Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I understand there is a disposition to waive private members' hour today.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour for today? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to.

This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply will resume the consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 9.2. Employment and Income Assistance (a) Client Services on page 52 of the Estimates book. Shall that item pass?

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Could the minister tell me if she has figures for the costs to Manitoba for Income Assistance because of cutbacks to the federal Employment Insurance program. My understanding is that only about 46 percent of workers are now eligible or covered by EI, which means that in the past when people collected EI, they may have gotten a job or it may have taken much longer before their EI ran out and they were on Income Assistance.

But now with fewer workers eligible, it seems to me that many of those people are going to go from losing their jobs to social assistance, so that would imply that there is a greater cost to the Province of Manitoba, and I just wondered if the minister has figures on that.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Given that the EI changes have started gradually and are coming in gradually and I think there are changes still to happen until the year about 2001, it is really hard to--we do not have any hard data or statistics. I think our estimation is over that period of time that the implications for the province would be somewhere between $2 million and $3 million, but we do not have specific information that we can provide to my honourable friend. We do know that there has been an impact, although it will continue on a slow basis as the changes continue to be implemented.

Mr. Martindale: Is this something that your department could keep track of in the future?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think it would be pretty difficult to keep track of it. It is just one of many things that is happening as a result of changes that the federal government has made. I guess as we see improvements in the economy and more jobs being created and more people able to access jobs, hopefully we will still see our numbers on social assistance decreasing on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to move on to another topic. I have with me today a letter dated March 3, 1997, written by the Honourable Mike Radcliffe to one of his constituents in River Heights, and I assume he sent this letter out to many people. In it he says that since the Employment and Income Assistance program was introduced in May 1996, our provincial caseload has decreased from 13,888 to 12,876, and we have helped many Manitobans gain independence through employment.

I would like to ask the minister where Mr. Radcliffe got those figures since it does not correspond with either the Winnipeg subtotal for April 26, 1997, or the provincial total which on April 26, 1997, was 25,359. So I am very perplexed as to where he got his information and the accuracy of the numbers.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Of the provincial caseload, those are the numbers of single parents and general assistance caseload. That excludes the disabled caseload. So those are the numbers that would include single parents and general assistance caseloads that would be impacted by our welfare reform, Employment First initiative.

Mr. Martindale: I think they are very misleading figures because they imply that there are only 12,000 or 13,000 people on income assistance. I am wondering if the minister can show me on the monthly cases by category and district office, that I receive, which columns have been added to get those figures.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, my understanding is it would be the mothers' allowance, fathers' allowance and general assistance categories together.

Mr. Martindale: Would these figures that he was quoting be for the end of April or the end of March? Or, sorry. I guess if the letter went out March 13, presumably those figures are for the end of February.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it would have been February or March of this year. No, it would not have been March because it went out the middle of March. It would be January or February, I guess. We are trying to get the exact figures, and we will provide them to my honourable friend as soon as they are pulled together.

Mr. Martindale: I would appreciate the accurate figures since the year-over-year figures show that there is a reduction of 864 individuals, whereas Mr. Radcliffe shows a difference of 1,012 in only three categories, and I had 864 in all categories. So I would appreciate a clarification of that, and I am sure when the minister has the figures she will introduce them.

I would like to move on and ask the minister questions about fraud investigations, as I always do, and I wonder if the minister can tell me how many fraud investigations there were and how many actually went to court and were prosecuted.

* (1450)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I have some information here on the prosecutions and the charges laid, but my honourable friend asked the question about the overall number also.

Mr. Martindale: Yes, I wonder if the minister could tell me how many investigations there were, how many prosecutions and how many successful prosecutions.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We will look for and get the number of investigations, but I do have the number of prosecutions--we will start there then--and the charges laid. There were 65 charges laid, 47 convictions; 48 of the 65 prosecutions were under The Employment and Income Assistance Act; 17 of the 65 prosecutions were under the Criminal Code; 34 of the 47 convictions were under The Employment and Income Assistance Act; and 13 of the 47 convictions were under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if the people charged were during the last fiscal year or whether this is an accumulative total, since I know that fraud investigations go back at least 10 years?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that is just for this year. Some of the charges may have been laid last year, and there might have been some carry-over, but this is for the year 1996-97.

Mr. Martindale: Would those figures include the municipal assistance act and The Income Assistance Act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes, that is all cases.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister could tell me what the caseload was for both municipal and provincial, the total caseload, say, at the end of the fiscal year.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the provincial caseload in '96-97 was 25,730, the municipal caseload was 17,251, for a total combined caseload of 42,981.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what percentage the 47 convictions are out of a caseload of 42,981?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we can work on that, but I think my honourable friend has to recognize and realize, too, that there were several cases investigated, and I am still trying to get the number of how many cases were investigated by our investigative unit and, of that, some cases would have been closed without any charges laid. Other cases would have had overpayments they had received that they were not entitled to that would have had to be paid back, and we will get that information.

In instances, charges were laid; in other instances, there were no charges laid but an overpayment program instituted or cases closed as a result of ineligibility for welfare.

Mr. Martindale: When the minister's staff have figured out the percentages, as they do for me every year, you will read that into the record. Going by memory, in recent years it is usually about .02 percent or less, which is a very small number, contrary to what the government would like the public to believe and is quite a contrast to statistics on tax avoidance and tax cheating.

For example, a survey was done and an article was written by Diane Francis in the Financial Post showing that two out of five, or 42 percent, of Canadians admit to paying cash for goods or services in order to avoid taxes, either federal or provincial. One out of five, or 20 percent, admitted they have hidden income in order to evade income tax, and 72 percent say they would pay cash to avoid taxes if given the opportunity; 56 percent, they would hide income if they could; 13 percent admitted they cheated whenever possible by paying cash and 5 percent hid income when possible. Seven percent of men owning businesses write off personal expenses to cheat on taxes whenever possible, compared to 1 percent of women owners.

In a separate set of questions, people were asked if they owned or operated a small business, and those who owned a small business were asked if they spent business money on themselves or their families to avoid taxes. Some 31 percent of owners said they cheated whenever possible, while the rest said they never cheated in that way. So it will be interesting to compare tax avoidance and cheating with welfare fraud once the minister has the percentages worked out and read into the record.

* (1500)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have some additional information to add to the record. I think my honourable friend would know that the fraud line has been up and running for about three years now, close to three years. I think in June it will be three years. The estimated savings in just under three years is about $7.6 million as a result of activity related to the fraud line; 9,416 calls were received, 8,464 calls have been reviewed and there are still some outstanding to be reviewed. Corrective action was taken in 1,674 cases, and 1,264 were closed; 410 cases remain open but have either had an overpayment assessed or have had their budgets reduced. I can give the breakdown between the municipal and the provincial caseload, if that is valuable information. Okay.

So I guess the issue that my honourable friend talks about in tax evasion and whatever are all legitimate concerns and legitimate issues, but I think as a responsible government we have to look right across the broad range of services that are provided. When I break down the savings to our welfare program as a result of reviewing and finding fraudulent activity, we are looking at a saving of about $2.5 million a year.

That to me is not insignificant when you look to the taxpayers of Manitoba to pay for the services that are provided, and I think that every Manitoban believes that we need to pay social allowance, social assistance to individuals that need our support. But I have every sense or every feeling that Manitoba taxpayers would not like to see $2.5 million per year provided to people who do not deserve that money under the program that is available. That is $2.5 million, and if we can work to try to address the other issues of tax evasion and people that are beating the system in some way and there are other savings to be achieved, that money could be better spent in ensuring that we have programs for children, we have programs in our education system or programs in our health care system.

I think Manitobans in general, and I hope my honourable friend too, would want to ensure that there is accountability for the tax dollars that government is spending. If, in fact, there is $2.5 million here that can better be spent ensuring that we can maintain our budget in health care, maintain our budget in education so that all Manitobans benefit, I think that is the most appropriate way and that is the most accountable way for a government to deliver services.

Mr. Martindale: I certainly agree with the minister, and my party certainly agrees. I am quite happy to go on record saying that we do not countenance fraud in any way. From time to time, I have received information from members of the public which I have passed on to program specialists and asked them to investigate.

