* (1440)

FAMILY SERVICES

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4. Child and Family Services (e) Family Dispute Services on page 56 of the Estimates book, Family Dispute Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $296,900.

Order, please. The honourable minister has something that she wanted to give to the committee.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, I did undertake yesterday to provide for my honourable friend the criteria for reviewing proposals for Family Dispute Services, and I do have a few copies that I will share with the committee.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Thanks to the minister for providing me with this document. I certainly will be interested in reading it.

Yesterday I was asking some quite general questions about Family Dispute, and I would like to bring to the minister's attention something that had been brought to my attention, and I know that the minister has announced that single parents, 85 percent of whom are, of course, women, may be deemed employable once their youngest child turns six. I know that this does not apply to women in shelters, or I understand that this does not apply to women in shelters. Is that true?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is correct.

Ms. McGifford: Could I ask, please, the length of stay that women are allowed in shelters?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There is no limit on the length of time that a woman can stay in shelters. There is an individual needs assessment and an individual plan done. There is, however, a reporting requirement to the Social Allowances department if, in fact, the stay needs to be over 10 days. So there is that kind of reporting, but if, in fact, there is a need for an extended length of stay, that will be granted.

Ms. McGifford: Is it true that women tend not to stay more than 10 days? My point is, the shelter does not become a home, or if it does so, I assume it is only very rarely.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am informed that the average length of stay is about 6.5 days. There are individual circumstances that would require longer stays, but as a result of follow-up services being provided and interim housing now being available, it seems to work fairly well.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I am not critical of the number of days women are allowed or do stay in shelters. That may be another matter. My point here is that if the average length of stay is 6.5 days and then in special circumstances perhaps longer, then it would seem that this exception which allows women to be on social assistance even though their children are over six really is not anything that greatly benefits them because it only is in place usually for 6.5 days.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We included women in shelters as not having to face that hardship, but I do want to indicate to my honourable friend that out of the 7,000, approximately, single parents that we do have on social allowances with children over the age of six, it is unrealistic to think at this point in time that they will all be employable immediately. What we will strive to do, in fact, is ensure that we look to individual personal employment plans as people come into the system of social allowance and move them as quickly as possible into the workforce. But I do want to indicate that there is not an expectation that everyone tomorrow will be employed.

(Mr. Frank Pitura, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Ms. McGifford: The point that the minister has made is really exactly the point that I wanted to make but does not really touch on the matter that I was concerned about, and that was saying that 6.5 days in a shelter during which time a woman can claim social assistance does not seem to me to be an inordinate break or anything of that nature. I am interested in knowing whether women who are in second-stage housing are able to, even though they have children over six, live on social assistance, receive social assistance, I suppose I should say.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Second-stage housing is there in order to assist and help women who need that support as a result of abuse to become independent and self-sufficient, and if indeed they need support through social assistance, they do receive that support.

Ms. McGifford: I am very pleased to hear that. I had not understood before that women in second-stage housing were also entitled to receive social assistance. I think that is very important.

I wanted to ask the minister some questions about the 2 percent cuts to Family Dispute. I understand that there has been a 2 percent cut in '96-97 over '95-96. Was there a similar cut in 1993-94?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am still trying to get some additional information, but I will provide what I do have at the present time. The 2 percent reduction was on the operating grants for shelters only. It was not on the per diem, so there was no reduction in per diems. So when you look at the total budget for shelters at $4.226 million, there was not a 2 percent reduction on that; there was only a 2 percent reduction on the operating portion. I am just trying to get the number from staff on what the 2 percent reduction on the operating portion would equate to on the total overall budget for shelters.

Ms. McGifford: Is the minister talking about '96-97 or in reference to my question on '93-94?

* (1450)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am talking about '96-97 now. The announcement was just made in this budget. In 1993-94, if I understand correctly, there were reductions in per diems at that time, but there is no impact on per diems in this year's budget.

Ms. McGifford: I notice that the minister is addressing her remarks to the circumstances of second-stage housing and shelters. I am wondering about the other funded groups too, for example, women's resource centres, Age & Opportunity, Klinic.

Mrs. Mitchelson: All of the organizations that are funded under Family Dispute received a 2 percent reduction in their operating grants. There was no change to the per diem rates for shelters.

Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the minister if it is true that together with the 2 percent cut to funded agencies came directions that the 2 percent should be taken from staff salaries, which, of course, would mean that staff should take a cut without compensatory time off.

Mrs. Mitchelson: There was absolutely no designation as to where the reduction should occur. Everyone had the opportunity to make those decisions internally. I am told that one organization came forward and asked whether they could take it out of supplies, and we said sure.

Ms. McGifford: So all organizations funded by Family Dispute would know this and have this information?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that they do.

Ms. McGifford: It is my understanding that they do not, but just to pass that information along then.

I am wondering if, from '93-94 to the present time, it would be possible to have a figure, including inflation, which would show the overall cut to Family Dispute.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The funding through Family Dispute in 1993-94 was $4,855,000, in 1994-95 around $5 million. In 1995-96 the funding was $5.9 million, rounded off, and in 1996-97 it is $5.8.

Ms. McGifford: I thank the minister for that information. I notice that she did give me figures rather than any presentative that would consider inflation.

I wonder if the minister is aware that most of the agencies funded by Family Dispute which offer counselling have waiting lists in excess of one year.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I have to go back and remind my honourable friend that since we came to government, when the funding for Family Dispute was around $2.2 million, there has been a considerable increase. We are up at over $5.5 million in support and funding.

Are there waiting lists? Yes, there are. In some instances, we know that there are people on more than one waiting list for service, but that does not explain the whole issue. There are waiting lists, and I guess we are trying our best to look at ensuring the resources that are available are being used in the most appropriate fashion. I do know that through the Women's Post Treatment Centre there has been some money provided through Victims Assistance to train people to deal with those that need counselling for sexual abuse.

We also know that, at the Klinic with a “k,” there is a staff-year vacancy on the men's program side for a considerable length of time, and we are trying to work with them to see whether that position could be filled; or there is a surplus of dollars available there, and they could utilize those dollars or that staff year in a manner that might be able to provide some extra support and counselling for some of those in need. But I cannot say that there is not some wait for service. We are doing our best within the resources that are available to try to work with those that we fund to see how we can best help manage those dollars and those waiting lists.

Ms. McGifford: Well, I appreciate that the minister is doing her best as the Minister of Family Services, but as the critic for the Status of Women, it is my duty to point out that there are waiting lists in excess of a year; in addition, to point out that most of the women on these waiting lists simply do not have the financial resources to purchase services. I should not say most--a good many of them do not, perhaps most--I do not know what their incomes are. I think it is also my duty to point out that the government has made a commitment to the full and equal participation of women in our community, and women who are broken, beaten, depressed, oppressed simply cannot participate equally and fully. So I feel I need to make that point and get it on the record. I do not know if the minister wants to respond or whether I should continue.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I hear your concerns and your comments, and thank my honourable friend for pointing out those issues. I do not think I disagree in any way with some of the deplorable circumstances that women who have been through abuse are presented with, and we will just continue to work as we can to try to alleviate some of the issues.

* (1500)

Ms. McGifford: I wanted to make reference to the discussion paper of the NDP caucus task force on violence against women entitled Ending the Terror: Toward Zero Tolerance , and I wondered before I begin if the minister has seen this paper, and if not, if she would like a copy.

Mrs. Mitchelson: In the spirit of co-operation, I would love my honourable friend to provide me with a copy.

Ms. McGifford: The reason I want to make reference to this paper is that during the task force we were overwhelmingly told that the greatest gaps in Family Dispute Services are in regard to programs for abusers. We kept hearing over and over that without radical intervention the men who abuse will continue to abuse. It seems to be quite unfortunate, although I did hear the minister's comment on the vacant position at Klinic and have made a note of it, but it seems quite unfortunate that without new services available it seems that this abuse will continue. I want to ask the minister if she has considered any new services for abusers.

Mrs. Mitchelson: There is some limited support for men and men's counselling through Ma WI. We have provided some support there and also through Evolve. In more rural and remote areas I know that Probations does some work, some group counselling for men; those are not mandated through the court, but Probations does work in a limited way with men who need counselling and support, an issue that Family Dispute branch has been discussing with the Department of Justice to see how we can better utilize some of the resources that are out there and try to ensure that there is programming for abusers.

Ms. McGifford: I would like to ask the minister if it is true that basically Family Dispute funds only the sort of counselling that allows women to deal with issues related to domestic abuse rather than other kinds of abuses that they might have suffered.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Our shelters do have a mandate to deal with those who have been involved with sexual abuse, physical abuse, mental, emotional abuse, and we move to the services that are provided through our resources centres; their mandate is even broader. They have a lot of different programming options available; they can deal with childhood sexual abuse as one example. So there is a mandate to deal with more than just physical abuse.

