VOL. XLV No. 17B - 10 a.m., THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995
Thursday, June 15, 1995
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, June 15, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
FAMILY SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning, 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 1.1 on page 56 of the Estimates book and on page 25 of the yellow supplement book.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I thank the committee--
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Just a procedure here. Is it the will of the committee to allow the honourable member for The Maples to say a few words? [agreed]
Mr. Kowalski: I thank the committee for that opportunity on behalf of the Liberal members in the Manitoba Legislature. I have been assigned the duty of representing their views in the role of critic for Family Services. It is one of many duties, so, although it is a department that deserves a lot more attention than I will be able to give it, I just wanted to put some remarks on the record.
One of the things that I notice in the minister's statements, it starts off talking about the importance of the balanced budget, but there is also a social budget, a social deficit that is being created here in Manitoba. Some members of the government have pointed to their electoral victory as a mandate for a number of issues, everything from government control to their spending priorities.
I think what has to be mentioned is that, under the rules of our form of democracy they have the majority of members in this Legislature, which allows them to form government, but it also has to be remembered that 57 percent of the Manitobans did not vote for candidates who were Conservative candidates and therefore may not have embraced all of the spending priorities, all of the philosophies and the platforms.
I cannot say it was because they did not approve of the spending priorities in this government as to Family Services or to gun control or to boot camps or to any issue.
So, I think, as a member, a candidate in the last election who represented a philosophy in a political party that received almost a quarter of the votes of Manitobans, I have a duty to represent that viewpoint in this committee and in the Manitoba Legislature. Just as I represent not only the people who supported and voted for me in The Maples, I represent all the people of The Maples, this government represents not only the 43 percent of the people who voted and supported their party and their candidates, they represent all Manitobans.
That viewpoint, the opposing viewpoint has to be listened to. Of course, they have the mandate as a majority government to do what they wish. Morally, I think there is an obligation to look at the opposing, the other viewpoints of many Manitobans.
So, as I started to say, the minister's statement starts off talking about the importance of the balanced budget and its effect on Family Services and the quality of life for families. Yes, a balanced budget is important, but there is also a social budget.
As a community constable working in a core area of the city of Winnipeg--I know I ran into the member opposite, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) when I was a community constable, he was working in the same area--many of the issues that are dealt with by Family Services, of course, the greatest impacts are felt in that core area. You do not have to live in that area, you do not have to have come from that area to necessarily understand it, but I am assuming that if an analysis was done on the amount of electoral support that this government got, it would be in inverse proportion to the needs of the poorest of Manitobans.
So I do not discount this government's concern about the issue, but until you have been there every day, you have seen the effects of the policies, you have been there at two o'clock in the morning with the person who is hungry and has fallen through the net of Family Services, it is an impression that is left in your mind for a long time following.
In daycare, I will say that our daycare system in Manitoba probably is one of the best in Canada. We have been far ahead of the rest of Canada as far as our daycare system, but we have got a long way to go. It still does not meet the needs of many parents. I think it is more of a shame to the rest of Canada rather than something to be necessarily proud of in Manitoba that our daycare system needs a lot of improvement. I am a former member of the Manitoba Child Care Association, being on the board of directors of a number of daycares, and I know the discrepancy between the amount of education we expect of daycare workers and the benefits that they receive. They often commented, it shows the value of society where we will pay more for people doing occupations that maybe do not have the personal contact with children where it is creating products and selling cars or selling groceries, you are paid more than taking care of our most valuable asset, our children. So, we have got a long way to go there.
There will be a tendency, I think, through these Estimates through all this Legislature to raise the spectre of the big, bad federal government and their spending cuts. I, as every other Manitoban, will stand up and scream for more money. The same as I remember--I come from a very large family and when my grandfather was a fairly affluent farmer in Charleswood, my dad would scream that I would get my fair share of all the grandchildren. Well, yes, I will stand up for Manitoba and I will scream, but let us not let that detract from saying, with what we have got, what are we going to do with it? What are going to be our spending priorities? Let us not put all our energy at pointing fingers at the federal government.
I was a member of the Seven Oaks School Board and we could have sat around screaming about offloading by the provincial government. When the spending caps were put on us and the inability to raise taxes, we said, okay. We had a moment of angst and then we went on to say, okay, that is our situation; what are we going to do with the money.
I think that is the business of this government, and that should be the business of the opposition here to say, okay, it is a bad situation, we would like more money, but this is what we have been dealt with, and we will continue to lobby for more money from the federal government, but within that sphere, what are we going to do with it, what are going to be our priorities, what is the Manitoba government going to do for the people covered by Family Services?
* (1010)
As I said, I have just been assigned this role of critic for the Liberal members in the Manitoba Legislature, so I do not have the staff, the research, the background yet, but I just wanted to assure that I have a keen interest, the Liberal members of the Manitoba Legislature have a keen interest in Family Services. We may not be able to devote all the time that we would like to be critics in this area, but we just want to put on the record our concern for this department. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $481,600.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Under 1.(b) Salaries and Employee Benefits, Administrative $240,000. Are we on the same page? Page 25? Could the minister tell us if those are merit increases over last year?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, yes, they are merit increases and employee benefits that are the reason for the increase.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have the annual report for the department for '92-93. I presume that the '93-94 report is not out yet. It is too soon. It has not been tabled yet. It has been tabled.
Mrs. Mitchelson: It has been tabled in the Legislature, and we do have copies here if you would like a copy now.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I am embarrassed that I do not have it with me, but I could not find it in my office. I moved offices. That is my excuse. I have not unpacked yet, so perhaps I will come back to the annual report later with questions. I am ready to pass this line.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(b)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $481,600--pass; 1.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $80,700--pass.
1.(c) Children's Advocate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $207,800.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have some questions about the Children's Advocate report, his first annual report for '93-94, called Taking Up Their Cause, and there are numerous concerns here that the Children's Advocate has identified, almost so numerous that it would take a lot of time to get into all of them, but many of them are very important, so I am going to spend some time on this appropriation.
One of the concerns that the Children's Advocate raises on page 8 in his report is that he has not always been able to successfully influence policy or funding decisions, and one of the reasons for that is because he has not been invited to participate in any of those processes.
I would like to ask the minister if there has been any change in that either since the report came out or possibly in the change of ministers, because he does talk about the previous minister. So could the current minister tell us if he is now invited to participate in policy and funding decision meetings?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, if I can just indicate that--I guess I would say that I do not believe it is the role of the Child Advocate to participate in the budgetary process. The roles are clearly defined through legislation, and he is there to serve the best interests of children and to ensure that children are protected and nurtured and cared for and that our systems are providing the kinds of supports that are needed for children.
He has made recommendations in his annual report, and as any other recommendations that come to government, we look to those. If you can just go back to the report, it covered the year from--it was the '93-94 fiscal year, and it was his first annual report. It was a little late coming out, and from the time the report had been written and the recommendations that were made in that report came to government, there were many of the recommendations that were already being implemented or underway.
There were other recommendations that were more long-term recommendations, some medium-term, some long-term, and we are continuing to work to try to implement some of the recommendations that were made. There are others that are still outstanding, and there are some that we accept as recommendations that we will be able to implement.
So we are moving, but I do not believe that it is the Child Advocate's role to determine funding. That is a budgetary process. We have to determine in the Department of Family Services what our priorities are.
