Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering 9.4.(a) Child, Family and Community Development (1) Salaries and Employees Benefits, on page 68 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

* (1440)

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, I think I should probably put on the record my apology to Mr. Lance Barber. He indeed mail me the information I requested. My trustee constituency assistant had put my mail in a file, and I had not read it yet. So my apologies to Mr. Barber.

I would like to go back to the Children's Foundation. I want to thank the minister for the information that she already provided me. I cannot remember from before lunch, but I wonder if the minister had identified how much money was transferred to the Winnipeg Foundation?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I do not think I had. I have some additional information here now. Mr. Chairman, the organization received $714,000 in November 1998, so that would have been the Children's Foundation of Winnipeg Fund that was transferred over to the Winnipeg Foundation. The funds are considered a "field of interest fund"–that is in quotations, I am reading this into the record–in the Winnipeg Foundation, which means that it must focus on a particular area. General applications are received by the Winnipeg Foundation who determines which fund the grant may be paid from. No special committee exists for this particular fund. The agreement between the Winnipeg Foundation and the Children's Foundation of Winnipeg Inc. requires that the Winnipeg Foundation use the earnings on the fund for provision of grants to charitable organizations on the condition that financial support is utilized to support programs that enhance the quality of life for the children of Winnipeg by–and I guess these are the criteria–funding projects that benefit children in their own community or funding projects that focus on the training of community members who will provide programs that enable the community to become self sufficient.

It is expected that approximately $36,000 will be available on an annual basis. Organizations that have previously accessed the fund will be given priority, and since November, only one grant has been provided: $15,000 to the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club for bridge funding. In 1998-99, the former foundation had funded four projects: three parent support networking projects and one training and co-ordination project.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to go back to The Family Support Innovations Fund. I wonder if the minister can tell me where the money comes from for this fund. Is it from her department? Is it from within the agencies?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is a fund of $2.5 million and it comes from my department.

Mr. Martindale: I have had some reports about concerns that staff have about directives from senior management. I presume this is within Winnipeg Child and Family Services. Because of the pressure not to put children in hotels, there was a directive that sibling groups be split up so they do not have to use hotels. I am told that workers were quite upset by this directive, that it was contrary to everything that they were taught in child welfare and everything they believe in terms of practice. They were forced to follow this directive, but they were very unhappy. I am wondering if the minister is aware of these complaints; if so, what her view is of this kind of directive.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The first we knew about any directive was as a result of an article in the Free Press. After discussion with the agency, it is our understanding that the directive would have been: Do your best not to put children in hotels; do your best not to split families. Our under-standing is from reports from the agency, there was very limited splitting of families; in fact, it is not a directive or a policy. We do not see it as a common practice within the agency at this time.

Mr. Martindale: I am wondering if the minister can be a little more specific. She says it is not common practice. I guess I would be interested in knowing whether it is a prohibited practice or whether it happens occasionally because of circumstances like not being able to find accommodation for a number of siblings either in a foster home or even in a four-bed unit.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are informed that this is not a common practice within the agency. There are from time to time instances where siblings have to be split for therapeutic reasons. That of course would happen or would take place, but it is our understanding that it is not common practice. We could try to get numbers and more information from the agency and report back, if my honourable friend wants that.

Mr. Martindale: I have in front of me a copy of Volunteer Times, Volume 9, No. 4, Winnipeg Child and Family Services East, April 1998. I am not sure why I did not use this last year in Estimates other than the fact that we got shut–

An Honourable Member: Maybe you did and do not remember.

An Honourable Member: Oh, that was a good shot, Bonnie.

Mr. Martindale: I hope that last remark was not on the record, Mr. Chairperson. Probably it was because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) was in trouble and Family Services got shut down in a hurry, so I did not get finished all my questions last year. I hope that does not happen again this year because Justice is following us.

However, I would like to quote from this newsletter. It says: "Kids going to school without lunch; babies being fed diluted formula; moms not eating because there isn't food to go around. Sad but true stories that CFS workers hear often." I am told that frequently when children come into care, workers are responding to their immediate needs. That often means getting authorization for food vouchers or however it is that the workers buy food for children, buy diapers, clothes or whatever. I am wondering if the minister has figures on emergency expenditures in Winnipeg Child and Family Services on these kinds of items.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have a number here that says: day care and emergency assistance $5,821.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister if that is the total.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I should clarify, that is per month.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister if she can tell me what happens to money that parents would normally get or income parents would normally get such as the child tax benefit. When children go into care, what happens to that money and who gets it?

* (1450)

Mrs. Mitchelson: If in fact the question is, if there is a child in care, does the family still get the money that would be allocated to them from the federal government or from the province on assistance for that child? Is that the question?

Mr. Martindale: Well, it would be my guess that maybe they do not get the money anymore, in which case is that a saving to government or where does the money go?

Mrs. Mitchelson: If they are on social allowance, there is a certain X number of dollars for a child and that child is not in that home, the money comes, is not paid out in social allowance.

Mr. Martindale: So it is really a saving to government or money that is not expended.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is right.

Mr. Martindale: Just one more question for clarification so that I can explain this to the person who asked me. Then it is not going to the Child and Family Services agency instead of to the family.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, it is not going to the Child and Family Services agency.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister would be willing to comment on the urban aboriginal strategy team for Child and Family Services. I have a copy of their community action plan, dated February 1999, and there are a number of recommendations in it. I am wondering if the minister has positions on any of these recommendations, and, if so, are there any that she would care to comment on?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we did get a report on the urban aboriginal strategy for Child and Family Services, and I did meet with the committee that had been pulled together as they presented that report to me. I guess sort of the broad recommendations were that we make board changes that would be more reflective of the community that is served by the Winnipeg agency. Then the advisory committee was wondering whether they could continue to be an advisory committee to me.

One of the recommendations did include, too, that we put more dollars into the front end and that the aboriginal community have some say in how we administer those dollars for aboriginal families.

On that recommendation specifically, I guess we asked for action plans to be developed as a result of that recommendation to give us some indication of what that might look like. They have gone back out and tried to develop a little further what action would need to be taken. We have received reports from MKO, for instance. We have not received a report from the southern bands. We are awaiting that report. I think it was due around mid-May, and we understand that it will be here very quickly. As a result of those action plans coming back, the committee will get together again and develop one action plan.

I think it has been a good process. We have engaged, certainly, the aboriginal community both on and off reserve in this process, and I am hopeful that we will have a plan of action that we can follow through on.

As far as the board composition, I think I indicated that we would very shortly be making that announcement, and it will certainly be more reflective of the population that is served.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I guess I have some specific questions following up on that, but the minister seems to indicate that things seem to be rather positive and co-operative. Does that indicate that there has been a change since, I think, it was June or July of last year? There were stories in the media about people, I do not know, walking out of meetings and not being very co-operative. Has that turned around?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think that things have improved. There are always different dynamics. Certain individuals with certain agendas from time to time tend to not be terribly pleased if their point of view is not the point of view or the direction that is taken. We all know, I am sure, from time to time my honourable friend experiences that right within his own caucus. Even though there are philosophical similarities from time to time, there are people with very strong opinions on a certain issue, and I know that happens within any organization or group that comes together to try to develop a new direction or a renewed direction, I guess.

* (1500)

I do want to indicate that I did have some differing opinions with some of the people that we had asked to be gathered around the table, but I think they have come together and cooler heads have prevailed. We are hopeful that the continued good will and good working relationship will result in something that everyone can have piece of and be a partner in.

We had some differing points of view, I guess, from the political leadership on reserve and the urban aboriginal community where the urban aboriginal community felt that they needed to have some input into the issues dealing with aboriginal people in the city. I guess the aboriginal leadership on reserve felt that the children in the city of Winnipeg were their responsibility and theirs alone, so there was some conflict. I believe that we have come to grips with the understanding at least that for the sake of the children involved we all need to be working together to find the solutions, and I am hopeful that will indeed occur.