Ms. McGifford: I am speaking here a little bit as a former director of the Women's Resource Centre. Some of the issues that we were frequently presented with were support in employment. I am not really talking about employment counselling, but generally helping women with their self-esteem, sometimes giving out pointers about resume writing, sometimes just providing some moral support, which would allow a woman to go out and seek employment. Women in our society, of course, often have very serious self-esteem issues. Does the current system allow women to deal with those issues? Pardon me, what I mean to say is, does Family Dispute support those issues? One of the anomalies, of course, with the Women's Resource Centre is that it is not necessarily a centre that is always dealing with disputation, so it is a little complex.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Certainly I think the Family Dispute branch does support the need for all kinds of services for women and certainly would support referral; but, if I can just broaden the discussion a little bit beyond the Family Dispute branch and talk about our whole welfare reform initiative, I have said many times that I want more for the women in the province of Manitoba than a life of poverty on welfare. I think if you look at successive governments right across this country in all different provinces all with the best of intentions, we have really created a system of welfare that is a dependent system.

I have had concerns raised with me around the issue of our old policy that labelled single parents unemployable and said that they were unemployable with no support of any sort until their youngest child turned 18. Well, I will tell you, when you have a 40-year-old or a 45-year-old woman with no education, no connection to the workforce, no self-esteem, and then all of a sudden we say, you are employable, go out and find a job. I mean, I would not want to be in that circumstance, and I do not want to see that kind of circumstance for any woman.

I am not blaming any government. I think it is governments of all political stripes, right across the country for many, many years that have created a very dependent system. I think it is time that we try to put supports in place, not only through Family Dispute, but right throughout the Department of Family Services and any other services that might be able to be co-ordinated through government to try to ensure that women have the opportunities earlier on in life, and have the opportunity to build their self-esteem to develop their skills and have the tools that they need in order to be self-sufficient and independent and feel like they are contributing and, as I said earlier, break the cycle of poverty on welfare.

Ms. McGifford: I appreciate the minister's point of view and her argument, but my point was really to know whether funding from Family Dispute can be used to cover a range of counselling issues or whether it is confined almost exclusively to domestic and/or sexual abuse?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, it is not confined only to sexual and physical abuse. There is information, referral, counselling, educational programs, training, and community development activities that are also under the mandate of Family Dispute.

Ms. McGifford: Maybe I could ask the minister about service agreements. I understand that each funded agency signs a service and funding agreement?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, there are 25 agencies with which we have service and purchase agreements and two remaining agreements that are outstanding that are in the process of negotiation.

* (1510)

Ms. McGifford: Is this agreement a generic agreement, or is it tailored for each individual agency?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There is a template that is developed by the Department of Justice that has certain criteria for negotiation of purchase of service in that template, but there is an addendum to each agreement that is somewhat individualized based on the service that is being delivered and the service that we are purchasing from that agency.

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if it would be possible for me to have a copy of the template.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, we do not have one here today, but I will provide that for my honourable friend.

Ms. McGifford: I understand that Family Dispute may directly or by way of external consultants conduct an evaluation or audit or both of the programs and services provided by an agency, and that the agency shall provide either to government people or to external consultants access to all financial and program records. Is that accurate?

Mrs. Mitchelson: When we do a major review along with agencies or organizations that we fund, we do look at financial records, we do look at programs and services along with them, but we do not look at individual client files or client information.

Ms. McGifford: I was concerned about what program records meant specifically and was specifically concerned about counselling records. I am glad to hear that they are protected, since they are not in several other jurisdictions in our country right now, but anyway. What I wanted to ask about was the financial records as well. Would the financial records then include all money received by an agency whether it were from Family Dispute or United Way or the Winnipeg Foundation or whoever else they may happen to receive money from?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There is an annual reporting requirement by all agencies of the revenue that they generate, and if they get revenue from United Way for a project of some sort, that is fine. We take no interest specifically in that. I guess the part of the support that they receive from government in the way of support through the service and purchase agreement that we have with them is the part that we hold them accountable for, but if they can generate revenue from other sources in order to enhance programming or deliver programs that they could not with the financial resources they receive from government, we have no quarrel or question about that.

Ms. McGifford: Are the agencies funded through Family Dispute expected, or is it demanded of them to submit audited reports annually?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, they submit annual audited reports.

Ms. McGifford: I have no more questions.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Pitura): Section 4.(e) Family Dispute Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $296,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $91,200--pass; (3) External Agencies $5,480,200--pass.

3.(a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $435,800. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, I would like to begin by asking if the minister has information for me that I requested previously, to begin with.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, there were a couple of questions that were outstanding from yesterday. The first one was the number of investigations of fraud. I have information here that says in the last fiscal year 75 cases were referred by field staff to the central investigative unit, and those were not related to the welfare fraud line. The department does not keep statistics on the number of investigations conducted by field delivery staff, because it is part of their ongoing responsibilities to do investigations.

* (1520)

The number of charges that were laid as a result of the welfare fraud line since its inception are 20, and 15 of those 20 were under The Social Allowances Act and five of the 20 were under the Criminal Code. The results of those charges were nine convictions, two stays of proceedings, and nine cases are before the courts presently.

Can I just ask if there is any more detail, any more questions around those answers?

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister have a breakdown on the number of convictions by category, either Criminal Code or The Social Allowances Act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, all nine convictions were under The Social Allowances Act.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us in percentage terms the number of charges that were laid as a percentage of complaints? I believe the previous figure we heard was 6,200, although today I think we had another 75 added to that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is less than 1 percent.

Mr. Martindale: Since I see some sophisticated calculators there, I would like to have the exact figure, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is .15 percent.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you for that information. It is quite interesting and revealing because most estimates of welfare fraud are in the range of 1 percent to 3 percent.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think my honourable friend might be trying to skew the facts and the figures around welfare fraud. When we introduced the welfare fraud line, there was some indication that welfare fraud was somewhere around 2 percent. I think, if you look to the amount of money that we have saved since the inception of the welfare fraud line, it is about $4.4 million, not an insignificant amount of taxpayers' dollars that could be used in other, better ways.

I would have to question--here I am questioning again my honourable friend, but I would ask the question of whether he feels that fraudulent activity is the best use of taxpayers' dollars or would he like to see those dollars go to the programs and the people that are truly in need? I do not condone fraud, and I think if you looked at the $4.4-million figure, you would find that is about 1.2 percent of our welfare budget.

Mr. Martindale: Well, we also take abuse of the welfare system seriously; however, the amount of money that this department saved from the 20 people who were charged is very small and my experience, from talking to people on the phone frequently about this, is that people are asked to bring in information to have verified, and in the meantime, they get no assistance. So my contention would be that the vast majority of the money that is saved here is by having benefits suspended while there is an investigation.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I hate to get angry with my honourable friend, but I have to indicate very clearly, as I have said many, many times before, that the policy of our department, if in fact there has been an allegation of abuse, is to continue to pay social allowances until there actually is proof of that abuse. No one is cut off while that investigation is going on, and that is a policy that is strictly enforced in the department, so I take exception to the comments that my honourable friend has put on the record.

I do want to indicate that, as a result of investigation, there have been some people that have been collecting social allowance that were not entitled to social allowance and those people had their payments terminated. There were people that were collecting social allowance and were not reporting certain income, and that payment was adjusted accordingly. As a result--it is not from cutting anyone off during an investigative procedure; it is a saving actually achieved as a result of overpayment or people claiming social allowance when they were not entitled to it.

Again, I repeat that I think it is important that we as government ensure that the dollars that are going to a program are used in the best manner possible. When I look at some of the increases--and there are not many areas within my department that received an increase, but we are coming to one of them in the Estimates--those people with mental disabilities have received some increase in support for services. I guess we could say, well, we continue to spend the $4 million that we have saved on people who are not entitled to receipt of payment under social allowances or we could redirect that to the increases for services for the mentally disabled. My decision, quite clearly, would be the latter, to ensure that the dollars are provided to the programs and that we can provide additional support for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I thank the minister for that answer, and when people phone me and tell me that their benefits have been suspended during investigation, I will tell them what the minister said and tell them that I have been assured that people's benefits will continue during an investigation. I think that is very helpful information for me to have.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I would just like to say to my honourable friend that I would appreciate those calls and that kind of information, because it is not the policy of the department, and if there is any information my honourable friend has, I would hope that he would share it very expeditiously with me so that we could resolve the problem.