It is clear that our priorities have been for children. You will see an increase in the amount of money we spend on protection and prevention in the Child and Family Services area.
So it has been a high priority, and we will continue to ensure that children are protected. We will continue to focus our energies and our efforts on early intervention, family support, family preservation, in those areas; so if I can indicate, we will continue to work to implement them.
We will work with the advocate. I meet with him on a regular basis. There are issues that he raises around specifics. He has talked about broad systemic problems. I do not disagree that there are problems in our Child and Family Services area. If in fact we had a system that was perfect, we would not need the dollars, we would not need the resources, we would not need a Child and Family Services agency, we would not need an advocate. There are problems; he has raised issues. We are attempting to work very closely and very carefully with the advocate, the agencies and the families that are involved to ensure that we find better ways of protecting and ensuring that the children are safe and secure.
Mr. Martindale: We will get into the detailed recommendations later, but to continue on page 8, unfortunately the Children's Advocate disagrees with the minister. He goes on to say: 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 on the actual needs of children and families being served by the Child and Family Services system. So I think, to paraphrase what the Children's Advocate is saying, you cannot separate the budget or financial decisions from the service needs of children.
He goes on to say: The Children's Advocate cannot remain silent when funding is being reduced or decisions are being made which impact on the ability of the Child and Family Services system to meet the needs of children. This is the true essence of being an advocate for and on behalf of children and youth in Manitoba.
So I would like to ask the minister, if the Children's Advocate is not part of budgetary meetings and decisions, does he in his regular meetings with the minister make recommendations on areas that have to do with budgetary decisions?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I suppose the advocate has indicated that he believes there have been cuts and reductions in the support for children in the province of Manitoba, and I guess we would have to agree to disagree. I do not agree with that statement. If you look at the amount of money that is going into support for children, there has been a major increase, not a decrease, in the amount of money. I do not see a cut. I see an increase in supports for children, in the dollars that are spent in supporting children in the province of Manitoba. So that is an area that we will agree to disagree on.
Mr. Martindale: Of course, the reason for the increase in the total budget for support for children could be an increase in the number of children coming into care. At the same time, we know that there have been reductions in foster family rates, for example.
On page 11, the Children's Advocate says that there is not acceptance and confidence in the Children's Advocate, at least not the kind that he has been expecting from various parts of the Child and Family Services system. I would like to ask the minister if, since this report was published, she can indicate if the Children's Advocate feels there is more confidence and acceptance in the Children's Advocate now. Has there been a change?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It must be remembered that it was this government that did put in place a Children's Advocate because we felt that there was a need for someone to be looking after the best interests of children.
It was our legislation and our government that put in place the Children's Advocate. We have heard the recommendations that he has made. The process that has been followed since the report came out is that it was circulated broadly throughout the community. I did request the Children's Advocate to meet with all of the agencies that were involved in delivery of services to children. I have asked all of those agencies to respond back to me by the end of June of this year with comments on the Child Advocate's report. The advocate has met with several agencies. There are still some outstanding, but I think he has attempted to meet with every agency or set up meetings with each agency throughout the province.
* (1020)
I have to say that the issues surrounding children are very difficult issues, individual issues, and my heart goes out to any child that is abused or neglected. In a perfect world, we would not see the numbers of children in care that we see in the province of Manitoba or right across our country. I think it is important and incumbent that government, that the Child Advocate and the agencies, the people who are involved with caring for children who have fallen through the cracks--and we have to remember that the reason that we see children in care or children having to be protected is because somebody has neglected or abused those children in the first place, and then you have a system, you have agencies, you have people who are in place to try and pick up the pieces after the fact.
It is incumbent that we work very hard and very carefully to try to ensure that families accept the responsibility for parenting and have the skills and the ability to parent their children. You know, it is one of the biggest responsibilities, I think the biggest responsibility that any of us ever undertake, is to raise and nurture and love our children, and, obviously, there are those who do not take that responsibility seriously. We are then having to spend major resources in trying to fix the problem after it has happened.
I just have to say that it is incumbent upon all of us to look for constructive and positive ways to try to deal with the situation. We need to put our heads together around this. It is fine to lay blame. The initial blame has to go to those who have abdicated their responsibility to parent their children, and we have to find ways to try to put the tools or the programs in place to ensure that people accept that responsibility. You know, if we could stop the problem before it happens, then we would not be in the situation of dealing with very troubled kids in our society, and our system.
Mr. Martindale: Well, unfortunately, Mr. Chairperson, the minister did not answer the question.
The question was, does the Children's Advocate feel that there is more acceptance and more confidence in him and his role now than when he was reflecting on his first year as advocate? Perhaps the minister would know whether or not there is more confidence in him from her regular meetings with him.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I would sense that the lines of communication have opened up. There was a lot of criticism of the whole system, and I think we have all come to the realization that the Children's Advocate, the department, the agencies, are trying to work better together, trying to find solutions together.
I would hope that the next annual report will reflect that there has been that effort to co-operate and ensure that we are putting children first in all of our discussions and our decisions.
So I would sense that the lines of communication are opening up and that everyone is trying to work together, and at the meetings that have been facilitated by staff from my department, the agencies and the advocate have all been involved in those meetings, and I think there is a sense that there is a willingness to want to work together to solve the problems.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I would certainly hope for the minister's sake as well as for children in need of care in Manitoba that the next annual report is much more positive, because this report is devastating. It is an extremely critical report of this government and this minister's department and some of the agencies and organizations that provide service.
Going back to the minister's previous answer, I am really disappointed that the minister would blame people who in many cases are victims, namely parents. It is quite amazing that the minister would even use the word "blame," especially since, you know, her government's policies have contributed to many of the problems.
We have very high unemployment in Manitoba. We have a lot of hopelessness and despair. There have been cuts in social assistance, and a lot of this has put tremendous pressure on families, many of whom find that they cannot cope and have difficulty raising their children.
At the same time as there have been cuts in social assistance and other areas, this government betrayed an election promise and instead of finding $10 million for a new arena, they found $37 million for a new arena. So I would hope that the minister will refrain from blaming parents for the abysmal statistics of the number of children in care in this province, which I understand is the highest in Canada.
To continue on page 11 in the advocate's report, he feels that there is an unrealistic self-view of infallibility and omnipotence held by many within the system. I am wondering, since his report has come out and since parts of the department are being asked to comment on it, if they have got the message and if they are changing their attitude, so I would like to ask the minister if some progress has been made in the last six months in that area.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to think and believe that there is progress being made on a daily basis.
There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. If my honourable friend can recall, we did announce during the election campaign that we would be doing a major review of The Child and Family Services Act.
We are in the process now of putting in place a mechanism to do that, looking at a piece of legislation that is somewhat outdated and trying to get community dialogue going around what changes need to be made in that legislation, and I think there is a willingness on behalf of the department, the agencies and I would say the advocate, too, and the community, to address the issues surrounding children and try to find better ways of delivering service and ensuring that children are nurtured and loved and cared for.
Mr. Martindale: When will this major review of The Child and Family Services Act be completed?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, when the process will be completed I cannot indicate. I can indicate that we will be embarking upon the process of a major review in the very near future.
Mr. Martindale: Will there be public consultation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely.
Mr. Martindale: In a public way or just in meetings behind closed doors with agencies?
* (1030)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think there is enough concern in the public, the people of Manitoba, to want to ensure that the issues are fully addressed and there is dialogue around many of the issues that have been raised and brought to our attention from the public.
