* (1700)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I understand that there is not leave. There is not leave to waive private members' hour, so that the committee should rise, and we should proceed with that part of the day's business.

Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., and time for Private Members' Business.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that

"WHEREAS the National Child Benefit was specifically designed to address the issue of child poverty in Canada; and

"WHEREAS 25% or 1 in 4 Manitoba children are living in poverty, which is the highest rate of child poverty in Canada; and

"WHEREAS children make up over 40% of Manitobans who rely on food banks; and

"WHEREAS cuts in provincially and federally funded programs including programs in health, education and social services have been demonstrated to be major contributing factors to child poverty and to the numbers of children in the care of Child and Family Services; and

"WHEREAS in its 1998 budget the Provincial Government promised to invest $20 million of "new money" into low income children and their families; and

"WHEREAS part of this 'new money' is the result of the Provincial Government clawing back the National Child Benefit for children of social assistance recipients and redirecting a portion of it into short term pilot projects that target only a small number of low income families with children.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider allowing the federal funds for the National Child Benefit to flow, as intended, to all low income families with children."

Mr. Hickes: The National Child Benefit was specifically designed to address the issue of child poverty in Canada. The National Child Benefit was intended to go to low income families so that they could better provide for the basic needs of their children. This added assistance is vital in Manitoba where one in four children live in poverty. Year after year, we almost shamefully admit that this is the highest rate of child poverty in all of Canada. That is not a record to be proud of.

When we see and hear the government of the day stating that our economy is booming and Manitobans are way better off than they were 11 years ago yet we hold the record of being the child poverty capital, it is no benefit to the hungry children who have to go to bed at night without food for their little tummies, Madam Speaker.

In 1988, there were virtually no children using the food banks, virtually none in 1988. Yet by 1998, over 6,300 children were forced to use food banks to get the basic nutrition they need. Between 1991 and 1998, the number of children using food banks in this province has increased by 1,000 percent–1,000 percent. I do not think any government that has an increase that affects our children that drastically can state that they are doing an excellent job. They might be doing an excellent job for some, but the most needy are not accessing the benefits of the rest of the province.

Madam Speaker, two out of five people using food banks are children, that is, two out of five people who come and get the food from Winnipeg Harvest and food banks are children. Over 41 percent of Winnipeg Harvest users are children, yet only 26 percent of Winnipeg's population consists of children and youth. Our children are disproportionately represented among the poor and the hungry.

If you just look back 11 years of the Conservative government, one has to question where the priorities are. It is fine to have the economy so-called booming as the Conservatives say, but they forget the children, and they forget the increases in our food banks. In fact, I have heard that there is even a food bank in Steinbach–Steinbach, Manitoba. That is one of the most thriving communities, so why is the government of the day leaving some of the individuals behind?

Why not do something to help the individuals gain training and employment opportunities instead of having to resort to using food banks across the province? In fact, there are food banks at the universities. That was unheard of, but because of the increases in tuition fees and the other programs that students could access and the costs going higher and higher for students to get their education, that is why a lot of the students have now had to resort to using food banks. There has to be a fair level playing field for all citizens of Manitoba whether you have or you have not. There is not an individual that I know or that I have spoken to that would not take the opportunity to access training and to better their own careers and better the lives of their families. But those programs have to be there, those have to be meaningful programs to be accessed by the individuals. They do not want a handout, they want a hand up.

All I have to look at are two programs that were vital to a lot of the individuals that I represent. When you had the cutback of the Access programs, that impacted negatively on a lot of the individuals that today, because of the unfairness of the government to access training and training dollars to further their careers and their wishes and hopes of bettering the lives of their families, the negative impact that those cuts have created are totally unfair.

The other program that I am very familiar with was called New Careers. That program took individuals, whether they were from social assistance, unemployment, or low-income positions, and brought the individuals in for training programs and had a very high success rate. This government totally cut the funding to that program right off. One hundred percent of it wiped out. There is no program as New Careers, and yet today you can walk the streets and you meet individuals and their families that benefited greatly from those kinds of training programs.

