* (1430)
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to obtain the unanimous consent of the House, notwithstanding the sequence for consideration of Estimates as outlined in Sessional Paper No. 142 tabled on March 24, 1998, and subsequently amended to consider the Estimates of Community Support Programs and then Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital in Room 255. Madam Speaker, these changes are to apply for today only.
Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to change the sequence for consideration of Estimates to consider for today only the Estimates of Community Support Programs and then Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital in Room 255? [agreed]
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
(Concurrent Sections)
Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 9.4. Child and Family Services (a) Child and Family Support (1) Child, Family and Community Development on page 56 of the Estimates book.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): When we left off, I had asked the minister a question, so we will await the response.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I know we were discussing the whole issue of services to 16- and 17-year-olds, but I cannot remember what the exact question was. So maybe my honourable friend might repeat it to help me focus an answer in the most appropriate fashion possible.
Mr. Martindale: I would be happy to help the minister focus. The question on page 2775 of Hansard was: "what is the minister going to do to make sure that the needs of 16- and 17-year-olds are being met?"
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think if I want to talk about the process, and I do not think I answered this before for my honourable friend, but if indeed there is a family problem with a 16- or 17-year-old and the family reaches out for some support because they just cannot--they are in the middle of a family crisis--in fact, there are services that do kick in, and through our new emergency services, there is opportunity on a 24-hour basis for families to receive some sort of crisis intervention. That does not always work, and we know that sometimes children have to be removed from a family circumstance. If there is agreement on all sides, a voluntary placement agreement can be entered into whereby supports are received for a period of time outside of the home so that we can try to work with the family and the child involved to see whether there cannot be a satisfactory resolution to reuniting that family.
* (1450)
If in fact a child chooses not to have any association or any contact or any treatment provided by the agency, we know that we have to provide supports through our welfare system to 16- and 17-year-olds. In other instances where there is a determination that there is significant work that needs to be done with a child who does not want to be part of the family situation anymore, the agency enters into an independent living process with 16- and 17-year-olds where they receive certainly food and shelter. That is done on an individual basis, and the workers within the system are required to--cheques are not sent out to these individual children. They come into contact with their caseworker from the agency to receive their payment and their support. Wherever possible, we encourage some participation in formal or informal services to those children, but we cannot force them to participate if they do not want to be involved in any sort of support. Very difficult. We try to encourage very strongly a connection to some sort of support service, but where there is an absolute refusal and they do not want to participate, we ensure that there is still a connection to the child welfare system. But in fact we cannot lock them up and we cannot force them to participate.
It is interesting to note that right across the country there is a different mix of supports that are available. There are some provinces that do not provide any support after the age of 16 to children. There are six jurisdictions across the country that do not provide any support through the child welfare system after children turn the age of 16. There are five jurisdictions that provide support up to the age of 18, and I guess British Columbia is the only one that provides support up to the age of 19. So it is different across the country.
I would love to see an opportunity everywhere to ensure that there is help and support, but again we cannot force kids to participate if they choose not to.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for her answer. It seems to me that it would be preferable and probably there would be more success if 16- and 17-year-olds participated willingly in either a voluntary placement agreement, or were successfully coping with independent living. Presumably some of them are, maybe most of them are, but what I get are desperate phone calls from parents. I was using as an example a parent, when we left off on Thursday, and I appreciate that one of your staff, Mr. Goodman, offered to help in this particular case. But what I get are very desperate calls from parents saying my son or daughter is on the run, or they are living on the street, or they are engaging in high-risk activities and the only thing that will work is a locked facility for treatment, either for psychological treatment or drug and alcohol abuse, substance abuse treatment. That is not available in Manitoba and so the parents feel that they are at their wits end.
Now another problem is that in several of these instances they asked for help at a much earlier stage and Child and Family Services did not provide the help then, and so, of course, there is a lot of blaming going on about the fact that Child and Family Services was not willing to intervene when it might have been a lot more helpful.
In the case that I began to talk about on Thursday, the individual was sent or referred to the Selkirk healing lodge and the mother said: this is not going to work. This kid is going to go AWOL, and, in fact, the kid went AWOL on Thursday and was returned by the police and over the weekend left the facility again and is back on the street. So what do I say, or what do you say to some very desperate parents out there who care very much for their children and feel that there are no resources for their children because people are saying, including I hear in the minister's answer, there is nothing we can do if they will not voluntarily accept some sort of plan for them?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess there is not any one situation or circumstance within a family that is the same as another. Obviously there are many people that try to do the best job of parenting possible and things still do not work out. I guess the experts that work in the field seem to believe and tell us that a locked facility is not necessarily the answer for these kids.
What they are trying to do is buck the system basically, and the best solution is to try to find some sort of community support like the MacDonald Youth Services, and the support systems that they provide that help an adolescent, a 16- or 17-year-old, develop a trust relationship with someone out there in the community.
We all know that until a child can start to make the right choices or the right decision for themselves, very often forcing them to try to do something that they are not prepared to do is not going to work. We find that in the instance of locked facilities like the Marymounds or the Knowles centres, we have the highest incidence of children running in those facilities. They are just not prepared to be a part of the process of rehabilitating themselves or getting the kinds of support that they need when they are forced to do something.
So I guess I want to say that I am extremely concerned and I feel for parents who are going through the struggle with an older teenager and trying to find the right answers but knowing that locking them up is not necessarily going to be the right answer, that they have to be prepared to be part of a process to help change their lives around. Hopefully, as we put additional resources into the community, like we have been doing with the shutting down of Seven Oaks, and redirecting our focus and resources to crisis intervention, in-home intervention, and short-term placement, when we try to sort things out and help them connect with someone that they can trust and help them turn their lives around, that we are going to see significant success.
