerning the workers having the knowledge of the policies, and the knowledge of the regulations concerning the providing of assistance and the providing of programs. Uniformity, I guess, is one of the key things in this. I have handled cases and this organization has handled cases across this province, and that is something that has been identified, the lack of uniformity across this province as to what is available and what isn't available. I have found that even the types of programs or services that are supposed to be available in each and every area of this province is in fact not available in some of those areas.
The other difficulty I have run across in assisting individuals in obtaining assistance or obtaining services or some of the programs across this province is in fact attitude. I have found that a lot of these individuals that I have gone in with, one of the very first things that usually occurs in these cases - when I end up involved in assisting somebody in relation to the difficulties they are having - the very first thing I have met with in each of the different areas is in fact both the front-line worker and the supervisors informing the individuals that I come in to assist in obtaining funding, they have been informed that I was not allowed to be present with them. They were told that if they were going to have any discussions or any meetings with the individual that they had to be alone in those meetings, and that another individual was not allowed in with them.
I don't think that is the policy, and I don't think that is the procedure that should be followed. Some of these people are disadvantaged; some of these people are not aware of the policies and the regulations concerning the funding that is to be allotted to them, and to have somebody there that has this knowledge would be of great benefit to them.
The other difficulty that I have a great deal of concern with is in fact the attitude of some workers, when these clients come in to address their needs, to make them aware of the difficulties they are experiencing, especially in these emergency-type situations. I deal with a number of emergency situations where emergency funding is to be allotted to these people and that emergency funding very seldom occurs. I have had clients who have been told that there is no emergency funding, that that program was dropped, that that program is no longer in existence and if they are looking for any funding, they are going to have to wait until the end of the month or the beginning of the month - whichever the case may be - to have that assistance provided to them.
Again we get back to what I had addressed earlier, uniformity in the system. If there is a policy or regulation there, then those front-line workers should be aware of those policies and regulations. I don't think it is fair that a person would go in, in that type of a situation with an emergency-type situation, difficult circumstances taking place, and not be provided
funding based on the information as long as it could be verified that the information was correct which, at most times, could be verified. I think, with the previous individual who gave a presentation, that was readily identified. A special needs situation concerning - and I will directly relate it to what the individual spoke about - a diabetic and something necessary immediately. That information can be gained quite readily, and a worker could check into that within hours and in fact have something done to alleviate the difficulty.
One of the most crucial things that I think should be looked into is the allotment of emergency funding. You have individuals who go in that do have emergency-type situations. This could be a situation where an individual has possibly just arrived in the area, they have no funding available to them or, as a matter of fact, I will take it a step further than that - and I have dealt with that also - this could in fact be a person who has been involved in a domestic situation where there has been domestic violence and that person has absolutely no funds available to them whatsoever. That person should be able to go to the Department of Community Services and have an emergency amount of funds allotted to them until determinations are made as to what is going to occur with that individual.
I have seen situations also where individuals have received notices concerning payments that have been made to them, and that the payment was classified as an overpayment. They were informed that these monies would be deducted immediately. I think that is a situation that should not be occurring, especially in a situation where you have either a disabled individual or a family where those funds are crucial to them. I think, and I know there are policies in effect that allow the worker to create an overpayment. Most of these types of situations are not one-time situations. It is not a question of this person receiving one block sum of assistance and the following month, they are not going to be there anymore. Usually most of these cases are relatively long term, and the Department of Community Services does have the ability to create an overpayment to deal with that situation.
One of the other situations I deal with quite extensively is in fact individuals who because of, at times through no fault of their own, have an instance occur and they end up receiving a notice that they are eligibility has been cut off. They were left usually with a week or two to be able to take steps to deal with that. I am aware that there is regulation and policy that would allow the Department of Community Services to again create an overpayment in that type of a situation to give that person at least a minimum of a 30 day time-frame to be able to deal with that.
To take a family, especially in the middle of winter, cut off their assistance with virtually no notice, to have no rent available to them, no food available to them, and only a week or two to be able to deal with the situation, I think it is incredulous. I don't think that that family or that individual should be placed in that type of a situation. That person could very well end up out in the street, in a rental-type situation if the landlord does not receive their rent on a specific date, he in fact can give them an eviction notice.
There are things that are occurring within the system that need to be changed. Mr. MacEwan has pointed out something that I had forgotten, and that is, today, in the 1990's, we are still dealing with an allotment of funding that is based on values from at least 20 years ago. I think that is a difficulty also.
The clawbacks and the way clawbacks are dealt with within the Department of Community Services, I think is reprehensible. People are forced to sign agreements if an individual ends up in a situation, especially with an electric heat situation where they run into a bad winter where the weather is extremely cold and their heating bills are somewhat high for that time period, the Department of Community Services forces that individual to sign an agreement - through no fault of their own this has occurred - for a clawback. Those monies are taken back from them month by month by month over a period of time.
You could have another situation where a person is on oil heat and ends up with a break in the line, with a leaky tank, they lose their oil, have to replace it and, again, you are left with the same situation. The Department of Community Services will inform that individual that they would have to sign an agreement if they want that replaced, and they would claw that money back on a monthly basis at so much per month.
I understand that there are situations that do occur that create overpayments. My problem is how those overpayments are determined. In an emergency-type situation such as I have given examples of with the loss of oil, with an extended electric bill for heat, I don't think that could be considered a clawback situation, but if a person ends up with a duplicate cheque - I will use that example - yes, I can understand that. I can understand that being a clawback situation, and a certain amount of that taken back. I do have a little apprehension with that.
This committee should in fact look into: one, uniformity in the system, having it uniform across this province, the policies and guidelines implemented on an equal basis across this province; two, I think this committee should look into the treatment that some of these clients are given when they go into the offices to access the services that are there; three, the programs that are given across Nova Scotia, not in one particular area, but across the province, programs that should be accessible across this province should in fact be implemented across this province; and four, this committee should in fact look into the amounts that are being allotted to individuals, to families across this province, to make those somewhat uniform.
I do realize and understand that there are different standards of living even within this province, that you would not pay the same amount for rents in Cape Breton as you would pay in the Halifax area. That is somewhat different, but there is a formula that could be used to ensure that the amounts for accommodations can be kept at the same level, and when I say the same level, I mean if somebody is using 25 per cent of their income for housing in Cape
Breton, then it would be 25 per cent of the income also in the Halifax area. I think that area should be looked into.
The policies regarding clawbacks and the policies regarding the denial of assistance once a person is determined eligible, I think the policies there need to be reviewed, and that there should be extended time-frames given when an individual is told that they are no longer eligible. I think they should have at least a 30 day time period to be able to deal with the situation. I don't think that any monies should be held back that would jeopardize a family, that would necessitate them either being in the street or living in a shelter until they could determine whether or not their assistance should have been removed from them. I think these are all areas that this committee should look into and also make recommendations for changes.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Mr. Muir, do you have any questions?
MR. MUIR: I just wanted to follow up a little bit. I am not all that familiar with your organization, Mr. MacNeil . . .
MR. O'NEIL: It is O'Neil.
MR. MUIR: I am sorry, O'Neil - and I do have O'Neil written down - I apologize. You talked about being an advocate for clients, and that it is not allowed, or at least you have indicated that it is not allowed. Do you get many people coming to you and requesting you go in, or a representative from your organization or perhaps somebody else to go in with them when they are dealing with the Department of Community Services' personnel?
MR. O'NEIL: That is correct. I was in the Department of Community Services offices in Halifax yesterday to deal with the situation. One of the things that strikes me as coincidental is in fact, in this booklet - in the Rebuilding the System discussion paper - it talks about uniformity. I don't know if it uses the word uniformity, but I sat in an office in Halifax yesterday, an office of the Department of Community Services, with an individual who was informed that their benefits would either be reduced or cut off.