So how could a government that says we are doing all we can for all citizens of Manitoba cut such valuable resources and opportunities for individuals where, as I said earlier, they wanted a hand up not a handout and they wanted a better life for themselves and their families? How in all conscience could they cut 100 percent of that funding? Another cut that was made by this government that I think is totally, totally unfair was elimination of the funding to the friendship centres right across Manitoba. I have visited virtually all of the friendship centres at one time or another either through friendship or through my previous careers. I saw the benefit to the individuals of the services and the programs the friendship centres were delivering.

Yet the government, in their misguided wisdom, cut 100 percent of the funding, the core funding to the friendship centres. Now we are slowly handing back where they have created, they pass on $400,000 for training and they say: you should be happy with that. But yet they have cut $1.2 million year after year for six years. Do not tell me that has not had a negative impact on a lot of the people that have had to resort to using the food banks today.

Some of the individuals that were involved and working at the friendship centres I meet and see today. A lot of them are not gainfully employed. They are very good workers. They wish the best for themselves and their families, but they do not have the opportunity.

Madam Speaker, there are 12,000 more people on welfare now than there were in 1988. Now, why is that? Yet we hear the economy is booming. Well, how could 12,000 individuals be left behind? Is there something wrong with the recruiting process?

* (1710)

There is something missing where if you leave that many people behind. You are stating that you have a robust economy and all Manitobans are being positively impacted by the economy that is created by the government. I assure you, those 12,000 people would not agree. They would wish to have the opportunity that some individuals have had. There has to be cracks in the system. How do you fill those cracks?

It is not an overnight miracle, because this has taken 11 years of a Conservative government to fall this far behind, where the poorest of the poor are being left further and further behind.

We have to start looking at reinstating some of the horrible cuts that we have seen over those 11 years. I gave you a few examples. Even the Social Planning Council, the National Council on Welfare, the Canadian Council on Social Development, even the United Nations have all expressed alarm at the rising levels of child poverty in Manitoba. That is not just Manitobans stating that. People are seeing it and recognizing it. The government has to recognize it. Government has to do something in partnership with the people who are impacted.

The Social Planning Council would be a good start. Meet with the Social Planning Council, hear their ideas, get some of their input. They deal with people all the time. The Harvest. What is wrong with meeting with individuals from Harvest and saying, look, in partnership, where are the problems, what can we do to try and help individuals?

Like I keep stating over and over, they want a hand up, they do not want a hand out. But it has to be done in co-operation with the people and the individuals who run these organizations and put in countless caring and their time to try and make people's lives just a little bit better.

Despite economic growth in the province, more and more of our children are living in poverty. More and more of our children are getting trapped in the cycle of poverty that is increasingly difficult to break out of. That is what I was stating earlier, Madam Speaker. When you have a cycle of poverty over and over within generations and generations of families, if you do not break that cycle, that cycle will be there whether five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years.

That is where some of the education programs that this government in their misguided wisdom cut. It used to benefit the individuals. You used to be able to break that cycle. Then you see the generations and the generations after succeeding very well whether it was in the social work area, whether it was corrections officers in the adult system or the youth system, whether it was Natural Resources officers, whether it was mechanics, painters, janitors in the schools, what have you. Those opportunities are there, but you have to help the individuals access the opportunities that are there for some individuals but not for all. Our unemployment rate drops, but our child poverty rate just keeps on increasing. Is there not something wrong with that? There is something wrong with that picture. Our unemployment rate drops, but the child poverty rates increase.

Between 1989 and 1996, 9,000 additional children fell into poverty despite the fact that one of their parents held a full-time job. Wage levels in Manitoba are so low that even with both parents working many children still live in poverty. The minimum wage was raised to $6 recently, but with both parents working full time it takes an hourly wage of $8.75 to take that family above the poverty line. These families need help to ensure that your children get the kind of shelter, nourishment and the simple things like books and bus fare that are necessary to give these children the solid base they need to succeed in life.

When we hear over and over of all the opportunities that this government is creating and our unemployment rate is going down, that is fine. But they have to be meaningful jobs that you could sustain and feed a family on. Creating a multitude of jobs at $6 an hour is not going to cut it. There is no one in this Chamber, no one in this Chamber can feed their families on $6 an hour. Pay your rent, buy your food, clothe your children, produce bus fare, and a lot of children like to read, purchase some books and stuff, you could not do it on $6 an hour. That is why we have tried to stress the importance of creating employment opportunities that pay more than the minimum wage, because those kinds of programs benefit some if you are single or if you are a student, but not when you are trying to raise a family. There is no way that I know a family could sustain and live on a $6-an-hour job.