I would be very interested in knowing individual specific circumstances around parents who would come forward and say that they have tried to deal through the child welfare system and get help for their families and their children, and they have not been successful because they have not received the support. That concerns me, and I would certainly want to hear about those instances where that has happened. I would certainly be prepared to look into those individual cases and see what may not have happened that should have happened.
This again is sort of--you know, we have talked in the past about putting more money into child welfare agencies to do the prevention and the intervention versus the protection. There has always been a debate around that, and there are some children, some older children--and maybe they are getting younger--who may take advantage of knowing that there is a protection system in place and if things are not going well at home, almost threaten parents with the fact that they are going to call Child and Family Services because they do not feel they are being well treated at home.
* (1500)
That does happen. I have certainly heard that comment made, and you kind of wonder whether the child welfare system can be the be all and the end all for all families. Can they be the people who do all of the intervention and all of the family support but also be the agency that is there to take your children away when you have been accused of abuse or neglect? I think expanding our community base and looking to other community services in partnership--because you cannot work in isolation of the child welfare system--but if you look at other agencies that can provide the kinds of supports that families need without the threat of your kids being taken away from you if there are accusations made, I think might be part of the solution.
So I hear what my honourable friend is saying, and I am always very concerned that we try to get the best supports in place that we possibly can. I think that because each individual case is so different that we need to look at different solutions for different circumstances and situations.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister for being interested and looking into the specifics of the case. I will write to her about the son of my constituent so that she can see whether or not Child and Family Services acted properly or not.
I have in front of me a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, October 30, 1997, about child care policies, particularly regarding foster homes, and it is based on the Annual Report of the Provincial Ombudsman for 1996. Mr. Barry Tuckett criticized authorities for leaving a three-year-old child in a foster home for a year, despite allegations she was being physically and sexually abused. I think probably the '96 annual report was released some time in '97, and I think this is the same case where the department responded to the Ombudsman's concern. It says: accordingly the department is following up on the broader systemic issues identified in this case.
I am wondering if the minister can tell me what that means and what action has been taken as a result of this specific case, not in this individual case, but what action is being taken to prevent situations like this from happening again. I believe, in this case, the parent alleges, and I think the Ombudsman agreed, that there were a number of instances of abuse. The parent brought this to the attention of the appropriate authorities, and yet the child was not moved.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is my understanding that the Ombudsman's comments were comments that said that the agency did not act in an appropriate, timely fashion based on what they had committed to do, that in no instance was he indicating that there was a situation of abuse or that a child was left in an abusive situation, so his comments were related to the timeliness of the plan that the agency said they would follow through on and their, I guess, delay in putting that plan into action and ensuring that the child was moved back home. So I just want to make that clear, that it was not an issue of a child being abused in a situation where that child was not moved, because in those instances that child would have been moved immediately.
What I can indicate to my honourable friend is that since that report we have certainly within my department increased the number of quality assurance reviews that are done and that if, in fact, the case plans that have been put in place by the agency are not followed through on, we ensure that they are complied with. So that is the kind of activity we are reviewing, certainly in a more aggressive way, the plans that the agencies have for children. If we find that they are not moving as they have indicated they would be, we are following up to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Martindale: There is certainly a disagreement here between the minister and the Ombudsman because the Free Press story of Wednesday, October 29, says: a three-year-old child apprehended by Winnipeg Child and Family Services was left in a foster home for nearly a year despite signs she was being physically and sexually abused, Manitoba's provincial Ombudsman has found.
He said that six different people at the agency and in government were informed about the situation, including the minister's office and the Children's Advocate.
So there is a disagreement here about the specifics of the case, and I know that that particular case was resolved, but I would like to know who is investigating and ensuring that they are dealt with more expeditiously. Is it somebody in the minister's department or in Child and Family Services agencies? Who is responsible?
* (1510)
Mrs. Mitchelson: I will answer the last question first, and it is it our branch that does quality assurance reviews of the agency case files, and if, in fact, we find that there is something lacking, that is brought to the agency's attention and we expect resolution of that. But I do want to indicate that since that article was in the paper, the Ombudsman did call the newspaper and indicated that that was not what he said and that, in fact, there was no issue of abuse.
So he was misquoted and I do not think that the comments my honourable friend read were in quotations. It was the interpretation by the media of what he said and he called to clarify that. Unfortunately, we know from time to time that the media does not always apologize, as we always do when we are wrong, in this Legislature, does not always apologize or correct the record, but he made it clear to them that that was not the case.
Mr. Martindale: I have in front of me an article also from the Free Press. Unfortunately, I do not have the date, but it says that the Chief Medical Examiner calls for five probes into six deaths. Two of them were children, one of whom was in a Stonewall foster home and died September 14, 1994, and the other was a student who died after becoming entangled in a towel dispenser September 13, '96. I wonder if the minister can tell me if both of those inquests have taken place.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do not have any detail around those, but if I could get back to my honourable friend on that, I will.
I just want to indicate that the office of the Chief Medical Examiner does fall under the Minister of Justice. I know the issue of the one child who was in foster care would certainly have some bearing on Child and Family Services. The incidence of the child in Stonewall--was it in Stonewall?
Mr. Martindale: I think so.
Mrs. Mitchelson: That would be an issue with the education system, but the Chief Medical Examiner does report through legislation to the Minister of Justice. We can get that information, and I will endeavour to provide it.
Mr. Martindale: Recently the minister announced an initiative to deal with the problem of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect, I am wondering if the minister can tell me why the group of people who had submitted a proposal did not see their original proposal implemented but, instead, the minister changed it into something that I believe is quite different.
