(Concurrent Sections)

FAMILY SERVICES

* (1440)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply is meeting in Room 254 to resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(d)(1) on page 56 of the Estimates book and on page 29 of the yellow supplement book.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I am going to try and go into speed-up here, although the emphasis is on the word try. Going back to the Social Services Advisory Committee and the processes that it uses, can the minister tell me if the committee provides reasons for their findings when they correspond with social assistance recipients?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Yes, they do.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if she would be in favour of changing the current process whereby only decisions of law are eligible to be appealed. I am wondering if the minister would favour an amendment so that matters of fact as well as law could be appealed.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we would have to look at that very carefully, and we will.

Mr. Martindale: I take it from the minister's answer that she is saying that she will look into it?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you. I understand that there is a problem when recipients want to appeal on a matter of law, and there are two problems here. One is that they have to go to the Court of Appeal; they cannot go to the Court of Queen's Bench. The problem with that is, I am told, that the Court of Appeal is putting barriers in the way of people whereby they will only hear cases that affect a number of people, not just an individual. They have set up their own rule which basically limits the number of appeals, which concerns me, and have said that only if it is a matter of public importance will they hear an appeal. I am wondering, first of all, if the minister is aware of that and second, if she shares my concerns.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess I would ask if there are specific cases or details that could be provided. I was not aware of the circumstances, or the department is not aware of the circumstances behind the question of my honourable friend. Maybe if there was case-specific detail that could be provided we could look into it, but it sounds like it might be an issue that would need to be discussed with the Department of Justice and looked into. So I would ask for some clarification or maybe some specifics around instances where there has been a problem.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister for that answer. I will write a letter to the minister to follow up on that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if benefits are provided to people during the appeal process currently?

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, it is my understanding that we look on cases on an individual basis, but if it was a change in the rate of payment there would not be suspension of all total benefits. If, in fact, it was a suspension of total benefits and it was a hardship case, for instance, the department in most instances, I understand, would cover the benefits through the appeal process, but it is on a case-by-case basis, and that does not happen in every circumstance.

Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that benefits are supposed to continue as a matter of practice, but I know from a public meeting of tenants, public housing tenants, most of whom are on social assistance, held just last night, when they were told that assistance was supposed to continue, they just laughed, because their experience is that assistance is discontinued. So what I am hearing in the community is different than what I am hearing the minister say. I wonder if you could comment.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I certainly would be interested in getting some information and some detail, and I would look into that and get back with an answer.

* (1450)

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I will get more information in writing to the minister.

Could the minister tell me if there are recipients of social assistance or people who are members of advocacy groups such as MAPO or the Welfare Action Line who are on the Social Services Advisory Committee?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do not think so, but I could certainly check that.

Mr. Martindale: Would the minister consider appointing such persons to the advisory committee?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, from time to time members of committees throughout government have membership changes, and I do not think it is normally the practice to put someone necessarily representative of an advocacy group, but representative of the community at large, and so I will look very carefully at reappointments as terms expire, but as far as a commitment to specific representation for an organization, that it not usually the practice.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I suppose that all the people who are appointed could be considered people from the community at large. The minister seems to be rejecting the category of advocacy, so I will narrow the focus of the question and ask, would you consider appointing a social assistance recipient?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I would not discount anyone, and I guess I was not saying, if you are a member of an advocacy group we will not appoint you to a board. What I was saying is, we do not make it normal practice that you go to different advocacy or community organizations as such and say, we must have a representative from this organization or that.

It could happen that an appointment would be a social assistance recipient or could be a member of a group or organization in the community, but for this particular board and for many others throughout government we do not specifically require a member of a certain organization, but that does not preclude any member from any organization from being appointed.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have more questions on the Social Service Advisory Committee and particularly its processes, but I wonder if it would be acceptable to the minister if I write to her with my questions and hear back from her.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely. That is a good idea.

Mr. Martindale: I am ready to pass this line.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(d) Social Services Advisory Committee (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $143,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $157,900--pass.

1.(e) Management Services (1) Financial and Administrative Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,857,700--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $481,100--pass.

1.(e)(2) Program Budgeting and Reporting (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $451,200.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I see that Salaries and Employee Benefits are up here. Could the minister give a brief explanation of the increases.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is for merit increases and benefits.

Mr. Martindale: I see some of it is in indirect salary costs. What are indirect salary costs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is for overtime.

Mr. Martindale: Oh, that is interesting, Program Budgeting and Reporting are working overtime. I wonder what is keeping them so busy.

I wonder if the minister is prepared to table the list of external agencies receiving public funding and the amounts. It is traditional that we get this list during Estimates. I wonder if it is available now.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, we do have that available, and we will provide it almost immediately.

Mr. Martindale: The minister will ensure that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) gets a copy?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely, in the spirit of co-operation I think we want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to peruse the grants list.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(e)(2)(a) $451,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $97,800--pass.

1.(e) Management Services (3) Human Resource Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $778,700.

Mr. Martindale: I am sorry, what page are we on now?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: On page 57, (3)(a).

Mrs. Mitchelson: This is in the main Estimates.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The blue book. You are in the other book. Page 35 of the yellow Estimates.

Mr. Martindale: And the line was $778,700.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: That is right. 1.(e)(3)(a)--pass.

1.(e)(3)(b) Other Expenditures $101,900.

Mr. Martindale: I see under Expected Results, it says, finalization of an organization review at the Manitoba Developmental Centre on the development of an enhanced model of service delivery. I presume that since the Estimates book uses the word "finalization" that it is completed, and I wonder if the minister can provide any information or table any documents on that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, out at the Manitoba Developmental Centre they have gone through a fairly lengthy process of reorganization and restructuring to better enhance the delivery of service to clients, and Human Resources within the Department of Family Services has been out there and helped them through that process.

Mr. Martindale: Is the minister prepared to make any of this public or is it an internal process?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There is a document, their strategic plan, that can be shared. It is a public document, and I will attempt to get a copy just as quickly as possible.

* (1500)

Mr. Martindale: Since I have already asked for and received--and I thank the minister for giving me the copy of the external agency's funding--what would be a good line to ask questions where you would have staff at the table?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think that it could be any time, and we will try to accommodate. I think there is staff available for different areas of the department, if the grants pertain to different areas, and I also have the strategic plan for the Manitoba Developmental Centre.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you for the strategic plan. I think I will probably wait until I have had a chance to compare last year's list of funding with this year's before I ask a question, so it may not be till tomorrow morning.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1. Administration and Finance (e) Management Services (3) Human Resource Services (b) Other Expenditures $101,900--pass.

1.(e)(4) Information Systems (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,150,100--pass; 1.(e)(4)(b) Other Expenditures--

Mr. Martindale: I am sorry. I was asleep at the switch here. I should not admit my faults in public, should I?

Under the (a) part, indirect salary costs, there is an increase. Does that reflect more overtime worked once again?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that is primarily overtime.

Mr. Martindale: I see one of the expected results is implementation of the Child and Family Services Information System in the Winnipeg agency. Could I ask the minister if that refers to computerizing their records?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, it does.

Mr. Martindale: It seems to me that this has been underway for about five years.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, it has.

Mr. Martindale: I guess that raises the question of what took so long?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess it has taken longer than we anticipated, but it is very complex, the technology and getting everyone up to speed and on the same wavelength. I think we have had more success in the smaller agencies, and they are up and running. Winnipeg, because of the nature of the agency and the amalgamation and all of those things, has taken just a little longer.  But I think we are getting close to the final product.

Mr. Martindale: I have talked to some staff in Winnipeg Child and Family Services who are supposed to be using this system, and they are not very happy with it. I wonder if the minister could tell us if she feels that the implementation has been successful or whether they are having problems, whether they are still orienting and training the staff.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I understand it has been a difficult process. It is a process of change, and it is a matter of getting everyone up to speed and trained, and there have been some kinks in the whole process that we have now looked to some outside help to ensure that the training and the system gets up and running as quickly as possible. So there have been some problems, I will not deny that, and we are trying to work co-operatively to get them resolved.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us who pays for the outside help? Does that come out of this minister's departmental budget somewhere? Does it come out of the budget of Winnipeg Child and Family Services?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is new technology, and we have had to contract externally for some of the expertise to help get it up and running, and it does come out of our department's budget, not the agency's budget.

Mr. Martindale: I was not the critic when this started, because it started quite a while ago, so [interjection] You were not the minister, either. Just going by memory, it seems to me that there were a number of reasons for computerization and that part of the rationale was to track families from one area of the city to another. I think the minister at the time indicated that it would reduce costs, but, correct me if I am wrong, could the minister tell me why computerization was undertaken in the first place.

Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is when the concept of computerization was first approved or acknowledged that there was a need. It was not necessarily a cost-saving measure. The primary concern or goal or objective was to provide better client service so that we could track families and children from one region of the province to the other or one agency to the other and provide direct service in a more co-ordinated fashion. So that was the primary goal of computerization.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if the new computer system has been effective in tracking families from rural to city or city to rural or within areas of the city?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It has been working in Brandon and in Portage. Once we have it up and running completely in the city of Winnipeg, there is the expectation that it will do that.

Mr. Martindale: I guess we will have to revisit this issue next year.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(e) Management Services (4) Information Systems (b) Other Expenditures $109,900--pass.

1.(e) Management Services (5) Policy and Planning (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $769,600.

Mr. Martindale: Under this section I would like to ask questions about the Canada Assistance Plan and the new Health and Social Transfer Act.

I must say I am disappointed there are not more members of the Liberal MLAs here to hear this discussion because there are some major changes taking places and the changes have been initiated by the federal government and I am not sure that this minister was even consulted very much. I am going to be asking some questions about that. In fact, that reminds me that in the legislation, I note that the legislation in the old act the regulations are quite thick and the new legislation is a lot thinner, although it includes references to a number of different acts, not just the area that refers to social assistance, community living and child daycare. It even uses the word "consult" in the act which is really quite amazing. I am just going by memory because I just glanced at it about a week ago.

It seems to me that new legislation that talks about consulting the province would seem to be pretty wishy-washy legislation. Maybe I should give the minister a chance to talk about the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act. Do you have concerns about this new legislation and how it is going to affect Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is almost like my honourable friend can read my mind. I think I have expressed in private conversation and probably in answers to questions too, my concern, our concern, our government's concern. I do not think we are the only province across the country that has concern with the direction that the federal government has taken.

* (1510)

I think they have, I suppose in their minds, very wisely looked at rolling a whole bunch of old programs into new programming under a new heading and then reducing that amount of money and the amount of funding in that pot and then saying to provinces--and I have had it said to me by the Minister of Human Resources for Canada--that now we have got this great big pot of money, it is up to you to determine how you are going to spend it, like they have really done us a big favour.