I had requested that the worker involved in this particular matter provide me with some information as to how they arrived at the eligibility for this individual. This individual does have children, but is in somewhat of a difficult situation concerning a custody matter. The individual was receiving family benefits; the individual was transferred over to IA, income assistance. I was informed by the particular worker that we are still working under two systems right now. I did request information regarding policy in relation to what funding would be allotted to this individual and how. They proceeded to pull out a policy to inform me that this was the provincial policy in regard to this particular matter. Upon a closer look,
I discovered that the person was using a regional municipality policy manual as opposed to a provincial family benefits manual. They quoted a policy in that manual and quoted one part of the policy and neglected to quote the last sentence of the policy, and the last sentence directly related to this particular situation.
My difficulty was, this individual, this worker should have been using the provincial benefits policy manual that I know and am aware that they had full access to. The individual should have been placed on family benefits as opposed to income assistance. This is a single mother with children. Even with the policy that this individual brought to my attention, the policy was quite clear as to what income should be provided and how that income should be provided. The last part of the policy related to majority access under a court order. This individual had court orders giving majority access.
The difficulty was the Department of Community Services did not believe that the person was actually having the physical majority access; that is not a determination for them to make. It is not in the policy. The policy relates directly and solely to what was legally there for that individual under a court order and, under the court order, that person had majority access.
MR. MUIR: I guess you are saying that there are a number of cases where there is no advocate for somebody to help a person in the type of situation that you just outlined that happens too often.
MR. O'NEIL: There are a number of things, and I will go back approximately a year ago, here in Cape Breton, there were a number of single women in this area who were disallowed benefits against regulation, against policy. Those individuals were fortunate because I believe there was a group here that ended up going in and advocating for them and those benefits were reinstated to my knowledge. I am not sure whether they were but to my knowledge I believe they were reinstated.
For any government office to inform any community member, any citizen, that they have to sit in a room alone to have a discussion concerning these types of situations I believe is reprehensible. Anybody has the right to have somebody with them in any discussion and that right, especially in these type of situations, should not be denied to that individual.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. DeWolfe.
MR. DEWOLFE: I just want to say thank you very much for presenting your report to this committee. Many of the concerns that you have have been brought to my office by my constituents. I am delighted to find out that the clients are allowed to have someone with them because that is not the policy in Pictou County and that was brought to my attention just last week by a constituent. Again, I just want to say thank you. I am not asking you a question but I thank you for your information.
MR. O'NEIL: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Pye.
MR. PYE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. O'Neil, I do have some questions for you. Question number one is you have made mention with respect to the attitude of front-line workers and these are individuals within the Community Services Offices. I am wondering, have you ever lodged any complaint to the regional manager with respect to the attitudes of front-line workers?
MR. O'NEIL: Yes, I have.
MR. PYE: And your organization is such that I would imagine that you do keep statistics. You keep statistics on the nature of the service that is being provided by the client?
MR. O'NEIL: That's correct.
MR. PYE: And the number of services and the number of appeals that have gone through your office, do we have access to that kind of information from your organization?
MR. O'NEIL: I usually don't involve myself in appeals or the organization doesn't involve itself in appeals and we don't keep those type of statistics, but as to individuals . . .
MR. PYE: No, no, other statistics as well. There are other statistics relating to Community Services as well?
MR. O'NEIL: Yes.
MR. PYE: It would be interesting to have some information from your organization with respect to, not names but cases that you have dealt with, how they've been handled and so on and, in fact, the number of gains versus the losses. Also the other question is, I am very pleased to see that you made one very clear recommendation and that was an increased allotment to emergency funding, that I am very pleased. You did mention that there is a 30 day time-frame in which, I believe you were talking about the appeal process when you were talking about that, and individuals being cut off. It is my understanding from the Deputy Minister of Community Services that when a person receives notification that they are no longer eligible and they have the 30 day right to appeal that, in fact, their family benefits are not denied, that they continue to get their benefits until such time as the appeal has been heard. Is that incorrect?
MR. O'NEIL: That is incorrect, sir.
MR. PYE: Okay, then we do have that on record. I guess you have made mention of the implementation of program services then and policies. Have you or your organization decided that you would make some recommendations to this committee in writing?
MR. O'NEIL: That is correct, sir.
MR. PYE: Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Montgomery.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just wondering about the cut-off of assistance that you mentioned and without the requirement of the 30 days. Is this a regular occurrence and, if so, how regular would you say that it is, this sort of thing?
MR. O'NEIL: I deal with usually at least one case per month where an individual receives a notice, usually within two weeks of the end of the month, to inform them that they will not be receiving their cheque at the end of the month, two weeks, and that person has to try and figure out what they can do in that two week time-frame. A lot of the cases I have dealt with where the people have gotten this notice that in two weeks their benefits will be cut off, I would say about 80 per cent of the time it is the fault of Community Services that it is being cut off. It is through no fault of the individual themselves at all, at the fault of Community Services.
They do have the little clause at the bottom of the notice stating that you can appeal this decision within 30 days. In other words, if you don't appeal the decision within 30 days, you can't appeal it which I don't see this and usually these types of situations are in a courtroom or a judicial proceeding. To have that 30 day time-frame there I think is just incredible. Very few people in lower income situations can even attempt to have an appeal done and especially within a 30 day period. It would be extremely difficult for them to even do that unless there is something in place where that individual has access to a system in doing that appeal.
[8:00 p.m.]
I have canvassed this province on a number of occasions concerning advocacy offices in this province. Every time I have canvassed this province concerning opening an advocacy office to deal with these types of situations as well as other types of situations, I was informed no. I know of many other provinces that do have, in fact, advocacy offices, not only advocacy offices but "advocacy legislation". This is one of the few provinces that does not have it.
I think, again, we go back to the uniformity. I am aware that there are policies regarding the denial of benefits. I am aware that there are certain time-frames and I believe the time-frame is, in fact, 30 days where you can receive a notice but your cheque is not cut
off. You have that month, that 30 day time period, to supply information to the office as to what the difficulties are. Then you can have a notice stating that the following month the benefits could be denied. On top of that there also was a provision within the regulations that allows the Department of Community Services, especially if they have a long-term client, to create an overpayment. It is much more beneficial to create an overpayment and if the situation is proven correct, then they can claw the money back. If it is not correct, fine.
Again, it comes to implementation and uniformity concerning that implementation. I think that one of the key things with these situations is garnering that uniformity across the province, garnering that uniformity with each and every front line worker that deals with the client, that they are aware of the policy, they're aware of the guidelines and they're aware of what to do and how to do it.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. MacEwan.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: Mr. O'Neil is a very passionate and persistent advocate and I think you've seen just a little bit of that here tonight. I agree with most of what he says although he and I on occasion disagree but that's another story. We agree more than we disagree I hope.
Your idea about an advocate service I like. We have it already with the workers' compensation. You know that. There's an office of worker advocates funded by the Department of Labour with professional staff to assist anyone that has problems with workers' compensation and feels they need help.
MR. O'NEIL: Yes.
MR. MACEWAN: Would you be able to explain to this committee something of how these services that are in existence in other provinces operate, who funds them and if they would be in any way comparable to what I have just mentioned for the injured worker?
MR. O'NEIL: None of this has been staged, believe me. Yes, I have done an extensive amount of checking concerning advocacy across this country. Advocacy is in place in almost every province in this country, I believe, except for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. There's an advocacy office, I believe, in New Brunswick. There's an advocacy office in Quebec. There's an advocacy office in Ontario. I am not sure about Manitoba but Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, these offices are in place. Most of the offices are funded, I shouldn't say most of them, all of these offices are, in fact, funded provincially.
In three of the provinces they actually have advocacy legislation. As a matter of fact, I do have a copy of the advocacy legislation concerning the Province of British Columbia, I believe it is. Most of the services provided in those offices directly relate to children. Most of these offices are, in fact, child advocacy offices. They deal mostly with child protection, child
custody and access matters but I am aware that they also deal with some other family matters on top of that.
I think it is a necessity that this provincial government ensure that there is an advocacy office in this province, an advocacy office that would deal with family issues, that could deal with issues relating to individuals involved in "Department of Community Services" services that are provided, programs that are provided and it is a necessity that that type of an office be set up in this province.
MR. MACEWAN: Would I be allowed one supplementary question?