My understanding is that their agency, fetal alcohol syndrome coalition, the Native Women's Transition Centre, Elizabeth Fry Society, Women's Health Clinic, Women's Post Treatment project, the Aboriginal Wellness Centre and other organizations had developed a proposal. It does not seem to have been implemented or, if it was implemented, it is quite different than what was proposed. I would like to ask the minister why?
Mrs. Mitchelson: A more appropriate place for this to be asked would be under the Children and Youth Secretariat initiatives, because it has been them that have been working, but I can indicate to my honourable friend that, although I do not have staff here, it is a proposal that we are still in the discussion stages on. Many of the initiatives that we have announced through the Child and Youth Secretariat are specific initiatives that deal with a certain part of fetal alcohol or early intervention. That does not mean to say that there will not be more initiatives and other things that might be taking place or announced into the future.
I have had the opportunity to hear about that proposal. It is one of the issues that we believe the federal government should be involved in discussions on. It would be nice to see us lever some dollars from the federal government to augment any support for this initiative. We have not made a final decision, but I am aware of it. We are continuing to work to see whether it is something that should be undertaken, so it has not been ruled out, but the Stop FAS initiative does not indeed replace this initiative. It has a completely different focus. It is talking about residential treatment.
Our Stop FAS initiative is not necessarily residentially focused, but it is focused on intensive work with mentors and support to try to ensure the prevention of a birth of fetal alcohol syndrome or, if one child is born, to prevent the second birth. So there will be more components to fetal alcohol and more initiatives. This one has not been ruled out as an option.
Mr. Martindale: We will certainly ask more questions about that under the Children and Youth Secretariat. Can the minister tell us what is happening with the proposed reorganization for east area of Winnipeg Child and Family Services?
Mrs. Mitchelson: No decision has been made as yet, but there have been extensive community consultations. There is a proposal that has come forward, and we are just looking at the implications of that right now, and no decision has been made yet on the end result.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us if the original proposal, which was to add the rural area into the department, has been rejected and instead a proposal to have a new agency for the rural part is being developed in its place?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think all of the community consultation indicated that the preferred option would be a stand-alone agency rather than a part of regional operations. We have not made a final determination. I guess the key for me in all of this is that there is no less service to the children and families as a result of any change. I want to assure myself that that is the case before any final decision is made.
Mr. Martindale: I think the minister and certainly the board of Winnipeg Child and Family Services received a very strong message from volunteers and staff and area councils in east area that they did not want to be part of the government department. So the minister's answer at this point is a little bit vague. I think people would like to be assured that it will not be transferred to the Regional Operations, because that was their major concern. I think they can live with being an independent agency, but they would be very unhappy if they were transferred to Regional Operations.
What assurance can the minister give that the rural part of east area will not be transferred to Regional Operations?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, if we had made the final determination, I would be announcing it today. I know my honourable friend would love to have an answer. I have indicated clearly that we have heard what people have said through community consultations, and that certainly will be taken into consideration in our final decision that is made. But today I am not prepared to make that announcement. I know he would love assurances.
* (1520)
I do want to indicate through him to those in the community that have put in countless volunteer hours in support of some of the more vulnerable and needy children in our community that we have heard what they have had to say. We have listened to them. We understand their concerns, and, ultimately, the final decision that will announced will be a decision that ensures that children and families receive at least the amount of service that they are receiving now. It will not be decreased in any way as a result of any change that is made, if a change is made.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to table a leaflet from east Area. On a rather interesting page, it says: Survival tools for Child and Family volunteers. One of them is a magnifying glass to figure out our increasingly complex organizational chart. One of the problems that happens when you reorganize is that it affects the morale of staff and volunteers and area councils, and I would hope that this minister would make an announcement soon so that the problems of staff morale or the problem of staff morale would be resolved sooner rather than later. This discussion has been going on for a long time now, and I think a timely decision would be most appropriate.
I would also like to share with the minister some financial information about Winnipeg Child and Family Services that is dated February 28, 1997, and ask the minister if I could get information for the end of March 1998, hopefully, in an identical format. So I would like to pass that to the minister to have a look at.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I see that these are financial statements from Winnipeg Child and Family Services as the agency, and I will certainly pass his request on to the Winnipeg agency. We do not write this for them, and they make that determination on their own. But I will pass on his suggestion.
Mr. Chairperson: 9.4. Child and Family Services (a) Child and Family Support (1) Child, Family and Community Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,899,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $2,487,500--pass; (c) Maintenance of Children and External Agencies $113,342,600--pass; (d) The Family Support Innovations Fund $2,500,000--pass.
9.4.(a)(2) Family Conciliation (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $755,500--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $151,300--pass.
9.4.(a)(3) Family Dispute Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $313,400.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Thanks. Just before we start if I could just introduce Marlene Bertrand, who is the director of Family Dispute and Family Conciliation.
Mr. Martindale: The minister is probably aware that there was a complaint--well, describing it as a complaint would be an understatement--from a former recipient of service at Osborne House, who was very unhappy with some things that occurred while she was there and afterwards. She wrote letters to me and, I think, to the minister, and made phone calls to the staff, and I am wondering if the minister could tell me in a general way without breaching confidentiality what the nature of the complaints were and how they were dealt with.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is my understanding that at the front line level in the shelter, the staff indicated that she had to leave. What they did not explain to her was what the standards and the process should be, that is, if she decided that that was not the appropriate thing for her to do that she had the ability to appeal to the director of the shelter and, if that appeal was not satisfactory, that she could appeal to the board of the shelter.
Ultimately that did happen and the board did uphold the decision that had initially been made, but the fact was that staff was not aware to inform her or did not inform her that she did have those appeal processes if she was not satisfied with the treatment that she was given. So we have made it clear to the shelters that they must follow the standards and the process. Ultimately, I guess the end result was that the board did uphold the initial decision, but she was not afforded the opportunity to understand what her appeal process could be.