No question in my mind that there is going to be competing priorities when you look at what has been rolled into the pot. It is programs for child care, for community living and rehab, and I think there are some very legitimate concerns that have been raised by members of the community around what the future will hold for funding for programs. Social allowance, I guess, what else from the education side?--oh, the training programs.

I do not know if I have the two funds mixed up in your mind or in my mind. The social transfer will include funding for social allowances, the social transfer, and for training and health. That is all the EPF funding that was available before, and CAP; a lot of the things that were funded are in CAP, like social allowance. In the Human Resources Investment Fund we will see child care funding, funding for vocational rehab, strategic initiatives, and in both instances we are seeing reductions in the amount of funding for services for people.

A very grave concern on how that is going to be allocated, it is one big pot for the whole country. There has been no indication of what resource allocation will be available for provinces, and how that will be transferred or delivered, and there is no sense of any specific allocation for daycare or for vocational rehab or for training programs. So it is really difficult to know what we can expect.

I have written to the Minister of Human Resources, and I am prepared to share copies of that correspondence. We are just trying to find it right now, and a very interesting response back from the minister saying, you have asked very good questions, I do not have the answers, but we should know later on in the summer.

It seems to me like we have a process that has been fiscally driven by the Minister of Finance at the federal level with no input or no long-range plan or design in place, and they are ad hoc trying to figure out what allocations will be there without any sense of really knowing any of the detail, and he has indicated also that once he has the detail he will share it with us. Well, it is very difficult for us to look at long-range planning provincially when we have no sense of what we can plan on. All we do know is that it is going to be less.

Mr. Martindale: I presume we are talking about correspondence between this minister and the federal Minister of Human Resources Development?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Is the minister willing to table copies of this correspondence?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, I am, and we are just trying to get them right now, and I am prepared to share those letters.

Mr. Martindale: The minister has mentioned child care training programs and vocational rehabilitation. Could the minister tell us how she thinks child care will be affected because of the new legislation and transfer of monies?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The money that we presently receive under CAP for child care is in the Canada Health and Social Transfer pot, and we know that is being reduced, not only child care, but social allowance, and all of those things that we get CAP cost-sharing for in that pot.

In the other pot, the Human Resources Investment Fund, Minister Axworthy has said that there is new money for child care, but in conversations and dialogue with all of my colleagues across the country, from other provinces, nobody seems to know what new money is there because there is less money overall for a lot of the programs that we are presently delivering. So my sense is not what I am hearing from other provinces, and the only message I seem to be getting from the federal government is really there is no money, and if, in fact, any province should move into discussion or dialogue or new programming for child care out of that fund, it would have to come at the expense of other social programs that are presently being delivered, that it is not new money. We know it is not new money, it is less.

Mr. Martindale: Well, if my understanding of the Canada Health and Social Transfer is correct, less money is being provided with less strings and requirements. So then the question becomes, how will this province determine its priorities--and I am wondering if the minister has thought about that, particularly for next year, the next financial year.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is pretty difficult. If we have committed to our priorities budget after budget, I mean the only funding that has been preserved in any government department budgets are health, education and family services at the expense of budgets in every other department right across government. So we have set those areas as priorities. Obviously, with less money coming from the federal government, we are going to have to determine what we are doing now that is worthwhile, what we are doing now that maybe needs to be changed. We are going to have to look at re-allocation, redirection of resources.

It is very difficult, as I said in my earlier answer, to determine where the dollars will be allocated, for what programs, when we do not even know how much we are going to be getting from the federal government. The sooner we can get some clarification around what allocation will come to Manitoba, the sooner we will be able to set out those priorities.

Clearly, we have tried to preserve, at the cost of other programming throughout government, services for health, education and families.

Mr. Martindale: If, as a result of Bill C-76, you have less money for health, post-secondary education and social programs, what are you going to do?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess those will be the difficult decisions and choices we will have to make as we come up to the next budget process and budget cycle. We will have to be evaluating absolutely every program. We are committed through legislation that was just introduced yesterday, I believe, for a second reading on balanced budget that we are not going to go to the taxpayers of Manitoba for more money. We can all see that there needs to be very careful consideration of trying to integrate and co-ordinate services in all areas of delivery of services to people and determine our priorities and fund accordingly. I guess it is no different from any other province right across the country.

I listened to my honourable friend from the Liberal Party today talking about--he is sort of on both sides of the issue, and I guess that is where the Liberal Party tends to be. He talks about living within our means and getting on with business and working with what you have. Yet, on the other hand, he asks for more resources and more money for certain things. Reality is we are not going to have more money. We will have less money. There will probably be some difficult decisions to make through our budget process, but we are not into that process as yet.

* (1520)

We need clarification, and clarification soon, from the federal government on what we will have to work with next year and then we will have to make those decisions and those choices, bearing in mind that the taxpayers of Manitoba have told us that they do not want us to dip into their pockets any more. We are going to have to try to stretch the dollars we have presently to provide the most service, and that might mean looking at streamlining and co-ordinating and ensuring that every available dollar we have goes to the people who need the service.

Mr. Martindale: I have heard this minister and other ministers in her government use the same language before, the language of tough choices. We heard it a lot during the budget debate in 1993 when there were a lot of cuts. I think that this means, in fact I predict that it means next year there are going to be big cuts. I think that is this government's synonym for tough choices or maybe a euphemism for cuts, saying tough choices. I think there will be reductions in funding to child care and training programs of vocational rehabilitation. Would the minister agree with that or not?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I would only have to reiterate that we, as a provincial government, have maintained support at cost to all other program areas within government support for Health and Family Services and Education. I would not venture to guess that you would see provincial dollars reduced terribly significantly in those areas, but I cannot guarantee to my honourable friend, or to anyone, that we are going to be able to pick up what the federal government is not funding. When you look at provincial dollars that we have allocated to our priority areas, I would sense that our budgetary process will still maintain our commitment to vital services for people in Manitoba, but I could not, with any comfort, indicate to you that we would be able to pick up the share of funding that the federal government has traditionally put into areas of service to people.

Mr. Martindale: If I was a social assistance recipient or worked in a child care centre or even used a program provided by funding from Community Living, I would be very concerned and very worried about being able to access a program or receive the same benefits next year as this year or in the case of child care workers even having a job next year.

I would like to follow up on the budget process the minister referred to. It is my understanding that next year's budget process begins shortly after this year's budget process is over. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That determination is not my determination but normally speaking, I think, in the past we have sort of looked to the fall, or late winter, early spring, to finalize the process. We start working together as departments internally in departments and together with other departments to determine what the priorities are for the following year.

Mr. Martindale: So how can this minister start the budget process within her department this year when she does not know how much money her department is getting from the federal government next year?

If I were this minister, well, I guess I share this concern. I do not feel like agreeing with this minister too often, but obviously when the federal government reduces funding for social programs, we should all be concerned.

I notice in Part V of Bill C-76, Canada Health and Social Transfer, the first clause says, subject to this part a Canada Health and Social Transfer may be provided to a province for a fiscal year. So it sounds like the federal government does not even have any statutory legislative responsibility to provide money. It just says may; it does not say that they must provide funding under the Canada Health and Social Transfer. Does the minister agree with my interpretation of that clause of the act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It will be a difficult process, but I guess Finance ministers are trying to get some answers. We do know approximately what we might be receiving from the Canada Health and Social Transfer. Under the Human Resources Investment Fund, we do not have any indication.

I guess the word "may" is in there. My understanding is that the federal government may determine that they can hold back funding from provinces if, in fact, they do not meet basic standards.

Now, we have no idea what, at this point, those standards might be. We are trying to get some clarification around that. I guess that is something that Finance ministers will be seeking input from the federal government on. There are those allocations that will be provided as we start into the next budget process.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for providing the paper from the Department of Family Services titled the Summary of 1995 Federal Budget Provisions. There are some figures in there and it has been very helpful. I have quoted it in Question Period and used it in speeches, and it has been a helpful briefing.

I guess I share the minister's concern about what national standards are, especially since Bill C-76 is pretty vague. Under the Canada Health and Social Transfer, Part V, Clause 13(c), it says maintain national standards where appropriate in the operation of other social programs. It invites the representatives of the provinces to consult and work together to develop through mutual consent a set of shared principles and objectives for the other social programs, which all sounds pretty vague to me.

We also know that all the provisions of cost-sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan have been withdrawn except the one that prohibits provinces from having a residency requirement. So if provinces like Manitoba want to get rid of all the other provisions, they can. So I have some questions about that as to what Manitoba's intentions are. The minister this morning said that she would plan to continue the appeal process for social assistance, but what about the former Canada Assistance Plan requirement that social assistance recipients may not be required to work or take training as a condition of receiving assistance? Will the minister voluntarily follow that, or will there be a change in this area?

* (1530)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, for me to say we would follow that requirement or restriction that was previously in place under the Canada Assistance Plan, it would be very difficult indeed. I think you just have to look right across the country and look to innovative new ways of delivering service and look to our social allowance programs that in many instances have not been conducive to work but have held people back, kept them dependent on a system rather than creating an independence or a desire to move off of welfare and into the workforce.

I would say that all provinces are examining how we change and look at the programs that obviously have not served us well, because we are seeing higher instances of welfare cases right across the country. I do not see any province that has seen a major reduction, except maybe Alberta, and I do not know if--they have experienced some reduction.

Mr. Martindale: The recipients in Alberta moved to B.C.

Mrs. Mitchelson: But the reality today is that we have a system in place that is not necessarily a system of last resort, and I think it is incumbent and important for people to feel good about themselves and feel that they are contributing something to our Manitoba community, our Manitoba society in some way.

I think that it would be unrealistic to think that the status quo will be maintained, that we are going to have to look to new and innovative programming. You just take the Taking Charge! program which I am sure we will get into some detail about a little later, but what that program does is look to creating an independence plan for individuals rather than the dependency that has been created with our programs to date.

I suppose the short answer is no, I cannot guarantee that provision will be in place, and I think it is important that we dialogue with Manitobans to see what they feel the best approach would be to changing the way we deliver our social allowances.

Mr. Martindale: I think that is a yes. I think a year from now we will see work for welfare, training for welfare or education for welfare in Manitoba--

An Honourable Member: Except for Workforce 2000.

Mr. Martindale: Or, as my colleague says, except for Workforce 2000. In fact, if the minister if looking for money to meet the needs of Manitobans, our government should consider scrapping Workforce 2000 and using that money in much more appropriate ways.