MADAM CHAIR: Yes.
MR. MACEWAN: It will be a very short little one. That is the type of thing that this committee could recommend. I mean I guess that's what we're here to do, to hear ideas and if we like them, to recommend them unto government. Now, I feel that one of the worst things and most drastic things that can happen in someone's life is to get a notice and sometimes it doesn't come in written form, very frequently it is a telephone call and sometimes it is just simply the cheque doesn't show up and then you find out afterwards and if somebody was on assistance long-term, like you say, cut off, usually because of suspicion of cohabitation or something of that type.
Now, I think there should be some place that people like that can turn for help. Your organization is there for that purpose. Do you know of any other such services? I know a lot of them, of course, when this type of thing happens, they might come to their MLA. I do more of that type of thing than any other single area of advocacy but nonetheless could you outline to the committee what type of advocacy services now exist in Nova Scotia for those that need help when they get in this kind of a situation and don't know where to turn?
MR. O'NEIL: The only actual organization that I have ever been aware of that does this type of situation, and I am not even sure if it is in existence any more, it was, in fact, in the Halifax area. There was an advocacy office.
MR. MACEWAN: A welfare rights group.
AN HON. MEMBER: The Welfare Rights Organization.
MR. O'NEIL: Yes. I don't know if that's still in existence anymore. I had a great deal of respect for the individual that was running that office. They did a tremendous amount of good work and I am very disheartened now to hear that's not still in place.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Downe, do you have any questions?
MR. DOWNE: Yes. I congratulate you on your presentation and attitude. The education of staff is an issue that seems to be coming around a few times here tonight. One issue, the fact that we have now moved toward a single-tier system vis-à-vis the kind of a mosaic of systems that we had before and every region was treated a little bit different, the benefits were different in Springhill with our provincial and municipal assistance program, do you think the fact that we're moved into a more harmonized system now that there's a better chance that people will be treated more fairly and equitably across the board or do you see that there are certain areas in the province, or offices that you worked through, actually have different approaches to dealing with the concerns of individuals than in other areas? Is it a legislative issue, is it an educational issue, do you see a change in the program that is currently in place now, that it is moving in the right direction, or is it the whole thing should be revamped?
MR. O'NEIL: You just hit the key words, that the system needs to be revamped. Regardless of what has been put in place, or what has been in place, no program or service is any better than the person that is providing the service, that is implementing the service. If you're going to put a good program out there, you need good people behind that program to ensure that it is implemented properly. I think that is one of the key issues. We come back to the educational side of it and ensuring that the front line workers, or the individuals that are there to provide the service that has been put in place, has the knowledge of what the service is, who it can be tailored to, and how to implement it. That is one of the very first areas I see lacking with any of the cases I have dealt with and that is you go in to speak with the worker. You can have the same worker or you could have the same client speak with three different workers and be given three different explanations of what a service or what a program is.
MR. DOWNE: What I found in my own area, the worker had so many case files to deal with, it was really quite ridiculous. There have been more people brought into the system I understand throughout Nova Scotia to help alleviate some of the pressure of trying to deal with 300 files, or 300 individuals, or 300 cases, or 600 cases in some instances and I can understand some of their stress that they go through trying to deal with that many cases. I understand there has been a change to that. You haven't seen any effect of that to date? These individuals are humans too. They're not all bad but they're under a lot of stress as well.
MR. O'NEIL: I would never paint everybody in one system as being bad. I have met a lot of good workers. I have met workers who really care about their clients and are trying to do the best for their client. My difficulty is, and I hope you can appreciate that, I, myself, deal with a great many cases. I find that if I know what I am doing, if I know how to do it, and I know what I can access for an individual, it makes my job 100 times easier. I can deal with a lot more cases, and I think you could be able to understand this, it is a lot easier to deal with a case that goes smoothly than it is to deal with a case that doesn't.
MR. DOWNE: Well put. The last question, if I can, just on the clawback, you were talking about the clawback program on the overpayment and how to make that transition. If I understood it correctly, if somebody was overpaid, the process that currently is there doesn't work, in your view, to be fair?
MR. O'NEIL: That is correct.
MR. DOWNE: In regard to how to deal with that if there has been an overpayment and there's an appeal to that overpayment, or whatever, your recommendation of change to that is what?
MR. O'NEIL: There need to be clear guidelines concerning what can and can't be clawed back. That's the very first thing.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. In the interest of time, I know we could probably ask you many more questions but we have more presenters. Thank you very much.
MR. O'NEIL: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Is Corinna Dupuis here? The Schizophrenia Association, Joe Bruce and Ralph Ferguson.
MR. JOSEPH BRUCE: Madam Chair, gentlemen, I am going to read this brief because it is a heck of a lot easier to read it. We have four major points that we would like to bring forward and if there are any questions, you can ask after. The report emphasizes the importance of getting people back to work. For people with schizophrenia, the nature of the illness is such that people with schizophrenia are vulnerable to a relapse when under stress. Many would like to work but are able to return to the workforce only gradually and when they're stabilized and frequently can only cope with part-time employment. Social assistance programs must be flexible enough to ensure that those working part time do not risk losing assistance, especially Pharmacare coverage. Schizophrenia is usually a lifetime disability. For this reason we believe that the Family Benefits Program should continue to have specific criteria for people with this disability recognizing their complex and long-term needs. Do you want to read number two?
MR. RALPH FERGUSON: A second point we would like to bring is this, that families are already bearing a substantial burden in caring for their relatives with schizophrenia. Roughly 60 per cent of people with this illness live with a family member who is also their primary caregiver. They do this without benefit of any available respite programs and frequently with no access to counselling or financial assistance for themselves when the demands affect their own well-being.
Also being the primary caregiver distorts the natural supportive relationship of the family to the person who is disabled and affects the quality of life of the whole family. It is particularly stressful for elderly parents caring for a middle-aged son or daughter who has been dependent upon them for years. They wonder, what will happen when we are gone.
MR. BRUCE: Item 3, we believe that people with mental or physical disabilities that make them unlikely to find full-time employment should be provided with an individualized level of support targeted to their specific needs. These might include a need for daily living skills, recreation or social opportunities and the best treatment available. What is required are trained caseworkers with more manageable caseloads, identifying those most in need and connecting them to appropriate resources. Person who are mentally disabled who are living with their families must not be forgotten. Unpaid family caregivers who are themselves under financial and emotional distress also need help.
MR. FERGUSON: The fourth point we would like to bring to the panel, in the summary of the report, it is stated, "A clear message imparted by community agencies is their need for stable funding. The government has to determine what support mechanisms they want in place and what agencies are best prepared to provide those, and adequately fund them. Otherwise, agencies' time is taken up with fundraising efforts that detract staff from what they should be doing: helping the clients".
MR. BRUCE: That is our brief.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. I am going to start down here with Ms. Atwell.
MS. ATWELL: Thank you very much for your presentation. I guess maybe there are a couple of things that you could explain a little more clearly. Those individuals living with family members, are they themselves on benefits or are their families expected to take care of them? Do they have drug plans and that sort of thing?
MR. BRUCE: Like we said, 60 per cent of all the people with schizophrenia, statistically it says, one in 100 in the world are afflicted with schizophrenia, 42 million. I understand the last census that was taken in Nova Scotia, there is 900,000, so there is 9,000 afflicted with schizophrenia, and really you have to multiply that by three, a mom and a dad and at least one sibling. I would say in 50 per cent of the cases, there are no benefits involved. If there are no benefits, I would say 90 per cent, or a great number of people, with this illness smoke a lot. This is a terrible expense on the families.
I always maintained that, not only for people with schizophrenia, but what we have been listening to tonight, the money should follow the person, not the person try to follow the money.
MS. ATWELL: I just have one more question. Those who are capable of working part time that you also mentioned, are there no benefits or are benefits cut or is there any support in terms of assisting with medication and that sort of thing? People who work part time.