Manitoba, for one thing, has the highest rate of youth violent crime in Canada. Manitoba has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Canada. Manitoba has the highest rate of school dropouts in Canada. Study after study has shown that these rates are intimately tied to poverty. The only way to reduce these rates is to reduce poverty. Madam Speaker, it is a whole cycle of poverty. [interjection] The member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) states it is our fault, the government's fault. If you look at some of the cuts you have undertaken, I only named you a few–friendship centres, the New Careers program, the Access funding. You have to take some of that responsibility; you have to take some of that responsibility.

When you live in poverty–I mentioned earlier–the cycle of poverty over and over and over, the children, for one thing, do not see a future. So they sort of give up hope, and they do not after awhile look and know where the resources are. I think that our job, to make sure that people are aware of where the opportunities are and when they are available, to ensure that the message is sent out there and the resources are put in place in order for people to get gainful employment, first training and gainful employment.

For instance, Madam Speaker–I know I do not have much time–we have schools that sit in neighbourhoods that are empty. Why do we not utilize those classrooms for the families, their children and for the whole community? Thank you.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I really want to thank my honourable friend for bringing this resolution forward. It certainly gives us an opportunity in this House to discuss the kinds of things that have been happening not only in Manitoba around child poverty but right across the nation. It has been an issue that has been on the agenda of ministers of social services right across the country for many years now and something that not only we in Manitoba have a need to address but certainly respective jurisdictions, regardless of political stripe in every province and territory across this nation, but also at the federal level. I think that this is one area where all provinces and the federal government have found a way to work in a very co-operative fashion to try to address the issue of child poverty.

The National Child Benefit is the initiative that was agreed to by both levels of government and certainly has been applauded by many, many throughout our country as the right direction to go. It is not very often that you see both federal and provincial governments and provinces of different political stripes, Madam Speaker, working together to try to address the issue of child poverty.

I want to indicate what the goals of the implementation of the National Child Benefit were. Number one, it was to reduce the depth of child poverty; No. 2, to ensure that people were better off working than on welfare, and we know very often that the additional benefits that people get when they are on our welfare system are benefits that are greater than those that might be obtained or achieved as people move into the workforce. So it was to develop that kind of attachment to the workforce and ensure that families were better off working than on welfare, and, of course, with any other program, to try to reduce some of the overlap and duplication between different levels of government and within governments internally. I think we have been fairly successful in accomplishing, or making a start on accomplishing, the objectives that were set out when the National Child Benefit was introduced.

* (1720)

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear members of the opposition in the New Democratic Party in this Chamber talking completely differently from NDP administrations that are governing other provinces across the country. I find that very interesting because when you are in government and having to make decisions, and sometimes very difficult decisions in your respective jurisdictions, you have to take some responsibility and be held accountable. But in opposition, you can criticize and you can say we would do something different, but the reality is when New Democratic parties across the country, in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, endorse wholeheartedly the approach that was taken under the National Child Benefit, I have to question where the New Democratic opposition party is coming from in Manitoba.

We have always said in opposition you can have it all ways. You do not really have to indicate exactly what your position is or you can talk about spending more on all kinds of different programs, but you do not necessarily need to talk about where that money might come from or where you might reduce a government budget in any significant way to try to find the money that they talk about. Both Saskatchewan and British Columbia have adopted the same process as Manitoba has. I should say, too, one of the underlying principles of the National Child Benefit was that no one would be worse off as a result of the National Child Benefit. That is exactly what has happened here in Manitoba. As the federal government puts extra dollars into the hands of low-income families, dollar for dollar, those dollars have been reinvested in Manitoba into areas of early intervention.

If we as a government were just looking for a quick fix, we certainly would not be putting money into early intervention programs because we know that there are long-term, lasting positive effects as a result of early intervention, but there is not any quick fix in the four years of a term of government to try to find the solutions and the answers. And there are not any easy solutions or easy answers, Madam Speaker.

