FAMILY SERVICES

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): The Committee of Supply will come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. Does the honourable Minister of Family Services have an opening statement?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I am pleased to present to this committee for its consideration the 1996-97 expenditure Estimates for the Department of Family Services. I look forward to engaging in a constructive discussion regarding the directions this government has set out for Family Services in these Estimates.

As we begin the 1996-97 fiscal year, one overriding reality cannot be ignored. That reality is the new era in federal-provincial cost sharing, which we entered on April 1, 1996, with the end of the Canada Assistance Plan after 30 years. The immediate impact on Manitoba of the introduction of block funding under the new Canada Health and Social Transfer is a loss of $116 million, or 16 percent, in federal funding to Manitoba.

Next year this loss will increase to $220 million. Our challenge as a government is to find the most creative ways of dealing with losses of this magnitude while continuing to be sensitive to the needs of those who are most vulnerable.

Manitoba is not alone in facing this challenge. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to participate as Manitoba's representative on the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and Renewal which Premiers established in August of 1995.

This council was asked by Premiers to examine areas of provincial and territorial agreement on social policy issues and to recommend principles and values for reform. The work of this council was an example of how provinces and territories can co-operate to address the issues which we share in common.

Provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services made a valuable and significant contribution to the council's work. Social services ministers are all committed to working together more effectively to meet the challenges and uncertainties which have arisen from the termination of the Canada Assistance Plan. We have agreed that reduced federal funding has made the elimination of overlap and duplication between levels of government more essential.

Provincial social services ministers have jointly called for the greater clarification of government's roles and responsibilities, particularly in areas such as income support for children in low income families, seniors, employables, persons with disabilities and other groups in Canadian society.

After considerable discussion at our recent meeting in Victoria, provincial and territorial social services ministers all expressed their strong commitment to work to promote the well-being and protection of children. We agreed to make it a high priority to collaborate on issues such as prevention, research and information sharing, best practices, training and certification, integration of services, adoption and child support. We also agreed it is essential to discuss the matter of child care with the federal government to clarify its intentions in this area.

Social services ministers will be requesting a meeting with Human Resources Development Minister Douglas Young in the near future. We want to work constructively and co-operatively with the federal government in addressing the country's social policy issues.

We hope that we will have more opportunity to meet with the new federal minister than we had with his predecessor. As social services ministers, we have not had a full meeting with our federal counterpart since February of 1994. This has made it very difficult to plan, to co-ordinate our efforts or to prevent overlap and duplication which is costly to all Canadians.

With support from other provinces, Manitoba has reaffirmed that the federal government must live up to its fiduciary and constitutional responsibilities for aboriginal Canadians. Manitoba has taken every available opportunity to express in strong terms the importance of continued federal government financial responsibility for aboriginal Canadians both on and off reserve. The Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and Renewal has articulated this view as one of the principles in its report to Premiers.

The systematic withdrawal by the federal government from its financial obligations has hurt Manitoba taxpayers, as well as contributed to inequities in the services available for aboriginal people. In the last five years, the unilateral cancellation of federal reimbursement to Manitoba for off-reserve child welfare and social assistance has cost $94 million. Last year, the federal government attempted to withdraw support for two northern aboriginal communities adjacent to reserves which have been supported for years by the federal government as those communities have worked towards reserve status. While the federal Department of Indian Affairs eventually backed off its original position, the attempt to withdraw services was traumatic for the communities involved and unfair to Manitoba taxpayers.

The Department of Family Services has an ambitious agenda for renewal and reform for the next two to three years. Initiatives include reforming Manitoba's welfare system by actively helping employable welfare clients gain independence through employment and moving to a one-tier system of delivery in the city of Winnipeg; strengthening the child protection and family support services by establishing and enforcing standards for the protection of children by working with communities to help families at risk and reviewing existing child welfare legislation; undertaking a review on child daycare to explore options for providing more flexible and affordable child care support for working parents while simplifying, deregulating and streamlining administrative processes; reviewing the office of the Children's Advocate; implementing new legislation and community-based services for adults with mental disabilities in order to promote and support independent living.

During the past year, the Department of Family Services has been reviewing its organizational structure to better meet the changing needs of the people it serves. A number of changes were announced recently which are intended to strengthen the department.

* (1140)

The streamlined department now has three interrelated divisions, rather than four essentially separate divisions. These are Employment and Income Assistance, which is responsible for income security and related employment programs, policy and planning, and administration and finance; Community Living, which is responsible for the department's services to adults with disabilities and for regional operations; and Child and Family Services which is responsible for all programs and services for children. In this area, we have strengthened the ability of the department to establish and monitor standards in child welfare through the creation of a director of compliance position. In addition, we have formed a closer bond in the organization between child welfare, Family Dispute Services, and Family Conciliation Services. This structure will support improved co-operation between these three services and provide greater opportunities for families to access an appropriate range of services to help them in resolving their difficulties.

Because these organizational changes were implemented after the 1996-97 Estimates structure was established, the review of the Committee of Supply will be according to the former four-division structure.

This month marks three years since the proclamation of the legislation which established the Children's Advocate. The Children's Advocate has now had the opportunity to submit two annual reports to the government which have been tabled in the Legislature. The Children's Advocate has consistently brought to the attention of the entire Child and Family Services system the difficult challenges faced in providing services to families in crisis. However, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, it was this government which took the initiative to create this position as a place for children and families to turn for help in representing their rights or interests within the Child and Family Services system. The previous administration had several opportunities to do so in response to a number of independent recommendations, but it did not take any action.

Children's Advocate is only one of the many, many tools that we have developed in our continuing efforts to find better ways of serving children and families in difficult circumstances. I hope that in the discussions which follow in this committee we will have an opportunity to discuss all of these many initiatives in some detail. As set out in the legislation governing the Children's Advocate, a committee of the Legislative Assembly will be established to undertake a comprehensive review of this office, as required, three years after proclamation. I will look forward to the report of this committee and to any recommendations it may make regarding amendments to this legislation.

This year we have embarked upon an important new direction for our welfare programs. In the new Employment and Income Assistance program we are emphasizing employment first for those who are able to work. As I meet members of the public at various community gatherings and meetings, they tell me that it is not unreasonable to expect people who are able to work to do so.

We know Manitobans are better off working. We know the best form of social assistance is a job. As our employment picture continues to brighten and the tax burden on our citizens declines, we expect to see fewer people dependent on social programs. This initiative will be a major step forward because, as all members are aware, the current welfare system has fostered dependence and a reliance on government.

With the very best of intentions, that of helping the most needy, we have encouraged a cycle which has created generation after generation of families on welfare. I am confident members of this committee will agree with me when I repeat once again that we want more for families and children in our province than a life of poverty on welfare. No one, including single parents, should be labelled unemployable. Welfare cannot be and should not be their only career option.

The public also tells me that we have done the right thing by adjusting our welfare rates so that the most vulnerable are the least affected. The clients who were not affected by the change made this year to social assistance rates include the disabled, the elderly, single parents with children who are six years of age and under, employable, two-parent families with children and women in crisis shelters. In other words, about one-half of those who are on social assistance will not be affected by the rate changes. Compared with rates across the country, Manitoba's rates fall within the mid to upper range, while the province has consistently been reported to have one of the lower costs of living.

Under the Making Welfare Work initiative we have been helping more people find work through programs like the Rural Jobs Project, Taking Charge! and the City of Winnipeg's Community Services projects.

As the opposition critic, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), noted in his comments to the House on April 4, work helps our self-esteem and helps us feel positive about ourselves because we are contributing to our own independence by supporting ourselves, our families and society.

I have been privileged to attend two graduation ceremonies recently. As graduation ceremonies often do, these events touched me and provided me with the inspiration to continue on the path we have chosen. In August, I participated in the graduation of 16 single parents on social assistance who are honoured for becoming the first graduates of the Customer Service and Marketing Agency Certificate program. This pilot program, an initiative of Training and Advanced Education, was the result of a co-operative effort by business, education, and government.

On March 8, I was pleased to attend the official opening of the Taking Charge! storefront office and the graduation of its first class. It was a very pleasant duty for me to congratulate the 18 single parents, as well as their families who were present for the occasion. It was also gratifying to know that several of the graduates were not able to be on hand because they were working.

One of the graduates said that Taking Charge! has given single mothers the chance to prove they really want to work and stay off social assistance. Currently there are 500 social assistance clients registered with Taking Charge!, and Taking Charge!, as members will recall, is a project funded jointly by Canada and Manitoba, and is designed to increase employment for single parent clients in Winnipeg. It was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in April 1995 and its Executive Director Rosa Walker was appointed in September of last year.