I cannot indicate today what exactly the process will be, but I can guarantee that the public will definitely have their say.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I would urge the minister to have public meetings, so that we know what people's concerns are. If the minister only consults with agencies and their boards, we may never know what the concern is on, so I hope the minister is assuring us that there will be public meetings then.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, absolutely, the public will be involved as a very active partner in the process, and I am not going to sit in my office behind closed doors only with those who are providing services to children and expect that we will get the answers to all of the questions that have been raised around the issues of protection and support for children.
Mr. Martindale: I think the minister is being evasive. I think there is a big difference between consulting the public and having public meetings, and I was looking for some assurance that the minister would have public meetings, but we are not getting that assurance.
Could the minister tell us if she plans to bring in amendments in the second session of the Thirty-sixth Legislature?
Mrs. Mitchelson: As with any major review of legislation, it is hard to determine what the time frame would be. I would imagine when you look at any other major review and if you do want to genuinely consult the people of Manitoba, there must be a process that allows for the opportunity for that input.
It may be a process that takes a couple of years before major changes to legislation would be made, but that does not mean to say that if there are issues that need to be addressed on an individual basis, that there might not be amendments, but I would think that if we are looking at a whole new act and a new way of delivering service for children, that it might be up to a two-year process.
I would not want to predetermine that or prejudge that, based on trying to ensure that people have an opportunity to give us their opinions on what the problems are today and how they need to be addressed.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, the Children's Advocate has numerous recommendations, and I guess that raises the question of how quickly those recommendations are acted upon or implemented, and I am wondering if the minister could tell us what she considers to be a timely way to move on those recommendations.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if we want to go through the recommendations one by one.
Mr. Martindale: Well, we are going to later.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Okay--and discuss those and if that is the case, maybe I could indicate at that time what time lines or what time frames might be involved in each one.
I think with a major review of the act, we can look at and take into consideration many of the recommendations that have been put forward by the advocate, and some of those recommendations could be addressed through the process of review of the act.
It looks at the roles and the responsibilities then of the department and the reporting relationships and that kind of thing, and I think that is a good opportunity to get public input and dialogue going around what they really believe government should be doing, what those agencies that are mandated to provide service should be doing--and are we doing a good job right now?--and what needs to be changed.
Mr. Martindale: The Children's Advocate report on page 21 says: There must be a commitment to resolving these problems in a timely and sensitive manner. I am disappointed that, first of all, the agencies are being consulted, and the advocate's report is dated December 1994--and I believe it was early December--so more than six months have gone by for a response by agencies which seems like a long period of time, but, even worse, the minister is indicating that it might take two years to bring in new legislation. Now I understand that legislation takes time, but I do not believe that two years, or even two years from now--so we are talking two and one-half years--is a timely and sensitive time to respond to the advocate's recommendations. Does the minister think that two and a half years is a timely and sensitive way to respond to serious problems?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess we have had a piece of legislation and a way of delivering service to children that has been in place for many years, and, very possibly, the way we are delivering service today is outdated. It does not mean that we will not implement and look at change on a timely basis where we can make change.
When you are talking about putting a new law into place and you are looking at legislation that not only our government but governments before us were operating under, I do not think it is unrealistic to think that we need to get major input and major feedback from our Manitoba community. That does not mean to say that the recommendations that are in the reports--some of them have been acted on; others we are working on. But when you look at changing a whole new structure and putting a whole new structure in place, I do not think it is unrealistic to think that it might take a couple of years. That does not mean to say that all of the recommendations that have been made by the advocate will take two years to implement. We have implemented some already. We are in the process of working on some others, and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Martindale: Continuing on page 21 of the advocate's report, he says that, though the legislation speaks to the provision of family support services, in reality, very little funding is directed to this area of prevention. Now, at the risk of hearing the minister's speech on prevention, I do need to ask: Does she agree or disagree with the advocate on this? I know the minister is fond of talking about prevention, but the advocate is pointing out that very little funding goes toward prevention. So does the minister agree with this observation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think you will find that this report was written before the budgetary decision was taken in last year's budget to put in place a Family Support Innovations Fund that looked at early intervention, early child development. So the report, I would say that that comment in the report has already been addressed, to some degree, with the budgetary changes that were made in our last budget process to put in place a Family Support Innovations Fund so that agencies and other community organization would have the opportunity to access funds to try new ways of delivering services to children with the early intervention, the family supports. Many of those programs are underway, and, hopefully, we will be seeing some positive results as a result of the changes in the way services are being delivered. So, if I could say, I believe that that issue has been addressed to some degree already.
* (1040)
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that answer, and I look forward to asking more detailed questions on the Family Support Innovations Fund when we get to the Child and Family Services part of the department. The advocate goes on, on page 22, to point out that, because of the lack of resources for prevention, which we will get into in more detail later, he believes that that is the reason why Manitoba has the highest number of children in care per capita in Canada. I am wondering if the minister could tell us why she thinks we have the highest number of children in care per capita in Canada.
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is an issue that we have been trying to come to come to grips with and try to understand. One of the reasons for looking at the Family Support Innovations Fund was to try to reduce the number of days cared, to try to get families reunited, if at all possible, as quickly as possible. I think all indications would be that the longer a child remains out of a home and there are not any supports put in place, or there is not an attempt to try to get families back together, if at all possible, the harder it is to accomplish that. So that is one of the reasons that the Family Support Innovations Fund projects are looking at at trying to reunite families or trying to put the supports in place in families so children do not have to be brought into care.
Many of the projects are focused around trying to do just that, and because they are pilot projects, we will be measuring the outcomes and looking at what the results of the new way of delivering service will bring. We are hopeful that some of the new initiatives will, in fact, keep children in their homes with supports to ensure that parenting skills are learned and family problems are resolved.
We also have a new adoption initiative. We are finding that we have many children who are permanent wards that will never go back to their original families, who are in foster care. So we are trying to get the community, the agencies and the government department working together around ensuring there is a priority placed on providing permanent homes for children who are in permanent care and never seem to get out of our system.
So the agencies have come up with some ideas, and the community has come up with some ideas, and we want to support those new ways of delivering service and see whether we can make a difference and can reduce the number of days care and the number of children in care.
* (1050)
Mr. Martindale: I would like to read an entire paragraph from page 22, because I think it is a very significant paragraph.
The Children's Advocate says, and I quote: To illustrate this point, the Children's Advocate was advised by a few workers that they were not prepared to apprehend a child because the abuse was not severe enough and the agency's resources were limited. My concern is, how many bruises or child deaths does it take for the government to acknowledge that the Child and Family Services system is under tremendous strain? Agencies should not have to be forced to pick and choose which children they can protect. Our obligation towards all children must be fulfilled.
This is something that I hear from people in the community and staff of Winnipeg Child and Family Services from time to time. It seems that it is the most severe for 16- to 18-year-olds, that they will not be taken into care or provided any resources unless it is an extreme crisis, and that concerns me greatly.
Also, just this morning over coffee, someone was telling me that they reported a concern about one of their neighbours to an elementary school principal, and I know this elementary school principal. He is a very concerned person and very aware of what his obligations are under The Child and Family Services Act.
The concern that was raised was, I think, quite serious, but the school principal said, we cannot report this to Child and Family Services because it is not serious enough. We already have a number of children in this school who are involved with Child and Family Services, and we do not think that this situation warrants phoning Child and Family Services.