MR. BRUCE: I can relate to one person who was employed by one of the larger banks to do filing or envelope stuffing or whatever, and it was more or less, I guess, on a contract basis for about three months, and he reported this to social services. His funds were cut, and they won't return them, because he is capable of working. This is what they are saying. He has to go in and give up his apartment and move in with his parents, who are 73 and 75 years old. Like I say here again, the money should follow the person. If he made $300 a month, and he was on benefits for $800, why shouldn't the $500 continue on while he is working. It is building his esteem up, it is helping him in rehabilitation.
MS. ATWELL: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Montgomery.
MR. MONTGOMERY: No questions. I just wanted to emphasize my support for the idea that individualized programs based on the person's need would be the requirement in that case. I would support that, certainly.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: Ralph, I want to pursue further this matter that you have raised of people who are on family benefits, disabled people not being permitted to, even on a short-term experimental basis, work. As an advocate, I am sure you are familiar with the Canada Pension program. I wonder if you could compare the approach that Canada Pension takes to this same situation with their long-term disabled clients, where they are permitted to work on an experimental basis for a number of days, weeks. You tell us about it, just so we can make that comparison.
MR. FERGUSON: I believe when a client or a patient is able to work, and if they are able to qualify for the Canada Pension disability benefits, which are extremely difficult to access . . .
MR. MACEWAN: They are hard to get, but they can be got.
MR. FERGUSON: Yes. You must be persistent, you must have a good medical doctor to back you up, and you must not give up.
MR. MACEWAN: Yes. That is right.
MR. FERGUSON: Many people who deserve them, do not get those benefits.
MR. MACEWAN: That is right. I agree. Once you get them, tell me about that. When you get an opportunity to go back to work on an experimental basis to see if you can do it, they will let you do it, Canada Pension will. Do you know about that?
MR. FERGUSON: No. I am not too clear on that policy.
MR. MACEWAN: All right. You are not either, Ralph? All right. Well, I can advise the committee myself. I just thought you men would want to make that comparison, because in actual fact, Canada Pension would permit a disabled person to go to work on a trial basis to see if they could do it. If they work, my belief is 30 days, I haven't looked this up, it is either 30 or 60 days, on the 30th day, then they are considered able to work on a full-time basis. But if they work up to the 29th day and then say, I can't do it, they are permitted to work those 29 days without loss of disability benefits. That is how another program handles this type of situation. It might be a useful benchmark to compare with.
MR. BRUCE: If they did manage to work 31 days, would their benefits then be cut?
MR. MACEWAN: Yes, they would, but they would have the knowledge that if they did that, they would lose their benefits, and during that 30 day period, they would have opportunity to reflect each day on what they were doing, and if they wanted to go that route.
MR. BRUCE: But on the 32nd day, if they had a psychotic episode and could no longer work, they would have no benefits.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, I can't speak for Canada Pension, Joe. I would presume that if there was a new development, such as you have just mentioned, that they would take that into account. I am just saying that in the normal course of events, this is their policy. It strikes me as, I am not saying enlightened, but it gives a person more of a chance than the idea that if you take a single day's work, God help you. That is pretty drastic.
MR. BRUCE: Yes. You are right. I agree. It is an opportunity.
MADAM CHAIR: If I might, I have a question I would like to ask. You began your presentation by saying that you found the Department of Community Services discussion paper has placed a fair amount of emphasis, if not the predominant emphasis, on getting people back to work. I am wondering if you could comment on whether or not you saw in the discussion paper any public policy direction that spoke to people who would not be able to get into the labour force. Is there any recognition of that in the discussion document from your reading of it? You didn't see anything. Okay.
MR. BRUCE: Maybe I missed it or whatever. But no, I read it about four or five times and I didn't see anything. We got the assistance of our executive director to go over it half a dozen times as well.
MADAM CHAIR: Yes. I guess then, given that Nova Scotia is the province with the highest number of persons with disabilities of any Canadian province, then that would be probably fair to say that it is extraordinarily short-sighted or an oversight that that isn't included in that discussion document. Is that fair?
MR. BRUCE: Yes. Because it is very rare that somebody with this illness can go back to work on a 40-hour week sort of thing.
MADAM CHAIR: Yes. Although I don't know the statistics today, but certainly in the past, the vast majority, more than 60 per cent of persons in receipt of social assistance in Nova Scotia were persons with disabilities. This as well would suggest that it is an important area to address in terms of any social welfare reform, doesn't it?
MR. BRUCE: In some cases, it is a case of survival, really, yes.
MADAM CHAIR: Yes, thank you. Mr. Muir?
MR. MUIR: Thank you, Madam Chair. I found your presentation very interesting and very helpful for me.
Ralph, I believe one of the points that you mentioned is that the government must decide what agencies it will support and fund them. Could you just clarify that a little bit more for me?
MR. FERGUSON: Thinking that most of the caregiving now is done by family members, friends, private individuals and so forth, the government should pinpoint, through social services or through grants to organizations such as ours, the Schizophrenia Society of Nova Scotia, to deliver programs through volunteers who save the government and the taxpayers untold amounts of money when it comes down to dollars and cents. However, if the provincial government can see its way clear to increase grants to agencies such as ours, I am sure it can do much good.
MR. MUIR: Yes, you had indicated that an awful lot of time for a good many support agencies, whether it is for schizophrenia or some place else spend a lot of their efforts in fund-raising, rather than providing a service to the people who they are intended to.
MR. FERGUSON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. MUIR: I think that whole issue is something that we, as a committee, have to consider, not only in the case of the people for whom you are providing representation but right across. This idea of grants to agencies that do a lot of work, that if it wasn't done by these volunteer groups - for example, when Mr. O'Neil was here, his group would certainly
fall into that category. That is an issue that we are going to, I think, have to address. Thank you for raising it.
MR. BRUCE: Maybe to further respond to that, over the years we have, as caregivers, made presentations to jails, the correctional centre, Marconi Campus, UCCB, high schools, police, RCMP. We are trying to get a partnership program together with a person with the illness, a caregiver and a professional person to go out and speak, to try and increase the awareness and lower the stigma. We have been doing this for a good number of years.
We also provide what we call survival kits. If somebody is diagnosed with the illness and the caregiver calls us, we will mail - I have mailed caregiver kits to Newfoundland, everywhere. We are providing, I think, a useful service for caregivers.
MR. MUIR: I just wanted to follow up a question. You folks are representing the local group. Do you think that it is likely that we will receive representation or presentations from other members of the Schizophrenia Association? You're part of our province-wide network, I guess that is really my question?
MR. BRUCE: Yes, Ralph is the President of the Schizophrenia Society, the Cape Breton Branch and I am the President of the Schizophrenia Society of Nova Scotia, all of Nova Scotia.
MR. MUIR: Okay, so you are representing provincial?
MR. BRUCE: Yes, and I'm sure, as you go around the province, you are going to get more of our people.
MR. MUIR: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. DeWolfe.
MR. DEWOLFE: I have no questions at this time, thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Pye.
MR. PYE: Madam Chair, I just want to make it clear, we are not all as well-informed as we should be. I want to make it clear that I understand, a person who is suffering from schizophrenia is a person who has a neurological, psychological disorder, right?
MR. BRUCE: That's true, yes.
MR. PYE: Okay. I guess, because of this, there is extreme difficulty in placing them in full-time employment.
The other concern that I have is with respect to, do you believe - and this is a question that I am going to ask you - that governments take advantage of a person who is a primary caregiver, who is, in fact, assisting these individuals who have this disability, simply by not providing sufficient funding so as to allow for respite care, et cetera? I should say?
MR. BRUCE: Yes, it is kind of twofold. Like, my son lives at home. He always has. Fortunately, I am in a financial position where - we are doing okay but there are a lot of families. I am only 39 years old. I was married when I was 9. (Laughter) We are in our 60's. We are getting old and we are concerned that there is no cause and cure for schizophrenia. We are wondering what is going to happen to our son when we go. That is 24 hours - as long as we are awake in the day and the night, we are concerned about this.
[8:30 p.m.]