What we have to try to do is ensure that every child gets off to a healthy start to life. By working with families and children at birth, we can try to have some positive impact on the cycle of child poverty and the cycle of welfare and the cycle of unemployment because we know that the best form of social security is a job. We are working very proactively, as a government, to ensure that people have the opportunities to move into training and into some sort of meaningful program that will move them from the cycle of poverty on welfare into the workforce. When they have children, the National Child Benefit kicks in and provides additional support over and above the salary that they make until they reach a certain threshold. I think that is a positive and progressive way to go.

I am extremely pleased that our government has made the kinds of decisions around reinvestment into children and families that we have made, so much so that the C.D. Howe Institute just recently did a study of how provinces have reinvested their dollars through the National Child Benefit. Quite frankly, I was really pleased to learn that after careful analysis the C.D. Howe Institute endorsed Manitoba's selection with the National Child Benefit.

I just found a quote from the paper that they did, and they are somewhat critical of Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia with the way they reinvested their money in earned income supplements. I guess as a result of the tax regime, families are not much better off as a result of the reinvestment.

Madam Speaker, the research goes on to state: "Instead of using its welfare saving to fund cash benefits, Manitoba used it to implement a 'ChildrenFirst' strategy, involving early intervention programs for families having problems, improved school nutrition, and 'head-start' education for preschoolers. These initiatives, Sayeed says, do not raise welfare walls because eligibility is based on neighborhood and family characteristics rather than on income.

"Sayeed argues that the other provinces should adopt variations of Manitoba's strategy rather than further raise their cash benefits to low-income families. High clawbacks on cash payments put punishing tax rates in front of low-income families taking on paid work. Support aimed directly at children growing up in disadvantaged circumstances may be more useful in combating the cycle of poverty. "

So it gives me some comfort to know that we are moving in the right direction. Is there more that needs to be done? Absolutely. Any level of child poverty is too much. What we need to do is try to address the root cause of the issue of poverty right across this province and try to find the common-sense solutions, the early interventions that will, in fact, lead to a healthier Manitoba and healthier communities.

Madam Speaker, I do want to speak just briefly about some of the reinvestments that we have made under the National Child Benefit. In this year's budget alone, in addition to the money that was put in last year, over $20 million to support children and families, there is another $25 million in the budget this year that will go to early intervention programs. A significant amount of money has been put into our child care system to ensure that the spaces are there and the flexibility is there for nontraditional work hours, so that as people move off of welfare and into the workforce through programs like Taking Charge! and Opportunities for Employment, just to name a couple, the child care is available when they need it. So a significant amount of money has gone into child care.

One of the programs that we have implemented here in Manitoba and that many provinces are looking at and the federal government has applauded is the Women and Infant Nutrition program, where in the last trimester of pregnancy and the first year a child is born, if in fact a family is on welfare, we provide an additional $65 per month if parents enroll in nutrition and parenting programs. It is a program that has been hailed as one of the best ways of investing in children and families right across the country. Many provinces, including Saskatchewan, are looking very closely at this program that we have implemented to see whether it might be something they might want to introduce in their province.

Madam Speaker, our BabyFirst program, which looks at every baby that is born in the province of Manitoba today, some 14,000, and does a risk assessment, and if in fact there is a sense that that family needs some support, mentors will actually go right into people's homes and help new moms and dads learn how to parent, learn how to feed their children nutritiously and get their children off to a good start to life. Our EarlyStart program is working with child care facilities, and we have 35 child care facilities today that are running EarlyStart programs. We have more money in our budget this year to increase the number of childcare facilities. I know my honourable friend, my colleague from Burrows, has these programs running in his constituency, and I am hearing some good things from the community organizations that are running the programs and the families that have been involved.

Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that these programs are not top-down driven. Government has not said: this is the program we are going to run right throughout Manitoba, and you will have to conform as communities to these programs to receive the funding. These are programs that are initiated at the community level.

* (1730)

One of the differences between a New Democratic administration and a Conservative administration, quite frankly, is that we believe that community has the ideas and the solutions, and we believe in building from the bottom up, not from the top down. We have heard many times, in Question Period over the last number of weeks, members of the New Democratic opposition saying: why do you not direct school divisions or why do you not direct communities to do this or that.