The other provision of CAP that I would like to ask about is the provision that services are cost-shared if the clients can demonstrate a budgetary need under a needs test or show that they are likely to be in need under an income test. Does the minister plan to continue that provision in Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a copy of the briefing note in front of me, because I would like to read that through for a second myself.

Mr. Chairperson, I want to indicate at the outset that there will always be those people within our Manitoba or Canadian society that will need government support for whatever reason, certain reasons, and I think we always want to keep in mind that the basic needs of people will be met. We are certainly not going to not provide assistance where it is needed, so there will be a test of sorts that will determine what individual needs are, and I think we want to ensure that the most vulnerable in our community are provided with support. But it is unrealistic to think, as things are changing so dramatically right across the country, that things will not change here in Manitoba.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister think, as a result of having to make tough choices, which I interpret as cuts next year and in succeeding years and I acknowledge that part of the reason will be the Canada Health and Social Transfer provisions of Bill C-76 that in Manitoba will see more homelessness, will see more people begging on the streets, will see more people falling through the cracks, will see more people who want to access programs but the programs will not be there.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, no, I am very optimistic that we are going to see a new era in the province of Manitoba where in fact we as a Manitoba community will--I want move back to accepting some responsibility for ensuring that we have a healthier community. I know that my honourable friend--I just have to go back in history. We do go back a considerable length of time. I think both of us grew up in the north end of Winnipeg.

Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister did. I just live there.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Oh, you just live there. All right.

I was born and raised in the north end of Winnipeg, and you know, I look back to my upbringing and the quality of life that we experienced with a father that worked at an ordinary job and a mother that stayed at home and looked after her three children and provided--I am not going to take long. But I think my honourable friend just--did you lose something or are you--

Mr. Martindale: No, I am looking up my rebuttal.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Oh, all right. You know, I think that if we judged my upbringing and the level of income that came into our household in those days and we compared it to what Stats Canada now compares the child poverty guidelines, we probably in those days, if those statistics were gathered, would have been living below the poverty line. I do not consider myself a child that was brought up in poverty. You know, I think we have to rethink the definition of what child poverty is, because in my mind you could grow up in the wealthiest household in the city of Winnipeg and still be a child in poverty if you are not loved and nurtured and cared for in a manner that I was cared for and many of us were.

I felt I had a great quality of life, and I had much opportunity although, you know, there was not a lot of financial resources available. I was maybe one of those--maybe that is why my husband criticizes me for spending too much money on clothes these days--but I was one of the few girls in our school in junior high that probably wore the same skirt and maybe had two different blouses to wear to school and had some insecure feelings about not being able to afford some of the things that other girls could afford. But I realized and recognized, and I sure do realize it today, that my parents provided for me what they could provide. The most important support that I got was the love and the caring and the nurturing and the understanding that has led me, I think, to be a fairly successful woman, mother and professional. So I really think we have to redefine and take another look at what we consider poverty and what we consider quality of life.

I have every confidence, and I know back then that the church community, and still today to some degree, the church community was a focal point for many of us as families where, you know, those that were members of a church congregation looked out for each other. Those living on the same street looked out for each other, and had a real sense of commitment to community and to people. If you look at things as they have evolved and as we became a more affluent society and through the '60s and the '70s when things were booming and governments kept implementing new programs on top of old programs and had no expectation that those programs had to deliver any measurable outcomes we found that our community sort of moved away from helping each other and moved to expectation that government would be all things to all people.

* (1540)

We are now having to face reality and recognize and realize that, you know, the rubber has hit the road. We are at the end of the line, and we have either got to tax people more, which people do not want to see, or we have got to try to find other ways of delivering services in our community. I think we have to go back to that concept of neighbours trying to provide the supports for neighbours, communities and churches. I have had many conversations with many of our church leadership right throughout the province. What they have indicated is, I guess, we are maybe both at fault, that, you know, government has said to the church and to the community, this is our problem to solve and have almost pushed that caring community away.

I have also heard from members of our church community that care about people that maybe they have moved away and they have become involved in other things that have taken priority rather than that caring and serving and community spirit that was there many years ago. I think there is a realization and recognition that we have to get together again. We have to say, how can we all work together to ensure that our fellow human beings in our Manitoba society, which we want to build and to grow and to develop and improve the quality of life? How do we start to work together, taking that volunteer community and commitment and the government resources that are available, and see whether we can do a better job with the money that we have available? We are reaching out, and I think it is time we all started to say, how can we collectively find the solutions to a society that, in my mind, has gone downhill since those days of where people were thankful for what they had and wanted to work together to see the betterment of Manitoba society?

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I think this minister is living in the past. She is living in never-never land. Things have greatly changed since the time that this minister reminisces about. I would like to read about this from an article in The Globe and Mail from June 22, 1994. In the space of just two decades, the picture of the dual income family has undergone a complete revolution. In 1970, 30 percent of two-parent families with children under 19 had both parents in the workforce. By 1990, as more and more mothers took paid jobs, that number had climbed to 70 percent. This is from the Vanier Institute.

So, while it is true that people of the minister's generation and it was true of many people in my community and my generation, there was only one income earner. That is no longer true today. I think one of the major reasons, besides women's equality, that so many families have two parents working is economic necessity. People feel a need to have two parents working. Obviously, it makes a significant difference to their income. We know that, I think it is in Manitoba, approximately 76 percent of single-parent mothers are living below the poverty line. Obviously, two incomes make a big, big difference. You cannot blame people for making that choice if they are going to be economically better off.

As for neighbours looking out for neighbours and churches looking out for people in their neighbourhood, I would like to make two points. One is that they are; and, secondly, where they cannot, it is partly because things have changed.

For example, the place that I used to work, Northern Community Ministry, used to have a very good program whereby volunteers from churches in the suburbs used to come to inner city schools, at one time, about seven schools, including William Whyte and Strathcona and David Livingstone and King Edward, schools in the north end. They used to volunteer half a day a week or more, usually one-on-one with students, reading with students, or whatever. That program lasted for four or five years, but what happened was, the volunteers were growing older, many of them had ailing parents that they had to spend time with and they dropped out. When we tried to recruit new people, we found it almost impossible, and one of the reasons was that so many women in that age group were in the paid workforce because things change over time.

Regrettably, that program is no longer in existence. Now, fortunately, we have got some very innovative programs going at schools like William Whyte where they are drawing in people from the community to do similar things. But the volunteers that used to be available, in many cases, are not available anymore.

When it comes to the churches, the church that this minister went to when she was young and the church I attend, which I will not name because I do not want them swamped with requests for groceries, they have a grocery cupboard, and it is increasingly being used. But this kind of charity response to the problem of poverty is totally inadequate. I worked interviewing people and handing out small quantities of food and helping to supervise a food distribution place for Winnipeg Harvest for ten years before I got elected. I can tell you that that kind of response to poverty is totally inadequate.

The largest donations to the dozens and dozens of places that hand out the food on behalf of Winnipeg Harvest are doughnuts and stale bread and then whatever else is in season. One of the reasons why this is such an inadequate response to the problem of poverty is that the nutrition is not good. Frequently, people are being given food that is high in carbohydrates, high in fat and low in protein. There just are not donations of high protein items like meat or milk or fish or eggs or anything like that. What people get is everyone else's leftovers. There is no choice in what people get. It is a very inadequate response, but it seems that it is the kind of response to poverty that this minister endorses, that she would want to see more of this, and I do not think that is a caring response on behalf of our society at all. So I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Furthermore, churches who are involved in this kind of response to the problem of poverty are also cognizant of the problems of people in poverty, not just the fact that their budget will not go far enough. One of them corresponds regularly with, I believe, this minister and the local member of Parliament, an MLA, and myself as critic. And when we get to Income Security, I am going to read excerpts from a couple of letters from St. Matthews-Maryland Community Ministry, where they talk about problems that people on social assistance have and people who are unemployed have, and the recommendations that they make to this minister's department. They sure are not recommending more food for people, and they are not lobbying Winnipeg Harvest for more food. In fact, they put geographical restrictions and numerical restrictions on the amount of people that they serve every week. The amount of people that they are serving is considerable, and they always put that in their letters as well.

I know the minister wants to rebut some of this, so I will let her in at this point.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess we will agree to disagree, because I sense that we have many resources out in the community that remain untapped, and yes, there are two-parent families with both parents in the workforce, and I do know, too, that on one income and one salary it is much more difficult to make ends meet. But I do want to indicate that with new advanced medical technology we have seniors that are living much longer today than they did in the past. I know that with early retirement we have young seniors. I mean, we are looking at 55-year-olds now that are retired and some even before that, that I think we need to tap into to a greater degree than we are right now.

I think there is opportunity to use some of those people with some skills and some time on their hands as mentors or people that can work with some of the more disadvantaged people in our society, in our community. When we talk about the food banks and the kinds of food that are available, and we talk about them not being nutritional, I would venture to guess that many parents that are feeding their children maybe are not feeding them the kinds of nutritional food that they need for a healthy mind in a healthy body. So it is not just the food banks that are providing that.

I am not sure that in all instances parents are using the small resources that they have in a wise fashion. I think we could probably all relate or indicate some experience where, for whatever reason, children are not receiving the proper nutrition, and it might not be lack of food. It might be lack of the right foods.

* (1550)

I think there is opportunity. I tend to disagree that the church community is doing all that it can do or all that it wants to do, because from the meetings that I have had--and I have opportunity for discussions and dialogue in my community, for example, with women that are very much a part of the evangelical movement and indicate very clearly that there is more work to be done. I have met with groups and organizations of our church community that have said point out where the trouble spots are, challenge us, and we will come up with some solutions and some answers. So I really think that there is a willingness on behalf of our community to work together. I believe there are lots of resources that are untapped out there, and they might not be the second parent working in the family, but there are those out in our community that may be single parents, that may be able to be trained to mentor other single parents, to work with other single parents, trained to look after each other's children, trained in better nutritional skills and preparation.

I think there is opportunity. I believe there are new ways of trying to pilot programs and projects that will improve the life and the status of many of those that are living below the poverty line, and I do not think we just can sit back and say there is not any resource out there. I think we have got to reach out to our community and try to find the resources that are available, and I am going to continue to meet with people and ask for the kind of support and the kind of innovation that I believe can be harnessed in our community.

Mr. Martindale: Two more questions on this line. Under Expected Results it says: The undertaking of social policy review and analysis in support of departmental priorities. I would be interested in knowing what you have reviewed in the last year and what you are going to review in the next year and if any of that is in document form and if it is available to me or not.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The one area of priority this year was helping in the development of Manitoba's perspective on the social safety net reform, and you have received that document. It was tabled in the house. That was a major piece of work that was done.