Like I said when I first started, wouldn't it be wonderful if the money would follow the person and not the person have to follow the money? It would make it so much simpler. They can't have self-esteem. I'm sure my son would like to go out and live in an apartment or try independence - he is 42 years old - but if the money is not there, there is just no way that I can help him, that kind of thing. So, yes, there is a role for the government. It is a two-way street. We have to do our share.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Downe, do you have any questions?
MR. DOWNE: I just compliment you on your presentation and especially, from a provincial level, coming here, the local representative. I would like to delve more into the dollar following the person than the person following the dollar. It is almost like when you provide a grant for businesses, or whoever, they will follow a grant whether they need it or not just to get the grant. It might not be part of the business plan. They will follow the grant. That is a little bit what you are talking about here, I guess.
MR. BRUCE: Yes.
MR. DOWNE: I know the department has been working on some of those initiatives. It is a very complicated process because everybody is a little different and every circumstance is a little bit different but it is worth pursuing, for sure.
MR. BRUCE: Yes, we get a small government grant every year. This year we are going to devise a business plan to see if we can elaborate, plus look for extra funding because we have a lot of services that we should be offering the public and caregivers out there. We ask the question to the people who receive our grant submissions and we go through quite an ordeal. I don't know, it is 18 or 24 pages by the time we finish the grant.
When we make presentations in the field, we ask for a letter of recognition and we pin all this stuff to say, hey, this is what we are doing. We ask the person or the people that receive the grants, do you think we are worthy of the money, the grant that we are getting? They couldn't answer because they don't read it, so this is very disheartening but we are going to make another try at it in October. Thanks for your time.
MADAM CHAIR: The other thing about non-profit groups, they never give up?
MR. BRUCE: No.
MADAM CHAIR: It's a good thing.
MR. BRUCE: You can't eat the whole elephant, you have got to eat him a little piece at a time. (Laughter) I have been eating a little piece for the last 18 years. Thanks for your time.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Our next presentation will be from Molly Maid Franchise, Margaret Dean and Laurie Blanchard.
MS. LAURIE BLANCHARD: My name is Laurie Blanchard. I just have a couple of issues I would like to discuss.
I have been on social assistance for quite a few years, bringing up my sons. In August 1996, I applied for a job at Molly Maid. I would like nothing better than not have to rely on anyone for assistance but that's not possible. I earn approximately $160 a week with Molly Maid. I give a six month review to social assistance of my wages since beginning work. I am told I am allowed $200 a month for a babysitter which isn't possible. You don't get a babysitter for $10 a day.
Then I am deducted a percentage of my earnings which is 75 per cent. Social assistance takes my gross earnings so when I receive my income tax, I will have another overpayment, so they take my gross instead of my net earnings. In my opinion, a person should be able to claim their net and at least keep their income tax without having to give it back.
The issue of Family Allowance, I can't understand the government giving me an increase in my Family Allowance to deduct it one week later from my cheque. One week later it was gone off my cheque. They took the $54 or whatever the increase was, penny for penny.
Another issue. There are women out there like myself who are on social assistance, working, cleaning houses under the table, getting full benefits from their workers. I lost at least $700 a month by taking the job with Molly Maid. I have to be on the road every day, they don't give me money for lunches. Like, the babysitter thing, that is just way out there. So I end up putting in extra. They don't give me enough money to pay my rent, let alone pay a babysitter.
People are probably better off doing things under the table instead of being up front and giving them - every single pay slip I ever had would be deducted until I would, pretty soon, not be able to get anything at all.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
MS. MARGARET DEAN: I'm here tonight to voice my concerns on a very important issue. To me, as an employer, I find it very frustrating to interview and to train potential employees, only to find the worker chosen is on IA or Family Benefits. I have faced the problem on six separate occasions. All but one employee has quit in a very short time.
The reasons range from, not enough to pay a sitter to no money available to go out to work. Most of us realize that we cannot expect to be supported by a government cheque and work but in many situations, jobs on the Island are minimum wage or just above.
Places of business cannot all offer 40 hours a week so if a single parent is lucky enough to strike a job paying on the average of $8.00 an hour for 30 hours a week, that recipient of family benefits is penalized by taking this job, a reduction of 75 per cent of the government cheque.
I have seen it first-hand where a great worker is more or less told they are better off sitting home on social assistance to collect benefits and clean a house once or twice a week for cash. This is just one more way the government is causing the underground economy to flourish and no one wins in that situation.
I have another presentation but it is in writing and a copy is being sent to each one. It is a little too in-depth to go into right now but there is a copy to follow.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. I know it is very difficult. Will you stay a moment and take questions from the committee?
We will start this time with Mr. Montgomery.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Would you say that if the increase in assistance were there - would it discourage those people who are working under the table, so to speak?
MS. DEAN: I would think. If there is some kind of a transitional time-frame to let a person show that they can work to make a better life - you know, that is the only reason that someone would take a job.
I mean, as a business owner you can't discriminate. I would never discriminate against one person or another when a person applies for the job but I will tell a person on the second day, when the interview is over and they come in for training, I hope you talk to your worker because I have gone through it so many times and it is very costly for me. I started this business with nothing. I employ seven people full time and two people part time on a shoestring budget.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Atwell.
MS. ATWELL: Thank you very much. I also recognize that it must be quite difficult for you. Is it Laurie? Laurie, yes. Maybe you can help us in terms of some suggestions or recommendations that you would like to see as a single mother who is working and trying to get ahead. What recommendations could you give to us to assist you in improving the situation so at some point you may be in a position to work full time and to be able to get off social assistance?
MS. BLANCHARD: I think what is hurting me most is the gross and the net pay. I honestly do. They say, well, we take your gross because in January, if you get $700 or $800 income tax, that is an overpayment, or we will give you two months to live on that. You will get no cheque those months, so we are better off taking it now.
I can't see why, if you did get $700 in January income tax, that is an incentive to go, take this, like, you know, it seems that they're not letting you get ahead at all.
I'm living on maybe a little bit less than I was sitting at home. I'm out every day and I'm working hard. I don't blame people for doing it under the table if this is the way - like, I'm caught every time I see them - there is no incentive to be out there working. Even if they did that or increased the money for babysitters, where I don't have to put the extra $100 to pay a babysitter, you can't get a babysitter for $10 a day; they are not going to do it.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Downe, do you have any questions?
MR. DOWNE: The $160 a week, that's your gross or your net?
MS. BLANCHARD: That's my net.
MR. DOWNE: That's your net.
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes, on average.
MR. DOWNE: It's 40 hours a week, roughly?
MS. BLANCHARD: No, no. We work on commission.
MR. DOWNE: On a commission basis?
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes.
MR. DOWNE: The issue I find is making that transition. Where is the incentive? The incentive should be to get out of the system, for those who should get out of it versus staying in it. I understand the department has been trying to work toward that goal. The question is, how much is enough?
It becomes a bit of an argument. You're paying people to go to work, whereby I think there has to be a program that has some sensitivity to encourage people. We have people that are second-generation, who have been brought up believing that social assistance is a way of life . . .
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes.
MR. DOWNE: . . . and it's sad.
MS. BLANCHARD: It is.
MR. DOWNE: When you can go underground, the underground economy, you can do it and you're better off, then where is the incentive to go out and have that self-reliance or that dignity that you're looking at?
I agree with you, I think they have been working toward that. I know it is something that I have been looking toward as well, how do we find that process that will allow people to be able to move out of the system?
I mean, I get people in my office who say, well, gee, Don, I didn't think you were that stupid, I make more money at home doing nothing than going out and working.
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes. And I like being at work. I really do.
MR. DOWNE: Yes, exactly, and they do too. The program is there to help people who can't go to work and we should have programs to help people that need help, but . . .
MS. BLANCHARD: That want to, yes.
MR. DOWNE: . . . for those who are trying to get out of the system, there should be a program. I thought the department was working toward that; in fact, I know they are working toward how to make that system work.
Family Allowance, the government giveth and taketh away. That is federal. I can't . . .
MS. BLANCHARD: You know, they wouldn't even leave me with that, it's only $50.
MR. DOWNE: That is federal, so I'm not going to talk too much about that.
MS. BLANCHARD: Oh, yes, I know that.
