Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.

When the committee last sat, the minister had commenced her opening remarks, and we request that she continue with her opening statement.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I think I remember where I left off. I would like to begin all over again, just for effect, but I think in the essence of trying to ensure that we use our time productively, I will continue from where I think I left off yesterday.

Income Assistance clients have responded positively to our government's challenge to seek work. It is clear that clients want to work. I am pleased to inform this committee that the Employment First focus has resulted in a significant decrease in the provincial welfare caseload. In fact, the average caseload for 1996-97 fell below 1990-91 levels.

The new focus on employment has helped hundreds of clients access training and employment opportunities. Since our welfare reform initiative was introduced, the provincial caseload has dropped by more than 1,000 cases. In addition, we have seen an increase of over 30 percent in the number of clients reporting earnings from employment.

This fiscal year we are again forecasting a decrease in our caseloads in employment and Income Assistance and municipal assistance. To complement our Employment First approach, we have developed numerous partnerships with business, local governments and community organizations to create jobs for our clients. Through innovative programs such as the Rural Jobs Project, Taking Charge!, the City of Winnipeg's community service projects and Opportunities for Employment which is an initiative involving our government and the Mennonite Central Committee, we have been assisting Income Assistance clients to obtain jobs.

Taking Charge!, as members will recall, is a pilot project funded jointly by Canada and Manitoba and is designed to increase employment for single-parent clients in Winnipeg. As of the end of March 1997, Taking Charge! had assisted in placing over 400 single parents into employment, and a thousand single parents had entered training.

I am very excited about the progress we have been making in developing innovative ways to help families on assistance achieve economic self-sufficiency. As our employment picture continues to brighten, we can expect to see fewer people dependent on social programs. I am pleased by the very positive feedback we have received, both from the community and from our clients, regarding the initiatives that we have put into place. I look forward to discussing this area in more detail as we move into the Estimates review.

Another major initiative which is currently underway is the implementation of a one-tier system of Income Assistance delivery in Winnipeg. My department has been working closely with the City of Winnipeg on this project which will reduce administrative duplication and improve service for clients.

In the first phase of this project, a business case for integrating the two delivery systems was determined by an independent consultant group under the direction of a joint provincial-City of Winnipeg steering committee. The business case provided compelling reasons to proceed with the project. We have now begun phase two, the detailed design phase which will lead to implementation. The one-tier project is expected to be completed in 1998.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very pleased we have strengthened our commitment to community living and vocational rehabilitation programs in our Community Living division. The Adult Services component of this division includes programs in the area of supported living, day services and vocational rehabilitation. This year, we have added nearly $4.4 million or a 7.4 percent increase for services and supports for adults with a mental disability.

* (1440)

The funding we have provided demonstrates our government's commitment to this priority area. I am pleased that our government has again been able to increase funding to provide services and supports for adults with mental disabilities to assist them with living and participating in the community.

Last fall, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act was proclaimed and members of the hearing panels established under this legislation. They have been appointed and have begun the task of reviewing orders. The Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner Dr. Allan Hansen and his staff have been busy with public education sessions throughout the province and with implementing the provisions of the act.

This fiscal year will see a review of the status of several hundred persons who had orders of supervision issued under Part II of The Mental Health Act. The original Operations Branch of this division is responsible for the delivery of a comprehensive range of social services throughout the province. I would like to make a few comments regarding emergency social services which falls within this area of the department.

The Emergency Measures Act requires local authorities to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. Manitoba Family Services has the responsibility under the Manitoba Emergency Plan for assisting communities with emergency social services. Over the last several years, staff have assisted municipalities and nongovernmental agencies in developing the emergency social services plans that are now being implemented in response to the flood.

As you know, Manitobans have been battling one of the worst floods to ever hit this province. The department's Emergency Social Services area has been actively involved with the Manitoba Emergency Management Organization in responding to the needs of those affected by the flood. Activities included establishing an emergency co-ordination centre at 114 Garry Street, and Emergency Social Services reception centres in Winnipeg and throughout southern Manitoba.

Services co-ordinated through Emergency Social Services include registration and inquiry, food, lodging, clothing and personal services. The delivery of these services represents a co-operative effort involving provincial staff, municipalities, and voluntary organizations.

I would like to add that approximately 115 departmental staff have been working full- or part-time in duties directly related to the department's role in the delivery of emergency social services during the flood, and will continue to provide assistance for evacuees during the re-entry phase until their houses are repaired or rebuilt.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and to express my appreciation to staff and the many hundreds of volunteers who have contributed their time and energy towards the flood assistance effort.

The area of Child and Family Services has been a very active one over the past year, and will continue to be a priority focus of the department's work. Overall funding for the Child and Family Services Division has increased by 2.7 percent over last year. Child and Family Support is a particularly critical area, and this year another $2.3 million will be provided for child protection and related services. Even though funding in this area has increased by $46.5 million, or 62.7 percent, since we have been in government, as I have said on many occasions, money alone will not ensure that Manitoba's children are safe.

The protection and well-being of children is a responsibility shared by all of society. Beginning last fall, a community panel, initially chaired by my colleague Mike Radcliffe and subsequently by Helen Zuefle, reviewed The Child and Family Services Act, seeking advice from Manitobans on a broad range of matters falling under this legislation.

I was pleased to release last summer a policy statement on Families First and a consultation workbook, which formed the basis for the community consultation process regarding the act, to obtain the community's perspective on how we can best assist in supporting children in need. The review examines such areas as the protection of children and adoptions and has provided extremely valuable recommendations to government on ways to improve the adoption procedures and our ability to protect children.

I was pleased to recently release the report of The Child and Family Services Act review committee on the community consultation process, which summarizes the suggestions, comments and advice received throughout the review process. During this session, I will introduce an adoption act and amendments to The Child and Family Services Act, which reflect what we have been told by Manitobans during this process.

Over the past year my colleague Marcel Laurendeau, the member for St. Norbert, conducted a fact-finding mission to seek the views of the community on a range of issues related to the child care system in Manitoba. During the course of this initiative, many helpful comments and recommendations were received on such areas as administrative procedures and funding issues affecting child care facilities. I want to personally thank Marcel Laurendeau for his commitment and his enthusiasm during this process.

Based on the suggestions put forth by parent users, child care providers and interested persons, my department has recently taken steps to improve client service by reducing the administrative work related to delivering the Child Day Care program. The subsidy application form is being simplified, for example, and a number of related administrative processes are being streamlined. We are in the process of making a number of other changes to the way we do business with licensed facilities that deliver child care services and with the families they serve.

We are working together with the community in examining the regulations under The Community Child Day Care Standards Act, with a view to making them more flexible and responsive to the needs of families without sacrificing the high standards of care for which Manitoba is known.

This positive collaboration will have as its final result an improved child care system that reflects and responds to the needs of families and promotes the well-being of children. I am looking forward to continuing the co-operative relationship which has developed with the child daycare community.

Children's Special Services is another area that remains a high priority for our government. We are seeing a growing number of families with children with special needs. As a result, we have been challenged to ensure that our resources continue to meet the needs of the many families who require support. In addressing this need, our government allocated additional funding last year to provide support to families waiting for services.

In 1997-98, our government has increased funding for Children's Special Services by almost $2 million, or close to 30 percent, to ensure that the resources are available to support families and to help their children develop to their maximum potential.

In the nine years that we have been in government, expenditures in this area of the department have tripled. I would at this time like to mention the children's coalition-provincial government joint working committee, which has been established to identify issues faced by disabled children and their families, as well as options for alternative ways of delivering services. The committee, chaired by the Children and Youth Secretariat, has been looking at a number of pilot projects, which would address service issues experienced by families and to enable them to have more say in the way services are provided for their special needs children.

The services of our Family Conciliation Branch continued to be important to Manitobans. The branch serves families affected by separation and divorce. One of its functions is the provision of court-ordered assessments in cases where parents or guardians are in conflict over the custody and access arrangements regarding their children.

I would like to add that our government has supported an innovative parent education project known as For the Sake of the Children. As I am sure you can appreciate, the breakdown of a marriage can be very stressful, in particular for children. This project helps separating and divorcing parents to better understand the needs of their children, how they are affected by family breakup and how to relate more co-operatively to one another. The program has been operating in Winnipeg for about a year and a half, and was expanded to Brandon in March of 1997. It has been well received by all participants.

* (1450)

Family Dispute Services has developed an important part of the range of services supported through Family Services. This area of the department supports the development and maintenance of community-based resources for women who are leaving violent relationships and monitors the quality of existing programs. Last year shelters throughout the province provided approximately 43,000 bed nights and responded to about 17,000 crisis-line telephone calls. This year expenditures for the programs provided by women's crisis shelters, crisis lines and women's resource centres will increase over last year's level. I would like to add that Manitoba has the most comprehensive funding model for women's shelters in Canada and offers a continuum of services for abused women at various stages of personal recovery, including specialized urban treatment programs and second-stage housing programs.

Another area where new partnerships can be helpful is in services to high risk children and youth. With the creation of the Children and Youth Secretariat, we have co-ordinated various departments in government to deliver services to children and young people that are better integrated and better able to meet their needs. The Department of Family Services is actively involved in a variety of initiatives co-ordinated by the Children and Youth Secretariat. I would just like to highlight a few of those.

We need to work to maintain the highest standards for those who work with our troubled youth. Recently I announced that a new child and youth care worker program diploma program will begin shortly and provide training to workers dealing with high risk children and youth in their care. Our government will be providing $386,000 in the first year and $250,000 in subsequent years through the departments of Education and Training, Family Services, Health, and Justice. The program to be offered at Red River Community College will ensure employers can access skilled, knowledgeable workers for group and youth homes and other residential facilities.

In building a supportive net of services, we need to take special measures to assist those children in the care of Child and Family Services agencies. The secretariat has been working with the education and social services communities to develop a placement protocol to transition foster children into receiving schools. We believe that this measure will not only help the child to feel more secure about making the move to a new school environment but will also assist the school in creating a positive environment for the child.

Another way in which the secretariat and my department have been working with the school system to help children at risk is through the Families and Schools Together Program. This program is a school-based initiative targeted to children ages four to nine years, who have been identified as being at risk of future social, academic and substance abuse problems. The FAST Program involves the families of the children identified who work together on projects aimed at developing a positive image of the school system and stressing the overall importance of education. I would like to particularly note the program's emphasis on single parents, which, it is estimated, represents approximately 50 percent of the participants.

I would like to turn for a moment to the matter of teen pregnancy. There is a strong correlation between poor families and adolescent pregnancy. Costs of providing health and social services to the adolescent parent population are significant. Accordingly, the Department of Family Services has a continuing interest in issues associated with adolescent parenting and pregnancy, and we will be working with the secretariat and the community to find solutions to this problem.

Providing services to children with disabilities, as I mentioned earlier, is a priority for this department. The secretariat facilitated the development of a three-phase, cross-sectoral plan to increase the range and co-ordination of services for technology-dependent children and their families. This initiative provides for the equitable distribution of community-based therapy services for disabled children. Proposals for the provision of these services are currently under review.

The secretariat will also be working closely with my department and child welfare agencies on the development of a Know Your Roots project, which will ensure that permanent wards of the province have the opportunity to learn more about their personal histories.