Madam Speaker, that is not our style and that is not our approach. We believe the people that live within communities have the ideas and the answers to the solutions that impact them. If you build programs, family by family, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, community by community and give the resources and empower the people in the community to work, to make a difference, they will rise to the occasion. We have seen it time and time again. We see it with the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg and the leadership of people like Mary Richard, who has in fact–and quite frankly, and I know very often members of the opposition, especially of the female gender across the way, agree that the solutions and the answers are going to come from the women within the community. We are working with the women in the community, the women that are the nurturers–[interjection]

The member for Burrows says it is a sexist comment, and he is somehow inferring that women do not have a role to play in nurturing and building families. Well, there again is where we differ. We believe that empowering the women and the people within neighbourhoods and communities to deliver the programs that are going to impact in a positive way, not only on their families circumstances but on their community circumstances, and ultimately for the betterment of all Manitobans. I believe that we are moving in the right direction with the National Child Benefit, and I know that Manitobans support the direction that we are going. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to also thank the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for an excellent resolution. It begins by saying that the National Child Benefit was specifically designed to address the issue of child poverty in Canada. Now it is true, and as the minister says, that the federal and provincial governments worked jointly on enhancing the National Child Benefit; however, it was probably one of the worst agreements in Canada or at least an agreement that had the worst bottom line I have ever heard of in terms of addressing a problem when the federal government agreed with the provinces that no child would be worse off. So they started off by adding $805 million, I believe it was, but every province except two chose to claw back all of that money from people on social assistance.

I was quite surprised to find that even people who are working full time and getting a partial subsidy from income assistance in Manitoba are losing all of the money. [interjection] The minister says no. I would be quite happy to have the minister clarify that for me in Estimates, because that is what I was told by somebody who is working full time as a teaching assistant. If I am wrong, I will withdraw those remarks, but that is what I was told by somebody who is working and on social assistance. I am not going to withdraw it until I see the facts.

The resolution goes on to say that 25 percent or one in four Manitoba children are living in poverty. In fact, I have a brief from the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, who met with the Premier and cabinet ministers on Thursday, March 11, this year. They have a research capacity. They have statistics. I would like to quote from them in their brief.

They said: At 26.6 percent, Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada, 3.1 percent higher than that of Nova Scotia, which has the second highest, and 5.5 higher than the national average.

So this is something this government should be ashamed of, and that is being far above the average in Canada for poverty.

Certain groups are overrepresented among the poor. In 1996, the poverty rate for female lone-parent families in Manitoba was 71.4 percent compared to 18.4 percent for children of two-parent families. Aboriginal families and their children tend to be overrepresented among the poor. Unfortunately, the Manitoba child poverty report card does not contain data from First Nations communities.

So we know that Manitoba has a disgraceful record in child poverty, that the latest statistics were not the only year that we were the child poverty capital of Canada, but that we have had that dubious distinction several times. We know that 40 percent of Manitobans who rely on food banks are children. We get this from Winnipeg Harvest, who regularly send us statistics. In fact, I was reading that this means that children are vastly overrepresented among the users of food banks.

The resolution goes on to say why we have such an abysmal rate of child poverty. It attributes this to cuts in provincially and federally funded programs, including programs in health, education, and social services, which have been demonstrated to be major contributing factors to child poverty.

The resolution goes on to say that the provincial government promised to invest $20 million of "new money" into low-income children and their families. Well, not all of it was new money, as I am sure the minister would admit, because most of it was the clawed-back money. In fact, I think in the first year at least $10 million was clawed-back money. I think on a 12-month basis it was more like $14 million. The province topped it up with approximately $6 million of their own money.

The minister, of course, likes to talk about what is happening to all of this money and the pilot projects, which is why of course we call her the minister of pilot projects, because they clawed back this money, most of the money, from families on social assistance, and put it into the minister's pet projects. It would be interesting to see how long they stay around, whether some of them will be evaluated and terminated or whether they will be permanent. The good ones, of course, we want them to stay.

But there are a number of problems with pilot projects. One is, if you happen to live near the Andrews Street Family Centre, you are lucky, because you get to take advantage of some of these pilot projects, the funding, the parenting and the good programs targeted at children. But if you live in a community where all the money is clawed back and there is no program, how do you benefit from the National Child Benefit programs of this government? You do not benefit at all if you do not live in a community that provides the money and provides the programs.