We have tried, as we changed the board composition, to include all factions in the new board, and I think that probably we will have a pretty powerful dynamic group of individuals that really are committed to putting the interests of children first and trying to set aside some of the differences that they may have from time to time to ensure that we have the best programming that we possibly can have for children and families. I know we had a tough meeting and there were some tempers that flared, including mine. You know that I do not often get angry, but I have to say that things have improved since that time. Sometimes when you vent a bit, you get things off your chest, and then you can then get down to working in a more co-operative fashion. So I have every hope and expectation that that is occurring and will continue to occur.

Mr. Martindale: That reminds me that there was actually a hurricane with the first name as the minister. I even have some clippings that the minister might appreciate. I will not put them on the record or table them. I hope the people that are on this new board are really representing constituencies rather than factions. I would hope that "constituencies" might be a better word than "factions." [interjection] Yes, your staff might appreciate these even more.

I have a report called Report from the Urban Aboriginal Strategy Team dated September 30, 1998, and it has a list of all of the organizations that were participants. One of them is listed as the Manitoba Assembly of Chiefs, so I presume that they are still part of the process.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, one of the recommendations is that there be a Metis family and community institute, and I am wondering if that proposal is still on the table or under discussion.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, I think when we talked about–is it a Metis institute as one of the recommendations? I guess we have to go back a little ways to the Fox-Decent report that indicated that we should explore the possibility of an urban aboriginal agency. We have had dialogue and discussion with the Metis community for years and years around a Metis child and family services agency.

I think we have come to the conclusion that maybe we need to be trying to ensure that we are all working together to ensure that all children regardless of background are served in a way that we can all support. I believe that the conclusion from the dialogue and discussion has come around to trying to figure out how we can make that happen.

If we are talking about bricks and mortar, I am not sure at this point in time that that kind of thing is on. I think what we want to do is focus our energies and our efforts on trying to ensure that we provide the best service possible for all children, ensuring that the Metis community has a stake in that, that the aboriginal leadership on reserve has a stake in that, that the urban aboriginal leadership has a stake in that. I have said many times in meetings that it cannot be an "us" and "them" kind of thing. We all need to be working together. I am prepared to work with everyone, but we cannot be setting up separate structures and separate bricks and mortar, because then you create a whole new set of issues and complications. Where do people call? We do they not call?

* (1510)

Is there a difference whether you have a treaty number versus a nontreaty Indian status versus Metis? Where does it start and where does it end? I think that we have to all come together around the table. I think that is what we have tried to do with this process, is bring everyone together and whether a Metis institute is something way down the road I do not now, but it is not something that is on right at this point in time. What we want to do is have everyone involved in finding the best solutions for the best reasons for the families that Winnipeg Child and Family serves. That is my feeling or my sentence on where we are going. I think that there is something to be said for everyone still being around the table and trying to figure that out.

Mr. Martindale: Another one of the recommendations is for a community plan which would be directed towards 100 families. It would be the intention of the project to work with families who are at risk of their children coming into care. The proposal I guess is that you take money that normally would be spent on children in care and you redirect it towards what sounds like a preventative program. There are some details here and it sounds rather interesting. I am wondering if the minister has considered it and what she thinks of this plan.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think that recommendation looked at taking 100 families sort of out of the intake process and seeing whether there was a better way to try to deal with families to ensure that they did not need to enter the Child and Family Services system.

So it would be an intake sort of sensing whether there was another kind of diversion or another way to work with families, whether it be through mentoring, things like the Andrews Street family project, finding community solutions, seeing whether there was the support within a community to find a better solution to taking children into care and moving them out, dislocating them and very often creating other issues for children, such as isolation and completely strange neighbourhoods and families.

It is something that I really kind of like conceptually, so I have instructed the committee to go back and look at an action plan on whether we could broaden that even more in a more comprehensive way. Rather than just looking at a hundred families in a demonstration project, is there a better way of trying to provide the support at intake and do the analysis and see whether there is not a community capacity that could be built to help support and strengthen families, and that is a preventative model that is sort of up front.

I have to ask myself sometimes whether once we take kids into care we do a better job of providing support for them and we end up with healthier kids as a result or is there a better way, and I think this is a model that has been brought forward that merits significant consideration to see whether there are other options and opportunities for us to do things better right at the intake, before families get separated. I mean, we know that there are kids who get moved from foster home to foster home to foster home, and I am not sure that that serves those children well. So how do we try to find the child-centred focus that we need to ensure that everyone is around the table right at the beginning when the issue surfaces that there are some problems within a family to find the very best solutions that we possibly can.

So this sort of looks at that kind of a concept, and I certainly think it merits some consideration and some further development.

Mr. Martindale: I still receive complaints from aboriginal people, mostly from staff of aboriginal agencies about program standard 421. Until we have either a mandated aboriginal agency or we transform an existing agency into a mostly aboriginal agency, I think we need to pay attention to the concerns that I am hearing from the community.

As the minister will know, program standard 421 provides direction to agencies regarding their priorities in placing children in care. The first priority is to place with the extended family; the second is to place in a culturally appropriate home; and the third is to place in the same community as the parents.

Now, the information that I have suggests that program standard 421 is being honoured more in the breach than in anything else and that sometimes aboriginal agencies are being told the day before a nonaboriginal agency goes to court that one of their children is the subject of a hearing, which does not give them adequate time to find an appropriate foster home or any kind of a placement and have meaningful input into the decision making.

I guess my question is why are non-aboriginal agencies not following the program standard 421? Since the minister must be aware of these concerns, what is being done to encourage them to follow this program standard?

* (1520)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, our branch did do an independent review of this issue, because it was an issue that was coming forward as a significant issue, and did find that there were certainly some concerns. As a result of that, we raised the issue with the Winnipeg agency specifically, I guess, which was probably the worst agency in dealing with this issue. As a result of that, I think we have had much more co-operation and collaboration.

We have had Winnipeg, especially under the new leadership in Winnipeg, working more closely with native agencies, especially in the North where this seemed to be the biggest issue, and we have seen much better practice and consistent outreach to native agencies as a result. We have worked with both Winnipeg and the native agencies to develop a draft standard that will be going out as a part of our new standards, our standards that have been revised and will be implemented.

So, certainly, I think my sense, or information that I have from the department is that within the last nine months or so, there has not been an appeal or an issue raised. So it basically is sort of the nature of the new relationship that has developed as a result of new leadership in the Winnipeg agency and outreach to our aboriginal agencies. I am hoping that that continues. There is certainly much more of a spirit of co-operation.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I wonder if the minister can tell me what is happening in terms of adoptions in terms of numbers. For example, I have a report to adoption co-ordinator supervisors, dated June 8, 1998, re: Manitoba adoption bulletin, and there were very few children being adopted at that time.

I wonder if the minister has statistics for me on the number of adoptions taking place, perhaps in the last year or whatever the most recent information the minister has.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are talking now permanent wards? Yes, in 1997-98, there were 106 adoptions. In 1998-99, there were 116 permanent wards placed for adoption, and since April 1 of this year, there have been 30 permanent wards placed for adoption.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me what has been happening since the changes to legislation, mainly the introduction of a new adoption act and, in particular, private adoptions or adoptions being done through nonprofit agencies such as Adoption Options?

Mrs. Mitchelson: In the past, before the new legislation was proclaimed and that was only on March 15 of this year, Adoption Options did around 20 private adoptions per year. They are currently processing 72 applications, and they anticipate that the number will go up from 20 this year as a result of the new act. The Canadian advocates for African children is currently processing eight applications for intercountry adoptions.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I understand the department is considering some kind of adoption subsidy, and I am wondering when that is going to be proclaimed.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Of the 30 permanent wards that have been placed for adoption since April of 1999, 19 of those were long-term foster children in foster homes that as a result of the financial support that is being provided have been adopted by those long-term foster parents. I think that is a significant achievement and success.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me then if long-term foster parents who are adopting children are getting adoption subsidies currently?