One of my constituents phoned me because he was asked to provide information about a Court of Queen's Bench decision regarding a marriage separation and maintenance arrangements, in 1986, I believe. He was asked to provide documents, and the impression that I got was that the onus was on him to prove what the details of the separation agreement were. So he went down to Court of Queen's Bench and was informed that they would charge him 50 cents a page for photocopying, and the total cost of this document would be $20 to $25. Is it the government's policy that if there is an investigation the onus is on the individual to provide the information? It seems to me if the department has concerns or suspicions that they should be seeking out the information not forcing an individual to go to a great expense to provide the information to the department.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am told that we try to work very co-operatively with people through these processes, and they are always very difficult processes. We would try our very best to ensure that, if there was information that needed to be photocopied or provided, we would provide those kinds of services to individuals. I guess, I would need to know a little more detail around the specific case and then maybe try to shed a little more light on it. But we do try and work co-operatively and provide as much assistance as possible through the process.

Mr. Martindale: On a different topic. One of my constituents temporarily lost his job as a welder in Rosenort due to the flood, and because he had a mortgage and car payments and a family to support but no income he applied for City of Winnipeg Social Services. He was turned down because he did not meet their eligibility rules. Now, when I intervened on his behalf, I was told, oh no, we will help out individuals in these circumstances, namely, because of loss of income due to the flood. By the time someone in city Social Services contacted him, he had secured another job and the temporary problem was gone, but the result was he got no assistance. I am wondering why he applied for assistance and did not get any, but when I intervened he was told, oh, yes, you can get assistance. What was the City of Winnipeg's policy for people who had no income during the flood?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is my understanding that individuals who were not evacuated but were not able to work as a result of the flood would be eligible for EI. If they needed temporary assistance pending the processing of their EI claim, they would be subject to the normal welfare eligibility criteria, including liquid asset limits and such. So that should have been the policy that was followed through the process.

Mr. Martindale: Well, it is unfortunate that my constituent was not informed about EI.

Can the minister confirm that flood evacuees received $7.20 per day per person for food?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me what persons on municipal and provincial and families receive per person per day for food?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, this amount was based on the rates paid by municipalities for restaurant meals based on the municipal assistance regulation. So that is how the rate was determined. It was not broken down any differently than that. It was $7.20 per day for food.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister policy questions arising out of a letter that was written to her dated April 17 by Jean Friesen, the MLA for Wolseley. I certainly will not put the name or details of this individual's problems on the record, but it is really quite amazing that an infant who has respiratory and digestive problems needing special fortified formula was given $15 a month extra food allowance, but the cost of the formula was $150 a month. I am wondering why provisions could not be made to help this young, single mother to get the financial assistance she needed to buy this special fortified formula.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am informed in this case that the doctor recommended a special diet, and we provided the funds for that special diet through the program. So, it was on the recommendation of the doctor.

* (1510)

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister confirm that since this letter was written on behalf of the individual that $150 a month was provided rather than $15 a month?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Based on the doctor's recommendation, the amount that was required to cover the special needs or the special diet was provided. I am not sure where the $150 figure comes from, but in the meeting with this individual it was clearly indicated that if there were more requests for anything more, as a result of a doctor's recommendation, we would provide that, and to date she has not come back to us with any additional requests.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for that answer.

I wrote to the minister on April 21 with a number of questions about Taking Charge! contracts, and I am wondering if the minister has the responses to all four of my questions.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have all that information pulled together, and I will provide a copy to my honourable friend.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister confirm that contracts were signed with both for-profit and nonprofit organizations?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Some of these organizations, especially in the nonprofit sector, I had certainly heard of before, but I suppose it was the ones in the for-profit sector that I had not heard of before. I am wondering if the criteria is the same for both for-profit and nonprofit organizations in being awarded contracts.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that Taking Charge! has a program development committee, and all of the projects or proposals that come forward are reviewed by the committee. It is a subcommittee of the board, and they make decisions based on standard criteria.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if there is any information available yet on graduates and how many got jobs in the paid workforce?

Mrs. Mitchelson: At March 31, 1997, 1,000 single parents were in training and 404 were employed.

Mr. Martindale: Were there any goals or targets set out for Taking Charge! program graduates in terms of being in the paid workforce?

Mrs. Mitchelson: For the year 1996-97, the projected activity was that there would be 1,100 in training and 500 employed. As I indicated just a moment ago, at the end of the year there were 1,000 in training and 404 employed.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me how many Taking Charge! clients received, I guess, a subsidy case in a licensed child care facility or family day care home?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Over the 1996-97 fiscal year, the on-site daycare served 812 infants and 1,958 preschool children. So that would have been for some of the training programs, and sometimes for a short period of time while a facility in their community that met the needs of the family was found, and 306 children were placed in community child care facilities.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me what the average number of children per day was at the Taking Charge! child care facility on Vaughan Street?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The facility is licensed for 24 preschool children and 8 infants, and I do not have those figures. I would have to go back to Taking Charge! and ask that question.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister also find out what the utilization rate was, like what percentage of occupation there was to licensed spaces? Could the minister tell me if the cases that were allocated for Taking Charge! clients came out of the existing subsidy pool, if you like, or whether that was over and above the budgeted child care subsidy cases?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We had a number of spaces set aside specifically for welfare reform and they would have come out of that pool.

Mr. Martindale: Going back to Taking Charge! contracts, were the companies that were hired and the nonprofit organizations that were hired under obligations in terms of the success rate of their graduates? Were there any targets set for how many of their graduates were supposed to get jobs after their training?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think it depended on the goal of each of the initiatives, but there were certain targets set and certain percentages set for outcomes or expectations that people would be employed at the end of the program. I think it was on an individual basis based on the program that was being delivered and what types of individuals they would have been dealing with, whether they were job ready or whether they needed a lot of training and a lot of support in order to get them to the stage where they would be able to be employable.

So it was different with every contract that was negotiated with those that were delivering the Taking Charge! programs.

Mr. Martindale: Were those goals part of the contract with the individual organization or business?

* (1520)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, those goals would have been part of the contract, and there is an evaluation that is to be submitted on each participant no later than 30 days after the participant completes their involvement with the project.

I want my honourable friend to know that we are doing an evaluation of the Taking Charge! initiative to see whether it is achieving or meeting its goals or objectives. That is just in the process of starting I think right now.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I can certainly ask next year about the evaluation.

I would like to ask the minister some questions about a program being run, I guess, co-operatively with the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce and the departments of Education and Training and Family Services, and basically they were taking part in the minister's Employment First initiative. According to their newsletter from last fall, they said that nearly 400 job vacancies had been involved. I wonder if the minister has information about how many people who were previously on income assistance were able to find paid employment with the assistance of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The role of Family Services in this initiative is to refer individuals that might meet the skills required to enter the jobs that are identified by the chamber. Education and Training is the lead department that does interface with the chamber. To date, I believe there are 19 income assistance clients that have been hired through this process, but there are over 200 employers from across the province that have indicated their support. To date, 68 employers have identified current job vacancies and will consider income assistance clients to fill these jobs.

So there are companies that are interested, and I think it might be realistic to anticipate that there might be a small percentage of those on our caseloads that might be hired through this initiative. I suppose every individual that has an opportunity to move from welfare into the workforce is a positive for all Manitobans.

Mr. Martindale: I think this is probably one of the most, or maybe even the most interesting statistic I have received since starting these Estimates, because the Chamber of Commerce would like everyone to believe that jobs are going begging and that we do not have enough people who are willing to work to fill those vacancies. Yet, when they entered into a co-operative arrangement with the provincial government, the number of people that they were able to successfully place is amazingly small.

In fact, when I talked to Mr. Lance Norman a couple of months ago, they had placed seven people, four in the city and three outside of the city of Winnipeg. I am glad to hear that is up to 19. They have almost tripled the number of people that they have placed, from 7 to 19. Yet the municipal caseload, according to the minister, recently was 17,251, of whom about 90 percent are in the city of Winnipeg. So the chamber has found jobs for 19 people out of 17,251. That is really quite amazing.

I wonder if the minister can tell me why this program has not been more successful.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess, with any new program, there is a starting point and there is some building that takes place along the way. I think that, for every job for every individual that moves off of social assistance and into the workforce, there are many positive implications, not only for that individual--it might for that individual, and if they have a family or children it certainly does impact more than one life.

This is something that is new. It is a new partnership that has been formed, and I would hope that my honourable friend would ask the same kinds of questions next year when we see--it is a matter of communicating to the private sector out there that we know there are people that are on social allowance that may fit into the job opportunities that become available in the private sector. It is a matter of starting to work with the business community and build upon the relationships that are developed.

It is certainly not the only initiative when we talk about the chamber. It is one thing that they have done and they have agreed to work with us on, and I commend absolutely everyone that comes forward and indicates that we need to focus on those that are on our social allowances caseloads as well as those that are on employment insurance that have had attachment to the workforce in the past.

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

As we move and as we continue to forge these partnerships, we are going to see more and more successes.