In fact, we got phone calls from people who live adjacent to First Nations communities. What is happening there is that, on reserve, the money is clawed back, but then it is put into programs on the reserve. But if you live on the other side of the reserve boundary, the money is being clawed back. It is coming to Winnipeg and maybe some other communities. I do not know if there are any pilot projects outside Winnipeg, but the people in the community adjacent to the reserve have nothing. They do not have the money from the National Child Benefit, because it was all clawed back, and they do not have the benefit of the program. So they lose twice.

Now, what the intent of this resolution is, which I know that this government will never agree to, is to consider allowing the federal funds for the National Child Benefit to flow as intended to all low income families with children. The government has made their decision. I am quite sure they are not going to change their minds. Low income families on social assistance will never see that money.

I would also like to quote from the Social Planning Council report, because they made a number of important recommendations. For example, they requested a Premier's council or a round table on child poverty. Now the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the cabinet ministers who met with the Social Planning Council had a problem. That problem was that they could not bring themselves to say the "p" word. They could not possibly agree to a round table or a Premier's council that included the word "poverty," so they watered it down and they called it something else. I cannot remember what it was. I am sure I could look up the minister's news release, but they just could not admit that we have a problem with poverty in Winnipeg or in Manitoba, so they agreed to it but they changed the name.

The Social Planning Council had a number of recommendations on income support issues, and they recommended that the Manitoba government allow all families with children to retain the new money from the federal government which has been added to the National Child Benefit starting with children from zero to six. I presume that they would increase that in future years in terms of their recommendation of staging it in. They also recommended that the Manitoba government work out a plan to restore the full amount of the Child Tax Benefit to families. So they began with zero to six, and then they want the full amount restored.

Now the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) said some interesting things. Of course they are in the documents, and I would even like to thank the assistant deputy minister for sending me the National Child Benefit progress report 1999 which is a very interesting document to read. It explains how the benefit works; it explains what different provinces are doing including Manitoba; it points out that Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick are allowing all families to keep all of the money, which Manitoba could have done.

* (1740)

It also mentions something that the minister mentioned and that is that the provinces and the federal government are redefining poverty. They have a problem because with the existing low income cutoffs Manitoba and other provinces have a very high rate of poverty. So in order to get rid of this problem, instead of actually doing something to help families with their income disparity problem, they decided instead it was easier to change the definitions. So for example, in the progress report it talks about measuring low income, and they actually have charts and graphs that show that as compared to the low income cutoffs, the low income measure means that a lot fewer children are poor. Then they go on to the market basket measure, which I am sure that this minister supports, because probably using an absolute measure of low income, as the report describes it, many fewer children would be living in poverty.

Now it really depends on what kind of market basket measure you have. For example, if it was the Department of Agriculture in the province of Manitoba and their market basket approach to how much it costs to raise a child, it would be very high, or if one used the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, their acceptable living allowance, it would be in my view realistic, because they had poor people and others go to stores and find out the cost of tenants insurance and housing and clothing and actually did supermarket surveys to find out what it would cost to buy nutritious meals, and they came up with an acceptable living allowance. But, of course, it is much higher than what people get on social assistance, and I do not think this government would ever agree to an acceptable living allowance. But this absolute measure of low income, I am quite sure that the government of Manitoba and other provinces and the federal government will endorse because it is probably going to have a very low level of income required to meet that measure of poverty.

Now the minister in her speech said that the goal was to reduce the depth of child poverty. Well, that is partially true. It is not true if you are on social assistance, because all the money is being clawed back. It is true if you are working and low income, particularly because working parents will be able to have their benefits enhanced, and yes, this does help them because in some cases it means more money in their pocket or it means that barriers to employment are taken away.

First of all, the minister made a criticism of us and said that it is easy for us to criticize, but where are we going to get the money? Well, we actually introduced a resolution, not a resolution, a motion in committee, in the committee of Industry, Trade and Tourism. I am sure the minister remembers it well. Well, I know the member for Charleswood remembers it well because I referred to it in a debate the very next day at Garden City Inn. We know that the motion was defeated in the committee. What we said was take $5 million of grants to businesses and use it to allow people on social assistance to keep the National Child Benefit instead of having it clawed away. It was defeated in committee. So we know the government would rather give their business friends grants than alleviate child poverty.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the member is referencing an action that took place in this House in which he is indicating that a particular motion moved by his party was defeated in committee. If Madam Speaker checks the record, it very clearly indicates that Madam Speaker ruled the matter out of order which is a very significant difference. I would ask the member, in the interests of the accuracy of the record of this House, to acknowledge that he is in error, that he is not giving correct information to this House. It is not a dispute over the facts, it is in fact the ruling of the Speaker before this House that the particular matter was not in order. Nowhere was it defeated by this Assembly because the New Democrats were not able to correctly bring it and properly bring it before the Chamber for a vote.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader did not have a point of order.

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, well, the point remains that we do know where we would take the money, and the first $5 million would come from grants to businesses in Manitoba. The minister says that we need to look at the root causes of poverty. Well, we know that children are poor because their parents are poor. That is usually because of one of two reasons, either they are unemployed or they are employed at low wages. If they are unemployed, they are on social assistance, and all of us here want to get people off social assistance and into paid employment which has a huge benefit to children usually because people's income goes up and they get off social assistance. But not always and not necessarily, because there are many people who are working at low-wage jobs or working at minimum-wage jobs and they are still living below the poverty line, and therefore their children are still living below the poverty line. Now why is that?

Just to conclude, we think that the way the money is being redirected into programs in the community–in many cases these are good programs. We do not quarrel with the programs that have been set up. Of course they need to be evaluated, and according to the progress report, all of the National Child Benefit reinvestment funds will be evaluated presumably by the federal and provincial governments, and we look forward to those evaluations to see first of all if they have any effect on reducing the depths of poverty as the minister claims and also to see the benefit of those programs on children. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Madam Speaker, it was interesting that the member opposite would bring up again the point of this so-called vote, that we voted against moving money from I, T and T in Estimates into programs for children when in fact he knows quite well that all we voted on at that particular vote–[interjection] Exactly, it was upholding the Speaker's ruling. It is interesting to note that he has used that once before in a public forum on CBC radio and in front of a community of disabled people. The members opposite chose to put forward false information to our disabled community, which I find extremely offensive that deliberately that attempt was made. I am glad to see it came up again today so that we do have an opportunity to put some correct information on the record here and to show exactly what they have been trying to do with some of these issues on child poverty.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this resolution because Resolution 14 is misguided in recommending that Manitoba consider allowing the National Child Benefit to flow through as intended to families on income assistance. The National Child Benefit was launched in July 1998 by governments across Canada on the basis of three agreed-upon objectives. The first one is to help prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty. The second is to promote attachment to the workforce. The third is to reduce administrative overlap and duplication.

* (1750)

Under the National Child Benefit, Manitoba, along with all other provinces except Quebec, is taking action to help achieve these three objectives. This co-ordinated approach allows each level of government to concentrate its efforts in areas where it can best meet the needs of families and children. It allows both levels to work together to meet common goals without duplicating each other's efforts. This approach will move Canada toward a more secure and uniform level of basic income support for children in lower income families and will improve the standards of living of these children. It will also increase the incentives to move from welfare to work and to remain in the workforce. This approach also provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to develop reinvestment programs which best suit the needs of children in their own jurisdictions.

The National Child Benefit has a strong focus on supporting employment so that families will be better off on a long-term basis. Families on income assistance will not see a change in their overall benefits while working, lower-income families will receive more supports to remain in the workforce. As families on income assistance receive the new tax benefit, dollar for dollar adjustments will be made and reinvested by provinces to support both income assistance and lower-income working families.