In our emphasis on employment first we have developed several new and innovative partnerships, not only with other governments, but also with business, for people to gain employment in areas such as the apparel industry, call centres, and transportation.

I am pleased we have maintained our commitment to Community Living and Vocational Rehabilitation Programs by increasing the budget by 2.3 percent over last year. This will allow for increased financial assistance for adult residential and day services and for families and children who receive services under Children's Special Services.

In the eight years we have been in government we have increased expenditures in this area of the department by 59 percent. The increase in funding in those eight years has brought about an expansion of the system so that the total number of adults with a mental disability who will be supported in community residences or in supported independent living settings is up by 279 spaces, or 37 percent. In addition, adult respite will be provided to an additional 221 primary caregivers, an increase of 46 percent. Mr. Chairman, 387 day spaces have been added, for an increase of 22 percent, and the number of children with a disability who receive support from Children's Special Services has gone from 913 to 1,721, an increase of 808 people, or 88 percent.

On February 5, I was pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Allan Hansen as Manitoba's first Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner. We have written to various organizations to request that they submit the names of people to sit on the hearing panels established under the vulnerable persons legislation. These panels are a new way of involving community members in helping adults with a mental disability to live in the community.

Once these members are in place and have been oriented to their task, I look forward to the proclamation of The Vulnerable Persons Living With A Mental Disability Act. I believe this new legislation illustrates that we have responded in a very real way to the needs and wishes of Manitobans with mental disabilities and their families.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

After listening to our clients, the department has been changing the way it provides services, emphasizing community living and greater control by the consumer over support services. I want to assure Manitobans that child care will be available to single parents in their transition to work. We will continue to place an emphasis on flexibility to meet the needs of working parents and single-parent families.

As I have indicated, the impact of reduced federal transfer payments to Manitoba for social programs has presented us with some very difficult decisions. The reduction in the daycare allocation this year is one of those hard choices. The introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer this year means that the cost-sharing received from Ottawa for child daycare will be reduced by about $3 million on a prorated basis.

As we reviewed all the programs and services in the department in light of the federal reductions during this year's budget exercise, it seemed preferable to recognize the underexpenditure that already existed in child daycare due to the underutilization of subsidized daycare spaces and to reduce the allocation for this program accordingly.

* (1150)

We will be taking this opportunity to carry out a full review of child daycare, which will be conducted by my colleague Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, the MLA for St. Norbert. I am looking forward to continuing the co-operative relationship which has developed with the child daycare community and to working with them, as well as with families and others, to complete this review of the child daycare system in the months ahead.

The area of child and family services remains a high priority for this government. Even though funding to this critical area has increased by 59 percent, money alone will not ensure Manitoba's children are safe. In keeping with the redirection of the child and family services system towards family support, family preservation and permanency and family responsibility, the Family Support Innovations Fund was developed to provide for the creation of new programs, to prevent the need to remove children from their families unless they are at risk.

Twenty-four projects have been approved in Winnipeg and in rural Manitoba at a total cost of over $2 million in both 1995-96 and this year.

Last fall, I congratulated Winnipeg Child and Family Services on a program which was developed with a local television station, called Thursday's Child. It featured a child who was available for adoption into a loving family. I understand there was considerable public response to the program.

I am also pleased to note the success of the adoption initiative, which saw an increase in the number of children placed for adoption in 1995 over the 1994 total. Adoption efforts in Manitoba are being refocused to make adoption a priority for children over the age of one, who are in the permanent care of Child and Family Services agencies. This initiative involves a partnership among the Department of Family Services, Child and Family Services agencies and the adoption community.

The protection and well-being of children is a responsibility shared by all of society. In the months ahead, we will be consulting with Manitobans to ensure that they have an opportunity to contribute to a review of The Child and Family Services Act and to help renew our Child and Family Services system. I am pleased that this community consultation will be undertaken by my colleague Mike Radcliffe, MLA for River Heights.

The services of our family conciliation branch continue to be important to Manitobans. We are anticipating that over 2,000 families will be provided with assistance, including 200 court-ordered assessments, 550 mediation classes, 1,200 information and referrals, 40 families for conciliation counselling, and workshops and therapy groups for over 800 parents and children. A new pilot program in the family conciliation area, entitled For the Sake of Children, was initiated last fall through the Family Support Innovations Fund. This parent education program provides separating or divorcing parents with information on a voluntary basis, regarding the needs of the children during and after the separation or divorce of their parents.

Family dispute services has developed as an important part of the range of services supported through Family Services. I feel proud of the work that has been accomplished in Manitoba in the area of family violence. Only yesterday, I had the opportunity to address the Northwestern Canadian Conference on Family Violence. This occasion provided a chance to reflect on the tremendous work that has been done in the community and in partnership with government to find a solution to family violence.

Violence within the community or family structure is never a justifiable occurrence. Family violence affects us all. It can affect our families at home, our colleagues in the work place, our friends and our acquaintances. It does not distinguish between rich and poor or stop at cultural boundaries. As the Minister of Family Services and as a woman I feel profoundly affected by every episode of family violence or victimization of women. Saddened as I am by these tragic events, I also take comfort from the growing number of voices which have emerged from the community to condemn these actions. I am heartened because I see the development as a direct result of the many partnerships which have evolved between government and the community to combat these forms of violence and end the abuse.

Family Dispute Services branch and Family Services was established just over 10 years ago beginning with only five programs. Today the branch works with almost 30 programs across the province to reduce the threat of violence. During this time there has been 168 percent increase in the funding services to this branch. We continue to refine the tools we have available to help the community respond to family violence. In the last four years we have begun funding shelters and second-stage programs for children's counselling services. Most recently a new funding model for second-stage programs has been designed to meet the variety of needs of women and their children who have left abusive relationships.

However, there is much work yet to be done. We must widen our approach to this issue. For example, we must re-examine how we teach our boys and girls to handle anger to break the cycle of violence across the generations. Violence is everyone's responsibility, and I feel hopeful that by working together in new partnerships and with the community we can be successful in ending the violence.

Could I just ask whether we might try to finish? I only have a page or two, and if it takes to a minute after 12, would that be acceptable?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to continue past 12 if necessary? [agreed]

Mrs. Mitchelson: Another area where new partnerships can prove beneficial is in services to high risk children and youth. By establishing the Children and Youth Secretariat, I believe we have the opportunity to co-ordinate the services of various sectors in government to enhance services to children and young people. The secretariat, in conjunction with Family Services, Health, Education and Training, Justice, and Culture, Heritage and Citizenship has completed a review of the programs and financial resources spent by each department to respond to the needs of children and youth. From the review the secretariat has identified programs and expenditures specific to high risk children and youth. This information, available for the first time in a cross-departmental format, has provided the background for cross-departmental strategic planning.

Our children first strategy lays out a strong belief in the value of each child or youth and in his or her inherent right to a safe and nurturing family and community which supports his or her development into a healthy and productive adult. The emphasis on the secretariat has been to facilitate change at all levels, to improve co-ordination of services for children, youth and families across departments and between sectors and to redirect the focus to prevention and early intervention within the existing resource base. During its second full year the Children and Youth Secretariat will work to develop partnerships of youth, parents, consumers, community agencies, nongovernmental organizations and government departments in a collaborative change process which will enable us to meet our commitment to children first now and in the years to come.

In closing, I want to note that in our allocation of expenditures for 1996-97, we have made every effort to maintain a balanced made-in-Manitoba approach to preserving and renewing services for our most vulnerable members of society as we face reductions in federal revenues. We have protected those most in need from the impact of these reductions.

We are taking a constructive innovative approach to helping people find work and become self-sufficient. In doing so, we have reached out and formed new partnerships with industry and community groups. These are important steps in a new direction on which we will be able to continue to build in the future.

As I have noted on several occasions, meeting the challenges of vulnerable families and individuals is not only a government responsibility, it is one that needs to be shared by the whole community. Every sector of society must be actively involved if we are to build safe, sustainable and healthy communities for families and children in Manitoba.

Government can be a partner and facilitator in this task. If we are successful in working together with both our existing partners and new partners we will see more families and individuals make the transition from dependency to self-sufficiency. The potential benefits for those families and individuals are immeasurable both in economic and personal terms. Benefits for their children will not only be to help them continue on the path to self-sufficiency but also to strengthen the whole community.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the staff in my department for their continued hard work. The work of this department is always challenging and the staff always approach these challenges with a real commitment to the many Manitobans our programs serve.