As I said, it is a new program, and we will have to continue to monitor to see what kinds of positive results can be accomplished. I know that we challenged the Manitoba Chamber and they have come forward and said, we will look to your caseloads as options and opportunities for filling positions that become available or filling new jobs that are created as a result of increased economic activity.

This is just one small piece of the whole picture. You look to Opportunities for Employment, the project that we started last year with the Mennonite Central Committee, the Mennonite business community and Trainex, and we just had the one-year anniversary of that program last week. I participated in just a small reception at Palliser Furniture, which has been one of the main contributors to that program, and we see 130 people now employed that were on social assistance in the past, some from the municipal caseload and some single parents from our provincial caseload.

I had the opportunity to meet several individuals who are now employed in full-time meaningful jobs. One was a single father with two children who was just thrilled at the opportunity to work. I was extremely impressed with the sense of pride that he felt in his ability to work and provide for his children. He was telling me about the issues around child care and how he had had to search out the right placement for his children so that he could work.

Another was a young single woman who was actually working in the Opportunities for Employment office and helping others who were coming in and inquiring about the program or referred to the program. She was just absolutely thrilled to have that opportunity, not only to have a job herself but to be able to help others who were in the same circumstances she used to be in.

There was also an individual with credentials and skills who had immigrated to Canada who really had the skills to be employed at an executive level. He was overqualified to do many low-paying jobs, and he was not given the option or opportunity when he applied to take those jobs, and yet, his English was not good enough for him to participate in many of the executive positions that do become available, a very interesting case. He was Spanish-speaking. Palliser Furniture is looking at major expansion and they needed someone with the language background. He has become an executive within their corporate office, and he was just absolutely thrilled to have had the opportunity.

* (1530)

So these are the kinds of individuals who have been supported and have been helped, and that is one program that, after a year, has had a success rate of 130. I think out of 160 or 165 individuals who have been associated with the program, 130 are now employed in full-time meaningful jobs. The project with the chamber has not been up and running for even a year. So I think we have to start these partnerships. We have to look for every opportunity that we have to provide an option and an opportunity for people who have not had that chance before to gain the training that will lead to full-time meaningful jobs.

So I am not sure that I agree with my honourable friend when he says that just 19--I mean, there are at least 19 lives, as a result of a partnership that was not there before, that have been impacted in a positive way through the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, and we hope there will be considerably more into the future. As businesses open their minds to looking at giving an opportunity or a chance to individuals who may never have had any workforce attachment in the past--and sometimes there are additional barriers that have to be overcome as a result of sort of helping people prepare to enter the workforce for the first time--and as businesses see results, positive results in other small businesses in their communities, they will open their doors and their minds to working with social assistance recipients. So I think every step in the right direction is a positive step, and we need all kinds of these programs. We need the message to be out there that people really do want to work, and we have to give them that chance and that opportunity.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to congratulate the Mennonite Central Committee. They have certainly been successful in training people and finding employment for them. The Chamber of Commerce--it is certainly not due to lack of publicity--they notified all their members, and 62 chambers in Manitoba. Certainly, we can ask next year how many placements they have found. Their publicity was sent out under a heading called Business Advisory and it is rather interesting. They advertise the benefits of this program as being the following: Save time and money on hiring process; training incentives for potential employees; no commitment required--that one really perplexes me--and low- or no-cost probationary employees.

Can the minister tell me if some of these welfare recipients are indeed at no cost to businesses? In other words, the businesses are not paying any wages to them.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding because the negotiations happen between the Department of Education and Training and the Chamber of Commerce--but from time to time or in some situations there would be a wage subsidy paid. So we would take the amount that we normally pay on social allowance and provide that as a subsidy to the business while they are training or evaluating whether that person is the right person for the job.

Each job, I guess, is individual, based on the individual needs. There might be shorter or longer training periods required, and Education and Training may pay for some of those training costs or some of the courses that might be needed in order to have that person be ready to meet the job requirements, if they do not have all of the skills to take on that job. So, I guess, there is some support through Education and Training, and some of that is billed back to the Department of Family Services, but it is an individual agreement made and individual circumstances with individual clients and companies.

Mr. Martindale: So just for clarification, there is a wage subsidy involved.

Mrs. Mitchelson: There may be and there may not be. It is all individual, based on individual circumstances.

Mr. Martindale: Moving on to 9.2.(c) Making Welfare Work, although I guess we have already gotten into this. I read a really interesting article in the Free Press titled Welfare Recipients to Work as School Crossing Guards. It looks like the City of Winnipeg and Winnipeg School Division No. 1 have co-operated to hire people formerly on social assistance, or I guess maybe still on social assistance if they are only working 15 hours a week. I am wondering if these people are better off working in terms of income; and secondly, if they are entitled to any benefits such as child care or transportation or clothing allowance.

* (1540)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Clients are eligible for the work incentive because we want to ensure that they are better off working than on social allowance, so they would be making more working than they would be on social allowance.

They are eligible, as anyone would be eligible for child care, but I think they have tried to--I think the project is six individuals being hired, six positions, and they were trying to identify individuals that would require the least amount of support. There might be a single parent whose children are attending that school that might be hired as the crossing guard, and I guess they were some of the criteria that were used for choice of individuals.

Mr. Martindale: I have crossing guards very close to my constituency office so I see them out there year round and in the winter freezing, and I am wondering if these individuals are entitled to an allowance for work clothes. I would not want to do that job without a parka and ski pants or a skidoo suit. So could the minister tell me if they are entitled to a clothing allowance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, they would be entitled to whatever might be needed in order for them to do their jobs.

Mr. Martindale: Would that include bus fare?

Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is the individuals who have been hired have been hired right from the community.

Mr. Martindale: So they would be eligible for child care for a subsidy case and for a clothing allowance, if that was requested.

Mrs. Mitchelson: If that was required.

Mr. Martindale: I have received complaints from individuals about telemarketing companies hiring people and hiring them on a probationary basis for a few days and not paying them and sending them home. Has the minister received any complaints like this?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, I have not, and I would be very interested if there were those situations taking place and my honourable friend sharing information with me.

Mr. Martindale: I wish I could share the information, but I have not got any individuals who are willing to talk on the record, so it is a little hard to verify what I am being told, but if what I am being told is true, then it is quite disturbing. I have also been told that people have quotas, that they have to sell a certain amount of whatever it is, a good or a service on the phone, and if they do not meet those quotas, then they are being let go. Is the minister aware of this?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think most of the projects or programs that we have been involved in either through Education and Training or previously through Taking Charge! have been fairly extensive training programs where individuals graduate from those programs and move into jobs and from time to time have been promoted in the system in those jobs. I guess, for any of us, whether we be social allowance recipients or whether we be individuals that have never been on social assistance, there are certain requirements of any job that is undertaken and there are evaluations that are done, and people have to meet certain expectations. I do not think there is any difference between one employee and another employee, whether you are someone who walks in off the street and gets the job because you have some experience or whether you are someone who goes through a training program, because we have a program available through the Department of Education or through Taking Charge! to help to assist single parents who have not had an attachment to the workforce.

You know, there are standards to be met. We know that we have to be accountable, and we are judged probably more often than a lot of other people are judged at election time, and there is not any job security in many instances. There is no job security for many Manitobans, so I do not think when we are discussing this issue that anyone that might have been on social allowance previously is treated any differently from any other employee.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I would certainly hope that telemarketing companies would not treat them any differently. However, it is a very stressful job. I was told, I believe by Mr. Norman at the Chamber of Commerce, that there were 200 vacancies at the time that I talked to him in February, but he said that it is not a natural job because I guess you are inside all day and you are under a lot of pressure. In fact, I have been told that one of the telemarketing companies has a smoking room and a crying room. I wish I could give you the name of the company, but I do not have it with me.

The minister says that it does not really matter who you are, that the job expectations are the same. Well, I disagree with the minister. It really does matter who you are if you are an income assistance client because there are consequences if you cannot keep that job. For example, if they do not call you back, then income assistance could deem that you quit the job, and they could phone the telemarketing company and ask if that employee quit, and the company would not care; they would probably say that the individual quit, and that has consequences for the income assistance client because they could have $50 a month or $100 a month deducted from their cheque or they could lose their entitlements entirely, so I think it does matter who these people are, and I hope that if they are being let go, whether it is a probationary period or paid employment, they are not being penalized when they reapply for income assistance.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess that is the whole thrust of our welfare reform, is to look at individuals as people who have the ability to succeed and become independent, and so a lot of the focus in Taking Charge! or in any of the other programs is to develop individual plans, to assist wherever possible in training and then to follow up to ensure that, if there is not success the first time--and we all know that from time to time things just do not work out or it is not the right kind of job--we are there to support them and to encourage them and to help them to move onward and upward and to try something new or something different.