* (1530)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, they are getting financial assistance, and that is one of the reasons that they have chosen–I mean, obviously, they cared and loved the children that were their foster children, but without financial assistance it was prohibitive to adopt and provide permanent homes for those children. So that is starting to happen. I think that is extremely positive for the children and for those foster parents that had wanted the security of being able to ensure that those children were not moved out of their homes.

Mr. Martindale: I was told that there would be families all over the province who would adopt immediately if adoption subsidies were available, and certainly the numbers from April 1 look good. I guess by the end of the year we will know whether that is actually true, if we see more families with long-term foster children applying for adoption.

I would like to ask some questions about support for foster parents. Foster parents tell me that they want hands-on advice by phone, that if there is not someone who can be there immediately who can make a difference, they would like to be able to consult someone by phone. They may need to talk about a crisis in a home or a crisis at school. They tell me that this probably is not needed for every family or every child, but it seems that there is a need for more expertise on an immediately available basis.

First of all, maybe the minister can tell me what is available now and where she thinks the gaps in service are.

Mrs. Mitchelson: From time to time, we have had calls from individual foster parents in my office too that have indicated that they have had difficulty finding answers from time to time. I think that is one of the reasons that the Winnipeg agency is looking to realign their supports on a functional basis, rather than on an area basis, so that they can focus and co-ordinate those activities and provide better support to foster parents. That, I think, could go some way to helping to recruit foster parents too. If in fact there is more support available for them when they have a crisis situation, then there is a better ability to possibly recruit and retain foster parents.

One of the successes, I think, we have achieved is through our Youth Emergency Crisis Stabilization System where we have seen great success in families being able to access service 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Foster parents are aware of this service and do utilize this service, so there is more. As well as the agency realigning their supports to try to focus in a better way, we have a 24-hour crisis stabilization system that can be accessed by phone by foster parents, as well as other parents or families that are having difficulty with their children.

Mr. Martindale: I am familiar with the crisis stabilization team, but I am wondering if currently there is help available for foster parents by phone.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess there is the 24-hour, after-hours services through the Winnipeg agency that is available to foster parents, but again the Youth Emergency Crisis Stabilization System is over and above that.

I indicated just in my last answer that it has been extremely successful in delivering service to families. I can just indicate that, in the year starting in March of 1998 to March of 1999, there were 3,552 requests for service received. Now, we do not have that broken down as to whether they would be foster parents or other family circumstances. When they anticipated that there would only be approximately 1,500 calls to the service, it was over double that, and 1,325 of those requests that came in were resolved over the telephone.

The Mobile Crisis Teams did 1,712 community visits. I have got more detail too if my honourable friend would be interested, but it is something that certainly has been successful. This is as a result of the closing down of Seven Oaks and moving services into the community in a more appropriate fashion to serve families and children in crisis. That is available too to foster parents, and they are aware of it. I do not have the breakdown in numbers on how many would have been foster parents versus other family circumstances.

Mr. Martindale: The Fifth Annual Report of the Children's Advocate 1997-98 comments on changes that have been made. For example, he says, and I quote, on page 8: "There has been no actual increase in the number of spaces available. In fact with the closure of Level 2 group homes in 1994/95 and the recent closure of Seven Oaks in 1997-98, the number of placement options has decreased significantly.

"There needs to be greater funding flexibility to allow for the opening of additional treatment spaces as the need exists as well as allowing for corresponding decreases or alternative programming as the treatment needs of children change."

We know that the Mobile Crisis Team is doing a lot of visits, but what has replaced Seven Oaks? I know there are a small number of beds at Marymound and I believe at Knowles, but where are children going for emergency placement, especially difficult children or children that need a lot of setting?

* (1540)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have to indicate that as a result of the crisis stabilization units there may not be more beds, but there certainly is capacity to serve more children because it is in a much more co-ordinated fashion. Seven Oaks experiences usually, in about a 12-month period, around 300 youth being served through the crisis stabilization units, the two units, one at Marymound and one at Macdonald Youth Services. We have served 692 children. It was a much more effective support network where children come in, are assessed. Treatment plans are developed and they are moved into those treatment plans or back home, whatever the case may be.

I would say that is a success. We have been able to serve over twice as many children through the two crisis stabilization units that have been set up. In addition to that with the placement desk within the department and us sort of monitoring and trying to ensure that kids get into the right treatment for the right reasons into all of our group homes, our treatment centres. We have had success in achieving better intervention and better services for children.

Mr. Martindale: When I have a problem, I phone Mr. Phil Goodman. Probably the minister does the same thing. He certainly tries to fix problems, that is his job. So he will know and you will know that parents phone from time to time and they say my child is in need of protection. In a couple of cases when I phoned Mr. Goodman, the parents were saying: My child is as risk. They are on the street. They are engaged in high risk activities, such as prostitution or drugs or both. We want them in a secure place.

They are running into all kinds of roadblocks because the agency will say: We are not going to pick them up because they will just go AWOL; there are no locked facilities. I have been told that some of even the supposedly locked facilities are not really locked facilities because the kid can walk out. It really depends on which facility we are talking about. It does seem that there is a problem here and part of the problem, it seems to me, is there has been nothing that has really replaced Seven Oaks, not that we want to reopen it. There were a lot of reports that recommended closing it. We supported those recommendations. I am wondering if the facilities at Marymound and Macdonald Youth Services have really taken its place. I think probably the minister has had similar calls from parents, and I am wondering what the appropriate facilities are for these individuals.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I know that we had certainly from time to time tried to work with my honourable friend around case-specific issues. They are not all easy. The issues are sometimes extremely complex. We certainly know that parents have considerable concern for some of their kids and the circumstances that they are in. Not always the issue of the facility or locked or unlocked, or the bed that is available, or sometimes issues around whether in fact we can convince kids to be a part of a treatment process and help them find some hope for a better future. I would love to say that we could have 100 percent success in achieving that. I think we try to work with families and children. We know that the older they get, sometimes the more difficult it is to find the answers and the solutions. I understand the issue and I know there is frustration with families and parents around these specific issues, but in many instances it has to be a matter of being able to convince a young person, and, as I said, the closer they get to the age of majority, the harder it is sometimes to find the right answer or the right solution, or expect that they will take advice on trying to change their lives and their lifestyle.

I guess what we are doing today in many instances is trying to ensure we have as few kids as possible in those circumstances in their teenage years. There is an issue around dealing with those that are there today, but there is an issue around trying to prevent children who are being born today from ending up in circumstances, at 17 and 18 sometimes where it seems like there is no hope, and that is all of the early intervention that we are putting in place today to try to ensure that kids are not there tomorrow.

I do not have an easy answer, and I know my honourable friend has been involved in some situations where he has worked with family. We have tried to put the resources in place for that family and for the individual circumstances surrounding some of those children, and we hope that we can try to have some impact. We do not always have or achieve success. I do not know whether there is an easy answer to any of this. I mean, I do not know if you might have any suggestions. I do not have any good answers, I suppose, for our ability not to be able to deal with absolutely every circumstance and situation, but I do not know what more I can say, except that we try. We try to ensure that the supports are there. We work with families. We try to work with kids to ensure that help is available for them and can strongly encourage them to take advantage of the supports that are there, but we do not always have success in achieving a positive end result.

* (1550)

Mr. Martindale: Well, I do not expect the minister to know the details of situations that I was involved in, but Mr. Goodman might recall that in one of them, an adolescent, was living in an independent living situation in a downtown area and the parents found that to be totally unacceptable. Surely there is a locked setting or a secure setting somewhere in the city that an adolescent would be safer and get some help rather than independent living.

The Children's Advocate, the former Children's Advocate commented on independent living. He said: Planning for independent living for older wards, and support after they have left care requires more attention. That is another issue, Mr. Chair.