MR. DOWNE: From an employer's point of view - I, too, am an employer - we farm and I know a little bit about what you're saying there because I deal with a number of part-time employees as well, certain times of year on the farm. The frustrating part for you is trying to have a dependable labour force that you know that they can survive. You can only pay so much, based on the contracts, I guess, but . . .
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes, on the cost of cleaning, I mean, there is nothing . . .
MR. DOWNE: Yes.
MS. BLANCHARD: I went through trying to get transitional job funding and that's all in my letter to you.
MR. DOWNE: Yes.
MS. BLANCHARD: It was like dancing through hoops and at the end of it, no.
MR. DOWNE: Yes. Well, we are dealing with small business issues and that is another issue for another day, but I think that is interesting, what you are saying, and I agree with you. I hear that and see that myself. There has got to be a transitional point to help people to be able to retain some aspect of the program and move in to another system.
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes.
MR. DOWNE: I understand that is what the department is gearing for and I think there are some programs that are coming forward with that, especially with the issue of children support programs.
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes.
MR. PYE: Madam Chair, I just want to make one comment. The minister is absolutely correct in stating that Family Allowance is a federal jurisdiction; however, it was the provincial government that did the clawback on the Child Benefit Program.
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes, exactly.
MR. PYE: I just wanted to make that clear with respect to that issue and that, in fact, it was an incentive for the provincial government to take money back from the federal government that probably reduced funding to it over the years. However, having said that, I have some concerns with this whole picture and the reason why I have some concerns with this whole picture is you are absolutely correct that after the first $100, 75 cents of every dollar thereafter is clawed back by Community Services in the province.
I guess my question to you is this, Laurie, if you were able to continue to keep your employment, which I hope you do, and you are able to continue to keep all the amount of money that you are able to receive, plus you are able to continue to keep your Family Allowance, and continue to receive your income tax at the end of the year, would that allow you to not rely upon Social Services, or would you still need an income supplement?
MS. BLANCHARD: Yes, certain times of the year I definitely would still need it. I have been with Molly Maid since two years. I am hoping that I will be off this cheque as soon as possible. All I am saying is, when they take my gross wage, even if it is $100 a month, that is $100 that is not in my home and not in my pocket, and I have to wait until January to get it. If they took the net and they let me keep the income tax, I don't know if I would really have to rely on them.
MR. PYE: That is a good point. My other question is to Ms. Dean, and I'm sorry, Laurie, instead of calling you Laurie, I should have said Ms. Blanchard.
However, Ms. Dean, with respect to your business, I have some concerns around the notion that if, in fact, government subsidizes employees, that employers will have a tendency to take advantage of that because it is a ready market for them to continue to pay employees no benefits, low wages and so on. I know that in the area where you are working, there are some tough economic decisions there that create that kind of a problem.
MS. DEAN: That's true.
MR. PYE: Can you give me some clarity around how you expect the government or what you would like to see a government do with respect to addressing this particular issue of subsidization of employees within the place of employment?
MS. DEAN: Okay, first of all, Molly Maid pays $8.00 an hour. I am not asking for $4.00 an hour. That is how the transitional job fund was working, and the reason it didn't work is because it all has to be fair for every person that applies for a job, the amount of money that a person is allowed for basic living allowance and that is documented, and it is way back from the 1950's or 1960's when it was first put in - comes up to the standard of living, allow a person to have, a transitional period of time and someone has to come up with a magic number and I guess there are a whole lot of magic tricks that have to happen to get this all on track.
A wage subsidy, to a certain extent, is a bad thing. I can see that sometimes people have been approved for a wage subsidy and just had that short period of time, and there was no promise of a job.
We clean houses. We don't go on grants, we don't do anything like that. It is a steady go and as the business grows, so will the employees' wage. The cost of the cleans, during high points of the year when there are more cleans, on average, they work about 26 hours a week.
MR. DEWOLFE: Ms. Blanchard, I commend you for trying to take the initiative to get back into the workforce. Even though you may be suffering financially for it now, hopefully, the benefits down the road will be much better. Also, to you, Ms. Dean, hopefully this committee can make recommendations that will take care of transitional situations, and get the proper legislation in place to deal with that. Again, I thank you for your presentation. I'm looking forward to reading your report.
MR. MUIR: Other than to say thank you very much for describing this, the issue of what is probably generally categorized as the working-poor, which would be . . .
MS. BLANCHARD: That is me.
MR. MUIR: That would be probably be the category and it is certainly an issue that we have to be very much concerned with, and thank you for raising it.
MS. BLANCHARD: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. (Interruption) Mr. MacEwan, I am sorry, I will allow you extra questions in the next round.
Our next presentation will be from the Centre for Housing Initiative, Professor Elizabeth Beaton. Okay, then Al MacInnis, Mr. MacInnis. He has stepped out.
Helen Luedee, Every Woman's Centre.
MS. HELEN LUEDEE: Good evening. My name is Helen Luedee, and I am here representing the Every Woman's Centre. When we first heard about this restructuring initiative, the Every Woman's Centre wanted to see what the women felt about where the changes should be made in social assistance. What we did was hold several focus groups in order to get people's ideas and hear some concerns, and then try to help facilitate some brainstorming sessions so people could come up with some recommendations for change.
We heard a number of concerns, and a lot of times we heard concerns that seemed to be the same concerns over and over again, and other concerns were quite unique. Some of the concerns that were brought up by the women in the focus groups were, first and foremost, that the income of those receiving social assistance is inadequate. Women living on social assistance are living well below Canada's national poverty line.
There seems to be very little incentive - as we heard here this evening - for women who want to return to the workforce. There is not enough financial support to help alleviate some child care costs, clothing costs, transportation costs and other hidden costs that are part of returning to the workforce.
We also heard the same concern tonight about women who need the most help; for example, single mothers are not able to benefit from the federal programs. The raise in the Child Tax Credit offered by the federal government is deducted from social assistance cheques, and we believe that this targets the people who are most vulnerable and who could benefit from this raise. I would like to add that Nova Scotia is one of the only two provinces in Canada that are doing this, and it is the only province in Atlantic Canada that is doing this.
There are certain populations of people . . .
MR. MACEWAN: That is not what we were told by the deputy minister, but I will have questions later.
MS. LUEDEE: There are certain populations of people that fall through the gaps in our system. Young women between the ages of 16 and 19 are sometimes left without any support when they need it most. Young women of this age are not covered under the Children and Family Services Act, yet they are not seen as adults by other agencies such as Community Services until the age of 19. This seems to leave quite a number of people not serviced by anybody when they may need it the most.
Affordable and safe housing for women living on social assistance is not a reality for many. Income tax returns are being taken from social assistance recipients and they are being classified as income. It seems to me that the most logical thing would be - as was mentioned earlier - that if it is going to be taken off monthly or every six months, whatever the case may be, maybe that is when it should be done, instead of waiting until the end, because this may be a way for people to get ahead.
Another concern was people who have to travel for health care. They may have to go to Halifax. There are a lot of single mothers that have to go, for instance, to the IWK with their children. The assistance that they get when they are up there is inadequate. There is the same amount for food allotted whether someone is there for a stay of a couple of days up to several months; this doesn't seem to make sense.
After we discussed some of these concerns, we thought that okay, if we are going to talk about these concerns, we should also bring some recommendations forth to the panel, so the first recommendation was, social assistance recipients should have an income that adequately provides for people's basic needs. The income paid to recipients should be at par with today's actual living costs. Work incentives, such as clothing allowance, gas and transportation costs, lunch costs, and uniforms should be covered.
As well, there should be allowances for babysitting that are at par with the actual costs. The $12 a day that is presently paid is unrealistic in comparison to the actual cost of child care. There should also not be limits on who babysits the children, when covering babysitting allowance. As it stands presently, grandparents for instance are not seen as paid babysitters. Many people need to rely on grandparents for help, and this is probably an ideal set-up where both the child and the parents benefit. If the child knows the caretaker, the parent can go to work feeling comfortable with who their child is entrusted to. With the present system, there is no allowance for grandparents who babysit, and this set-up simply doesn't make sense.