That is what Employment First is all about. That is what welfare reform is all about. That is what all the individual needs assessments and the working with individuals to try to help them succeed is all about. So I think we have a much more proactive and much more sensitive approach to dealing with our social assistance recipients than we ever have before.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister verify for me that City of Winnipeg social services clients or I guess any municipal client is transferred to provincial to the single parent category when they become seven months pregnant? Is that accurate?

Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is in their third trimester they move from the municipal caseload to the provincial caseload.

Mr. Martindale: Given the research that the minister is familiar with, including by people like Dr. Fraser Mustard, has the minister considered moving these clients at an earlier time or providing a supplement for nutritional purposes, in other words, providing more money for the food allowance for pregnant women on income assistance?

* (1550)

Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is if there is a doctor's recommendation that a special diet or enhanced diet is required by an individual, that is provided.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister verify for me that when these clients are transferred at the seventh month of their pregnancy, that if they have taken any kind of training or education or upgrading, then they are deemed employable at seven months pregnant?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not put any work expectations on them when they are seven months pregnant. I think we talked a little bit yesterday and we can continue to talk about the whole issue of helping single parents understand that a life on welfare will commit them to a life of poverty forever and that not only do you have to plan on how to parent or how to continue to parent in a very responsible way--because I think that one of the most major undertakings any woman or man has when they decide to bring a new life into this world is to take their parenting responsibilities very seriously.

So I think that every individual has to not only look towards how they are going to manage their life and their circumstances as they become a parent or add another child to their family, but they are also going to have to look at very seriously and understand that in order to work their way out of poverty, they need an education and they need to start to plan ahead for what they are going to do with their life and with their future.

So they are certainly not considered--or do not have work expectations placed on them, but we really want people to think seriously about what their plans for the future are and how they can best achieve self-sufficiency and independence.

Mr. Martindale: One of the most frequent complaints that I get, both from advocates for the poor and also from poor people themselves, is that it is almost impossible to find a job if you do not have a telephone. I am wondering what the minister's policy is on income assistance clients who are deemed employable and their eligibility for a phone.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Most of our clients do have telephones. I know that I certainly have been in the community facilities in my honourable friend's constituency and elsewhere where there is a telephone fairly readily available for individuals that need that telephone. So I have to indicate that most of our clients do have telephones. I do know that we do certainly provide, through employment connections and through some of our education offices and at training sites, fax machines and telephones and all of those things that will help to lead people toward obtaining employment.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Item 9.2. Employment and Income Assistance (a) Client Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $10,825,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $4,046,700--pass.

9.2.(b) Income Assistance Programs (1) Employment and Income Assistance $215,610,500--pass; (2) Health Services $16,790,100--pass; (3) Municipal Assistance $103,056,000--pass; (4) Income Assistance for the Disabled $9,340,000.

Mr. Martindale: I have some questions about 55 Plus and CRISP. I wonder if the minister could tell me if the caseload has remained relatively constant or whether there have been significant increases or decreases. The most recent figures that I have are the annual report for '95-96. I assume that the '96-97 report is not out yet.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, in 1996-97, we budgeted for $13,500 in the 55 Plus senior component and the actual uptake--and I think we are pretty close on--was $13,326. For the junior component of 55 Plus, we budgeted for $4,737 and the actual uptake was $4,316. Did my honourable friend want some information on the CRISP program, too?

Mr. Martindale: Well, first of all, let us continue with 55 Plus. Could the minister give me the total? I forgot my calculator this time. What is the total for the senior component and junior component of 55 Plus for the last fiscal year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we budgeted for $18,237. The actual uptake was $17,641.

Mr. Martindale: So if we are to compare that with the latest figures in the annual report which would be for '95-96, the previous year, there has been quite a significant decline if the figures are accurate on page 37. The total was $21,103 and the minister is indicating that for the '96-97 fiscal year it is $17,641, so that is a huge drop in percentage terms in the number of people taking advantage of 55 Plus. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, one of the reasons for that happening is that in the past welfare recipients used to receive their benefits through the 55 Plus program. They now receive those benefits through the welfare program so they no longer receive it through 55 Plus. If you take that factor into consideration, there is not that significant a drop in the uptake.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I am just going by memory here, but my recollection and actually my experience dealing with one constituent is that, for a while, people on municipal who were over 55 were actually forced to apply for it but then it was deducted, so they were really no further ahead. Well, I think the rule has been changed so that they are no longer forced to apply, but on the other hand, they do not get any more money, whereas before they used to be eligible for 55 Plus, so they were financially better off. Is that true?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, that is not true. They used to be eligible for 55 Plus. They would receive the dollars from 55 Plus, and that would be taken away from their welfare payment, so they are receiving the same amount of money now. We have just said why make people apply and then remove it on the other side? You have extra bureaucracy and extra paper work. It really did not make any sense at all, so no, they are not any worse off. It is just that we are providing it through the welfare system and that we are not asking them to apply to 55 Plus to have it clawed back on the other side.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I think I understand the minister's answers here, and if I do understand them correctly, then this would explain why the numbers of cases are down. So let us look at the budget figures. What amount of money approximately was expended on 55 Plus, both senior and junior, for the fiscal year ending '96-97?

Mrs. Mitchelson: In 1995-96, it was $8,303,000. In 1996-97, we estimate, and I think we are pretty close, $7,033,000.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me why there has been a decline in the spending by about a million dollars?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is exactly the same issue. Those dollars are being paid for out of the welfare program rather than welfare recipients receiving dollars through the 55 Plus program. We are just paying the full amount of their welfare payment through the welfare program, so it is not required through 55 Plus.

* (1600)

Mr. Martindale: So basically this program is still as I guess it was originally intended, and that is a targeted program for low-income seniors who are working or have some sort of income but are not on social assistance. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if her department has any idea what the take-up rate is, that is, the percentage of people who may be eligible for 55 Plus?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not know that, but it is distributed fairly widely to seniors organization, to seniors clubs, to available--in all of our offices.

Mr. Martindale: Would the Minister of Family Services consider writing or talking to her colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and publicizing this information through the income tax system? My understanding is that it is very easy to program a computer to print out on people's returns or refunds, something to the effect: based on your income you may be eligible for 55 Plus. I understand from talking to officials in Finance that it is doable and it seems to me that all Manitobans who are eligible could be at least notified, and the result would be that the takeup would probably be higher.

Because one of the problems you have with any government program if it is not universal, and this is a problem of all targeted programs, is that if you do not find out about it, you do not ask, and if you do not ask, you do not find out if you are eligible and you do not get it. It is the same problem with my constituent that I mentioned who was applying for a pension from the government of Great Britain. She came to Canada in 1933. She is 89 years old. She just found out six months ago that she was eligible for a British pension, so I am helping her apply. It is going to be kind of fun to see if she is eligible. She may get a retroactive lump sum payment going back to age 65. So I am interested in seeing that this program is more widely publicized so that there is a take-up rate by those people who are eligible for it but unaware of the programs. I am wondering if the minister is willing to follow up on my suggestion.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I just want my honourable friend to know that we are following the same policy that was followed when his party was in government.

Mr. Martindale: Well, that almost sounds like a no. I think this minister should be open to new and innovative ideas, and maybe the computer programming is better now than it was 10 years ago, so I will repeat the question. Would the minister be willing to write to her colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and suggest that there is an additional way to publicize this targeted program?

Mrs. Mitchelson: In order for my honourable friend to get a response to that kind of question, I might suggest that he write to the Minister of Finance and ask that question. I am sure he will receive a response on a timely basis.

Mr. Martindale: I would be delighted to write a letter to the Minister of Finance to that effect. I am disappointed that the minister will not. I think she might have more clout actually with the Minister of Finance--

An Honourable Member: I am not sure. I am not sure. You might be surprised.

Mr. Martindale: This minister went to Treasury Board last year and got something approved which I do not think happens very often with this government. It suggests to me that she is willing to stand up to some pretty influential people and ask for something and actually get it, and I will be commending her for this later on again in the Estimates on a more specific line.

If this minister were to write to the Minister of Finance, it would suggest that she endorsed the idea and that it was something that she was in favour of. Certainly coming from another minister, the government would have a lot more weight than coming from an opposition critic. However, I will rest my case because I do not think the minister is going to do it.

I have some questions about CRISP. I wonder if I could get figures about the number of cases for '96-97 or estimated cases and the expenditure.

Mrs. Mitchelson: You will probably find the same issue around the CRISP program as you did around the 55 Plus program, because there is a significant reduction from 1995-96 to 1997-98, and the caseload would have dropped from just over 6,000 to just over 3,000--close to 3,000. That would be, again, the same issue. Those that are on social allowance would see the payment flow through social allowances rather than through the CRISP program and then clawing it back from their social allowance.

Mr. Martindale: And if my memory serves me correctly, this was municipal assistance clients because provincial clients were not eligible.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, Mr. Chairperson, this is both.

Mr. Martindale: So, is it correct to say that there is no change in the income of these families? They were not any better off or any worse off.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, that is right.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.2. Employment and Income Assistance (b) Income Assistance Programs (4) Income Assistance for the Disabled $9,340,000--pass.

Is there agreement with the committee that we take a 10-minute recess? [agreed]

The committee recessed at 4:09 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:23 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply come to order. We will resume the Estimates of Family Services. When we recessed, we were under Resolution 9.2.(c) Making Welfare Work $4,000,000--pass.

9.2.(d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $618,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $335,100--pass; (3) Financial Assistance $9,120,400--pass.

Resolution 9.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $373,742,400 for Family Services, Employment and Income Assistance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Continuing on with the Estimates of Family Services, Resolution 9.3. Community Living (a) Regional Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $13,021,500.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell how negotiations are going on vocational rehabilitation with the federal government?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, might I say slow. It certainly is an issue that we discuss every time we get together. The working groups are working trying to make some sense of what might be there in the future, but I am not sure we have anything concrete at this point.

Mr. Martindale: What is the minister proposing to the federal government? What would you like to see happen in Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, right now we have a working group with our disabled community that is attempting to determine what we believe is best for Manitobans. I am not sure that government wants to indicate our intentions without having the disabled community make their comments and provide their suggestions and ideas, so that work is ongoing.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I certainly endorse the idea of working co-operatively with people in the community who will be affected by these program decisions.

Is the minister concerned that since we no longer have the Canada Assistance Plan and the funding flows in other areas through the Canada Health and Social Transfer that the federal government may be considering ending agreements on vocational rehabilitation?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we absolutely are concerned. I think we were extremely upset when the announcement was made that there would no VRDP funding in this past year and who knows, again, what the federal intentions were. Did they extend the program for another year just to get them through an election campaign or are they, in fact, serious about redesign of programs that is going to provide an opportunity for disabled people to have a chance to enter the workforce or have as meaningful lives as possible? We are concerned, and we want to ensure that we have the opportunity for input.

In the absence of something new, or better programs, I would again encourage and support that we continue on with what we have until we find a better way of delivering service.

Mr. Martindale: Is there a danger that there will be no money from the federal government and then the design and delivery of the programs and the funding is entirely up to Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess we do have a commitment from the federal government to work with us in trying to design new programs. Where that will ultimately lead, I am not sure. I think we have seen what has happened with the national child benefit, and I believe the federal government, again, has taken the provinces seriously. What we have is a program that, hopefully, will lead to incremental and sustainable funding from the federal government to ensure that all children in low-income families will be delivered support through a federal system that has some standards and is equitable across the country, and we would hope that same kind of mechanism would happen for those with disabilities.

Mr. Martindale: What would happen in terms of budgeting if the provincial government was going it alone in this area?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think that is a hypothetical question right at this point in time. It is if--we have to trust and believe that the federal government is going to continue after the election campaign to work with us. It has been something that the Premiers have asked for. It is something that the Prime Minister has agreed to. We have put our officials together working towards trying to find some solutions, so I would hope it has not been just a good-faith gesture but a very meaningful gesture that will continue to achieve some positive results, but we are concerned, and I am glad that we have the extension of VRDP. I would hope that, through collaboration, we would end up with the result being the people that we need to serve are being served in the best way possible.

Mr. Martindale: Is the minister in favour of the Canadians with disabilities act similar to the Americans with disabilities act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I know there is nothing like that right across the country, and the federal government has expressed interest in looking at options, but there really has not been any discussions at the federal-provincial level around that issue.

* (1630)

Mr. Martindale: In the absence of federal legislation, would the minister be in favour of a provincial Manitobans with disabilities act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: In consultations and discussions with our disabled community, they certainly want to be very much as much a part of the mainstream as they possibly can be. When we looked at our welfare reform initiatives, we had some meetings with the disabled community, exploring the options and opportunities of moving somewhat in the direction that British Columbia has moved in in a separate income support program for the disabled. At the time we had those discussions, they came back to us and said that they did not want that in Manitoba.

It was before the government in British Columbia moved in that direction, but they felt that they wanted to be a part of the mainstream as much as possible. They certainly did want us to recognize the special needs and circumstances that they would present and try to ensure that we were sensitive to those needs. That was their position at the time, and so we decided not to look at a separate piece of legislation at that point in time but to work with them to ensure that we dealt with their issues and supported them as much as we possibly could, based on working together. So it was not a direction the disabled community in Manitoba wanted us to take, so we did not at that point in time bring in any separate legislation.

I think whatever we do in Manitoba has to be in complete consultation and co-operation with the community that is served through the programming we provide.

Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that the American legislation confers certain rights and benefits on disabled people. Would you be willing to see that kind of legislation in Manitoba, particularly where it applies to access so that, for example, all buildings would be accessible and individuals would not have to depend on the building code or by-laws of individual municipalities?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we want to continue to work toward full accessibility for all Manitobans regardless of their ability or disability. I, at this point in time, certainly have not thought of Americanizing our Canadian system, and I know it is very much the American way of doing things. From time to time my honourable friend and his colleagues certainly criticize the United States when it comes to issues around health care and other issues.

It just seems to me, again, and we talked a little bit yesterday about being in opposition and having it both ways. On the one hand, certainly we want to look at any country that is doing things in a very positive and proactive way, but I would caution my honourable friend that there may be many Manitobans and truly Canadians that would be quite upset if we adopted American standards in absolutely everything we did across government, so I just want to put those few comments on the record. I am not sure that legislation is the answer.

I think that as we move, and we have moved very much in our Canadian society and right here in Manitoba, into support and mainstreaming and community living--and I think we want to continue in that direction and do it in a manner that is sensitive towards the issues and the needs of those who are trying to serve and I believe that, as recommendations come from the disabled community, we have to look at those along with them, but I am not sure I am willing to impose anything at this point in time through law.

Mr. Martindale: The minister is distorting and twisting the intent of my remarks. Certainly I was not saying that we should adopt everything from the American system. I was only inquiring about adopting one of the better pieces of American legislation.

Maybe, to get things back on track here, I should congratulate the minister on increasing the expenditure level in Community Living by about $4.4 million. Can the minister detail what these new funds will be spent on? I can see that the largest part of this is in adult services, but I wonder if the minister can tell me exactly how this money will be spent, particularly in adult services.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the additional money will provide more individuals with being supported in community residences or supported in independent living settings, support for additional care, their additional care and support needs to enable them to live in the community, respite and day service spaces. So those are the areas where the money will be spent, so that money will go to individuals for service that they need.

Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that the majority of this supposedly new money is going to support individuals who reach the age of majority. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Some, but not all.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if Children's Special Services is part of Community Living?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, Mr. Chairperson, that falls under Child and Family Support.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me how she is addressing the concerns of the Manitoba Coalition of Service Providers? They met with the minister on November 13, 1996, and I have a summary of their concerns. I am wondering if any of the new funds are going to address any of their concerns, for example, salaries of employees in group homes and other settings.

* (1640)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think that we have a fairly co-operative working relationship with the Coalition of Service Providers, and their issues from time to time are salaries and wages in the system. I guess our main priority and focus with the increase in funding is to provide an opportunity for more adults to be served and receive services than the wage issue. I have talked with them about that, and as we still see people that are in need of additional support through programming, to enable them to live as full lives as possible, our priority will be on ensuring that as many people as possible receive the services they need.

But I think we have a fairly co-operative working relationship. We have a group working together with them to try to see how we can address the issues and the needs that come forward. It would be wonderful to have unlimited resources to try to meet the needs of absolutely everything within the system. The reality is that there has been more money year after year. I have said many times that this is the one area within my department where I work really hard to try to obtain additional resources year after year and have been fairly successful because I think our government understands that there is a real need and that there will be an increasing demand, not a decreasing demand for services in this area as we move forward.

So I do not have all the answers and all the solutions. I hear the issues that are raised by the coalition, and I will continue to work with them to try to address the needs over a period of time, but I think the critical issue for us is to ensure that as many people that need our services are supported with the services and with the additional resources that we have available.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that the Manitoba Coalition for Service Providers would like to see an approximate 5 percent increase in funding which they would pass on to staff who now have starting wages in the range of $5.40 a hour to $6.50, and that because the wages are so low, it is very hard to keep trained employees. It is also my understanding that the Yetta Gold report recommended $10 an hour minimum for staff in Community Living group homes. The Wiens report recommended a salary increase. Some of the group homes have had a letter-writing campaign and have written to the minister about the issue of wages.

This minister knows that you were funding group homes for staff salaries in the amount of $5.01 an hour when the minimum wage was $5.40, and to get around this and to create the illusion that the funding is accurate, there is no longer a per hour for funding. What is the minister going to do to address the wage concerns?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I wish I had an easy answer to that, and I wish I could say we could increase grants substantially. I cannot say that, and I cannot address that issue at this point in time. All I can say again to my honourable friend is that we, on a year-by-year basis, require additional resources and there are more people that are needing services through this area. We will continue to try to work to address that issue, but there are no resources available this year to address it.

Mr. Martindale: So even though there is approximately a $4.4-million increase in the budget for Community Living, none of this is going to be available to address the wage concerns.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think ultimately the dollars that go to serve individuals will flow with those individuals to the service providers that provide that service, and if they are able to re-adjust or reallocate or look at different ratios or different types of staff, there may be the ability within those additional resources that follow the individual to make adjustments, but that will probably not be an across-the-board situation.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister's answer imply that there will be more money going to the agencies which they could pass on in staff salaries?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The money does flow to the agencies to provide services for individuals, and it is my understanding that right now, certainly not a high wage but most of the facilities are providing a wage of around $6.50 an hour.

Mr. Martindale: When the Manitoba Coalition of Service Providers met with the minister in November, they recommended that overnight supports be paid. Since then, as the minister knows, there have been orders from the Department of Labour to require compliance with Regulation 50/88. My understanding is that these orders were retroactive to April 1. Given the serious funding problems of these agencies, can the minister tell me if, first of all, they are going to comply as they want to do, and secondly, where are they going to get the money to comply?

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have been working as a department with the Employment Standards Branch of the Department of Labour and the Manitoba coalition to try to better understand the nature and the scope of the issues that have been presented and to promote I guess a better understanding of the Employment Standards regulations and how they may be applied. We will continue to try to identify what the best practices are out there in the industry, and I do not have an answer today. We will continue to work with Employment Standards and the coalition to see how to best resolve this issue.

Mr. Martindale: Best practices sounds to me like a euphemism that does not really mean anything. We are really talking about compliance with a piece of provincial legislation, The Employment Standards Act. Since this is the end of May and the regulation compliance order was issued several months ago, I would like to ask the minister if the agencies are complying with this order.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, when this issue was first identified there were some agencies that were not complying, but it was probably because of a lack of an understanding of what the rules were. As we work together with them, it becomes clearer that possibly they could comply, and some of them are complying by changing staff ratios and different things to make that happen. So we are working aggressively with Employment Standards, with the coalition, with agencies to help them understand what the regulations are and interpret the regulations so that they have the opportunity to comply.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister explain what she means by changing staff ratios? Does that mean that there may be fewer workers on a shift or that some employees may have been let go?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I might be able to give an example. I think I used staffing ratios, and maybe I should have used staffing patterns in my last response. Maybe I will just give an example for my honourable friend where there might be one agency that has several different facilities, and they would employ the same employee for five hours in one of their facilities and then five hours in another facility. They would think that they were meeting or complying with the standards, but really they are one employer and 10 hours of work would constitute two hours of overtime. So if they take a look at changing those staffing patterns so they do not have any one employee working 10 consecutive hours, although it be in two different facilities, then they would be able to comply with the standards.

* (1650)

So that was the interpretation of the rules or the regulations that made them feel they were complying with Employment Standards but they were not. So those are the kinds of issues that we are discussing with facilities and with employers to ensure that they are following the rules that are set up by Employment Standards.

Mr. Martindale: So as far as the minister knows, none of these agencies--and I think we are dealing with 68 agencies--have laid off staff in order to meet the compliance order.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister indicate whether any of the increased funds will be available for agencies for administrative purposes?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, every time we create a new space, there is an administrative grant that goes with it.

Mr. Martindale: So what the minister is implying is that the only way that agencies' budgets are going to increase is if they have more clients that they are providing service to.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: So, in other words, there is nothing in terms of new money for administration or staffing or anything for existing agencies whose client load has not increased.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is right.

Mr. Martindale: So the only way to meet the compliance orders is to change hours of work in order to not be paying overtime, but I am not sure that works in all situations because we are talking about a problem of overnight work where people previously were not paid and now they are being told that they have to be paid. So is the minister saying that all these agencies have solved their problem by cutting down in overtime?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, each situation or circumstance is different, and I do not think that you can generalize or across the board say that this has to change in absolutely every facility. There are circumstances where we have to identify what the issues are. In the case my honourable friend raised, it might have been a circumstance or a situation where a facility was having overnight staff that came and just slept there, did not have to be late night staff, but they were not really being paid as staff because they were giving these people a place to live or to sleep, and that has happened. I guess what we have to do is sit down and work through those circumstances and situations with Employment Standards and with the coalition or the facility that has been undertaking that kind of practise and identify what the solutions might be.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if she has acted on another one of the recommendations of the Coalition of Service Providers, and that is, that the department implement long-term planning for all individuals who live with a mental disability?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are working fairly proactively with families and with individuals trying to develop individual plans, trying to develop a transition process when individuals are moving from school, out of the school into community living, so we are trying to develop on an individual basis long-term plans. I think we are going to have to be more diligent in that process as we see the issues emerging around more disabled people, children that in years past would not have survived that are living through increased technology and new approaches.

We will see more and more children in our communities, in our schools with mental disabilities that will have to be transitioned out of school and into adult programs. I think it is going to be very important that we develop at a very early age a plan and to be a lifelong plan for these individuals so that they can move through different stages of their lives and into programs, or whatever, that will provide them with the best option and opportunity to live to their fullest potential. So there are major challenges in this area in the years to come, and we are trying to work to ensure that we develop individual plans with families that will lead to the best possible support we can provide.

Mr. Martindale: It sounds like the minister is in favour of a long-term plan for every individual. Are you in favour of attaching funding to that plan?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that is an interesting question and I am not sure exactly what my honourable friend is asking. In every circumstance, we provide support in whatever way. I guess I might say to my honourable friend that I am very much in support of working with families. I know we have one project, In the Company of Friends, that is running where families and individuals purchase the kinds of services that they want and they require on an individual basis.

I, quite frankly, think we need to work with families more to see whether that is an option or an opportunity, so very often we develop programs and then we try to fit individuals into those programs, rather than developing plans around individual needs and funding those plans. I think that the more ownership families and individuals can take over developing what they believe is in their best interests is a direction that we may want to go.

* (1700)

I think we have had success in some of the pilots that we have tried. I think that what we would want to do is try to ensure that as we develop plans and look to the future for long-term case planning that we might even be able to better determine what the cost requirements might be. I am not sure we are at that point yet, but I suppose--I do not know what my honourable friend is asking. We budget on a year-by-year basis, and we have no way of determining whether someone is going to have an accident and die tomorrow and we will no longer need the funding for that individual or if they are going to live 40 years versus 50 years. I mean, I am not sure what kind of funding he is talking about when he talks about funding going along with the plan.

Mr. Martindale: I was told that there is a research project at the University of Manitoba called Lifespan Research Project. I guess it is being conducted by Mr. Mike Mann in recreation studies. Does the minister have a copy of that research or a summary of the research, and if so, is it available to me?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we do not have a copy here, but we can provide that.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for that.

The coalition recommended that supported employment become a long-term project. Is the minister in favour of this?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think in many instances we are supportive of supported employment programs. This is the one area where, of course, the federal government has had some desire to withdraw funding, and I think that we have lobbied very strongly for that funding to be maintained and for individuals to be supported as much as possible. I, generally speaking, am very much in favour of supported employment, and we want to ensure that the resources are there at the federal level to continue that kind of activity.

Mr. Martindale: The coalition, when they met with the minister, also recommended that services for those who live with a mental disability be mandated. The model that was suggested to me was The Child and Family Services Act, so that, presumably, people would be entitled to service; they would not have to ask for service or lobby for service. I am wondering if the minister is in favour of that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, again, an interesting question from my honourable friend. You know, I am not sure that any province or any government right across the country, regardless of political stripe, is looking at legislation mandating services. I think that we have to be held accountable as governments for the money that we spend and the budgets that we provide to provide the kinds of services that we can provide. I think that our record speaks for itself in this area as far as the increased support year after year for services for individuals, and so I am not in favour of a mandate through legislation for services. I am in favour of being sensitive to the issues and the needs and trying within our resources of government to prioritize these areas of expenditure. I think you would probably find that would be the position of governments, regardless of political stripe, right across the country.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me who the project group is and what their mandate is or what they are doing?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The project group was a consultant that was hired to consult with the community and bring forward suggestions or ideas on new and innovative ways of delivering services to the disabled community, and we will be reviewing that report and discussing it with the disabled community and seeing whether there are new directions that we should be taking as a result of that.

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

Mr. Martindale: Did the project group consultant look at the physically disabled community or vulnerable persons community?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The vulnerable persons community.

Mr. Martindale: I presume the report was written for the minister and the department.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Martindale: Could I get a copy of the report?

Mrs. Mitchelson: In due course, yes. What we want first to do is discuss with the stakeholders some of the issues and see whether there is a consensus on any changes in the way we do things, and certainly after we have shared and discussed these issues with the community, I would be prepared to provide a copy to my honourable friend.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): The honourable minister for Burrows--member, whatever, minister.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I am both.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me what the top five recommendations were by the project group?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Not at this point in time.

* (1710)

Mr. Martindale: I have had concerns expressed to me by agencies that operate group homes that in some cases they are being required to comply with health and safety and fire codes, that sort of thing, but they do not have money to comply. Can the minister tell me if any of the new funding in her department will help with capital grants so that they can comply with making improvements to their facilities?

Mrs. Mitchelson: With the funding allocation that we do provide, there is some minor or small amount of money in there for minor capital repairs. If in fact there was a need for anything over and above that to deal with any unusual circumstances that were beyond sort of basic upkeep and basic capital repairs, we do have a little bit of flexibility within our budget to accommodate on a case-by-case basis, but we have not had any requests for that in the recent past.

Mr. Martindale: It was suggested to me that a capital fund be set up, and I am wondering if the minister would consider that so that there would be capital funding available for these agencies.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I do not think we are looking at a major capital fund at this point in time. I know a lot of organizations do their own fundraising for any major capital. I do know that there are programs like the Community Places program that is available if there is some fundraising done. Through the Department of Culture, they will match funds for capital for construction for renovations.

I go back again to say that there is a need in our community to provide the support services to more and more individuals on an ongoing basis, and I think our priority still has to be that support in the community for individuals that need it. So, as I said earlier, there is a small amount of capital built into the budgets for facilities, for agencies, and we are not looking at any major capital fund right now. I certainly would encourage, if there is anything significant or major, that there are grants that can be applied for through Culture, through the Community Services Council, as another example for major capital renovations or construction.

Mr. Martindale: It seems to me that the agencies that operate group homes must be concerned about their lack of capital funding which was why they raised it with me. I received a copy of an item that was sent to the minister--I cannot really call it correspondence because it was a photocopy of a newspaper article from the Winnipeg Free Press, dated Friday, April 18, 1997, and it was titled Dad could not save son from fire--and the only comment that went with it was on the bottom it says: Can you say inadequate respite? The minister might recognize this. I am wondering if respite was an issue in this situation where an adult, I believe, died in a house fire.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I do not recall seeing this come across my desk. Now I do not know when it was sent. I do not see any date on--this was from the Winnipeg Free Press, Friday, April 18, and I do not recall. I could certainly go back to my office and see. I recall seeing the article. It was a very tragic circumstance but the issue of lack of respite has never been raised with me or with my department.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I have a problem with anonymous comments and I am sure the minister does too, so it is a little hard to advocate for someone when you do not know who they are. My only question was if respite was an issue in this death or not.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Not that we are aware of. It has never been an issue that has been raised with us, and certainly we do not believe that there would have been any cause to think that there would have been a problem.

Mr. Martindale: Pass.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): All right. Item 9.3.(a) Regional Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $13,021.500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,119,900--pass.

9.3.(b) Adult Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister if there is a list of external agencies that might be available to me under item 3.(b) so that I know who the 68 agencies are, or however many organizations there are that are funded by Adult Services.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do have the grants list that we can provide to my honourable friend--I think we have it here--but not all of these agencies would be on the grants list because some of them are funded with per diems, not grants. If my honourable friend would like that we could undertake to put that together and provide it to him.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for this list. This is the list that I ask for every year in Estimates and always get in Estimates, and it includes the agencies that work with Vulnerable Persons as well as Child and Family Services. It is all the external agencies funded by the Department of Family Services.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I just want to clarify that those are all the agencies that are grant-funded. There are other organizations or agencies we deal with that just have per diem funding, so it would not be a grant.

Mr. Martindale: I have some specific questions about one or two agencies, and I am wondering which would be the most appropriate budget line to ask those questions under.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess it would depend on which agencies my honourable friend has the questions about and then I could tell him.

Mr. Martindale: Well, it will come as no surprise to the minister to know that CNIB is one of them.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, that falls under this area.

Mr. Martindale: I will also have questions about financial reporting by United Way-funded agencies, but I would like to stick to vulnerable persons for a few more minutes.

A number of individuals and organizations have spoken to me about their concerns for vulnerable persons who are living at home with parents, and many of those parents are elderly, they are aging, and they are very concerned about what is going to happen to them--well, not so much to them, but to their children when they end up moving out of a home and into an apartment or to a personal care home, feeling that there are not enough services for their children and believing that there needs to be plans in place; there needs to be independent living arrangements or suitable group homes.

I am wondering if the minister can tell us what plans she and her department have for looking after the needs of this particular client group.

* (1720)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, some of the most difficult meetings I have had since becoming the Minister of Family Services are with families, aging parents, who have really committed their lives to providing a loving home for a child--that is no longer a child--with a mental disability and really understandable fears and uncertainties about what the future will hold. I guess that is why we have an additional $4.5 million in this area, and that is to help to resolve some of the issues for these individuals and these families.

Aging parents find they can no longer cope and can no longer provide the kind of support that they have in the past. We will continue, as resources become available, to try to deal with those issues and plan for the future of those adults.

Mr. Martindale: But it is my understanding, from answers that the minister gave earlier today, that the bulk of that $4.4 million or $4.5 million is going to new clients when they turn 18.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I want to clarify that. I think that was the question that was asked of me, and I said no, and maybe I could read the list out for my honourable friend.

I want to indicate to my honourable friend that about half of those individuals that we will be able to provide support to are age of majority and the other half are critical needs like the individuals we have just been speaking about.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for refreshing my memory. I wonder if she could tell me what the 50 percent will be spent on in terms of critical needs. What sorts of services, what sorts of programs? What will be available for these individuals?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess the supports that will be provided for those that we have just been speaking about would be community residences, supported apartment living and more in-home supports, if they are required. So those are the areas of highest priority because they are the areas of highest need.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I am sure that the parents of these individuals who are now seniors will be happy to hear about that. Could the minister tell me what kinds of clients are making up, well, I guess not just a majority, but who is it that are turning 18, becoming adults and becoming new clients of Community Living? My understanding is that a lot of them are fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect, and I am wondering if that is the case.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, the majority are not fetal alcohol, although there is an increasing incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome/fetal alcohol effect children that will be moving into the adult system. It is not significant numbers. Still the majority of those that are moving from the school system to the adult system are those with mental disabilities that are not necessarily fetal alcohol related.

Mr. Martindale: Since the population of Manitoba is growing relatively slowly, and since the budget for Community Living has increased more than just one year--I believe for several years there has been increased funding. My understanding is that one of the reasons is the age-of-majority people. Are there more individuals who need service? Are we seeing an increasing proportion of the population and, if so, why?

* (1730)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess it all depends on how you want to interpret it. I mean, I have indicated that children are living longer. Infants with disabilities are living longer. They are surviving longer, I suppose. They are moving into our adult system, and at the far end we have many that are becoming seniors with disabilities that years ago would not have survived nearly as long with the new technology.

So we are seeing increasing numbers move into the adult system and we are seeing at the far end not as many moving out of the system. So it will be an ever-increasing issue and problem that governments and society will have to deal with, and I think we all recognize that as a major challenge. I suppose we have to start to look at our programming to see whether we are doing things in the most efficient and effective way and finding that we are supporting people in an adequate fashion, attempting to evaluate what we do today and whether there are better ways of delivering service tomorrow. But I do know that expectation will be that we will need increasing resources in this area for many years to come.

Mr. Martindale: Would one group that the minister is referring to be children at St. Amant Centre who are turning adults?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is a different--well, I mean, one and the same, it is part of it, but there are sort of many issues around St. Amant. As we move more towards community living and not institutionalization of individuals, we will see less and less young children entering St. Amant, but we will see an aging population and a shift in focus I think by St. Amant. They have been doing an awful lot of work on a new vision and a new strategic plan on how to deal with the issues that will be presented to them as they do not admit children and as their population ages. There certainly is an issue of transition out of St. Amant and into the community, and they have really responded to the challenge by creating community residences and developing programming that deals with adult day programs and support to adults that are living in the community with a disability. So that is part of the issue, but there are other more challenging issues for St. Amant as they look to an older and an aging population in the client group that they serve.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 9.3.(b) Adult Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,551,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $582,800--pass; (3) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $63,706,900.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister where she is at in terms of some of the problems being raised by clients of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Last year when I asked questions in Estimates, the minister did not really want to get involved in what she deemed, I believe, the internal affairs of an agency. However, since then I believe she has met with some of the advocates who want to see some changes. I was pleased that when I raised this in Question Period, I got quite a different answer from the minister. It seems to me that now the minister is willing to take their concerns quite seriously. I guess what I am looking for is a progress report, and that may suffice. If it does not, I have a rather thick file that I could get out and ask all kinds of detailed questions, but maybe we could start with the generalities of where the minister is going on this issue.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think anytime those who are being served in our community, because of special needs or circumstances by any organization, anytime those people come forward with some issues or concerns around whether the organization is serving them well or not, we have to look at that seriously. I think we have taken the issues and the letters, the comments and concerns that we have received very seriously and we, as a result, are meeting with those who have brought the issues forward. We have also discussed the issue of the CNIB with the United Way, which is another fairly significant funder of CNIB, and as times evolve and things change I guess organizations have to ensure that they are being relevant to the clients that they serve.

We would hope that is happening, but if there is dissatisfaction and people are coming forward, I think we need to develop some sort of a process where we can have everyone together around the table and see what direction needs to be taken into the future. We are prepared to facilitate that kind of a process, and see whether we can resolve some of the outstanding issues. I think it is too early to determine what that resolve might be, but I think it is incumbent upon us to become involved and not to dictate or determine, but to try to facilitate a process where everyone sits down and discusses the issue and let us find the best way of using the dollars that we have available to support individuals in the best manner possible so they are satisfied as people receiving the service, and we are satisfied that taxpayers' dollars are being spent in the best manner possible.

Mr. Martindale: That is a little too general for me, so I will have to ask some specific questions. I have a list of concerns that were raised by the coalition for service accountability for the visually impaired. They have quite a serious list of concerns, and I would just like to read seven issues that they raised with me, namely, waiting list for service, cutbacks in service, cuts in direct service staff and increases in management positions, not responsive to the aboriginal needs in the North, insensitive to consumers, inadequate consultation, high unemployment rate among consumers, severe treatment of employees for bad service delivery. I do not understand the last one. I am wondering if the minister can tell us: What progress has been made with United Way and with CNIB on correcting many of these very serious concerns that have been raised with the minister?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, you know, it is very easy to, again, from opposition and as a critic take government to task on what they have done or what they have not done in a certain area. I mean, if I had the ability to ask the questions and hold my honourable friend accountable for his answers, I might ask the question on what he would be prepared to do if he were in my shoes. Is he saying that he would immediately withdraw funding from CNIB, shut CNIB down, or would he want to ensure that he had all of the facts and all of the information from all parties and all sides together and see whether we could not work out a positive resolution or solution?

I am not prepared to go any further than to say that we are concerned about the issues that have been raised and that we will continue to listen to those concerns that have been brought forward to us. We will try to facilitate a resolution, but I am not prepared today to say that we will remove funding from CNIB. So I am not sure if that is what my honourable friend is recommending. I would like him to put that on the record if he is.

I guess the biggest issue for me is to try to ensure that the people that require the service are being served. If there are some that have some disagreement in the manner in which the money is flowing for that service, I think we need to sit down with all parties around the table and try to find a solution or a resolution so that the money is being spent in the proper manner and the people that are being served are being served, but I am not prepared to go any further than that today on the record. I would prefer to resolve the problems, if we can, with everyone together.

* (1740)

Mr. Martindale: So is the minister working with the coalition for service accountability and the United Way and CNIB to make some changes at CNIB and see that the issues that were raised are being addressed?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I would want to see the issues resolved in a way that the people that need the service are getting the service and the dollars are being spent in the appropriate manner to make that happen. I will endeavour to keep my honourable friend informed as we move through the process, too.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Is it agreed that we take a five-minute recess? The committee will resume in five minutes.

The committee recessed at 5:40 p.m.

The committee resumed at 5:54 p.m.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Okay, we will call the committee back to order and continue with the honourable member for Burrows.

Mr. Martindale: Well, now I have forgotten where I was, but I think I am finished with CNIB for the time being. Certainly, if nothing changes, the minister will be hearing from me again either in Question Period or via correspondence, and I am sure she will be hearing from the coalition of service providers.

I have a general question about the financial statements of organizations that receive money from the Department of Family Services and also receive money from the United Way of Winnipeg. I discovered this when I was going through the annual report for Osborne House. Now I do not want to be critical of Osborne House; I am just using them as an example. I am sorry I do not have a photocopy of this for the minister, but I can certainly provide it to her in a minute. In fact, maybe we will get the page to photocopy it.

In their financial statement for the year ending March 31, 1996, under Revenue, it says--and this is amazing to me--administration, facility, crisis line, shelter, children's counselling, follow-up program, community relations. Now I have never read a financial statement like that before, so I did some inquiring and I found out, I was told, and I did not have time to verify this with the United Way, but what I was told is that this is called functional budgeting so that under Revenue, they showed how the money was spent on different functions of their organization.

One concern that I have is that, first of all, there is no indication of the source of any of the funding. For example, I would not have known that there is any money from this minister's department had there not been Note 3 to the financial statement's accounts receivable, and it says, Province of Manitoba per diems $15,957 and miscellaneous $1,524, I presume both from the Province of Manitoba. I will get those two pages photocopied for the minister and her staff, and now I have some questions.

I am wondering if the minister is willing to check into this because it seems to me that if the province is putting out money, and they are to many of these organizations, it should show up under the revenue of the organization. So I checked with some other financial statements. Just by way of comparison, SMD shows Revenue, Province of Manitoba--I have the 1995 financial statement--$5,649,000. I have another annual report for SMD which also shows funding from the Province of Manitoba.

I have an annual report for Rossbrook House which has a note to the financial statement which lists all the sources of funding, including the Province of Manitoba. I am wondering if the minister is willing to talk to the United Way about the kinds of financial reporting that they require for their agencies, many of which also receive money from the Province of Manitoba, and many of them receive money from the Department of Family Services. I guess the reason for this request is that I think it is only appropriate that, if the province is giving grants to these organizations, it should show up on the financial statement. I am wondering if the minister agrees with me and if she is willing to do some checking into this.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I do agree with my honourable friend that there should be some standard process, and we will certainly look into that and see whether there is something that needs to be done to correct that.

Mr. Martindale: Well, first of all, I would like to thank the minister for that answer. Also, I would like to add an additional reason for doing it, and that is that every year I get the grants to external agencies and, just to use this year as an example, Osborne House is getting $646,000. What I would like to be able to do is to look at the annual report for Osborne House and see if the amount of money that they are given by the province, according to the information that I am given in Estimates, corresponds with the amount in their financial statement a year later, so that, first of all, there is consistency; secondly, if the amount of money is not the same, I could come into Estimates and say, you know, why is it more or why is it less, and if it is underexpended, why is it underexpended? I think that is a very good reason for requiring these agencies to show the entire amount in their revenue statement of their financial reports, and I hope that the minister would agree with me.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Martindale: I also have discussed it with the Provincial Auditor's office, and he agrees with me. So we will follow up on that next year.

Could the minister tell me if there are significant changes in the grants to agencies? I have not had a chance to compare all of them, but it looks like many of them are the same, although there are some significant changes, for example, the grant to Winnipeg Child and Family Services has a significant increase. I wonder if the minister can indicate if most of the grants were identical and what some of the increases or decreases may have been.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We will get that information very shortly and share it.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 9.3 .Community Living (b) Adult Services (3) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $63,706,900--pass.

9.3.(c) Manitoba Development Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,201,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,924,200--pass.

9.3.(d) Residential Care Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $259,200. Shall the item pass?

The hour now being six o'clock, committee rise.