I am very much looking forward to this committee's review of the Department of Family Services for 1996-97, and I welcome the comments of all committee members. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 12 noon, the committee will recess until 1 p.m.

The committee recessed at 12 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 1 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will resume the Estimates of Family Services. We thank the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) for her comments.

Does the official opposition critic have an opening statement?

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): It is always interesting to listen to the Minister of Family Services and to see from year to year who she blames for the fiscal problems of the Province of Manitoba. In the past it was the provincial deficit. Last year and more so this year, it is the federal government and their offloading and cutting money to the Province of Manitoba. I guess some of the previous years excuses the minister cannot use anymore because they are not there anymore.

In the past, the emphasis was on the deficit and needing to get the deficit under control. As the minister knows, there is no current year operating deficit. In fact, last year, there was a surplus of $120 million so the minister had to find a new scapegoat, well, not really a new one, because last year the same minister blamed the federal government but, as we both know, the cuts went into effect starting April 1, so that was rather convenient for this minister.

This minister, to her credit, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) have been saying that they were not going to backfill the cuts that were made by the federal government. However, I believe that that is a choice that this government could have made. For example, I have pamphlets summarizing the budget decisions in the Province of Saskatchewan, where they lost $52 million from the federal government for social services and $47 million for health and $15 million for post-secondary education. The Province of Saskatchewan backfilled all of the cuts in social services, $52 million; all of the cuts from the federal government in health, $47 million; and $11 million out of the $15 million for post-secondary education. So that is one of the options that this minister and this government probably considered but rejected out of hand.

So instead we have the poor paying disproportionately for the federal government's cuts because of choices this government has made. I was briefed by one of the minister's staff on the cuts in social assistance and the total, I was informed, comes to $23.1 million. Of course, we will get into that in much more detail later.

I believe it is probably the biggest cut of any part of any department, of any ministry of this government. This minister and this government are not facing up to the reality of the social deficit. They like to talk about the fiscal deficit, although they cannot anymore. They have had to change and talk about the long-term debt instead but are unwilling to talk about the social deficit, and so I will talk about the social deficit.

I am sure that this minister and her staff had numerous phone calls as a result, first of all, of the city of Winnipeg reducing their benefit levels on April 1 and then the province reducing their benefit levels for social assistance recipients on May 1.

Now, I understand that ministers are busy people and they probably do not take very many of those calls personally. I am sure that the staff handled the majority of those calls and it is too bad that we do not have the American congressional system here where we could command witnesses to come and testify, because it would be very interesting to hear the minister's staff, particularly the staff in the minister's office who answer the phone for her, to have them testify as to the kinds of phone calls and the kinds of remarks that people have made. I certainly hope she has been getting lots of calls, because I have been referring lots of people to the minister's office. They phone me, of course, as opposition critic, I suppose because they assume or they know that I will be sympathetic. Frequently, they do not even think of phoning the minister's office. So, of course, I always tell them to phone the minister's office, and I tell them that the government needs to hear how their policies are affecting individuals, and the only way the government is going to hear that is if they phone government offices and, most importantly, the Minister of Family Services.

Now, I would hope the staff would at least pass on in a general way people's concerns, how angry they are, how upset they are. I do not imagine that all the details get passed on to the minister. I would assume there is a count of the number of phone calls, and I would hope that it is considerable. Unfortunately, people feel so beaten down that they do not fight back, and that is unfortunate. I am going to give the minister some feedback and her government some feedback on how individuals feel about the policies of this government and how they have been affected by the cutbacks.

The largest category of people phoning me are the people who now are expected to subsist on $411 a month, municipal assistance in Winnipeg. People are phoning me and I have had several people who are crying on the phone. One person said, I wish I could just put a gun to my head. I feel more like a pastor than a politician when this happens, and I am very fortunate that I have a network of colleagues in the United Church across the province. I have made referrals to my colleagues so that people can get some pastoral support in their own community, because I do not have time to phone these people on a weekly basis and listen to their concerns. I wish I did, but I do not.

Another individual phoned one of my colleagues with the comment that he wanted to go out on the street and wave a gun around so he could go to jail. He thought that being in jail he would be better off than on assistance in the city of Winnipeg. That was before the Headingley riot; perhaps after the riot he might not have thought that jail was such a good place to be, but it shows how desperate people are when they say they would rather be in jail than on social assistance.

I had another individual phone me, one of my constituents. He has been on social assistance for several years. He got out of prison four years ago, a federal penitentiary in Edmonton. When he was in prison he was getting a per diem and he was being paid to do work that the prison system was doing for the government of Alberta. His income in prison was $188.30 a week or $753.20 a month. On city social assistance he says his income is $440 a month. Financially, he was better off in prison than on social assistance. I hesitate to bring up these examples in case the minister or the federal government starts to cut back on wages for people in correctional facilities, so that people are worse off.

However, I think it was a very telling comment that this individual thought that he was better off financially in a penitentiary than on social assistance. Now, his income assistance worker is telling him that he must sell his pet, a dog, and he said that the only thing he has to come home to at night is his dog. That is very common for pet owners, it is very common for seniors, and, obviously, it is the same experience that this social assistance recipient is having that his pet is very precious to him, in fact so precious that this is the only thing he has to come home to at night. Now his social services worker is telling him to sell his pet, or give his pet away, get rid of his pet because he cannot afford to keep a pet on social assistance.

One of my constituents phoned me, someone who has been on assistance for one year and cannot find employment, someone in her 50s. Her medications are no longer covered. I would assume that those are medications that are not on the list that are covered. Most medications are paid for when you are on social assistance. This individual has been getting counselling for abuse and has phoned her counsellor and said she can no longer afford bus fare to go to counselling, and so she will not be going anymore. She said it is just like being abused all over again.

I offered this individual bus tickets, but she declined. I will be intervening on her behalf with the City of Winnipeg to see that we can get her a bus pass so she can continue with abuse counselling.

* (1310)

A constituent of the MLA for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) phoned me. She says people are making decisions who have no idea of what it is like to be on social assistance. She is in her 50s. She feels depressed. She is on medication. It is degrading to be on social assistance, she says. It is hard to find work at age 57. It is evil--she is referring to the policies of this government and their social assistance cuts.

The poor are being exploited to benefit the more affluent. These policies will cause violence and desperation.

During the month of April, people in the United Church were encouraged to live on a welfare budget for a month, and I would like to read into the record one of the experiences of a family who attempted the welfare challenge. Well, in view of the time constraints I think I will table this, but it makes for very interesting reading because this is a middle-class family who I believe have two incomes and tried to live on $514 for the month of April. They talk about the choices that they made, that people on social assistance have to make all the time.

For example, making long-distance phone calls for which there really was not money available to make if they kept within their budget, but because it was a family member who lived a long way away who was in a crisis, they made the phone calls anyway, and they said that if they were on social assistance for real, it is probably the kind of expense that they would have incurred, even if they had to go into debt to do so.

The monthly budget that they had calculated for them, normally they would spend just for food, leaving nothing for clothing, personal or household supplies, utilities, entertainment, or transportation. They realized that it was only a simulation, that it was not the real thing and they could make exceptions. But people on social assistance on a budget cannot make exceptions and they are very concerned and very upset with this government. I have had correspondence from many churches and many church-sponsored organizations, and I would like to just read one of those pieces of correspondence into the record.

The Diocese of Rupertsland wrote to the minister and also I presume to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) because the NDP Health and Family Services critics were copied. They passed on the resolution of the diocesan council of the Anglican Diocese of Rupertsland from Tuesday, March 26, 1996, which says that the diocesan council oppose the cuts to welfare announced by the Manitoba government on March 12, 1996, and call upon the government to rescind them and that this resolution be communicated to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the leaders of the opposition parties and the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson)

So we know that there is widespread concern in Manitoba regarding these cuts this minister has made. This was a choice that the minister had to make and I would suggest a very deliberate choice knowing that probably the majority of the public supports the government in this choice. Politically it is a very popular thing to do, to cut welfare budgets. The minister probably had opinion polls to back that up, so there was not very much risk for the government, but the people who are subject to the cuts have paid the price and paid a very steep price, have probably paid the largest price of any government department in order for this government to project another surplus. So they are helping to pay not only for the federal cuts but helping the government to achieve their goals of building up a surplus which might be used for a tax cut four years from now which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has admitted.

Just before the break, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) suggested, jokingly I hope, that the minister should order in steak, and I said to the minister, I do not think this minister would do that. This minister learned a lesson from treating civil servants, her guests, at a very expensive restaurant in Winnipeg and apologized on the national media to anyone who might have been offended. I think the member for Emerson does not get it. He does not realize that the public does not want governments spending money in this way at the same time--and I think that is why it was a newsworthy story--that ministers of family services and social services from across the country were getting together to talk about how they were going to cut programs and spending in their respective provinces. So I presume that the Minister of Family Services will talk to the member for Emerson and caution him that he should not say things that could be put on the record that might embarrass her and her government, even if he was speaking in jest.

This is the International Year for the Eradication of Poverty. I do not think this minister is doing anything--well, first of all, I know the minister is not doing anything to commemorate the year, unlike the Year of the Family, is not doing anything to eradicate poverty and is only making it worse. I think that will show up in statistics in future years, so that Manitobans will be worse off in those statistics and we will go back probably in some categories, like being the worst of all 10 provinces when it comes to child poverty, as we were several years ago.

Under Community Living and daycare, we have a freeze, a reallocation announced. I think that this is really a cut; I guess time will tell. We may find out by the end of Estimates whether it is a cut or not. I think this government has been duplicitous and misleading when it comes to the number of subsidized cases in child care. The minister announced an increase in the number of subsidy cases from 9,600 to 9,900 at a time that the minister knew that the caseload was below 9,600 and that there was a utilization. So it looked like a good-news announcement when in fact it had no effect on more children qualifying for subsidized care, and I will have a lot more to say about that later.

Last year in Estimates, the minister promised that the vulnerable persons legislation would be proclaimed soon, and we are still waiting. This process has been extraordinarily long and, unfortunately, the minister cannot explain why very well. We know that the position for the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner was advertised, that people were interviewed. Then the advertising and the process of hiring were cancelled, and then, presumably, they advertised and interviewed all over again and eventually hired somebody from within the department. A good individual, by the way. I had a chance to meet him at the Association for Community Living annual meeting. In fact, unfortunately the minister could not make it to speak there, so they asked me to speak instead. I commiserated with them having to listen to me instead of the minister but was happy to have the opportunity.

So we are still waiting for The Vulnerable Persons Act to be proclaimed, waiting since July of 1993. I will want to know why there has been a further delay since last year's Estimates when the minister said the act would be proclaimed soon.

Under the Child and Family Services part of this department, the Children's Advocate has said that the Child and Family Services system needs to be rebuilt. We have had a number of children die, either in care or who have been recently in care. The current process is that there are internal investigations and where there is a death, there is an inquest. However, this is not sufficient for the public to be assured that everything possible is being done for those children and to prevent deaths in the future. So that is why I have called for a full public inquiry, and it is not too late for this minister to have inquiries on some of these deaths because the inquests and reports are not over. When they are, the minister will still have an opportunity to have a full public inquiry.

* (1320)

I believe that is important because it means that not only the cause of death can be examined but all parts of the system can be examined, including whether or not everything was done to ensure the safety and well-being of the child, but also whether or not sufficient resources were allocated to do home visits and to monitor the family and to do background checks and all those sorts of things that should be done. A full public inquiry could assess responsibility within Child and Family Services agencies, right up to and including the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson).

In conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation of this minister who makes doing Estimates quite a bit easier than it is for some of my colleagues. This minister actually answers questions, which is quite refreshing compared to some of her colleagues, and I appreciate that. It means that things flow quite quickly and smoothly here in Family Services Estimates.

I would also like to congratulate the new deputy minister who is a very competent individual and I am sure will do a good job. I heard, and not from the deputy minister, that she went to Vegas and I guess maybe hoped to get lucky and hit the jackpot in Winnipeg with an appointment while she was gone.

I am looking forward to the next week and a half, Mr. Chairperson. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the critic from the official opposition for those remarks. Under the Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line.

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

Mrs. Mitchelson: Maybe, just for clarification, could I ask how we are going to proceed through the debate and that might help me to determine who should be at the table.

Mr. Martindale: Well, first I have some questions on the minister's introductory statement, mostly around federal funding, I guess, and funding for off-reserve First Nations people. Then I have some questions about the organizational chart and Appropriation 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support and then lengthy questioning on the Children's Advocate's reports.

Mrs. Mitchelson: At this time I would like to introduce the staff that are present at the table. Assistant Deputy Minister Tannis Mindell, Associate Deputy Minister Doug Sexsmith, and Director of Policy and Planning Drew Perry.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister. We will now proceed to line 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $487,300 on page 51 of the main Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister why Manitoba chose not to backfill the money that was lost from the federal government under the Canada Health and Social Transfer?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Indeed, it was a government decision not to backfill. We said it very clearly when there was a clear understanding that there would be major federal reductions. Can I say, in order to ensure that the programs that are needed for the most vulnerable people in Manitoba for the years to come, that it is important that we get our financial house in order. I do not want to leave a legacy to my children of debt and deficit and interest on the debt that they have to pay money that will have to come out of their pockets for the mismanagement of the public's tax dollars at this point in time, so I have to indicate that it was a definite government decision in our province.

I heard my honourable friend talk about Saskatchewan and how they have backfilled for the federal offload. If he may recall back a few years, some things that the NDP provincial government in Saskatchewan did that we chose not to do at that time was to raise their sales tax from 7 percent to 9 percent and gouge those who lived in Saskatchewan and increased their revenues substantially by increasing taxes. We, as a provincial government here in Manitoba, chose not to do that. We chose to hold the line on taxes. Manitobans pay 2 percent less on their provincial sales tax than do those people in Saskatchewan. They increased their taxes substantially and people in Saskatchewan were having to take money out of their pockets to pay those increased taxes, where Manitobans did not.

As a result of the measures that we have undertaken over the years as a government, Manitobans are able to keep more money in their pockets to make their own decisions and their own choices. Many Manitobans believe that they can make better decisions on where to spend their very hard-earned tax dollars than governments can make.

So those were decisions that we made. We chose to try to get our financial house in order. We chose to keep taxes stable rather than increase taxes, where Saskatchewan made different choices. As a result, they are paying higher taxes and our decisions, our choices, have been different than their choices. We made a conscious decision not to backfill on what the federal government was offloading.

If you look back to the history of some of the offloading, Manitobans have had to pick up a greater share than those in Saskatchewan for the decisions that the federal government made on offloading their responsibility to fund services for aboriginal people in the area of welfare and child welfare off reserve. In my opening statements I indicated that as a result Manitoba taxpayers have had to pick up over the last three, four years $94 million more for that federal government decision. That has been a greater amount than what Saskatchewan has had to pick up, although they are in the same circumstance and situation. I have to say that although their government may be of a different political stripe, their government is as concerned as our government with the federal offloading for aboriginal people.

We may agree to disagree philosophically on what direction we might take. My honourable friend says that Saskatchewan has made different choices, yes, over the years they have made different choices. Where we chose to be responsible for the taxpayers of Manitoba and not increase their taxes, the Saskatchewan government has not chosen that direction. We may agree to disagree.

Maybe my honourable friend could indicate to me whether he believes Manitobans want to pay more tax and where in fact those taxes should come from to provide the services. We still, when you look at our budget and the allocation of our budget in Health, Education and Family Services, I think, we compare favourably or better than many other provinces in the proportion of our budget that goes to those vital services for Manitobans than many other provinces.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I would never, never for a minute suggest that Manitoba increase the sales tax or increase the deficit. However, going from memory, I think the projected surplus last year was $48 million, but it ended up being $120 million. First of all, why was this government so far off in their projected surplus, and why did the government make this choice? Budgets are really about choices that governments make. Instead of choosing to budget such a huge surplus, why was some of this money not allocated to Family Services, for example, so that you did not have to make such horrendous cuts?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess, again, it comes down to an ideology or a philosophical discussion. I tend to think that you, as leaders in the province and governments, those that are elected to govern should run the government and use the money--the only money government gets is that money that is contributed by taxpayers in the province of Manitoba.

I think we have a responsibility to be good managers of those tax dollars that we receive from Manitobans. I believe that we should run government with the money that is entrusted to us by those that work very hard for it in the same manner that we would run our own household.

* (1330)

I have to tell you that if every Manitoban lived for today and did not worry about the future or what their future might hold and set aside some money for emergency situations or circumstances that might arise from time to time, we would be in a pretty sad state of affairs. I have to say to you that I believe very strongly that we need to ensure that there is money for those times when money might be needed for unforeseen circumstances and that we should manage within and spend within the money that is raised or generated from those Manitobans that contribute in a very substantial way through taxes to allow us to govern and provide the services that are needed for Manitobans.

Mr. Martindale: Since this minister professes to be concerned about the federal offloading, and we knew that this was happening as a result of the '95-96 budget, why did the minister not go to Ottawa and appear before a parliamentary committee at the time that this was announced? We know that the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) went to Ottawa, but the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) did not go to Ottawa. The Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) did not go to Ottawa. This Minister of Family Services did not go to Ottawa. Why did you not try to influence the federal government at the time the cuts were announced instead of complaining about it in last year's Estimates and now again in this year's Estimates?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, if go back to my opening remarks, again, I think you will have to recognize that, you know, over the past couple of years, back since February of 1994, the former federal Minister of Human Resources, who was part of, a major part of the decision making around the changes to our social safety net really was not interested in discussing with governments right across the country how we could co-operate and work together to try to ensure that there was some fairness to the decisions that were made. As you have seen, the decisions come around changes to CAP. The new programs, the new block funding that has been implemented, you will note that the transfers to provinces have been considerably greater than anything that the federal government has done itself to try to get its own house in order.

I ask my honourable friend, does he really think that the time would have been well worth the effort? Do you think that a federal minister who was not prepared to meet with provinces in any significant way for well over two years, do you think that was a government that was open to listen and that my presentation, or any other minister's presentation from right across the country--and I do not believe there were any ministers of social services from New Democratic governments across the country that made presentations.

I believe that we worked collaboratively and tried to get our message across to the federal government that we were not happy with the direction they were taking, but does my honourable friend think that would be a good use of taxpayers' money, to go to appear before a parliamentary committee to present what we had already presented by way of letter to the federal government, very strong letters from all ministers of social services right across the country? Would it have been a good use of Manitoba taxpayers' dollars to go make a presentation before a parliamentary committee that had already made its mind made up?

Mr. Martindale: Since the Minister of Human Resources Development, Mr. Axworthy, would not meet with the minister in Winnipeg, the minister had the opportunity and could have gone to Ottawa.

I would like to ask some questions about the provincial social services ministers and their agenda and items that they are working on. I may have more questions about this later when I have one of their documents in front of me, but the minister did mention it in her opening remarks, and I would like to ask what is meant by greater clarification of government roles and responsibilities. I wonder if the minister could expand on that paragraph at the bottom of page 2 in her opening remarks.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, in that one meeting we did have with our federal counterpart back in February of 1994, I think it was, it was labour market ministers and social services ministers that had the opportunity to meet with Lloyd Axworthy.

At that time, when we thought there was going to be a clear direction from the federal government and an action plan that involved provinces in an equal partnership in sitting down and discussing what social security reform, a reform of our social safety net, would be, we were actually quite enthusiastic, thinking that for the first time we would look at what level of government should be delivering what service, whose responsibility it was, how could we reduce the overlap and duplication and ensure that we were not trying to both do the same things, but in fact we would be able to streamline processes, clearly identify whose role, whose responsibility it would be to deliver what programs to Canadians and how we could do that in the most efficient and effective way so that the administrative costs would be reduced and the dollars that needed to go to people would be used to their maximum potential and ability. We were very hopeful at that time that there would dialogue, consultation and collaboration between the two levels of government, and we would be clearly involved in the process. What we found out as we went along was that that action plan turned into a consultation paper which turned into a unilateral decision by the federal government to implement the major, very significant changes that they did make.

So the social services ministers still across the country, we believe that there is an ability for us as provinces to try to define what could be federal responsibility and what could be provincial responsibility and make recommendations or suggestions on how we might decrease the overlap and the duplication and ensure that the dollars going to Canadians are going in the best manner possible to utilize the maximum amount of resource to get to the people who really need the support.

* (1340)

Mr. Martindale: Have the provincial ministers made any progress and agreeing amongst themselves as to clarification and roles, and also have they made any progress with the federal government? Have there been any decisions made or any changes announced or proposed even?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, are we armed with a final position to go to the federal government? I do not think so, but I think there is an opportunity with the new federal minister for us to request a meeting--and you know that B.C. is the lead province this year for ministers of social services across the country--and at our last meeting we had much discussion and the direction that came out of that meeting was that the minister from B.C., who is our lead, would contact the federal government and request a meeting with the new minister. I think the deputies are meeting sometime later this month with the federal deputy to try to put that process in place and get a meeting with the federal minister to discuss how we might come to agreement and work together to see if we can define roles and responsibilities.

Mr. Martindale: I have not heard anything about progress. Would it be accurate to say that no progress is being made?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The work that has been ongoing between provinces is not finalized as yet, but we have working groups of officials that are meeting on a regular basis to try to come up with clear recommendations in the areas of income support for children and low-income families, seniors, employables, persons with disabilities and other groups in Canadian society.

Mr. Martindale: Also in the minister's opening statement, she mentioned that the provincial ministers have agreed to collaborate on issues such as prevention, research, information sharing, best practices, training and certification, et cetera, regarding children. What does that mean and has the collaboration taken effect, and has there been information and research sharing, et cetera?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, this was an issue I guess I raised at our last ministers' meeting. Because the whole country seems to have been so caught up in social safety net reform over the last few years and all of our energies and efforts have been focused around trying to at least be participants--I do not think we were terribly successful as provinces because ultimately the federal government did make its own decisions on the direction it was going. But there are many other issues that social services ministers had put on the back burner, so to speak, because our meetings were dominated primarily by trying to find a way to communicate with the federal government around the direction we believe needs to be taken with social security reform.

The issues around child welfare, which are very important issues and which every province is struggling with--you know, B.C. has just had a major report, the Gove report presented to them which they have had to deal with, and every province is struggling around child welfare issues. I do not think there is anyone that has all of the answers or all of the solutions or a perfect system in place.

So I raised it as an issue that needed to be back on the table, that we needed to start to put our heads together around what was happening in different provinces, what kind of research, what kind of information did we have that we might share with each other on what was working and what is not working, and is there anything that we can learn from experiences in other provinces or better ways of doing things.

It is not an area where I think anyone has the solution or the answer, and it was time that we focused, now that the federal decisions were made--yes, we have to continue to clarify the roles and responsibilities and get a meeting with the federal minister, but are there areas of co-operation that we can find interprovincially, specifically on the child welfare issues, to see whether we can find better ways of dealing with very vulnerable children and families in our communities.

Mr. Martindale: What has happened since the minister has agreed to make collaboration a high priority? Has there been research and information sharing?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There have been discussions interprovincially at the officials' level, and Manitoba will be taking the lead on this issue and will be convening a meeting of provinces at the staff level to see where we can go from here, what kinds of information, what kinds of data we have collected and researched and ways that we can support and look at different initiatives across the country.

So the work is just starting. That meeting was just April 1st, and there has been correspondence with B.C. being the lead province this year. Usually it is the lead province's sort of responsibility to communicate, and we just received communication not long ago that Manitoba would be the lead province on this issue and that at the highest level within our departments staff will be getting together and seeing where we go from here. So it will be happening.

Mr. Martindale: When the provincial social services ministers meet with the federal Minister for Human Resources Development, what would Manitoba like to see on the agenda?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, one of the biggest issues for us is the aboriginal issue, the offloading of services off reserve for Status Indians and welfare and child welfare, and it is an issue that I have kept very high on the agenda of social services ministers.

Although to the east of us, they do not consider it as big an issue because their per capita population of aboriginal people is so much lower, it is a major issue for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the territories. That is one thing that in every piece of communication that provincial ministers have put out has been kept at the forefront.

I have mentioned it in a very brief meeting that I had with the new minister, have also been to Ottawa to speak to the Minister of Indian Affairs, and it is an issue that I would like to see discussed in a very significant way when we meet with our federal counterpart.

* (1350)

Also I suppose it can be somewhat interrelated, and I think we have maybe had a chance to discuss this in the past, the changes to the unemployment insurance, which ties a lot of the federal training dollars to those that have been unemployed in the past. It seems to me that Manitoba is at a significant disadvantage when you note that many of those in our province, and particularly in our aboriginal community that have never had the opportunity to be employed in the past, will not be able to access those training dollars from the federal government because they are tied to previous employment opportunities.

I think that puts Manitoba at a disadvantage, as it does most of the western provinces and the territories, and that is an issue that needs to be well understood by the federal government. I think they need to rethink how they distribute the training dollars. I think that issue needs to be taken into consideration in developing unique programs for those provinces that do have the specific aboriginal issue. The federal government does, in my mind and in many provinces' minds, have some responsibility, major responsibility, both constitutional and financial responsibility to aboriginals both on and off reserve.

Child care is another issue that needs to be clarified at the federal level. As you know, the program that was announced by Mr. Axworthy was cancelled by Mr. Young and that was mainly because I do not think there was more than one province that--I think it was nine out of the 10 provinces did not agree with the approach that Mr. Axworthy was taking and did not feel it would be of benefit to them in their individual circumstances. I know that the new federal minister has been seeking advice from the provinces on what they would like to see for child care, and I think you will probably find that most provinces have different needs based on their population, their demographics, the size of their communities, their workforce. He seems prepared to talk and to discuss the issues around child care, so that is another issue that we would certainly want on the agenda.

Mr. Martindale: Going back to the offloading of First Nations people on social assistance off reserve to the province, the minister has actually been quite good about keeping Manitobans informed about the cost. I think the first tally that I heard was $25 million and the next was $60 million and now we are up to $94 million, which suggests that it has been going on for at least three years maybe, but the number of years is not nearly as important as the total cost. It seems that Manitoba and perhaps other provinces are not making any progress here and that the federal government seems to have dug in its heels and is not prepared to do anything about that.

Is the minister perhaps discouraged that this is the case and that they are never going to come through on this issue?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes, I am discouraged. I have to say that it has been raised, and I suppose the one positive thing that has come from all of this is that all of the western provinces and the territories are finally beginning to look at strategies or ways that we can work together and maybe mount a stronger lobby than on an individual basis with the federal government. Critical in this whole process, too, is working with the aboriginal community. It is an issue that we have raised with the AMC and an issue that they are quite aware of and I think are in agreement with our position on the issue. Of bigger concern, of course, is the dismantling of Indian Affairs and the move to self-government for aboriginal people.

I sense and I hear from my colleagues, especially in the western provinces, that in dialogue with the aboriginal communities, the leadership in their aboriginal communities across the West and in the territories, there seems to be some common understanding emerging that this is an issue that we all need to look at very carefully and very critically and develop a position on. So that is starting to happen and I think sometimes there is a little more strength in numbers if we have provinces putting their heads together trying to figure out how we might present our position to the federal government with a stronger voice that we may be heard.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to move on to unemployment insurance, I guess properly now called employment insurance. I have read various statistics about how the percentage of people covered by this insurance scheme is falling due to federal government decisions, and I think now we are down to about 54 percent of people who may be eligible for this insurance.

It is my understanding that whenever the federal government makes changes and fewer people qualify because of federal changes that these people end up on provincial social assistance much sooner than they ordinarily would or end up immediately rather than after their employment insurance is exhausted. I think maybe the minister has actually been keeping track of the cost to Manitoba of this.

I am wondering first of all if that is true and, if so, do you have any figures on how much you estimate the cost to Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think the last time the changes were made we estimated it was about $3 million to $4 million. I think I indicated that last year.

We have not got any figures or calculations at this point on the most recent changes that were made, but I will certainly share that, my honourable friend, when we do have that information.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for that. I think that would be a helpful figure to have. It also suggests that the cost of federal offloading is much larger than just the Canada Health and Social Transfer because, if you look at the cost of First Nations, people off reserve on social assistance and UI changes, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars more to the Province of Manitoba.

I am interested, and I know the child daycare community will be interested that this is an important item for this minister to put on the agenda when meeting with the federal minister. What kind of program or what kind of cost-sharing with the federal government would you like to see or are you seeking?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, as we have indicated all along, more spaces was not necessarily the answer for Manitoba.

If you look around rural Manitoba, and I think the issue that has been raised most often is the ability for flexibility for seasonal workers in rural Manitoba. Much of our economy is based on the farm economy, and people are looking at seasonal-type child care support in many instances and nontraditional hours of support and service. So the issues in rural Manitoba are somewhat different or different to some degree than they are in our more major centres in Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson but, still, many of the jobs that are coming to Manitoba are through the private sector.

When I look at the call centres, where probably many of our single parents may be employed into the future, we have already started a significant partnership in ensuring that those that are on social allowance have the opportunity to be trained and enter the workforce and the call centre industry. We know that is shift work and weekend work. We also know that many of--if you want to call them traditional female professions are in the nursing profession, the caring profession--many of those are shift work and weekend work. In the service industry many of the jobs are shift work and weekend work, and yet our child care system, which was developed, I guess, over the last two decades, really has not changed to meet the needs and the flexibility that is required to ensure that children are safe and secure in good environments while parents are working.

Also, I have had a lot of dialogue with the child care community that leads me to believe that some of the skills and the expertise they have and the training they have as early childhood educators would fit well into the whole new focus around early intervention, early child development that we have placed on our departments and through the Children andYouth Secretariat. I mean, we all know and I think many provinces, many of us have bought into the Fraser Mustard concept that the first few years of a child's life are very critical and very important. They need to bond. They need to be nurtured and nourished well, stimulated, and that really does get children off to a healthy start in life.

* (1400)

I think there is a role for early childhood educators along with public health nurses and social workers, those who graduate from the faculty of human ecology. Our whole health, education, social work community needs to get together and put our minds around how we best use the resources that we have in all of those different areas to ensure that children's needs are being met at an early age. I think there is a role for early childhood educators outside of the structured child care setting that we have today to be a part of that process. I have challenged them, and I think they have risen to the challenge of looking at how we can refocus our programming for children at an early age to try to ensure that we get children off to a good healthy start to life.

I have had just very informal discussions with my federal counterpart. I have, in the few minutes that I had to meet with him, raised it as an issue. So I do not know whether child care dollars that come to Manitoba could focus on some of the new direction and some of the co-ordination of services that we are trying to provide to ensure that we are dealing with a healthy start to life.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I believe it was the will of the committee to take a five-minute, 10-minute break. A five-minute break.

The committee recessed at 2:03 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 2:12 p.m.

The Deputy Chairperson: Order, please, to resume the Estimates of Family Services.

Mr. Martindale: I agree with the minister that there is a need for flexible child care, particularly for evenings and weekends. There is a need for more child care in rural Manitoba, but I am wondering if the minister thinks that the only way to get flexible hours in child care is if there is federal money to do it. Is that why the minister is suggesting that this should be on the agenda for the meeting with the federal minister?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely not, and that is some of the discussion we have been having with the child care community, asking for suggestions and ideas on how we can best utilize the resources that we have to provide that flexibility and opportunity, bearing in mind I think both the child care community and government are both committed to ensuring that we try to develop the best program possible to meet the needs of working families and children, putting families and children first.

Mr. Martindale: So if the minister says that child care will be on the agenda in the meeting with the federal minister, what is it that Manitoba wants? Do you want more money, or do you want new programs or cost-sharing or what is it that you would like the federal government to do?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think what we would like the federal government to do is to look to what Manitoba needs and possibly support with federal contribution some innovative new ways of delivering services to families and children through our child care system. That might be in the way of pilot projects that might test new methods of doing things. I think we are open and we are flexible and I think we need to understand where the federal government will come from. How much money have they allocated, or have they allocated any money specifically for child care initiatives? How, in fact, can we present to them what Manitobans need based on recommendations from the child care community, the families that need the service and our government, and what are they prepared to do to cost-share in any initiatives that might make our system more flexible to meet the needs of the families we need to serve.

Mr. Martindale: I do not know why I am wasting time asking questions about the federal government. The previous Conservative federal government reneged on their child care promises and the federal Liberal government has reneged on their child care promises. I am kind of flogging a dead horse here, so I will maybe keep it brief. If the federal government agreed to pilot projects or agreed to innovative ways of providing child care and they said it would be cost shared on a 50-50 basis with the province, would not Manitoba likely say no?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I have indicated in a very clear way that there is no more money, so within the resources that we have allocated to us how can we look for better ways of serving Manitoba families?

Mr. Martindale: So the only way that this could happen would be if the federal government were to put 100-cent dollars on the table, or if they increased the envelope for the Canada Health and Social Transfer and there was more money made available for social programs. Is that right?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, no, that is not right. I indicate to you that one of the reasons we established the new secretariat was in fact to look at where our dollars were going in all four departments of Justice, Health, Education and Family Services to serve the needs of children and families, and if in fact we can find better ways of delivering service so that families are served in a more co-ordinated approach and were dealing with whole families instead of bits and pieces of families and children, there might be resources that are freed up to look at new ways of delivering service to children and families. If in fact we could identify where the savings could be found, those dollars could be contributed to new and innovative programs.