If Community Services wants to help people prepare for the workforce, more support must be given to make people more employable. A university education is a must, and money and support should be put into scholarship funds for women and other people on social assistance, if they are seeking a university education.
Let women on social assistance keep their income tax returns. This money could certainly be used to help families try and get ahead in some way. If the federal government deems it necessary to give a raise in people's Child Tax Credit because they are living in poverty, the provincial government should not take it away by deducting it from social assistance cheques.
Community Services should be pushing for more affordable housing, so that people aren't forced to live in unsafe situations. Community Services should help lobby for non-profit organizations to be provided with grants to hire people on social assistance. These grants help provide practical training. It helps people gain experience. It makes people more employable, and as well, the experience enhances one's self-esteem.
If overpayments are made to clients, the system for repayment should be a little more fair, so that these women are not undergoing undue hardships. Social assistance recipients are barely surviving at the present rates, and if an unrealistic overpayment is taken off a person's
cheque, it makes daily living very difficult. Even in terms of the appeal process, we have seen examples of women coming in, they have appealed but yet it is being deducted right away, before the appeal is even heard. I don't think that is fair.
I think another important thing that came out of these focus groups was that every recipient should be made aware of what help he or she qualifies for. After the initial assessment and home visit, there should be a letter sent to the recipient that states what she qualifies for, why and what to do if there is disagreement surrounding this. It seems, at the present time, there is too many hidden agendas, and people aren't made aware of what their rights are.
Every person on social assistance should be assessed as an individual with individual needs. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, and it doesn't seem that there is allowance for these circumstances.
Often, one of the big concerns that we have here in Cape Breton is the location. There are a lot of people living in areas where they can't reach a place that is centrally located. Even in towns, there isn't adequate transportation to get from one town to another. One of the suggestions that came from the women in these focus groups was that, if it is not possible to have offices located in many convenient areas, maybe we could get a mobile going, something similar to what human resources is doing. This may make the caseworkers more easily available. It could ensure that people are getting the services they require. It also ensures that people are able to contact caseworkers, because even in terms of just phoning them, as everyone is aware here tonight, I am sure, a telephone is not deemed a basic need in terms of social assistance. I think that the assumption that yes, they can go and call their caseworker any time they want to is something that is unfair.
Also, services really need to be created for the people who fall through the gaps. For example, people between the age of 16 and 19. As I said earlier, these people aren't being serviced. If they are not going to be helped by one area of Community Services, they have to be covered somewhere.
[9:00 p.m.]
Those were the recommendations that were brought forth by the women in the focus groups and, at this time, I want to thank those women for coming out and speaking their minds. One of the things that we heard from the women is that sometimes they don't feel comfortable doing that in public for fear that, if they do so, they may be targetted by their caseworkers or by other people in the system. That sounds very scary, if you hear that people don't feel comfortable speaking their minds. I am glad that they did feel comfortable to come to a place and discuss their concerns so that we could bring them forth tonight. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: Why don't you go first, Maureen? You are more attuned to this type of thing than anyone else.
MADAM CHAIR: Because I am the chairperson and I get to decide who goes first, so you are going to go first. (Laughter)
MR. MACEWAN: All right. Look, it is an excellent checklist of the types of things that we ought to be looking at. I don't know what I can say, they have raised so many valid points that I would be here all night if I was asking questions that arise from this paper.
I was going to comment about the clawback, about the $100 a month that dates from the 1970's, and the $200 a month, you know what I am referring to; these have never been indexed. As you read in the newspaper reports of the Russian rouble losing value every hour, well the Canadian dollar has lost quite a bit of value too over the last 20 years and $100, 20 years ago, would be worth a considerable sum of money compared to what it is today. I don't know how much, but if that amount had kept in line with the depreciation of the dollar over that 20 years, you would today, I am sure, be able to earn $600 or $700 a month without penalty - then, after that, deductions would take place - if that number had been kept abreast of the decreasing value of the dollar.
I was also going to talk about the $200 a month babysitter. I think the $200 a month babysitter would be illegal under the Minimum Wage Act. I recall working in Sydney Steel for $45 a week, and that was $200 a month, but you couldn't do it today, it would be illegal, but that is the amount they allow for babysitting per month, $200 a month, an unrealistic figure, again.
MS. LUEDEE: Probably the only people who would do something like that are the grandparents, who aren't allowed to get paid anyway.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, there you go. And finally, I want to commend you on raising the point about the telephones. I think you should continue to hammer that point. A telephone today is a necessity, it is not a luxury any longer. How can you call your worker to report a problem if you don't have a phone? Yet the budget won't pay for a phone, not even for the basic service, let alone any of the fancy things like answering machines that the government offices always seem to have when you try to get through to them, but that is another story. Good job.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. I will take the opportunity now to clear up some misinformation that Mr. MacEwan gave us. In fact, family benefits were indexed in Nova Scotia for quite some time.
MR. MACEWAN: Were they? No. No. It is the $100 a month deduction that hasn't been indexed, that has stayed constant.
MADAM CHAIR: An erosion of income occurred when there was a deindexation of the rates, and I think that occurred probably in the last four or five years; in fact, I know it did. Minimum wage doesn't apply to childcare workers outside of a centre.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, it should. This committee should recommend that.
MADAM CHAIR: At any rate, one of the things that I would like you to comment on, maybe a bit further, because it was a recommendation you made, you said that assistance has to adequately provide for people's basic needs.
Now we just had a presentation from a worker at Molly Maid and from the employer there. I calculated, as they were talking, what the wage situation is for workers in those settings. Now at 26 hours a week at $8.00 an hour, working every week of the year, the gross income there would be $10,416 annually. One of the things that has always concerned me when we discuss assistance and the adequacy of benefits, is that people talk about the lack of incentive in the social assistance system in terms of going to work, and sometimes I think it is the other way around. There is a lack of incentive in the labour market to get people to work in this way, to work for 26 hours at $8.00 an hour for a gross income of $10,416. I am wondering if you can comment on that, whether or not you think that is a valid sort of perspective, in terms of looking at . . .
MS. LUEDEE: It sounds like it is almost a catch-22, but it seems, from what we are hearing, if somebody is living on $10,000 a year, as each one of us is aware here tonight, if that is the case, they are living well below Canada's national poverty line. In a country right now that is certainly able to provide for people, that just doesn't seem right. Whether or not we are talking about the working poor, or we are talking about people on social assistance, it seems that we need to re-evaluate that and think, maybe we need to supplement in some other way. Those are the kinds of things that I would like to see happening. They may not be the traditional approaches that we are thinking of that may be what we need to see happening in the next time these things are redeveloped. But we have to look at other options.
MADAM CHAIR: Child care, transportation, Pharmacare, those kinds of things that are like a social wage, really, that are in addition to the earned income make a difference.
MS. LUEDEE: Even if someone is able to keep that extra income in some way, I think that would probably save money in the long run, because there is more incentive for people to go out and make their own money.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Muir.
MR. MUIR: A couple of comments. Thank you very much, I appreciate some of these points that you have made. One of the issues that I have run into on a number of occasions this year is that 16 to 19 year old group, particularly young women. They kind of fall through
the gaps. How do you advise these people, your organization, Every Woman's Centre, what advice do you provide to them?
MS. LUEDEE: Sometimes that can be very difficult, because one of the services that we offer at the Every Woman's Centre is, we try to refer services out if we can't help them ourselves. We have made it a point to go and make ourselves familiar with the community and what the community has to offer. One of the problems that we see when women 16 to 19 come through the doors is that there is not a whole lot we can even say to these women in terms of, no, we can't help you right now, but maybe this organization can, because the reality is, there really isn't an organization that can help these women.
We see it in terms of housing, we have a house right now that offers four long-term beds and two emergency beds for women 19 years and older. If there is somebody under 19, we are not able to help them, we are not staffed. There are a lot of things that could happen and that could come back on us. But at the same time, if somebody was in need of emergency housing between that age, they can't get help in places like Community Services, they can't get help with boarding situations, they can't get help at Children's Aid. The message that a lot of these young women are getting is that the only way they are going to be able to get any help is if they were to become single parents. I think that is the wrong message that we are sending out to young women.