Mr. Martindale: Line 3.(a) has to do with The Vulnerable Persons'--

Mrs. Mitchelson: There was another piece of information that I undertook to find for my honourable friend, and that was the cost of the comedian at the ministers' conference. Yes, indeed there was an honorarium paid to a comedian and it was $500.

Mr. Martindale: Under line 3.(a) Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care, I see that the administration here is responsible for department and government policy and legislation. I would like to ask the minister when The Vulnerable Persons Act is going to be proclaimed. Last year, I believe we were in Estimates in May, and this minister said that the act would be proclaimed soon. I do not think any dictionary definitions of the word “soon” would give this minister enough latitude to have waited a year, and so I guess I will ask the same question again that I asked last year.

Since The Vulnerable Persons Act was passed in third reading in July of 1993 and this is May of 1996, when will the act finally be proclaimed?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess I have to apologize to my honourable friend. In the heat of the day--and I think it was a very warm May day last year when we were in Estimates--

Mr. Martindale: That is why you said it.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, not really. I was hoping that we would have a date that was sooner than we will be able to proclaim the legislation, and we are looking at a fall proclamation now. I hope I can say that with some confidence. As you know, we have the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner hired and working.

I have indicated many times that it is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. It is groundbreaking legislation. I guess we want to ensure that we put all the proper processes in place so that it can be successful and be something that can be held up as an example to the rest of the country as a result of us doing our homework upfront, and it has taken longer, but as I indicated, it is very complex, and we are in the process right now. We have gone out to the community and sought names from the community for panel representation to hear cases and will be developing that list of panel members. They will be oriented so that once the act is proclaimed, they will be able to start their work immediately on reviewing those cases that need to be reviewed and have decisions made. So I do apologize, it is not quite as soon as I had expected or anticipated last year. I think I can say with some confidence that we are looking towards a date this fall.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Pitura): Line 3. Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $435,800--pass; item 3.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $244,300--pass.

3.(b) Office of the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if, after the act is proclaimed, there will be an abuse registry such as exists now for children or would the minister consider a similar kind of abuse registry?

* (1530)

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is not contemplated at this time. It is certainly something that we could explore to see whether it had merit, but it is not part of the process of proclamation or part of the legislation as it exists today.

Mr. Martindale: Will there be money available for counselling and healing for people who have been abused, that is, vulnerable persons?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do have money for support services within our budget and if there is a need for that kind of support, those funds could be utilized.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Pitura): Item 3. Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care (b) Office of the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $207,800--pass; item 3.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $257,000--pass.

Item 3.(c) Community Living and Vocational Rehabilitation Programs.

Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that, I presume due to budget restrictions, there has been a freeze on family support such as respite services, special equipment, summer programs, as well as cuts in supports required by children to remain in regular classrooms. Can the minister confirm that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, there have not been cuts in service as such. There has been increasingly more money available for services, but there is an increasing demand for services also. As we see people move out of the children's system into the adult system, that does free up money to provide more services to others but there are more people served today. Are there waiting lists for service?--yes, there are, but we try to accommodate in the best manner possible the needs of people on a priority basis. As I said, there have not been cuts to service or cuts to respite. As money becomes available we provide support to those that need.

Mr. Martindale: Has there been a freeze for Children's Special Services?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There have not been any cuts to Children's Special Services. There is an additional $250,000 available in order to provide support for 75 families, so there has not been a reduction. There has been an increase in the amount of money available for Children's Special Services. But there is also an increasing demand for those services, so it is an ongoing battle to try to keep up with the services that are required and the funding to provide those services. But there will be 75 additional families served with the increased allocation of resources.

Mr. Martindale: I believe this part of the department is getting an additional almost $2 million this year. Is that right?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: The minister is saying that part of this is going to help to serve these 75 families. Is that right?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is correct.

Mr. Martindale: In the past fiscal year, was there a waiting list? I understand there were about a hundred new families not receiving any form of support who are on a waiting list.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Can I just ask for clarification? Is this in Children's Special Services? Okay. I understand that as children turn 18 they move it out of the children's system and into the adult's system, so there is a continual turnover. They do not all turn 18 at the beginning of the year so, throughout the year, there will be a turnover of people into the adult system and funds will become available in the children's system.

We know that has occurred and some people have rolled into the adult system, so we have been able to provide support for some of those families that were on the wait list. This 75 families is in addition to that. As resources are freed up, as people move out of the system, we are able to provide the support for those that need it at the front end.

Mr. Martindale: Was the hundred new families on a waiting list an accurate figure?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding there were around 85 on the wait list.

Mr. Martindale: So the minister is saying that in this fiscal year, of those 85 families, 75 will receive service, so the waiting list has been shortened considerably?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes, probably many of those who were on the wait list would be receiving service, but my honourable friend has to recognize, too, that there are more people coming in at the front end that are going to require service, so that is an ongoing process. There still is a wait list and, as I said, as people roll off, we try to accommodate those who have been on the wait list, but we have not been able to eliminate it completely.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if some of the increased funding for this department will be allocated to groups that have applied for funding such as the St. James project? I believe they met with senior staff of the department. I have a brief that they wrote which has the Hope Centre Inc. on the title page, and I also met with them as well. This is a group of parents with adult children living at home and because of the age of the parents and some of their difficulties, they would like to see their adult children living in a residential setting and have submitted a proposal.

Has the minister given serious consideration to funding this proposal?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the staff have been working with them to see whether there is any way that we can assist. As I said earlier in my comments when we were talking about welfare, welfare fraud and priority spending, this is one area within the department that I have placed a high priority on. Any increased resources that we can find, I have placed a high priority on having those resources go to this area within my department. We have had increases on a year-by-year basis and the direction has always been if we are prioritizing, if we are looking at the one area of the department that is going to see an increasing need, it is in this area. I have made a commitment to try to ensure that the maximum amount of dollars available will go into this area.

* (1540)

There is a need. We all know that with new medical technology, children, infants, babies who are born are staying alive today that would not have years ago and with technology at the other end and our health care system--although it gets criticism from time to time from those on the opposite side of the House--is advancing technologically with new drugs and new ways of treating people, keeping people alive longer that may not have lived as long as they do today. So we are seeing increasing pressure at both ends of the system and increasing demand for more resources. I recognize that.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

So that is why I have felt that this is an area of very high need, of high priority for me in the department. I will commit again to ensuring in future years that as additional resources become available, this is the area in the department in which they are going to go and we will try to address the needs. I wish I could solve all of the issues and all of the funding needs today, and I cannot. I have to say that to my honourable friend very honestly and openly. The additional resources will go to those who are most in need of the service, and we will try to come to grips and find the resources as they become available to provide the service that is so badly needed.

Mr. Martindale: My understanding from the parents is that they submitted their proposal in April '95 and that it was accepted in principle, but it would only be implemented when there was money and that it was postponed from the '95-96 fiscal year to the '96-97 fiscal year. The minister wrote to these parents on February 5, 1996, and said that the department was unable to provide funding at this time as the required resources are not available. Now that the budget for this part of the department has been increased by almost $2 million, is there some hope that this project will be given serious consideration for funding?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, there will be some incremental steps taken, and we are working towards full funding in this budget year. I hope we will be able to accomplish that.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if the Children's Special Services is the part of her department that funds programs for children at the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, it is.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister explain to me the recent cut there and her plan, which, I believe, is to provide similar services in the community?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The Society for Manitobans with Disabilities had an in-house daycare program that served about 25 individual children with special needs. The majority of their programming was done on an outreach basis into the community, and that is the direction they had been moving over the past number of years. So, as a result of some studies that have been done in co-operation and consultation with the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities, I think there was a consensus that they would continue to move towards that community outreach model and that probably the best use of dollars was not in the structure in-house where there was a lot of money going to a few children. In fact, many of the children that were going to the daycare at SMD were being looked after in the community half days in another child care centre and then would move into the in-house child care for part of the day.

Some of those children would be moving on into the school system, so in fact the decision was made this year to terminate the in-house program and use the resources in a more co-ordinated fashion to outreach and serve more children on an outreach basis rather than having to support the overhead costs of an in-house daycare. So it is our belief, and we have been working very closely with SMD around this issue, that as the services are devolved to the community we will see more children served as a result of the process that has been undertaken, not less.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister assure the parents of these children that the resources will be there for their children in the schools or daycare centres or wherever in the community?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.(c) Community Living and Vocational Rehabilitation Programs (1) Adult Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,292,100--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $353,100--pass; (c) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $44,938,000--pass.

3.(c)(2) Children's Special Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $246,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $283,300--pass; (c) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $21,041,900--pass.

3.(d) Manitoba Developmental Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,246,800.

Mr. Martindale: I believe the Association for Community Living would like to see demonstration projects in order to bring 50 people per year out of institutions. Can the minister tell us what her position is on that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I have to say, quite frankly, that I have not set a target. We, as a government, have indicated clearly to all of those that we meet with on the community side, on the institutional side, that we believe there is a broad cross section of support and services that needs to be provided going from the institution to the community and independent living. So I have not been supportive, necessarily, of a target for deinstitutionalization of 50 individuals.

I think as we move to proclaim The Vulnerable Persons Act and all of those that are in institutions presently are reviewed and that will be part of the mandate under legislation of the commissioner's office to review those and determine what is appropriate. Rather than setting a target, I would rather try to ensure that those that have the ability to move to the community we work with and try to find some of the solutions and the answers. My honourable friend should know that there will be no one, once the act is proclaimed, admitted to an institution until the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner's office has had the opportunity to review that and see whether that is an appropriate placement.

* (1550)

We are not expanding our institutions. They have decreased over the years and I think you will probably see more emphasis on, and there has been a considerable emphasis on community living and we will continue, but I am not prepared at this time to set a target of any number. I think we look at MDC, who does serve a purpose. I would like to see less people there, and we will continue to work towards that goal. I look at St. Amant Centre, that I think serves a role in our community and does a very good job of support and service to those with disabilities, and I will continue to support St. Amant in their endeavours. But I also know that, you know, through the process that will be put in place under legislation that people will not be able to be admitted to institutions unless they pass a certain test, I guess. We will continue where it is appropriate to work with families of individuals and individuals that can move from institutions into the community.

Mr. Martindale: I understand that the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner, Dr. Hansen, is currently in the process of reviewing all of the individuals who are in institutions. Can the minister tell me if the result of this review could be discharge planning for some of these individuals?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, they are sort of updating their records and starting into a process, but that has not got completely underway.

The job of the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner will be a very onerous one over the next few years as we get the act proclaimed, and in some instances, he will be able to make a decision independently. There will be some instances where he will have to refer to a hearing panel, cases for evaluation, and have them make recommendations back to him on what should happen in each individual circumstance. So that process is just starting to get underway now.

Mr. Martindale: But if the commissioner or the panel recommends that someone be discharged, will the resources be there for those people to be returned or put into the community or a community setting as opposed to an institutional setting?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I hope I have got this clear. I will try, and if I do not, I will be corrected and correct the record.

The process that the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner will go through is to review every case to determine whether the individual can make the decision on their own around their life and their daily activities or whether in fact they need a substitute decision maker to help make those decisions on any part of their life. The commissioner himself will review all of the cases and determine whether he feels the person has the ability to make the decision, a clear-cut decision, that they can manage their own affairs. If in fact that is not the case, that is when it will go to a panel process, and the panel will then recommend to the commissioner what decisions he can make and where he needs help in making decisions. Those recommendations will come back to the commissioner.

If in fact there seems to be a determination that the person is capable of making their own decisions or that the person would be better off in the community, as resources become available, we can work towards that goal. I cannot say to you today that if in fact a decision was made that a person would be better off in the community that the resources would be there tomorrow. We have additional resources in this area. Whether the resources are able to accommodate absolutely every case or every issue I cannot say. I probably could say that they would not be. But as resources become available, as we increase resources in this area of the department, we will be able to do more of that.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3. Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care (d) Manitoba Developmental Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,246,800--pass; item 3. (d)(2) Other Expenditures $2,806,700--pass; item 3. (e) Child Day Care (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,904,600.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to begin with comments that the minister made in Estimates last year because I felt quite misled. Specifically on June 15 on page 1755 of Hansard I asked the minister if the number of cases had been increased from 9,600 to 9,900, and the minister said yes. I would have assumed that this was based on increased demand. In fact, the minister implied that in her answer because she said it was based on an evaluation and appealed to centres to see whether there was a need for increased cases. I had understood the minister to be implying that the level of utilization was at 9,600, but because of increased demand it was increased to 9,900. Could the minister clarify that for me?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, absolutely, I can clarify that. We, through our budgetary process, had indicated that the number of subsidized cases would be 9,600. There was not a complete uptake of those spaces, as we learned in this year's budget, and it had been a couple of years that there had not been the full uptake of spaces. I hope my honourable friend would not want me to dictate to people or families how they choose to have their children looked after while they are working. Those are decisions and choices that parents and families make. But the cases were there and were available for anyone who needed them within the system.

Now, the evaluation that was done, because we allocated certain cases or spaces to different centres or family daycare homes, there was some trading between centres. We did not arbitrarily take spaces or cases away from any individual centre, but there was some co-operation between centres or homes where if a centre or home was not using spaces or cases that they would trade or share them with someone else. In some instances, there were centres or homes that did not want to give up their subsidized spaces in case there was a need within their home or within their community for that space.

What we did was look and ask around the community with the centres and the homes whether in fact there was an increased need, whether there were any that were waiting for subsidized spaces because they had families in their communities around their centres or their homes with needs. There were some that had used or filled all their subsidized spaces and could use more.

So on a centre-by-centre, home-by-home basis, if there was a need or a demand for those spaces, we increased their allocation. So therefore there were 300 additional spaces without taking any away from those because, from time to time, things change; a family moves into a community or a neighbourhood or a person on social allowance gets a job and needs support. Those things do happen. From time to time, there is an increased need in a certain community in a certain area. We tried to accommodate those as best we could but, when we looked at this year's budget--so I was honest and open with my honourable friend last year.

* (1600)

We increased the number of spaces, but I do not determine who utilizes those spaces. The spaces were there if they were needed. There was not an uptake on those spaces and, as we looked to this year at the major reductions that we saw from the federal government, we recognized that there were several options I suppose we could have used. We could have reduced operating grants to daycare centres and homes. We did not want to do that. We wanted to be able to leave intact what they were utilizing presently today while we go through a review.

We have made a commitment to that review. I have the community supporting that review and working with us around that. So the best place to find the money in the daycare budget was in spaces or cases that were not being utilized. Indeed, that is exactly what we did. You know, there is a pool of resource there, as I said, for our Making Welfare Work initiatives if we have single parents who are going to be able to enter training or enter the workforce because of some of our new initiatives we will accommodate. That was a conscious decision that we made; no easy decisions to make, but the best place to find the resource was in the area where the money was not being spent.

Mr. Martindale: So the minister is telling us that the reason for the increase of 300 cases was due to need or possible need. Is that right?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, that was as a result of absolute need in one community or one neighbourhood or one centre or one family daycare home on an individualized basis. If there is a community that was growing and there was a need for subsidized spaces for working parents, those were provided in those neighbourhoods, in those communities.

Mr. Martindale: Well, that is not what the minister's briefing note of November 29, 1995 says. It says: Due to vacancies in the 9,600 cases, the minister allocated an additional 300 cases to the child care community in September 1994.

Why would you add 300 more cases if your utilization was way under that? I think the minister's briefing book explains it all quite clearly. This was to make the minister look good in the child care community by supposedly adding more cases to the system, when in fact the system was underutilized. Would the minister like to explain that? I will help the minister with her answer; I would like to table three copies of the minister's briefing note.

Mrs. Mitchelson: My honourable friend may not have known, but I will tell him that the child care community knew that there was underutilization of spaces. That was not new to them, and it was not new to me. It may be some sudden revelation to my honourable friend, but it was not anything new to the community or to me.

I had the choice, I suppose, of taking away spaces from certain centres, arbitrarily taking them away and saying, you are not using them, we will take them away, at that time or just saying, we will add to the number of subsidies. I mean, my honourable friend says I knew the spaces were not being utilized. I knew that, but I also knew that the spaces were there and available should parents so choose to access those spaces. I was not prepared at that point in time, just as we were embarking upon Taking Charge! and some of our Making Welfare Work initiatives, to take those spaces away.

Mr. Martindale: I still do not understand why the minister would increase the number of cases by 300 when she knew that the budget was underexpended by $4 million and the actual utilization was way under the 9,600 cases. In fact, during '93-94, the average annual utilization was approximately 8,354 children. So why is it necessary to add 300 cases when the budget is underexpended and the average utilization is considerably less than 9,600?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I will repeat, we did an analysis on a centre-by-centre, home-by-home basis. My honourable friend, if he was making the decisions, may have decided to arbitrarily take 20 subsidized spaces that were not being used in one centre away from that centre and give them to another centre. That might have been a decision that he would have made, and then that centre that may have seen a new family move into the neighbourhood would not have any spaces available for subsidized cases. That may have been a decision that he would have made; it was not a decision that I was prepared to make at that point in time. I decided to leave the spaces, even though they were not being utilized in one centre, and add the spaces into the communities, into the neighbourhoods that needed the additional support and the additional spaces.

In those centres where spaces were added, it was because they were full to capacity in their subsidized spaces and they needed more in order to serve the people who believed that they were the best people available to deliver that service to their children.

Mr. Martindale: Why have there been or why were there last year children waiting for special needs funding if the minister's budget for daycare was underspent? Why were there 46 children waiting for funding support as of September '95?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, in the children with disabilities program funding there has been an annual increase year over year of support and dollars in that program, and the number of children that have been served in that program has increased also. People enroll their children. Children are enrolled in these programs, enrolled and roll off of these programs on an ongoing basis. So there are more children being served. There is more money going into the program today than there was last year or the year before. Actually, I should not say that. I think I put some false information on the record, and I want to correct that because I would never want to leave the impression that I did not give full, open and honest answers to all the questions that have been asked. We have the same amount of money in the program over the last couple of years, and we are serving more children today than we have served in the past. As I said, there are children who are on a waiting list but they, very quickly, find a place in the program because there are children who are rolling out of the program.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister explain to me why children are on a waiting list and some daycare directors tell me that they have difficulty getting special needs funding when the budget was underexpended for the last several years? Why is there no subsidy money for special social needs when the budget is underexpended? Why is there a waiting list?

* (1610)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, this is not a subsidy need as such. This is support, additional support through additional workers in the system for those with disabilities. So it is not a subsidy issue. It is a different issue.

Mr. Martindale: I am sorry. I could have read that in the second paragraph of the minister's issue page from September '95.

But the question still stands. Why is there a waiting list as of September '95 of 46 children waiting funding support if the budget was underexpended and the minister was projecting that it would be underspent by $4 million last year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think my honourable friend is trying to confuse things a little bit. We have a subsidy program in child care, and we have a program for support for children with disabilities and that is additional support. It is not a subsidy issue. I guess he is saying we could have transferred money from one appropriation to another. I guess that is maybe what he is recommending. Quite frankly, I have indicated that in this program there may be a waiting list. The waiting list is for a short period of time, because there are people who roll off of the program, and those people would be enrolled in the program with supports within a very short period of time.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me what the budget is for the children with disabilities program?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is $2.83 million.

Mr. Martindale: Has that amount of money been expended in recent years in spite of underexpenditure in other parts of the day care budget?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, it has.

Mr. Martindale: What is the budget for children with disabilities for this fiscal year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is the same as it was last year.

Mr. Martindale: Why did this minister not reallocate within the day care budget line and put more money towards children with disabilities programs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: A good question. I have to thank my honourable friend for that question, and I want to indicate to him that we are undertaking a complete review of our child care programming in co-operation with the community over this next year. Why did we not increase? Well, I have indicated previously that we received considerably less money from the federal government.

We had to find some reductions within our department. That is reality. The one area that I chose to ensure that there was additional support was in the services for those with mental disabilities. I consciously made the decision that was the area of greatest need within the department, and also on the Child and Family Services side there was increased support to the Winnipeg agency.

Those had to be priority areas and we made reductions. We made significant reductions in our social allowances lines, as my honourable friend knows and has been critical of. We made a reduction in Child Day Care of around $4 million, and if we prorated what the federal government reductions would be as a result of no CAP cost sharing, we were looking at somewhere between $3 million and $4 million. The best solution at the time was to freeze the money and the spaces that were not being utilized while we go through the review process.

In the child care community--I mean, my honourable friend was there during the last election campaign. He tells me on a regular basis that I was very honest and open with the community when I said there is no more money, and they know that the level of funding that is in the budget this year will probably not be higher. It will not be increased again next year. The community knows that. They are prepared to sit down and work with us and see where we can find efficiencies, maybe administrative efficiencies, better utilization of the cases, the spaces, the subsidies, in whatever way, to ensure first and foremost that the children who need the care through our child care system receive the service in the most efficient and effective way.

I think we have developed that partnership, and we will be working together over the next year understanding and recognizing that there is no more money and that the dollars that are allocated today will have to be used, and hopefully we will be able to come to some consensus on how we can better spend the dollars that are available, focusing first and foremost on the needs of the children and the families that need child care service. So it will be a challenge. I am not expecting that there will not be some differences of opinion, but I think we can come to a mutual agreement on better ways to utilize the resources that are available for us today for services for families and children through the child care system.

Mr. Martindale: Since I knew that this minister was underexpending her budget by approximately $4 million a year and the minister knew that and some people in the daycare community knew that, were there people in the daycare community that advised the minister to take $3 million or $4 million out of the budget because they thought that it would not do any harm?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I had many meetings with the child care community, and I am sure my honourable friend has had meetings with members of the child care community. They recognized and realized fully and quite possibly because we have been so open and honest and up front with them in indicating that we were not going to be able to backfill for the federal reductions. We said that very clearly at the outset, and I think they were prepared to see some reductions. They knew there would be. I think that probably if they had a chance to contribute in any significant way they would have been pleased to see that grants were not reduced but that the dollars were taken out of unexpended funds that were available.

Did anyone specifically make that recommendation? I cannot recall that happening, but I do know that they were prepared for reductions, because I never held out any hope that we would be able to maintain status quo in this year's budget as a result of the federal offloading.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me why, if the budget is underexpended by $4 million to $5 million a year for several years in a row and then you take $4 million out of the budget that apparently is not being spent anyway, why is it necessary to freeze or reallocate subsidy cases and downsize?

Mrs. Mitchelson: As I have indicated, I will say again, the decision was made not to reduce operating grants but that we would take the money that we felt we had to take out of the child care line from spaces that were not being utilized and dollars that were not being utilized. We will go through a process with the community over the next year to try to see whether there are efficiencies, to review regulations, to work with them and see whether we can come to a mutual understanding and get some creative ideas from the community from those that work in the community and those parents and children that live in the community that need the service on how we can better deliver our child care service into the late '90s and beyond.

We have a system that has been in place for--I am trying to think of how many years now our system has been in place. It has been well over 10 years, a system that does not necessarily meet the needs of working families today. Family makeup, family composition has changed. Flexibility is needed in the system to ensure that many of the jobs that are available for single parents, for working families, are shift work, weekend work, part-time work. There needs to be the flexibility within the system to meet the challenges of the '90s and the job opportunities that are available.

* (1620)

We also need to look at rural Manitoba and some of the unique circumstances facing farm women that ever increasingly need to help on the family farm and the safety issues around the children, and the issue also in rural communities where many women are having to go to work to provide the additional support required by the family. There are a lot of issues that need to be looked at. I think it is very timely, and we have a community that is willing to sit down with government and look at the system, recognizing that there is going to need to be changes and that there are not going to be more dollars to do that, and see how we can best work together to come to some positive solutions to the dilemma that faces us.

Mr. Martindale: If the minister is underspending in her department by approximately $4 million and then she takes $4 million out of the budget, why is it necessary to downsize the child care system?

Mrs. Mitchelson: What we have done is frozen the subsidy spaces, but we recognize and realize that on an individual, case-by-case basis, if there is a need, we will look at that need. I have made that comment to my honourable friend in the past, that if he has people who are looking for a subsidized space and need our assistance, we are more than willing to help to try to facilitate that process.

While we are going through the review for this year, we have frozen spaces because I do not want to predetermine what the review will come up with and what recommendations will be there. It might be major change in the system, or it might be maintaining somewhat the status quo. Until we have the final conclusions mutually agreed to, we have frozen the subsidy spaces that are presently being utilized, recognizing that if there is any centre or any home that feels that they have not been treated fairly or allocated fairly based on past experience, we will look at each of those cases individually.

Mr. Martindale: So the minister is saying that if people have a need for subsidized care, she will look at it on a case-by-case basis, and she is also saying that there is a freeze on because she is studying the system. So that means there is no downsizing of the child care system?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, when we indicated that we were freezing cases at around 8,200, I have to report to my honourable friend that we are at approximately 9,000 subsidy cases now as a result of negotiation, discussion, dialogue with centres' needs. My understanding is that most of them are currently being utilized.

Mr. Martindale: Well, it is too bad that the minister will not admit that she is downsizing the child care system because her own '96-97 expenditure Estimates submitted to Treasury Board for the Department of Family Services say, in No. 1, downsize the existing child care system by freezing the number of subsidy spaces. I would like to table copies of this Treasury Board document.

So I do not understand why this minister, when she has her own Treasury Board documents that have been part of her budget process for months now, probably from late last fall, in fact there is actually a date on this Treasury Board document that says that Treasury Board direct the department to return to Treasury Board by January 15, 1996, with a detailed plan.

So this document is at least six months old now. Why will the minister now not admit that she is downsizing the child care system since it is in black and white in her own Treasury Board document?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think there is sort of a difference of interpretation. I mean my honourable friend talks about downsizing. I have said clearly there were 9,900 subsidized cases in the child care system last year. I have indicated quite clearly that they are frozen at 8,200 as a result of this year's budget, but there was flexibility. So I am not saying that there are not less spaces in the system, and he is talking about downsizing. I have admitted openly here that when there were 9,900 subsidized cases last year, there are only 8,200.

But as the result of negotiation and dialogue and discussion with centres and family daycare homes, we are now back up to around 9,000 subsidized cases. Does he want me to say we have downsized, we have frozen, and we have less subsidized cases in the system today than we had last year? There is $4 million less in the Daycare line. I am not hiding from that, it is there. I have been very open. I mean I remember my honourable friend sitting at the election--no, he was not there, it was his leader at the election forum that was making all kinds of promises to the child care community.

Although I was not very popular, I spoke what I knew to be the truth, if we should be re-elected, that there would be no more money. We know there is less money in the child care community and Manitobans know there is less money today than there was last year. There is less money in the budget. I admit to that and it does not matter what documents my honourable friend has. Yes, there is less money, there are less subsidized cases in the system. I admit that. That will be the case, and there are not any expectations out there in the community that there will be more money next year. I cannot guarantee that, and I would not even hold out any hope for it. So we have come together with the community to try to determine how we can best utilize the dollars that are available, and who knows, we may come up with ideas that look at administrative efficiencies so that in fact more children will be able to receive service. We may be able to change the structure. I am not going to predetermine that; I am not there with any agenda of my own. I am wanting to hear what the community has to say, what working families have to say, and what those who deliver the service have to say, and then we will determine what the system will look like in the years ahead.

Mr. Martindale: One of the reasons why I brought this up is that I believe that the so-called freeze at the current level of utilization according to the letter from the director of the Child Day Care office dated April 1996 is really in fact one way of downsizing the system which the minister's Treasury Board submission proves. I am pleased that the minister talks about a need to streamline administrative processes, because the other way that this government is going to make changes is by reviewing regulations, and it is not as if they have not thought about this ahead of time. They already have some ideas, because there are three examples in the Treasury Board submission, and I think this government is on the road to increasing staff to children ratios and to having fewer visits from co-ordinators to family daycare homes and centres. The minister already has some ideas about how to streamline daycare administratively, and they are in this Treasury Board document. Will the minister admit that this is her idea of streamlining?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, one of many suggestions or options or ideas that can be put on the table, and I will say to my honourable friend, I will put suggestions or ideas on the table, as will parents that need the service and as will those that work in the system in our child care centres, in our family daycare homes, in the community and our before and after school programs, in our infant labs. All of those people will have the opportunity to put suggestions and ideas forward for discussion and for dialogue, and I will have some suggestions, and if the community feels they are feasible suggestions to look at implementation, we will do that. They will have lots of ideas that they will present to us, and if they are ideas that we think have some merit, we will pursue those.

* (1630)

I mean, this is a give-and-take process, and all of us--I am sure my honourable friend, if he was sitting around the table, might have some suggestions or ideas. You know what? He may even have a good one that we might look at implementing. So I would challenge him to really put his thinking cap on and think very seriously about what he thinks could make a more efficient and effective system, keeping the children and the families that need the service in mind. You know, I will listen, and if it is a good idea and a good suggestion, I may even consider, if the child care community agrees, implementing it.

Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister is asking questions again instead of answering them. I think she wants to be the critic for Family Services.

Can the minister explain to me why there are variations in the average cost per case? I have a chart here, another Treasury Board review document, with the year and the average number of subsidized children, the actual subsidy expenditure and the average cost per case. I will table these, and I think this question is for information. I wonder if the minister can explain why the costs go up and down.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it depends on the mix of the type of care that they are getting.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister explain that more fully?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It depends on whether it is a nursery school subsidy or a daycare subsidy. It depends on whether it is a full-time subsidy or a part-time subsidy. It depends on whether it is an infant space or a school-age space. There are all kinds of variables, and the subsidy would be allocated based on the specific individual circumstance.

Mr. Martindale: I just have a couple more questions and we will finish the daycare area.

I have been getting many phone calls from family daycare providers who are concerned, first of all, that they lost their unused subsidy cases. Secondly, any cases that have been loaned to them, they believe that once those children are gone they will no longer have that subsidy case. The minister keeps saying that wherever there is a legitimate need, I guess, an attempt will be made to provide a subsidy case, but the family daycare community are very concerned that once these cases that are not being used are gone, they will never get them back. I am wondering if the minister can assure the family daycare providers in Manitoba that they are not permanently losing the subsidy cases.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Their allocation that they have received for this year is their allocation for this year. But I want to remind my honourable friend that we are a government that supports, in a very major and substantial way, family daycare. I think we have seen more family daycare homes open under this administration over the years because we believe that family daycares are an extremely viable option. So we are not looking to harm family daycare in any way through this process, and they will be a part of the process of reform and change in the daycare system.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I believe they have been assured that they will be consulted, and that is good. But I am looking for assurances about the subsidy cases that are being lost due to this letter about so-called freeze or so-called re-allocation; once they are gone, the family daycare providers are very concerned that they are going to be gone permanently, that they will not get them back. What assurances can the minister give that they will be there when they are needed?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will work very co-operatively with the family daycare community to ensure that, as the spaces are needed for working families and the need is there, the spaces will be provided.

Mr. Martindale: The minister keeps talking about flexible daycare and the need for a daycare in rural Manitoba; however, it is my understanding that there are very few daycare centres that are providing evening or weekend care, and that they have a lot of problems in providing flexible hours or extended hours. Can the minister tell us what new resources, if any, are going to be made available to provide extended flexible hours?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have had that discussion and dialogue with the child care community on an ongoing basis, and that is what the review was all about. They understand the need, too, for more flexibility, and maybe part of the reason the spaces have not been utilized in the formal structure that we have that exists today is because the flexibility has not been there to accommodate those working families that need the weekend hours, the shift hours and they have had to go to other places to get the care for their children that is needed.

That may be one of the reasons that there has not been the full utilization, so they are prepared to take a look at the structure to make recommendations on how within the centres and the homes today we can provide the flexibility that is needed.

Mr. Martindale: I think the daycare community is willing, and they have been wanting to do this, at least some particular centres have been. I guess the question is, how is the minister going to help to make it possible to provide extended hours and flexible hours?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I do not want to predetermine what the review is going to reveal to us or what recommendations will come forward as a result of the review. I know that there is a desire by those that work in the community to serve the needs of the families that need to be served, and that there is a real need by working families to have the efficient and effective service provided. So we will work with them, and, hopefully, my honourable friend at the end of this process will be satisfied that we have done a good job and that we have come up with the solutions that need to be found.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My question is also on daycare. Over the past few months I have received a call from one of our local daycares that was looking to try to raise some funds for a play structure in the daycare. Many years ago there was considerable amount of lotteries money available for daycares, and I raised the question in the House indicating at one time that there was a virtual guarantee of lotteries monies for daycares. Today we see that source of revenue totally shut down. Daycares are not eligible either to get the direct grant, as they did in the past, initiated in 1988 I believe, and I have the annual records of the Manitoba Services Council, and those grants at one time exceeded a million dollars for the day care allocation.

Now the grant has actually dwindled down to, I believe, zero in '94, approximately 13,000 in '95, and '96 there was no allocation. Has the minister raised this issue in terms of fairness and equity, since daycares which are nonprofit community-run organizations, should according to the principles of fairness be eligible to receive some lotteries money?

* (1640)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Just from my former life as Minister responsible for Lotteries, I know that the Manitoba Community Services Council from which daycares were funded is an independent body. They are allocated lottery resources from government, but there is no government representation on their board. They are an independent community-elected body that makes decisions on applications that come in for funding on a regular basis. They are allocated the resources; they make the decisions; there is no government input or interference into the decision-making process that they undertake.

On that side of things I know--I mean I could certainly ask the question on who is receiving funding and where are they putting their priorities, I suppose, just as my honourable friend could write a letter to them as an independent body and get that answer.

On the other hand, I do know that from time to time, and I know when I was the Minister responsible for the Community Places Program that there are capital dollars available under Community Places. I know my colleague the Minister of Culture (Mr. Gilleshammer) is here and I think he may be finished his Estimates, but I am sure that--oh, he is not. There is a good opportunity then to ask him through the Department of Culture's Estimates what dollars are available in the Community Places Program and maybe that is a place you could channel your child care. It sounds like a playground structure which, if I can recall, is one of the criteria that fits under the Community Places Program. Possibly your centre that has made the inquiry could be directed to that program.

Ms. Mihychuk: I would like the minister to put on record whether she believes that daycare should be eligible to receive lotteries money or not.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I have to go back again to say that the lotteries dollars that are allocated to the Community Services Council were not dollars that were granted to daycares by government. They were not granted under the New Democratic government, lotteries dollars to daycares. It was done through the Community Services Council. Those dollars are allocated based on a volunteer board, elected by the community, without government involvement. If my honourable friend is telling me that there was political interference with the Community Services Council when the New Democratic Party was in government, I think she should put that on the record, because, in fact, it is a duly elected community body that makes independent decisions and that has always been the policy of this government. If, in fact, the New Democratic government was giving dollars to the Community Services Council under the guise of an independent body, making independent decisions and then politically interfering, I would like her to tell us now, because that has never been our policy.

Ms. Mihychuk: I would like to perhaps inform the minister that now there is a government representative that sits on the Manitoba Services Council and perhaps it would be wise for her to update herself as to the mandate and who sits on that council. The Department of Finance does have a representative and is a member of that Services Council.

One of the dilemmas that the Manitoba Services Council has is the dwindling amount of resources that is being allocated to them by the government. I am trying to say that, as minister responsible for daycares and, hopefully, for families that need them, she would actually perhaps go to her colleagues and lobby and ensure that there is fairness for daycares as a nonprofit community group.

So I just ask her for her assistance, as an advocate for daycare, to move in this area and perhaps facilitate some inclusion of them in that access to Lotteries money.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The commitment that I will put on the record to daycares, to the child care community, to children and families that need that service is that, in fact, we will have a fair system that is flexible and affordable into the future and we will work in consultation and co-operation with them to ensure that does happen and does take place. That is my commitment. My commitment will be within the dollar resource that we have available to us, and I still would like my honourable friend to confirm or deny that there was political interference in the years that the New Democratic Party provided resource to the Community Services Council.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 3.(e) Child Day Care (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,904,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $969,200--pass; (3) Financial Assistance and Grants $40,374,700--pass.

Resolution 9.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $137,601,100 for Family Services, Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

I believe it is the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess. [agreed]

The committee recessed at 4:47 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 4:54 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will resume the Estimates of Family Services.

Mr. Martindale: I have so many questions here I hardly know where to start, and I am running out of time. I promised your government House leader that we would pass the Children and Youth Secretariat line by 5:30, so there may be some areas here that do not get the kind of justice they deserve. Is it okay with the minister if under the first line here I ask questions about post-adoption services?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Sure.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4.(a)(1).

Mr. Martindale: It has been brought to my attention that some people feel that preferential treatment is being given to some people doing adoption searches because information is available to them that is extremely helpful in locating birth parents or birth children and that that kind of nonidentifying information, but extremely helpful information, is not available to others. Specifically, I am told that if a treaty number--no, not a treaty number--if a band number is given out, it makes it extremely easy to make a few phone calls and find the person that they are looking for. But, of course, if you are not First Nations and there is no band number involved, and you get nonidentifying information, it is much, much more difficult to find someone that you are searching for.

I guess the way to solve this is not to make it harder for some people, but to make it easier for everyone. I am wondering if the minister is open to suggestions about amending the section of the Child and Family Services that has to do with post-adoption. I know that jurisdictions in other places in Canada and other countries have made major changes in this area, and I am wondering if the minister is open to looking at those changes and possibly adopting them in Manitoba.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will answer very quickly and shortly: Yes, we are looking at major amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, and post-adoption service will be a big piece of that.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask some more questions also in the area of adoption, that have to do with an adoption initiative of Child and Family Services agencies whereby they are trying to get more and more foster children adopted. I am getting complaints from foster parents who are saying that pressure is being put on them. In fact, they are describing this as blackmail because in some instances parents have been told that, if they do not adopt, the child will be moved, and in one case that a brother and sister would be separated.

I would like to ask the minister if she would talk to the directors of Child and Family Services agencies and tell them to stop this quite unfair practice because this kind of pressure is not appreciated, would seem to be unwarranted, and I would like to see it stopped. Is the minister willing to look into this and, if it is happening, put an end to it?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I would certainly like some details around specifics because I would very definitely investigate and ensure that that kind of activity is not taking place. We have placed a major focus on adoption of older children. I think it is important that every child deserve and receive, wherever possible, a permanent home. I think there has been a renewed focus on adoption as a very positive parenting option for those children that have become permanent wards, but I would not want to see insensitivity to children and those children that have bonded with foster families. I would not want to see any type of inappropriate behaviour taking place in the agencies and, if there were specifics, I would certainly investigate and ensure that is not happening.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to go back on an issue that I raised under the Children's Advocate report, and that is budgeting for Child and Family Services agencies. It is my understanding that agencies have a budget that they set and I assume that they submit to your department. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: That seems to contradict what the minister was saying the other day, that she does not get budgets from Child and Family Services agencies. Unfortunately, I do not have Hansard here to prove that. But since the minister does get budgets from Child and Family Service agencies, why does she not budget realistically, as has been recommended by the Provincial Auditor and by the Children's Advocate?

* (1700)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am sorry, in the interest of speeding things up I was listening to staff, so I did not hear the end of the question. But the budget setting process for the upcoming year would be based on actuals from the previous year. It is not sort of a wish list of things that the agency brings forward.

So maybe, as I answered yes very quickly, I seem to recall information that I had provided last time we were here discussing this issue, and so we look at actuals. We also look at service and funding agreements that would look at what we would want to purchase from an agency in the way of delivery. We provide Family Support Innovation Fund, special grants to agencies for special projects to try and keep families together.

So the budget process I guess very simply is, we look at actuals, we look at what kind of service we want to purchase from the mandated agencies and set the budgets accordingly.

Mr. Martindale: Has the minister acted on the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor, who reported in December 1994 about the inadequacies of the budgeting process both by agencies and by this government?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are in the process right now of developing service and funding agreements which will look at the appropriate level of funding for the service that we expect the agencies to provide. In the case of Winnipeg Child and Family, I think I indicated the other day that we are going to be undertaking an operational review along with the agency to determine the kinds of service and the level of funding that is appropriate to deliver those services.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to move on to a different topic, namely that of volunteers working for Child and Family Service agencies in Winnipeg. Perhaps the minister does not have the information at her fingertips today but, if she could provide it to me, it would be appreciated.

I wonder if the minister can tell me how many volunteers the Winnipeg agencies had before the centralization occurred and if she could tell me how many volunteers the agencies have by year since the centralization.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I can undertake to get that information pulled together and provide it.

Mr. Martindale: One of the issues that frequently comes to my attention is children who are 16 and 17 years old whose parents believe that they are in need of service, and sometimes they believe that they are in need of services by Child and Family Services agencies, but the parents are telling me and the staff in Child and Family Services agencies and several newspaper articles within the last year have all agreed that this is a badly neglected group. I believe the Children's Advocate commented on 16- and 17-year-olds and the lack of service provided. I am wondering if the minister can tell us why it seems that there is no service for 16- and 17-year-olds unless they are in an extreme crisis.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think that is incorrect information. In fact, if 16- and 17-year-olds are willing to participate in treatment or school, and the family is supportive of that, there is service available. In the instance where there is a child that will not participate in any type of a program, then in fact we have to consider whether that is good use of taxpayers' dollars to try--you know, if you have a child that is on the run, do we continue to pay a hundred dollars a day while a foster home or facility has a bed empty waiting for that child to return, or do we utilize that space in a more appropriate fashion for a 16- or 17-year-old that is prepared to co-operate with treatment and programming and a family that is supportive of that? Those are the kinds of issues that we have to deal with, and I think we have to try to use the resources and the programs and the services that are available to those that are prepared to participate in the program and the treatment.

Mr. Martindale: In recent years there has been a shocking number of children who have died either in the care of an agency, or a foster parent, or who were recently in care of an agency and returned to immediate family or extended family. In a shocking number of cases no charges were laid, including cases where the RCMP would have liked to charge someone with murder--

Mrs. Mitchelson: Lots of people were charged with murder--some of them convicted, too--and attempted murder. Charged and convicted.

Mr. Martindale: --and I have called for a public inquiry into several of these cases. I believe that a public inquiry is the only way to get at all of the factors involved, not just the culpability of the care providers, but also issues such as whether or not there were sufficient resources being provided to these children and families, and whether or not agencies or this minister and the funding of her department were partly to blame. I would like to ask the minister if particularly after some of the existing internal investigations are over and inquests are over if she is willing to have a public inquiry to look at two or three or more of the recent child deaths in Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have never ruled out a public inquiry, but I have to say that if all of the information that is required by the public is revealed through other processes, I think it would be sort of duplication. That is an option that will remain open until we have the results from the other investigations in any of the criminal proceedings that will be taking place.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister give me updated statistics on the number of children in care by Winnipeg Child and Family Services by district, and if I could have '94-95 and '95-96 stats of children in care by area of Winnipeg Child and Family?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have that information available by area. I think we have the numbers of children in care in the Winnipeg agency, but we can undertake to get that information and provide it.

Mr. Martindale: Is it possible for the minister to give us similar figures on the number of aboriginal children in care in Winnipeg as well?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: I have in front of me a story from the Winnipeg Free Press dated April 10, 1996. The headline is, Mitchelson urged to act on crisis--Medical examiner targets failure in Lake St. Martin child slaying. Another headline, I believe, on the same story but over the page says, Once suspended director returned to helm. This story is referring to Anishinabe Child and Family Services, and obviously there are, according to this newspaper story, some significant problems there. I believe that a director was let go and there is an acting director who had previously worked for the agency but, according to this story, was suspended.

There have been some serious management problems; there have been deaths of children in their care. I know that this minister's department has been involved and that there have been numerous reports. There has been a management review, and I know that, in addition to all the reports that have been done about this agency, the minister has been personally made aware of all the problems there.

I would like to ask the minister what is being done to try to resolve some of these very difficult problems.

* (1710)

Mrs. Mitchelson: We presently have a service team that is in that agency right now working with the staff of that agency to ensure that services are being delivered to children, and case planning is being done and children are not in need of protection. That team has been in for close to two months now working with the agency to see if we cannot resolve all of these problems. It is a very serious concern for me, too, and we had Chief Phil Fontaine, the Chief Medical Examiner, the Child Advocate and myself try to facilitate a resolution. I think we have got the co-operation of the agency now to work with the team. I know that they are working in a very proactive way, and I am looking forward to the results of their findings.

I think it is important that all children in the province of Manitoba, no matter where they live, have access to the appropriate services and the trained staff to deliver those services. So that is one of the issues, of course, that we are dealing with, with the team being in there. What qualifications do the staff have to deliver the service, and how can we help them upgrade that service, if need be, so that children on those reserves served by Anishinabe have the same kind of care afforded to all children in the province.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us what is in the plan to restructure Seven Oaks Centre?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Seven Oaks Centre has been an issue for a number of years. I think a lot of comments and concerns have been around warehousing of children with not appropriate services. In working with the Children and Youth Secretariat and with the players involved, I think we are close to a more co-ordinated approach to delivering emergency services to children that need those services.

The proposal that we have in front of us presently is redevelopment of an institutionalized service into a community-based service and intersectoral co-ordination of services to youth at risk. We are right now in the process of looking at how we might implement and go through a transition period to close down Seven Oaks Centre and devolve the service into a more co-ordinated approach involving the mental health system, the justice system, the education system and the family services system.

Some of the components of the new structure will be mobile crisis teams, acute treatment outreach teams, home-based crisis intervention programs, short-term crisis stabilization unit and psychiatric inpatient services. It will be a comprehensive approach, co-ordinated approach, intersectoral approach. It is a lot of money going into our system to provide services to a few very high needs children, and we want to make sure that those dollars are used in the most appropriate manner possible

Mr. Martindale: Where will the short-term crisis stabilization unit of 10 to 12 beds be located since Seven Oaks Centre will be closed?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is yet to be determined. These are the plans, there will have to be an implementation strategy and also a transition period of time to get things up and operational. We are looking at not a short-term process, probably a year, a little over a year.

Mr. Martindale: Where will the psychiatric inpatient service of five beds be located?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think the psychiatric health centre.

Mr. Martindale: Would the funding then come from the Department of Health?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes. What we are going to have to do is look at what funding is coming from all departments to serve the children that need the service and pool that money and ensure that it goes to deliver the services in the appropriate fashion in the appropriate place.

Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that in spite of the problems there in the past that this is one of the few facilities that is able to accept, maybe even manage children that other institutions and organizations will not take. In the future will there still be a facility, either locked or unlocked, that will take these hard-to-handle children?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that is what the plan is; that is part of the plan.

Mr. Martindale: What will happen to the staff? Will the staff be redeployed or laid off?

Mrs. Mitchelson: There will be a workplace adjustment strategy for the staff. They will be consulted through that process also.

Mr. Martindale: What does workplace adjustment strategy mean?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Some of them will be redeployed into the community; there will be new opportunities for others and, as we move through the process, it is not a matter of just laying off all of the people that work at Seven Oaks Centre today but, if in fact we are moving more to a community focus, there will be opportunities in the community for employment.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4. (a) Administration (l) Salaries and Employee Benefits $395,600--pass; 4.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $64,300--pass.

4.(b) Child and Family Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,118,400--pass; 4.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $2,567,200--pass; 4.(b)(3) Maintenance of Children and External Agencies $101,918,200--pass; 4.(b)(4) The Family Support Innovations Fund $2,500,000--pass.

4.(c) Seven Oaks Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,819,200--pass; 4.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $271,000--pass.

4.(d) Family Conciliation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $727,700--pass; 4.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $165,100--pass.

Resolution 9.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $118,415,000 for Family Services, Child and Family Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Family Services is item 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary. At this point we request that the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Item 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $25,200.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me briefly if she is able--and I realize that her staff are not at her side anymore, what kind of advice she and her department got from Dr. Fraser Mustard since she quoted him quite favourably in her opening statement and talked about how he believes that the first few years of a child's life are very critical and very important. What sort of advice did this minister get from Dr. Mustard?

* (1720)

Mrs. Mitchelson: My honourable friend, if he ever has the opportunity to hear Dr. Fraser Mustard speak, should take advantage of that opportunity. I have heard him a few times. I think what he does indicate to us and to many who have bought into the theory right across the country--and I do not think just in our country but throughout the world--that early intervention and co-ordinated service, not only in the early years of life but prenatal months, are very important months in the development of a child. If you got a healthy child off to a healthy start to life, not low birthweight, not parents that have participated in unhealthy activities, substance alcohol abuse, smoking, all of those things that contribute to low birthweight and unhealthy children, there is every indication that that child is going to thrive and do much better as they grow and mature and develop into an adult.

So the focus of all resources that governments should be spending should be concentrated on those early years, that stimulation in the early years of life. Bonding and nurturing are very important and very critical to a child's development. So he challenges governments to place and put resources into the front end of service delivery and develop community in a very appropriate fashion to help government ensure that children, as I say, are off to a healthy start to life because it really does impact on their ability to thrive and to cope and to be productive members of society.

Mr. Martindale: I am glad to hear that the minister is getting advice from progressive and noteworthy sources. Another source of advice for this minister would be a document called The Health of Manitoba's Children, produced by Manitoba Health, which also has some recommendations that have to do with poverty and social welfare in children and also nutrition and has recommendations about nutrition for prenatal women and also about improving the food allowance within social assistance programs to be increased to allow for adequate nutrition of infants, so I would hope that the minister, who is talking a good line, would actually do something about it.

We are on the Minister's Salary line and I would have liked to have moved a motion to reduce the Minister's Salary to either the same as a recipient on city social assistance, $411 a month, or perhaps the price of this minister treating her colleagues and about 60 civil servants at the Le Beaujolais Restaurant, which was about $5,000. I think either one of those would have been appropriate for this minister, especially since it was her policy of standardization which forced the City of Winnipeg to reduce allowances for children on city social assistance.

We already know, because we have gone through this in Estimates before, that it was reduced by almost one-third for children under one year of age, so the minister talks a good line about being concerned about nutrition and giving children a good start early in life, but when it comes to her department's budget and when she has a chance to actually do something about it, instead of doing the right thing and the progressive thing based on good advice that she is getting, in fact she does the opposite. However, we do not have time to debate a resolution like that, because I have promised that we will pass the Children and Youth Secretariat line before 5:30, so I conclude with that. Thank you.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Obviously, I do not have time to get into a major debate with my honourable friend. I just would like to leave one thought with him. We have many community organizations that are looking to more proactive approaches to ensuring that parents have the tools in their hands to prepare nutritious meals and ensure that their children do not go to bed hungry at night. I cannot guarantee that more money into the hands of everyone is going to ensure that children are still well nourished and well fed, and I think that has to be the goal and objective of all of us. I will strive toward working with the community to meet that goal. I wish we did have more time. Maybe my honourable friend and I could sit down over a cup of coffee one day and further discuss some of these issues.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $25,200--pass.

Resolution 9.1--RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,615,900 for Family Services, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

This completes the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.

The next set of Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for the Children and Youth Secretariat. Shall we briefly recess? Very briefly.