In a recent article printed in The Globe and Mail, from May 21, 1999, the C.D. Howe Institute said that provincial governments should stop hiking cash benefits to working poor families and concentrate their interventions on things such as early literacy programs and school nutrition for children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. It goes on to say that in a study released yesterday, public policy consultant Adil Sayeed singles out Manitoba as the province making the best use of its share from the national child tax benefit. I think that this credits very strongly the efforts that are being made in Manitoba. It goes on to say, as well, that this year Manitoba invested $15.2 million in child care and programs helping low-income parents to raise and feed their children. Rather than pursue immediate poverty reduction, Manitoba opted for a ChildrenFirst strategy aimed at preventing child poverty in the long term, the report says. Mr. Sayeed says provinces such as Ontario and Saskatchewan, which invested in increased cash supplements, have been less successful because their tax systems claw back up to 91 percent of any additional income of some working poor families. The goal of the national child tax benefit, it goes on to stay, is to stop governments from penalizing working poor families, which traditionally have received fewer benefits than families on welfare with similar outcomes.

It is an interesting article, Madam Speaker, and interesting to see that the C.D. Howe Institute strongly supports the National Child Benefit as it is currently set up and particularly recognizes the very good work that is being done in Manitoba.

The key to the National Child Benefit is the effort to move child benefits out of the welfare system so that when parents leave welfare for work, benefits go with them to help ensure their children's well being. Under the National Child Benefit the federal government has increased income support for low-income families with children. They now provide a basic level of income support for children whether their parents are in the labour market or receiving welfare. By replacing welfare with benefits available to all low-income families, families keep these benefits when they work. This means it is easier for families to move into and stay in employment without losing benefits for their children.

Many families who rely on welfare do not do so continuously. Under the National Child Benefit, families do not experience an increase in income while receiving welfare but at other times of the year could be better off because the federal benefit is paid regardless of the family source of income. Provinces across the country are committed in principle to deducting the value of the new federal benefit from welfare benefits. The majority of provinces have implemented the national child care benefit in the same manner. Check in Saskatchewan, where the benefit is counted. Check in British Columbia, where the benefit is counted. Check in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, and Alberta, where the benefit is counted.

In only two provinces, where welfare rates are among the lowest in the country, was the benefit allowed to flow through for the first year. Even these provinces now recognize the importance of the National Child Benefit and remain fully committed to its objectives and operating principles. No family has lost overall income as a result of the National Child Benefit. Manitoba committed $1.7 million last year to help protect families during the transition to the National Child Benefit to ensure that this goal is met. We remain committed to this objective. The National Child Benefit is intended to help people find and keep jobs.

The welfare wall is a serious problem. Once families get on welfare, it is very difficult for them to get off.

We must ensure that parents are better off working compared to staying on welfare. We must make sure employment income is more than welfare. We must ensure low-income working families can get the benefits and services that ensure they can stay in the workforce.

The welfare wall has resulted in families remaining on social assistance longer than they wanted to. Families who depend on welfare have found it difficult to get out of the system and into employment. Financial factors are often compounded by other barriers that families must face before they can leave welfare. A system that was intended to help can have the unintended effect of holding families back from achieving independence and meeting their children's needs.

Madam Speaker, Manitoba wants to reduce the welfare wall and make sure that families can get back into or stay in jobs. The National Child Benefit has helped boost Manitoba's efforts. We need to build supports outside of the welfare system so that when parents get jobs they continue to receive the supports they need for their children. That is what the National Child Benefit is all about.

The National Child Benefit helps all low-income families, not just those who are working or those receiving welfare. Since July 1998, many low-income families working or on welfare have received enhanced support through the National Child Benefit. When parents leave welfare for work, the benefits go with them. The National Child Benefit is about ensuring that families leaving welfare are better off working. The National Child Benefit helps families make ends meet while gaining work experience and skills.

While families are on welfare, they can participate in many programs made possible through the National Child Benefit such as programs which help parents become self sufficient and develop good parenting skills. Manitoba has developed the Women and Infant Nutrition program that provides nutrition information and counselling to income assistance and low-income working families. As an incentive towards participation and nutrition improvements, the program offers a $65 monthly supplement to expectant mothers and mothers with infants on income assistance.

Madam Speaker, governments across the country of all political stripes, including the governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, recognize that simply providing more cash was not the answer. We needed proactive measures combined with income support to help lower-income families improve their situation. The National Child Benefit is just such a proactive measure. It combines action at both levels of government to help ensure that we are working together to address common goals. Therefore, I urge the members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to support our government's efforts to continue the situation for children and families and to continue to work together with other provinces on long-term solutions for families and their children.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) will have four minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).