MR. MUIR: Secondly, Madam Chair, the organization, Every Woman's Centre, are you connected with other women's organizations in the province, like Women's Centres Connect? Would you be the same type of organization as that one?
MS. LUEDEE: We are part of the Women's Centres Connect group.
MR. MUIR: Okay. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. DeWolfe.
MR. DEWOLFE: Just one question regarding, in Cape Breton the population is spread out so far and wide and you mentioned the telephone difficulties, and for communities that don't have offices readily available, is any thought given to the cost of transportation to see a caseworker? Also, will caseworkers go to a community to see individuals?
MS. LUEDEE: That is a good point, because there are no transportation costs if somebody in the community wanted to go and see their caseworker. I will give an example of that. One of the places that I held a focus group was in the Town of New Waterford. People that live in the Town of New Waterford are serviced by Glace Bay, which is quite a distance for somebody with no vehicle. The other point is, there is no bus service from New Waterford to Glace Bay. If somebody wanted to go to Glace Bay, they would have to take
a bus into Sydney and then transfer from Sydney to Glace Bay. This is something that basically takes all day.
There is nothing available in terms of trying to get costs to go and cover that. The visits from the caseworker to somebody in one of those areas is something that you don't see very often. You may see a home visit once.
MR. DEWOLFE: I am wondering if that is part of their program. I am more familiar with the workers' compensation, and it was brought to our attention, much to the surprise of most Nova Scotians that caseworkers are flexible enough to go to the areas to meet the people, they just haven't been doing it. I was wondering if that is part of the program.
MS. LUEDEE: No, not to my knowledge.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Pye.
MR. PYE: I want to thank you for the report, particularly the recommendations, Ms. Luedee. I also want to bring clarity, under concerns discussed, you mentioned that Nova Scotia is one of the only two provinces in Canada that are doing this, referring to the clawback of the National Child Benefit Program. I want to make that clear that every province except for the Province of Newfoundland and New Brunswick are doing the clawback.
MS. LUEDEE: Is that right?
MR. PYE: That is a clarity that has to be cleared here. It is true. I have one question to you. I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of women's centres since getting elected on March 24th, and each and every one of those women's centres brought to me what I thought was a very serious concern, and the concern that they brought to me was a concern with respect to the number of calls that they receive on a Friday from people who need help. That is simply because people are so fearful or harassed, and that was the word that was used, by their caseworkers, that they leave it to the very last minute and then come to an advocacy group or a centre like yours to search out some emergency assistance. Is that consistent down here in this eastern region as well?
MS. LUEDEE: Yes, it is. I would say especially in terms of emergency housing. This is something that we see quite often. There are a lot of people out there, a lot of women who come to the centre that are certainly very fearful. They feel intimidated going to the Community Services office on their own, it is something that I see as a great problem.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Downe.
MR. DOWNE: We are having a conversation here about the clawback, and the little jab that came gently toward me earlier in the presentation. (Interruption) Really, that program that we are referring to is geared to help the child and help the individual make the transition moving from the program into the workplace as well. There have been some benefits to that. The overall program that was supported nationally by the federal government and virtually all of the jurisdictions in Canada, at first both the other two provinces of Newfoundland and New Brunswick did sign the agreement to go forward, because they believed it was a good program and then changed their minds at the last minute. The other ones felt it was a progressive move forward - that is crossing over all provincial, political jurisdictions in Canada - that that new initiative for the Child Tax Credit Program is actually a progressive move forward in the whole issue of social assistance and assistance to the individuals.
The New Democratic Party in other jurisdictions agreed to it, the Progressive Conservative Party in other jurisdictions agreed to it, and the Liberal Party in other jurisdictions agreed to it. It is not a political issue as much as they felt it was; governments at all levels felt it was the right move. So did the Province of Nova Scotia. I don't want to get into detail of the debate, but it was meant in the right direction. I am sure we will have to wait and give it some time to see in fact how it works out. We were trying to figure out the name of the program, and I should know . . .
MS. LUEDEE: But it just seems unfair that this program that is supposed to benefit the children, the ones that seem to suffer the most are single mothers.
MR. DOWNE: One of the issues there is the communication of exactly how that new program will be. I don't know if the roll-out has been complete on that. I think the roll-out that is coming out in October, if I recall correctly, and maybe you will see the reality of how that will work at that point in time.
MS. LUEDEE: I hope so.
MR. DOWNE: So just before we gnash our teeth and jump all over it, we better take a look at the program.
I want to compliment you on your proposal and your recommendations. One comment I have in regard to the women's centres - and I work very closely with mine in my area - I understand there have been some major changes at the provincial level, where Ron L'Esperance and Community Services have actually brought together the other departments, the Department of Health and other line departments, to take a look at funding as it were, what dollars are currently being spent in those other jurisdictions and how we can filter that through one agency that would deal directly with women's centres and women's organizations, and taking a look at an evaluation and an assessment of each one of those departments to see whether or not it is a $20,000 cheque that is being given to one group
from Health and some other amount from somewhere else, put it all together to come up with a real good solid program.
There is no question that women's centres groups, from a sex-training program, from a safe-home program to just being in the community helping to assist single parents and families that have been broken up, it is just a tremendous program that they have. We need to keep supporting that. I think what they are doing now is a step in that right direction. In the meetings I have had with Second Story in Bridgewater, as an example, they were fairly encouraged by the process that is going on so far, so there is movement made toward helping advocacy groups and women's organization groups in the province toward that goal.
The last one is that you can write up a program that becomes so socialistic, in other words covers so much, there is no reason why you would ever want to quit, you know? I am not suggesting that that is what we are trying to do in this proposal - the bare costs that you are trying to deal with - but I think it is a matter of taking a look at the fact that this province is the only jurisdiction in all of Canada that in fact has increased money toward Community Services consistently throughout the years. Not that we pay more per person, but we have consistently increased the budget allocation for Community Services since 1993, when other jurisdictions cut back.
We too are concerned about the basic needs of individuals, single parents and children, and those who need help. We have made that effort. I think what you are saying here is that more needs to be done, but we have been trying to do as much as we can, living within our means.
MS. LUEDEE: I realize that, and I would like to point out as well that I believe most of the people who are living on social assistance are not living on social assistance because that is what they are socialized to do; they don't have any other choice. I think, given the choice, most people would rather choose not to, because I don't know if anybody has felt the humiliation of walking into a social assistance office and sitting at the other end of the table from a Community Services' worker, but it is not something I would think that most people would choose to do if they had the choice.
MR. DOWNE: Just to build on that, I agree with you, because they come to my office and they are crying and you are there trying to help them. Anybody feels that; it is a very emotional time. If you have any compassion at all, you are going to feel that pain and concern. The point I am trying to make here is that, notwithstanding some individual caseworkers who may be problematic - there are lots who are good, I am sure - I think what we are trying to establish here is a program that is going to try to eventually get individuals that want to get out of the system the ability to do that. I think that is the fundamental principle of what we are trying to work toward, and allowing that independence and that dignity to come forward. I applaud that. That is what we should be looking toward.
The program should also be broad enough to deal with those who cannot get out, for whatever reasons. They should be able to try to provide basic service and assistance for those people, and they should not feel embarrassed by that. Society should be responsible for those who cannot help themselves, for whatever circumstances they are in. There should be a certain compassion within society to care for those people; they are equal to anybody else in society. I don't think we should be putting a stigma toward them.
MS. LUEDEE: Again, I would like to remind you that all of the recommendations and concerns that were brought forth tonight were voiced by the women who were coming to the focus groups and, again, I think the recommendations and concerns that they brought forth were certainly very valid. I am glad that we had the opportunity to present them here to you tonight.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Atwell, do you have any questions?
MS. ATWELL: Yes, just a few comments. I am very familiar with the women's centres and worked quite closely with Women's Centre Connect. I also know that some of those centres will be slated for closure