Mr. Martindale: Another Expected Result is systematic program evaluation within the department. I would be interested in knowing what programs you have evaluated and with what results.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are in the process of evaluating the Community Living pilot project, In the Company of Friends, that is underway now. We are working with the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship to develop an inventory of departmental programs and services for immigrants. We are underway with an evaluation of the City of Winnipeg's Community Services Projects. Last year we announced a doubling of the program for the Community Services Projects that the City of Winnipeg runs under Making Welfare Work. We are evaluating that, and we are also developing an evaluation process for the Taking Charge! initiative to measure outcomes.

Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that information. I think I am ready to pass this line.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1. Administration and Finance (e) Management Services (5) Policy and Planning (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $769,600--(pass); (b) Other Expenditures $244,900--(pass).

1.(e)(6) Residential Care Licensing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $311,100.

Mr. Martindale: I am looking at the 1993-94 annual report of the department and it is a little bit different, which is a little confusing because the headings are either different or slightly different and so is the numbering. For example, in the Annual Report there is a 09-1E-7 Agency Relations Bureau. I do not find that title, Agency Relations Bureau, in the current Estimates book, so I presume there has been a reorganization and it is under some other line.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The Agency Relations Bureau no longer exists. It has been blended into program areas within different divisions in the department.

Mr. Martindale: I have some questions about the 21 service purchase agreements, and perhaps would it be appropriate to ask that question and other questions when I ask questions about the grants to external agencies?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that is probably the best time.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: (6) Residential Care Licensing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $311,100--(pass); (b) Other Expenditures $26,500--(pass).

2. Income Security and Regional Operations (a) Central Directorate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,273,200.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if it is okay with the minister if I ask questions about municipal assistance. It is maybe on the next page, but if her staff is here could we do municipal assistance now?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to move onto 2.(b) Income Maintenance Programs? [agreed]

Mr. Martindale: I have questions about, I guess, what is now just negotiations between this minister and her department and the City of Winnipeg Social Services department. It is my understanding that there is going to be a report on the minister's desk in June.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

I will begin by maybe giving the minister a chance to start off and tell me about the status of the negotiations and when she expects to have a report.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess I can indicate that there was a meeting with the mayor and the chair of the committee at City Hall that deals with social allowances, but I do not know the name of the committee at City Hall, but anyway we met and have had discussions. There has been some sense that the city has wanted us to look at taking over the responsibility for delivering social allowance to all residents of the city of Winnipeg. I think I have indicated to my honourable friend in the past that the City of Winnipeg is very supportive.

* (1600)

The Union of Manitoba Municipalities has not been supportive of a one-tier system mainly because they feel they could deliver the services better. They are closer to the people in their communities. The numbers are not nearly as great as the city of Winnipeg. They have expressed a desire to maintain the two-tiered system of social allowance.

The City of Winnipeg has asked whether there was a willingness for us to take over the responsibility for delivering the service to all citizens of the city of Winnipeg. We agreed that would be the right way to go. I think it is critical that overlap and duplication be reduced. As a result the maximum amount of dollars available can go to those people that are in need of the support and the services. We have opened the dialogue and had some initial meetings with the City of Winnipeg. What I am expecting in the month of June is a preliminary report, sort of laying out what some of the issues might be.

There are many issues. I cannot say I am going to be announcing within the next couple of months a new process or a new delivery service. I think it is going to take some time and some more dialogue. There are some issues that are outstanding that are going to have to be discussed in great detail before we can move ahead with a one-tiered system. But we are committed to it and I think we can work through the details. It is just that some of the issues will take a little longer to resolve.

Mr. Martindale: It seems clear from the minister's answer that the provincial government is going to take over city social services. I have some detailed questions then. I would like to ask how the transfer to provincial responsibility will affect programming. For example, the city currently delivers or provides quite a few different programs for its clients. In fact, there is a couple of reports that I have about this. For example, the minister must have a copy of this one called Working and this is just about infrastructure renewal. I think I have another one. I am sure the minister has this one, City of Winnipeg Social Services department, employment, training and education services, '94-95 initiatives and partnerships. They describe their training programs. Will the province take over all these programs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That question is quite premature at this point in time. We need to understand exactly what the City of Winnipeg does clearly. It is obvious when you are amalgamating two systems into one we are going to have to find a process that ensures that we are providing the best service possible to the clients that we are going to serve. It is premature at this point to take every program and indicate that those programs are going to be there and exist in the future. I think that part of the restructure and the reorganization is to look at what is working and what is not and maybe pick the best of both systems and try to implement and bring them together so that we have got a better one system rather than two with some components of maybe both that are not maybe the best solutions.

Mr. Martindale: Well, surely the minister would agree that the purpose of training and employment programs is to get social assistance recipients off social assistance and through training to get a job and through work programs to be gainfully employed, instead of sitting at home and collecting social assistance. So surely this minister would not entertain the idea of dropping a training program or dropping any work programs.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think the days are gone when you just look at training programs as training programs. What we want to do is have training programs with the opportunity for a job at the end of that training. I think you will see governments right across the country that have in the past and will continue to evaluate programs, and we are going to have to look at where the jobs will be, identify those areas and ensure that the training that is done is training that will lead to meaningful employment. And I think that is the end result that we all want.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I am not sure that I totally agree with the minister on this. For example, the city has run the Dutch Elm Disease Control Program, and the province has contributed to that. So that is a good example. Obviously, the minister supports that. And they have hired the heads of households of large families, and they have paid them a decent wage, and the result has been that actually they are making less money on the Dutch Elm Disease Control Program than they are if they were sitting at home doing nothing and collecting welfare. And yet there is no guaranteed job for those individuals at the end of this program. In spite of that, many of them have received on-the-job training which has resulted in them going to work for tree service and nursery companies or for city and provincial departments.

So that is an example of a program that I think the primary goal is to control Dutch elm disease, and the benefit is that people are working. I have met some of these people. They feel good about themselves because they are working. I think they are being good role models for their children, and some of them have had the added benefit of getting a job at the end of it. So surely the minister would not limit programs or training to only the ones where the participants are going to get a job at the completion of it.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The Dutch Elm Disease Program, and I have indicated that it has been a good and a very successful program, but when you are talking about training, it was on-the-job training for that program, and there was training to do something, the kind of training that I think we have to look at and evaluate. We could go through program by program, but I do not have the expertise or the understanding of absolutely every program that is being run by the City of Winnipeg presently, to indicate which ones we would keep and which ones we might not keep.

If you are looking at many of the training programs that have been in place in the past, have been training for a course in, I will just take an example, hairdressing, when there is not a requirement for hairdressers at the end of the day, and I am only using that as an example. I do not know if there is a need or a requirement for hairdressers today or not. But those are the kinds of training activities that I do not think we would be supportive of, if in fact there is not a need, and we are going to spend resources and time and energy and effort on training when there is no question that probably all it will lead to is unemployment or welfare at the end of day.

So, off the top of my head, I do not have a list of all the programs and evaluation of all the programs that the City of Winnipeg runs, but certainly if we have got something that is working and creating activity and opportunity for work experience, those are the kinds of things that we are going to look at very positively.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I do not like beating a dead horse, but surely the minister will agree that it is worthwhile for those individuals, while they are engaged in the training program, to be working rather than sitting at home doing nothing, even if there is no guarantee that a hundred percent of them are going to find employment at the end. The success rate is quite reasonable, according to the City of Winnipeg report. Since the inception of the Dutch Elm Disease Control Program, a total of 236 recipients have been selected for the program, and to date--and this is March 1995--approximately 112, or 47 percent, of former participants of this program are currently employed with the City of Winnipeg.

So I would hope that the minister would agree that even if a hundred percent of the people in that program did not get jobs at the end of it, it was still a worthwhile program.

* (1610)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we are saying the same thing, only in a different language. I mean, I have no problem with a program like the Dutch Elm Disease Program, and it is on-the-job training. It provides a bit of work experience. There sometimes is a long-term job opportunity at the end and sometimes not. I have no problem with that kind of program. I indicated in my previous answer, it is the 10-month training program for a hairdresser or whatever it might be, if in fact there is no opportunity for work experience in any way and there is no opportunity for a job at the end. Is that the kind of training we want to do, or do we want to look at meaningful training like the Dutch elm disease program that could lead to permanent job opportunity at the end of the program?

I think we are on the same wavelength. I have no problem with that kind of training, but we have to look at where the job opportunities will be into the future if we are going into long-term training.

Mr. Martindale: The minister is aware that the City of Winnipeg recipients are mostly employable and that provincial recipients are mostly unemployable, although that is not entirely true because it includes single parents, many of whom are employable. With the new one-tier system within the City of Winnipeg boundaries, what will happen to these categories? Will there still be a short-term employable category, an unemployable category?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I cannot give any assurances or any guarantees today of what categories there will or will not be. I can indicate to you that we are one of the provinces that are a little behind and we are going to have to think very seriously about our term "unemployable" for single parents. I think it sends the wrong message out, and many other provinces, including the province of British Columbia, are changing the definition of unemployable. Some of them have an NDP government, but they have changed and maybe have been a little more progressive than we have in that they do not consider single moms unemployable. They have to look for job opportunities when their youngest child turns six; in Manitoba it is 18. They have moved considerably in that direction. I think it is something that bears looking at in dialogue and discussion, and we will probably be making some changes in that respect in the near future in Manitoba. But, as far as knowing what categories there will be or will not be, we are not at that stage yet to determine what the future will hold.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Martindale: I am told that the City of Winnipeg has a superior computer system to the provincial. I am wondering if you have thought about this, and whether you would keep the best system or change over.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The information that I am getting is that neither one of them is very good. Is it the best of a bad situation? Do we take the best of two bad ones, or do we look at a new integrated system? Those are all issues that have to be discussed in greater detail before we can make a final decision.

Mr. Martindale: That begs another question. Will you be spending big bucks on a new computer system?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Can I say, Mr. Chairperson, your guess is as good as mine? I do not know, and we have not investigated--or we do not have any sense or indication or cost analysis done of what might be needed to integrate the system. It is critical that we have a system that deals with--for a one-tier system, we should have one system that deals with all the people who are on our social allowance rolls. What that system will be--I suppose what we would have to do is evaluate the cost implications for moving our caseload onto the city's computer or moving theirs onto ours or developing an integrated system. We would have to look at the cost implications and the feasibility and determine what would be the best method or process of getting a system up and running.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister if she would consider making some changes in categories. Let me use some examples. I am talking here about employability, unemployability. I know a number of recipients who are receiving the city's social services benefits. They are 55 years old or slightly older. They have very low education levels, maybe Grade 8. They have very low skill levels, and their chances of finding employment are almost zero. They are on the city system because they are deemed employable.