Mr. Martindale: Since it seems that the staff may have omitted certain information, was there any apology or attempt at conciliation in this instance?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Through our offices we offered to meet with staff and the individual that was involved and that was not satisfactory to the individual. She did not want that. I guess the agency has written to her letting her know what the proper process should be, but they in fact have not written a letter of apology. We certainly recommended that to them, and I do not believe they followed through on that.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if the guidelines called Family Services Policies that Affect Shelter Clients, and I have a copy of it dated July 14, 1993, are these policy guidelines shared with individuals at shelters and/or were they shared with this individual?
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is public information that is available and in all shelters and it is up to the shelters to make those decisions on how much they would share with individual clients, but it is a public document and they do all have them.
* (1530)
Mr. Martindale: So just to conclude this, it seems to me that the minister is saying that this is a dispute between Osborne House and their former client and that, even though the minister has suggested that Osborne House apologize, they did not, and the minister's position is that she took action or her department took action to see that all shelters were notified so that this does not happen again. Is that correct?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, it has been made clear to shelters that the standards must be followed. In the case of Osborne House they have apparently posted the process for appeal at Osborne House, and we have shared that document with the individual client that raised the issue with us.
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Chair, I have a few questions that I want to ask about Family Dispute Services. Just to begin, in the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review under Expected Results, one of the expected results is the implementation of annual agency reviews to monitor efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. I am a little unclear as to what this means. At least my question is, I had understood there already were annual agency reviews to monitor efficiency and effectiveness of services, but the Expected Results suggest to me that it is only now they would be implemented.
Mrs. Mitchelson: No, this is not new. It is something that is ongoing on a year-by-year basis. What happens, I suppose as shelters were set up or resource centres, we wrote the standards and developed a service-and-purchase agreement with those individual facilities and sort of looked at a time frame--and it might have been over a year, depending on the individual circumstance--until they felt they could be up to speed and live up to the standards, and then on a year-by-year basis we do an audit for compliance. I am pleased to say that I think in 90 percent of our facilities, they are 90 percent compliant with the standards. So I think it is a pretty good process.
Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister could give me a little bit of information about the audit. Is it done in-house or do people go from Family Disputes to work with the directors and staff in the various agencies? I wonder how much time it takes approximately.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think the question was as far as the annual compliance reviews, who does that and how long does it take. Is that the question that was asked?
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Ms. McGifford: Well, it was a little bit more complicated than that. What I wondered is if an agency completed this review by itself or if somebody went into the agency and worked with the staff in the agency to complete the review or exactly what the process was. How is it done?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is done with our department and with the agency, so it is done together, and it usually takes about a day or a day and a half to complete that process.
Ms. McGifford: This is done on an annual basis, so that annually all of the agencies funded by Family Disputes are visited by a staffperson from Family Disputes who spends about one-and-a-half days in each agency completing this annual agency review.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am informed that in the first year, yes, staff from the department would go in and work with the agency, and it might take a day and a half, and they would look at all of the issues.
Subsequent to that, in the second year they might only look at the outstanding issues. There would be somebody who would visit with the agency, but if there were some outstanding issues or they were not compliant, we would look at one or two areas of activity and try to see that there had been an improvement in those areas, unless, of course, there was some significant change in the organization or there had been some significant identified problem during that previous year. It might take a little more time and effort, but the first yearly visit is probably the most intense. Then we would look at, in subsequent years, some of the outstanding issues that they wanted help with.
Ms. McGifford: Then, Mr. Chair, I understand "first year" to be the first year that there is an extensive and intensive annual agency review. I hope I am correct in that understanding. I wonder if the minister, without reference to any specific agency, could give us an example of what noncompliance and/or problem areas might be?
* (1540)
Mrs. Mitchelson: We provide a standards manual to any new organization that might be starting up. That standards manual, of course, was written with significant input from the community so we have standards. As a result of that we provide the standards, but we do not write the policy for each individual facility. They write their own policies. In that first yearly review, we would look at the policies that were written across the board, and if their policy around--and, I guess, I can give an example of retaining records or destruction of records. If in fact they wrote a policy that might not be appropriate or adequate, we would help them to revise that piece of their policy and ensure that in subsequent years that might be a piece we would look at and ensure that they had revised their policy and were doing it in a consistent and appropriate way that would reflect the standards right across the system. So that is an example of one specific area that might be an issue that we would want to follow up on.
Ms. McGifford: Actually, the minister talking about the destruction of records brought up an issue for me and that was the Carosella case. I am sure the minister is familiar with the case where a convicted rapist was--no, I do know whether he was convicted; I should not say that. A man named Carosella, the case was dismissed because a women's resource centre in Ontario had destroyed counselling records hoping to prevent those records from being subpoenaed. So, I guess, I am not really asking the minister a question, but it is interesting in view of what you brought up.
It would be a very difficult time to be working in a resource centre or a centre that offers counselling on dealing with the pressure of counselling records and not knowing whether those records might be subpoenaed at any time. So what I did want to ask the minister was if she is aware of how centres are dealing with this problem, or have there been policies that have attempted to come to terms with this problem?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We have brought in individuals with special expertise to do workshops with resource centres and shelters around the issue of records and collection of records and have had training from Crown attorneys and members of the private bar to try to ensure that we have a process that protects the records in a confidential way but has them there. We have not experienced anything like that in Manitoba. We are trying to be proactive about ensuring that there is an understanding right throughout the system on how important record keeping and that kind of thing is.