Somewhere he commented on independent living. Well, maybe I did have the right paragraph: Too often this office has seen too many youth placed in independent living arrangements without the necessary skills to survive on their own. The minister will likely remember that last fall, specifically September 22, '98, CBC television did a story about independent living and apparently about 130 adolescents were in independent living at the time, spending city welfare money and trying to run their own lives. Mr. Govereau, the former Advocate, said: To expect a 16- and 17-year-old to live independently and function like an adult, I think is a mistake. He also said: Actually I think there should be frequent contact.

I am wondering if the minister can tell me how many children are currently in independent living. The minister, who was quoted in this news story, said: Some of these kids are falling through the cracks, but there are some kids that are not and are still out there floundering around. I am wondering if the minister can tell me what the current numbers are and whether this program has been reviewed since the province took responsibility for this caseload.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am just trying to get the issues straight around the definition of 16- and 17-year- olds that might be living independently. There are those that would be part of the child welfare system still because there would be some protection issues, and they would be permanent wards or temporary wards of the agency. There are some 16- and 17-year-olds that are considered emancipated youth. Those would be those that are maybe bucking the system, have decided or determined that home is not the place of option for them, but there are not any protection issues. They then become defined as emancipated youth, and they end up on our social assistance or employment and income assistance system. So there are the two different kinds. So independent living through the agency is a different issue from an emancipated youth who is a 16- and 17-year-old.

I am not sure what calls my honourable friend might be getting and from which group, if in fact they are emancipated youth and they are on our welfare system. The announcements that we made last week around welfare reform are announcements that will include 16- and 17-year-olds that are in our employment and income assistance system, and those youth will be required to go to school, to be training, to be working at community service in order to receive employment and income assistance support.

It is a strong encouragement if in fact they have just left home because they felt they could not get along with their parents, as we know youth tend to do from time to time; it encourages them to get back into school, to look for work aggressively or to do some community service. If in fact they are addicted, if they have an addictive problem, another announcement that was made last week was a requirement for them to go into some sort of addictions treatment in order to receive their assistance. So that should deal with those emancipated youth that are on our employment and income assistance system.

There may be parents that are not happy that their children are living in the kinds of circumstances my honourable friend mentioned. Of course, there is, then, the issue of those that are permanent or temporary wards of the agency that are set up in independent living by the agency. As we start to implement this program, we will certainly be working again with the agency to identify those youth or individuals that are in those circumstances and ensure that we are working aggressively to keep a connection to our education system, support them if they have addictions, problems with treatment, or apply some of the other rules that we would apply to 16- and 17-year-olds that are on our social allowance system.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): We will be back in five? [agreed]

________

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Will the committee come to order, please.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chair, I would like to go back to the Children's Advocate's report . On page 7, he talks about abuse and maltreatment of children in care. He says: "In an effort to address this problem, the Children's Advocate supported Colleen Suche's recommendation that an independent investigative body be created to investigate all allegations of abuse of children in care. Pending legislative amendments to The Child and Family Services Act will allow the Director to create such an independent body to do these investigations." I wonder if the minister could refresh my memory and tell me what investigative body was appointed and what it is called.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, our department has been working with a panel of experts in the field. We certainly have the capacity to do independent investigations and pull a panel together to make that happen should we need to. We are presently in the process of trying to figure out what criteria with these experts should be laid out so that we know which allegations we would investigate and which ones we would not. There are more serious allegations that come forward than others, and so we want to make sure that we investigate the ones that should be investigated independently.

So we could, if we needed, pull together a panel right now to do an independent investigation of allegations, but we are still working through the process of criteria around which ones we would investigate and which ones we would not.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I wonder if the minister could refresh my memory. Did this require amendments to The Child and Family Services Act? I do not recall those amendments.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the legislation amendment that was made was that there was a mandatory requirement to report to the director any allegations of abuse, but in fact we had the capacity before. We are now working on the criteria for what allegations would need to be investigated independently.

Mr. Martindale: The Advocate was concerned about the practice of licensing workers as foster parents, that is, I presume workers in the employment of Child and Family Services agencies. I am wondering if the minister shares this concern. He also points out that most of these workers are fostering special needs children.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, just as recently as about two and a half weeks ago, there was a memo that went out from our branch to all agencies asking for the existing policies and their thoughts on what an appropriate policy should look like. We do know in some instances that there might be extenuating circumstances where in special needs cases, a most appropriate placement might be with a staffperson from one of the agencies. I guess we need to know exactly what is happening today, how wide-spread it is within existing agencies, and what their thoughts might be on appropriate policy for us to be looking at across the board.

Mr. Martindale: On page 9, the Children's Advocate points out that children who are in care of an agency and are approved for special education funding at a particular school, should they move to a different school division, they no longer get that special funding. So I assume that they have to apply all over again, and that could be a long and maybe even a tedious process. I am wondering if there is some way in which this can be addressed for children who are in the care of an agency.

* (1630)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, as a result of these issues, and they have been very significant issues that have been pointed out to us, both my department and the Department of Education have met with superintendents of school divisions. The Deputy Minister of Education indicated very clearly that Level II and Level III funding was portable, that it should move with the child if the child moves to a different school division. That has been articulated to school divisions. Our department along with Education and Training has been working with it through the Children and Youth Secretariat on protocols between the education system and the Child and Family Services system around placements of children that are in care. So, we are attempting to address that issue, but the funding issue has been clearly articulated to the school divisions that that should be transferred from one division to another with the child.

Mr. Martindale: Also on page 9, the Children's Advocate points out that there are children in facilities such as Knowles, who could benefit from drug and alcohol addiction counselling, but they cannot get it because it is not available at those institutions. I wonder if the minister has followed up on this recommendation in any way. Would that require additional or new funding for organizations like Knowles to provide that service?

Mrs. Mitchelson: As a result of the Child Advocate's report and concerns, the department did meet with the Child Advocate, and there were many issues around Knowles that he wanted to discuss, the addictions programming being one of them. Knowles has just been in the process of hiring a new executive director. That new executive director is in place, and we are going to be undertaking a quality assurance review at Knowles to address more than one issue that the Child Advocate had raised around Knowles Centre.

I do want to indicate that through the Winnipeg Development Agreement we have the solvent abuse treatment and outreach through Rossbrook House and the Main Street Project. We have additional beds and capacity at the St. Norbert Foundation out at Southport. Through the AFM, there are five beds earmarked at Southport for child welfare kids for treatment.

The announcement that we made last week around addictions and our welfare reform has put more money into the system–I think it is $500,000–to establish more facilities for those with addictions. So we are moving in that direction, and the issues around Knowles and what they are doing will certainly be looked at. We will attempt to address it through the quality assurance review that we will be undertaking.

Mr. Martindale: Moving along in the Advocate's report to page 17 in the section where the minister has responded to previous recommendations of previous reports of the Children's Advocate, he had expressed in the past a concern about the need for training of foster parents, and pointed out that that training that was supposed to be delivered by agencies was either irregular or nonexistent. In the minister's response, it says that agencies have been provided with funds for foster parent training. I would like to ask the minister if this training is happening, if it is happening in all agencies, if it is happening on a consistent basis.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, my honourable friend is right when he indicates that my response has been that we provide resources to agencies to do training of foster parents, and I think it is 50 cents per child per day that is provided for training. He is right in saying that it has been on an ad hoc basis, and in some instances has been done better than others.

You know, I look to just the annual meeting that we were both at in Brandon and the number of foster parents that were there, and the number of long-term foster parents that receive awards in recognition for their commitment. I would sense that probably some agencies have been better than others at delivering foster parent training.

* (1640)

To try to resolve that issue of the inconsistencies, we have brought foster parents in to work with us on developing a training manual with common information and common ways to deal with training of foster parents. We do have a curriculum I think now for residential treatment and youth care workers that, in fact, I think could be adapted to foster parents. We are believing that at this point in time we will have some training manual that will be able to be used by this fall right across the province, so that there will be some consistent approach and there will be guidelines for agencies to use in training for foster parents.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, can the minister tell me how many foster children there are in Manitoba currently?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, there are just under 5,300 children in foster care.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if this is an accurate figure because my calculator has not been working with the high humidity, but 50 cents a day times 365 days a year times 5,000 odd foster children is $967,000 a year. We are talking about a very large sum of money. I knew about the 50 cents a day, but the complaint that I hear is that many agencies do not spend it on training foster parents. It seems to me that this is an accountability issue. If you are giving the money to these agencies, how can they not spend it on training foster parents? Have they been asked to do so, and if they do not, how do you ensure compliance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, my honourable friend is right when he says it is a significant amount of money. Then the question becomes why is it not being used for the purposes it was intended to be used. I think that some agencies have, and others have maybe, used it in more flexible ways than it was intended to be used. Therefore, I guess if we are expecting a consistent form of training across the province and we develop the training manual, then we will be able to hold agencies accountable for doing the training that is expected of them.

So it is an accountability issue. With the manual and some consistent approach and some consistent expectation, hopefully we will achieve better results.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to say that I would like to follow up in Estimates next year and see if the government followed through, but maybe you can follow up in Estimates next year and see if the next government follows through.

Another recommendation of the Children's Advocate on page 12, I guess from a previous report, is that an external evaluation be undertaken on the role and function of the Child and Family Support branch with the intent being to ensure (a) more effective leadership and vision is provided to the system; (b) more effective utilization of professional staffing resources in regard to the program and developmental needs of agencies; (c) that less energy is spent on serving political and bureaucratic requirements; (d) that it has the capacity and ability to design and implement programs and policies which are based on the needs of children and families; and (e) is more proactive and less crisis oriented when it comes to addressing the needs and issues within the system. In addition, the relationship and program accountability between the support branch and First Nations agencies needs to be addressed.

Now, Mr. Chairperson, in the response to the Children's Advocate, the minister said that the branch had been reorganized. The Advocate had recommended an external evaluation. I am wondering if the minister can tell me why an external evaluation was not done?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I have some significantly positive answers to that question. I know since the Advocate called for this kind of review there has been significant external inclusion in the branch of, I think, very qualified people with the leadership and the vision to make some of the significant changes and lead to the reorganization which I think I indicated earlier has received some positive feedback from the field. We have certainly attempted to make the branch much more user friendly, service friendly, to the agencies that we serve and to the families that request support from our branch. So I would like to think that the leadership and direction within the branch has allowed us to develop the kind of reorganization that has taken place that I think has achieved positive results. So we will have to wait and see.

* (1650)

I would hope that next year when my honourable friend is asking questions about this branch that we will continue to see the kind of positive working relationships. There certainly has been good dialogue and discussion with the branch and native agencies. I think we have seen significant advances in arrangements with mandated native agencies that are doing good work within the province. So we will continue to work and strive towards better agency relationships within the branch and continue to look at ensuring that there is compliance with the standards and with the expectations that we place on agencies to deliver the service.

So I am pleased. I think that we are moving in the right direction. My sense, from discussions with those that I deal with on a regular basis, is that things are improving. We will continue to work towards that.

Mr. Martindale: I hope that next year if I am not answering the question that there is at least a critic shuffle. On a more serious note–we are getting into the silly season, June, July. I do not think we will be here in August.

Obviously the minister ignored the recommendation for an external evaluation. We know that this is the political arm of this minister's department. These are the people that write the minister's briefing notes and respond to crises and issues raised in Question Period, very valuable functions, I am sure, for any minister. The Advocate was suggesting that they be less crisis focused and more proactive, among other things, which I already read into the record. I am wondering if the minister can give me concrete examples of how she is implementing the recommendations of the Children's Advocate other than the one about an external evaluation and whether any new initiatives have achieved any goals or any of these recommendations of the Children's Advocate.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am not sure whether we have enough time left today to talk about all the positive things that have been happening in the branch. I take some offence to my honourable friend's comments around the branch being the political arm of our government. I take some exception. In our department, quite frankly, one of the tasks that those who work in the bureaucracy and good civil servants have to undertake is to ensure that ministers are informed on the issues and dealing with the issues in an appropriate fashion.

So I would say that that would be the strength of a good civil service to be able to ensure that issues are dealt with in an appropriate fashion, that if in fact there is an issue that comes up and there is a family that is in distress or needing some support or feeling that they are not getting service from whatever system is working or supposed to be working for them, those within this branch would respond and ensure that we have satisfied those citizens of Manitoba who feel in some crisis situation for whatever circumstance. I would say that would be the trait or what I would want and what I do receive from the civil service in the Department of Family Services. I believe that those who work within the bureaucracy of the Department of Family Services are second to none. So I want to make that comment.

I think that the issues that we deal with in Family Services and especially in Child and Family Services are issues that–you know, I do not find people working in this area, whether it be out in the community or within government, that do not have a serious commitment to wanting to make things better for children and families. I know that those who work on behalf of our government in this branch are working towards that end goal of trying to ensure that children are protected, that children are put first. The policy development and the direction that we have taken over the last number of years, six years, that I have been in this department I think, have led to a better system.

We have people who have worked very hard on trying to develop new standards, more user-friendly standards, so that we can provide a better level of service to children and families in need. We have gone through a very extensive process of doing a significant review of our Child and Family Services Act, introducing new legislation on an adoption act, making significant amendments to The Child and Family Services Act, and it is the staff in the department who are responsible for ensuring that the regulations are developed according to the law and that the community is consulted before that legislation is proclaimed. That is a significant undertaking. It was extremely time consuming, but I think it was important, and I am sure my honourable friend would agree that we need to consult with the community and those who will be working with the legislation to ensure that we are putting the very best regulations in place and that we are achieving the best success from the changes that were made.

When I look at the Youth Emergency Crisis Stabilization System and the closure of Seven Oaks Centre, which, I think, all of us have agreed was a very inappropriate holding tank for kids who were not receiving any treatment or support or service into an updated system.

I indicated earlier some of the positive statistics around the success of the Youth Emergency Crisis Stabilization System. This does not happen without significant co-ordination and significant working together with the community and those who work with families and children providing input into what needs to happen and having the leadership within the department to identify what some of the best ideas are and pull that all together and work with the community to assure that we develop a system. I mean, I think it is creative, it is innovative, it is community-based and it is serving more families.

So I am extremely pleased and proud, but it does take a significant amount of energy and effort and working together with the community and also recommending to government, whatever government that might be, a new approach to better deliver services to children and families in need.

So I think that that has been a significant undertaking, and I certainly commend those who were involved in doing this, when we talk about the placement desk that has been developed in the branch to try to co-ordinate and ensure that the right treatment facilities and the right treatment is provided for those most in need and ensuring that the beds are there and available. That kids are moving through those beds and getting the appropriate support and treatment is certainly, again, a significant undertaking of co-ordination of service.

* (1700)

I know that we have worked with the branch, with Regional Operations, which delivers Child and Family Services in Thompson and with the Awasis Agency, and they now have a joint office, so we have the mandated native agency and our Regional Operations that deliver child and family services in the North working together and co-operating together. When I look at the family group conferencing model that has been developed–and I know my honourable friend has been part of that process with a family that he had some concern with in his community that he was trying to help.

I think that those are new initiatives. They are initiatives that are trying to work with families, trying to fix families that might be in crisis, and, I mean, I could go on and on. I do want to indicate that there has been a significant change in direction. I think some of the initiatives have been bold, and I believe from the results–and we are monitoring–especially with our Youth Emergency Crisis Stabilization System, that families are being better served. They are being served in a more co-ordinated approach, and it is in no small part due to the quality of the staff who work within the branch of our Child and Family Services system within government. So I do not think that we need an external evaluation to tell us that we are doing better.

I know that the community is telling us we are doing better, and we are engaging community in the solutions. I could go back to the family's first document that was distributed and the community consultation that we had to try to develop some of the new approaches. You know, we are a government that does believe that community, neighbourhoods and families certainly have good suggestions and ideas on how they can build stronger communities, stronger neighbourhoods, and, as an end result, we have stronger families. When the community comes up with the ideas and the solutions, government needs to be there to try to support those, and in every instance we have to evaluate those proposals that come from the community, work with community sometimes to help develop them a little further and then ultimately determine what direction we are going to take or what funding is going to go where.

I would venture to guess that through a lot of the community initiatives that we have undertaken we will see less need for the kinds of interventions and support that we need through our Child and Family Services system into the future, but the issue becomes what do we do with those who are already in the system or needing support or in some instances families that have felt that maybe the Child and Family Services system is not necessarily the direction they would like to go, but they are having a bit of difficulty or are in a bit of a crisis situation or circumstance with teenagers.

We all know that those are very difficult years. You might have a very supportive family, but you might have a family that is sort of headed for disaster or things are starting to fall apart. We know that the Youth Emergency Crisis Stabilization System sometimes, and it seems like very often, is able to support and help families through those crises, is able to go out and physically provide in-home support, is able in many instances to help find the appropriate placement if there is a need for some sort of temporary placement while they work with the families to try to make them healthier, and that does prevent the necessity, possibly, for intervention from the Child and Family Services system or maybe from the Justice system.

So we have worked aggressively. I think the key to some of the successes we have achieved and the way we will continue to operate is including community in the discussions and the dialogue around how we can better provide service and listening, and when people make suggestions or ideas that might take a different approach but could work, I think we have to listen and we have to then try to develop and find the resources within the branch to either redirect or supplement support to those community initiatives.

I am not a member of a government that believes that we have the answers to make families healthy, and I do not want to have to be the parent or have responsibility for children if we can build the tools and the capacity within families and community to make that happen. So that is the direction and the focus we are taking. We really have a group of individuals who are visionary and forward-thinking and first and foremost wanting to work with those in the community who understand and know the issues and can help us develop the initiatives and the actions that can lead us to happier families.

We know that parents have the first and foremost responsibility for their children. We want to strengthen that focus. We want to be able to put the tools in the hands of parents, if we can, to ensure that they are able to perform that primary parenting responsibility, but we do not want to take over. We do not want to be big brother interfering or intervening in families unless we have to. We want to be able to support families and build families, build family capacity, community capacity, in order to make families stronger. Ultimately, that will make our province stronger, and it will mean less need for some of the interventions that we see are needed today.

So I just wanted to share that because I really believe that good civil servants really do support government's ability to recognize what needs to happen to make concrete and good suggestions around policy direction or change in policy direction, and then it takes that kind of team approach which I think we have developed in the Department of Family Services over the last six years. God knows, there are many sleepless nights because the issues that we deal with are not easy issues to deal with.

I suppose that those out there working on the frontlines within the agencies experience significant heartache and certainly want to be able to help where they can. So how then do we sort of build the partnerships, too, and the relationships that ensure that all of us, whether you are a frontline worker in a mandated agency, whether you are a community organization, a nonprofit that is just there to try to help families, whether you are working within the bureaucracy of the branch of Child and Family Services, how do we find the ability to better work together putting all of our focus around children first, trying to ensure that the child does come first in any decision that is made around the support and treatment.

I believe we are moving in the right direction. It is not a system that we will ever be able to fix overnight. There are no quick fixes or easy answers. It is a matter of taking one step forward at a time, recognizing where our successes are and building upon those, but also recognizing that there may be some things that are not working and some weaknesses within the system. I guess we need to have the courage to know what is not working, admit where some of the failures are, learn from our positive experiences, and hopefully fix the areas that need fixing.

* (1710)

So I just felt I had to put that on the record, because there is not any one piece of the system that can work in isolation of the others, and I think we have developed an ability to work better with community, and better with mandated agencies, to try to ensure that children and families are healthier as a result. So I will end there and see if my honourable friend has any comments, but we will continue to try to improve the circumstances for families in our community.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, well, I think the minister with her illustrations was trying to justify herself, but I think she was proving the case that I was trying to make, and that is the Children's Advocate said that less energy needs to be spent on political and bureaucratic requirements, and the branch needs to be less crisis-oriented and more proactive. So I guess I am never going to know whether there has been a change in emphasis in this department, because the minister is not going to tell me. But if there is more emphasis on developing new programs and ideas such as the Mobile Crisis Team and family group conferencing, just to use two examples that the minister used, then the branch is being more proactive and is implementing the recommendations of the Children's Advocate. I rest my case.

Going back to the Estimates book page 62. One of the functions of the department–

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Excuse me, I need unanimous consent of the committee to revert back. Or this is an accompanying book?

Mr. Martindale: I am still on 9.4.(a).

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): I understand. I am sorry. I did not see you referring to the Supplementary document.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I probably could not sneak anything past the minister, but I might try and sneak something past the Chair.

I would like to ask the minister about one of the functions of this part of the department. It says: continued co-ordination and delivery of Competency-Based Training within the Child and Family Services system. I would be interested in knowing how much was spent on this in the past year or the past fiscal year.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The budget for Competency-Based Training last year, this is what happened last year. The budget was $162,000. That would include development of curricula, co-ordination of materials and schedules, training of trainers, training of front-line staff, supervisors, and youth care workers.

Mr. Martindale: I am wondering, under Competency-Based Training, if the minister can tell me how much money has been spent for trainers, if there have been contracts to hire people outside the department, if there has been any kind of evaluation.

* (1720)

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have, yes, contracted with external trainers. Certainly part of what we attempt to do is have trainers trained within so that we have the capacity within to do training, but I cannot give my honourable friend a breakdown today. It would take some work to do that. It might take a few days to do that, so I could undertake to get that information to him, but I do not have it today.

Mr. Martindale: If the minister can take that as notice and bring me the answer on Monday, that would be fine.

I would be interested in knowing how much was spent on contracts, and with whom. I do not imagine that I will get a copy of the contract, but if I could find out who it was with and how much for. Also, if there has been an evaluation, and has Competency-Based Training made a difference? Is it effective?

I guess I will ask the minister to take those questions as notice as well.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Item 9.4. Child and Family Services (a) Child, Family and Community Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $3,301,700–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $3,609,100–pass; (3) Maintenance of Children and External Agencies $122,225,700–pass; (4) The Family Support Innovations Fund $2,500,000–pass.

9.4.(b) Family Conciliation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Martindale: I do not have any questions for Family Conciliation or Family Violence Prevention today, but either my colleague or myself may on Monday.

Under Children's Special Services, I have no questions, but I do have a comment. I would like to compliment the very hardworking civil servant–well, I know all of your civil servants are hardworking–but I appreciate the help that I have received from the director of Children's Special Services. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I have some questions on Day Care–

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is fine. We can wait until Monday for those lines, but I just had a bit of information that my honourable friend had asked for previously, I think yesterday even, and I wanted to provide that now. He had asked for a copy of a letter that we sent out to those service providers for people with mental disabilities. I just wanted to table a copy of that letter that was sent out to them.

He had also asked whether I had any knowledge or information about day services programming for adults with a mental disability on seclusion of individuals in small rooms. Our department does not endorse or condone seclusion as an acceptable practice. We are not aware as a department of that kind of activity being undertaken, but if, in fact, my honourable friend has an issue or any information that might indicate that someone has been undertaking this kind of practice, if he wanted to share it with us on a confidential basis or whatever, we would certainly investigate and ensure that the practice was stopped.

Also, my honourable friend asked about the Open Access Resource Centre and whether, in fact, it had closed. I had indicated that the Child and Youth Secretariat had been working with them, and, indeed, transitional funding was approved for $30,000 to ensure they could keep their doors open. So they are open and operating.

And for weekend reading we have the Research into Community Support Options for Adults with a Mental Disability. This was the final report, the project group report, I guess, that my honourable friend asked for, and we have copies. Unless my memory is failing, I seem to recall having provided this information for my honourable friend before, but it is here again, and maybe it is the nature of the document and the size of the document but I will table it and provide it. I think that was everything or most of the things we had been asked for.

Another question that had been asked was is Taking Charge! funding adult literacy, and the answer to that is yes.

Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for getting back to me on those items. Regarding the practice of seclusion, I will check my source and see if I can verify it, but I am certainly happy to hear that it is not department policy or it is totally against department policy. On this report, I will read this one and look to see if I actually have one on my shelf somewhere.

On the issue of Taking Charge!, I was aware that they do have an adult literacy program. I was concerned about their ongoing funding and whether the literacy programs under Taking Charge! are going to continue, but maybe the minister can get back to me on that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is my understanding that they will continue. I will get back to my honourable friend if there is anything different to report. I know my honourable friend had indicated that he did not have any questions for Children's Special Services. Does he want to pass that line? I guess I would like to just seek some clarification because there is the issue of having staff here and waiting. I mean, I know there might not be questions today, but is there a need to have staff available next week?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Order, please. As Chair, I would like clarification in this regard as well. As has been the practice of this section of the Committee of Supply, we have been considering line by line. Are you, in fact, requesting to skip ahead in order to pass, or are you asking for leave to discuss the Child and Family Services section in a holistic way, concentrating then on Child Day Care?

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, eventually we will pass it line by line, but there is no need for the staff from Children's Special Services to stick around today or Monday. There will be no more questions on that section.

* (1730)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): So it has been clarified that your intention is to discuss Child Day Care and pass the lines after the conclusion of those questions, or are you asking this committee to consider a discussion of that area?

Mr. Martindale: I have some questions from now until six on Child Day Care. On Monday, we may go back to the other two departments. I indicated that my colleague the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) may have questions on Family Conciliation and Family Violence Prevention.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): So, therefore, for clarification, the Child Day Care discussions will not be for the intent to pass the lines at the conclusion of those–[interjection] Then, because of the past practice of discussion line by line, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to skip ahead. [agreed]

Mr. Martindale: I know this minister is flexible, and that is why I am taking advantage of this.

The minister will know that I received many copies of letters from child daycare workers, and so did the minister. Probably the minister was on the receiving end of some lobbying from the Manitoba Child Care Association, as was I, so the minister will be well aware of these issues.

The gist of many of the letters that I received has to do with wages, as the minister knows. For example, many of the letters say, and I quote: as an advocate for quality early childhood education for children, I am gravely concerned that Manitoba's child care system is teetering on the verge of an employment crisis.

The letters go on to say: many child care centres are experiencing great difficulty in recruiting and keeping qualified staff. Our child care workforce is solely depleted. Children are hurt by this turnover in their caregivers. The only way to bring back the many early childhood educators who have left the field and encourage new caregivers to commit to this field is through definitive action which will finally allow a living wage to be earned by ECEs.

Now, the minister will know that these letters were received before the budget came down, but the budget did not really do enough in the opinion of the people who are writing to us. For example, in the May 1998 newsletter of the Manitoba Child Care Association, they talk about wages. They are pleased that some of the money has gone into a new system of funding by units, but they believe that the funding for child care workers is still inadequate in order to keep people in this profession and to attract new people to this profession. Because of low wages, people with this kind of post-secondary education are able to work in other areas at higher wages, and that has an effect on the ability of child care centres to advertise and get workers and to keep workers.

I think the proof that there are serious problems is in the list that the minister sent to me of child care facilities with provisional licences and exemptions to the proportion of trained staff. The lists are actually quite long. For example, the full-time and school-age Winnipeg centres with exemptions/extensions to the proportion of trained staff required are listed, and there are 84 facilities, and 34 of them could not recruit trained staff. The full-time and school-age centres outside Winnipeg with exemptions/extensions to the proportion of trained staff are listed, a total of 36 facilities, and 21 could not recruit trained staff.

The Winnipeg nursery schools with exemptions/extensions to the proportion of trained staff are listed. There were nine facilities and four could not recruit trained staff. The nursery schools outside of Winnipeg with exemptions/extensions to the proportion of trained staff are listed. There are 36 facilities and 34 could not recruit trained staff.

So I would like to ask the minister what she is going to do about this problem of wages, which are considered inadequate, in order to attract people to this profession and to keep people in this profession, because it seems to be getting worse, and there is a serious problem here that affects dozens if not hundreds of child care centres in Manitoba. So I would like to ask the minister if she thinks the budget addressed this in any way, which I do not think it did, and what she is planning to do in a positive way to address this very serious problem.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the whole issue of recruitment and retainment of staff within the child care system is an issue, more in some areas and some centres than others, but this is not an issue that is unique in child care. We had significant discussion yesterday on the whole issue of recruitment and retainment of staff within the area of support services to those with mental disabilities, and there is an issue there, too.

I recognize it is an issue. Did we address it completely in this year's budget? No, we did not. We have been working, I would have to say very co-operatively, with the child care community over the last four years or so in trying to identify issues and see whether together we could come up with some answers and some solutions.

* (1740)

First of all, we had one of my colleagues Marcel Laurendeau travel throughout the province doing a fact-finding mission on child care, had an opportunity to visit with many child care providers and parents throughout the province who made recommendations and suggestions on how we could better provide child care service and what the needs were. As a result of that fact-finding mission, I think we have been able to make some significant positive changes in the way we support child care and in the increase in support by the number of increased spaces, by the increased number of subsidized spaces, by moving away from the cases and spaces to spaces, by funding the unfunded and the pilot spaces. So we have made significant strides to address a lot of the issues that were raised.

We recognize the need for more spaces, we recognize the need for flexibility and we are moving towards addressing the issues that have been raised. One of the vehicles that we have used to try to address those issues is the regulatory review committee. I think it has been a very positive process where we have again staff from the department working with those who work in the field and parents to see how we can better meet the needs of working families through our child care system and ensure that those who are within the system are being treated in a fair and reasonable manner.

Of course, one of the issues I think that has been long standing is the whole issue of salaries. We moved from different types of grants to one operating grant several years ago within the child care system, and we still believe that that is the right way to go, that grants are provided and then boards of directors who very often are comprised of parents that have children going to those facilities are ultimately the decision makers on how those grants will be allocated, certainly, I am sure, with advice from those who work within the system, the directors of the child care facilities.

I hear from some facilities that they are able to manage well and that they have the appropriate numbers of qualified and trained staff and that they are able to pay their workers what they think is a fair and reasonable salary, and then I hear other instances where that just is not achievable. I think there are some issues that complicate the matter. I mean we know that there are different rents that are paid by facilities. Some school divisions have policies that are extremely different from other school divisions around the cost of having child care facilities in our schools. We do know that those that are not on school property pay varying rates of rent for their facilities. We do know that in some areas there is an increased ability to do fundraising to support the child care facility and the activities that are ongoing so that the grant can maybe be used in different ways or can pay higher salaries.

So there are some inconsistencies within the system that do create some of the inequities and maybe inhibit some centres from being able to pay an adequate salary to recruit and retain. We do know that the issues of course in rural Manitoba are sometimes a little more complicated by distance and space and availability of trained workers or those that are interested in training to work in this field.

So there is no one answer I guess to all of the issues, but one of the things that the regulatory review committee has done and has recommended is a unit-funding model that takes into consideration a different configuration of how we fund units, whether they be infant units or preschool units or school-aged units. There has been a concern, and it has been expressed at the regulatory review or through that process by those who are working in the field that there are some inequities. Of course, the cost of delivering service for infant care is higher and that we are not really reflecting in our grant or funding model those realities. So in some instances those that are running school-aged programs, if they are strictly school-aged, would be significantly better off than those who are running combined programs or have a lot of infant spaces or preschool spaces.

So I think there was fairly unanimous consent that we needed to move toward a more equitable distribution of resources between the different types of child care that are provided. We believe that is the right concept and the right direction. I think we have endorsed that and we have taken a step, although it may be a small step, in that direction in this year's budget. So we have given recognition to the child care community that we endorse that direction and that as resources permit, we will be able to try to achieve some equity within that process.

We also have put significant new dollars into more spaces, into flexibility and into rural child care, and there certainly is a need. I know that there has been from some areas some criticism of expanded resources or more resources into rural Manitoba, and I make no apologies for that. I think that it is needed, it is required and we have to try to find a balance between what we can realistically do in trying to ensure that spaces are there for people who need those spaces and the recruitment and retainment issue and the salaries that are there.

I did indicate that there are some that are able to recruit and retain and there are some, because of varying circumstances, that are able to pay more than others. The boards ultimately do make the decision on what the salaries will be. Of course they have to live within their budget and within their means, so sometimes there is a little less money to go around than in other cases. But ultimately the boards do make that decision.

So I know that early childhood educators are writing to their boards and requesting that the additional resources that have been provided to the operating grants this year be put first and foremost into salaries. That is ultimately a decision that the board will have to make. But I know that they are making their case.

I might like my honourable friend's comments on this. Part of the move to unit funding was a sort of increase in grants and sort of redistribution of grants ensuring that infant care received a greater support and recognition. Then of course preschool would be the next area. There is still an inequity. I mean, if you look at the units, school age is still funded higher per unit than infant and preschool, but we did not increase the grants for the school-age piece as we increased the grants for the preschool and the infant spaces. Hopefully we will get a better balance and more equity.

The one issue that the regulatory review committee had talked about was in order to bring things into balance that we should increase parent fees also. That might have gone a long way towards creating more of an equity and more ability for centres to pay staff more. But I guess I am not prepared to increase parent fees. So that was a piece of the equation and part of the recommendation that I did not accept or did not approve.

Anyway, I just wanted to indicate that there are a lot of issues that need to be balanced and looked at. I do want to indicate that we do believe in the concept of unit funding and trying to ensure that the appropriate resources are there for the different units of service. I also do want to indicate that we tried to balance the need for more spaces within the system with an increase in trying to change the imbalance and provide some additional money in the grants that would allow boards to make decisions on whether they could increase salaries or not.

Now, as I indicated, it was not enough to address the issue. But again these are issues that we need to continue to look at and continue to address. I felt we did as much as we could in this year's budget with, I mean, over a $5-million increase in our daycare budget and line to try to ensure that first and foremost the spaces are there, the encouragement of flexibility to try to meet parents' needs.

The issue of salaries is one that we have to continue to look at. We have not fixed the problem, but we recognize it as an issue. As resources permit, we will move towards more equity within the system and more ability, through grant funding, for centres to pay their staff in a way that they can recruit and retain.

With those comments, I will see whether there is–I would not mind my honourable friend commenting on whether he or his party might agree with increasing parent fees in order to have the ability to pay early childhood educators higher salaries.

* (1750)

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, earlier I was going to read into the record some comments from the MCCA news bulletin, but it said May 1998. So I thought that would not be appropriate. However, it is a mistake and it is actually the May 1999 bulletin. So I am going to read it into the record.

Here are some of the things that they say, and I quote: but MCCA is very disappointed that the funding announcement does not enable the majority of the workforce to receive the kind of wage increase we had recommended. Dollars that should have gone toward your wage increase–this is speaking to their members–went into funding for new spaces in rural Manitoba, increased dollars for the integration of children with special needs, and money for flexible child care. The new spaces in centre-based care will require trained caregivers. However, we know there are not enough ECEs available to staff the existing facilities.

They also say, you anxiously await graduation day, hoping you can hire an ECE II or III to add to your staffing pool only to find out that the students all have jobs already and that some have already decided to leave the field without even working first. You hear enrollment numbers are down at all the college and university ECE programs. Are you surprised? Would you encourage your son or daughter to go into daycare?

Directors and board members can be encouraged to prioritize you, the caregiver, and put these extra dollars toward staff salaries. How much to ask for? MCCA's provincial salary scale Phase 1 gives a starting point for realistic expectations. The Minister of Family Services, the Honourable Bonnie Mitchelson, has acknowledged our scale to be reasonable and modest. We are of the belief that nothing short of significant increases and the abilities of centres to pay adequate salaries will affect a turnaround in the situation.

The average starting wage for an ECE II-III with a diploma or degree, employed in centre-based care, is $19,801. Whether they work in a centre, nursery school or family child care home, caregivers are among the lowest paid workers in Manitoba. New money available for the Children with Disabilities Program for rural child care, flexible hours child care and government's other programs such as EarlyStart will further deplete our child care workforce.

So those are the views of MCCA. I think they are disappointed with what has happened, and I guess one could argue that there is a philosophical difference, both in community living and in child care, about whether new money, since both parts of the program got new money, should be spent on expanding the system and accommodating more individuals, or whether you should go into the existing system in order to pay higher wages. I think MCCA is arguing that it should go into the existing system in order to compensate people adequately for their work because it is harder and harder for centres to advertise and attract workers. They are saying that it does not make sense to expand the system when you cannot get workers in the existing system.

Interestingly, the child care professionals have often compared their wages to workers in zoos. So somebody provided me with a clipping of a job description for a worker in a zoo, which, of course, has the wages on it. I believe the comparison is not a very flattering one because zoo workers get higher wages, but I am not sure what their level of qualifications is. I just read the wage. Perhaps I will find it and read it into the record on Monday.

Here we go: "Zoo Keeper. WorkFaces. A weekly look at who does what job in Manitoba." Here is a zoo keeper at Assiniboine Park Zoo. Salary range: $13.76 to $17.34 an hour, which, I presume, since it has been passed on to me, is higher than the hourly wage for child care workers.

So we know that people are disappointed with this minister and how she divided up the funding. I guess the minister has her rationale for it. Part of it came out of recommendations from the review committee, the ongoing committee, but part of it was the minister's decision. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have to say that what our government has tried to do certainly is take a balanced approach between the needs of those families that require and need child care support so that they can train or enter the workforce, and the needs of early childhood educators. I indicated earlier in my answer that this was a step in the right direction with this year's budget, that we endorsed the model of unit funding, and I think they readily admit that. They are disappointed that there was not more, but the reality is that we have had to try to balance our approach. I would have to ask my honourable friend whether–one of the recommendations, too, was that we do raise parent fees, and I still have not heard my honourable friend comment on what his policy might be, or his party's policy might be. I do know that he is advocating on behalf of early childhood educators, and he is advocating on behalf of those that work in support services for those with mental disabilities. Quite frankly, I have advocated and was able to get additional resources in both of those areas. Is it enough? I would say, no, it is not enough, but it was as far as we could go this year.

We will continue to look at those issues as resources permit in successive budgets, but there is the old issue that you can have it both ways in opposition, that you can advocate and say, yes, we support this direction, we support higher salaries. I am not saying we do not, as a government. But is my honourable friend telling me he can fix it overnight in one budget? Is he telling us how much that might cost? Is he telling us where he might take that money from? We need to know whether he believes in balanced budgets and paying down the debt and having a little bit in reserve for times of emergency, like, again, we are saying this year with the flooding in southwestern Manitoba. There are forest fires burning, as we speak; hard to believe, but they are. These are crisis issues where there needs to be a bit of money in reserve, if you have a balanced budget, to deal with these issues.

Then comes the dilemma. What do you do? Do you raise taxes to generate more revenue, or do you cut some money out of the health care budget to put money into salaries in the child care area? Again, I am saying that I do not deny there needs to be some improvement, and we need to find a way to find the additional resources to balance the need for more service, which we are seeing in both services for the mentally disabled and child care, and compensating and remunerating people so they will stay in that field.

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