The individuals I am thinking of are single people. I know that the city is putting almost no pressure on them to find employment. I know that the minister will be distressed at this, and I know that they are supposed to be looking for work. But I think there is a reality there that is being recognized by city Social Services, and that reality is that there just are not jobs available for people who are 55 years old, with no skills and very low levels of education.

Another example, and this comes, I think, from the director of city Social Services, who says that once people have been unemployed for two years or more, their chances of getting employment in today's job economy are almost zero. The reason is that when employers have a choice, and there are 40,000 to 50,000 people unemployed--well, let us use just the city of Winnipeg, 16,000 employable people on the City of Winnipeg assistance available--employers are going to take, obviously, the best candidates. They are going to take people with the most recent employment history. If they can hire somebody who has only been unemployed for three months, rather than two years, they are going to take the person who has been unemployed for three months every time.

I am wondering if the minister would consider changing the categories to make them a little more realistic and to recognize some of the reality out there. I guess the other possibility would be to get rid of categories altogether and just expect everybody to be looking for work, although when it comes to disabled people or severely disabled people, maybe that is not realistic either.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I thank my honourable friend for those comments, because I think he has painted a realistic picture of what does exist out there today. Most of the comments that have been put on the record are very accurate and do present a set of problems and challenges for us to overcome.

So I will certainly, in our dialogue around how we integrate the services, look at the best way to treat individuals, and it is almost groups of individuals in certain circumstances that are going to have great difficulty finding jobs.

We also know, too, that it is critical that what we do into the future has to look at trying to deal very quickly and aggressively with those who are just coming onto social allowances because, as my honourable friend indicated, once they have been on social allowances for two years, it is very difficult to reverse the trend, so I think a lot of our energies and efforts have to go into the front end and aggressively pursue options and opportunities at that level.

Mr. Martindale: Integrating two systems obviously has a lot of implications for staffing. I think these are important and sensitive and maybe even difficult issues, and I have some questions about them.

For example, would the sick time of municipal employees be carried forward if they become part of the provincial system?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, those are all issues that would be under negotiation and consideration as we moved into a process, and I certainly could not give an answer to that today.

* (1620)

Mr. Martindale: Would seniority be incorporated within the provincial system?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think a lot of the questions, or this line of questioning, will probably lead me to repeat the same answer that I gave with the first question, and that is that those are details that would have to be worked out through a process of negotiation and dialogue and discussion, and we are not into those kinds of discussions at this point in time.

Mr. Martindale: It is possible that people in one system, as opposed to another, might enjoy their jobs more or might have a better work environment or a more positive work environment.

Would the minister be prepared to review the quality of the work environment and maintain a positive work environment when the employees are absorbed into the new system?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I always think if the work environment is a positive work environment, you have more productive employees and people who are happy about doing their jobs.

I have not had the opportunity to visit as many of our offices as I would like to, but I am planning to get out into the community and meet with front-line workers and seek their input. Very interesting comments do come from those who are dealing on a one-to-one basis on a daily basis with people who are on social allowance. There are some great ideas and suggestions out there that I think we need to be listening to and considering as we move forward.

I would certainly like to hear what employees who are working for the City of Winnipeg have to say and what recommendations they might make on how to better serve the needs of the people they are serving and make a positive difference, so I am very supportive of a positive working environment.

Mr. Martindale: If fewer staff or employees are needed, would buy-out packages or retirement packages be offered to surplus employees?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, these are all hypothetical questions at this point in time, and I know there is a lot of concern. I knocked on doors just recently during the election campaign. In my constituency I talked to several City of Winnipeg employees who worked for the Social Services department, and we discussed quite openly the issue. I think we are just going to have to work through the issues, one by one, trying to recognize and realize the sensitivity around some of the uncertainty that is always felt when a change occurs and try to be as sensitive as possible to those issues.

Mr. Martindale: What are the differences in pay scales? How would they relate to civic employees under the auspices of the provincial government?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the Civil Service Commission is presently compiling all of that information and looking at both of the agreements and trying to give us an analysis of what is happening presently, and that will all be part of the information that we take into consideration with the amalgamation.

Mr. Martindale: What protection would there be once the current WAPSO--that is an acronym, all capitalized--agreement expires in 1997? Would Schedule M still apply if the province felt that management employees should be eliminated?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am aware that there are, I think, two unions at the City of Winnipeg, WAPSO and CUPE. So those are issues that are going to have to be resolved. You are asking a question and some detail. I do not know what the agreements entail but I think those are discussions and information that needs to be pulled together. I think we are looking at that through the Civil Service Commission, and it will all be part of labour negotiation and process as we move towards a one-tiered system.

Mr. Martindale: What type of training would be available for displaced staff? What system would they be in, civic or provincial in terms of placement?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I probably should just say ditto. Very, very premature questioning. Hypothetical. I do not know who is going to be displaced or what the whole process will be for integrating the two systems. That remains to be seen. We are not anywhere close to that determination.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I already said I think these are important questions and sensitive issues, but, obviously, the minister is not in a position to reply to them. I think I should just give up on this line of questions and maybe I can write to the minister or maybe the unions will write to the minister and ask these questions.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we have opened the dialogue and discussion and those requests have been there for meetings. I just want to say that we are not here to make people's lives miserable through any process. I think what we want to do is try and find the best way to deliver service to the people of Winnipeg, through this process, who need our service. In my mind, the client, the recipient of the service comes first. We want to ensure that there is a sensitive approach to the amalgamation process so that there is as little disruption for those who need services as possible.

Mr. Martindale: I am going to switch to a different line of questioning although on the same topic.

I have heard that there might be a trade-off, that in return for the province taking over social assistance, the city might get jurisdiction for health from where it is currently now just the inner city, in fact to the whole city of Winnipeg. Has there been any consideration of that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, to my knowledge there is not consideration, but I would imagine that should more appropriately be addressed to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae).

Mr. Martindale: Another issue that I would like to raise is that there are differences in the staff qualifications for hiring between the two systems. It is my understanding that the City of Winnipeg Social Services department hires people with Bachelor of Social Work degrees. In fact, one of the students who I taught in a class at the University of Manitoba was hired by City Social Services. My understanding is that the provincial Department of Income Security does not hire Bachelor of Social Work graduates. I am wondering if there will be some sort of job guarantees for the Bachelor of Social Work qualified staff.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I have a difficult time guaranteeing anything right at this moment without understanding what the caseload will look like with an amalgamated system and how we can best deliver that service to the people that need the service.

I think we would want to use the best qualified people possible to deliver that service. It might be a combination. It could be any mix of--I would hate to indicate that one group of staff might be any better than another group or that a background in one profession might better enable you to deliver a service than another group. I think we probably have very qualified staff in both systems, and I would want to see that we have the best people possible to deliver the best service possible to the people we want to deliver that service to.

Mr. Martindale: Since the minister cannot guarantee anything, which is reasonable, I will phrase my next question a little differently and ask, would the province consider changing its hiring qualifications and hire BSW graduates or individuals with BSW degrees?

* (1630)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I happen to think, from just meeting many of the front-line workers that deal with the issues of social assistance, that we have very competent people delivering that service. I cannot see any reason for wanting to get rid of them and change the qualifications at this point.

As I said earlier, I think we have to, first of all, look and figure out where our priorities are. Our priorities are to deliver a service to people that are in need of a very basic and necessary service. To me, the client comes first, and we want to have qualified staff and caring staff that can deliver that service.

I think probably in both systems, we have very caring and qualified people.

Mr. Martindale: I am pleased to hear that statement by the minister, because in the past I thought that the minister's only concern was efficiency.

I wonder if the minister can tell me what all the reasons are that they want to take over city social services.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think we want to see the dollars that are available in the future go to the people that need those dollars, in the most efficient and effective manner. I believe that we have caring staff people in systems throughout government that will deliver that service.

Mr. Martindale: Well, of course, if the minister really wants to be efficient, the easiest way to be efficient is to reduce the rates--

Mrs. Mitchelson: Get rid of the opposition.

Mr. Martindale: Well, if the minister is interested in authoritarian governments, fascist governments, that is what they would do, of course.

That raises the question of the rates. As this minister knows, the rates for the food allowance, in particular for children from birth to 18 years of age, are considerably higher for city social services recipients than for provincial social assistance recipients. What does the minister plan to do about the rates when the two systems are integrated?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do want to put on the record the fact that the rates for children in the city of Winnipeg are the highest rates across the country, not taking into consideration the higher costs of living in formerly NDP Ontario and presently NDP B.C., where in the city of Vancouver the rates for children are lower under an NDP administration than they are here and the cost of living is certainly higher. The same would hold true in the city of Toronto, where for the last four years an NDP government has been in power.

I want to indicate that the rates are the highest, bar none, across the country, and the cost of living in Manitoba or in Winnipeg is not nearly as high as other major centres across our country. So that fact will have to be taken into consideration when we are looking at a one-tiered system, and I am not sure what the eventual outcome will be. I think it is critical that the dollars that are going to those that need support from social allowances are going with some input and some support from us, ensuring that the dollars are being spent in a manner that is going to ensure proper nutrition and support for basic needs of those children.

So I cannot indicate right now what the eventual outcome will be, but I can indicate that there are other provinces across the country that do not provide the same kind of support that has been provided here.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I cannot believe that this minister will not provide assurances that she will not reduce the food allowance for children on social services in the city of Winnipeg, given how far below the poverty line children and families are in every city, in every province across Canada. That is just unbelievable.

In fact, I would like to make a prediction. I think amalgamation is going to mean standardization of the rates and that is going to mean a reduction for the food allowance for children in Winnipeg. If that is true then this minister and her government should be ashamed of themselves.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do want to indicate that there will be a standard rate for the citizens in the city of Winnipeg with the one-tiered system and that is a reality.

Now I hear the comments about the food allowance, and I would like to reiterate and would like to comment that what we need to do is to be ensuring that the dollars that are provided for nutritional support for children and for people on social allowances--and that might be some young pregnant moms--that we are working in a co-ordinated and co-operative fashion to ensure that children are nourished. Whether it be prenatal, whether moms are eating and ensuring that child will have a healthy start to life, we are going to have to ensure that happens in some way, and we will want to work with young people.