Ms. McGifford: I wanted to get back to the question of effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability, and just ask very briefly a couple of other things. Are agencies funded by Family Disputes still required to make quarterly financial reports?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, most of their agencies require quarterly annual reports. If they are very small agencies, sometimes it might be a yearly report or six months.
Ms. McGifford: That method required, if I remember correctly, not simply a financial report, but included I think some statistical reporting and some other information. I am judging then--perhaps the minister can correct me--that there was a decision made that this was not sufficient to ensure accountability, and that is why the annual agency review process was initiated.
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that it was the service providers in the community that really wanted standards in place, and they drove that process. In discussion with them around how those standards should be implemented, they requested the yearly review for compliance. It was not done as a result of lack of accountability.
* (1550)
Ms. McGifford: I have a copy of the grants to external agencies for 1998 and 1999. I am pleased to see that there have been some small increases in grants to those organizations that provide services for women. My understanding is that in, I believe it was, '96-97, there was an across-the-board two percent cut to these agencies; is that correct?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that is correct. I think that was an overall, general government direction where all agencies were cut two percent.
Ms. McGifford: I have not worked out the percentages. Is it a restoration of that two percent?
Mrs. Mitchelson: There was a slight increase in last year's budget, and a slight increase in this year's budget, and it works out not quite to the two percent, but almost.
Ms. McGifford: So, Mr. Chair, in 1998-99, then we are slightly below the grants that existed in '96-97?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My honourable friend is correct. In some agencies there has not been an increase, and they might be funded slightly under what they were funded in '96-97 still, but the reality is that we have increased and started some new agencies that are funded like Alpha House, like Nor'west Co-op Community Health Centre. Those were agencies that had no funding, and they are being funded now. The Francophone treatment programs, L'Entre-temps and Pluri-elles and the Laurel Centre have received funding. There was no funding at all for those.
So we have increased the services for women, and we have not included in this the other half million dollars that has been allocated for responses to the Lavoie inquiry, which will see additional funding again in the community. So the final decisions have not been made on the funding to address Lavoie, but there will be more money in the system as a result of those decisions.
Ms. McGifford: I am a bit confused. Did I hear the minister say that the Laurel Centre and Pluri-elles were only recently funded. Because--maybe I will just leave it at that.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Excuse me, Mr. Chairperson. They have been funded, but they got significantly increased funding this last year.
Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, the Pluri-elles increase from last year is $3,000, not even quite $3,000. It does not seem to me it is a significant increase. I do not really want to dwell a whole lot on that.
What I would like to ask the minister is: when I look to the different women's resource centres and see the grants, I see on my list that the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre is receiving $37,900, and the Lakeshore Women's Resource Centre is receiving the same amount of money. Now I know that the minister knows we have read petitions for Evergreen Women's Resource Centre in the House, did several of these. We certainly have spoken to these women. They are quite adamant that the grant is simply not enough. They feel that they are doing the work of any urban or northern women's resource centre and that they have huge geographic areas that they are responsible for. I wonder why their grants are so low, and if the minister has any plans to increase that funding substantially as these women believe they need in order to perform their duty.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I know there has been a lot of discussion around the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre. They were originally funded as a crisis office and they have expanded their mandate and want to, and I guess have become, a resource centre. We have indicated--and we have put more money into them--until we can work with them and determine what kind of facility they should be. We have put more money in to keep them operational till September and we are working with them. I would hope that we will have a resolve to the issues that have been raised by that time.
Ms. McGifford: I thank the minister for that answer. I hope so too. I notice as well that Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre gets a sum of money which is quite different from that of the North End Women's Centre, which is quite different from that of the Immigrant Women's Association of Manitoba or the Northern Women's Resource Service. I wonder how these grants are determined and why some of them are so much higher and some of them so much lower. I wonder if there is a policy, or what is it?
* (1600)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes, there are inequities in the system. I guess it goes back from the beginning of time as these facilities were set up, the Northern Women's Resource centre are serving more clients than the Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre, so received more funding. We are trying to get some sort of standard and work towards some standard across the system, but we are not there yet. The Northern Women's Resource centre gets additional money for the northern allowance. So there are inequities, and they are small inequities, I understand, but we are working towards some consistent standard, consistent model.
Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chairperson, the reason I brought up that question is because I have been asked for it by women in the community. I am not arguing for any centre. I am just bringing up the question.
The minister said that the Northern Women's Resource centre got money for a northern allowance, but they appear to have the lowest amount of money out of all the women's resource centres, other than the Evergreen and the Lakeshore. Then by the minister's own argument, I am assuming that the Immigrant Women's Association of Manitoba has the most clients because they get the most money.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the explanation, I know the grant looks smaller in the Northern Women's Resource centre, but they also, on top of this grant, receive per diems for a safe house. That is not included in this number, so it would be more rather than less as a result of that.
As far as the Immigrant Women's Association, I guess this is a long-standing grant that precedes our government. My understanding is that it is as a result of a bit of a broader mandate in the immigrant community. They work with a lot of different languages and cultures. As I said, we are looking at trying to ensure, as we move towards more equitable funding, that we look at all of the grants and try to ensure some rationale.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The hour being four o'clock, is it the will of the committee to have a five-minute break?
An Honourable Member: Can we finish this line?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Okay.
Ms. McGifford: I know that we were all very disturbed at the break-in at the Parkland Crisis Centre this winter when one of the employees was assaulted and raped. I just want to table for the minister's interest--perhaps, she already has this--but it was a letter written by the Executive Director Ellen Wood to all Manitoba provincial shelters, boards of directors, staff and supporters. It appeared in a newsletter that I received, and I thought the minister might be interested in seeing the letter. Maybe she has seen it.
But I did want to ask a question about protection and safety in shelters. I wonder if that is being investigated, whether there are policies currently, and if there is any light the minister could shed on this really terrible situation.
Mrs. Mitchelson: If I might just indicate that on a yearly basis the Department of Housing, who is responsible for I think all but one of their in-housing units, all but one shelter--[interjection] Oh, they are all in-housing units, okay--do a walk through with the shelter staff and identify security and maintenance issues. My understanding is that if there has been a request for maintenance or security that Housing has never refused to accommodate or provide additional security items if they were requested. There also is a 24-hour Manitoba Housing line, a 24-hour call system if there are any issues around security or equipment that are not working properly.
Right now we have additional people besides Manitoba Housing staff that are doing a walk through of all of our facilities. They have experts in security and local policing authorities, and our departmental staff are involved in that. So far we have gone through about half of the shelters, and we will be continuing to finish the rest in a very expeditious way. I can indicate that additional security cameras have been placed in the Dauphin facility. So that is one step that has been taken.
If I can indicate, from time to time Housing has recommended that safety grills or bars be put on certain windows, and shelters from time to time have felt that it is not something that they have wanted to do for their own reasons. So there have been some of those issues that we need to get sorted out.
Ms. McGifford: I can imagine being a woman in a shelter not wanting to be behind bars, probably having lived at least metaphorically behind bars before she turned up at a shelter.
I believe there is a standards manual for shelters, and I wondered if in that standards manual there are policies on safety precautions and safety plans, et cetera, for shelters.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Our standards manual from the Department of Family Services is more program and administrative. There is a standards manual for the Department of Housing that is more facility related, so that would talk about maintenance and security. That is a standards manual that is followed for the annual maintenance and safety checks that are done by the Department of Housing. But in all of our workshops or sessions with shelters, the issue of security is one that receives high priority.
* (1610)
Ms. McGifford: I wonder if there are any plans on the part of this government to increase the length of stay in shelters. I believe that the current length of stay is 10 days, and I know that in the NDP Task Force on Violence Against Women, we recommended an increase up to 30 days. I think we have made the point that 10 days is sometimes a very, very short period for a woman who has been in a domestic abuse situation and who has to make major decisions about life, lifestyle and changes, and I wonder if the minister has any plans to increase the length of stay.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not really have any set length of stay. It is as long as that individual person needs to move on or get back--I do not want to say get back to a normal life--but that 10 days is not the maximum stay. Ten days administratively we have to report to income security, but in fact if there is a requirement on an individual basis for the stay to be 30 days or 40 days, that is what will happen. It is on an individual case-by-case basis. There is some administrative function and reporting that happens at the 10-day period, but that is not the maximum length of stay.
Mr. Chairperson: 9.4. Child and Family Services (a) Child and Family Support (3) Family Dispute Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $313,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $68,500--pass; (c) External Agencies $6,240,400--pass.
9.4. Child and Family Services (b) Children's Special Services.
Is it the will of the committee that we take a five-minute recess and resume here at 4:15 p.m.? [agreed]
The committee recessed at 4:14 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:30 p.m.
* (1630)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. When the committee recessed, we were on 9.4. Child and Family Services (b) Children's Special Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $311,300.
Mr. Martindale: The minister will be aware that the parents of children who receive funding under Children's Special Services are an activist bunch. At a recent public meeting I said that they were very good advocates for their children. The minister will be aware of some of the public meetings that they have had because her staff were in attendance. They have been concerned, not only about receiving services from this department and funding in this department, but also the special education review in the Department of Education.
I would like to ask the minister how much of the increase, and I think the increase is about $547,000, is going to agencies and how much is going to individuals.
Mrs. Mitchelson: At the outset, I would just like to introduce Eleanor Chornoboy who is the director of Children's Special Services.
All of it is going to individuals.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us if it is going for respite or other services, and how much is going for what kind of services?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are estimating that another 300 children and families should be able to be served with the additional resources. A lot of that will go to respite, but there are other services, and it is on an individual, case-by-case basis as we assess the needs of the family, whether it be equipment, child development, supplies, respite, all of those things will be taken into consideration. But it is based on an individual assessment.
Mr. Chairperson: 9.4. Child and Family Services (b) Children's Special Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $311,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $298,000--pass; (d) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $9,390,800--pass.
9.4. Child and Family Services (c) Child Day Care (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,097,400.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I would like to introduce Kathy Reid who is the director of Child Day Care.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I wrote to the minister on January 13, 1998, and I hope the minister did not notice but I actually--my name is spelled wrong on this letter; I hope I did not type that letter.
An Honourable Member: You signed it, though, did you not?
Mr. Martindale: Although I signed it, I guess I cannot blame my staff. I have to take responsibility for it.
I was asking for a current list of child care centres and homes which have provisional licences, and I am wondering if the minister has that list for me. I enclosed a copy of, I think, the first page of a rather old list from August 17, 1989, and I am wondering if I could get a current list.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I do not have a list of the individual centres by name, but I have the numbers here. I could provide that other list, but do you want me to read the numbers? Okay. The total number of licensed centres in the province is 526, and, at the present date and time--this would be as of March 13, 1998--211 of those centres had provisional licences. Those are the centres. As far as the homes go, there are 496 homes--no, pardon me, 534 licensed homes, and of those, as of March 13, 1998, 38 of those had provisional licences.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister that, if she has more stats, maybe she could either table it or provide that list to me. If she could provide at some future time the entire list of provisional licences by name of centre, I would appreciate that..
Mrs. Mitchelson: Sure, we can do that. My honourable friend needs to understand that it is a rotating list. In many instances they are given a few months to comply for whatever reason; they might have been issued a provisional licence. So, as soon as they comply, they are taken off the list, but there might be someone else that comes on. So it could be outdated as soon as it is developed.
Mr. Martindale: I could probably ask a lot of questions about provisional licences. It is really quite shocking that 40 percent of licensed child care centres have a provisional licence; and, according to the Manitoba Child Care Association and a memo that they wrote on May 4, 1998, one of the reasons for that, according to them, is the difficulty in finding trained staff to meet the licensing requirements. They believe that one of the reasons for that is the inadequate salaries. So I suppose we could debate that and I could ask a lot of questions on that, but we are running out of time.
I note from the August 17, 1989, list of provisional licences that frequently one of the reasons that centres and homes were given provisional licences was that they had to either complete a fire inspection report or they had to comply with fire inspection reports. I am wondering if that is still the case in 1998, if some homes have a provisional licence and some centres have a provisional licence because they have to first comply with fire inspection reports.
* (1640)
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that they are pretty well up to date as we speak. There may be the odd instance where there is a provisional licence because of that, but my understanding is that, because they may be checked for their licence and the Fire Commissioner is scheduled to come within a couple of weeks to do that inspection, there is a provisional licence put in place at that time. They are, within a few weeks, up to speed because the fire inspection has taken place. So it is that lag time that creates the odd instance where a fire inspection would be the reason for a conditional licence or provisional licence.
Mr. Martindale: I could ask lots of questions about the Fire Commissioner's office and fire department inspections, but I need to give my colleague the member for Osborne some time for questions. So maybe I will sum up some of my concerns and concerns of people in the child care community, and first of all, I guess, point out that some inspections are done by the Fire Commissioner's office and some done by fire departments. Some of these fire departments are volunteer fire departments, and sometimes people are well trained; sometimes they are not; sometimes inspections happen; sometimes, I am told, they do not.
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
My understanding is that in some cases reports have been issued, and it has taken months or even years to comply with those reports. This really is a totally inadequate situation to have a number of different systems for inspections and to not have people comply as speedily as possible. When one talks to people in the child care community, they discover that there are limitations on people's ability to comply. For example, were an inspector to require putting in a sprinkler system, a child care centre could not afford it. It used to be that they got quite substantial grants from Community Places. Those grants have been going down in recent years. There is no capital budget from this department for improvements to buildings and equipment, and basically any stringent or expensive requirements would be a hardship on child care centres, not that they should not comply, but it may be a hardship when they do comply.
I think one of the things that this minister and her department could do would be to put in a capital budget for child care centres like there is in Saskatchewan, I think a million dollars a year, so that when orders are issued and compliance is an issue, there is an ability to upgrade centres. I am wondering if the minister could comment. I guess there have been a lot of implied questions here, but give the minister a chance to reply.
Mrs. Mitchelson: When the Fire Commissioner does go out and make a report, he makes a recommendation on how long the centre has to comply. We base our licensing on that. I know that it is not years and years but that we work with them to try to ensure that compliance is as expedient as possible.
Around the issue of comparing us with Saskatchewan and putting a capital fund in place, I do know that there are places like the Winnipeg Foundation that do pick up some capital costs, and people can apply to the Winnipeg Foundation. They can apply to Community Places, and I know that child care centres certainly have received and I am very supportive of them receiving Community Places' dollars for upgrading.
I do want to indicate, though, that our budget for daycare is up over $45 million, where Saskatchewan's, I believe, is only around $17 million or $18 million. So, in their daycare budget line, they can include a million for capital, and that certainly does not bring them up to any significant kind of support as compared to Manitoba for daycare. I will just leave my comments there.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me when fire inspections were done and reports issued at Three Bears Day Care in Pine Falls prior to the fire in 1996?
Mrs. Mitchelson: At this point in time I am really not at liberty to comment. This is a case that is before the courts, and there are criminal charges that may be pending, so I would be more than prepared to discuss this issue at length once that process is finished.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I am not interested in asking any questions that have to do with the day of the fire or any events or court cases subsequent. My questions are about fire inspections before this tragedy happened.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Legal advice that I have been given indicates clearly that I should not discuss anything that deals with Three Bears in a public forum until the process of investigation and charges are finished, so I am not at liberty to discuss that kind of detail at this point. It may have some bearing on the investigation.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I would really like to introduce a resolution at this point, but I would be depriving other critics of time in Estimates. So, instead, what I would like to do now is raise a point of order and ask either you or Madam Speaker to rule on it. I would like to refer to Beauchesne's 505, 509, 510 and 511 and point out that this is a convention not a rule, and that in the past Speakers have said that it is up to members how they handle these matters. So I disagree with the Minister of Family Services, and I would like to see the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 ask the Chair to ask the minister to answer these questions.
I would point out that when we tried to raise questions about the Fire Commissioner's office under the Department of Labour, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) suggested it would be more appropriate to ask these questions in Family Services. Now we are in Family Services, and this minister is stonewalling and refusing to answer questions about events that happened, for example fire inspections, in 1991.
I am very disappointed that the minister is using this argument to refuse to answer questions. Rather than read into Hansard the Beauchesne's numbers that I have cited, I know that the Speaker can look them up and make a ruling accordingly.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): The honourable minister, on the point of order.
* (1650)
Mrs. Mitchelson: I just would like to also make some comments on the point of order and indicate that legal counsel certainly has advised us that not only because of the criminal proceedings that are presently underway but the issue of potential civil proceedings that we have been advised not to make any comments on this issue.
So I suppose you could take the point of order under advisement and bring back a ruling, but I think it is rather unfair to have a request from the opposition sort of go against what we have been advised legally is the correct course of action to pursue.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): I will take the advice that has been given to me by the staff here. The fact is that I will take it under advisement and report back to this committee on a ruling.