I am very distressed when I hear stories like that from the community because I think they should be able to make that phone call, even if it only means one home visit to find out that things maybe, in fact, are okay, or not.
Obviously, because of budget restrictions on Winnipeg Child and Family Services, they are not able to do that, so agencies and schools out in the community have got that message--do not phone unless it is extremely serious. I think the minister should be concerned about this, and I would like to know what her response is to this very critical observation by the Children's Advocate and the illustration that I gave, as well.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I would have to say that I am extremely concerned if, in fact, there are children that are being left unprotected in our community.
As I read in this report the concerns that were raised, I guess on an individual basis, with the Children's Advocate, I would be extremely concerned if workers out there were not doing their job in protecting--[interjection] Well, just a minute, I guess the role and the mandate of those who are providing service to children is to try to ensure, in cases where there is an allegation of abuse, that those cases are followed up on.
I hear the criticism that there is not enough money in the system. We have put more money and more resources into supports for children through Child and Family Services year after year. We have never not funded any deficit that has occurred in our Child and Family Services system. You look right across all government departments, all government services and you look at hospitals, we have made very strong statements that we are not going to cover deficits, that hospitals are going to have to live within the budgets that they have been allocated and try to find different ways of delivering service.
One area within government that we have increased year after year, support and covered deficits, is in the Child and Family Services area. It may be a band-aid approach--[interjection] I take very seriously, you know, the comments and the sense that my honourable friend would be trying to leave an impression that I, as a minister, or our government do not care about children and children that are not being protected or cared for in their family circumstance, their situation or in any type of care that they might be in, whether it be foster care or wherever.
I do not think there is a Minister of Family Services that has had to deal with individual cases of abuse and read briefing notes, and hear instances where children have been abused and neglected, that has not lost sleep at night wondering how we can resolve the problem and get to the bottom of the issue. If more money was just the answer, I think we would all be prepared to put absolutely every dollar we possibly could into the system to try to make it work. I am not sure that more money is necessarily the answer. If I could be in every schoolyard and in every house on a daily basis monitoring how people were caring for their children and removing those children immediately if I felt they were being abused or neglected, we might be able to solve the problem.
The reality is that I cannot be there, and there is not anyone that can be there. We have to believe and trust that families are going to try to manage and try to parent their children in the best possible manner. We know that that does not occur. We know that children do get abused and neglected, and we do know that we have to try to find a way to provide support and treatment and safe homes for these kids. I wish I had all of the answers. I wish I knew what all of the answers were. I think both of us--I look at my honourable friend, and I know that he cares as much as I do.
I guess it is fine to lay blame and to say it is government policy. I am not sure that, in the area of Child and Family Services, there has been much of a change in policy or direction. We are spending more money. We have mandated agencies. We have organizations. We are doing more and more to try to ensure that we care for children, yet we are not seeing the results we would like to see. I wish I had all of the answers. I think that this might be a time for us, as caring members of society, to dialogue around what the solutions might be. Maybe some suggestions or some ideas could come forward through this debate that would help to change the direction we are going in.
I think we have to trust and believe that people out there that are caring for children that have come from abusive situations are trying to do what is in the best interests of the children, but, you know, are we doing things the right way? Is there an ability to change the way we are doing things? I do not know. I am struggling to find those answers, and I am struggling to try to work with innovative, new ways of delivering that service. If we can identify the issues early on, before they become major problems and before our children get too damaged, maybe we can make a difference.
I do not think there is anyone that works in the system that honestly, in their own heart, does not have the best interests of children in mind as we try to implement programs. I think that is one of the reasons why the agencies and those that are out there caring for children have come forward and said, let us see whether we can find a different way of delivering service; let us get to the problem before it gets us, I guess, before we get children that are in a circumstance or situation where they are Level 4, Level 5 care and they are so damaged it is hard to believe that we will ever find a solution to their problems.
(Mr. David Newman, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Martindale: I would like to go back to the Children's Advocate's statement where he says, agencies should not have to be forced to pick and choose which children they can protect.
I would like to ask the minister: Why is the Children's Advocate having to write this? Why are agencies forced to pick and choose which children they can protect?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, and I do not know why that statement was written, but I would not anticipate or expect or I would not direct that anyone should pick and choose what children should be protected. I think any child that is in need of protection should be protected.
Mr. Martindale: Well, Madam Minister, I think it is because they do not have the budget. I think that they would like to be able to provide protection in every case where it is required, but they are saying and the advocate is saying that they do not have the resources to do so.
I would like to continue on page 22. The advocate reflects on case planning and case supervision and says--actually he quotes from one agency's counsel, I presume legal counsel--we have no problem proving that children need protection. It is in the case planning where we fail.
I would like to ask the minister if changes are being made in case planning?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess the one problem I did have with the report was that, in instances where an individual was quoted anonymously as having stated something, my concern was, if that was stated and the advocate was there to protect the best interests of children, how was that followed up on? Who was that reported to and was there any action taken? Unfortunately, until the report was tabled and made public, in many instances the agencies were not aware of the comments that were being made in the advocate's report. I guess that is part of the problem with having a new structure and a new office put in place to try to monitor. I think, you know, it would be very important that the advocate's report would in fact reflect what had happened.
If he heard that there were children out there that were not being treated in the proper manner or were not receiving the service that they should be receiving as a result of a problem, that would be reported to the proper authorities. There would be a request or recommendation for some action to be taken and his report would reflect whether or not action was taken and whether or not the problem was resolved. Unfortunately, when the report came out I became aware that in some instances the agencies or the proper line of communication, the supervisory staff or the head of the agency had not been notified. There had not been recommendations made, and there had not been an opportunity to resolve the problem.
So I think part of what we need to do--and I have discussed this with the advocate, too--I want to know on each case if someone out there in the community is saying we do not have the resources, we have not treated children in a proper manner. If that is in fact happening, that should be investigated immediately. There should be recommendations made on how we change the way we do things, and the advocate should report on whether in fact the agency has responded, the department has responded, to recommendations that he has made. There has to be that dialogue. We need to be addressing the issues as they arise, and I am hopeful that future reports will reflect and criticize when action has not been taken as a result of the advocate bringing those concerns forward to the appropriate people.
Mr. Martindale: I think the minister in her response criticized the Children's Advocate who works for her. That is pretty amazing, and he is not--
Point of Order
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, I am not criticizing the advocate. I think when you have got a new office in place with a first annual report that there are issues that have to be worked out. You know, I am very concerned if in fact there are people out in the system that are making comments that would indicate that children are not being appropriately served by our system that those should be followed through on immediately.
I think that is critical if we are going to change the way we provide service to children. When an issue is identified it needs to be immediately looked into, and let us all try to work together to see whether we can find a better way of ensuring that children are protected. So he may say I am criticizing the advocate. I think constructive criticism in how we, on a very timely basis, get to the bottom of a specific issue and get it resolved in the best interest of the child is very important for all concerned.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Newman): Honourable minister, I believe that would be a dispute on the facts, and perhaps you could carry on with your question.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: Where I disagree with the minister is that she seems to be implying that these are individual problems which should have been taken care of within the agency. In fact, the advocate goes on to say that he has seen a vast diversity in the quality of case planning. This quality is neither agency specific nor to a particular service unit. In some instances, no case plans were found to exist. In other situations, even though case plans were developed, some agencies did not implement them as expeditiously as possible. In the majority of situations, neither the children nor the family were involved in case planning. As well, once a plan is put into place, there appears to be a lack of flexibility that would allow for the plan to be revised if it does not appear to be meeting the needs of the child or family.
I conclude, from those two paragraphs, under case planning and case supervision, that he is talking about a problem that is widespread, not individual situations. I would like to ask the minister if changes have been made in case planning since last December.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are working on that presently within the agencies and within the system. We have a competency-based training program that does look at standards and ways of delivering services, ways of dealing with individual cases and some standard structure and protocol right throughout our Child and Family Services systems. We have embarked upon competency-based training. I think all supervisors within the agencies have been trained, and now the field staff are being trained in a consistent manner so that some of the issues that have been raised in the Child Advocate's report can be addressed.
Mr. Martindale: Continuing on page 22, the Children's Advocate has some criticisms of permanency planning and says permanency planning is supposed to encompass the notion that every child has a right to a long-term care plan and placement in a family environment wherever possible and that this is being bastardized. Well, I looked that up in the dictionary, and it means, declared illegitimate. I think the advocate is saying that, even though there is supposed to be a notion of permanency planning, in fact this notion is illegitimate. It does not exist.
He goes on to say, and I quote: Agencies have used this concept in order to offload children with particularly demanding behaviours on extended family members through private guardianship or extended family foster placements. Unfortunately, many of these family placements receive little, if any, special training, supports or compensation for the care of these children. Often these placements break down, resulting in the agency having to re-intervene in more aggressive and intrusive manners.
I think this is a very serious criticism of permanency planning, and I would like to ask the minister if major changes have been made in this area, not just in the planning but in providing supports to families, since this report was submitted to the minister.
* (1100)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Indeed, this is area that I have had a special interest in. When I talked a little earlier about our new adoption initiative, I think it is critical that we all work together again to try to ensure that permanency planning is a priority within the agencies and that we, wherever possible, try to find a permanent home for children. I think children deserve no less than having the ability to have a permanent, loving and nurturing home.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Since we embarked upon this initiative, we have an adoption co-ordinator who is working very closely with the agency. We now have an inventory of all the children that are in permanent care. In the Winnipeg agency, we are looking towards continually updating and reviewing permanency plans and trying to ensure that we, wherever possible, can put the supports in place for the children as they are moving through the system.
When you look at, say, post-adoption services, I think there is an issue that has been brought to my attention. We need to be looking at what we can put in place, and I am not sure that we need a different system that deals with services for children that are in foster care. Maybe we need to be co-ordinating our efforts and our energies. We have discussed this and are now in the process of looking at, when we put services in place for adoptive children, maybe there is another process or a similar process, or maybe we can work together to ensure that post-adoption services and services to foster families are co-ordinated in a fashion that we can maximize the use of our resources.
Mr. Martindale: Going on to page 23, determining risks and needs of children, this is one area of the report that kind of surprised me because I was already aware of the Manitoba risk estimation scale, which I believe was developed by Faculty of Social Work staff at the University of Manitoba.
The Children's Advocate points out that there is at least deficiency in the risk estimation scale and recommends considering a broader assessment tool developed in England. I am wondering if the minister's staff has had a chance to look at this and whether they think that it could be used to improve the Manitoba risk estimation scale.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess we sense that we need a little more experience on the process that has been put in place in Manitoba, to see how well it does work. We are certainly not opposed to looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions, and what we want is the best system, but I guess we have not had enough time to really evaluate the process that is in place here in Manitoba right now.
Mr. Martindale: I presume that the reason for that is that the Manitoba risk estimation scale is still fairly new.
Mrs. Mitchelson: It was started about three years ago, so it is relatively new, and we are still trying to determine how well it is working.
Mr. Martindale: Going on to the topic of treatment and resources for children and families, the advocate reports out, and I quote: The availability and adequacy of appropriate treatment resources continues to be sadly lacking within the Child and Family Services system. Agencies are faced with many of the same realities that families are faced with, that is, there is a general lack of resources for treatment purposes throughout the province, particularly in rural and northern areas as well as on reserve. Those resources that do exist often have long waiting lists.
I would like to ask the minister at least two questions on this. The first one is: what plans are being made to improve treatment resources, particularly in rural and northern Manitoba? That would be my first question.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess that is an issue that we are looking at and trying to address. One of the initiatives that we have undertaken, and I know we are going to talk about it a little later during the Estimates process, is the Child and Youth Secretariat. I think it is important that we maximize the resources that are available out there and look at co-ordination of services. The issues around support and treatment in rural and northern Manitoba are issues that do need to be looked at and looked at very carefully.
We have to see what mental health is doing, what other resources are available out there and ensure that Health, Education, Family Services and Justice are maximizing what is there and seeing whether there is a way that we can find a better co-ordination of services within the existing resources that we have. So it is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we are working on it.
Mr. Martindale: Well, a supplementary question would be: is the department planning to provide more resources since the advocate seems to be saying that there is a lack of resources? The minister is using the word "co-ordination." I agree. There is always a need for more co-ordination, but the advocate did not say there is a need for co-ordination. The advocate said there is a general lack of resources, particularly in rural and northern Manitoba. So what is the department doing to act on that recommendation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I am not saying that there are going to be more resources, and we may argue, or we may differ. I believe that more money does not necessarily mean better services. I mean, if we look at integration of services, if we look at what is happening for children in the Department of Health, what are we doing, reality tells me that there are going to be no new resources. We are going to have to look at co-ordinating the resources that we have in a better fashion and integrating resources that might be available that we are not using to the best of our ability. So there is not going to be more money. We heard the Liberal critic talk about having to dialogue around using the resources that we have in a better fashion, and we are going to have to do that. That is reality.
* (1110)
Mr. Martindale: Well, I commend this minister for her honesty, but whenever a constituent in rural or northern Manitoba contacts one of our caucus members and cannot get adequate service because there is a lack of resources, we will tell those individuals what the minister said in Family Services Estimates, that there are not going to be any more resources, and the minister will have to take responsibility for those unhappy people that cannot get the services that they need.
The second question that I have is regarding treatment for alcohol and drug abuse for adolescents. The minister can probably inform me as to what is available from AFM, but I have had two pieces of casework where adolescents went to a facility in Saskatchewan, I think it is called White something, I cannot remember--White Spruce, Saskatchewan.
I would like to ask the minister why adolescents have to go out of province for treatment for alcohol and drug abuse.
Mrs. Mitchelson: The AFM does have programs available through the St. Norbert Foundation. They have a program in Selkirk, one in Sagkeeng. We have just recently approved a Family Support Innovations Fund in the Parkland Region for a substance abuse and family intervention program, so that is a new program that is just in the beginning stages.
I am told that there are some communities that choose White Spruce as the treatment of choice for their people. Some of the aboriginal communities, I understand, do not believe in the AFM philosophy. They would prefer the White Spruce program and are funded to enrol in that program.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us which community in the Parkland will be the site of the new program?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is in the Parkland Region, and it is out of the Dauphin office.
Mr. Martindale: I am sure the MLA for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) will be happy to hear that and also the residents of the Parkland Region. Maybe it will make up for the closure of the Human Resources Opportunity Centre in Dauphin, different service, though.
Continuing on with the report, the advocate has some very serious concerns about foster care, on page 25.
It says: Advocacy is not valued by the system, and this commitment is often viewed as interference. Foster parents are rarely considered as members of the team.
It goes on to say: The screening of prospective foster homes within Manitoba has not undergone any radical revamping within the last decade.
He says: Monitoring support and training for foster parents is inconsistent, if it happens at all, and the challenges of finding and retaining foster parents with knowledge and expertise continues to hinder the system. As well, the shortage of culturally appropriate homes remains critical.
I would like to ask the minister, what changes have been instituted or are you planning to institute as the result of these criticisms of foster care?
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is something that I am very interested in looking at, how we deal with allegations of abuse in foster care.
I believe one of the recommendations from the advocate is to look at a different appeal process for how we deal with allegations of abuse, and I am interested in looking at, and in the process of determining, whether there is not a better way of looking into allegations of abuse in foster care.
Mr. Martindale: That is only one problem pointed out by the advocate. The advocate reflected on foster parents not being considered a member of the team, and that screening of prospective foster homes has not changed for a decade. Support and training for foster parents is inconsistent, if it happens at all.
I would like to know if there are plans to act on all of these concerns of the Children's Advocate.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, there is funding of 50 cents per day per child in care for new training that is available. That is in the agency's budget, and, hopefully, will be undertaken.
I agree there is an issue around the screening of foster parents that has to be dealt with and addressed, and I have to say, quite honestly, it has not been addressed as yet.
It is something that I feel needs to be addressed and we will be looking at.
* (1120)
Mr. Martindale: I hope the minister will be more than looking at it. I hope there will be action as a result of these concerns.
Going on to maltreatment, abuse of children in care, we could get into a lot of detail here. The Children's Advocate refers to the Suche report, and I know that the minister's department followed up on all those recommendations with a publication entitled, Government Response to the Independent Review of Reporting Procedures in Children's Residential Facilities. This is dated April 1992.
We are now at June 1995, and in December '94, the Children's Advocate still had a lot of concerns about these recommendations. Rather than going through the recommendations one at a time--because they are quite numerous--and going through the department's response of April '92 one at a time, I wonder if the minister would be willing to have her staff prepare an update on the recommendations and even in a similar format would be helpful, recommendations, current status, action plan and make it available to myself and to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski).
If she would do that, it would be greatly appreciated, because I think obviously there are still some concerns there since the Children's Advocate has commented on it.
It is possible that, since a lot of these things have to do with legislation, that the minister is going to say that will be reviewed and possibly amended or changed in the new legislation, which I may hear quite often if I went through all the recommendations one at a time.
So I think because I have some time constraints, if the minister would provide an update--or I guess it is a question: Will the minister provide myself and the member for The Maples with an update?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, we can get that prepared for you and provide it.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister indicate some sort of time line for getting it to us?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Would about a month be acceptable?
Mr. Martindale: As long as I have it before the session resumes in October.
Going on to a new section, Aboriginal Children, the advocate talks about the First Nations Child Welfare Task Force Report, in fact, makes a very interesting comment that the $500,000 that it cost could better have been spent on aboriginal children.
I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on what is happening with that report and its recommendations. I know that I have asked the minister questions on this in the past, and I know that one of the main recommendations was that the federal government pass Child and Family Services legislation and give First Nations control over First Nations children, which, if acted upon, would be a major recommendation because it would mean that instead of the provincial government having the jurisdiction, the federal government would have the jurisdiction, and First Nations would become I guess mandated agencies. So that would be a major change.
However, I know that this minister has written to the federal minister who has said they are not going to act on that recommendation. I guess that puts into question almost all the other recommendations as well, so I would like the minister to bring me up to date on what is happening with that report and its recommendations, I guess, particularly if the provincial government is going act on any of the areas within their jurisdiction.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We have been trying to work with the native agencies to look at quality of service and delivery of service issues for children, but our honourable friend is quite right when he talks about a lot of the recommendations in that report being contingent upon the most important, I suppose, recommendations that would be federal legislation that would provide for the establishment of native child welfare agencies. Children, then, would be under the sole responsibility of the native agency set up under that federal legislation, and I have to say that we have not received much co-operation or support from the federal government around these issues. I have been out to meet with Minister Irwin, and, you know, there are some really big issues around child welfare on reserves that need to be addressed.
It all falls into the whole issue of dismantling of Indian Affairs, federally, and aboriginal self-government, which, I know, not every member of our aboriginal communities is supportive of. I think we had some discussion and dialogue around some of the women and children on reserve in our last discussion around Estimates, and a real concern, that self-government is not the answer for them. They are very, very nervous about the additional power that might be put into the hands of the leadership, and they are not sure it is going to serve the best interests of women and children. So there is some fear about what self-government will mean, and I tend to think that, at times, we get caught up in the political dialogue from one level of government to another and forget what is in the best interests of the families and the children in the political process. So I have some real reservations about what it might mean.
We have some issues around some specific native child welfare issues that are of grave concern to me. It is very difficult, as a minister who, under legislation, has the responsibility for all children in the province of Manitoba and there is a jurisdictional dispute. We are not allowed to go onto a reserve to check and monitor the circumstances, situations to ensure that children are being protected. It is an issue that the Child Advocate and I have been discussing, you know, frequently and very recently. It is difficult when you have another level of government, an aboriginal government, that is saying, those children are our responsibility, and not recognizing the provincial law when it comes to the statement that we have ultimate jurisdiction under Manitoba law.
Then you have a federal government that is not prepared, although they are supportive of self-government and are talking of devolving and dismantling Indian Affairs and turning everything over to our aboriginal community, to put in place the legislative authority for that power to change hands. It is, I guess, very disturbing for me. We would not want to get into a confrontation with an aboriginal community over the issue, but the reality is, if there is a child that is abused or hurt or killed, I could be severely criticized, yet we are not being allowed to monitor the situation to ensure that kind of thing is not happening.
So we are in some difficult circumstances right now, and some very pressing issues are going to have to be resolved. There has to be co-operation, and I am not sure that all the time there is the political will to put children first as opposed to worrying about whose responsibility it is. I think it is all of our responsibilities, and we need to be working together. So I am really struggling right now with how to come to grips with some of these issues.
I do not think the federal government has taken a stand. They would like to work without legislative authority, to change things and do things differently. I am not sure that is necessarily the right way to go. In the absence of federal legislation, provincial legislation prevails. That means that we, as a government, I, as the minister, have responsibility for all children under the law, and, in some instances, I am being prevented from being able to do that job.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that answer. I acknowledge that nothing is happening for various reasons. So since we are stuck with the status quo, I need to ask about some of the advocate's observations and comments. On page 28, the advocate says, the effects of a lack of policy direction is most evident in the relationship between the Child and Family Support branch and the various First Nations agencies. Either the support branch is seen as being too heavy handed, or it appears that issues are simply ignored because of potential political fallout.
Now, I do not want to get into this if we are only talking about one or two communities in Manitoba. [interjection] Are we? Well, then, I would like to continue on to page 29, where the advocate makes further observations about services to 16- and 17- year-olds. I raised this earlier, and it is a big concern with myself and with staff of Child and Family Services agencies. I guess the basic question is, why are not 16- and 17-year-olds getting the kind of service that they are supposed to get?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Certainly, where there are protection issues, we are concerned that 16- and 17-year-olds receive service. I guess the issue comes, you know, if the 16- or 17-year-old willingly wants to participate in a treatment program, those treatment programs are there and the supports are there.
In fact, when that child refuses to be a part of any treatment program or process, it is pretty difficult to mandate that activity to take place. I am not sure how old my honourable friend's children are. [interjection] You have a 17-year-old. We might get into some discussion around 17-year-olds. How many, at that age, still listen and still accept advice and take that advice and do exactly what they are told? I guess, we are experiencing or seeing, within the system, where major amounts of dollars are being spent trying to change the direction or the life of a young individual when that individual wants no part of that treatment.
Is that best utilization of our resources, or could it better be spent in other ways? So where there is co-operation and where there is a willingness and a desire to participate, the resources are there. Those will not be taken away. It is only in the case where, you know, a child does not want to participate that there is not service available.
* (1130)
Mr. Martindale: I would be quite happy to talk about my 17-year-old, Nathan. He listens to his parents 99 percent of the time, and he was chosen as a valedictorian at Sisler High School this year.
Going back to the Children's Advocate report, he points out that Child and Family Services agencies do not have the mandate nor resources to provide after-care services, which many former children in care could benefit from. He goes on to say that the problem that results from that is that they often end up coming back into the system.
Now, I do not whether he means when they are still 16- and 17-year-olds or not. I was at MacDonald Youth Services recently, and talking to the staff there, we heard that many adolescents who are part of Child and Family Services, when they turn 18, frequently they are not in school, they are not employed, and they end up being the ones who fall through the cracks and end up either on social assistance or on the street, which is why MacDonald Youth Services has a hostel.
So it would seem to me that it would make sense to provide service to 16- and 17-year-olds, even if it is not mandated, as a kind of prevention. This minister talks lots about prevention, believes in prevention. Here the advocate is saying that, as a result of these service deficiencies for young adults, particularly former youths in care, in all likelihood, they will become future clients of the system in regard to their own children.
Well, I guess I am making two suggestions: One is that they are going to become clients either of the Child and Family Services again before they turn 18, or they are going to become social assistance recipients after 18, or their children are going to end up in care, as the Children's Advocate points out.
So my question for the minister is, are you willing to act on this concern or have you already acted on this concern regarding resources for 16- and 17-year olds?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is an issue and it is a major concern, and I think what the advocate has pointed out is very real.
We do know that very often--and I have talked very often about the statistics around young single parents. I mean, when you get a young girl that becomes pregnant and parents a child and decides to parent that child, we know that there are major, major issues involved. We also know that the children of those young girls who end up living in single-parent families tend to need the services of our child welfare system at six times greater degree than other families.
Those are pretty startling statistics, but it tells me that there is a lot of work to be done, a lot of work in educating. It goes back again to the comments I made about parenting being the most responsible undertaking that occurs in our society. Yet, very often people are not prepared and do not have the tools or the understanding of exactly what the implications of parenting are to succeed.
That is why we are seeing what we are seeing in our society today. So it is important that we start to work--first of all, I would like to prevent pregnancy at that age, but we all know that is unrealistic, to completely prevent. I think it important that we try very hard to educate young girls and young men on the responsibilities of parenting and what exactly that does mean. I think at all cost, if there is a choice made to parent a child, that parent has to understand the full responsibility and the implications, and we have to ensure that parenting becomes the No. 1 priority above all else.
So I am working on some innovative new ways of trying to get that message out and to work with young people around those issues.
My honourable friend mentioned Macdonald Youth Services, and I was just over there visiting in the last couple of weeks seeing how we could work together with them. I think it is important and it is critical that our mandated agencies and our nonmandated agencies out there are working together in co-operation to ensure that, if there is an issue and if there is a child that--and I am talking older children now--needs some sort of transitional support, those supports are there.
Macdonald Youth Services does great work. I am very impressed with the work that they do. We are dialoguing around how we can work together to address some of the issues, but it is critical that we start at the early end of things.
It all fits in, again--and I guess we will get to the Child and Youth Secretariat and how health fits in with Family Services, with education. Ultimately we know that--and one thing that probably is not mentioned in the advocate's report is that these are children that end up in our welfare system. They also end up in our justice system to a great degree.
So unless we are all trying to find the solutions together, we are not really doing a service to the kids that need our support.
Mr. Martindale: Just to conclude this section, I see that the Children's Advocate will comment on the implementation of a new policy statement from this department in his next annual report, so we will be looking forward to that to see if his recommendations have been followed up on.
I would like to go on now to the role of the Child and Family Support branch. The advocate points out on page 31 that he has come to the conclusion that there is an apparent lack of vision and leadership within the Child and Family Services system and has some very interesting quotes: As for what the directorate does, we are confused too. We deal with them as little as possible. They do not do anything, anyway. There has been criticism accusing them of being nothing more than a bureaucratic or political tool. They are geared towards keeping a lid on issues.
That is rather interesting. They are probably the people that start running around and phoning around when Martindale raises an issue in the House or writes a letter to the minister.
He also says: Crisis management continues to be the norm.
He points out: They are the only part of the system that have not been formally and externally evaluated for their effectiveness and utility as the cornerstone of the system.
So those are some pretty serious allegations, and I would like the minister to respond to them if she could. I guess the questions are, has the minister acted upon these concerns and if so, what is she doing about them?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I would say that my honourable friend is probably right when he talks about--you know, when a letter comes into my office from a critic or from any member of our community that raises the serious allegation around how a child has been treated in the system, it certainly is the department and the departmental staff that try to get to the bottom of the issue and ensure that we have heard all sides of the concerns that have been raised and that the child or the family or the community has been treated in a fair manner. So, yes, that is part of the role and the mandate of the branch, to determine whether things, issues have been handled appropriately.
We do deal with a lot of case specifics. My office gets many calls from the general public, from families of children that have been apprehended that are very disturbed about the issue, and I guess part of the role and the mandate of the branch and the department is to ensure that, to the best of our ability, we know that the public has been best served by the process that has been followed.
I think that--and here we go again to the legislation and the review of the legislation, but the whole role and the mandate of the directorate I think will be an issue that will be discussed and there will be some dialogue around during the review of the act. If there is another role and mandate that needs to be undertaken, I am sure that will come to light, and there may have to be some decisions made.
You are quite right. There are fires, occasionally, to be put out, but the issues that deal with children that come to my attention as the minister are issues that I think need to be fully and thoroughly investigated to try to ensure there has been fair and just treatment.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if she plans to have a formal and external evaluation of the Child and Family Support branch?
* (1140)
Mrs. Mitchelson: As I indicated, as we go through the process of reviewing the act, the whole role and mandate of the directorate will be looked at in that review process, and that will be a process that will be external from the department.
Mr. Martindale: I have covered a lot of the topics that are also recommendations by the Children's Advocate. Rather than going through them one at a time, I would like to do two things. I would like to ask some questions on the recommendations, but I would also like to ask the minister if she would be willing to provide myself and the critic for The Maples with a response to the advocate's recommendations as to what action her department will be taking on them, in order to speed up the Estimates process.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I can undertake to do that, but I would like to put a qualification on that. I think we are waiting for responses back from the agencies regarding the Child Advocate's report.
I know the advocate is in the process of meeting with all of the agencies, so we will await the results of those meetings. He and I are dialoguing around how the meetings are going and whether we are making progress or we are not. So I think there are a few things that are still ongoing that should be wound up within the next month. We will compile all of that information and sit down and discuss that. I indicated a month for the last report you asked for. I think we might be a little--two months or so, in developing that response.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for being so co-operative in providing that information to me.
Starting with the first recommendation, probably we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that the advocate should report to the Legislative Assembly. The minister thinks that reporting to the minister--well, I will turn that into a question.
What is the minister's response to the first recommendation, that the Children's Advocate be required to report to the Legislative Assembly?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think that was an amendment that was put in the legislation as it was passed, that we review the office of the Child Advocate and the reporting structure within the first three years of the legislation being in place. We have undertaken to do that.
I would not say, quite frankly, at this point in time, whether the advocate should report to the minister or to the Legislature. I have no preconceived thoughts. I think we have to listen to the argument and the debate around that issue and come to some resolution. I am not hung up on any one way of seeing the office report.
Mr. Martindale: In that case, maybe I should submit my private member's bill for a third time. I see in a news release from Saskatchewan, dated March 22, 1995, that the advocate there is permanently appointed and must be approved by the Legislature. Does the minister plan to look at that when reviewing the legislation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we will look at absolutely everything when we review the legislation, what is happening in other jurisdictions, what is working, what is not, and what would be best suited to Manitobans' needs.
Mr. Martindale: The legislative review can happen within three years of coming into effect. Will the minister be reviewing the legislation this year, or next year, or are you going to wait for the three years to run out?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The process will be set up sometime between now and next June.
Mr. Martindale: Has the minister received a request from the Children's Advocate for more staff?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: According to the Estimates book, there will be no more staff. There were four SYs last year, and there will be four SYs this year.
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is correct, but that does not mean to say that we have not provided additional resources for the advocate on an as-needed basis. We have seconded some people over to help with some of the backlog. I believe he is looking at hiring a summer student. At this point in time, there are no additional permanent SYs, but I think we are trying to work co-operatively to accommodate some of his needs. I know he feels it is a major issue, and we will continue to evaluate and monitor.
I guess, with the review of the Child Advocate's office imminent or coming up in the very near future, if the reporting structure should remain the way it is, there would be certain considerations. If the reporting structure should change, there might be other staffing considerations. At this point in time, if we can work co-operatively to try to provide some resources on a secondment or term basis as needed, we will continue to do that. With the uncertainty of what the structure might look like a year from now, it might be a whole new structure with a whole new focus. If it were reported to the Legislature, there might be another--we might be looking at different staffing needs, is what I am saying. To permanently put in place staff today, when we are not certain of the future of reporting structure, I think, is premature.
* (1150)
Mr. Martindale: The Children's Advocate has recommendations regarding the Child and Family Support branch, specifically that less energy is spent on serving political and bureaucratic requirements. Can the minister tell us if that recommendation has been or will be acted upon?
Mrs. Mitchelson: As I indicated in one of my earlier answers, as long as the public is contacting my office and has questions about service delivery for children, I am going to expect that, in a very timely manner, the department investigate and provide those answers to me. I am also going to expect, through any budgetary process, that the department provide the support and look seriously at the requests and the requirements for services for children and expect them to be there to support that budget process so that in fact, when we are looking at priorities in the Department of Family Services, all of the issues around children will be taken into consideration.
I have indicated earlier also that, as we review the act, the role and the mandate and the structure of the directorate will definitely be a part of that review. I do want to indicate that, although there have not been a lot of major issues in the Department of Family Services, from time to time, we do know that emergencies arise, and there is a lot of publicity around individual cases or circumstances.
I want to ensure that I am briefed and up to speed and have the assurances that children are being dealt with in the proper manner. There are a lot of requirements by a minister of the bureaucracy on the Child and Family Services side, and I want to ensure that I am informed and the information is coming forward so that we can make policy decisions and changes in direction for funding that need to be made to see whether we cannot improve our child welfare system. I want to say that there are certain things that are required by a minister of the bureaucracy and those requirements have to be met.
Mr. Martindale: So the answer is no.
I would like to go on to page 40, under (d), No. 2, the advocate recommends the establishment of an aboriginal program directorate. Does the minister plan to implement this recommendation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Here again, that was one of the recommendations that came from the Fox-Decent task force report, and I have some difficulty, quite frankly, in the absence of federal legislation, to set up an aboriginal parallel directorate. My concern would be, and I think it would be a concern of all members of the Legislature, that Manitoba as a province cannot determine that we have special obligational responsibility to any one group in Manitoba society.
If in fact the federal government believes that through self-government and through turning over responsibility for all kinds of different areas of government to our aboriginal community they want to put in place legislation that would establish a directorate for aboriginal people, that is their responsibility, but we could have no end to the requests for parallel directorates for any segment of our Manitoba community, any group within our Manitoba community. And I do not think any government of any political stripe would want to give preference to any one group or community in our Manitoba society.
So I would have to say at this point in time, in the absence of federal legislation over child welfare and the setting up of a structure under federal legislation, we as a province are not prepared to move in that direction.
Mr. Martindale: What I hope is my final question for this line is, on page 41 the Children's Advocate recommends discussions with the Faculty of Social Work to change their curriculum, and it seems to me that there may be a need for this, because the recommendation right above it talks about front-line workers having no knowledge in the areas of child development, child mental health, healthy child sexuality, interviewing and communication skills with families. So has the minister initiated discussions with the Faculty of Social Work?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, my department has started meeting with the Faculty of Social Work. I think it is critical that we do understand and know, and one of the criticisms the advocate has made is that really our students in the Faculty of Social Work do not graduate with the skills and are not prepared to meet the needs of the Child and Family Services system and the support for children that they should be prepared to meet. So we will work with them and--well, we have already opened the dialogue--we will continue to try to find some solutions.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(c) Children's Advocate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $207,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $99,100--pass.
1.(d) Social Services Advisory Committee (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Martindale: I have a lot of questions about the Social Services Advisory Committee and the appeal process, but I think there is only one important question to ask here. The reason for that is that with the repeal of the Canada Assistance Plan and its replacement with the Canada Health and Social Services Act, it is no longer a requirement that there be an appeal process. So I would like to ask the minister: In absence of that requirement under federal legislation, does the Province of Manitoba plan to continue the current appeal system?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is certainly something that we will have to discuss. I honestly believe that Manitobans should have the right and the ability to appeal decisions that are made, and even though it may not be a requirement, I think we would have to look very carefully at that before we discontinued any appeal process. It will be open for discussion, but I think the process has worked fairly well, and it is one avenue for people to seek some clarification around decisions that are made affecting their lives.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I am pleased to hear that the appeal process will continue in Manitoba in spite of the fact that it is not a federal requirement anymore. However, I disagree with the minister that the appeal process in place now works well, and I have some detailed questions and suggestions for making changes and improvements.
Can the minister tell me if, when social assistance recipients are notified that their benefits have been discontinued or changed or any decision has been made that affects them, and they have the right to appeal, are they given the form on which the appeal should be made at the same time as the notification letter comes?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is that when there is a change in benefits, there is a letter that goes out to the person that indicates there is this change, and then it does indicate the requirements if you should determine you want to appeal the process. I am not sure what the rest of the question was.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The time is now 12 noon. Committee rise. Is there leave to go for another minute or two?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think, Mr. Chairperson, if we could just get the question clarified. I might not have the answer right now, but I could provide it as soon as we come back this afternoon.
Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that the appeal form is not sent out at the time of notification. My question is then, would the minister change it so that the appeal form is included with the decision?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I will look into that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The time is now twelve noon. Committee rise.