I do not know whether it will be in the form of a food allowance or whether it will be in the form of some type of nutritional support, some educational support, some assurance that parents have the tools to make the right choices and the right decisions around the nutritional input for their children. I cannot indicate today exactly what the process will be but we do know--and we have all kinds of statistics, information and research that tells us that proper nutrition is extremely important prenatally and in the first years of life.

A guarantee of more money for food does not necessarily mean proper nutritional support for young children. We have to find a way that we can work with families who need help and support to ensure that the dollars are going into the areas that are going to create a more positive beginning and early years for those children. Just because there is more money for food does not necessarily mean that children are going to get the nourishment and the support that they need.

Mr. Martindale: I would hope, and I recommend that the minister and her staff consult with the home economists in the Department of Agriculture. I know that they put out a brochure on the cost of raising a family. They have lots of detail in that brochure, and they have checked out the costs for food, clothing, school supplies and all kinds of things. I hope that the minister would take those into consideration when she looks at the rates in the one-tier system.

A final question in this area has to do with the city's share of the financial assistance for their recipients. In 1995, according to the fact sheet that I have, it was $16,850,336. Will the city property taxpayers be spared this burden after integration of the two systems? As this minister knows, property taxes are amongst the most regressive kinds of taxes because they are not based on the ability to pay as income tax generally is. Because we still have a two-tier system in Manitoba, and I think it is only one of three provinces in Canada, it means that city property taxpayers are sharing the burden of the social assistance cost, which in most provinces in Canada they are not. So will the province be assuming this cost of $16.85 million or does the minister have some other plan?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, on the premise of developing a one-tiered system run by the province, the discussion and dialogue with the City of Winnipeg has always been that it will be revenue neutral, so that if in fact we are taking over the delivery of the service and paying the cost that in some way will be compensated for in another manner. That has always been the premise and the understanding from one level of government to the other.

* (1640)

Mr. Martindale: I think that probably means if the welfare cost is reduced by $16 million for the City of Winnipeg that the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) will probably subtract $16 million in their grant to the City of Winnipeg. So then I can tell taxpayers in the Burrows constituency that this government is not willing to lighten the tax burden on property taxpayers even though there are only I think three provinces in Canada where municipalities have to cost-share municipal assistance. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely correct. I think if we have a system and a service delivery that is streamlined and more effective and more efficient, taxpayers of Manitoba and taxpayers of Winnipeg will both benefit.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess and leave the clock running? [agreed]

The committee recessed at 4:41 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 4:51 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2. Income Security and Regional Operations (a) Central Directorate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,273,200.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I think we are on page 45 of the Supplementary Estimates book, is that right?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: That is right.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to begin by asking the minister some questions about the welfare fraud line and also about the investigation unit.

First of all, could the minister tell me how many employees there are in the investigation unit?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There are six employees in the investigation unit.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me what kinds of things those staff do in the investigation unit?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, they do handle the fraud line calls. They deal with information sharing among provinces on fraud investigation. They do case investigations. They give advice to the field staff and they liaise with the Crown around prosecutions, to name a few things they do.

Mr. Martindale: Do the staff in the investigation unit do home visits, or is it the frontline workers that do home visits while investigating fraud?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is both.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister provide me with some statistics on the number of cases of fraud investigated and the number of cases where charges are laid, that sort of thing?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, if the question was how many calls were received on the fraud line, it was 3,605 calls. Of the calls received, 2,900, or a little over--I round the numbers off-- were active files or recently active files, and all of those cases have been reviewed.

Staff have dealt with 2,255 calls; 1,794 were unfounded or upon further review did not have enough information to pursue follow-up. Corrective action has been taken on 461 cases; 356 of those were closed and 105 remain open, but there has been some adjustment to the amount of support to them.

To date, 37 cases are being considered for prosecution and some are with the police or the Crown at various stages.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister repeat the number considered for prosecution?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, 37.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me how many have actually made it to court?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, they are all in process. There are none that have gone to court as yet.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what those people would be charged with if it went to court?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it would be misinformation and not declaration of income with deliberate intent to be fraudulent.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister consider that this is the same as welfare fraud?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is welfare fraud.

Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that fraud would be a criminal charge under the Criminal Code of Canada. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: A decision is made whether to prosecute under The Social Allowances Act or under the Criminal Code, and there are some of both.

Mr. Martindale: How many are being charged under the Criminal Code, and how many under The Social Allowances Act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we do not have that detail here, but we will get it.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you for that. Would the minister agree that a charge of misinformation would be roughly comparable to a traffic summons?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do not think you can make a general statement. I think each case is individual, and it would depend on the amount and the kind of activity. It goes to the Justice system that helps to make the determination on what type of case it is and what the recourse should be.

* (1700)

Mr. Martindale: I am sorry that I am not very familiar with the legal system. Perhaps I should have consulted with my colleague beside me beforehand, but would the correct legal language be that this is a summary conviction?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess a conviction under The Social Allowances Act would be a summary conviction but it would not be under the Criminal Code. It is the justice system that makes that determination. We provide the information and they make the determination on what the course of action should be.

Mr. Martindale: We are really talking about two different things here. We are talking about fraud which is a Criminal Code conviction, and we are talking about a summary conviction which is under The Social Allowances Act and is something quite different. Would the minister agree with that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Out of 3,605 calls, some 37 might be considered fraud?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Those are the ones that might be charged under the Criminal Code. But if people are receiving support through government, which is ultimately the taxpayers of Manitoba that are paying the taxes to provide that support and they are receiving support that they are not entitled to under the rules and the regulations, that is fraud.

Mr. Martindale: But in legal terms it is not fraud, it is a summary conviction?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I go back to the comment that I just made, that if you are receiving support that is generated by tax revenues, government collects based on your declaration that these are your basic needs, and if you are receiving that money you are not entitled to because you are not providing the information to government that is required and that is determined, then it is fraud.

Mr. Martindale: I guess one could say that it is fraudulent behaviour, but in terms of legal language it is only fraud if it is a Criminal Code charge.

Going back to the 3,605, is this since the welfare fraud lines started or are we talking about a fiscal year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that is since it started.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me of the 37 that are being considered for prosecution, how many would be in the 1994-95 fiscal year for the department?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, most of the cases would be from the last fiscal year, because the only stats that would be included for this year would be those from the end of March until the present date.

Mr. Martindale: Would any of those 37 include recipients whose activities were investigated and charges are being considered laid from previous fiscal years?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No.

Mr. Martindale: So they are all from the beginning of the fraud line to the present?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to switch topics now and ask about special needs allowances. My understanding is that there was a policy change in May of 1994, one that I did not find out about for quite a long time, actually until April 1, '95, when people were requesting special needs and finding out that it was abolished.

We will start with when the policy changed, was it May of 1994?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The change was made a year ago and I believe, if I am not mistaken, that I read the changes into the record in last year's Estimates.

Mr. Martindale: That is fine. Could the minister tell me if the regulation has changed?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, the regulation has not changed.

Mr. Martindale: If special needs funds are something that is available because of a regulation, how can the minister change the policy without changing the regulation?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we have a big policy manual on the social allowance side, and much of the assessment of special need, I guess, is discretionary and not everything is set down in regulation. So policy direction does determine the criteria and the need for them to do this.

Mr. Martindale: You mean that there is no regulation covering special needs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I will try to get this right. There is a regulation that says that we can go up to $150 in special needs, but there is discretion to provide less or, in some instances, to provide more based on individual circumstances. So each case is assessed on an individual basis, and there is a determination of what the special need might be. That is set by policy.

Mr. Martindale: Well, it used to be that the first $150 was available after April 1 of each fiscal year, and we know the people use this money to buy furniture, to buy winter clothes and for other purposes. Now it is almost impossible to get this money. The reason that I am raising it is that I think this is causing undue hardship for people. I have been told of situations where people have no furniture, including no kitchen table. They have requested special needs funds, and they have been turned down. So I would like to ask the minister, why is this being done? Other than to save money at the expense of the poor, why are you deliberately creating hardship for income assistance recipients?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess if there are individual cases that have been brought forward to the member's attention that he would like me to look into and investigate, I certainly would do that. I do want to indicate also that any decision that is made to determine what amount we might provide or not provide is appealable, but if there are individual cases and specifics--when you indicate that there is a family that did not have a kitchen table and they were denied, I would like to have that detailed information and I would certainly investigate.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I will certainly bring to the minister's attention any past and future individual situations. I appreciate the minister's offer. But the problem is that when I raise it or another MLA raises it we get action. I mean, if I phone Mr. Schmidt I get action. If I phone Mr. Sexsmith I get action because, of course, this minister does not want it on the front page of the Free Press.

* (1710)

Recently, we had a case that was going to the social services appeal committee, and the hearing got stopped and the person got what they needed because it was being raised by an MLA. That is of no help to the other recipients who do not phone their MLA or who do not have an advocate or do not have access to a lawyer or to Legal Aid and who apply for special needs funds for furniture or an emergency or winter clothes and they get turned down. So I would like to ask the minister, will she consider changing this policy so that we do not end up with an ad hoc policy where if you know where to go for help you are going to get help, and if you do not know where to go for help you are going to get nothing?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, all I can say is that if cases come to our attention, if people feel they are being unfairly treated, there is an appeal mechanism that is available for them, and we have set down certain policy and guidelines and rules and regulations. I can indicate to you that, if I am aware of any circumstance or situation that appears to be unfair or unjust, I will look into that. But we have certain policies and we have certain rules that we abide by.

Mr. Martindale: Well, Madam Minister, the part that is unfair and unjust is the policy change so that it is almost impossible for people to get furniture or winter clothes or whatever through the special needs fund. Suggesting that they appeal it is not very helpful when, for about 90 percent of people on appeal, their appeal is turned down. So that is only going to help a very small number of people. The only thing that would be fair and just would be if you were to reverse this unfair policy.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I would believe my honourable friend is making some wide, broad, general speculations about what is going on out there, without any specific documentation or instances. So these are general comments. I would have to be convinced, and I would hope you would bring to my attention issues that would indicate that things are so widespread that people are not receiving the basic needs that they require, and I would look into it. I think to make broad generalizations without specifics or detail is not doing a service to the kind of support in the programs that we have in place.

Mr. Martindale: Well, maybe we can get some documentation. Would the minister be willing to table information on the amount of money that was handed out under the special needs category and we could do a comparison? If the minister would give us the figures for '93-94 and the figures for '94-95, when they become available, we can see what the results are of the policy change. If what I am saying is true, then much less money will be expended on special needs. If I am wrong, then that will be apparent in the figures. If I am wrong, I will apologize.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will look into that and see what I might do.