Ms. McGifford: I wanted to thank the minister and Mr. Langtry and Ms. Boulet for the briefing on the extra money in child care. On April 8 my colleague for Burrows and I were briefed and I certainly appreciated that. However, as a result of that, I am in a little bit of a statistical quandary. Maybe I could ask a couple of questions here. I believe that that day Mr. Langtry told us that there were 620 child care facilities in the province, and today I heard the minister mention the number 526. If I look in the blue book, one of the expected results is the licensing of approximately 1,070 child care facilities, and I am sure that there is a very logical answer, but I do not know what it is.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Langtry does not quite recall what number he used at that briefing, but there is a total of 1,060 facilities; 526 are centres and 534 are homes.
Ms. McGifford: I thought that there was a logical explanation. Mr. Langtry also told us that day that there were approximately 20,000 child care spaces in the province. I understand that I suppose it would be the year '97-98, there were 8,800 subsidized spaces and that with the additional money there will be a potential for 9,800 subsidized spaces. Is that correct?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Ms. McGifford: My question then is: will the total number of spaces remain constant at 20,000 or will the number of spaces increase? Will the spaces be subsumed into that current 20,000? Will there be new daycares?
Mrs. Mitchelson: There certainly could be the possibility that there will be an expansion of centres or homes as a result. I guess it will all depend on whether full-fee paying parents have a requirement for the same number of spaces into the future, because there are many spaces that are licensed that parents pay the full cost for. What we are saying is that we need another 1,000 subsidized spaces. They may be in current facilities, if there are facilities that are not full, or they may be in new homes or new centres that might be created. We have also got some money to test some innovative new and flexible ways of delivering service, and that might be in a totally new kind of facility. We do not know that yet until proposals come forward. So expectation is that we will see more licensed spaces in the system. What mix that will be, we do not know.
You know, as working parents require those facilities, if they are full fee paying and they stay in the same numbers, if we need to find another thousand subsidized spaces you may see expansion of some centres, creation of new homes or some other model that might look at flexibility.
Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister or her staff have any information on how many families or how many children are currently on waiting lists for child care.
Mrs. Mitchelson: There is no central registry within my department for people waiting for facilities. I think the whole issue of letting the subsidy follow the child will certainly go a long way to address part of the issue of wait lists because, if, in fact, a centre has more space but they did not have enough subsidized spaces, they can receive additional subsidized spaces in their facilities, so they may have children on a wait list.
Today that will be accommodated through the subsidy following the child. There are from time to time families that register on several lists in several different centres waiting for a space to free up. So we do not keep a central registry or inventory. If we have calls to our office, we try to accommodate by helping people know what is available in their community, in their neighbourhood, but then they make the arrangements based on what is in the best interests of their family situation.
Ms. McGifford: Well, Mr. Chair, I am not quite so convinced that people will, that these spaces will--what am I trying to say--I am trying to say that very recently the Manitoba Child Care Association did a really quite rough survey and found from 37 facilities, 35 of them in Winnipeg and two rural, that the approximate number of children on a waiting list was 872. Now I do know that people double register their children because they are very anxious to find spaces, but it seems an inordinate number from just that small number of facilities. So I am disturbed about the number of children in Manitoba who may be awaiting child care, and I wonder if the minister's department has any plans to determine the numbers of children requiring child care. It would seem to me that in order to meet the needs of the people of Manitoba, we really do need to know how many children need the care. So I would like to ask the minister what plans she has.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are not experiencing the kinds of calls that would indicate that we are not meeting the needs of families through our system. If we were getting many, many calls on a regular basis that said that people could not find space in the system, we would certainly have concern.
I cannot indicate whether there was double booking in the instances where there were 800 children on wait lists, whether people found other places and support and there were names on lists that were not deleted because people had found other accommodation. I do not know, but I do know that through our intake process, everyone that calls in and raises an issue around finding a space, we seem to be able to help and address. So all I can indicate from our experience is that we are not receiving a significant number of calls from people who have not been able to find support for their children.
Ms. McGifford: So perhaps the Manitoba Child Care Association should phone in with their 872 children who were apparently on this waiting list, and they will find spaces for these children.
I wonder if the minister's department is doing any work to predict future child care requirements, if there are any long-term strategies to survey the province and see where we may need child care centres, in what area? What is the long-term strategy for child care?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we have tried to change our system significantly in this last budget process, well, major regulatory changes that will look at flexibility. You know, one of the things that we have always said in Manitoba is that we need more flexibility for people who work shift work, who work weekends, and that is one of the reasons that we have put some money in to test some new ways of delivering child care that might meet those flexible needs of families that do not need the traditional nine-to-five or seven-to-six child care.
So we will continue to assess. We are working with the child care community, by the way, and with our regulatory review committee, which includes parents and users of child care, to try and determine what the needs are on an ongoing basis. We will have to try to adapt our program and make it flexible and change it as we need changes to try to ensure that, as the economy continues to improve and as we see more individuals entering the workforce, the kind of care that they need is available.
I do not think we can set down a policy today that will meet the needs of two years from now, necessarily. I think what we have to do is keep in tune with what people are telling us, ensure that we have the flexibility there for the kinds of jobs that are being created. If they happen to be 24-hour care, if we need flexible care, we will need to adapt. I think we have made significant change and shown that we have listened through the fact-finding mission and through the regulatory changes that we have made today. But that process is not stopping now. We are continuing to meet as a committee, we are continuing to identify the issues, and year by year we will have to address those issues, whether it be through regulatory changes or changes in funding to accommodate the needs of working families.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Osborne, for a very quick question.
Ms. McGifford: With respect, Mr. Chair, my point was precisely that we do need a long-term strategy, and I asked the minister what strategies were in place. I appreciate the need for flexibility, but my interest is in predicating the future and what strategies or policies--
* (1700)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.