Mr. Martindale: My final comment on the minister's opening statement is in reference to the last paragraph on page 19 where the minister imagines that she has a balanced approach, a made-in-Manitoba approach to preserving or renewing services for the most vulnerable members of society and alleges that Manitoba has protected those most in need from the impact of reductions. I disagree with this minister on this bit of analysis, or so-called analysis, because certainly people on social assistance are vulnerable Manitobans. They have had their rates reduced significantly on May 1, and I believe that in child care there has been a reduction in the number of subsidy cases, which we will get into later under Day Care. So I do not think that this is a balanced approach. It is somewhat of a made-in-Manitoba approach, because I think we now have workfare in Manitoba, and I think the Manitoba version of workfare is if you do not accept a job or training then your benefits can be reduced or you can be cut off entirely. I think that is Manitoba's version of workfare.

I would like to move on to the actual Estimates book now and ask if the minister has a new organizational chart that she can share with me for the department.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Martindale: I would also like to table two documents that I referred to in my opening remarks. One is entitled Attempting the Welfare Challenge by Bev Ward, and the other is Saskatchewan Budget Highlights.

Could the minister tell me why the department was streamlined to three divisions from four?

* (1420)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess I have been the minister in this department for--what?--two and a half years. Not too long.

Mr. Chairsperson, I hear my honourable friend from the opposition saying too long, and I have to say to you, and I will put it on the record, I have said it many time publicly, that when I was first appointed two and a half years ago to the Department of Family Services I received more condolences than congratulations. I really wondered what was in store for me, and I have to say that I have come to, as I understand the issues more and more, enjoy dealing with some of the very difficult issues that we have to deal with because I believe I care, and I am concerned about the health and well-being of all Manitobans. Challenges are great, but, over the last two and a half years, I have come to understand what the department is all about and have questioned maybe why all the services for children and families were not amalgamated in one area of the department. We had Children's Special Services in with rehab, community living and child care, and child care in that division, too. What we have done through the amalgamation is put all the services for families and children in one division and all the services for adults with disabilities and regional services, regional operations, in another division. We have also amalgamated welfare, our social allowance program, with administration and finance and Policy and Planning.

What I think gave us the opportunity to move fairly quickly after the budget was finalized, what gave us the opportunity to move very quickly was, of course, the change in deputy ministers, where the new deputy minister was formerly an assistant deputy minister in the department, one of the four divisions. We had a vacancy at that point which we chose not to fill, but in fact to streamline the department somewhat, so we could have the opportunity to move all the services for children and family into one division, have the services for adults with mental disabilities in another division and reduce the number of senior management positions by one and move Policy and Planning and Financial Services under or in with welfare, the social allowance programs under an associate deputy minister. So we have three divisions. We have a central financial management system, a central policy and planning division now that will assign people to different areas within the department as need be to develop policy and programs.

Mr. Martindale: Why did the minister choose not to promote people from within and instead appoint somebody from her office be an assistant deputy minister?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think, if you will look at the structure, many of the people that are part of our senior administration now are people from within the department that have been given new challenges and new opportunities. The assistant deputy ministers are people that--there is no one at the assistant deputy minister level that is new or from outside of the department. It is the director of the Child and Family Support branch that, in fact, is a person that has been appointed from outside of government, someone with experience in the child welfare system, years of experience in the child welfare system.

Mr. Martindale: I just got the organizational chart, so maybe I can ask more intelligent questions now. Could the minister give me the name of the new director of the child welfare and family support division?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Phil Goodman.

Mr. Martindale: This is the individual who came from the minister's office?

Mrs. Mitchelson: He had been working in a part-time capacity as an adviser to me. He had been working also at the same time with the Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre, had previously worked in the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency and has had a number of jobs throughout the years dealing directly with high-risk children in need.

Mr. Martindale: Where did Mr. Fenwick go on this chart?

Mrs. Mitchelson: He went to become the executive director of Regional Operations.

Mr. Martindale: So that would be the second last box under Community Living?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if we could just go back to the rationale for these changes again briefly. What results does the minister expect to get from this so-called streamlining? What improvements do you think it is going to make to administration and to delivery of services?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think it has the ability to make significant change. As I indicated, one of the primary reasons for our restructure was to try to amalgamate the services for children and families into one area. In the past under the assistant deputy minister of Rehab and Community Living, we had Children's Special Services and Child Day Care in with the programs or under the same administration that dealt with services for adults with mental disabilities. Then we had another branch with Child and Family Support programs. It did not make any sense to me to have Children's Special Services and Child Day Care not reporting under the same division, under the same assistant deputy minister, under one deputy minister. That fragmented services and it did not provide the kind of holistic approach we are looking at with the establishment of the Children and Youth Secretariat to try to develop programming that deals with whole families rather than bits and pieces of families.

So it made sense to me, and I would hope it would make sense to my honourable friend, to have services for families and children in one area rather than fragmenting it. So that was the rationale or reasoning for moving that in under one division under one assistant deputy minister.

Previously, we had an assistant deputy minister responsible for Finance and Administration, and Policy and Planning; and each different division had policy and programming and financial management. So in order to streamline management systems, we decided to centrally locate all of Policy and Planning and all of our financial administration in with our Social Allowances program under one associate deputy minister, who is Doug Sexsmith now, and have policy units or financial units available to work throughout the department in a more co-ordinated fashion as need be. So, as a result, instead of having four divisions, we have three divisions with three senior managers rather than four, and I think a more co-ordinated approach to serving the people that we serve in Family Services.

* (1430)

Mr. Martindale: The language sounds good. I guess the proof will be in what happens over the next few years. I am sure we will be reviewing this again in the future.

Could the minister tell me, and the answer is probably in the legislation, why does the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner report to the assistant deputy minister for Community Living rather than to the minister like the Children's Advocate?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The reporting relationship to the ADM of Community Living is an administrative reporting relationship, but there is direct accountability to the minister.

Mr. Martindale: It does not show that on the organizational chart.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I do not think he asked a question.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Burrows, to ask a question.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I am finally ready to start some questions on line 1.(b), although I think probably those questions were appropriate there.

Could the minister tell me if the 10 SYs under 1.(b) are the minister's staff and does that include the deputy minister? Does it include any assistant deputy ministers? Who are the 10 SYs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is staff in the minister's office and the deputy minister's office, but it does not include the ADMs or their staff. Those are in the other lines.

Mr. Martindale: Does this line include a budget for the minister or for things such as meals or does that come somewhere else in the department?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is under Other Expenditures under this line.

Mr. Martindale: I see that Other Expenditures includes transportation, communications, supplies and services. Is it the Other under Other Expenditures?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what Other includes?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am trying to get the detailed information. It includes publications, travel, meals, some computer-related expenses.

Mr. Martindale: I have in front of me the annual report for 1994-1995, and I assume that this came out since the last year's Estimates process, so this is really the first opportunity that I have had to ask the minister questions on this annual report.

I have a number of questions on this line. First of all, in the Estimates under Other Expenditures, it is broken down into four items; but in the annual report, Other Expenditures is lumped together. It is not separated by category. Would it be possible to get a breakdown of the categories in the Estimates as to actual expenditure since they are not in the annual report, but could we get that information?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, we can get that, and we can have it for you at our next sitting if that is appropriate.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for that. Also, I noticed that in '94 and '95 actual over estimates that in this line the minister was overexpended by $39,000. The estimate was 80.7--I presume that is $80,700 and the actual was $119,700. Why is that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We can provide that information the next time we meet, also.

Mr. Martindale: I am wondering if the minister can tell me why the annual report does not have as much detailed information as the Estimates.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is a standard format for the annual report, and the Supplementary Estimates are a standard format, and that is additional information provided about the budget. It is my understanding it has only been six or seven years, maybe a few more, since so much detail has been provided in supplementary form to members of the Legislature for budget consideration.

Mr. Martindale: Since the fiscal year just ended on March 31, is it too soon to have the actual expenditures for the '95-96 budget year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, my understanding is that it is not entirely finalized until about the middle of June.

Mr. Martindale: That is regrettable. Maybe we should be here in the middle of June.

I would like to go on to the Children's Advocate’s report on which I have numerous questions, and maybe the staff could--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Would you like to pass 1.(b)(1)?

Mr. Martindale: Good idea.

* (1440)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits--$487,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $80,700--pass.

1.(c) Children's Advocate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits--$213,800.

Mr. Martindale: Perhaps the minister's staff could help the minister and I through these reports. The reason that I make that request is that the first annual report taking up their cause has numerous recommendations, and the Second Annual Report of the Children's Advocate has basically reiterated many or most of those recommendations and has also got a chapter on the ministerial and departmental response to the '93-94 recommendations. I originally had written my questions based on the first annual report, and then I see that a lot of the answers are in the second annual report. This might get complicated, but bear with me.

