(Concurrent Sections)

FAMILY SERVICES

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last met it was considering item 1. Administration and Finance (e) Management Services (4) Policy and Planning (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 52 of the Estimates book and that is $704,700.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, on a couple of previous sittings of this committee I undertook to get some information and provide it to my honourable friend the critic for the New Democratic Party and also for the Liberal critic, so I am now going to table with the committee the grants to external agencies for 1996-97. I believe the critic for the Liberal Party would be the member for The Maples if it is the same critic as last year.

Also, I undertook to get some information on overexpenditures in the deputy's and the minister's offices for my honourable friend for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Under the transportation line, the overexpenditure was $16,900 and that was as a result of three trips, one the deputy, myself and staff went to Chicago to visit Project Match which is a project run by the community for single parents on social allowances. That is when we were doing our consultation and work around the single-parent initiative. The other two were international conferences that the deputy attended. One was by invitation of the federal government, the U.N. Summit on Social Services in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the other was the Global Welfare Conference in Norway that were attended.

There was an overexpenditure for $2,900 on the Communications line, and that was as a result of a very busy year in the Department of Family Services with us being the lead department on International Year of the Family and the public consultation process that was part of a single parent initiative that ended up in our decision to implement the Taking Charge! pilot project with the federal government. On Supplies and Services, there was an overexpenditure of $8,100 and that was increased costs for fax, for photocopying, computer maintenance and office supplies, again because of the very busy year with International Year of the Family and the single parent initiative.

Under the Other Expenditures there was an overexpenditure of $11,100, and a considerable amount of that money was as a result of the conferences attended by the deputy internationally and the Chicago trip that both the deputy and I attended. Staff training, business meetings regarding program planning, all of those things were a result.

I would like to indicate, although there was a considerable overexpenditure in 1994-95, although the final figures are not tallied for 1995-96 with the exact actuals, that we are almost at budget, maybe slightly overexpended, very slightly, and that would be a result of my travel by invitation of the Premier to the Western Premiers Conference--it was in Saskatchewan--and my duties on the ministerial council by request of the Premier. So we are down; 1994-95 was an unusual year as far as expenditures go, and those kinds of trips were not foreseen when the budget was set.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, I would like to thank the minister for providing answers to those questions and also for providing the grants to external agencies list and also for agreeing to have staff here for Family Disputes later this afternoon. Is the minister prepared to answer questions about the grants to external agencies this afternoon?

Mrs. Mitchelson: They are within various divisions. I will answer what I can if staff are here to provide those answers. Rather than having staff coming back and forth, if there are certain questions that need to be answered at a later time, we could put staff on notice when they are here under their line, and we can answer those questions then.

Mr. Martindale: Okay. I really only have questions specifically about CNIB. I think most of the other questions will come under departments like Child and Family Services, and I think my questions on CNIB are mostly policy issues. If the minister is prepared to answer those this afternoon that would be appreciated.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think, yes, we probably have some staff here in the room that could help with answers to questions on CNIB, if we could just take a minute to have them come to the table.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to begin with general questions and then move into more specifics.

Could the minister tell me if she believes that in a general way, because her department gives substantial amounts of money to the external agencies, and using CNIB as an example who get a grant this year of $968,000, whether she believes that the government has an important role to play, or even has a role to play in providing some guidance and direction to these external agencies?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because although we do provide support to external agencies to deliver a lot of the service that very vulnerable people need through the Department of Family Services, I think we always have to measure the success of those dollars spent by the outcomes that we see as a result of the expenditure. In many instances it is a considerable expenditure.

* (1450)

I think from time to time it is important that we evaluate the kind of service that is being provided with taxpayers' dollars to those organizations that are there to deliver a service for the people who require that service. I think it is extremely important that, although we do not want to be hands-on as a government department--otherwise we would deliver the service ourselves--we do expect there is value for the dollar that is provided and that the people who need the service are getting that service.

Mr. Martindale: I can appreciate that the minister does not want to run these agencies. On the other hand, in the past, when there have been problems in external agencies, staff from the minister's department have gone in to help them through their problems or crises. I think the government has a role that is greater than just measuring outcomes, so I would like to ask the minister if she is willing to provide direction to agencies, because in many of these cases the government is the major funder.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Over the last number of years, the Department of Family Services has embarked upon a process to have service and funding agreements with all of the external agencies that we provide funding to, so we know what service we are purchasing at what cost. CNIB, if that is what my honourable friend is referring to, we are attempting yet to get that service and funding agreement with them. Absolutely, if there are people who are supposed to be receiving a service from an agency that we provide tax dollars to and those services are not being received, it is important for us to find out why and to try and ensure that those who are being served are receiving the help they need.

Mr. Martindale: If the minister's department are in the process of negotiating a service and funding agreement with CNIB, then perhaps my questions are quite relevant and timely here. I guess I will get down to some more specifics. Individuals have raised concerns with me about the membership process or the membership by-laws of CNIB, saying that they are not open, because it is a very complex formula where people have to be nominated for membership, which is really quite unusual.

I think part of the problem here is that their constitution I believe goes back to something like 1918 and has not been modernized. Is this the kind of issue that the minister, in negotiating the service and funding agreement, would be willing to raise with CNIB and suggest that they at the very least democratize their membership process?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We too in the department have heard the issues that have been raised today by my honourable friend. We have been in dialogue and discussion with CNIB, and they have agreed to conduct an internal review of their organization and operations. It certainly is one of the issues that can be looked at in conjunction with negotiations towards a service and funding agreement.

Mr. Martindale: I guess I would like the minister to take a little stronger action than just acknowledging that there is an internal review underway. My understanding is that clients of CNIB wishing to become members must complete an application form, acceptance of the application for membership must be proposed and seconded in writing by two members in good standing, and the application is forwarded to the council for consideration. The application must then be approved by a majority vote of the council.

I think this is a very convoluted membership requirement which I have never heard of before in any other organization, and I am wondering if the minister would be prepared to say to CNIB that this is really unacceptable.

Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is that the rules and regulations that govern CNIB come from their national body. I do not know whether at the local level how much impact they actually have on making change in that respect. But I want to go back to saying--and my honourable friend raises a good question--there is an issue always around support to people who need support, whether it be directly from a government department or those external agencies that we fund. This is one issue that my honourable friend raises. There are others that have been raised around CNIB, and we have attempted through the department to the best of our ability to try to facilitate a positive resolution to some of those issues.

There was an issue around the deaf/blind community that we worked very aggressively on to try to find a solution. I think we have come up with a solution that everyone can live with. I want to assure my honourable friend that if there are issues and circumstances where people are feeling that the money that we are providing to an external agency is not doing the kinds of things that need to be done for the people who need their service, that we look into that and we try to find a resolution.

I make a commitment to that and to the community. We collect and spend, on behalf of taxpayers, a considerable amount of money in the Department of Family Services, and if the dollars that are being spent are not going to serve the people who need our help, we need to look at ways of finding better ways of ensuring that the services and the programs get into the hands of the people who need those programs and those services.

Mr. Martindale: Well, it seems to me that it is an issue of more than just the quality of the service that is provided. I am also concerned about how consumers of the service are involved in delivery and in decision making, and some organizations I think have been quite progressive involving consumers. In fact, the first time I heard the expression “consumers” was when I cochaired a conference for the Canadian Mental Health Association, Manitoba branch, and they involved consumers on their board and in all their committees. I think that is a very good model that other organizations should try to follow. With CNIB, there is no reason why they cannot have more consumers providing service and on their board of directors and on committees so that there is more accountability in terms of the service that is being delivered. Right now, I think there is a lack of accountability and I think there could be improvements.

* (1500)

Is the minister in favour of seeing more consumers on the board and on committees so that they have a greater say in how services are delivered?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I cannot ultimately determine who might be included on a board or on committees. What we can do as government is ensure accountability for the dollars that we provide to agencies or organizations to deliver services on our behalf, and if those people who are needing the service are not getting that service, we want to ensure that there is accountability. We will have to look at some way of ensuring that whoever is delivering the service is doing it to best meet the needs of the people who require the support.

I cannot and should not, as the minister, interfere with an organization and their by-laws or rules and regulations, but I can say to you that if an organization that is delivering service on behalf of my department is not delivering the service in the appropriate, accountable, efficient fashion that needs to happen, we can take steps to indeed ensure that that service gets provided in a way that is accountable to the people who need the support and the help.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I think that this minister has considerable clout, because the grant to CNIB is almost a million dollars a year, and I think that is reason enough, since this minister controls the purse strings, to exercise some of her authority and provide direction to the organization.

One of the complaints that was passed on to me and I assume to the minister as well is that the agency is managed from the top down and that, although divisional regions and branch offices can set up advisory boards and committees, they are prevented from initiating policies or actions unless approved by the national council or are within existing national policies. So the organization appears to be quite hierarchical. The Manitoba division is a division of a national organization, but their funding is from the province of Manitoba in large part, so I think that the accountability should be to the taxpayers of Manitoba. I think that the minister has the authority and the wherewithal to require more accountability in Manitoba. Would the minister agree?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, although my honourable friend and I might be saying things a little differently, I think we both agree that tax dollars that are spent to deliver any service to people who are in need, need to be spent in an efficient and an effective and an accountable way, and the dollars should be going into the hands of the people who need the service through programming or direct service delivery. If, in fact, that is not happening, I cannot control the exact direction that any organization or agency takes, but I can, in fact, control how the dollars are flowed to ensure the service is delivered.

So I do not think we are saying things differently. I think we both have the same objective, and that is to see that the clients or the consumers have the best program possible to meet their needs, and I am committing today, as I have committed in the past and to many who come into my office and sit around my table and express concern about the service that they are receiving, if, in fact, there is not accountability for the tax dollars that are being expended, we are going to have to find a better way of delivering that service, and I am committed to that.

Mr. Martindale: I am wondering if the minister believes that the most effective way to provide this service is through an agency that has a monopoly on providing the service and is not controlled by a group that it is supposed to serve.

Would it not be better to have control in the hands of people who understand the needs of the client group the best and to make changes to ensure that that is possible?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I need to clarify that we are not the only funder of CNIB. The service that we purchase from them and the service agreement that we are trying to get put in place provides for vocational rehab. That is for job finding, job placement, for vocational counselling and for career path development, so that is what our dollars flow for through CNIB.

The United Way is another fairly significant funder of CNIB, and I know they get some money from their national body or national organization. I still go back to saying that we will, we do, and I do, meet from time to time with consumers of the service, plus the CNIB, and my ultimate goal is to ensure that the dollars being granted to CNIB are used in the way they should be used to ensure that the services that we purchase from them are being provided to the clients that need that service. I am prepared to meet at any time with any group of consumers or any individual consumer that feels that their needs are not being met, and we will try to facilitate a solution.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for those answers. She can be sure that the people who met with her staff and the people that I met with will be given all those answers. They will be happy to hear that the minister is going to meet with them as well.

On the list of grants to external agencies, can the minister tell me if the grants are frozen at the previous level or increased or decreased?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The grants provided on this listing all received a 2 percent reduction in this year's budget, as did grants right across government, except for daycare centres and homes and child and family services agencies.

* (1510)

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask some questions on line 9.1(e). I have been reading the annual report, and it is just a little gold mine of information. If I can go back to that line--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. 9.1.(e) 4 or 5?

Mr. Martindale: Policy and Planning.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Policy and Planning, that is where we are.

Mr. Martindale: Well, just to help the minister and her staff, I am on page 20 of the '94-95 annual report, and I read with interest the section on intergovernmental relations. I would like to ask the minister how much money was spent approximately on the International Year of the Family?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There was an International Year of the Family Secretariat that was set up that was separate. You have to remember that this was back in 1994-95. It was not this last fiscal year, or it is not this fiscal year, so any current information, I think that may be available, but it is not information that would be here today. I can try to get that information. It has probably been answered at some point in time. It may have even been answered in Question Period last year or the year before. I know there was a certain budget appropriation for International Year of the Family, and I could try to get that information and provide it, but it is not readily available today.

Mr. Martindale: I think it was in the area of $200,000 or $300,000, approximately. Could the minister tell us why no staff or money has been allocated to the International Year for the Eradication of Poverty?

Mrs. Mitchelson: My honourable friend may recall, I arrived in the Department of Family Services partway through International Year of the Family or the organization of that, and the organization had been going on for about a year previous to the actual year that celebrated International Year of the Family. My honourable friend will recall, and I am just reminded that it was the federal government that reached out to provinces and asked all of us to participate in International Year of the Family in some manner, and they had an organization or a secretariat that came out and spoke to all provinces and were partners in that initiative, spearheaded by the federal government.

So provinces did respond, and I have to say that for the dollars that were spent in organization in the province of Manitoba we received great benefit. I think that communities responded in a very major way, and there was a lot of media participation, a lot of in-kind contribution and a lot of organizations that participated, but it was spearheaded by the federal government and the information and the packages were distributed to provinces by the federal government. So it was by invitation to participate that we participated, same as the U.N. Year for the Eradication of Poverty. I would have anticipated that the federal government would have co-ordinated something. We have not been contacted in any way, and there has been no initiative to respond to by provinces.

Mr. Martindale: Well, it really does make sense for this minister not to sponsor an international year for the eradication of poverty in Manitoba since she reduced social assistance rates and increased the level of poverty in Manitoba. So at least the minister is being consistent.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess Manitoba is not unlike British Columbia, which has a New Democratic government, or Saskatchewan, that has a New Democratic government. I think both of those governments participated in International Year of the Family by invitation of the federal government. I have not heard from or been communicated to by the NDP minister of social services in British Columbia or Saskatchewan that they have any initiative that they have undertaken to respect this year, so I take some exception to the comments by my honourable friend that he would single Manitoba out when he knows that his cousins in the New Democratic Party across the country have not initiated anything to, I am not going to say celebrate, because it is nothing to celebrate, to do anything in a proactive way in their respective jurisdictions.

Mr. Martindale: The minister had a role in hosting and chairing meetings at the official ministerial level when, I guess, she was the senior minister for social services for all the provinces or when it was her turn as the minister to host, and hosting that meeting in Winnipeg has already garnered considerable publicity. Since the minister has already apologized on national TV for some of those expenses, I think it would be unfair of me to repeat them on the record here. However, I would like to ask a couple of questions about things that are not a matter of public record yet, and that is, how much did it cost to hire a comedian for the dinner at Le Beaujolais restaurant, an impersonator, I understand?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we do not have a breakdown for that. I understand that the request that came from the media around the Folk Arts Council entertainment was provided to the media, and I will have to get some breakdown and some detail and provide that information on specific breakdown.

Mr. Martindale: Were there any expenses that might have been paid for by the minister?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, in what respect?

Mr. Martindale: Were there any expenses that were not paid for by the minister's department that might have been paid for in some other way, for example, by the minister or even reimbursed by the minister personally?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, in relation to expenses for the ministerial conference, I may have had personal expenses that I paid for, but there would be nothing that would be related to the conference.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 9.1.(e) (4) Policy and Planning (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $704,700--pass; 1.(e) (4) Other Expenditures (b) $223,000--pass.

9.1.(e) (5) Residential Care Licensing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Martindale: I believe that this was part of the minister's department that I asked the staff to do an investigation, and they did and some recommendations were made. I appreciate the prompt follow-up to my inquiries by the minister's staff in residential care licensing and, in fact, they are going to do a reinspection I believe in June of this year. So I will probably be in touch with the staff again to see if the problems were permanently cleared up or whether they had to reprimand the agency again. I have no questions for 1.(e) (5).

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 9.1.(e) (5) Residential Care Licensing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $311,200--pass; 1.(e) (5) (b) Other Expenditures $33,300--pass.

9.2.Income Security and Regional Operations (a) Central Directorate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,149,900.

* (1520)

Mr. Martindale: I believe this is the part of Income Security that is responsible for investigating allegations of welfare fraud and responsible for overpayment recovery. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I have a number of questions here. Could the minister tell us how many phone calls were received by the welfare fraud line in the fiscal year '95-96?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, from the end of June 1994 until the end of February 1996, there were around 6,200 calls.

Mr. Martindale: What was the result of those calls? How many were considered for charges of some kind or another?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, as a result of the calls, there were 723 cases closed, and there was corrective action taken for assessment of overpayment for 297 cases.

Mr. Martindale: How many charges were laid?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, charges are laid in conjunction with the Crown and the police. There have been very few charges laid. There are two different processes that can be used. One is charges under the Criminal Code, and the other is charges under The Social Allowances Act.

I do not have the exact numbers, although I can indicate to my honourable friend that it is a small number, and I will get those numbers and provide them.

Mr. Martindale: I thank the minster for that. We will come back to that later today or tomorrow then.

I see the minister's staff have their calculators with them today, so could they tell me what percentage 723 files closed is of 6,200 complaints?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is about 12 percent.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what percent 297 is of 6,200?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is about 5 percent.

Mr. Martindale: I assume that in addition to the welfare fraud line that staff are constantly doing investigations. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many investigations were done by staff in the department in addition to the welfare fraud line.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have that here, but we will get some stats and provide that information.

Mr. Martindale: I understand that the investigation unit or audit unit are looking at all kinds of government records. I wonder if the minister can confirm that staff have access to wills and estates.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The information that we do obtain from time to time, and it is all information that is publicly available, if it is through the Land Titles Office or whatever, if it is public information, that is information that we can use through the department to check.

Mr. Martindale: Well, let us just go through the list here. I understand that court information regarding wills and estates is being checked for possible welfare fraud. Is that correct?

* (1530)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes.

Mr. Martindale: And alimony payments?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There is sharing of information between Maintenance Enforcement and our office.

Mr. Martindale: And Autopac settlements?

Mrs. Mitchelson: When we are providing for basic needs through social allowance for any individual, there is a waiver form that is signed that allows us to check information in order to receive the payment. We use that, I guess, in various ways to determine eligibility.

Mr. Martindale: I am familiar with the form and the authorizations but, if the department is going to get information about Autopac settlements, then presumably they are making contact with Autopac and, if so, do they have some sort of agreement to get that information?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have a formal agreement with Autopac, but there is some informal dialogue and discussion. But we would not check anything unless there was written consent of the individual.

Mr. Martindale: I have been told that the reach is going back approximately 10 years in order to verify possible welfare fraud. Is this accurate or not?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It all depends on the nature of the case. There may be instances where if there is an indication that there may have been some fraudulent activity that we would go back several years, but it is on a case-by-case basis. I am informed that it is based on the information that exists around the individual circumstances.

Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that the key to ensuring financial accountability is frequent contact between clients and program administrators. Can the minister tell us what the average caseload is of financial workers to clients?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have two types of workers. We have financial workers and the case counsellors. Financial workers have a caseload of about 400, and the case managers have a caseload of around 250.

Mr. Martindale: Have those caseloads been going up in recent years or are they relatively stable?

Mrs. Mitchelson: They are relatively stable.

Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that city Social Services staff may have ratios of staff-to-cases of up to 1 to 800. Is the minister aware of this?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have that kind of detail on the City of Winnipeg and their staffing arrangements, but it is very difficult for us to compare, because they do organize their workload, I am told, in a considerably different fashion than we do. We may gain more information and have a better understanding of how the City of Winnipeg manages their caseloads and their staff-to-client ratio as we move closer to understanding what a one-tiered welfare system will look like in the City of Winnipeg. We do not have that information. They are not employees of my department. I guess the question might best be asked of officials at the City of Winnipeg.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister plan to keep most or all of the city Social Services staff on when the two systems are amalgamated, so that we do not end up with very high ratios of staff to clients?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think it is premature to even speculate on what a one-tier system might look like in the City of Winnipeg. Presently, we have a steering committee and a consultant working together to develop a business plan. Once we have an understanding of what that business plan might look like, then we will be able to determine more easily what needs to happen with the one-tiered system.

I guess the main focus of that system would be to try to ensure that the best service available for the client is there and that we run an efficient and an effective system with support, where it is needed for employment opportunity or for training, recognizing that the focus on any system that we have in place has to be on employability first. That is what welfare reform is all about, trying to ensure that everyone who has the ability to work has the opportunity to seek employment or to find training that would lead to employment.

Mr. Martindale: Is the minister moving to direct deposit for provincial social assistance clients?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that is one of the systems that we will be looking at when we look at building a new program for one tier. We are not doing it in the interim, but we will be looking at the feasibility of that.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister realize that in addition to possibly some advantages of direct deposit that one of the disadvantages is that there is less contact between clients and social assistance recipients, and with electronic banking it means that someone could potentially be out of province or out of country and it would take much longer for this kind of welfare fraud to be detected?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, of course, all of that will have to be taken into consideration. I think we need to look at the pros and the cons of any change. As we are building a one-tiered system in the City of Winnipeg, one system or the other will have to change and there will have to be something take place, so we will pursue that as we move along.

I want to indicate to my honourable friend that we are a little ways away from a one-tier system. We are looking a year down the road. I do not think we want to rush into something. We have made the commitment to do it and we will do it, but I do not think we want to rush into putting in place a system until it is thought through in a very comprehensive way to ensure that we have the best system possible when it is up and running.

* (1540)

Mr. Martindale: Well, if it is only a year down the road, I better ask my questions now. It might be too late next year in Estimates, although given the amount of time it took the minister to proclaim The Vulnerable Persons Act which has not been proclaimed yet and Taking Charge! program which took a long time to get off the road, I may get a second crack at this.

But just in case I do not, my concern is that when the two systems are amalgamated that the worst possible outcome would be that the lowest common denominator of each system would be adopted, so a number of questions flow from that. For example--and the minister and I have had this out in Question Period before--I believe that many of the staff in the city Social Services system are better trained because, for example, they have many more people with social work degrees, Master of Social Work degrees, than I believe the province has. So I would like to ask the minister if she plans to keep on those staff who have social work degrees.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think it is premature to comment even on what the system might look like. We have a steering committee comprised of senior officials at both levels of government that are working together. There has been a commitment by the City of Winnipeg at the political level to pursue a one-tiered system, and they have asked us many times to--it just does not seem to make sense to them to have two levels of government delivering a welfare service. Given our welfare reform initiatives, and the announcements that were made most recently, some of those that are now on provincial welfare will become employable. We have always had the unemployable caseload at the province, and the city has had the employable caseload.

It is very timely when we look at changing the definition of who is employable and who is not to determine how to best manage that system. You can imagine there would have been a fairly major outcry if we had--once we made the decision to change the work expectations for single parents with children in school, if we decided to transfer those over to the municipal caseload because they were now employable, you might have heard a major outcry from the City of Winnipeg. So we are going through a time of change and a process of change.

You know, my honourable friend thinks that the staff at the City of Winnipeg is better than the staff that is hired in the Department of Family Services to deliver a service. I mean, he has an opinion. I am not sure what that opinion is based on, but I guess the key issue for me is not what qualifications, whether it be a social work degree or a financial management degree or whatever. What is the proper mix of professionals in our new system to deliver the best service possible to the clients that need that service? I cannot tell him today. Unless he has got better information than I have, I cannot say today who is best to deliver that service.

I think we have to go through the process, recognizing that it is a significant change, a very major change, and we are looking at two levels of government coming together as one, with the province having the ultimate responsibility to deliver the service. I would not even suggest today that staff at the City of Winnipeg are better able to deliver the service to those that will be part of a provincial government program in the future, whether it be a year or two years from now. We may have to go through a transition period, but I have confidence that we have many good employees at the province in the Department of Family Services and I am sure they have many good employees in the City of Winnipeg. What the mix will be when we move through the process, I cannot predetermine today, but I do want to indicate to my honourable friend that I think our focus has to be first and foremost on the client who needs the service.

We have to build a program around how we can best respond to those client needs. I say again, I am not an expert today, and I am not prepared to make any public statement confirming or denying who will be there at the end of the day to deliver the service. I would hope that any responsible minister or government, in fact, would make the right decisions when all of the facts and all of the information are presented in front of that minister or that government to make those decisions in an informed way, understanding that there will be a new system. There will be an amalgamation of two departments, one from the City of Winnipeg and one from the Province of Manitoba.

I just say to my honourable friend that I am not sure I would have the answers; I am not sure he has the answers or has any expertise in the field to make the determination on whose staff is better, the province's or the city's. I think it is unfair to the staff in both systems to try to make those comparisons without any accurate informed process that has taken place to date. I have to say that I prefer to wait to have those who have been challenged with the job of coming up with a new system and a new process put the options on the table for discussion and for decision making, once those options are there that are fully researched, and I can be fully informed. I would hesitate to make any comment one way or the other.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister.

An Honourable Member: Not yet.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you for the promotion, Mr. Chairperson.

I think there is a connection between the qualifications of staff and service to clients. I think trained staff such as those in the city's Social Services have been very good at providing counselling and providing referrals, both to nongovernment agencies and to employment training programs. I think the city has done a much better job in terms of the number and variety of employment programs and in the adequacy of benefits, which we will get into in a minute.

Could the minister confirm that the province will absorb approximately $20-million worth of expense that the City of Winnipeg taxpayers currently bear, namely the cost of social services, and that when that happens, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) is going to cut the grant to the City of Winnipeg by approximately $20 million?

* (1550)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, my honourable friend, without being informed in any meaningful fashion, it is sort of predetermining what might take place. The whole basis in all of the discussions that we have had at the political level with the City of Winnipeg has been that in fact this will be a revenue-neutral process. [interjection]

You know, my honourable friend again says, well, is that not how you are going to do it? In fact, if I had all the answers today, I suppose I could just go ahead and do it, but I do not have the answers. That is why we have a steering committee, both levels of government, officials at both levels of government, and we have a consultant who is looking at the business plan. Then, if we approve that business plan, how do we go through the implementation, the transition? All of those issues will be dealt with at that level and through that process, but the premise and the understanding has always been that it will be on a revenue-neutral basis, and that will be the basis for negotiation between the two levels of government through the steering committee as we move through the process. I do not have the answers to those questions today. If I had all the answers I would be able to make the final announcement and start moving on a one-tiered system, and I do not.

Mr. Martindale: A few minutes ago I said that the key to financial accountability is frequency of contact between clients and workers. Is the minister aware that the City of Winnipeg Social Services have cut off home visits for the time being because their clients are so hostile due to this minister's reduction of benefits for single individuals to $411 a month?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am informed that staff at the city level have indicated that, yes, they have cut back on home visits, but it is more a workload issue than anything.

Mr. Martindale: Perhaps the minister could explain to me the Free Press article saying that the caseload went up considerably in the city of Winnipeg recently. I wonder what the explanation is for that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess my honourable friend is doing his research from the Winnipeg Free Press article of last week, I think it was, that does indicate that the caseloads have gone up. I think the article indicates that staff at the city level have indicated that because they have not been able to fill vacant positions, have not been given the authority to do that, that they have a backlog. I have not had that confirmed by those at the political level at city hall but, nonetheless, our staff have met with officials at the City of Winnipeg and will continue to meet to try to determine what the issues are surrounding that and how that issue can be addressed.

Mr. Martindale: On April 1, 1996, the City of Winnipeg Social Services reduced their monthly social assistance rates for children. Will this provincial minister admit that the main reason for this reduction was the standardization of rates which was brought in by this government, I believe, in 1993?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have to indicate that it was the federal government that was cost sharing with the City of Winnipeg the additional rates that they provided for children. Money was just flowed through us. There was no contribution by the provincial government over and above our standard rates and, you know, I think we have mentioned many times before that the rates for children in the city of Winnipeg were the highest across the country, bar none, higher than in the NDP city of Vancouver, where there is a New Democratic administration.

Now, you cannot tell me that the cost of living in Winnipeg is higher than the cost of living in Vancouver, and yet the City of Winnipeg made a conscious decision to have the highest rates across the country, and the federal government did in the past share the increased rates that they provided on a 50-cent basis. That money was no longer available for the City of Winnipeg when the federal government eliminated CAP. I met with the City of Winnipeg and said that they could, on their own, see if they could get federal commitment to continue to cost share. I think they tried that and were flatly refused. So they made the decision to reduce their rates based on the federal government decision. It was their decision to make. I know my honourable friend has tried to blame me for that, but, you know, the City of Winnipeg, the councillors at that level, are elected to represent the taxpayers of the city of Winnipeg, and ultimately they have to be held accountable for decisions that they make.

Mr. Martindale: Why will this minister not just admit that the City of Winnipeg entered into a special agreement with the federal government, possibly the only municipality in Canada to cost share with a city on a 50-50 basis, in order to keep the rates higher, and that at the end of March this year they had a very difficult decision to make, which was to either continue shouldering millions of dollars of expenses by keeping the rates higher or dropping them part way, because they did not drop them entirely to the provincial level, and that the main reason for reducing the rates was that their agreement with the federal government ended, the province had much lower rates, and they reduced the rate in order to reflect the reality which really came in in 1993 with standardization, which was a policy of the provincial government?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I go back again to saying that I suppose we could eliminate the government of the City of Winnipeg and take it over as a province and make all their decisions for them. I am not sure that I would want to do that. The city councillors are duly elected to make decisions on budgetary expenditures and the use of taxpayers' dollars that they collect. I repeat again that they have to be held accountable for the decisions that they make, and we have to be held accountable too for the decisions that we make through our budget process. Ultimately, it will be the taxpayers of Manitoba and the voters in the province of Manitoba who will determine whether we have done the right thing or the wrong thing.

We know that every decision that we make is not going to be supported by 100 percent of Manitobans. There are going to be people that are unhappy with our decisions, and there are going to be people that are happy, but ultimately the voters of the province of Manitoba will determine whether, on balance, we have done a good enough job as a government to be re-elected. If the majority feel that way, we will continue to govern, and, if the majority feel that we have made too many mistakes and someone else deserves the chance to govern the province of Manitoba, that decision will be made. It is out of my hands, and it is out of my honourable friend's hands, to some degree. Ultimately, we will be judged. I will be judged based on the decisions that I have made as the Minister of Family Services or whatever other area I have responsibility for within government, and my honourable friend will be judged on how successful he has been at being critical of government policy and direction. I stand to be accountable for the decisions that I have made. I think city councillors have to stand and be accountable for the decisions that they make.

* (1600)

Mr. Martindale: Well, I am grateful that this government has not taken over the City of Winnipeg since they have consistently provided higher benefits, to use the current example, social assistance rates for children, and I do not know how this minister in good conscience can defend her welfare cutbacks and also defend standardization knowing that the result was that when the city was forced to lower their rates, for children under one year the reduction was $65.25 a month, a reduction of 26 percent, which is inadequate even by an analysis by this minister’s own government done by the home economics section of the provincial Department of Agriculture.

In their family living costs guides for 1996, the cost of food at home for an infant is calculated at $129.31, and the amount of allowance that children under one year are getting for everything is $182 a month, so food makes up a major portion of what those children need, but according to this government’s own home economists, I would say that this amount is inadequate, and I would like to table the chart provided by the City of Winnipeg for their reductions with the percentage reduction for each age group that I have calculated.

I would like to ask the minister some questions about the reduction to allowances announced, I believe, on March 14 by this government which took effect on May 1. First of all, could the minister verify that the percentages that she used to calculate the reductions, which I believe is acknowledged in her backgrounder to the press release, are based on the total amount of income and are not based on a reduction for the items that were actually reduced?

Mrs. Mitchelson: They were based on the total amount of support provided to individuals.

I just want to go back to my honourable friend’s comments just a few moments ago. I think he might have forgotten that from time to time we have been in agreement on certain issues, not often, but from time to time, and I think in his comments that he made regarding the city being forced to reduce their benefits to children, he has to remember who forced the city.

If, in fact, the federal government had maintained the status quo and continued with the Canada Assistance Plan and cost-sharing rather than reducing significantly the amount of transfer dollars that went to provinces, in fact there would not have had to be a change. The city would not have had to make that decision. I think my honourable friend and I both agree that we may not agree on the decisions that had to be made as a result of less money coming from the federal government, but we both agree that the federal government has offloaded significantly onto the provinces for services and programs that they used to provide.

So as difficult as the decisions were to make, we, in fact, had to make some difficult choices, but they were forced upon us by the federal government. My honourable friend does know, too, as we know, that they reduced to a greater degree their transfers to the provinces than they did internally. So we took the major hit, and, obviously, the City of Winnipeg took a major hit, but those decisions would not have had to be made by the City of Winnipeg if, in fact, the Canada Assistance Plan still existed and the dollars still flowed to the provinces.

Mr. Martindale: Would the minister agree that the actual amount that people lost, first of all in the category of single parent with two children over six, rather than being 2.7 percent of the total income, it was actually over 5 percent of the disposable income items that were cut, namely, food, clothing, household needs, personal needs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, my honourable friend is correct if you look at the basic benefit, but what he is not including is the new supplementary benefit that was added to a single parent with two older children. So, in fact, the impact that looked like it was 5 percent could have been 4.5 percent or less. We cannot use the standard 5 percent, because the new supplementary--I am having difficulty explaining this except to say that a total overall reduction that we announced of 2.7 percent could have been as high as 4.5 percent rather than 5 percent because of a new supplementary benefit that was added into the basic rate.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister explain the new supplementary benefit and the amount of money involved?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, there no longer is a supplementary benefit. What used to be the supplementary benefit is now rolled into part of the basic benefits.

* (1610)

Mr. Martindale: Would the minister agree that the reduction for our single employables to $411 a month was not 10.2 percent, as the minister said in her background to the press release, but was really in the area of 21 percent of the items that were reduced?

Mrs. Mitchelson: What we did for our basic benefit for single employables was near what the province of British Columbia just did, and that was to provide $175 of basic benefit, and then when you include the shelter cost, because the cost of shelter is less in Manitoba than it is in Vancouver, shelter costs are independent of what the basic benefit is. So our basic benefit in Manitoba for single employables is exactly what the basic benefit in the city of Vancouver would be. I know that our cost of living is less in the city of Winnipeg than it is in Vancouver.

Mr. Martindale: Would the minister agree that for couples with no children the reduction is not 10.5 percent but in fact much closer to 21 percent of the discretionary items that were reduced, food, clothing, household needs, personal needs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: This is exactly the same issue that we just discussed with the single employables. [interjection] I am informed that our rates are still higher for childless couples than New Democratic British Columbia.

Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that the budget reductions for social assistance clients, wherein of their budget, will save the government approximately $10 million. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a 10-minute break?

An Honourable Member: Five.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I believe it is the will of the committee to take between five and 10- minute break.

This committee is in recess.

The committee recessed at 4:15 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 4:26 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will resume the Estimates of Family Services. We were on 2.(a)(1).

Mr. Martindale: I think when we left off I was asking the minister if the total of budget reductions to individual clients is $10 million. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: By discontinuing personal tax credits, how much money does that amount to?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I believe it is $7 million.

Mr. Martindale: By withdrawing the personal tax credit, how much is that worth?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is $7.7 million for both, those last two.

Mr. Martindale: I understand that there were other budget reductions for individuals that were not announced in the minister's press release but were in the Orders-in-Council, since the minister's staff very helpfully briefed me on the Order-in-Council. Could the minister verify that one of those is that people newly enrolled on the system after May 1 will no longer receive an additional $60 a month? I believe that would be for a couple with no children.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is for couples with children on the municipal caseload; they used to get an extra $60 a month after they had been enrolled on social allowances for six months. Anyone new coming into the system will not receive that.

Mr. Martindale: How much money does the government anticipate that will save over the course of the next year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is included in the $10 million figure, but it is around $300,000.

Mr. Martindale: I believe that, when I was briefed by the minister's staff, we came up with a figure for the total cuts of $23.1 million. I wonder if the minister could verify that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is correct.

Mr. Martindale: So far we are up to $17.7 million. I wonder if the minister could identify the other items and the amounts of money.

* (1630)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the rest is not really reduction; it is sort of an estimation of a saving of around $5 million for all of the employment-first initiatives that will help get people off welfare and into the workforce.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us how those savings are arrived at? Is it because of the improved work incentive?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is through interventions such as Taking Charge!, the community services projects with the City of Winnipeg, the Rural Jobs Project, the Conservation Corps, Opportunities Manitoba, which was announced with the package, the Youth NOW initiative announced by the Department of Education, and direct referrals to the call centres, to the fashion industry, the single-parent program, employment connections, work placements, the truck driver training, Pathways, SEED Winnipeg, all of the partnerships that we have announced in the development of initiatives with the private sector, with other levels of government. All of those things combined, we believe will achieve the savings through employment opportunities for those that are presently on social allowances or would be coming onto social allowances.

Mr. Martindale: Is that estimate based on an assumption that a certain number of people will be in the paid workforce and no longer on income security?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is roughly in the area of about 700 people off of the welfare caseload going into the workforce.

Mr. Martindale: The minister informed us that people no longer getting an increased benefit on municipal assistance, that is couples with children, will save the government a certain amount of money. Would the minister agree that that is about a 10 percent cut to people on municipal assistance with children?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No one that is currently on social allowances and has been on for over six months, families with children on the municipal caseload, will lose that money. It is not a cut. Those that would be enrolled in the system into the future would not receive that benefit.

Mr. Martindale: So is it not true that their rates would be approximately 10 percent less since they will not be getting that money?

Mrs. Mitchelson: As I indicated earlier, anyone that is receiving the additional $60 per month will not lose that $60 per month, so there will not be a reduction. Anyone that is newly enrolled into the program will not receive that $60 a month after they have been on social allowances for six months. It is our expectation, and we are very hopeful that you are looking at families with two people, two adults in that household, we certainly consider one of those people employable, and we will work very aggressively to try to ensure that those are the people that have opportunities for employment immediately upon entrance into the program so that indeed they will not require social allowances but they will in fact be in the workforce.

Mr. Martindale: Under the old schedule and regulations, people on social assistance were given I believe $12 a month for one person for coin laundry and $3 for each extra person in the household. My understanding is that the change in the regulations means that in future people will get no money for coin laundry, is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, that is grandfathered. Anyone that is receiving that allowance will continue to receive that allowance. Anyone newly enrolled into the program will not receive it.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us how people are supposed to pay for coin laundry from now on?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That amount was over and above the allowances that are recorded. I want to indicate to my honourable friend that in NDP B.C., again, there is no laundry allowance over and above the basic benefit. As a matter of fact, most provinces right across the country, I do not want to just pick on B.C., but I do want to indicate to my honourable friend that in a province where the New Democratic government is in power, they do not take into consideration any extra needs for laundry.

Mr. Martindale: We could get into comparing provinces here and point out that Manitoba refused to backfill any of the cuts in the federal government but Saskatchewan backfilled, dollar for dollar, millions of dollars cut for social services and that in B.C. the provincial government is paying for education and training up to and including university for one layer of categories of people. However, let us pass 2.(a).

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 9.2.(a) Central Directorate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,149,900--pass; 9.2.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $633,200--pass.

9.2.(b) Income Maintenance Programs (1) Employment and Income Assistance $215,501,100--pass; 2.(b)(2) Health Services $15,834,800--pass.

9.2.(b)(3) Municipal Assistance $106,223,500.

Mr. Martindale: I wrote to the minister about the R.M. of Lorne and I think she has replied to my correspondence, so I assume I can expect it shortly and that the minister has taken corrective action and told the council to stop violating the municipal assistance act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: My deputy minister has written to the R.M. of Lorne and indicated that it is against the law to publish names of welfare recipients, and I believe I have copied my honourable friend with that letter and a covering letter. It should be on its way.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 9.2.(b)(3) Municipal Assistance $106,223,500--pass; 2.(b)(4) Income Assistance for the Disabled $9,100,000--pass.

9.2.(c) Making Welfare Work $3,500,000--pass.

9.2.(d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $630,400.

Mr. Martindale: I have a question about a story that was in the Free Press I believe last fall. I do not have it with me but I wrote a letter to the minister about it. It was a banner headline on the front page that said that the minister would top up wages of Income Security recipients who went to work in the garment industry. The example that she used was a single parent making $800 a month, and she would top up their wages by $200 for a total of $1,000 a month. So I got out the social assistance administrative manual and figured out the work incentive program, which was in existence at that time. According to my calculations, an individual would have been better off under an existing program under this minister's department than under the scheme that was in the news story. I am wondering if the minister could verify that my figures were correct or not.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that the facts that were in the newspaper article were rather confused and not necessarily accurate.

Mr. Martindale: Is the minister saying she was misquoted?

* (1640)

Mrs. Mitchelson: My recollection is that there was not a direct quote but if my honourable friend has information that--it is unfortunate. I do not have the newspaper article in front of me either, and it might be interesting to have that information.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister, in the interests of time, could get back to me on that. We do not need to get an answer right now.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, just reviewing the article very quickly, I do not see anywhere where I am quoted specifically. So it might be sort of a misinterpretation of things by my honourable friend. Okay, I do not see anything here where I am quoted.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I will look forward to the minister answering it by corresponding to me or talking to me in person.

Could the minister tell us why under Making Welfare Work there is a budget reduction of $100,000?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we had the Rural Jobs Project, pilot project, ongoing for the last couple of years, and there has not been full uptake on that program, so the $100,000 reduction is reflective of what the true uptake of that program has been over the last couple of years.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me what happened to the staff in the Single Parent Job Access Program and how many of them were hired by Taking Charge!?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I do not have that detail, because Single Parent Job Access Program is under the Department of Education and Training, and I believe that there were some people from that program hired by Taking Charge! I do not know the exact number, but that would have to be appropriately asked of the Minister of Education and Training.

Mr. Martindale: Is Taking Charge! buying spaces at private business colleges and at Red River College?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is my understanding that they are not directly buying spaces, but in fact if there is someone that is presently providing the kind of expertise that is needed for training and job placement that Taking Charge! has partnered with those organizations or institutions.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if there is a difference in the cost between supporting someone at a private business college and at Red River College?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that it will vary depending on what the individuals are training for. I think that Taking Charge!, now that it is up and running, is looking at partnerships right throughout the community and trying to place people in training or job opportunities. We will be evaluating or monitoring how successful that initiative is. Part of their mandate is to try to ensure that they take the broadest approach possible and work with as many community organizations or institutions as possible in order to try different methods and measure the outcomes of how successful they are in placing people into job opportunities or training people for the job market that presently exists.

Mr. Martindale: The reason for my question is that I understand it is more expensive to buy spaces at private business colleges than Red River College, so I would be concerned if that was true. Secondly, I understand that Red River College is forming partnerships with other organizations and businesses, and I am wondering if arrangements could not be made with Red River as opposed to more expensive alternatives.

Mrs. Mitchelson: There are some arrangements through Taking Charge! with Red River Community College. I think that they are accepting proposals from a right-across-the-broad cross section of our community and searching for ways to help single parents in the most efficient and effective way possible to enter training or for job opportunities. So they have programs that they are delivering in partnership with Red River Community College, with South Winnipeg Technical Centre, a children's home, Alicia Rae and associates and others as those proposals are approved to deliver programming to the clients that they serve. I commend them for taking a thorough and broad approach to trying to find the solutions and ultimately the job opportunities for single parents, wherever they might be.

Mr. Martindale: So the minister does not agree with my premise that private business colleges are more expensive than places like South Winnipeg Tec or Red River Community College?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Can I reiterate again that it all depends on the type of training, the level based on an individual plan that has developed with each client that enters the Taking Charge! program, what their needs are and where the most appropriate place is to find the training and the support for those individuals. They are testing several different models right throughout the community. The ones that are successful will be the ones that will continue, and the ones that are not will be set aside for another initiative.

* (1650)

The focus is to try to find the training that leads to a permanent job for single parents. So you know in their initial stages of being set up and organized and running, they are entering into partnerships right across the community, and all of those projects will be evaluated based on outcomes. In co-operation with both the Department of Education and Training and our department, as we move through the evaluative process, we are going to be determining what is working and what is not and supporting those initiatives that are working and seeking new solutions for those that are not. Some will be more successful than others; we know that. But, until we give them a fair chance to see what they can accomplish, I think it is premature to be critical.

Mr. Martindale: Since Taking Charge! took so long to get up and running, why could they not have negotiated agreements with public institutions like Red River College, rather than buying seats at private business colleges?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think it is important for me to point out that Taking Charge! did take a little longer to get off the ground than we had initially anticipated or expected, and I am not going to lay blame on anyone. I think it took some time to get the proper mix of board members appointed, and then they as a new organization had to incorporate and go through the orientation and the learning curve that would bring them up to speed and hire the appropriate staff and look for accommodation and all of those things that do take some time. I was hopeful it would have happened sooner, but it did not. I guess that, when you are changing the focus and the direction of a program, it is best to do the legwork, the groundwork up-front and be certain that it is going to get off to a good healthy start and to take a little bit of extra time initially to get the project up and running than it is to rush into something and do everything wrong.

I think that they have had the opportunity to do exactly that, to ensure that they were oriented and up to speed and went through a proper search to hire the right executive director and negotiate the best deal possible for lease space, and all of those things do take time. I guess I had high expectations that things would move a little more quickly, and I was wrong. It took more time, but I do not apologize for taking the time up-front to try to get the best program possible in place.

I do want to indicate to my honourable friend that the partnerships with community colleges and South Winnipeg Technical Centre, those kinds of partnerships are far greater and far more significant than any within the private sector.

Mr. Martindale: The Estimates book says that an estimated 1,100 single parents will obtain employment after graduating from Taking Charge!. Can the minister tell me how many financial years this will be spread over?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, Taking Charge! is hopeful that they will serve 1,100 individuals in this fiscal year. I know they have over 500 registered with the Taking Charge! program. Will they all be employed at the end of the fiscal year? I cannot say that for sure, with any certainty, but I can say that there will be a significant number employed or in training that will lead to employment. There will be 1,100, they anticipate, who will be registered through the Taking Charge! program, and many of those will be on their way into some stream that will lead to employment.

Mr. Martindale: I do not know how I could do this, but I forgot that there are no employment goals for Taking Charge!, so I am glad the minister reminded me.

Could the minister tell me why Taking Charge! clients are guaranteed child care to get training, but other individuals going back to school or into training are not guaranteed child care, and, in fact, child care is going to be much more difficult to get as a result of this government's budget decisions and the so-called freeze or reallocation of subsidy cases.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, those clients who enter training or employment opportunities under Taking Charge! will receive child care support, just as any of those who do not go through the Taking Charge! stream but are going to receive training or job opportunities under our welfare reform initiatives under employment first.

There is a pool of child care spaces within the department right now. It is approximately 400 this year that will be available for those who require training or job placement experience, outside of Taking Charge!, so there is a pool of resources there should they be required or should they be needed for single parents who will enter the workforce or receive training as a result of our new focus in the Department of Family Services.

Mr. Martindale: So anyone who approaches me who says that they need child care in order to go back to community college or university or to enter any kind of training program is guaranteed that child care will be available. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: If, indeed, people are on social allowances and they come in and go through an orientation and a job-plan process that is worked on with the Department of Family Services, and a critical component of all of this is a job plan, in fact an independence plan, that leads to a job at the end of the training, and we know that there will be the ability for job opportunity at the end of that training process, child care will be provided.

I would welcome my honourable friend forwarding names of people to the department who want to develop their own independence plan, and we will make every effort to see what we can do to support that plan.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 9.2.(d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $630,400.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me why 55 Plus has been discontinued for municipal assistance recipients?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that was done, in fact, to streamline administration. In the past, anyone on social allowances could apply for 55 Plus, and they would have the evaluation or the assessment done through the 55 Plus office and receive a check and then the welfare office would claw that back, so in fact there was no benefit. That benefit is there for those who are in the workforce, not on social allowances, so in fact we had an administrative duplication, people applying on one hand and receiving a check and then going to the social allowance office and having that clawed back. So it did not make sense to us to be doing it that way, and so we have streamlined it and made it more effective and cut back on the administrative side. People are receiving no less as a result.

Mr. Martindale: So 55 Plus is now strictly a targeted program for low-income seniors. Is that right?

* (1700)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it always has been.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what footnote 1 on page 49 means, “The decrease in staff years reflects workforce adjustments”?

Mrs. Mitchelson: As a result of administrative efficiencies, we are able to streamline the process and make do with three fewer staff; therefore, there are three fewer people working on those programs.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $630,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures--$407,700--pass; (3) Financial Assistance $10,370,400--pass.

2.(e) Regional Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,453,600.

Mr. Martindale: Just before we leave this section, I would like to leave the minister with a question and have her get back to me tomorrow or in writing, and the question is: Did Mr. Hugh Goldie or the Exchange Group undertake any work in the department or with any staff of the department? I will leave that with the minister unless she is prepared to answer it now.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I can say with a fair amount of certainty that, no, he had not undertaken any work with the Department of Family Services. If there is anything different, I will certainly get back to my honourable friend, but I can say, with a fair amount of assurance, that he has not undertaken anything.

Mr. Martindale: As soon as we have passed these lines, we will move on to Family Dispute Services, and I would like to thank the minister for accommodating myself and the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(e )(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,453,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,385,700--pass.

Resolution 9.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $391,190,300 for Family Services, Income Security and Regional Operations, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997--pass.

9.4.(e) Family Dispute Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $296,900.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to join with the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and thank the minister for rearranging things so that I could be here today. I think it is very gracious of her and I certainly do appreciate it. [interjection] She is very accommodating.

Basically I want to ask some very general questions about family disputes, then I want to ask some questions about the cuts, and then I think I would like to ask some questions about service agreements.

Anyway to begin, I notice that family disputes has a total of 5.26 staff years and that 3.26 of these people are involved in technical at the professional/technical level which, of course, is a decrease of approximately 0.75 for the year before. I am curious about exactly what the responsibilities--or it does not have to be exactly, generally what the responsibilities of these positions are. I am particularly interested in whether all of these people are directly involved with community agencies.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we have a director, an administrative assistant, a policy analyst, and two and a half agency analysts that do hands-on work with the community, as well as a director that is very hands on and works very closely with the community.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, obviously, the lion's share of money in family disputes goes in grants to external agencies. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the criteria are for funding these agencies.

Mrs. Mitchelson: In the 10 years that programs and supports have been in place, it started off very small and I think the department responded to the community-based needs and proposals that came forward, and some communities came forward with proposals requesting shelters, others requesting resource centres.

Presently and over the last 10 years as we have evolved, we fund 10 women's shelters, two crisis lines, three crisis offices, four committees, four residential second-stage programs and other urban support programs. We have evolved and expanded basically, I think, a response to community needs, what is articulated as a need in a community, and we try to work with that community to develop the appropriate resource that they feel is needed.

Ms. McGifford: I am wondering if there are any written criteria for obtaining funding.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, anyone who expresses a need or a desire to develop services, there are guidelines and criteria that the branch does have and can provide to that community organization that talks about how does it fits into the community and what organizations are you going to work with and who are you going to work with in the community. We do not have a copy of that here, but I can provide that to my honourable friend fairly quickly.

* (1710)

Ms. McGifford: The reason I was asking the question, Mr. Chair, is I am wondering how a community group goes about obtaining funding. If a new community group, for example--and I appreciate the minister listed for me the number of groups who already have funding. If a new community group decided it wanted to have funding, as well, what would be the process or the procedure? What would they do?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess approaching the branch is the first place to start if there is a community group out there that believes there is a community need. They can approach the branch and discuss with staff in the branch around the guidelines and the criteria that are set out in the information that I will share, you know, what they believe the needs are, and then the branch will work with them, helping them to understand what resources are presently there. I guess, at this point in time, there is not a lot of additional resources, financial resources available, but we would want to work with any community group that came forward to see whether there is an ability for them to tap into anything that presently does exist and work with them. I think we have people working in the branches who are very sensitive to the issues and to the needs. So I think the first place to start would be to set up an appointment with the staff in the branch and open the dialogue around what the need might be in the community and, then, how we can try to accommodate that within the present circumstances that we face.

Ms. McGifford: I know that the staff are very well thought of, so I just wanted to put that on the record.

Could the minister tell me whether new submissions are encouraged, accepted, rejected, none of the above, and have there been recent requests for grants?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, right now, as we speak, there is not any proposal that is before the branch and the department. I have been given a couple of examples, and I certainly would be prepared to sit down with my honourable friend and staff from the branch at any time to discuss things in greater detail, but one of the examples that I have been given is that the community of Gillam had an issue around family violence. So, in partnership with the community, with Hydro and the branch, we were able to develop and work with--they have a crisis office and a safe home, and we were able to get safe home rates for people that needed that kind of support. Staff went up to Gillam and worked in a very hands-on fashion with the community, and we think we have been able to help to resolve some of the problems. I think this is one branch within government that looks for the creative solutions and brings community and all of the different resources that might be available out there together to see whether we can provide better service within the resources that are available.

I would be prepared to sit down on other community- or neighbourhood-type issues with my honourable friend and have that dialogue with staff in the branch if that would be helpful in any way to determine the kinds of creative thinking that go around trying to ensure that supports are there as they are needed and as issues are identified.

Ms. McGifford: I thank the minister for her answer. I would certainly like to do that and perhaps when the House adjourns would be the most appropriate time for doing it. I think the minister rightly understands that my concern is that the services that are available to women in urban areas also be available throughout the province and particularly in northern areas and particularly in rural areas where I think people tend by and large not to be serviced in the same way that they are in the city. I wanted to ask the minister if Family Disputes has been asked to provide funding for Alpha House?

* (1720)

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have not had a proposal from them for funding. What we have done in working with Alpha House is work with them to ensure that they met the criteria. We supported very strongly their proposal to the federal government for housing and worked with them to ensure that that proposal was up to speed in order for them to receive that funding. They take great pride personally in doing things on their own, but that does not mean to say that we do not have a very close networking relationship with them. We do case consultations and work to support them in their endeavours in a very significant way.

Ms. McGifford: I thank the minister for her remarks. I want to note here that the closing of the Flin Flon Crisis Centre is still something that disturbs many people living in the Flin Flon area. Many people, and especially women, still feel both overwhelmed and abandoned by its closure. They feel that it was an absolutely essential service. It certainly is part of my concern about northern services, and I wonder if the minister would like to comment.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I do want to indicate to my honourable friend that there still is $139,000 going into that community through the Northern Women’s Resource centre to provide services for women. It is my understanding that the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre and the Northern Women’s Resource centre are working in a very meaningful way to see how they can blend the services that are provided for women and children in that community. So I have to say that there is some progress that is being made, and we are working through the branch very closely with the community to see how the resources that are available can be used in the most appropriate fashion.

Yes, it is my understanding also that when the boards of the two organizations started working together, they were surprised themselves at how much the services that they provided overlapped with each other. It has now created the ability for them to work closely together to ensure that the dollars that are going into that community are going to meet the needs in a more co-ordinated fashion to the benefit of those people that need the services.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chairperson, my concern is that one being in Flin Flon and one being in The Pas. I suppose there are many different definitions of community, but 60 miles apart or whatever the distance is--I know it is at least 60--would preclude that being known as a community, to my thinking anyway.

I know the minister told me the number of second-stage housing agencies there are in the province, and I know she told me the number of women’s resource centres, but I did not write it down. I wonder if she could tell me again the numbers and also tell me where they are located.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are getting that information, but I just want to go back to the comments made by my honourable friend just a moment ago. The Northern Women’s Resource centre and Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre are both in Flin Flon. They are right around the corner from each other although their services were not co-ordinated in any fashion, and now the opportunity exists for them to co-ordinate those services in a greater fashion.

I am just getting the information on the resource centres. If I could just read into the record the locations of the women’s shelters, the 10 shelters: Eastman Crisis Centre in Steinbach; Ikwe-Widdjiitiwin in Winnipeg; Parkland Crisis Centre in Dauphin; Portage Women’s Shelter in Portage; Selkirk Co-operative on Abuse Against Women; South Central Committee on Family Violence in Winkler; The Pas Committee for Women in Crisis; the Thompson Crisis Centre; YM-YW, that is Osborne House in Winnipeg and Westman Women’s Shelter in Brandon.

The crisis lines are both in Winnipeg, but there is a provincial toll-free line. One is at Osborne House and one is at Ikwe.

The three crises offices are: Evergreen Women's Resource Centre in Gimli, Lakeshore Women's Resource Centre in Ashern, and Swan Valley Crisis Centre in Swan Valley.

Second stage programs are: Samaritan House in Brandon, WISSH in Winnipeg, Swan Valley Crisis Centre in Swan Valley, and L'Entre Temps in St. Boniface.

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if I could ask the minister if she has the information available at this time on resource centres as well.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The three resource centres in Winnipeg are: Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre, North End Women's Centre, Pluri-Elles and the Northern Women's Resource Service in Flin Flon.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Osborne, with a very short question.

Ms. McGifford: Very short. These four resource centres are the four resource centres funded through Family Dispute?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 9.4.(e) Family Dispute Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $296,900.

The time being 5:30 p.m., committee rise.