It has been four years since the proclamation of the legislation which established the Office of the Children's Advocate. It was our government that took the initiative to create this office as a place for children and families to turn for help in representing children's rights and interests within the Child and Family Services system. The Children's Advocate is one of a number of mechanisms which support our efforts to find better ways of serving children and families in difficult circumstances. As set out in the legislation governing the Advocate's office, a committee of the Legislative Assembly is undertaking a comprehensive review of the office, and I look forward to the report of the committee and to any recommendations brought forward regarding amendments to the legislation.

Before concluding, Mr. Chairperson, I want to take a few moments to raise some of the larger issues being addressed by social services ministers across the country. Our government has been actively participating in discussions with other provinces and the federal government regarding a proposal for a National Child Benefit system. This initiative was launched by provincial premiers in August of 1996 and grew out of the report to premiers of the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and Renewal, which the premiers established in 1995. The 1997 federal budget confirmed the federal commitments to join with provinces and territories to establish a new child benefit system in 1998. One of the key features of this proposal is its focus on ensuring an effective response to the need to prevent and reduce child poverty, and promoting attachment to the workforce by ensuring that families will always be better off working than by receiving welfare.

Our government has also been working diligently towards the renewal of a federal-provincial financial arrangement under which vocational rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities are funded. Last summer there were indications that the federal government was about to abandon VRDP funding. At the annual social services ministers' meeting last September, I proposed an extension in federal funding for another fiscal year while discussions regarding the long-term future of the VRDP could be initiated. I am pleased to report that the federal government has agreed to this extension, and I am hopeful that the discussions on the shape of these arrangements in the future will result in the renewal of the federal government's commitment to vocational rehab services.

Provincial and territorial social services ministers have expressed their strong commitment to work to promote the well-being and protection of children. In the area of child welfare, we have given a high priority to collaborating on issues such as prevention, research and information sharing, best practices, training and certification, integration of services, adoption and child support.

I would like to mention that I wrote to my federal colleagues recently to bring their attention to our government's serious concern regarding the federal government's plan last year to reduce funding support for the Community Action Program for Children. Many community groups and agencies depend on funding from CAPC to provide preventative programs and services for children and families who may otherwise be at risk. I am pleased that our initiative in calling for the federal government to reconsider this decision has resulted in this funding being reinstated for this fiscal year.

At every opportunity at meetings with my federal counterparts, I bring to their attention the importance of aboriginal issues to Manitoba. This province has the highest per capita concentration of aboriginal people of any province. Special needs of the aboriginal population are important factors in our social services, justice, education and training, and health system. The federal government must acknowledge its special historical and constitutional responsibilities for aboriginal people.

* (1500)

In closing, I want to note that in our allocation of expenditures for 1997-98 we have made every effort to maintain a balanced approach to preserving and renewing services for our most vulnerable members of society. As we continue to face reductions in federal transfers, we have managed to protect those most in need from the impact of these reductions. As I have noted on several occasions, meeting the challenges of vulnerable families and individuals is not only government's responsibility. It is one that needs to be shared by the whole community. The community has shown every indication that it is prepared to take on this challenge, and one of government's roles through this process will be as a partner and a facilitator.

We are taking a constructive, innovative approach to helping people find work and become self-sufficient. We have reached out and formed new partnerships with industry and community groups, and we are seeing very favourable results from our focus on employment. As we work with existing and new partners, we will see an increasing number of families and individuals become self-sufficient. The benefits for families and individuals both in economic and personal terms are immeasurable.

I would like to take this opportunity just before I complete my remarks to again thank all members, all staff in my department, for their efforts during the last year. As you will have noted by my comments, this was a challenging year for our department. Hopefully, the significant changes have provided staff with renewed enthusiasm and motivation as they take on the very demanding tasks that we do want to have on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the clients that we serve. So I want to commend them for the hard work and the commitment and the dedication that they have shown and I know will continue to show as we move forward in this ever-changing world and society that we live in.

So I very much look forward to this committee's review of the Estimates, and I welcome comments and questions from my colleagues in the opposition and hope we have constructive dialogue around the issues we deal with in Family Services. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the Minister of Family Services for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), have an opening statement.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and I do have a short opening statement. We do not have many hours, so we are going to try and move expeditiously. I too always look forward to--well, I look forward to two things at this time of year. One is my birthday and the other is Family Services Estimates, although this year I looked forward more to Estimates than my birthday, which has just passed. [interjection] We will not go into that.

I also would like to thank the minister's staff because I phone them from time to time and they are always very co-operative, although I must say the people I phone most often are the program specialists in Income Assistance. Just to show how co-operative I am as an opposition critic, I think I have done something unprecedented here and that is give the minister's staff some of my questions in advance, both in writing to the minister and in the room today, hoping that will move things along more quickly. I am going to try to restrain myself in terms of getting into arguments with the minister and maybe save that to the end.

But I will comment on a couple of things the minister said in her opening statement. As we always hear in Question Period and in Estimates, this provincial government likes to blame a lot of their problems on cutbacks from the federal government, and we heard again today that the result of the Canada Health and Social Transfer is a cut to the Province of Manitoba of, I think the minister said, $227 million. However, what the minister fails to point out is that this government has over $400 million in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, also known as the Tory election slush fund.

So this government does have choices that they could make in terms of program spending, but they will probably save that money for next year's budget, for a tax cut, or for paving highways, or whatever they think it takes to get re-elected.

If there is one area that most affects people that are the responsibility of this minister and affects a lot of people in the province of Manitoba, it would have to be poverty. There are certainly links between poverty and crime, poverty and Child and Family Services, poverty and Health, poverty and Education. Just by way of example, sometime in the last year, I think it was Winnipeg Child and Family Services did an environmental scan, and they were able to identify the factors which put children most at risk of being apprehended by an agency, and those risk factors were being the child of a single parent, being aboriginal and being poor.

We also know that new groups are starting to raise their concerns about poverty issues, particularly educators. So last year, on November 19, we have a story in the Free Press about school divisions who have, as the headline in the Free Press says: Alarm rings for kids; school trustees join poverty fight. Educators have realized for some time now, and it is good to see trustees joining with educators in urging all governments to tackle the problem of child poverty. They had a press conference which was very well attended by Winnipeg media, and they pointed out many of the serious problems that result in the education system from child poverty and asked governments to give it a higher priority.

Then on December 10 we had two stories: one in the Free Press, one in The Globe and Mail about the report issued by Mr. Ted Hughes on the Headingley Jail riot. It was a very interesting report because he did not just look at the riot, but he looked at the inmates and who they are and why some of them are there. The Free Press headline says: Poor need help, Judge; poverty called cause of crime.

The Globe and Mail headline for December 10, 1996, says: Attack roots of crime, report urges. Mr. Hughes says, and I quote, it is imperative that federal, provincial and territorial governments address the fact that poverty-stricken people with no marketable skills, no job and no job prospects are languishing under explosive conditions in Canada's prisons." Then he says Canada and Manitoba, in particular, must commit more resources to attacking the root causes of crime, one of which he says is poverty.

Then this spring we had a report issued by the United Way, a rather unusual report. I am wondering if the United Way does not regret now that it became public or that they voluntarily agreed to make it public, because there were things in it that we normally never hear from the United Way. We might occasionally hear it from a spokesperson for an individual United Way funded agency but not from the United Way itself. It was the result of a consultation that they had with executive directors, and the United Way, to their credit, listened to the 47 executive directors of human service agencies in the city. But the report itself was actually a very good critique of what is happening in the city and this province, and they said that poverty is the origin for almost all of Winnipeg's social problems.

Anger and despair are rising and with them crime and violence, and I quote from the report: Driven by deficit reduction, governments at all levels are decreasing and shifting funding for services. As well, they are changing their roles in maintaining the social safety net and looking to the community to take more responsibility for creating, managing and sustaining programs. They go on to say that this results in individual and community needs not being addressed fully or not being addressed at all. Agencies fear that the social safety net has many holes and stated that a full implication of these changes has not yet been felt. If shrinking resources force social agencies to cut back too, there will be serious consequences threatening the physical and emotional health of individuals and the community. It said the number of poor children has risen from 36,000 in 1989, shortly after this government took office, to 42,000 today. I could go on and on and quote from that report.

We have agency directors who are quite forthright about not only the problems in the community, but what they are being told by government in how to deal with some of these problems. For example, one agency director said to me that they needed money to work with youth, and they feel that they are competing with prostitution and drugs, and that those are revenue-generating illegitimate businesses that put money into the pockets of youth. This agency director told this to business people, and they get told, well, you need to be more innovative and you need to get rid of waste and duplication. What the agency directors are saying is, we do not duplicate; in fact, there are not enough services. They have also been told that there needs to be more innovative programming. But they believe that there are lots of innovative programming out there now.

* (1510)

Basically what we are seeing in response to an increasing problem of poverty, particularly child poverty, and we have a story here from the Free Press from October 19, 1996, that says 29 percent of kids in Manitoba live in poverty. Manitoba has the second highest percentage of children living in poverty next to Newfoundland. It is appalling that Manitoba should be compared to Newfoundland, truly one of the have-not provinces in Canada. In fact, I believe, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was just saying in Question Period the other day that after Alberta, B.C. and Ontario, that Manitoba ranks fourth--and I cannot remember what indicator it is--but to think that we are ninth out of tenth, that we are second worst compared to Newfoundland when it comes to child poverty is appalling.

What we are seeing in response to this is increasingly governments and other people are turning to charity solutions. I think a very good example is the minister's colleague, the Honourable David Newman, suggesting at a public forum at the friendship centre that if people cannot get furniture, which he was told at this public forum, that they should set up a warehouse at the friendship centre and hire people to run this used-furniture centre which would access furniture from donations. He was quite severely criticized at the forum for that, but unfortunately these ideas take legs, and I understand that the idea is going ahead. I think that is an example of the desperation that people have. They do not believe that charity solutions are adequate to meet people's needs, but out of sheer desperation when they are offered assistance by government to take advantage of that kind of solution, they take it, not because they want to but because they feel forced to.

The minister was also told that it is impossible for people on social assistance to get the $150 a year special needs funding that used to be available, and this minister said, yes, that sounds like a good idea; do you need it? However, he was told by the audience, we know that the government will not bring it back, and he also was told, we cannot wait for the government to change.

So I think there are much better solutions than the kinds of charity solutions that are being forced on people, but unfortunately I do not think this government is listening to those concerns. I was interested to hear that the minister wrote to the federal government about the Community Action Program for Children whose funding was supposed to run out, I think, at the end of March. I had meetings with people in the community who are running programs funded by CAPC, and they were very concerned, and they were prepared to have press conferences. I am glad that the minister shared their concerns, but all of a sudden the funding was extended for another year. I would like to think that the minister's letter was influential. Hopefully, the federal government got letters from 10 ministers across Canada, but I think that the timing of the federal election was much more important. The federal Liberal government did not want the embarrassment of cutting programs for children just days before a federal election was called, so the funding has been continued, and we will have to see what happens after the current fiscal year.

Actually it would be a shame if the funding was cut next year, because so many of these programs are good programs. Certainly there is a need to evaluate them and to change priorities from time to time and to direct the funding to where it is most needed and best spent, but frequently what funding of this sort does is, it raises expectations in the community. People find out about a program. They get plugged in. They start taking part in it. It helps them, it helps their children. Then all of a sudden the funding is gone and there is nothing there, and people are very disappointed.

That concludes my opening remarks, and now we will get on to the questions.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for those comments.

Under Manitoba practice, debate on the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line.

Before we do that, we would invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce her staff present.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to introduce Tannis Mindell, who is the deputy minister for Family Services; and Ken Sharman, who is the assistant deputy minister of Administration and Finance.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister. We will now proceed to line 9.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $468,800. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, you can be sure I will have a question about almost every line in the whole book, although I am going to try to restrain myself and try to ask as many questions as possible and not make as many statement as previous years so we can get through all this.

My first question has to do with the organization of the department. I have with me the minister's introductory comments from last year, May 10, '96, and on page 6, she said: "The streamlined department now has three interrelated divisions, rather than four essentially separate divisions." I have the handout, the organizational chart that the minister gave me with three divisions, and now in this year's Estimates book, it looks like we are back to four divisions. So I am wondering if the minister can explain when these changes took place and why?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes, I can explain the reasons why. Under the three-divisional structure, we had an associate deputy minister, Doug Sexsmith, who was in charge of Administration and Finance and our Employment and Income Assistance programs. Doug has left us, actually a loss to the Manitoba government, I think. He has gone into the private sector, a benefit to the private sector, because he was an extremely competent civil servant and provided many years of excellent service to governments. But as a result of that, we determined that we would separate the Administration and Finance function and the Employment and Income Assistance functions under two assistant deputy ministers rather than one associate deputy minister.

Mr. Martindale: When did this change take place?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It was effective in January of this year.

Mr. Martindale: What was the cost of three assistant deputy ministers, and what is the cost of four assistant deputy ministers?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The net saving as a result of the restructure was about $11,000 annually.

Mr. Martindale: Pass this line.

Mr. Chairperson: 9.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $468,800--pass; (2) Other expenditures $80,700--pass.

9.1.(c) Children's Advocate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $220,000.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to thank the minister for, I guess, making it possible to have an all-party committee. It has certainly been a very interesting experience to be reviewing the Children's Advocate section of The Child and Family Services Act, and we look forward to writing our report and submitting it to the government.

At a recent meeting of the committee, a motion was moved inviting the minister to come before the committee, and I think that is something that the minister would not be adverse to doing. I am sure that she can handle herself quite well. I am sure that she could bring Legal Counsel with her to answer any questions that we might have about writing the amendments to the act, and I was quite surprised when the Conservative members on the committee voted against that motion. So now that I have the opportunity, since I know that this minister has nothing to be afraid of, I would like to ask the minister directly if she would agree to appear before the subcommittee on the Children's Advocate legislation in order to have a discussion with the committee with a view to helping us look at what the various options are before we write our report.

* (1520)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess my sense--I mean, I would have no problem at all appearing before the committee. I think it is somewhat unprecedented in Manitoba for the minister to appear before a subcommittee. I am a member of the Committee of Privileges and Elections, and the subcommittee was struck to make recommendations to me as the minister around what the public had to say about changes or not making changes to the Children's Advocate office. My understanding of the whole process of the subcommittee was to go out and hear the public and come back and make recommendations to the committee and to me as minister around what the public had said and what your interpretation of the public's comments were and report what changes needed to be made.

I have no problem at all discussing issues around the Children's Advocate office here through my Estimates process. Certainly, as the Committee of the Whole gets together when the subcommittee reports, I am sure we will have some dialogue and discussion, because, ultimately, the report will have to be endorsed by the committee and referred to the House.

So I think it is sort of an additional step in the process that is not actually needed. I would believe that the role of the subcommittee would have been to report back to me through the committee on what the public has said around changes that need to be made to the Advocate's office.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I guess I understand the process. I think one of the reasons why we wanted to have the minister appear is that we are trying to write a consensus report. That is what all members have said. One concern is that we not recommend things that cannot legally be changed in the legislation or cannot be written into legislation.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I would imagine that we could offer--I will ask just for a nod from officials here, but if there was a need for someone with a legal background to be present as the subcommittee deliberates around the recommendations, I think we could make that readily available.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us when she plans to bring in amendments to the Children's Advocate sections?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess I am looking to--probably we are all, possibly, looking forward to the end of this session being some time this summer and that amendments, probably, given that my understanding is that the committee will not be reporting to the House till around the middle of June, June 12 I think is the deadline for report back to the House, that we are probably looking at amendments next session unless there was something so very minor that was recommended that we might be able to get legislation drafted, but I would presume that it might be next session before we can introduce those amendments.

Once the subcommittee's work is done, if there is a consensus report, we would then have to determine. I do not want to predetermine what the results of that subcommittee will be. If there is a different reporting structure or relationship, it would probably have to be a separate piece of legislation. In itself, it may not fall under The Child and Family Services Act if there is an expansion of role, and those are only ifs.

If those recommendations do not come forward and there was only something very minor or insignificant, there might be the ability to do it this session, but given the timing and where we are at right now, it probably will not be till next year if there are significant recommendations.

Mr. Martindale: Well, having a new act introduced is an interesting hint from the minister, so I thank her for that.

Mr. Chairperson: 9.1.(c) Children's Advocate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $220,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $82,700--pass.

9.1.(d) Social Services Advisory Committee (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me how many appeals there were to the committee, I guess, in the last fiscal year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, there were 1,201.

Mr. Martindale: How many were successful?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It takes me a little while to get this figured out. There were a total of 1,201: 68 were allowed, 448 were dismissed, 450 were withdrawn, 78 did not appear, 36 were outside the jurisdiction of the committee, and 40 are still in process.

Mr. Martindale: What percentage were successful?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess if you look at the overall number and the number of withdrawn appeals that were obviously satisfactorily dealt with before it got to the appeal process of 450, with the number allowed, which would be 68, that would be a total of 518 that were resolved in a satisfactory fashion which is almost half of the cases that were brought forward to the committee.

Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister says that the ones that were withdrawn were successfully dealt with. Since the minister has her staff here, I wonder if she could verify that. I do not really know why all those appeals were withdrawn.

Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is that either at the municipal level or the provincial level, whoever is responsible for that client or case, there is an agreement between the municipality or the province and the appellant that the issue can be dealt with without going to appeal. So once it is satisfactorily resolved to the client's satisfaction, then the appeal does not go forward.

Mr. Martindale: If we assume that the minister is correct in this, then according to my calculations, 68 successful appeals out of 518 is about 11 percent, which would be about average. Normally it is about 10 percent, in that range, which I think is a very low rate of success. I always encourage people when they phone me to appeal a decision because that is a legal right that people have, but I always warn them that about 90 percent fail, so their chances of being successful are not very good. Although if you look at the 450 that are withdrawn, that is an avenue that people can use and should use and obviously many people do use.

I wonder if the minister could break it down by legislation because the appeal process is available for The Social Services Administration Act, The Employment and Income Assistance Act, The Municipal Act, The Community Child and Daycare Standards Act, The Vulnerable Persons Living With A Mental Disability Act. I wonder if the minister has stats of appeals by legislation.

* (1530)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Okay. The actuals for '96-97 were 583 for municipal assistance, 553 for provincial assistance, 17 for 55 Plus, 37 for daycare, one for daycare licensing, seven for licensing of residential care facilities, two for VRDP, and one for The Vulnerable Persons Act.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if some areas are more successful than others in terms of appeals? Almost all the calls that I get are social assistance, but I would be quite happy to advise people if their chances are better for some kinds of legislation than others when I am referring people to the Social Services Advisory Committee.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It looks to me like it is fairly well equal between municipal and provincial assistance. Under municipal assistance, 23 were allowed; under provincial assistance, 25 were allowed; under daycare subsidy, it looks like certainly more were withdrawn or dismissed or allowed. There was one allowed for dismissed under daycare subsidy, but there were 31 withdrawn. So it looks like many of those issues are resolved without the appeal process having to take place.

Residential care: one was withdrawn, three were dismissed, and one was allowed. One did not appear, and there is one still waiting for an outcome.

Mr. Martindale: Is this an appropriate line to ask about welfare fraud, or should I wait until we get into Income Assistance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Probably better to wait for Income Assistance.

Mr. Chairperson: 9.1.Administration and Finance (d) Social Services Advisory Committee (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $183,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $157,600--pass.

9.1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Excuse me, Mr. Chairperson. Just before Isabel leaves, I do not think I introduced Isabel to my honourable friend. Ms. Furtado--we will have to get that spelling for Hansard--is the staffperson for the Social Services Advisory Committee, and this is Keith Watts from Human Resources, who has just joined us at the table. Thanks, Isabel.

Mr. Chairperson: We are under 1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $796,000.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for the introductions. It is always good to put a face on the civil servants that I talk to on the phone from time to time. I notice in the Estimates book under Expected Results it says: "Revision of the staff orientation program for the Manitoba Developmental Centre." I wonder if the minister could explain what this is.

Mrs. Mitchelson: What is happening is to ensure that we have continuing education and support so that the staff there are trained to meet the challenges that exist with an aging population at MDC and some of those issues.

Mr. Martindale: Does this indicate that there are any changes taking place at MDC?

Mrs. Mitchelson: At MDC they are trying a more client-focused approach to improve ratios of clients to staff, a more direct service provision and more people providing direct service and less administration.

Mr. Chairperson: 9.1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $796,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $89,300--pass.

9.1.(f) Policy and Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $751,600.

Mrs. Mitchelson: If I could just introduce Drew Perry who is the executive director of Policy and Planning.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for that information.

Mr. Martindale: I have some more general questions and specific questions for 9-1, and I am not sure whether this is the right place. So if it is not, maybe the minister could let me know.

I helped one of my constituents apply for a pension from Great Britain and one of the pieces of information that was enclosed with the application form is a pamphlet from the Pensions and Overseas Benefits Directorate, and it is called Customer Service Statement.

Now, I do not really like describing public services as customer service, however my question is: Would the minister be willing to put out some kind of pamphlet, if you do not have one already, similar to this--which I will pass to the minister--about the Department of Family Services, or maybe one for each division in Family Services, spelling out what kind of services the public is entitled to and the department expects to provide? I think it is a good idea, and if your ministry already has something like this, I guess I would be interested in seeing it. But I will pass this over to the minister.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding we do have pamphlets on most of the services that are provided from our department, and I will endeavour to obtain copies of all of those for my honourable friend. But I want to thank him for this. I think we always have to look at reviewing what information we are providing to the public, and there might be some good ideas in here that we might want to look at if we are contemplating change.

* (1540)

Mr. Martindale: Of course, I am familiar with most of the existing publications, and I guess my general impression would be that they are descriptions of programs. I think this pamphlet is a little bit different in that it is a description of what that particular department of government provides and what the public can expect in terms of what they call customer service, which I think may be different than the pamphlets that the minister is referring to in her department. So I am pleased that the minister will take a look at it and will hope that she will think it is a good idea and we might see something forthcoming from this department.

I have a couple of documents in front of me, government documents. One looks like it is from a special operating agency, namely Fleet Vehicles, and it has Travel Distance Summary by Client, meaning government department, for a fiscal year. This is pretty old. Oh, I just discovered it is very old, it is 1991, but the reason it twigged my interest is that it has got almost every government department but I could not find Family Services, and I kind of wondered why. So I will pass this over and let the minister's staff look at it, and maybe there is an explanation that the minister can provide? Meanwhile, maybe I will go on to something else.

I have a rather interesting internal document that somehow got out. Oh, it is a Treasury Board submission. I always have fun with Treasury Board submissions. This one has already been made public. It has to do with Partners for Careers staffing. There is some money from this minister's department. It says Child and Family Services provincial funding $235,000, '95-96. I am just wondering if that money was reallocated from something else or whether that was part of the budget. It says '95-96 fiscal year, so I guess I am just wondering if that was a budget appropriation and whether it was spent and whether that was a shifting around of money or whether that was something that was budgeted in advance? And I will pass this over to the minister as well.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I have no recollection of Child and Family Services or our department being involved in this at all, but I will have staff review it and try to get an answer back to my honourable friend.

Mr. Martindale: One question that I ask every year which the minister enjoys answering, not that it is an uncontroversial topic, because it is a cost to the province of Manitoba, but what is the cost to date of the federal government's offloading of social assistance costs for off-reserve First Nations people? I know the minister keeps a running tally on this so hopefully she will be able to tell me.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we estimate about $25 million a year and the running total would be about $100 million now for the last four years.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for that information. It is too bad that the Liberal critic is not in Family Services Estimates. In fact, they seem to boycott Family Services Estimates, they are here so seldom. It is really a shame that they do not have questions for the Minister of Family Services since there still is federal money coming to Manitoba and since there have been cuts from the federal government to the Province of Manitoba, but I guess they have priorities other than Family Services.

I notice in the Estimates book there are pie graphs, for example on page 17, percentage distribution of staff years by category, and there are several pie graphs. I am wondering if the minister can give us percentages of spending by division in her department. This is staff year spending, and that is interesting information, but I am wondering if you could tell us what the percentages are for different parts, I guess the four parts of this department.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is on page 9, I think, if you look. See if we are talking about the same thing.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you for pointing me to the correct page. I wonder if the minister could tell me if there have been any major changes in recent years in terms of the proportions for different parts of the department.

Mrs. Mitchelson: On page 76, that would be right near the back of the book, I think it does give an indication of what the changes have been over the last four or five years. Employment and Income Assistance I believe would have gone down, and Community Living and Child and Family may have gone up in expenditures. Admin and Finance is down also.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister questions about Order-in-Council 90/1997 dated February 12, 1997. This is an Order-in-Council regarding, I do not know what you call this, interim appropriation? No, Special Warrant. In Family Services, there are two items: Income Security and Regional Operations $3,984,000; and Child and Family Support $3,129,000. I wonder if the minister can tell me if the reason for this Special Warrant is that those two parts of our department were expected to be over budget by March 31 and therefore the Special Warrant was to provide more money.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that is absolutely correct.

Mr. Martindale: I assume then that under Employment and Income Assistance that either the caseload was higher or for some reason the demand was higher for Income Assistance clients, higher, that is, than the budgeted amount and therefore a Special Warrant was necessary, is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I think my honourable friend is correct. We budgeted a certain amount and we found that we were short money based on our expectations or anticipation that the welfare caseloads would go down lower than they actually did. So we needed an extra three point some million dollars, I guess, in order to ensure that we covered the full cost.

If I can just add to that, I guess the caseloads did go down maybe not quite as much as we anticipated, but the cost per case was higher than what we had estimated.

* (1550)

Mr. Martindale: I guess I would like to ask the minister to explain what she means by the costs were higher because--I do not have the numbers here and I guess we will get into it in the next section--but the City of Winnipeg, at one point, was down about 3,000 clients, and I know that this minister put out a press release saying that about 800 I think single parents had gone back to work.

So I wonder if the minister could explain the higher costs per case.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We did reach our estimated goal of the number of people we thought would be off of social allowance. On the single-parent side which would be the provincial caseload, I guess what we overestimated was the saving that would result as a result of single parents going into work, and we might have estimated based on a certain family size. Probably those with smaller families moved off of welfare, so the cost per case was higher than what we had estimated.

Also, it was interesting to note that about a million dollars was for health services related expenditures, that we had spent a million dollars more than what we had estimated we would spend on health services for social allowances recipients.

Mr. Martindale: This figure that we are talking about is almost $4 million. Could the minister tell us if that $4 million was expended or underexpended?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We did not require the whole $4 million. I am just being told that we do not have the final numbers, but it was considerably lower than the $4 million.

Mr. Martindale: Under Child and Family Support, Maintenance of Children and External Agencies, would it be correct that Maintenance of Children refers to monies given to Child and Family Services agencies?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that is all for maintenance of children through our Child and Family Services agencies. Now, you know we have some mandated agencies, and in some areas of the province our Regional Operations provides that kind of service. So that is for support and maintenance of children in our child welfare system.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if external agencies are the same ones that are in the list of grants to external agencies that the minister hands out in Estimates or something different?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I just need a little bit of clarification. We are talking about the special warrants still, the additional money that was provided and that would have gone to--there was no agency that received a grant from the department, external agency, other than mandated agencies.

So it is the mandated agencies or our Regional Operations that deliver child welfare that would have required the additional support. I believe most of that money, by far, went to the Winnipeg Child and Family Services Agency.

Mr. Martindale: So in this line when it says external agencies, that is not the same as the list of grants to external agencies that you table.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No. When we are talking external agencies, that would be the mandated child welfare agencies. Many of the external agencies that we fund are not mandated, and they would not have had their grants increased.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me when I could expect to get the list of grants to external agencies?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Tomorrow.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you. There are a couple of items under Financial and Administrative Services that I have questions about. Well, maybe I will continue on the special warrant. Does this mean that the budgeting was not accurate for Child and Family Support and that the agencies ran out of money and the minister had to allocate more money to these agencies by way of a Special Warrant?

Mrs. Mitchelson: As I indicated, the money primarily went to Winnipeg Child and Family Services, and it was because they overexpended their budget by some $3.5 million-plus.

Mr. Martindale: Well, my recollection is that in the past the Provincial Auditor has commented on the inadequacy or the problems in budgeting for Winnipeg Child and Family Services, and so has the Children's Advocate. It seems that every year we have the same problem, in fact problems. I think there are a number of problems. One is that the money runs out before the end of the fiscal year so the government has to allocate more funds to them and, secondly, the budget request is seldom met and so in a subsequent year the grant is increased and it basically pays off the debt from the previous year. So I am wondering why the government is not doing realistic budgeting for Winnipeg Child and Family Services?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we have had some discussions around the Winnipeg agency every year, and I do want to indicate to my honourable friend that we certainly have serious concerns. I have said many times, and I have said many times publicly, do we really believe that more money means better service, or is there in fact a way that services could be delivered in a different fashion that would serve the needs of children and families better that would not require millions and millions of dollars of additional support year after year? That is what we have seen in Winnipeg Child and Family. It has been significant. Every year there is anywhere from $3 million to $6 million or $7 million more required in the Winnipeg agency to deliver service, and I guess the big question for us and one of the areas we are trying to work very aggressively with Winnipeg Child and Family Services on is, are we getting good value for the dollars that we are spending or is there a better way that we can work together to try to ensure that services are provided? We struggle. Year by year the agency comes in with a budget and then they end up spending more than what they have anticipated they are going to spend.

So I guess the big question for all of us is, and I do not have the answer today, and I am not sure we do have any concrete answer: Do we need to continue to spend an additional $4 million or $5 million every year to serve children? I mean, I guess the big question for me is, are we finding that children are being better served? Are there fewer problems? Do we have less family dysfunction? Are we really doing the job or is there a better way to do that? I think we need to work co-operatively with the agency, certainly questions that I have asked on a regular basis.

* (1600)

I do know that the agency does attribute some of the issues and the increasing issue and the increasing cost on our aboriginal population in the city of Winnipeg. Now 70 percent of their caseload, they say, is of aboriginal background. I guess I would like to see development and partnership with the aboriginal community in Winnipeg to try to resolve some of these issues. We have nonmandated agencies like Ma Mawi. Surely we can develop some sense of how we can best deliver that service to aboriginal people with support and ideas and suggestions from the aboriginal community. I am encouraging that kind of activity at the Winnipeg agency to ensure that our aboriginal leadership in the city of Winnipeg is very involved in helping to find the solutions.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if it is the practice at Winnipeg Child and Family Services to submit a budget to this minister and, if so, do you allocate their budget request or are you giving them less than they request and then have to make it up through Special Warrants?

Mrs. Mitchelson: They do submit to us sort of a general budget proposal. We work with them to see what we think might be realistic and ultimately every year they seem to come in over budget.

Mr. Martindale: Well, why do we have this problem every year? Somebody needs to do some realistic budgeting, and it does not seem to happen. Why?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Good question. I do not have the answer. We are trying really hard to work with Winnipeg, to look at what would be a realistic figure for support, but the answer that comes back from the agency, I think, is that they cannot predetermine what kids are going to need to be taken into care, what kinds of services are going to need to be provided, and what the cost might be. I guess I struggle with the whole issue of what Child and Family Services is expected to be to all families and to the community. We have talked about this with the agency, with the board. What are the services that the agency is providing? Are they providing services that possibly should be looked at being provided outside of our mandated agencies? Are we duplicating services in the agency that could be done by other nonmandated agencies? Certainly protection work has to be the responsibility of the mandated agencies, but I am trying to get a sense or a handle. I wish I had the answer and I do not at this point in time.

We are working aggressively with the agency to try to determine what kinds of service and what the definition of those services should be. As an example, there was some work done by the Children and Youth Secretariat, and I do not have the figures right in front of me right now, but there are some 117 or 127 children in the province of Manitoba that we spend $17 million on. I do not know if I have my figures right or not. [interjection] It is, and many of those are part of our Child and Family Services system. Is Child and Family the right place to be delivering those services or do we need a plan of action that looks at a different way of delivering those services to those children?

I can probably talk around in circles. I do not have the answers. I wish I did. I have to be honest with my honourable friend. But I am really concerned that we are seeing increasing numbers and increasing costs for children in care, and I am not sure that we are working with all of the community that needs to be worked with in a very meaningful way to try and find some of the answers and the solutions. I honestly feel that if we have 70 percent of our children in care in the city of Winnipeg that are aboriginal, we need to have more aboriginal input into how we find the answers.

Mr. Martindale: Well, we can follow this up later in Estimates in Child and Family Services. I am ready to pass this line.

Mr. Chairperson: 9.1.(f) Policy and Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $751,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $175,700--pass

9.1.(g) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Martindale: I am sorry that I did not bring Public Accounts with me, but one of the things that I discussed with people in the Provincial Auditor's office was, I guess, broadly speaking, the issue of holding government accountable. As an opposition critic it is fairly easy to ask questions in Estimates but, when it comes to how the money has already been spent, it is a little bit harder even looking at Public Accounts, because the amount of money that is given to each organization, each individual is printed with the name of the organization and the total amount for the fiscal year.

With Family Services it is about five pages of names and amounts and, except for going through it and reading it one at a time and looking for strange things that you have never heard of before, most of which have explanations, like licensed family daycare operators or bringing it to Estimates and asking the minister individual questions which might take a long time to answer, I wonder if there is a better way of doing it. My suggestion would be to divide it up according to the four categories of your department and then at least we would know under which category of the department the money was spent on behalf of, because the way it is now, well, maybe this is going a little bit too far, but it is totally useless information and, yet, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is extremely difficult to hold the government accountable for the spending of this hundreds of millions of dollars the way it is now.

Now, I suppose this is out of the hands of the Minister of Family Services. Maybe it is the Minister of Finance or maybe it is the Auditor, I am not sure, but I am wondering if this minister is willing to suggest to her colleagues or to the Auditor that the financial information be arranged differently. Would you be willing to do that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: My honourable friend is correct when he says that it really is outside my responsibility. There is a format that provides a listing through Public Accounts that is standard across government. It is not different department by department. Maybe we could look at making it different department by department to try to confuse the opposition, but I think it is more important to have a standard format so you know what you are looking at. But I have no difficulty in indicating to my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), if that is the appropriate place, that you have made a suggestion that the format for Public Accounts should be changed, and I am prepared to do that.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for that offer, and I am wondering if she could put that in writing in a letter or memo to the minister and copy me so that we can follow up in Finance Estimates or follow up with the Minister of Finance at some future date.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I could certainly undertake to do that. It might be very appropriate for my honourable friend to do that directly or to have his Finance critic do that directly to the Minister of Finance. I guess I do have to make a comment that my honourable friend's party was in government for several years. I do not imagine the format has been changed significantly with the change in government, so it has probably been a standard practice for many, many years.

* (1610)

Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.1. (g) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,738,200; (2) Other Expenditures $470,500.

Mr. Martindale: I am wondering if the minister can answer some questions about some of the agreements that I presume the government has with different associations, I guess, that provide services to social assistance clients, for example, dental. I know that there is a dispute going on with a dentist in The Pas about providing service. Basically, an individual withdrew service, and I understand that the clients were being forced to take the bus to Flin Flon. My colleagues were concerned about this, suggesting that the cost of the social assistance recipients travelling to Flin Flon is probably more than what the government was willing to pay to the dentist. I am wondering if this dispute with this individual dentist has been resolved.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the dispute has not been resolved, but I do want to indicate that there are negotiations that are ongoing and the dentists have agreed to provide emergency services in the interim until, hopefully, we can come to some agreement through negotiation.

Mr. Chairperson: Before recognizing the honourable member for Burrows, I am just going to, for the sake of Hansard, refer to item (g) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,738,200--pass.

Mr. Martindale: Is the minister referring to negotiations with the individual dentist or with the dental association for Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, with the dental association. As I indicated, the dentists in The Pas have agreed to provide emergency services until we can conclude those negotiations.

Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that the government also has an agreement with funeral home operators in Manitoba and that they have not had any increase now for quite a few years. The complaint that I get from them is that they are losing money on funerals for Income Assistance clients. I wonder if the minister has received any request from their association to renegotiate their fees.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have, Mr. Chairperson, just recently completed negotiations and have a signed agreement with the funeral directors in the province.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister give me more detailed information about the agreement? Was there an increase in compensation to individual funeral home operators for Income Assistance clients' funerals?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we do not have a copy of the agreement with us, but I believe there was a slight increase in the agreement that was signed. We can endeavour to bring a copy of that agreement tomorrow.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.1.(g) Financial and Administrative Services (2) Other Expenditures $470,500--pass.

9.1.(h) Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,512,400.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what stage we are at in tendering for a computer system for the amalgamated provincial and City of Winnipeg social assistance systems?

Mrs. Mitchelson: IBM does have the contract. They are in the re-engineering-redesign phase working with the City of Winnipeg staff and our staff to try to determine what the system should look like.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me when the former associate minister Mr. Doug Sexsmith went to work for IBM?

Mrs. Mitchelson: January of 1997.

Mr. Martindale: Does his contract with IBM or do government guidelines prohibit him from working on government contracts for a specified period of time?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There is a conflict-of-interest clause that prohibits him from soliciting business for a year.

Mr. Martindale: It seems to me that soliciting business and working on a contract are two different things. This process was already in the works between IBM and KPMG, Online, and my understanding is that Mr. Sexsmith went to IBM to provide advice on government business, so I wonder if the minister could clarify.

Mrs. Mitchelson: He is working across the country for IBM, and he is not doing anything with the Province of Manitoba.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for clarifying that for me. I wonder if the minister could tell me, if it is appropriate under this line, what is happening with the Child and Family Services' computer system? My understanding is that their new system has been in the implementation phase for quite a number of years, and I frequently hear frustration on the part of staff about that computer system. I wonder if the minister can bring me up to date on it.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The infrastructure is now stable and user support has increased dramatically. The user base has grown from the original 450 users to 800 users. As of December 1996, Western Manitoba and Central Manitoba have completely incorporated CFSIS into their normal work routine, and both agencies are now paperless operations. The use is increasing on a monthly basis. We have just approved, I think, another 20 work stations for Winnipeg Child and Family.

Mr. Martindale: I see in the Estimates book that there is a single-point-of-contact help desk for staff who use the department's various information systems. Can the minister tell me if that is somebody external to government or internal to government?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that is out-sourced, so it is someone outside.

Mr. Chairperson: 9.1. Administration and Finance (h) Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,512,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $688,400--pass.

Before we proceed with Resolution 9.2, is there agreement in the committee that we recess for 10 minutes? [agreed]

The committee recessed at 4:19 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:33 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

We were dealing with Resolution 9.2 when the committee recessed. 9.2.(a) Client Services.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I would just like to introduce staff who are here: Gisela Rempel is the assistant deputy minister of Employment and Income Assistance; Grant Doak, Employment and Income Assistance Policy Co-ordinator, and Dan Haughey, executive director, Welfare Reform.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister.

Mr. Martindale: I hope that advance warning for questions means that we will get fast answers. Well, we always get answers from this minister, but this time it should be faster.

I have the provincial Ombudsman's report for 1995, and on page 24 there was a concern raised about confidentiality, and it says: However, they--meaning the department--recognize the potential seriousness of any breach of confidentiality and agree to examine the need for the development of written directives or protocol for the release of personal and private information. I am just wondering if, after their consultation, they informed the Ombudsman of their decision and whether it resulted in written guidelines on confidentiality.

Mrs. Mitchelson: As a result of the Ombudsman's report, a review has been completed. A policy has been drafted, a written policy, in response to the concern that was identified, and that draft policy has been sent to the Ombudsman for his review prior to implementation. So we are awaiting his response to that.

Mr. Martindale: Could I get a copy of that policy after the Ombudsman has reviewed it?

Mrs. Mitchelson: When it is reviewed and it is not in draft form anymore, when it is in its final form, we will provide that.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if that would just apply to Income Assistance clients or whether it would apply to other parts of this department?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The draft is just looking at the policy in context to our social assistance clients.

Mr. Martindale: Do other parts of the minister's department like Child Care, and Child and Family Services already have written guidelines?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do have strict confidentiality guidelines in other areas of the department.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister a whole series of questions about the amalgamation of city social services and provincial Income Assistance beginning with what is the target date that has been set for full amalgamation?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have targeted April of '98 as the date we would like to see this take place. The very latest we are hoping everything will be in place would be September of 1998.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me how many offices still will be open after the two systems are amalgamated?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the report recommends four to six offices, but there has not been any final determination. That will be through a process that has been started with the City of Winnipeg.

Mr. Martindale: Given that most Income Assistance clients will have to use public transportation to access an office, will offices that are easily accessible by bus be the ones that are kept open?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Certainly that would be one of the criteria for choice of location with the amalgamated offices, but there has been no determination made yet on which offices they might be or if in fact any of the offices are appropriate or we might look at, based on the number of offices, new locations. So we are not really at a point yet where we have determined, you know, what the right number should be and exactly where the location should be, but we certainly will take into consideration accessibility.

Mr. Martindale: Will staff needs also be taken into consideration? I was at 880 Portage, and I heard complaints from the staff, well, certainly about the temperature and possibly about air quality, so hopefully if you are leasing or buying new office space or different office space that this is an opportunity to get out of unsuitable accommodation and get more suitable accommodation.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely, yeah, I think all of that needs to be looked at very carefully. Certainly we want both those that are serving the public through the Department of Family Services and those clients that have to visit and work with our staff are treated in a humane fashion. If in fact there are issues and problems in specific locations, we would certainly want to at least pick the best locations, or find alternate accommodation if that is necessary.

Mr. Martindale: After the amalgamation is complete, how many staff will have been let go and how many will still remain?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think the business case indicated that we should be able to deliver the system with 35 fewer staff total, but that several of the jobs that would exist, would exist in a different fashion, and there should be some redirection to Employment First strategy so there would be some retraining.

Some of the work that might presently be done manually might be done with new technology and with a new system so that the jobs might be different. Those kinds of jobs might not be needed, but we will need people to ensure that we work on an individual basis with clients to help them secure and obtain that employment or training.

* (1640)

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister expand on what she means by new technology and new systems?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Chairperson, the City of Winnipeg has one system and we have another. Both of those systems are pretty antiquated and outdated, and what we need to do is build a comprehensive system that will include both the clients that the City of Winnipeg presently serves and our provincial caseloads so we will have one amalgamated system, a new system. What we will have is a more modern system. Information will be more readily available. We will be able to assist our clients and track our clients in a much more co-ordinated fashion. So some of the work that might now need to be done manually, because our systems are so outdated, should be able to be done through our new technology, and we can redirect our focus to serving the clients that need our service and working with them.

Mr. Martindale: Of the 35 staff being let go, how many will be provincial and how many will be City of Winnipeg?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that certainly has not been determined yet. Maybe, as we move through this transition year, there will be resignations and that kind of thing that will leave staff years vacant, and it may not impact any individuals at all. There is no way of determining that yet.

As we work through the details with the City of Winnipeg and with Human Resources and the unions, we will come to an agreement on the skills that are needed and determine who wants to be retrained, who wants to continue to work, and try to ensure that people have the skills that they need to do the new jobs that will be required as a result of the amalgamation.

Mr. Martindale: Will the City of Winnipeg, or the province, offer early retirement to any employees?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that is still to be determined, and I would imagine that we would deal with those issues in accordance with what government right across the board would be offering. We have in the past offered early retirement packages, and I am not sure what the future holds in that respect. I do not make those decisions, but I would imagine that that will all be taken into consideration. This, of course, is a transition year, and there is a lot of detail to be worked out yet.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister have any idea of what kinds of positions will be eliminated when the 35 people are gone? For example, will the majority of these people be financial workers or will they be clerks or will they be social workers?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we do not have that detail at this point in time. I guess what I have indicated is that we want to place a real focus on employment first and helping people find jobs and determine where they best believe they fit, and help them to understand where the job opportunities might be. So I think our focus will be on working proactively with clients to help facilitate entry into the workforce.

Mr. Martindale: It seems to me that it does make a difference how many staff you have in the system and what kinds of people. For example, a year ago approximately, in the City of Winnipeg, there was a hiring freeze and this affected the department of Social Services. They were requesting more staff and they were not given more staff. At a later point, the director of Social Services, according to Free Press articles that I have read, did get more staff authorized, and they were employed directly serving their client caseload in finding jobs, amongst other things, and it was quite successful. Their caseload was down about 3,000. They attribute much of that success to hiring people to find jobs for clients.

I think it does make a difference as to whom you keep and whom you let go. City Social Services believes that staff with social work degrees are very helpful in finding employment and training programs for their clients, in getting things that they need like work clothing, that sort of thing, in order to get them off social assistance and into the paid workforce.

So I am wondering if the minister can give us any idea of where she thinks they should go in terms of reallocating staff and hiring staff and letting them go.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I know the issue that my honourable friend was talking about around the increase in staffing component really making a difference to the reduction in the caseload at the City of Winnipeg. It was a valid concern when it was raised, and I think the hiring of additional staff to focus on job opportunities and helping people find employment really worked, and the numbers show that. It was the right decision for the City of Winnipeg to make.

Can I indicate that what I want to be assured of through the amalgamation and through the new service delivery system is that our clients are served to the very best of our ability? I think we are going to need a mix of all kinds of skills. We will need people with social work backgrounds, and we will need people with technical advice and expertise. We will need the right mix of individuals, and I cannot predetermine what that might be. I think, as we move through the process with the City of Winnipeg and with the consultant who is helping to facilitate this process, that hopefully we will come up with the right mix that will serve the people that need to be served in the best manner possible.

I cannot sit here and say today it should be 30 social workers and 40 Employment and Income Assistance intake workers or whatever. I think we need the right mix, and that will have to be determined as we go along. But I think we need a wide variety of skills. I am not the expert. What I want to see happen through this process is the best possible mix, the best qualified staff to do the job.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I think the minister's answers here are extremely vague and general. Talking about the right mix does not really answer the question. For example, we know that social work degree staff get paid higher salaries. We know that City of Winnipeg employees make higher salaries than many of the provincial government employees; and, given this government's propensity to cut expenses at all costs, I am concerned that you might do something that is penny-wise and pound-foolish because you might decide to save some costs initially on staff salaries that could end up costing a lot of money later on.

For example, one Free Press story that I have with me from May 8, 1996, says: Hiring freeze ups welfare rolls, costs city $1 million. So, if you do not have the right staff in the right place, instead of getting people off social assistance and into paid employment, those people are stuck on the system and new clients come on, and then your costs of dispensing welfare go way up. So I think it is really important that this minister and this government know what direction they are going with the welfare amalgamation and get the staff in place that will, in the long run--and we are just talking about a matter of months--save the government money rather than costing them more money.

* (1650)

I think the experience of the City of Winnipeg, which the minister acknowledges and says that they did the right thing, is quite instructive. So I think that you could learn from that. Certainly, since you are in discussions with the city, you can ask them all kinds of questions and find out how they did it and how it worked, how it worked best, and maybe even adapt or adopt the city's model in terms of staffing and putting the right staff in place to reduce the caseload.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I want to indicate to my honourable friend that we will take all of his comments very seriously. We anticipate that through this amalgamation process, we will streamline, we will have a better computer system, we will be able to better serve our clients and help them find jobs. So all I can say is that I do not have the magic answer. If my honourable friend wants to share with me how many social workers and how many other staff he believes is the right mix, I would encourage him to do that, but I can indicate to him quite honestly that there will be a lot of negotiation, there will be a lot of discussion. There already is a lot of discussion, and I think we want to take the best of what works in both programs and amalgamate that into one program that is going to serve the clients that we serve. We, ultimately, will make decisions, and I suppose the proof of how good those decisions are will be in what our caseloads will be over the next number of years. I am sure my honourable friend will have plenty of opportunity to be very critical if our expectations are not met with the kinds of decisions that we make as we move through this process.

Mr. Martindale: You can count on me, Madam Minister, I will be.

If people are moved from one system to another, will there be changes in salaries and benefits? For example, some employees in the City of Winnipeg receive higher salaries. If they become provincial employees, they might consider themselves lucky to still have a job, but might it be at a lower rate of pay?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, no decisions have been made. We have the Civil Service Commission on our behalf working with Labour Adjustment or whoever it is at the City of Winnipeg. When we have the package together and in place, those kinds of decisions will have been made and will be announced; but it is too early to make comment on that while we are in the preliminary stages of this process.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if the new amalgamated system will lead to increases in staff caseload? The reason for this concern, well, there are a whole bunch of reasons for this concern, but one of them is that this minister already has staff in the provincial system with caseloads of 600 clients or 600 families. We know that when workers have too many clients that they cannot adequately do their job, because they cannot possibly contact them on a regular basis, they cannot do home visits, they cannot find out if they still meet the eligibility requirements. What this usually leads to is higher costs in a system that already costs this government hundreds of millions of dollars. So one very serious concern about the amalgamation is the caseload, and so I would like to ask the minister if she anticipates that there will be increased caseloads for workers?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, as I indicated earlier we are going to be looking at approximately 100 staff within the new system that will have to be retrained in service delivery, and we are anticipating that with enhanced technology there will be less resource needed for some of the activities that are not hands-on activities with clients. I do not anticipate that there should be higher caseloads as a result. I would hope that we can focus our energies and our efforts more on client-focused service on an individual basis. So I would indicate that it would certainly be my desire to see that we spend our time and our energy and our efforts up front, hands on with individuals that need our help and our support.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us what the average caseload is now for provincial Income Assistance workers, and does she know what the average caseload is for City of Winnipeg Social Services employees?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are not sure what the caseload is at the City of Winnipeg. It is probably lower than what ours is, considerably lower. Ours is about 250 cases per worker, and I think at the city it is probably significantly less, but the nature of their caseload is considerably different also. Many of those that are on our provincial caseload have never been considered employable, and there have never been any work expectations there. It has just been basically assessing what they need or what their monthly payment should be and doing nothing proactive. In the city's instance, they have a much more aggressive proactive approach to delivering their service and a much greater turnover in their client base, and they have a very aggressive program.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what the average caseload is by category? For example, it is my understanding that there is at least one worker with approximately 600 disability cases, but how does this compare with single parent caseload averages?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess we have tried a couple of instances where caseworkers have had maybe a specific caseload, but by and large our workers have a variety of different people on their caseloads. The disabled are not in one category served by a certain number of caseworkers. The cases are mixed so each caseworker has a variety of different issues to deal with with their clients.

Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister indicated that the average number of cases per worker is 250. So this example that I am using of 600, is that the exception, or is that somebody at the high end?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess that is one of the experiments that we have been trying when, in fact, there are a certain number of individual clients in an office who are unemployable and we know we will not be placing any work expectations on but we will just be continuing to maintain their rates. They have tried in a couple of offices to increase the caseload and put those who are unemployable and do not have any special extenuating circumstances under one caseworker, and maybe put another caseworker with a caseload of 75 that need increased service or support or do have work expectations placed on them. So they are trying those kinds of those things in individual offices, but that would not be the norm.

* (1700)

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if there will be flexibility in the new system so that front-line workers can assist people to get jobs and have the authority to provide things that make employment easier, for example, authorizing work clothes or authorizing bus fare?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding they do that now.

Mr. Martindale: One of the parts of the City of Winnipeg Social Services that I am familiar with is authorization of rental accommodation. In the past, there was a Core Area Initiative- funded program called CARUMP, Core Area Residential Upgrading and Maintenance Program that did housing inspections and helped clients if they had to move. That program is gone, but it is my understanding that the city sends out inspectors from time to time to look at rental accommodation, but the province, I am told, does not have any sort of inspection system. One of the ironic results of this is that landlords complain that the city system is tougher than the provincial. Now, I would like to know what is going to happen after amalgamation. Will there be inspections of housing accommodation?

There are many, many reasons why this is necessary. Quite often people are living in substandard accommodation. Frequently, the government is paying exorbitant rents for this substandard accommodation. We are talking about millions of dollars here. We are talking about $60 million a year in the city of Winnipeg. I think that one way for taxpayers to get value for money is to require landlords to meet building codes and health bylaws in the provincial health act in their rental accommodation that is paid for by the government of Manitoba. Your department is not going to know if they are getting good value for money or paying out millions of dollars for substandard accommodation unless you have some sort of inspection system in place.

So under the amalgamated system, are you either going to hire staff to do this, working for Income Assistance, or are you going to rely on City of Winnipeg health inspections to do this for you? Certainly, I would be agreeable to using the City of Winnipeg environmental health department. I phone government departments, many, many government departments at all three levels of government. The best department that I have ever dealt with is City of Winnipeg environment health. Their staff are in their office every morning from 8:30 to 9:30. The rest of the day they have voice mail. They will return calls on their cell phones. They will do an inspection of any address within 24 hours and report back to you. It is absolutely amazing, and they do a good job. They write up work orders, and they will tell you what the work orders are.

So I would hope that either this minister's Income Assistance staff will inspect accommodation from time to time, especially before the money is authorized, or that you will use inspectors from somewhere else, such as the City of Winnipeg health department. What are your plans in this area?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that has not been decided yet, but I thank my honourable friend for his comments and suggestions. Certainly, it will be taken into consideration as we make our decisions.

Mr. Martindale: I guess I am maybe getting into Income Assistance, but unless there is a problem with that, I have questions on that.

My understanding is that the Orders-in-Council changing regulations were passed in February 1996. I wonder if the minister could remind me when those Orders-in-Council took effect.

Mrs. Mitchelson: They took effect on May 1, 1996.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what the total enrollment was on May 1, 1996?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, if I could just ask for clarification, do we want municipal and provincial?

Mr. Martindale: Provincial.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Provincial, okay. All categories on the provincial caseload were 26,223.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister could verify that the SAMIN report that I have is correct for April 26, 1997, which would be approximately one year later, 25,359.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that is correct.

Mr. Martindale: So, for the past year, because both new regulations took effect and Bill 36 took effect, there has been an incredible pressure on people on social assistance to find work. As the minister knows, everyone has to have a job plan, everyone has work expectations, everyone has to do a job search, 15 job searches a month. It appears that approximately a thousand people have moved off social assistance and either into paid employment or gone back to school or left the province, whatever.

I am wondering if the minister had goals for the number of people that her department hoped would get off social assistance, and whether those goals have be met.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We had set our goal for about 700 individuals. So I think we have exceeded that with close to 1,000.

Mr. Martindale: The largest category of people--well, maybe that is not right. There are different categories of people on provincial Income Assistance. They include disabled and they include mothers allowance. Yes, I guess mothers allowance would be the largest category. So the work expectation now applies to single parents with children over six and, in many circumstances, to single parents with children under six. It seems to me that not very many people have moved off social assistance and into paid employment.

I know the minister put out a press release, I believe last fall, saying that 800 social assistance recipients or single parents had moved from welfare to work. I wonder if the minister could, first of all, clarify or maybe remind me of the content of that press release as to how many people, and what category they were from.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, those were only single parents and general assistance caseload that were referred to in that news release.

Mr. Martindale: So of the 864 people out of 26,223 that have moved off social assistance, almost all of them were what category, single parents?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Single parents, yes, that is right.

* (1710)

Mr. Martindale: Given that earlier today we discussed a special warrant authorizing more money, because not enough money was budgeted under Income Assistance, I was going to ask what the approximate savings were for having 864 fewer clients, but in fact there are not less savings. In fact, the government spent more money on Income Assistance. I wonder if the minister could explain that to me.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We were just trying to get the numbers because a lot of our charts have a combined provincial and municipal caseload and expenditure, but what I have here is what we spent on Employment and Income Assistance in '95-96 for our provincial caseload. It was, I will round it off, $223 million. In '96-97, although we have not got the absolute final figure, it is $216 million.

So our budget, what we budgeted--so we spent 223 in 1995-96. We budgeted 215, I am rounding it off, in '96-97 because we anticipated that our caseload would go down. What we found was we needed more money. We applied for a special warrant. It was around $4 million, but on the provincial side, from the provincial caseload, we anticipate that it is about $1 million that we will be spending. So my mathematics tell me that that is $7 million less.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I suspect that this is a case of the minister mixing apples and oranges because, obviously, it would make it look better for the government. Last year, I got a very helpful briefing from Mr. Sexsmith about welfare reform and the Orders-in-Council and Bill 36 and their effect. Going from memory, I think he added up the different categories of savings based on the cuts to benefits in different categories, and it came to about $23 million.

So, you know, if we want to talk about your welfare cuts and the results being less spending year over year, that is fine. I will acknowledge that. Sure, there were savings as a result of benefit reductions, but what I was asking the minister about was were there any savings as the result of 864 people moving off social assistance, and, if so, how much was that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Do you just want to repeat the question, the last comment you made?

Mr. Martindale: Well, to summarize, I acknowledge that the spending year over year was less. I think the main reason was your government's welfare reforms because you knew how much you were going to save in advance in different categories.

I was told it was about $23 million, but what I would like to know is, were there savings because there were 864 less clients on provincial assistance and, if so, how much was the savings?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the results of our welfare reform on the provincial caseload would have been a saving of $2.6 million; that is on the provincial side. The other savings came on the municipal side, so that would have been the City of Winnipeg and other municipal caseloads. But on the caseload that we have provincially, the savings were $2.65 million. So if we saved $7 million on the provincial side, the caseload, and $2.65 was for rate changes, the other savings would have come from reduced caseloads.

Mr. Martindale: Sorry, could the minister repeat that? How much was from benefit changes?

Mrs. Mitchelson: $2.65 million on the provincial caseloads.

Mr. Martindale: And how much in savings on the municipal side from benefit changes?

Mrs. Mitchelson: From benefit changes on the municipal side, it would have been $7.5 million.

Mr. Martindale: So the anticipated savings of $23 million were not quite met.

* (1720)

Mrs. Mitchelson: There were changes to the tax credits on the municipal side, too, which were $7.7 million. What we had estimated for caseload reduction on our provincial caseload was $3.3 million, and I think we exceeded that just slightly.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister could reconcile for me what I think is a difference in the information that I was given when we talked about the special warrant and the information I am being given now. I think I was told earlier this afternoon that the reason that there were increased costs were because there were increased costs per client. I wonder if the minister could clarify.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Okay, I will try, Mr. Chairperson. What we did through the special warrant was request enough money so that we knew that we would have enough money to pay the bills. We added that up and it was probably a fairly generous estimate of $4 million. I had indicated that there were a significant number--less clients in our welfare system, but some of the cost to serve those clients was higher than what we had anticipated. One of the reasons was the health costs, the health benefits, we had underestimated and they ended up costing about a million dollars more than what we had anticipated. The other piece maybe was an increase in the disabled caseload that cost us about a million dollars more. So there were more disabled people than we had estimated would come into the welfare system. So those were a couple of reasons we thought we would need more money.

We asked and got $4 million to ensure that we had enough money to cover our expenditures. In reality, some of that money will lapse or has lapsed because we did not need the full $4 million. I am being told that it was somewhat over a million dollars that we did require, and I am not sure we have the final tabulations from the end of the fiscal year. So, in reality, we asked for $4 million. We did not need the full $4 million. We spent a million-plus in extra costs, but part of the additional costs were because we did not budget for an increase. We did not anticipate an increase in the disabled caseload, which we experienced. We did not increase the expenditures on the health side, but, otherwise, we did meet our expectations of at least a saving of $3.3 million in reduction in the number of people, the number of single parents who were on our caseload.

Mr. Martindale: Is the minister saying that the approximate 800 people who moved from social assistance who work, mainly single parents, save the government $3 million?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister give me the savings in benefit reductions and changes by category? For example, existing clients were grandfathered, but new people coming on the system did not get the--I think it is $60 a month increase after a certain period of time. There are also people turning 60 who were forced to apply for CPP.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am not sure I can provide that background, and if there was a specific question, maybe we could get some numbers done. But I want to indicate that the rates were not changed for the disabled category. We know that. They were not changed in most instances for those single parents with children under the age of six.

Where the changes were made would be with single parents with children over the age of six. There was a slight reduction in some of their benefits, but I want my honourable friend to understand that we can get into it in great detail, that in many provinces they do not have a higher rate for children as they grow older. In Manitoba, we have significantly higher rates for children as they get older. We do know, for instance, in British Columbia that they have one basic rate for children which, I think, is $103 per child. Our lowest rate for a child is $116, and it goes up to $189 in some circumstances for older children.

The rates were reduced at the older child level, but they were not reduced for younger children or for the disabled.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister about a specific category. For example, my understanding is that, as a result of an Order-in-Council, clients turning 60 are forced to apply for Canada Pension benefits and presumably are off provincial assistance. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many clients this new regulation affected and how much money the provincial government saved on that change.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Those people would not receive any less money. I guess, as we see the offloading from the federal government, if in fact the federal government has a program that our clients can access, we prefer that they access first the money from the federal government, and then we will provide, I guess, any difference. If in fact the federal government does have a program, what we have done is encourage that to happen. We did budget for $250,000. We are not sure whether that has been realized or not. It will probably be fairly close to that.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister realize that by forcing people to apply for CPP their benefits are 30 percent less from age 60 to 65, and 30 percent less thereafter?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that we are in line with what most other provinces do in this respect and we are bringing ourselves into line, that we are a program of last resort. Other provinces encourage it, and we were doing the same thing.

Mr. Martindale: Just because other provinces do it does not make it right. In fact, I think the only success story in Canada in terms of reducing poverty is amongst men and women 65 years and older. There have been some pretty dramatic changes. I am quoting here from Poverty Profile, 1994, a report by the National Council of Welfare, which shows that in Manitoba from--well, in Manitoba, in 1980, the percentage of men over 65 living in poverty was 23 percent. By 1994, it was 10 precent, which is a 57 percent decrease. Even from '93 to '94, there was an 18 percent decrease. Amongst women, 1980, 41 percent lived in poverty. By 1994, it was down to 28 percent, a decline of 30 percent from 1980 to 1994.

There are a number of reasons for this. One is that more people have pensions, particularly women. More women were in the paid workforce, so they also have Canada Pension. The other significant reason is that the federal government many years ago brought in the Guaranteed Income Supplement, so it is disappointing to see this government going backward. It means that you are going to have more seniors living in poverty in Manitoba and your stats are going to look worse.

In fact, there is an anomaly in these statistics, and that is that for women from '93 to '94 there was a 16 percent increase in the number of women over 65 living in poverty, and I do not know why that is, but it is disappointing to see a reversal in that statistic.

It is good to see that there are very small savings. Obviously, not very many people are being affected by this new rule, but it is still regressive, a regressive change that this government has made which is going to greatly affect the income of some seniors if they are forced to accept benefits that are 30 percent less because they are forced by this government to apply for CPP five years early. Is the minister not concerned about that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will get a bit more detail and provide it to my honourable friend around what is happening across the country, and I find it very interesting to hear my honourable friend say that it does not matter what other provinces are doing. So very often he raises to me the issues of what other provinces are doing and asks us why we do not follow suit. When it suits him to ask those kinds of questions, he asks them, and when it suits him to be critical of government because we are trying to conform to what is happening right across the country, he can ask those questions, and that is one of the benefits of being in opposition.

I remember I had a former colleague the late Abe Kovnats who actually admitted that in opposition you could have it both ways because you did not have to be accountable for any decisions that were made, and I remember we had some fun over that comment that he put on the record at one point.

* (1730)

But the reality is that governments have to make decisions. The federal government has a program in place, and they provide funding and support to that program. There are many across Canada that are receiving that kind of assistance, and I guess from time to time they make decisions to change the rates or change the focus. Who knows what CPP will be into the future?

So I do have to indicate that it was a decision that we made, a tough decision in some instances, but I have to indicate that we are not out of line with what is happening right across the country.

(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me how many clients have had their benefits reduced by $50 a month, how many by $100 a month, and how many have had their social assistance eliminated altogether?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Okay, sanctions of the first $50 have been applied to 124 single parents and the second $50 to eight.

Mr. Martindale: And the reason for this would be that they did not meet the work expectation?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Are there any sanctions for people who do not fill out a job plan?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, if they absolutely refuse to co-operate, yes, sanctions can be applied, but we strongly encourage them to co-operate and fill out a job plan and become proactive about seeking employment.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me how many Income Assistance clients are in the work incentive program?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is about 4,000 overall. That includes single parents, disabled and general assistance.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me how many clients qualified for the earned income exemption?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Anyone is eligible for the work incentive provisions if they are working.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if it is standard policy for Income Assistance employees to tell their clients about the work incentive program and about earned income exemptions?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, that happens at the pre-orientation sessions as people are applying for Income Assistance.

Mr. Martindale: Why is it that a lot of clients do not seem to know about these programs. I think it is a classic case of people not asking and therefore not finding out the information, and if you do not ask you are not going to find out, and if you do not know then you are not going to qualify for it. The result is that I have instances brought to my attention of people who have moved off Income Assistance into paid employment and the paid employment pays less than what they were getting on social assistance, and the impression that I get is that they were not aware that they could keep a certain amount of their earnings or that they might be entitled to a top-up provision. This tends to be a great hardship for individual clients. I am wondering, you know, how it could be that this happens when the minister says that everyone is informed about the work incentive program.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I have a form here, or a pamphlet, I will share with my honourable friend. It talks about Employment First work incentive, and that is available and explained to everyone at the pre-orientation sessions. It is available to every client that is on social allowance. So if he has got individual specific cases, though, where individuals claim that they have no understanding or no information, I would be very interested in knowing that, because if there seems to be a pocket somewhere within the department that is not providing this information, I would be very interested in knowing. We could certainly work to ensure--but it is a pamphlet that is available. I will share it with my honourable friend. It is provided, to my understanding, to every individual.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for this handout. It is the first time I have ever seen it, and I will make sure that people who approach me for help get a copy of that and are informed about it. I cannot give the minister individual examples, although the minister has read about individual examples in the Frances Russell column and in other columns in the Free Press. The reason I cannot share individual examples is that these individuals are so intimidated that they are unwilling to allow me to share their names with the minister or her staff. That is unfortunate because maybe there would be benefits for those individuals that they are not aware of. Maybe their complaints could be taken care of but they are so intimidated by their workers and by the pressure of the system that they will not share their names and addresses. Well, certainly I have their names and addresses, but they will not share them with the Department of Family Services and that is unfortunate.

I wonder if I could ask the minister some questions here about the integrated child tax benefit, if this line is suitable. Could the minister tell me what the--well, first of all, when she expects it will be implemented in Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There seems to be all indications at both the federal and provincial level that July of 1998 would be the startup, although we have all agreed to work expeditiously to see whether it could happen sooner than that, but it will be happening. I guess it all depends on what the federal election results are and whether there is a new government and a whole new review of the program. But my understanding is that the federal Liberal government is committed to it, and I think the money that they have notionally allocated in their 1998 budget would see it start in July of 1998, and it would be implemented across the country at the same time. So all provinces would be starting at the same time.

Mr. Martindale: Maybe we will have a new government, minority government, and then maybe they might have to enrich it and make it better.

Could the minister tell me what the federal contribution will be in Manitoba approximately?

* (1740)

Mrs. Mitchelson: About $24 million would be Manitoba's share of the $600 million.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what the Province of Manitoba contribution will be?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, there is no new money at the provincial level, but what will happen with our $24 million will be that we will reinvest that into children and families in Manitoba.

Mr. Martindale: Is it correct to say that that money will go to families that are working but low income?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson. The whole intent of the National Child Benefit is--there were three main goals or objectives. One was to reduce the debt to child poverty. The other was to ensure that those that are working are better off than people that are on welfare, and the third objective was to reduce the overlap in duplication. The ultimate goal or objective would be to have the federal government invest enough in children so that no child would be on the welfare system in the future, but every child and every family that is low income would receive a child benefit from the federal government.

So the amount that they are investing up front, the $600 million, is what they say--a down payment. I would argue and say that that is a partial repayment for what they have taken away from provinces through reductions in transfers for health, education, and social services. So it does not even come close to repaying what they have taken away. But the principle around taking children off of welfare and having child support come in a consistent fashion from the federal government is a principle that all provinces agree with. I guess it was recommended by provinces, and we have worked with the federal government to try to make that happen.

So this is a start, and all provinces, in every communique we send out and in every discussion we have, agree that this is just a first step and that there needs to be incremental and stable funding from the federal government in order to make this happen. So we will be watching very carefully and very closely as the federal government moves year by year to invest dollars in children.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me why the provincial governments and the federal government agreed and decided to claw back 100 percent of the money from Income Assistance clients?

Mrs. Mitchelson: One of the underlying principles that the province has put on the table is that no family would be worse off as a result--and I see my honourable friend rolling his eyes and whatever. This was a principle that was brought in, very strongly articulated, by the minister from Saskatchewan. One of the points that he wanted communicated very clearly was that no family would be worse off under this proposal--and I think supported and endorsed.

The big issue here is that we are not going to claw back benefits and reduce benefits for welfare recipients so that we can assure people that they will be making more when they are working. But one of the underlying principles is people should be better off working than on welfare so that there is some incentive to move into the workforce--underlying principle endorsed by all provinces regardless of political stripe right across the country.

So what we are wanting to do is see more money in the hands of working people. We want to ensure that the benefits that you receive on welfare, the dental and health benefits, are continued through support of your children. You look at our welfare program today and you see that you get X number of dollars per child on welfare. I do not want this to be interpreted wrongly. It is not a huge amount of money, and it is very difficult to live on welfare. But, on the other hand, when you have got a single parent or a family out there working for minimum wage, making less than you might be on welfare, you cannot go and say to your boss, I want a raise because I am having a baby and expect that you are going to get an extra $100, $200 a month because you are having a child. It just does not work that way.

So if, in fact, there was a standard amount of money that comes from the federal government for every child on a consistent basis, whether you are a child that is living in a welfare family or a child that is living in a low-income working family, then, in fact, there would be more encouragement for people to move into the workforce to start somewhere and those benefits would follow through. There would be more money in the hands of those families to make the decisions on how to spend that money on their children.

So that was the underlying principle. That was what all Premiers agreed to when they initially indicated that we needed to work together. It was one of the issues that was discussed at the annual Premiers' Conference. It was something that the Premiers felt so strongly about. They asked all ministers of social services to sit down and work on a National Child Benefit and see if we could get the federal government on board.

So we have been working very diligently and who knows why the federal government came on board. It might have been because of an election, and they wanted to have a profile and something to say about the child poverty issue. But they hopped on board and I will tell you, we probably worked--I know at the officials' level they have been working very aggressively, and I do not think I have ever seen anything come together as quickly at a national level as this has come together but, again, it goes back to the Premiers and their discussions around saying that you should not be penalized for entering the workforce by receiving less money or less support for your children.

There are still a couple of little issues that I discuss on a regular basis with the federal government when I have the opportunity, and one of them--and I will share with my honourable friend--is that I think that, if we have a measurement that measures child poverty and we want to reduce the depth of child poverty, the federal government has to look at where the cutoff is for the working income supplement. Any family that is living below that low-income cutoff should get the National Child Benefit. I am not sure that we have achieved that yet, but I think that the level for support for low-income families does not yet meet the low-income cutoff for the poverty line measurement that we use.

I raise that with the federal government every time I have an opportunity to do so, and I am not sure that we have addressed that issue yet. I think the principles behind the proposal are sound principles, are principles upon which we can build if we have a responsible federal government that will live up to the commitment of continuing to put more money into families with children through a child benefit.

Mr. Martindale: This is really a targeted program, targeted to low-income working families. I am pleased to hear that this minister has been advocating the use of low-income cutoff lines. Certainly, the only way we are going to reduce child poverty in Canada and in Manitoba is if we include all children living below the poverty line, not just some of them. But, of course, the number of children who are taken off the poverty line figures will really depend on the amount of money that is put into it.

Now the minister said that families on Income Assistance will be no worse off, but it is also correct to say that they are going to be absolutely no better off because of this program, because they will not receive any benefit. If they do, it will be clawed back. Oh, the minister wants to reply.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do not think I can let my honourable friend leave on the record that these families will be worse off. In fact, as far as--

An Honourable Member: I think he said, no worse off.

* (1750)

Mrs. Mitchelson: They will not be any worse off, but I want to make the argument for them being better off as a result because, in fact, we will have several millions of dollars to reinvest into programming and into support for early childhood education, early child development, parenting support, possibly pregnancy delay so that we do not have a circumstance or a situation where we have 16-year-old girls parenting a child, choosing to parent that child, and committed to a life of poverty on welfare.

I do not think you will find any government across the country that will ever tell you that our welfare rates will ever be higher than the low-income cutoffs. That is unrealistic, and I do not think you will ever see that. I mean, I want more for the 16-year-old girls in the province of Manitoba than a life of poverty on welfare with one or two or three children. I think we have to start to address that issue in a really significant way. So, unless some of this money can be reinvested into preventing those pregnancies from occurring, ensuring our young girls get an education and an ability to succeed in life and take meaningful, high-paying jobs in our economy and our society, we are going to have more women living in poverty and more children living in poverty.

So I really struggle. This is something that is really near and dear to my heart, because I do not like to see that and I do not like to see our young women--and they are disadvantaged, to a certain degree. If we can put those resources into significant programs that are going to make a difference, delay or prevent pregnancy, ensure that if it does happen, the tools are there to parent, the desire is there to move off welfare and build self-esteem and make a better life for them and their children to ensure that they are properly nourished as young people and that their children are properly nourished, we can break the cycle of dependence and poverty.

It cannot be government that does it alone either. It has to be all of us working together to make that happen, but if those dollars can be reinvested in some way, I think you are going to find that those families are going to be better off. Although they may not have more cash in their pockets, they are going to have a hope that some day they are going to have more cash in their pockets because they are going to move up the ladder to success, hope, independence, self-esteem, and all of those things that make life so much easier and so much better for them and their children.

Mr. Martindale: I hate to concede anything to this minister and she knows, but I will concede that I forgot that the money that is clawed back from families on Income Assistance will be redirected to what are apparently this minister's priorities, programming for children, parenting, early childhood education and pregnancy delay--

An Honourable Member: Nutrition.

Mr. Martindale: Nutrition, okay. So what I said is partly true, that children in families on Income Assistance will be no better off financially, but they may be eligible for some of these programs that the minister is talking about.

I wonder if the minister has information about thresholds, and what the current arrangements are in terms of when the money will kick in and how much money, and if there is a chart available based on family size, for example.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I just happen to have a federal budget document Working Together Towards the National Child Benefit System that was tabled with the federal budget. This is probably the best document to explain that. If I can just pass it over to my honourable friend.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for that document. I have a news release from the government of Saskatchewan dated March 20, 1997, announcing the Saskatchewan government investing in transition to child benefit as part of social assistance redesign.

I am wondering if the Province of Manitoba is planning to do anything similar.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is pretty difficult to try to compare apples and apples here as far as what the Saskatchewan government is doing, and what we have done. I mean I know that they are putting more money into child care in Saskatchewan, and I guess I might say it is about time when they spend about $17 million on child care and we are up over $40 million. They would have to go a pretty long way to catch up to us in that respect.

It seems what they have done here is they have started to deal with the issues around their family income--what is it, I forget--what is the name of their program, Family Income Plan, that really is dealing with additional support for low-income working families.

That does not seem to me like there is much that is being done on the social allowances side, so it is the low-income working family I suppose enhancing what you might call our CRISP program to some degree. I have to indicate there is nothing in this year's budget here, but I think that those are the kinds of things that we are going to have to look at, as we move, now we know that the National Child Benefit will have its first support probably in July of 1998. We will have to work towards and possibly announce in next year's budget what some of our initiatives will be in Manitoba as a result, but there are not any changes in this year's budget in Manitoba.

Mr. Martindale: I also have a news release from the Province of Saskatchewan dated February 27, 1997, and it says: Ministers integrate payments to low-income seniors, and in Saskatchewan that would be two federal benefits, OAS and GIS, and the provincial plan called the Saskatchewan Income Plan. I am wondering if the Saskatchewan Income Plan is comparable to 55 Plus, and if so, if the Manitoba government has considered doing something similar.

My understanding is that it does not increase the benefits, but it does mean that people get one cheque instead of three, and this press release says that that is popular with the public because people do not like duplication of government programs and services.

So I am wondering if you have considered doing anything similar in Manitoba, if there is similarity of programs for seniors.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is my understanding that we have already integrated the application process in Manitoba, but there still are two cheques that are delivered, and we always look to what other provinces are doing and what works, and I am not opposed or supportive at this point in time.

I think we have to look through what the implications are, but if there is something good that is happening elsewhere and we can do it, I think it is always worthy of pursuing.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I am happy to hear that the minister is interested in pursuing good things that are happening in the province of Saskatchewan.

I would like to thank the minister and her staff for providing me with monthly caseload stats for Income Assistance clients. Now it is my understanding that of employable clients, about 90 percent reside in the city of Winnipeg, which means that about 10 percent of the employable category on municipal assistance would be scattered throughout the rest of the province. I wonder if the minister could give me stats by municipality. Now, I know that that does not include every municipality, because some municipalities brag that they have no one on social assistance.

Actually, I got a very interesting request. In fact, since the member for Turtle Mountain is chairing the meeting today, I will let him know that I got a request from his home town, which is--Boissevain? No. Okay, I do not have a map of the province, so I cannot finish my sentence here. But the member for Turtle Mountain's home town, I got a phone call, a very interesting one. Somebody is helping a committee member on the regional health board to gather some information about poverty stats, and they said, well, why does the regional health board not gather the poverty stats, and they were told that they wanted this to be a grassroots process, and it would be a learning experience for individuals to do it.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Killarney.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, Killarney. How could I forget? Such a beautiful little town. I had a very pleasant visit there last year. Actually it does make sense. I am sure the Department of Health could have gathered the statistics, but it is informative for individuals to find out about poverty in their health region.

Now I cannot provide everything that they want. I did refer the individual to Statistics Canada, but I said, well, I have an opportunity in Family Services Estimates today to ask the minister for caseload by municipality, if the minister can provide a breakdown of numbers.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, no, I cannot. I know that other cities across the province have a caseload of 645 and municipalities 1,064, but we do not have the breakdown municipality by municipality.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.