To start off with, there is a small increase in the budget for the Children's Advocate. Could the minister tell us what the very small increase is for?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is merit increases for staff salaries.

Mr. Martindale: Going by memory, I think the Children's Advocate had asked for more resources in order to hire more staff and also to--I think it was open an office in another part of Manitoba. I am wondering what the minister thought of those requests.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes, the Child Advocate has asked, I think for a couple of years now in a row, for additional staff resources and the ability to open another office outside of the city of Winnipeg.

The decision has been that we will await the review process of the Child Advocate's office and determine what the reporting mechanism will be and what the roles and responsibilities will be and evaluate how well we think the office has worked. As a result of that all-party committee that will be struck very soon, we will determine and evaluate the office to this date, and it was premature to be making decisions on expansions until we understand fully what the reporting relationship may be and how the office might work after that review.

Mr. Martindale: I will have more questions on the review later. The first annual report was for the fiscal year 1993-94. It was tabled in April '95. The second annual report was for '94-95 for the period ending March 31st, 1995. It was tabled April 1996. So both of these reports have been over a year old before they were tabled.

I am wondering why the minister cannot table this annual report in December when the House is in session.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we received the report from the Children's Advocate three days before the session ended in December and did not have the opportunity to review it and prepare our responses, so that was why it was not tabled in December, and it was tabled according to legislation as the spring session began.

Mr. Martindale: Would the minister be willing to ask the Children's Advocate to submit it at least 15 days before the December session, so that the minister would table it when the House is in session in December?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess the year ended at the end of March, and, obviously, the Child Advocate felt he needed the time that he needed in order to prepare his report. I have no problem with asking him to try to write his report in a more expeditious way, but unless my honourable friend has more information than I have, according to the new rules, I am not sure if there will be a December sitting.

Mr. Martindale: Well, there probably will be a December sitting, but, of course, it is up to your Premier (Mr. Filmon).

My point here is I believe we need these reports on a more timely basis because if we do not have the opportunity to ask the minister questions in Question Period or in Estimates until 13 months or 14 months after the fiscal year-end, then the minister is in an extremely advantageous position of being able to say that she has implemented most of the recommendations, and that means that there is a lot less accountability for the minister as to the content of the reports, and, as the minister knows, the first annual report was extremely critical. The second report suggested a lot of the recommendations have not been implemented.

So I am wondering what this minister can do, other than blaming the Children's Advocate for submitting it late, to provide these reports on a more timely basis to the Legislature.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do want to clarify the record, because I would not want my honourable friend to leave on the record false information that indicates I blamed the Child Advocate for submitting a late report. I did not blame the Child Advocate. I, if anything, was trying to defend his need to write his report.

But on the recommendation of my honourable friend, I will write to the Child Advocate, with a copy to my honourable friend, indicating that my honourable friend has recommended that he do his report in a more expeditious fashion in the Estimates process and ask him whether, in fact, he might like to consider my honourable friend's recommendation and write his report on a more timely basis.

Mr. Martindale: In the Advocate's first annual report, on page 8, the Advocate says that he would like to have a role to play in influencing policy and funding decisions.

Could the minister tell us if he has been invited to meetings at which he could influence policy or funding decisions?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, from time to time, I meet with the Children's Advocate, and we communicate on a regular basis. He communicates with me and I communicate with him, and he has every opportunity to make recommendations on policy direction, but, ultimately, it is up to government to make policy decisions and implement those policies, and part of his role would be to, where he feels it warranted, provide constructive criticism on the direction that government has taken.

That is the role of the Child Advocate, but it is ultimately up to government to make those policy decisions. I would welcome his recommendations on what policy direction he believes we should take, but as I said earlier, ultimately it is government's decision to develop policy and implement that policy, and the same goes for funding decisions.

Government ultimately through its budget process makes decisions. I would welcome, and I do welcome, the recommendations that the Child Advocate might make to government, and I welcome his criticism if he believes we have not made the right funding decisions, but we as a government ultimately have to be held accountable for the decisions, the policy decisions, and the funding decisions we make. I welcome advice from the Child Advocate and from anyone that would like to provide advice and recommendations, and we will take all of those into consideration as we develop our policies and our budgets.

* (1450)

Mr. Martindale: I appreciate the minister saying that the Children's Advocate has met with her and that is appropriate. The minister pointed that out in her ministerial statement in the Chamber and has repeated now in the Estimates process. It is appropriate that the Children's Advocate meet with the minister because ultimately the minister is responsible for all policy decisions, but the Children's Advocate was requesting that he be invited to meet with people who are part of the policy and funding decisions. So I am wondering if the Children's Advocate is invited to meet, for example, with the assistant deputy minister and his staff who have a hand in making these decisions or at least making recommendations to the minister.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The Child Advocate is free to meet with the deputy minister at any time he requests, and he does meet with the ADM and the director of Child Welfare on a regular basis to discuss programming issues. He is part of the executive director of Regional Director Working Group, and he has had an opportunity to meet with individuals in all of the regions of the province and with individual Child Welfare agencies throughout the province--so free access to discussion of the issues and the directions that we are taking. Obviously, as a result of those discussions, he has made comments in his annual reports.

Mr. Martindale: In the Children's Advocate' s first annual report, on page 8, he says, “I believe that I have not always been able to successfully influence policy or funding decisions. First, because I have not been invited to participate in any of these processes; and, secondly, the majority of such activities and decisions are directly related to government's agenda for cost reduction and not necessarily service enhancement based upon the actual needs of children and families being served by the Child and Family Services system.”

Could the minister tell me if this has changed since the Children's Advocate's first annual report? The minister has referred to different people interdepartment that he meets with, so I would like to know if this concern, the Children's Advocate, has been taken care of?

Mrs. Mitchelson: If you want the short answer, the short answer is no. I will go back to the first answer that I gave, and that is that the Child Advocate has a role to ensure that the needs of children are being met and that programs are responsive to children and their needs. As far as the Child Advocate getting involved in the budgetary process for the Department of Family Services, that will not happen. He can, however, make recommendations at any time about what he believes should happen, but, ultimately, we take his recommendations into consideration as we move through the budgetary process, and, ultimately, government makes the budgetary decisions, and the advocate has the opportunity to support those decisions or be critical of those decisions.

From time to time through the year, he can write or meet and make recommendations on where he feels dollars should be allocated. We may agree or we may not agree. He is free to write his report accordingly after the fact, and he can make recommendations on what policy direction he believes government should take. We will evaluate those recommendations and move on those recommendations as we see fit, and he will be able to report accordingly.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to move now to the recommendations in the first annual report on page 37. I guess we need to cross-reference the second annual report on pages 17 and 22. Under the category of recommendations concerning the Children's Advocate, I presume that the response in the second annual report on page 22 is a general response to all five of the advocate's recommendations. That is, all of these five concerns could be raised at the time that the review by a legislative committee is done. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: How many MLAs will likely be on this committee?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The process that is followed is our government House leader speaks to the opposition government House leader because it is an all-party committee, and they will determine which committee it will be referred to, and it will be the composition of that committee that makes up the membership.

Mr. Martindale: So the minister does not know how many opposition members. Is it conceivable that there could be recommendations made to the minister regarding amendments to The Child and Family Services Act regarding the Children's Advocate?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will be, as the Minister of Family Services, on that committee, whichever committee it is, whatever committee is struck. Certainly there may be recommendations that come from the committee on how the Child Advocate's office should run. There may be recommendations that come from the minister to the committee on what direction we believe should be taken with the Child Advocate's office. We are all part of the team when it comes to making the decisions or reviewing the office.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I hope to be on that committee, too, so I look forward to that process. I think it is probably a process that should be used more often in this Legislature.

Would the minister agree that some of his recommendations are really quite minor, or if amendments were made to the legislation, they would be quite minor, for example, giving the Advocate the power to reject complaints that are frivolous.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess what we would need to do would be explore that as a committee. I mean, what is the definition of malicious, vexatious, and frivolous? If it was the committee's view that that should be contemplated, we might consider that. It has been a long time since the first annual report came out and I am not sure that--

An Honourable Member: A good point.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, you have made that point, too, just a few minutes ago, but I am not sure that I can recall in my discussion with the Child Advocate exactly what his definition of those words, or his interpretation of those words was. It is probably something that I should clarify--good point--with him before we go to the committee process, so that I could share that with my honourable friends that are sitting around the table, so we can have full discussion around what direction we believe we should go on that recommendation.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The time being three o'clock, committee rise.