Mr. Martindale: Will the minister provide me with the figures from those two financial years?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will look into the situation and see what is available to provide.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to change now to the topic of social assistance for off-reserve aboriginal people, particularly two communities, South Indian Lake and, I believe, it is Granville Lake. Could the minister tell me if she is involved in negotiations with the federal government and with these two First Nations communities?

Mrs. Mitchelson: You know it is very difficult when you receive a notice one month, a unilateral decision by the federal government in writing. Not from the minister, but I think, from the Director of DIAND to the Deputy Minister of Family Services, that indicates within a month they are going to cut off support to Status Indians in communities that they have traditionally supported for years and years. Unilateral, no consultation, no dialogue, and I think a very unfair and not terribly caring or considerate decision.

That has been the instance in both cases around South Indian Lake and around Granville. As a result of the letter from the federal government, I wrote immediately, in both instances, to the Minister of Indian Affairs, federally, indicating that kind of unilateral decision, without any dialogue, was unfair and unjust. We have always maintained, and we still maintain, that the federal government has a special financial responsibility to Status Indians, a responsibility that they have not lived up to in the last few years, not only in Manitoba but in other provinces.

I would venture to guess--and I know for a fact, that Saskatchewan is in very similar circumstance to us. The taxpayers of both Saskatchewan and Manitoba are being asked to pick up increasing amounts of support to Status Indians, without any commitment from the federal government as to what their role and responsibility is going to be in relationship to dismantling of Indian Affairs and turning over the power to govern to aboriginal peoples.

Anyway, yes, I have been involved. When you talk about consultation, I guess it is one way. I have corresponded with the federal minister asking for discussion and dialogue around this issue and for them to live up to their responsibilities. To date, I have not received an audience with the federal minister. I indicated in Question Period today that I have tried to get a meeting when I heard he was coming, just via the grapevine, to Winnipeg yesterday, and was not successful in getting a meeting. He has indicated that he will meet. We have had discussions at the officials level with MKO and the federal bureaucracy to try to deal with this issue and come to a fair resolution, but I am rather disappointed that the federal minister is reacting in the manner that he is reacting.

We also raised this issue when my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) and myself hosted ministers from across the western provinces dealing with Family Services issues and Native Affairs issues, and we did a joint letter off to the federal Minister of Human Resources and of Indian Affairs indicating that we all had specific concerns, especially around the new funding that is being provided to provinces--a complete lack of consideration for the unique or special needs in some of the western provinces, specifically Manitoba and Saskatchewan with our high concentrations of aboriginal population.

We have the two highest percentages of aboriginal population per capita across the country. There has always been a special federal commitment which they have been offloading and continue to offload. Then with reductions in transfers and sort of an abandoned social safety net reform, which we believe should have taken into consideration the unique circumstances in our two provinces, received support and a letter did go off to the federal ministers. I guess we just received a letter back yesterday that indicates that the federal ministers may be prepared to meet with western ministers in September.

* (1720)

So, extremely frustrated, extremely disappointed, and I guess for the federal government the bottom line is finances, and it does not look like they have put a lot of thought, as I said earlier, into services for people.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us who is currently taking responsibility for people in these two communities for welfare needs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The federal government.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2. Income Security and Regional Operations (a) Central Directorate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,273,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $592,400--pass.

2. Income Security and Regional Operations (b) Income Maintenance Programs (1) Social Allowances $225,124,700.

Mr. Martindale: I have another question about Income Security. I was informed by someone who was in a supervisory capacity in a training program that some of his trainees were cut off social assistance because they took the training program without telling their worker. Is it possible that that could happen?

Mrs. Mitchelson: If that information and some detail could be shared with me, I would investigate that immediately.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you. I see the department is projecting an increase in municipal assistance and a decrease in provincial assistance. Could the minister tell us why?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we have seen a decreasing enrolment in the provincial caseload and that continues. On the municipal side, although the caseload was down from the previous year, we had to spend more money last year because we did not quite predict correctly from the year before, so although there is a decline in the caseload, there is more money because we had to make up for a shortfall from the previous year. Does that make sense?

Mr. Martindale: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2. Income Security and Regional Operations (b) Income Maintenance Programs (1) Social Allowances $225,124,700--pass; 2.(b)(2) Health Services $14,259,900--pass; 2.(b)(3) Municipal Assistance $108,195,500--pass; (4) Income Assistance for the Disabled $9,100,000--pass.

2.(c) Making Welfare Work $3,600,000.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I see there is a decrease of $300,000 in Income Assistance for the Disabled. Could the minister explain that, please?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess we have not seen an increase in the caseload that was predicted.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(c) Making Welfare Work $3,600,000--pass.

Item 2.(d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $741,000.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to go back to 2.(c).

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to return to 2.(c)? [agreed].

Mr. Martindale: The program I guess I am interested in is Taking Charge! although I see there is a number of programs here. I presume very little money, if any, was spent on Taking Charge! in '94-95.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is correct. Very little was spent.

Mr. Martindale: How much of this appropriation is for Taking Charge! in '95-96?

Mrs. Mitchelson: In our budget for Taking Charge! there is $2.6 million, and there is also money in the Department of Education under Making Welfare Work for Taking Charge!

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $741,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $443,500--pass; (3) Financial Assistance $13,632,700.

Mr. Martindale: That is the total? All financial assistance, okay. Pass it.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(d)(3) Financial Assistance $13,632,700--pass.

Item 2.(e) Regional Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,583,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,306,600--pass.

Resolution 9.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $404,853,000 for Family Services, Income Security and Regional Operations for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1996.

Item 3. Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $641,300.

Mr. Martindale: I think now we will get into questions about the Vulnerable Persons Commissioner's Office. I see the details on the next page, but we might as well start right now. Can the minister tell me when she plans to proclaim the act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have indicated that we were looking to proclaim the act this spring. Unfortunately, not everything is in place that is needed to proclaim the legislation at this point. We are working. There is a lot of work that has been done in the department, in the community. I guess the next step is to get the commissioner in place, and we are in the process of determining who might fill that position. Once that happens, we also have to set up the appeal panels that will review all the appeals that come forward and orient those people to their roles and responsibilities as part of the appeal process.

Those are two steps that have to be completed before the act is proclaimed. I hate to be giving a bait because I did say spring of this year, and we are not ready yet. As I have indicated in the past, it is leading-edge legislation that is not anywhere else in the country, and we want to take all of the steps that are needed to ensure that when it is proclaimed we can put it into place and have something that we can be proud of.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us when the Vulnerable Persons Commissioner will be hired?

* (1730)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Very soon.

Mr. Martindale: Very soon sounds like a day or two.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No comment.

Mr. Martindale: What has taken so long? It is almost two years since the bill was approved unanimously in the Legislature. Why has it taken so long to hire a Vulnerable Persons Commissioner?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I cannot speak for the time before I became the Minister of Family Services and the steps that were taken. I do know that since I have been in the portfolio, it took me a little bit of time to get up to speed on what the legislation really involved and what steps were necessary. Probably if there had been the same minister that had continued through, you might have seen a little faster process.

I have to accept some responsibility for a bit of the delay, but I wanted to assure myself that I had an understanding of all the issues and was on top of the situation and new what was going on before I proceeded too quickly. I will accept some of the responsibility for a bit of the delay, although, while it has taken me some time, I think there has been a lot of activity ongoing within the department and all the implementation subcommittees that have been working to get a process in place.

Mr. Martindale: It is good to see the minister accepting some responsibility. That is almost refreshing. Of course, that is normal anyway in this parliamentary democracy. The minister is responsible for everything whether it is her fault or not, so it is good to see this minister acknowledging that.

I would like to ask some questions in the whole area of vulnerable persons, beginning with, would the minister be interested in appointing a committee to look at moving more people out of institutions and into the community and, similarly, would the minister establish a planning process to reduce the number of people living in institutions?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have had many meetings with many community members around the issues surrounding vulnerable persons, and we have talked institution versus community. I have been out to MDC to tour the facility and meet with staff out there. I have been to St. Amant Centre, which provides services to children. I have become convinced, and I think it has been our policy, and I certainly would not recommend a change of that policy or direction, that we need to have a broad range of services available for people with mental disabilities.

I think there is a place for St. Amant Centre and I think there is a place at this point in time for the Manitoba Developmental Centre, although the numbers are getting fewer and fewer. I think with the new legislation that will be proclaimed, there will not be anyone going into an institution without the commissioner or an appeal panel making that determination.

I think as time goes by we will see more community support and activity. I know that is the route to go if we possibly can to try to keep people in the community. I think the legislation will put some checks and balances into that whole process, so we may see places like MDC into the future, just through the natural process, scaling down to a point where it might not be that necessary.

I think a broad range of services needs to be available and I am not prepared to push any further than what might take place under the new legislation and the review of all cases that are presently in institutions.

Mr. Martindale: I have some similar questions to follow up on this theme. I would like to ask the minister if she agrees that all persons living with a mental disability have the right to live in the community with appropriate supports.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I believe that what we have to do is look very carefully ensuring that we can try to put in place the programs and the supports so that people can live in the community. I think I have indicated in my comments, in any speaking I have done in the Legislature, that this is the one area within my department that I have a feeling that these are the most vulnerable Manitobans who, through no fault of their own in any way, are in circumstances and situations where they need our support and our resources. I wish I had enough resources today to ensure that every person could have everything they needed to live in the community in a very real way.

Unfortunately, in the kinds of times we are living through right now, I have tried to put every extra dollar available into supports for community living. I think in last year's budget we had about $4.5 million and in this year's budget around $2 million, and those extra resources were all put into support in the community for those people that need that support. Unfortunately, it does not answer all of the issues. It does not address all of the issues and all of the people that do need help. I have indicated clearly, and I know that my department understands, that wherever possible if there is additional available resources, this is one area that I want to see be given very high priority.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister support a zero-admissions policy to institutions for children and adults so that we can reduce our reliance on institutions and instead provide resources in the community?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I would say no to that question. The short answer would be no. I think that the process that will be put in place under the legislation that will allow for the commissioner to review, there will not be anyone that will go into an institution without that review taking place. The total discussion around, you know, is the community a better option, and if so, how do we make that happen, that discussion will take place.

There will be appeal panels that will be set up to hear those kinds of cases as they come forward, so I would say that I believe that process will address the issue, and I think that the reality is we are going to see less people going into institutions. There will be more people living in the community. I am thoroughly convinced.

I think we have started to develop the programs, and we also see parents and families and communities looking to building community residences and providing support for those that are going to need support all of their lives. I mean, we are seeing it happen, and I think that there is community acceptance, more so today than there ever has been, for complete integration and community living, and I am very supportive.

I do have to caution, though, that a lot of the services that may need to be put in place are going to be put in place over a period of time as resources become available. So the short answer was no, but I honestly believe that we are going to see many more people living in the community, and we are already seeing less people going into institutions.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if she is in favour of enhancing the role and status of families as primary caregivers to children with a mental handicap? I think one of the ways of doing this would be for family-managed respite care. You know, we now have individual-managed respite care for adults. Would the minister be willing to encourage or allow family-managed respite care where families would hire their own help?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are doing both right now, and I am supportive.

Mr. Martindale: Is the minister in favour of providing funds for training for families?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that child development specialists do come in and do some training with family and parents, and that there is some support available through children's special services for that, especially with medically fragile children.

* (1740)

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister favour working towards and stabilizing or even expanding current employment programs for vulnerable persons throughout Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we are working pretty proactively in that area, and we are putting in place resources to look at supportive employment so that there are meaningful job opportunities for those with disabilities and working with the community. So we are moving in that direction.

Mr. Martindale: The minister keeps anticipating my questions which is good, I guess. The next question is, will you work towards reducing reliance on sheltered workshops?

An example of what the minister and I are both talking about is an organization like Sturgeon Creek Enterprises. I went to their annual meeting a couple of years ago, and I was very impressed with their success in placing people in ordinary work situations and also the success of the employees in these work situations, who were found to be very reliable and enjoyed the work and were actually very good employees.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Sturgeon Creek Enterprises does a great job. I am very impressed with what they are able to do. I would venture to guess, though, there is a need for both.

Mr. Martindale: But if you are in favour of increasing employment opportunities and decreasing reliance on sheltered workshops, how do you do that? I mean, do you reduce the funding for sheltered workshops?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have not done that to date. I think we have tried to find resources where we could to enhance services and look at support of employment. It is a balance, and it is trying to find resources and manage those resources to the best of our ability and to maximize the programs we can provide.

Mr. Martindale: Are there employment opportunities within the civil service, and also are there employment opportunities in the private sector that your government or department would be willing to support through wage subsidies?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There are opportunities, and we try to support them as much as we possibly can. I do know in the assistant deputy minister's office we have managed to support an employee, one individual that I think is working very well. But there are other opportunities also besides that one.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have in front of me a press release from November 5, 1992, announcing the pilot project to assist Manitobans with disabilities. I asked some questions about this last year in Estimates, and one of the things that I found out was that the pilot project numbers were reduced from 25 individuals to 10 individuals. I wonder if the minister could bring me up to date briefly on how this pilot project is going, if it is still going, and what you have learned from it.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The pilot program, I think, is working very well, and we are getting feedback from right across the country about how innovative and what a good program it is. We have increased from 10 to 15. I know the original program was supposed to be 25. We started at 10, and we have been able to increase to 15 so far. We will continue, as resources are available, to try to get those numbers up, but we will be evaluating as the project continues. All indications are that it is pretty successful, and it is working fairly well.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have had correspondence from two ACL organizations, and one of them indicated that their grant or per diem funding, whichever it is, was not nearly adequate to cover their expenses. They itemized their expenses, which were things such as utilities, repairs and maintenance, furnishings and appliances, taxes, insurance, transportation, accounting and legal, and a very small amount for staff training, in this instance. The difference between the government funding and their actual costs, in the case of one group home, was $11,000; in the case of another group home, was $2,000.

Since I do not think there has been any funding increases since 1993, when I received this correspondence, I am wondering how these ACL group homes manage to get by. Are they having bake sales and doing their own fundraising to make up the shortfall in their budget, and why does this government expect them to do that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I give any organization, community organization, credit for being innovative and creative and doing fundraising, and I do not think that is a bad thing necessarily. But I understand the original question and also know too that everyone is being asked to manage through very difficult times to the best of their abilities with the resources that are there.

I guess the question for us is, do we want to expand and provide some service to more people, or do we want to--we have tried to the best of our ability, when resources become available, to put more money into the community living side so that more people could be served in the community with additional programming. The reality is that we have expected people to manage within the resources that are allocated; I know that sometimes it is very difficult to do. I do not have an easy answer, but I cannot guarantee or commit more resources at this point in time either.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I would agree with the minister that it is good for people in the community to fund raise, but I think in the case of the Association for Community Living branches there is a difference between them and other nongovernment organizations or voluntary organizations or charitable organizations. One of the differences is that in many charitable organizations people come and go. You recruit volunteers; you lose volunteers; you replace volunteers. In the case of ACL group homes, many of the volunteers are parents, and they are volunteering for 5, 10, 15, 20 years. I think there is a tendency for people to get very tired of having to do fundraising year in and year out to help their children in group homes. Could the minister comment on that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I certainly sympathize with the people that make a commitment to a family member that needs support. There is no easy answer, no quick fix.

I guess in my travels, in my visits in the community to group homes and to community activities that are providing supports for those with mental disabilities in our community, I know the work that families put in and the time commitment that is involved. I also know of others that might be a circle of support or friends to some of those families that commit and dedicate their time and energies too. I do not have an easy answer or a solution. I just know we have provided the resources that we are able to provide. There are no easy answers. I know it is not an easy issue to deal with.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3. Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $641,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $230,700--pass.

3.(b) Vulnerable Persons Commissioner's Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $208,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $257,000--pass.

3.(c) Community Living and Vocational Rehabilitation Programs (1) Adult Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,316,900--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $336,100.

* (1750)

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I just need to ask the minister a question in terms of process. I do not think I am going to be able to ask questions on External Agencies today, so is it okay if we do that tomorrow morning?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Sure.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.(c)(1)(b) $336,100--pass; (c) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $43,803,700--pass.

3.(c)(2) Children's Special Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $247,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $83,300--pass; (c) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $21,319,300--pass.

3.(d) Manitoba Developmental Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,801,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,831,300--pass.

3.(e) Child Day Care (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,065,200.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, of course, I have questions on Child Day Care. I have a very interesting newspaper clipping with me from the Winnipeg Free Press dated Friday, April 7, 1995. It says: Tories flunk out of day care. Restraint message gets thumbs down at campaign forum.

I am sure the minister will remember this well, because we were both at this event. The event was the annual meeting of the Manitoba Child Care Association. Many of their members were there. One of the more interesting things that they did was they had a ballot, rather appropriate to have during an election campaign. They asked people to rate the leaders. Only one party had a leader there. To their credit, this party had their minister there. One party had neither a leader--well, one party had a critic there on the panel. When the ballots were totalled up, the result was that this minister's party finished last, I believe, although I have to give her credit for honesty because she said there is no more money.

I would like to ask the minister, I guess I have a lot of questions on day care because there are a lot of concerns and a lot of problems, and many of the problems result from decisions that were taken in the past. In fact, most of these decisions were taken before this minister became the minister of this department. One of the problems is that we no longer have spaces, but we have cases. We have a cap. It was $9,600. I guess my first question is, has the minister increased the number of cases by 300?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes, the number has been increased by 300 cases, and that was based on an evaluation and an appeal to centres to see whether there was a need for increased cases. If there were, we tried to look at those on an individual centre-by-centre basis and provide them where appropriate.

I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the newspaper article, and I guess it is not the first time a Conservative government has gone into a forum with the Child Care Association which, I might say, is not unlike the Manitoba Nurses' Union or the teachers' union. It is the union for the child care workers. It is not the first time that a Conservative candidate or minister has gone into a forum and under that circumstance not knowing that it is not going to be a terribly friendly crowd.

I went in with the full expectation to that forum that I would not be the most popular person, but I also went into that forum knowing what the reality was, having been in government several years and in the Department of Family Services, understanding and knowing that there is no more money. For me to go in and make all kinds of wild promises in the midst of an election campaign knowing full well that they would not be promises that could be fulfilled or kept no matter what government of what political stripe was elected would have been very difficult for me to do.

I just want my honourable friend to know that I did go back the next morning to sign the proclamation and bring greetings on behalf of government. My opening comments were, you know, back by popular demand. Reality was that I brought greetings and left. I had committed to it before the campaign, and I was not going to renege on that commitment. I know there are a lot of people who are working in the child care community that really do want to see change and do want to see new things happen.

Although the association and some of the leadership as a union for child care workers are certainly not terribly sympathetic to our government, I believe that there is real opportunity to work with the child care community to look at innovative and creative new ways of delivering flexible, affordable and quality child care to Manitobans who need that. So I am prepared to work very co-operatively and very diligently with the child care community to ensure that within the resources that are available we find some creative solutions for some of the problems that exist.

Mr. Martindale: Since the minister wanted to go back to the newspaper article, I would like to point out that the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) and the New Democratic Party were rated first in the ballot by child care workers. I think that is a recognition of the fact that we built up the best child care system in North America during our term of the Pawley NDP government and also that our policies that we announced at the child care forum were also the most progressive. All our policy announcements were costed, and we had identified, I think, $108 million of Conservative government priorities like Workforce 2000 that we would cancel in order to pay for the $108 million of promises that we made including in the area of child care.

I object to the minister making the analogy that child care workers have a union. First of all, very few of them are unionized. They do not have nearly the clout that nurses and teachers have and their salaries are woefully inadequate compared to those of teachers and nurses. I think that the Manitoba Child Care Association and its members are going to be shocked by the analogy that this minister is using. One of their biggest areas of contention is the need for worthy wages or the inadequate wages that they have now. So I am disappointed that this minister would make that analogy.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I cannot let that comment go by without putting something on the record.

The approach that the Child Care Association took during the election campaign was the approach that the teachers' union and the nurses' union took. They put out a paper, a brochure to their membership and to the community that used the same tactics that the general public dismissed as not valid as the teachers' union and the nurses' union.

The facts are the facts. That does not mean to say that there are not many in the child care community, almost all of those that are providing support to children in the community, who certainly have the best interests of children at heart. I take some exception to, you know, an association that, as the teachers' union and the nurses' union and the Child Care Association, and I will lump them in together and the same in their approach to supporting a political party. It was clear and it was evident, but that does not mean to say that I am not going to work very co-operatively to try to ensure that child care for parents in the province of Manitoba, with those that are proving the child care, working alongside of government to ensure that we create the opportunity and the options and the new ways of delivering child care that will meet the needs of more Manitobans will not be looked at.

I am committed to ensuring that we have affordable, accessible, flexible and quality child care, contrary to what my honourable friend might say or to what the leadership in the Child Care Association might say.

I am committed and I will work with them and with absolutely everyone in the child care community that wants to work with us to ensure that we have a better system into the future.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise.