Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply will resume the consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat, leave had been granted to skip ahead and ask questions on line 9.4. Child and Family Services (e) Child Day Care (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 69 of the Estimates book. Is this still the will of the committee?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I was just wondering, Mr. Chairperson, there was a question asked last time on competency-based training and if I might answer that before we get started.

Mr. Chairperson: Proceed.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think the question was: what were the expenditures on Competency-Based Training, and how much of that was contracted? The 1998-99 actual expenditures were $162,000. The contracts were $135,800, and other facilitation costs were $26,200. I guess there were several contracts with external organizations for that training: the Institute for Human Services, supervisory core training; the Institute for Human Services, core training; Project Neechewam, managed delivery of youth care worker training; MARTR, Competency-Based Training; Winnipeg Child and Family Services, Competency-Based Training; Southeast Child and Family Services, Competency-Based Training; and five individuals delivered Core 101 to 103 training in curriculum development. I do have a copy of the Manitoba Competency-Based In-Service Training program that I could table.

Another question was: are there evaluations done? Evaluations are done by each participant in the Competency-Based Training programs.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, in answer to your question, we would like to revert to 9.4.(b) and go through the rest of the Estimates sequentially.

Mr. Chairperson: 9.4. Child and Family Services (b) Family Conciliation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $789,800–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $103,100–pass.

9.4.(c) Family Violence Prevention (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

* (1450)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I wanted to ask a few questions on Family Prevention. I was just looking at Salaries and Employee Benefits, and I notice that in the Professional/Technical category, although there is not any increases in numbers, there is a huge increase in wages. Whilst I am always a supporter of higher wages, $148,000 does seem a little steep, and I wonder if the minister could explain that to me, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Those were three unfunded positions from last year that were put in place after the Lavoie inquiry and the implementation of the Lavoie inquiry. So there are three additional positions as a result of Lavoie, and they were not in last year's budget because Lavoie came in sort of partway through. So they are funded now.

Ms. McGifford: I wonder then if it is possible to have more information about those three positions and the costs of those positions. I wonder if there is a report or if there is a breakdown. We would be very interested in seeing it.

Mrs. Mitchelson: These are civil service positions at the PM2 level category. They are basically people who are doing more work with external agencies that are funded, and case management. They are helping to develop standards. They are assisting with budget preparation and monitoring with external agencies, responsible for working to put in place their service purchase agreements. One of the staff is working specifically in the area of identifying the gaps in services that we have the additional money for and developing principles based on the Lavoie recommendations.

As we have increased funding in this area, there are more programs and more services that are available, and, basically, they are community agencies that we are funding. They have asked, too, for more access to the branch and more help from time to time, so we are able to provide that kind of support with the additional staff resources.

Ms. McGifford: Then, if I understand the minister correctly, since these positions are primarily related to the implementation of the recommendations of Justice Schulman's inquiry, these positions will not be continued positions.

Mrs. Mitchelson: These are intended to be permanent staff years that have been added to the branch. External agencies have been asking. There have been community meetings where the community has asked for more support from the branch. Although there is implementation of the Lavoie recommendations, many of those will be working with the external agencies on a more intensive basis, and we are not anticipating that there is any short-term quick fix. We want to continue to improve our programming.

As we have seen, I guess over the passage of time, when, I would say, virtually 15 years ago, there was not any support within government for domestic violence issues, we, today, see a significant increase, a 300 percent increase in this budget line since we came to government, and I know that as issues are identified we will continue to try to meet the needs based on what we are being told is happening in the community.

So I anticipate that this will be an area of ongoing challenge and support will certainly be needed, and I believe we need to have the staff complement in this area to ensure that we are putting the right amount of focus in the area of domestic violence in trying to ensure that our programs are being evaluated, that we are working with community, and as ideas and suggestions come forward that we review those ideas and continue to have our programs evolve in this area to meet the needs of the community. So my sense is that these jobs will be there on a permanent basis for a long time to come.

* (1500)

Ms. McGifford: Since these positions are intended to be there on a long-term basis, perhaps even permanent, I am not clear why they are not included under the FTE line.

Mrs. Mitchelson: They are in fact included in the FTEs. It is a total of 10. I have just been trying to figure this out, too. If you looked at last year's Estimates, the FTEs would have showed seven. It shows 10 because as of March 31, 1999, there were 10 staff working in that area. We only had the budget for seven in last year's budget. Halfway through the year we hired three new staff positions, but we did not have any money for them. We had to find the money within the Department of Family Services to fund their positions from when they were hired till the end of the fiscal year. But they were there, and this estimate of expenditure for 1998-99 shows 10. I find this rather confusing, too, but it shows 10, and it is reflected in the FTEs for 1999-2000.

Ms. McGifford: Then let me just get this straight. The reason for the increase in salary, then, is that these three positions will this year work for the whole fiscal year full time whereas the year before those positions started only halfway into the year. Were they full time halfway into the year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, they were full-time positions partway into the year, but there was no money budgeted last year for those salaries because they were new staff years that came onboard partway through the year.

Ms. McGifford: So then is the minister saying that the 190.8 does not include any salary for those positions?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is correct.

Ms. McGifford: I wanted to ask, I suppose a similar question about external agencies. First of all, let me ask: External Agencies, is this the grant line to organizations that the Family Violence Prevention funds?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, it is.

Ms. McGifford: And I notice then that the amount of money has increased, I guess, about $800,000 approximately, and that this is related to the implementation of Justice Schulman's inquiry, recommendations from that inquiry.

I wonder then if the minister could tell me whether this money would be to new agencies, to programs within standing agencies, or both.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is for both new and existing agencies.

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister could table the list to external agencies, the grant list for '99-2000.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we did give it to the critic, and I think it is broken down by division. We maybe could get a copy. We will see if we have an extra copy right here, and I will just table it.

Ms. McGifford: Thank you. I will look forward to seeing that list.

I wanted to turn to a different matter and that is to safety within shelters. The minister might remember that she and I have corresponded on this question. I think it was last year in Estimates that we asked some questions arising from the terrible occurrence in Dauphin. I am sure the minister is aware that about a week ago, 10 days ago, there was a murder in Quebec where a man invaded a shelter and killed his wife, so that safety in shelters is an issue that I know we are all concerned about. We have to be concerned about it on an ongoing basis. We simply have to be diligent in ascertaining that our shelters are safe.

I know that I wrote the minister a letter and she responded to it on April 12, 1999, and in that letter I asked if there was a report from the security review team. I believe there was a team that had consulted with various shelters in Manitoba. In her response, the minister did not tell me if there was a report. So I would like to ask her now if there is a report, and if there is, can I obtain a copy of that report?

* (1510)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is a report that is a highly sensitive report because it does identify shelter-by-shelter and location of shelter-specific issues. I know that the work has been undertaken and almost completed in all of the shelters. But what I would do is, if my honourable friend would like, I would have staff from my department sit down with her and the report and go through it line by line, and she could ask any questions. It is just that it is not the kind of report that we would want public, and it would not be made public because of the sensitivity and the confidentiality. But staff have no problem sitting down with the report with my honourable friend and going through it in detail.

Ms. McGifford: Is the reason for the concern over confidentiality because of the addresses of the shelters and not wanting to reveal where they are by tabling a report?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Not only the addresses, because I know addresses maybe are not quite that hard to find, but it is also the issue of what security features are there, how the windows open, where the cameras are located, how and where the alarms are located. It is those kinds of sensitive issues that we would not want public.

Ms. McGifford: I understand there was a team that visited shelters in Manitoba, and I would like to ask the minister if this team visited every shelter in the province.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, they visited every shelter.

Ms. McGifford: Each shelter then I assume has its unique safety concerns because of the nature of the structure. I am assuming it is a team of individuals who are expert in the area. So this team would have studied each shelter, made decisions about how to best secure and make that shelter safe, and then I would assume that securing the shelter, making the shelter safe, would be follow-up work.

Mrs. Mitchelson: There was a committee that actually visited each shelter more than once. The director, obviously, from the individual shelter would have been present. The staff and board members from that shelter were invited, the local Manitoba Housing representative that does maintenance of shelters was there, the original architect from Government Services who helped develop the shelters, and an outside architect with a speciality in security and a person from Government Services Security was the chair of that committee.

As I indicated, they went out and visited all of the shelters, and they then drafted standards and went back out again, mainly, because I think they wanted to be sensitive to the local issues. There were some shelters that wanted bars on the windows and others that did not for certain reasons. It is very difficult to sort of develop consistent standards when there are local needs or issues that shelters felt needed to be addressed, so they tried to be as sensitive as possible to the local issues. They have to date spent $140,000 on renovations and upgrading for security reasons. This, I guess, will be an evolving sort of process. We will continue to monitor and ensure that security is of paramount importance as we move forward.

Ms. McGifford: So then all shelters were visited by the team that the minister outlined and visited indeed more than once, and then suggestions were made as to how the shelters could be made more secure. I am gathering from what the minister has said that the financial cost of securing the shelters was a burden undertaken by government and that it did not fall on the shoulders of the shelters to find that money in their budgets.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that is right. We paid for the upgrades to the security.

* (1520)

Ms. McGifford: So then I am assuming that the Manitoba Association of Women's Shelters feels that their shelters are now secure and have confidence in the safety of the shelters.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I understand that at this point in time everyone does feel secure. In some instances, I guess, they feel maybe we have gone overboard with security in some instances, but this will be ongoing and evolving. We do twice yearly inspections of shelters. Shelters have access on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week basis to Manitoba Housing Authority to raise issues and try to get them resolved. We will continue to monitor and inspect and work with shelters.

As I said, it varies from shelter to shelter, whether it be the director or the board. New boards and new directors come along and they think things should be different or should be changed. There is a general consensus among all of the directors and all of the boards that bars are necessary on windows and that kind of thing. It will continue to be monitored and it will continue to evolve. As circumstances change or people change within communities, there may be different requests that come forward. We will on a twice yearly basis, as we inspect and chat with people, be able to determine whether in fact there are any new issues that come forward. On the whole, I think, shelters are feeling that the safety and security issues have been addressed through this process.

Ms. McGifford: I wanted to thank the minister for her answers to those questions. I am sure the minister can understand that some women who are in shelters might not like to be barred in. The sense in our culture is that bars are usually reserved to keep criminals in certain places. Of course, when you go to a shelter, you are not a criminal.

I wanted to turn to some questions about funding to women's shelters. I have received a copy of a letter from the Manitoba Association of Women's Shelters, as has my colleague for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It is a letter sent to the minister. I would like to table copies of this letter. I had originally thought I would read it into the record and decided that that was not necessary. I am sure the minister is very familiar with the issue, and I am sure her staff are too.

The letter does outline what the Manitoba Association of Women's Shelters sees as a very serious issue. They feel that they are simply not being given an amount of money that allows them to fairly pay their staff. In their letter, if I can just quote from the end now that we have tabled the letter, they end by saying: We would ask for a response from your department by the end of June. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact a member of the Manitoba association funding model subcommittee. Then it is signed by a number of women who are part of the Manitoba Association of Women's Shelters.

I wanted to ask the minister if she is intending to respond to this letter by the end of June, if she has responded, and how she intends to respond.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, I did receive a copy of this letter, and I have responded to them, and we will continue to work with them through the branch to try to understand fully the issues and also to sort of look right across the country at what other funding models exist and what we might be able to do to try to address the issues that have been raised.

This is not unlike the issues that come forward in all of the areas where we provide support through the Department of Family Services. I know we have had some long dialogues and discussion around the issues of support to those in my department who are working with the mentally disabled, and I know we were just in the process of discussing the whole issue of wages in the child daycare area with my honourable friend's colleague, the critic for Family Services.

These are not easy issues to deal with. We know that there is the whole issue around recruitment and retainment of staff in these areas that are so very vital to provide services for those in need in our community. What we tried to do this year, as we have had more resources, is increase slightly the operating grants to agencies so that they can attempt to start to address the wage issues, but we are not going to be able to find the answers overnight, and we are not going to be able to make huge increases overnight. I think we have indicated in good faith that we have started to try to address the salary issue in many areas with slightly increased operating grants, but we also have to balance that according to our ability to provide services to as many individuals as we possibly can through the services in this department.

So we will continue to work with women's shelters around these issues. I cannot say that I have any short-term quick fix, because I do not, but we did increase operating grants by 2 percent this year, and we will continue, as resources permit, to attempt right through all areas of this department to provide the kind of support that will help organizations to increase salaries. But it has to be a balance between providing the services to as many individuals who need that service with the support for operating grants that allows agencies to deal with their staffing issues.

I guess that is all I can say at this point in time. I have responded and indicated that we will continue to work with them. We will be searching across the country to see whether there are any other models that might differ or might be better. I would venture to guess that we are not going to find too many other provinces that have as comprehensive a system for those who experience domestic violence, but, nonetheless, there might be someone who is doing something better, and we will look at that and see whether there are options for us to look at.

* (1530)

Ms. McGifford: As the minister knows, we are not at this point discussing those who experience domestic violence but those who work for those who experience domestic violence. There are certainly people who feel exploitation, and I am not saying that is what is happening here, but exploitation of workers is another kind of violence. I notice that the writers of this letter point out that the increase in cost of living for the past six years has been 12.5 percent and that the cost of mandatory benefits based on legislation is 13.72 percent, and the people whom I am assuming this is referring to, most of the workers in shelters do not have a pension plan; they do not have extended health. It is not really an ideal set of working conditions.

I notice, too, that the minister had mentioned workers in community living and workers in child care, and now we are talking about shelter workers. It is interesting that the majority of workers in all these areas–and I think all workers in shelters are women, so it does seem to me this is another one of those circumstances where women's work is not being fully recognized and properly remunerated.

However, having made these observations, I wanted to ask the minister if she knows what the average wages or wage of a front-line worker in our shelters, Manitoba shelters, is and if she has any statistics that could compare that front-line wage to other jurisdictions in Canada.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess we are just in the process now of working with the shelters to get that kind of information from them. Eight out of the 10 shelters in the province are unionized, so they would have negotiated settlements. My understanding is that I think those that are nonunionized are somewhat comparable.

We have had one meeting with them. We are having another meeting because the information that we received was not absolutely complete. So we are trying within our province to determine what is happening shelter to shelter, and the negotiated agreements are probably different in each instance or circumstance.

But we apparently have convinced the federal government to do a comparison on funding models right across the country, which would include salary scales for shelters. So they have agreed to undertake that and will be examining that. We requested it in the fall and they have agreed to do that. We have had the ability to suggest questions that might be asked as they survey right across the country. So we should have a benchmark or a standard at that point.

That work is started. I am not sure when it will be completed.

Ms. McGifford: Well, I am glad the minister told me that she is not sure when it would be completed because that was going to be my next question, because I think it is very important that our shelters do have this information.

I wanted to ask the minister, then: her response to the shelters who ask her department to cover the 3.72 shortfall in mandatory benefits retroactive to April 1, 1999, is her answer to that request no?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we had a 2 percent increase in our budget this year. There will be no additional resources that will be found sort of mid-year. Hopefully, we will have some sense by the time it comes to looking at funding for next year where we are at and what we might be able to do, but the increases will be dependent on our ability to find resources.

There are pressures in many different areas. So I cannot indicate what decisions might be made next year; but, as resources have become available over last year and this year, we have been able to find modest increases anyway in budget lines for operating grants. I have indicated that we will continue to review that as resources permit to try to enable us to address some of the issues that have been raised across the board, and this being one area.

Ms. McGifford: I do notice that the minister did find and talked to us earlier about having found much more than $100,000 for three new positions. I do not know what 3.72 would be because it is not a 3.72 increase; it is to cover the shortfall in mandatory benefits. It does not seem to me that it would be a huge amount of money, but it might make a great deal of difference to the shelters. It would certainly be a sign of good will on the part of the government, and I regret that the minister cannot undertake to find that money.

* (1540)

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is a request that my honourable friend might make. I know that her colleague has made a request for additional support in services for the mentally disabled in the child care area. I know that probably, if we reviewed the Estimates across the board that have taken place to date this year, we would find that there have been several requests from members of the opposition for increases in many different areas, and that only leads to the question: if my honourable friends across the board are saying, spend more, spend more, where would they take the money from, or where would they raise taxes to do that? I guess those will be some of the discussions that we will be having or undertaking as we move into an election campaign and platforms and policies are laid out.

I have indicated clearly that I have been able to, in my department, find my government's support of additional resources for more services to people and to families even in years when money was tight and times were difficult. I will continue to raise the issue and support those areas that need to be supported in my department, so it will be interesting to see where members of the opposition might come from and what recommendations they might have for reductions or tax increases that would enable them to do the kinds of things they are asking us to do. I have indicated that we have tried to take a balanced approach, and we will continue to try to, as resources permit, find some answers to some of the issues that I know need to be addressed.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.4. Child and Family Services (c) Family Violence Prevention (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $486,300–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $90,900–pass; (3) External Agencies $6,930,200–pass.

9.4.(d) Children's Special Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $330,500–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $294,500–pass; (c) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $10,307,000–pass.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have a question that maybe more properly falls under (a), but either with leave of the committee we could ask it now, and the minister has her staff at the table, or we could ask it under Minister's Salary when there are no staff at the table.

Mr. Chairperson: You wish to ask a question on a section that has been passed. Is there leave of the committee to revert to item 9.4.(a) Child, Family and Community Development? [agreed]

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister how many names of adults were put on the Child Abuse Registry due to being arrested for engaging in prostitution with someone under 18 years or, I guess, more technically, arrested for the purpose of communicating?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There have been seven.

Mr. Martindale: The other day I was quoting from a newsletter from the Manitoba Child Care Association saying that they had had discussions with the Minister of Family Services who acknowledged that their salary scale was reasonable and modest, that is, phase one of their salary scale, and I would just like to confirm that with the minister, and that we are talking about the following numbers for Level I director, $31,975 annually, or I believe this is hourly, $15.37; for a supervisor, $27,057, or $13.01 an hour; ECE IIs and IIIs, $23,340 annually, or $11.22 an hour; an assistant, $14,560 annually, or $7 an hour. Is that the salary scale that was being referred to by MCCA?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that is the salary scale that is being referred to as the MCCA. This has all been part of a discussion at the regulatory review committee, through that process, and I do not take any issue with what has been stated.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister if she understands the connection between the quality of care and remuneration. For example, bringing in another, or actually the same, MCCA newsletter from November 1998, it says that small children form attachments to child care workers that underpin their ability to learn, trust and sustain relationships. When those relationships are repeatedly severed, the child's development is threatened.

So as I have mentioned before, we have a number of issues. One is that if the salary is inadequate, you have a high turnover of staff, and that leads to an inability for children to gain attachment to one worker because workers are always changing; secondly, the issue of centres that have provisional licences due to not having a proper proportion of trained staff.

MCCA goes on to say that they have received copies of letters from centres unable to move forward in expansion plans because they cannot find the trained staff that they need. So I am wondering if the minister can tell me if she understands the relationship between the quality of care in centres and salaries, and what she and her government are doing to address this issue.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I probably indicated in an answer last Thursday when we got into the discussion around child care that we have been working, I think, pretty co-operatively with the child care community and parents to try to address all of the issues that from time to time are brought forward.

I do know as a result of the fact-finding mission that was undertaken by my colleague, Marcel Laurendeau, we certainly gained a better understanding of the issues in the child care community as a result, and as a result of that process, we did set up the regulatory review committee to try to work together with those that are out there in the field and understand their issues and move forward to trying fix some of the inequities.

* (1550)

I think we have had significant success in addressing those issues. The whole issue of cases and spaces was a big issue where we only allowed one case in one space. As a result of that, it was very difficult for part-time workers to get child care spaces because centres were holding out for full-time cases. We changed that and we have allowed a space to be used for as many cases as would be appropriate to ensure that the spaces were used in the most efficient and effective manner, generating the most resource for child care facilities. We moved from funding only some spaces to completely funding all spaces that had been unfunded. Those would have been in new facilities or in some facilities where we had pilot spaces that were not funded added to the number of spaces in a facility so that they could serve more children. So we have moved significantly in that direction, and as a result of funding all of those unfunded spaces this year, it has given several centres the ability with more operating grants to address some of the salary issues.

When we met and started discussion and dialogue with the child care community, they indicated that we should move towards a unit funding model where we funded each unit in a similar fashion. I do not know if I could just at this point ask whether my honourable friend knows where the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) is because this was the question that– well, he may come in and ask, and I may have to repeat this, but anyway. The whole issue of unit funding for infant, preschool, and school-age children, the community, the child care community, through MCCA, has told us that there have been inequities in funding. If, in fact, you just have school-age spaces, you generate more revenue and, therefore, are better off than those that are providing higher-cost infant care. So we have this year endorsed the unit funding model and have started to move towards equalizing the revenue that is generated on an infant space, a preschool space and a school-age space.

One of the things that the child care community, through MCCA, raised with us was the whole issue of raising parent fees, and their recommendation was that we start to increase parent fees. Now, that is one recommendation that I cannot support. So I would be interested, and I think I asked whether in my honourable friend's comments he feels raising parent fees would be an appropriate way of trying to bring that equity within the child care system. I happen to think that raising parent fees is not the answer. So, then, that does tell me that government is going to have to find additional resources. We were able to find resources this year to increase operating grants slightly. It was not as far as centres would have liked to have seen us go, but nonetheless we have endorsed the unit funding model. We will continue, as resources permit, to try to address the issues of salaries through our operating grants, but we were not able to go as far as they would have liked this year.

Now, I do know that in their newsletter the Child Care Association has encouraged their members to write to their boards. Ultimately, we provide the operating grants, but it is the boards at facilities that determine where the money will be allocated and where it will be spent. I have received copies of a few letters from workers in certain centres who have written to their boards and strongly encouraged them to use the increased operating grant to provide increased salaries. Ultimately, those boards will make those decisions.

We also do know that there are inequities right within the system, because some centres have to pay more rent than others, therefore, they have less money for salaries. Some centres are able to do fundraising to a greater degree than others, and, therefore, they have more resources to allocate. So there is no easy answer to this one.

I can indicate and I will indicate again that we will, as resources permit, continue to try to address the issues that have been raised and work co-operatively with the Child Care Association, recognizing and realizing that we cannot always do everything. We would like to attempt to continue to address issues, because I know that we have come some significant way in trying to understand the child care system and provide the support when we can to ensure that we treat centres as fairly as possible.

I also noticed in their newsletter that there was some criticism of additional funding to special needs child care and to rural child care. It would be interesting to know what my honourable friend feels about that. I happen to feel that all of the areas that we provide support to need support, and we do know that issues around child care in rural Manitoba are as significant as issues in the city of Winnipeg. Again, I want to indicate that we try to balance our approach on our funding based on issues that were raised, and child care in rural Manitoba is as critical or important as it is in the city.

So with those comments, we continue to try to work, understanding and knowing what the issues are and recognizing the limitations and the ability to try to use the resources that we have available in the best manner possible and with a balanced approach.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I do have a question, but I realize I forgot to thank the minister for her offer of her briefing on shelters, and I will certainly take her up on that. I also have a question on child care, however.

On March 31, '99, I received communications from Mr. Langtry indicating that the number of child care aides working in the system in Manitoba as opposed to ECEs is 1,860. I understand from further information there are 820 ECE IIs and 902 ECE IIIs, for a total of 1,722 trained workers and 1,860 assistants or untrained workers in the system. I wonder if the minister is concerned about these figures. I wonder if she is aware of the high numbers of untrained staff who are being recruited into the system. I know I have seen the application that untrained workers fill out in order to become recognized, I am assuming, as child care workers. It does not seem to me that it is a very demanding application.

* (1600)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I was trying to get a handle on some of the statistics or the information that was put on the record. I think the question was, the application process or the process that people had to go through to work in the child care system as an assistant really was not a terribly rigorous application process. I do want to indicate that anyone who works as a child care assistant that is left alone with children would have to have CPR training, first aid training, criminal record checks, and child abuse record checks. Those would be the assistants that would be working directly with children or would have responsibility to be left alone with children.

In that number of 1,860 are those that are child care aides or assistants. There are others that might be hired as summer staff, student employment opportunities. Many child care facilities do hire students. They would not necessarily have to have the CPR or the first aid training, but they also would not be able to be left alone with children and be able to perform certain tasks. We know also that everyone has to be classified if they work in a child care centre. Now, they have to have a classification, but they might be a cook; they might be a housekeeper, they could work in maintenance. They could be a bus driver transporting children from one place to another. They are not necessarily looking after children, but they are all part of that classification of 1,860 individuals that make up those aides that do have some training, plus those that are working on a temporary or term basis or those that are doing nondirect, child-related service supports in a child care setting.

I wanted to make sure that was clarified on the record. I do also want to indicate that there is a shortage of ECE IIs and IIIs. It is not unique to Manitoba. It is something that certainly we need to attempt to address, but I do want to indicate, I would not want any information on the record that did indicate that there were more untrained people being left to care for children or left alone with children. I would not want that message to be left on the record, because in fact that is not the case. If they do not have the basic training, they do not have the ability to be left alone with children.

* (1610)

Ms. McGifford: What motivated my question was my concern that there are more untrained persons in the system than there are trained persons in the system. I know that for infants, I believe the ratio was 66 percent of trained individuals. For either ages I believe it is 50 percent. I believe I have that. No, 66 percent of staff must be trained for infant and preschool centres, and 50 percent must be trained in nursery and school-age programs. So the figures on the face of it do not look encouraging.

I am of course like my colleague who I know has been asking questions about the availability of EC IIs and EC IIIs, and the minister has indicated that this is a problem across Canada and not merely in Manitoba, but by a quick calculation I understand there are about 90 centres in Manitoba that have provisional licences because of not being able to meet the trained staff ratios. I am looking at material supplied to my colleague and notice that centres with exemptions to proportion of staff training requirements for full time and school age, Winnipeg centres there were 34, centres outside Winnipeg there were 21. Then nursery schools–and I am assuming this–this would be outside Winnipeg, 34; and then within Winnipeg, 4.

That is over 90, actually, so I do find that disturbing, and the fact that this pattern is something that is occurring throughout Canada is not necessarily reassuring. It is just telling me that we need a national initiative on daycare, and I might take this opportunity to put on the record that I know in 1993 the federal Liberals did promise us a national child care program and then reneged in government, and so a pox on their house, I guess. But I just want to put my concerns on the record, and perhaps the minister has relayed to my colleague—I have not been here for most of the Estimates—what her particular strategy is for dealing with this problem. Maybe I will read about it in Hansard, but if that is not the case, perhaps the minister might like to address that issue.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I would not want my honourable friend to leave on the record that there were some 90 facilities or more in the province that had provisional licences because of staffing, because they are not provisional licences, they are exemptions, and there is a distinct difference between the two. Yes, I would say approximately half of those that have exemptions are in the process of training an identified staffperson for the position. Maybe not quite half, it would be less than half, I am sorry. I do not want to leave any incorrect information on the record either. There are, I would say, throughout the province about 50 out of those 90 centres have not been able to recruit staff. The other 40 have other reasons for their exemptions of trained staff.

No easy answer, again, to this one. I am hoping that with the increased operating grants and funding the unfunded spaces this year, there will be some ability for some centres to recruit and retain more staff, that is, if the boards of directors should choose to put the dollars towards salaries, that could be a possibility. So I guess we will just have to wait to see what the new funding and the funding of unfunded spaces which in some instances gives centres significantly more money besides the increase in their operating grants.

As I said, no easy answer. I guess we will just have to continue to work towards the unit funding model that allows us to more fairly reflect the costs of child care support at the infant, preschool and school-age level. We have indicated as a government that we support that recommendation from the regulatory review committee and will continue to work towards trying to ensure there is some equity, but we are never going to be able to absolutely fix the problems when there are fixed costs for certain facilities that are greater than others. Some of those are rents that have to paid, and certainly there are policies within school divisions that are different from division to division. Some school divisions charge very little for a child care facility, and others charge exorbitant rents.

It is one issue that I have raised, certainly am cognizant of, but we are not a government that dictates to school divisions what they should and should not do. They are duly elected representatives, and if in fact there is an issue around the cost of rent for child care facilities, it is important that people pay attention to who they are electing as their school board members and make sure that they elect people who will support their position and ensure that they are being treated fairly. I am very much a proponent of trying to ensure that wherever possible school divisions provide support for early childhood education, for child care, but again, school divisions do set different policies. We know that not every child care facility is in a school, that some are in the community, and rents are different depending on what community you live in and the accessibility of space. So there are variables that are out of our control, but we do try to be consistent with our operating grants.

I meant to say on the child care in schools issue, the Manitoba Child Care Association is meeting with MAST, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, and they are trying to see whether, in fact, there could not be some sort of a consistent policy, division to division, around child care support.

So that is a move in the right direction, I think, and that dialogue has now been opened or started, so, hopefully, we will see at least a common sense approach to the whole provision of child care in schools into the future, but that remains to be seen. So I just wanted to put that on the record, too.

* (1620)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I received a phone call today in regard to a before-and-after school program that is run in The Maples, and the name of the daycare is OK Before & After school program. It operates in four schools in The Maples: O. V. Jewitt School, Arthur E. Wright, Constable Edward Finney, and Elwick School.

The director is Tina Fetter. In all fairness to her, I received a phone call from a parent, and I have not had time even to contact the director so there are no fingers being pointed here. I am looking for a solution to a problem. It seems to be an internal problem within the board. They have a 16-person board, and what has happened is in the past the one school, Constable Edward Finney School has an EarlyStart. School starts at 8:30 so a lot of the parents do not need daycare in the morning, so they only have the afternoon daycare. The fee for half time is $5.85.

Well, the board that has financial responsibilities to operate within its budget and within its expenses, to not run a deficit, has decided that they will not have half time, that they will only have full time, and the fee for that is $9.60. So parents who sent in their application to have daycare for next year for half time have received letters of acceptance for full-time daycare. As I said, the cost for full-time daycare is $9.60, and for the one parent I was talking to it will make a difference of $1,500 a year, which is a sizeable increase.

I have great empathy for the daycare. They have their expenses, they have their salaries, and they have to operate on a nonprofit basis, but for these parents, they have a choice now for the stability–and some of these kids have been in the same daycare for three or four years or even five years, and if they want to continue, they will have to pay for full-time daycare.

Now, one possible solution–well, I should go back. At the board meeting, one of the things that was discussed was the fact that this year for school-age daycare they received no increase in funding, whereas for early-years daycare there was an increase in funding, and it has been discussed here today. They said one of the persons suggested that it is the government's fault that they are going to have to do this. I will let the government answer for themselves, but one of the solutions is that at the Finney site and the Elwick site, they are increased by 15 spots each, so that is an additional 30 spots if they receive no additional funding.

Would this be a reason to give additional funding to this OK Before & After? I am not too sure if the funding goes for the number of spots or placements, or how does it go? Would this be one of the solutions, or has the minister any other solutions for this conflict here?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I understand my honourable friend did receive a letter that indicated there was going to be an emergency board meeting. We certainly, from the daycare office, would be prepared to attend that board meeting.

Mr. Kowalski: Before the minister gives a response, I could just read that letter quickly so you could know what the content of the letter is.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, please.

Mr. Kowalski: It is dated June 28, today, to the OK Before & After centres at 35 Marbury Road. Dear board members: On Friday, June 18, 1999, we received our acceptance letters to the program for the next school year. These letters advised that we had been accepted on a full-time basis only, although most of us had applied for part time. We are all parents who have had children in the centre on a part-time basis in previous years, some for many years.

OK Before & After Centre is a community-based daycare whose vision statement reads "to provide a quality educational child care program as an active partner in our community." It is our belief that the centre does not fulfill the needs of the community by offering full-time care only. The change in practice is abrupt with no consultation or prior written notification to the affected parents. Although this is not a change in policy, it is a change in enforcement of policy and should have been communicated more effectively to parents. The AGM would have been the appropriate time to advise parents of this change.

As a parent group, we have identified a number of inconsistencies in enforcement of the centre's policies, specifically with regard to acceptance and enrollment. Details can be provided at a meeting. We request a meeting with the board to voice our concerns and discuss the following issues: one, the need for part-time care in our community–OK Before & After is the only licensed centre in The Maples; two, the impact of increased fees to families who budgeted for part-time fees previously; three, to pay for services that we do not need; four, disruption to our children's lives by forcing parents to put a price on their children's happiness.

We recommend that you phase a grandfather in this new enforcement procedure with new families to the centre. It is unfair to penalize families already in the system. It is disappointing to us as parents that the board puts the centre's financial gain ahead of the needs of the community. Due to time constraints, we request that the matter be dealt with immediately. Please contact Sybil Russell–then supplies her phone number–at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, Ray Jast on behalf of Sybil Russell, James Ogungbemi-Jackson, Diane Wolfman, Alan Wolfman, Lia Yankewicz, Tom Yankewicz, Lorraine Jast, Christine Bowers. Copies of this went to Mavis Lewis-Webber, Tina Fetter and myself.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, boy, I am somewhat astounded. I guess, my sense was that child care facilities were there to serve parents who were working and their children, whether it be on a part-time or a full-time basis or on a flexible basis. It appears to me from the letter that my honourable friend has read that there has been a unilateral decision by a centre to not serve the needs of the parents that they are meant to serve. Parents are not there to serve the centre. The centre is there to serve the parents and their children. Our policy is that we support part-time and full-time child care. That is our policy. I really feel that my honourable friend, and we can help in whatever way possible, should be at least encouraging parents to take some strong position.

* (1630)

I want to indicate to you what happens in River East School Division, for instance; I mean, it is different everywhere. River East School Division has a policy that if an elementary school wants to run a before-and-after school program, they can run it free of charge within the school division. That is their policy. They do not receive funding from government either. We do not fund any of the before-and-after school programs, but they are just for before-and-after school in River East School Division for children who are going to the school.

The community sort of comes around and decides what the cost will be, and they would have lunch programs too at some of those schools. There is a policy within the division, but basically it is parent-driven and parent-run, and it meets the needs of the parents. There is a charge for whatever to the families who use that service. The policies are different in many different school divisions. Some charge just the cost of a janitor being there a little bit of extra time, and others charge a fee for the use of the school. Some make money on the child care facility being there.

So there are all kinds of different polices, but ultimately if a facility that is being run in a school is not meeting the needs of the parents that it is there to serve, we need to be determining what is happening. There should be no financial reason that they should not be offering part-time care. We would be prepared to support my honourable friend if he wanted to work with the parents to try to ensure that they have a quality affordable child care program that meets their needs. I mean, no one has a licence to be able to have absolute control over a facility and then dictate to the parents who use that service that they have to pay twice what they should be paying in order to get a half-time spot. So I just want to offer our support and assistance. If he would like to arrange something with parents, I think we would be prepared to work as closely as possible to try to ensure that the service is being provided for those that need it.

Mr. Kowalski: I appreciate that offer from the minister. I am not too sure if I made it clear. In this OK Before & After School Centre, it is a parent-run board. This is not the school board who operates this. I do not know what the school board charges the centre. It might be much higher than what they do in River East, so we might have competing interests of different parents, one set of parents wanting to keep the fees down and to keep within budget, another group having an interest to only pay for half-time and they have cause. So I am assuming, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the director and to his volunteer board that they are trying to act fiscally responsible, and this is just one thing that they have looked at as a way of keeping their revenues up to meet their costs.

I am not too sure how the spots are funded. They indicate that, even though they were increased by 30 spots into this program, they did not receive additional funding. Does that sound correct? Would there be an avenue to look at increased funding for this because of the increased number of spots?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No. I need to explain. What has happened as a result of our regulatory review process and working with the child care community, they have recommended to us that we fund different–I mean, we have three different types of care. We have infant care; we have preschool care; and we have school-age care. Now, there has been a sense, and, I think, quite rightly so, within the child care community that we were not funding enough for infant spaces, the cost of providing service. An infant unit would be four children because the ratio is 4 to 1, one staff to four children. In the preschool area, the ratio is 8 to 1; in the school age, it is 15 to 1. So those are the regulations around child-to-staff ratios.

When we sat down and went through the funding model with the child care community, it was clear that there were inequities within the system. If you looked at it on a unit basis, 1 to 4 for infant, one infant unit, one preschool unit or one school-age unit, the infant units were being funded at $138 per day, the preschool unit was being funded at $185 a day, and the school-age unit was being funded at $224 per day. So great inequity within the system, and no one had ever looked at it this way, although there had been concerns.

So the recommendation that came from the committee was that we move towards making it more equitable and that they would recommend that we fund each unit at $200 per day. So you would bring the school age down and the preschool and infant up, and we would have each unit funded equally. That was what they recommended.

We are moving towards that. We have not got there yet, but rather than reducing, at this point in time, the school-age unit, we left it at $224, and we have started to move the infant up and the preschool up, so at some point in time we are going to have to–and I think I have accepted that model as a fair model. Therefore, when we provided the funding for unfunded spaces–there were some spaces that were unfunded in the past–we provided them for preschool and infant, but we did not give any additional support to the school-age programs because, according to what we have been able to determine, they are probably overfunded in the whole–[interjection] Well, I mean, there is an inequity, and to bring each unit closer, we funded the infant and the preschool more, but we have not funded the school-age programs more.

So there is not any ability for us to look at unfunded or new spaces, or increasing their operating grant. These are strictly school-age programs. Sometimes, if a centre has preschool and school-age spaces and infant spaces all in one centre, they got some increase in their funding to deal with the infant and the preschool, but they did not get any additional funding for the school-age spaces, so we are trying to have a fairer approach.

Anyway, I do not know if I have confused you, or if that sounds clear, but it is a recommendation that did come from the field, and we are moving towards addressing that.

Mr. Kowalski: Just on another topic, a quick question. For home daycare, you need a licence if you have more than four children, I understand. Then you have to get a licence. But who monitors that? I guess if we are going into investigations, is there a proactive one or does it react to complaints? How do I know there is not someone down the street who says they only have four children but have 12 children in their home and it is unlicensed? How do you check into it? How do you ferret out any people who are not complying with the regulations?

* (1640)

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is in law so we do not go out door to door and count kids in people's houses. But if in fact there is a complaint that is made to the Child Care office that somebody is violating the law, the first approach we take is a letter. We send a letter out to them indicating that we understand there is an issue and that they can apply for a licence or they can reduce their numbers. So that is the first step. Very often we work with them then to get them licensed or whatever. Now they may write back and say they are reducing their numbers, so that is fine too.

Now the second time, if in fact there is another complaint after this, we would go out to the home and visit with the individuals and follow up. So that is the process that is followed.

Mr. Kowalski: The last one is I want to thank the minister and Kathy Reid. I had some letters and phone calls from the Maples Day Care staff who, as a result of some of the lobbying that the Manitoba Child Care Association did about staff salaries, had some concerns and had some questions, and Kathy Reid took an evening out and came to a staff meeting with me.

The first question I asked, I was blown away. I thought one of the problems with the wages not being what they should be in daycare, that there is not continuity, and we were surprised at the number of people who were there at that daycare who have either been in the field or at that particular daycare for a long time, so I was surprised to see that.

As a matter of fact, the director there now was my daughter's daycare teacher when she went to daycare there, and now starting this summer, my daughter works at that daycare. But I want to thank Kathy Reid for coming out and the minister for helping me address some of the concerns of the staff in regard to staff salaries. Thank you.

Mr. Martindale: Because of the tragic death at Three Bears Day Care Centre a number of years ago, I still have some questions about fire inspections in child care centres. It is my understanding that there are a number of problems in this area. One is that even after inspectors do make inspections, if they order upgrades to a centre, centres have a major problem in complying with these orders because it costs money frequently to implement them. There is no capital budget for child care centres, so this is a hardship.

Secondly, there seems to be inconsistencies between inspections in Winnipeg and in rural Manitoba, and then there are some problems in rural Manitoba. So I would like to explore these one at a time. We did ask questions in the Department of Labour about inspections in centres. I have Hansard with me, and I note that there is a memorandum of understanding that, according to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe), is in the Department of Family Services, and I am wondering if that MOU has been signed or if it will be shortly.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The MOU has been signed. We have one person in the Fire Commissioner's office that has been assigned to do all of the inspections in the city of Winnipeg until the fire department gets up to speed, and Family Services will be paying the cost of that Fire Commissioner to do the inspections.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister can give me a timeline of when she expects that all the centres in Winnipeg will be inspected by.

Mrs. Mitchelson: All the full-time centres should be done by the end of August and all of the nursery schools by the end of September, and that would probably be because the nursery schools are closed over the summer months.

Mr. Martindale: I am wondering if the minister agrees with me that there is a problem in rural Manitoba in that it is my understanding that it is a responsibility of local fire departments to do inspections unless there is a request of the Fire Commissioner's office in which case there is a fee of $250 for an inspection. Some of the concerns that I have heard are that many local fire departments are volunteer fire departments, that the volunteer fire departments have to request training from the Fire Commissioner's office. I am told that some rural communities have not seen a fire inspector for years. It seems to me that there may be problems if a volunteer fire department member is the spouse or partner of a child care worker or a director, that that may pose a difficulty for individuals. The biggest inconsistency would seem to be, if the minister is correct, that there may be a very good system in place for Winnipeg, where all the centres are going to be inspected by a certain time, but in rural Manitoba because it is now up to local jurisdictions, that there is no time line. There is no assurance that all the centres will be inspected by a certain time. I am wondering if the minister shares these concerns.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it would be our first priority to get the local fire authority to do the inspection, but just as in the case of Winnipeg, if in fact that cannot or does not happen, we will be getting the Fire Commissioner's office to do those throughout rural Manitoba also. [interjection]

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, the most interesting questions are off record. However, they have nothing to do with the serious topic of fire inspections. All those questions are on the record. I think the minister was just repeating what I understand to be the status quo. That is in rural Manitoba the responsible jurisdiction is the local fire department, either volunteer or paid, and the alternative, I guess, is the Fire Commissioner's office.

I guess what I want to know is whether inspections are taking place regularly. For example, is every centre inspected annually?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I will try to answer that question. If I do not quite hit the mark, maybe we can seek some clarification.

Ultimately, the end goal is to have the local fire authority do the inspections. Right now, in the city of Winnipeg, they are short staffed, so we will be providing that service, but our ultimate end objective and goal is to have the local fire authority in Winnipeg do the inspections.

In rural Manitoba, my understanding is it is not quite as critical. The local fire authorities in rural Manitoba, in some instances, have the capacity and have the ability to do it right now. If they do not and if we need the interim support from the Fire Commissioner's office to do that, we will undertake to make sure that all of the inspections are done.

The ultimate end goal is to have the local authority both in the city of Winnipeg and outside of the city of Winnipeg take on that responsibility.

* (1650)

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I think I understand that. I guess the question is: how often are they being inspected? For example, are centres being inspected once a year in rural Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, once a year.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if indeed she agrees that there is a problem with inspectors making recommendations for improvements, that frequently this costs money and that this is a problem for centres, both rural and urban?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, many of those facilities that have had to make a major upgrade have received support from places like the Winnipeg Foundation, the Community Services Council and other foundations, the Sill Foundation. So they can apply, and we have not heard that it has been a significant hardship in any specific case.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, can the minister tell me who follows up on the fire inspection reports? Who ensures that the orders are actually carried out?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is up to the facility to report. So, if it is an issue with Public Health, the Fire Commissioner or the daycare co-ordinator, it is posted, and it is on their provisional licence. It is up to the daycare, then, the facility to, in writing, notify us of the work that has been done. It would allow us to remove the provision from the licence.

Mr. Martindale: So is the minister telling me that it is really a voluntary system, that if a centre does not report, they might fall through the cracks?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, it is not on a voluntary basis. If, in fact, the Fire Commissioner or the Public Health office or Child Day Care puts a provision on a licence, they are given a time line in writing on when they must comply, and that information is received by the child care co-ordinator, Child Day Care office, and they have to comply.

Now, if it is three months, that the Fire Commissioner's office may say that you have three months to comply, that is followed. So we follow up on that, but they have to, in writing, indicate to us with documentation that they have complied. It is always the way it has been, and it is not on a voluntary basis. If there is a provisional licence, we know about it. It is registered in the Child Day Care office through the child care co-ordinator, and facilities must comply.

Mr. Martindale: I guess I can understand if the Child Day Care office receives the documentation, then you have something to follow up on, but you said it was up to the centre to notify the Child Day Care office. What happens if they do not?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is the child care co-ordinator that follows up. The child care co-ordinator visits facilities on a quarterly basis. The child care co-ordinator knows who has provisional licences and who does not for what reasons. So it is her job to follow up. But there is a contractual arrangement, or whatever, that the centre has that has to be complied with, and it is the child care co-ordinator's responsibility to ensure that that is followed up on those quarterly visits.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, does the Fire Commissioner's office or a local fire department send a copy of their inspection report to the Child Day Care office?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if there is a similar process in place for family daycare homes in terms of inspections?

Mrs. Mitchelson: For family daycare homes, there is no requirement for public health or fire inspections. The only exception to that would be the group daycare homes where there are up to 12 children in those, and then they would be required to have public health and fire inspections.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I would like leave of the committee to revert to a question under 9.4.(a).

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Is there leave of the committee to revert to 9.4.(a)? [agreed]

Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for her flexibility. I have some questions resulting from The Fatality Inquiries Act report by a provincial judge on the inquest respecting the death of Brian Thompson. In the inquest report, Judge John Guy, provincial judge, has some comments about the agency which I believe in this case was Winnipeg Child and Family Services. I can be corrected on that if I am wrong.

He says, and I would like to quote: Finally and most significantly in this case, and I expect in most cases, there must be a monitoring and review of the situation on a fairly frequent basis to see if the placement is appropriate from both parties' points of view.

He goes on to say: This is because, although the standards are good, fairly clear to understand and based on sound, practical experience, they appear impossible to adhere to without adequate people and resources. On more than one-half dozen occasions when the standards were referred to during the evidence, the court was told that, firstly, due to caseloads, and, secondly, due to a large number of foster homes being out of the city, the worker could not adhere to the standards set. It is not a question of the standards not being understood or being confusing. It is simply a question of workload demand, not enabling the worker to do the job properly and the way the standards envisage it being done. I commend the workers for their honesty in providing their testimony. It would appear that the term "no news is good news" is the watchword for these workers.

I would like to ask the minister what has been done either by herself or by the agency since this report was released on March 4, 1999, to address the workload issue raised by Judge Guy.

* (1700)

Mrs. Mitchelson: The agency has done some things to try to address this issue. We talked about the 31 positions that are being redeployed in the reorganization to front-line staff which will provide more front-line workers. The agency reorganization and restructure to program function rather than area function will somewhat address some of the issues that were raised around this case where Northwest or Central were placing children in eastern Manitoba, so there were some issues around the four different areas within the agency still acting somewhat independently from each other. So that will be another piece that should help somewhat.

I guess the new standards that have been written will be field tested, and we will, for once and for all, be able to get some accurate data on what is the workload and what are caseloads. I know that Judge Guy does talk about caseloads in his report. All indications are that caseloads are not increasing; they are remaining the same. But, for me, the bigger issue is not how many cases, but what is the workload associated with each of those cases, and I do not think we have ever been able to get accurate data on that kind of information because you can have very few cases with a high amount of work required for those cases and still have a high caseload. I mean, there is a difference between caseload and workload, and I think we need to be trying to get some accurate information and data on what we are really talking about here and what is appropriate, and we are not there yet. But I think the new standards and the field testing of those standards and work with the field will give us better opportunity to understand what the workload issues are and how they might be addressed.

Mr. Martindale: I am certainly agreeable to using the expression "workload." This has been described as caseload and workload, and I suppose we are talking about social work jargon. I do not think it really matters too much what term you are using, but there seems to be evidence, both from the baby Sophia Schmidt inquest and this inquest into the death of Brian Thompson, that in both cases workers had too many cases, too much work, could not monitor their caseload adequately, and the results were tragic. Judge John Guy goes on to say: The point is that even in what might be considered minimum standards, they were not adhered to. And later on the same page: However, although there might not be a casual connection attributed between his treatment and his death, the opportunity presents itself for his death to be a warning, and unless we do more to protect our important resource, children, this may occur again.

His recommendation No. 1 says: Caseloads be decreased to more acceptable levels rather than the two and a half to three times the recommended caseload, and No. 2: The fact that a significant number of foster homes are in the rural area should be taken into consideration in relation to the time factor involved in monitoring these homes, or hire staff in the community where the homes are located.

So I would like to ask the minister if in fact east area or Winnipeg Child and Family Services have either decreased the caseload so that staff can more closely supervise their foster homes, or have they hired staff in Steinbach so that they can be closer to the foster parents? Because I understand there are a lot of foster parents in the Steinbach area.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess I can only go back to saying that the reorganization and the restructuring to functional areas rather than geographic areas will go some way to making the services more efficient and effective. They have increased apparently the front-line workers for the permanent wards in the Winnipeg agency, and that should have some impact. When you look at different functions within the agency, certainly in many instances probably your caseload, if you were just doing adoptions, could be higher than if you were doing protection work. So they are trying to reorganize and realign within the agency to ensure that services are better and supports are better. If they do not have four different areas, certainly they should be able to provide additional support to those foster families in the rural area.

They are starting to work. It certainly is not an issue that is just an issue in Manitoba, again, and it is not that I want to minimize the issue, but I think we have seen reports from right across the country that workload is an issue. It is one of the things that at the national level we are looking at, and I know that our province is chairing that piece of the process at the national level.

So it is an issue. Have we fixed it? No. Will it ever be completely fixed? I cannot guarantee that it will be, but we have to take steps in the right direction. I believe that the agency, through their reorganization, through their restructure, through more front-line staff and through trying to ensure that the protection of children has enhanced support and increased workers–should go some way to addressing this issue. That is all I can offer at this point in time. I cannot tell you that we have fixed the problem completely. We are moving in the right direction.

Mr. Martindale: I have an article from the Winnipeg Free Press from June 10, 1998. The headline says: fewer cases, more help urged for CFS staff. The concluding paragraph says, and I quote: since Sofia's death in January 1996, 16 children have been killed in Manitoba, 11 at the hands of their parent or guardian.

So it is extremely important that we make improvements in order to protect children in care because too many children in care are dying. I would like to quote from the concluding paragraph of Judge John Guy's report where he says: it may be that for children under the age of five, the standards should require more frequent in-home monitoring than quarterly. As well, it is essential that this monitoring be done separately to be able to ascertain the true situation.

So I would like to ask the minister if this particular recommendation from the judge–monitoring in home should be more frequent than quarterly.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is the redirection that the agency is taking with its reorganization, and that is exactly what the new standards will do. I want to indicate, though, I would not want my honourable friend to leave on the record unless he knows for a fact that those 11 children that died at the hands of their parents were in the care of Child and Family Services, because I do not think those 11 deaths were Child and Family Services-related. I could stand to be corrected. Were they wards of the Child and Family Services agency, or were they children that died at the hands of their own parents? There is a distinct difference when we are looking at workloads and caseloads. I would not want the record to imply that they were all wards of Child and Family Services.

Mr. Martindale: The minister has repeatedly talked about reorganization, but what I would like to hear is a response to the specific recommendation of Judge John Guy who recommended that for children under the age of five, there should be more frequent in-home monitoring than quarterly. I am interested in knowing if this recommendation is going to be implemented or not.

* (1710)

Mrs. Mitchelson: The agency is telling us that their reorganization and putting more staff on the front line will give them the ability to monitor on a more frequent basis children that are in care and permanent wards. So if that is the case, we will have to monitor the agency to see in fact whether those results are achieved, but they are telling us that more front-line workers means that more support will be able to be provided to children in care. They are telling us that the reorganization into functional rather than area will have a more consistent approach to serving children in care and their needs, and they will be able to monitor more closely. That is what they are telling us from their reorganization, and we will have to monitor that to see whether in fact that is the case.

Mr. Martindale: I am still not hearing the answer that I would like to hear from the minister, whether she agrees or disagrees: should there be more frequent monitoring for children under five? Is this a reasonable recommendation or not? I can understand the minister saying if there are 31 more front-line staff that there be more home visits or whatever, but I am wondering if the minister feels that the agency should respond in a positive way to the recommendation from this inquest.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is not an unreasonable expectation, and I have never said it is not. I have said that the agency has told us they are going to be able to live up to these recommendations as a result of making their agency more efficient and more effective and putting more workers on the front lines.

Now, I do not know what more I can say, except to say that if we have more workers on the front line and if we are focusing the energies and the efforts in a more consistent way on the needs of children in care, that ultimately children should be better off.

Now, I wish I could guarantee that. I am saying we are going to monitor the agency to see if, in fact, that is the case, but I cannot guarantee my honourable friend anything, as I do not think he could guarantee me if he were the Minister of Family Services.

I am saying it is not an unrealistic recommendation. The agency has seen that, and they should, and are, I think, developing processes that will make their ability to monitor children in care more efficient, and see them more often.

I wish I could say that in absolutely every instance that is happening today or that it will happen in the future. I cannot, but I am saying it is not unrealistic to expect. We will be watching the agency, and we will be trying to get some sort of accurate data on workload or caseload, or whatever you want to call it, to try to ensure that the needs of children are being met.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.4. Child and Family Services (e) Child Day Care (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,211,700–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $470,000–pass; (3) Financial Assistance and Grants $51,015,700–pass.

Resolution 9.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $204,666,200 for Family Services, Child and Family Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Resolution 9.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,177,400 for Family Services, Amortization of Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

The last item in the Estimates of Family Services is the Minister's Salary. Would the staff please leave the table.

Item 9.1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $27,000.

Mr. Martindale: The minister is lucky this year that I had two graduations this morning, and I have another one to go to now, so I did not have time to put a motion to reduce the minister's salary or have a recorded vote. So I just want to express my disappointment that I did not avail myself of that opportunity this year, because I think the minister could improve on a lot of things, but in the interests of time, we are going to let her off the hook this year.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I just want to, before we wrap this up, indicate my sincere appreciation to those who work within the Department of Family Services for their untiring and unfaltering commitment to the many issues that we deal with in this department. We know they are not easy issues when you are dealing with human tragedy and human lives and some of the most vulnerable within our community on a day-to-day basis, trying to set the policy and the programs and monitor those programs to ensure that they are working to best serve the needs of those clients and individuals.

Mr. Chairperson, I have to say, to each and all: a job well done in the department. But also very important, we cannot forget those community organizations that deliver the programs and services. The external agencies that we fund do a wonderful job. We have had much dialogue and discussion around, you know, there is no one who is made a millionaire working in the child care system, in services for the mentally disabled and those that deal with domestic violence. They are there because they care about people, and they care about making our society and lives better for Manitobans who need their support.

* (1720)

I want to commend them and congratulate them for the hard work that they do, sometimes not recognized, and for those who work in our Child and Family Services system. Although my honourable friend, from time to time, criticizes and says we could do much better, I think we have many, again, who are very committed to the work that they do, to the job that they do. There is not any perfect system, when I look across the country and I see what is happening in other jurisdictions in other provinces. I do not ever want to say that, when something devastating happens, we have done a good enough job, but I do know that the issues are complex, and it is not as simple as, you know, have we been able to fix things.

There are no short-term, quick-fix solutions. It is long term. All of the things that we have put in place as a government that look at early intervention will ultimately hopefully have a significant impact on decreasing the support that we need for welfare, for child and family services, for services for those with mental disabilities and for services that we need in our justice system. I mean, it only makes good sense to invest, knowing what we know from all the recent research that has been done, in the first years of a child's life. So if we can continue along that path, hopefully we will see reductions in our need to have the supports available at the far end because we will have more children that are adapted and adjusted and ready to start life and school with a desire to succeed.

I just want to say that, although my honourable friend does provide much criticism, I think that there have been a lot of good programs and projects that have been implemented that will see not a short-term quick fix again and not something that happens in the length of time of government's one mandate or second mandate. But we are talking generational change that for me does not give me that quick political fix, but it gives me the long-term ability to say that I believe we have accomplished something that will have a lasting impact on children and families in our province.

So, with those few words, I just want to say that my six years in Family Services have given me the opportunity to understand the issues that we deal with, and hopefully we will be able to continue to implement more initiatives, more early intervention programs that will ultimately have an impact, a lessening impact on the resources that are needed to serve people that we serve in Manitoba that need our supports. Thanks, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Martindale: I just wanted to thank the minister and her staff for their helpfulness, especially when I have needed briefings. I think probably the assistant deputy minister for children, Mr. Langtry, has been the most frequent person who has briefed me, but there are many civil servants within the department that I phone almost on a daily basis, especially in Income Assistance, and they have always been very helpful.

When it comes to the minister, although she and I disagree on the direction her government is going in many cases, I think we have always gotten along reasonably well on a personal level, and that has probably made the Estimates process a little bit easier. It is my hope that this is the last time that we do Estimates together. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: 9.1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $27,000–pass.

Resolution 9.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,498,600 for Family Services, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

This now concludes the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.

The next department is the Department of Natural Resources. We would invite the minister and the opposition critic to take their positions at the table, and we will begin the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources.