Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply will be meeting in Room 254. We will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 9.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 53 of the Estimates book. Shall that item pass?
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): We were not getting very far yesterday on the conflict of interest, because the minister has one line and only one line. I suppose she has been advised to stick to that one line and not deviate, so she does not really want to answer my questions. She just wants to repeat her answer over and over again, which I have had a chance to read in Hansard, and it is fairly obvious that she is following a line that she has chosen to take. But I am not going to give up on this. I would like to continue to ask the minister some questions on this topic and see if she understands why the public as well as myself are concerned about this conflict of interest.
First of all, I guess I should make clear that I actually have been in meetings with Mr. Doug Sexsmith in the past and always found him to be very helpful. In fact, he briefed me on some O/Cs a couple of years ago. I had met him at public meetings in the past, and I am not in any way blaming this individual for what I see is a violation of The Conflict of Interest Act of Manitoba. My concern is with this minister who should be familiar with the act and should know what the prohibitions are, namely, communication with the department for a year after leaving the employ of the government. So I am in no way interested in criticizing or punishing this individual but rather the person who is still in government, namely, this minister who should know better and should not have got Mr. Sexsmith into this predicament of being caught in the middle, because ultimately she is responsible for him being invited to meetings after he left government.
* (1440)
So I am wondering if the minister understands that not only is there a perception in the public that there was a violation of The Conflict of Interest Act, but that there could be a perception on the part of other companies who bid on this contract who did not get it that there may have been favouritism involved here because it went to a company who hired an employee who used to be the assistant deputy minister. Can the minister see how other companies may feel that they did not get a fair deal here?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, I know that my honourable friend in his comments would like to paint a picture that, in some way, I have done something that is inappropriate. But again I want to go back to the facts of this case, because what my honourable friend seems to be missing is the fact that the Civil Service Commission certainly indicated to Doug Sexsmith that there were certain parameters that needed to be followed to ensure that he did not contravene the conflict of interest guidelines that have been laid down. So anything that Mr. Doug Sexsmith did was, indeed, as a result of the information and the discussions with the Civil Service Commission that clearly spelled out what he could and he could not do for the year period after his departure from the Department of Family Services.
I know that my honourable friend might be a little hung up on this issue and trying to create an issue where no issue exists, but my sense or my feeling is that it is a personal agenda of his, probably a very personal agenda because he does not agree with the direction that our government has taken in amalgamating the City of Winnipeg's welfare caseload with the provincial caseload. I know he voted against the legislation, and I know that from time to time he has taken the side of the bureaucrats in the City of Winnipeg and has made it very clear that he does not believe that the bureaucrats that work for the Province of Manitoba are as competent as those that work for the City of Winnipeg. I believe that is on record in last year in Hansard. It might have something to do with his frustration around the direction that government is taking in amalgamating welfare in the city of Winnipeg.
I want to indicate to my honourable friend that we are government and we make decisions based on discussions and consultation with the general public and the people of Manitoba that have told us very clearly that they want to see government delivered efficiently and effectively with the least cost to the taxpayer and that there is a significant overlap and duplication that can be involved in two different levels of government doing the same job.
We have some 2,000 people on our welfare caseloads on a year-to-year basis that move back and forth between municipal caseloads and provincial caseloads. Quite frankly, I do not think it is fair to those individuals to have them bounced around from one system to the other. So I think in the instance of the amalgamation of our welfare caseloads in Winnipeg to one tier that those people will be better served and will receive the fair and appropriate service that they deserve in a much more meaningful way.
So I think that there might be very much a difference of opinion and philosophy between my honourable friend's party and the party that happens to be in government right now. I know that my honourable friend opposes the amalgamation, and I hate to impute motives, but I somehow think that maybe my honourable friend, because he does not like the direction this government is taking, is taking it out on a person that has served our province, I would say, in a very positive way as a public servant and has tried to meet the needs of those people that he has served in the bureaucracy for many, many years, as I indicated yesterday, under different administrations.
So I want to say that I understand the frustration my honourable friend feels when he, so to speak, is not in the driver's seat. I know, because I sat in opposition for a couple of years too, and sometimes it is extremely frustrating when you have a very definite belief or philosophy, a belief that you are elected to move in a certain direction and the government of the day chooses to take a different direction, bring in legislation that might not be the kind of legislation that you would bring in should you be in government and making the decisions. So I sense his frustration and I sense that he is using this issue to somehow--well, I guess I could go a little further and indicate that I think my honourable friend and his party might not think that the private sector in some instances might have some value or some contribution to make to the workings of government. We believe quite differently.
So all I want to indicate, Mr. Chairperson, is that my honourable friend seems to be quite frustrated and he seems to be quite hung up on this issue and he seems to be wanting to mar the name of Doug Sexsmith, and he can use whatever means he might want to to try to implicate me in his comments, but I want to say again that I think it is a difference of opinion on the direction we are taking as a government as opposed to what he might do should he be the Minister of Family Services and have some responsibility, not only to the people that serve our province so admirably as civil servants, but to the taxpayers of Manitoba, who I know do support the direction that we are taking.
So I will repeat again that I believe his motives are completely different from what he is stating on the record, and I will continue to indicate that the Civil Service Commission, who is responsible for interpreting the conflict of interest guidelines, certainly did give advice and that advice was followed. If my honourable friend has something that is concrete or some allegation that he would like to make that Mr. Doug Sexsmith contravened the guidelines, I would like him to indicate that to me or we can continue to debate this for a considerable length of time. I am prepared to stand by the legal counsel and Civil Service Commission that indicated that Mr. Doug Sexsmith has done nothing inappropriate.
Mr. Martindale: The minister did not answer my question, so I will pose it again. I am wondering if she understands that the reason for conflict of interest legislation that prohibits contact after employment with government is to preclude the perception on the part of other bidders that there may have been favouritism involved, that they did not get a fair deal because an assistant deputy minister went to work for the company that got the successful contract.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I want to indicate to my honourable friend that there were certain directions that were given to Mr. Sexsmith. He followed those directions that were given by the Civil Service Commission. There was nothing inappropriate, and I stand by that. The contract for the business case was entered into before Mr. Sexsmith left government.
Mr. Martindale: Does the minister understand that what we are dealing with here is a problem that affects all elected people, regardless of political party or regardless of what province we are talking about and that if the government has employees who negotiate contracts whether we are talking about Mike Bessey or someone else who is an employee of this government, and then leaves government with a sweetheart deal with a company that they helped negotiate with, that reflects badly on all elected people, not just the government of the day but on all of us who are elected, and that the public is going to say this is just the same old gang looking after the same old gang?
Is that not concern enough for this minister to be cautious, even overly cautious, so that the public does not have that perception? The way to do that would be to not invite someone to meetings during the one-year so-called cooling-off period which is what the act says: no communication with the government for a period of one year.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I just want to go back over the employment history of Doug Sexsmith and put on the record the facts. I know that the people of Manitoba will judge me and judge our government based on fact, not on innuendo and the kind of tack my honourable friend has taken over the last couple of days around this issue.
* (1450)
Doug Sexsmith was hired in government in March of 1976. I am trying to remember now what party was in power in 1976. I think that was a New Democratic government under Ed Schreyer that was the government in power when he was hired at the entry level into the government of Manitoba and continued through till 1980 when he took a bit of time off to go back to university and upgrade and was hired back into the civil service in July of 1982. If I remember correctly, it might have been Howard Pawley's government that was in power at the time he came back into government. He has continued an exemplary service to the public and the people of Manitoba since that time and up till December of 1996 when he chose to pursue a career in the private sector, which I think happens from time to time. People do choose to change career paths and look for new challenges and opportunities, more often today than they have done in the past when people started at one job and retired at the end of their working years in that same job. So I do not take that away from anyone that is looking for new opportunities and new challenges.
So here we have an individual, Mr. Chairperson, who has been a long-time career civil servant. He certainly was not a political appointment in any way, but someone who worked his way up through the civil service, upgraded himself by taking some time to go to university and, quite frankly, has done a great service for the province and the people of Manitoba. So I hate to see my honourable friend painting him into a corner that sort of--and he is intimating that there was some political involvement in trying to pay Mr. Sexsmith off. I mean, I had no involvement in any way in giving any advice to Mr. Sexsmith--about what he should or should not do in his own personal career choices and options--except to say to him that he had done an exemplary job on behalf of the people of Manitoba while he served in the public service. I knew that he could continue to do a good job in whatever career path he chose.
I know that my honourable friend is trying to paint some other picture into this process. It is completely unfounded, and, again, I am extremely disappointed in the tack that my honourable friend would take in trying to in some way indicate that Mr. Sexsmith has done something inappropriate.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, the political part of this is the minister's lack of good political judgment.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $491,400--pass. (2) Other expenditures.
Mr. Martindale: I wonder if I could ask the minister at this time to provide handouts that will be relevant later on in the Estimates: namely, Financial Assistance and External Agencies on page 53, the list of grants and agencies; also, Maintenance of Children and External Agencies on page 65, including the Family Support Innovations Fund. If the minister could provide those in advance which she usually does every year.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, we will get those and have them available very shortly.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.1.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $80,700--pass. 9.1(c) Children's Advocate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, several years ago, the Children's Advocate asked the province to publicly release recommendations made by the Chief Medical Examiner when children die in the care of a child welfare agency. We have heard various comments by the minister. I am going by memory, but I believe the minister said that it is something that she would consider. I am wondering if we have any progress here and whether the minister is prepared to start releasing these reports or recommendations but still keeping confidential any information that needs to be kept confidential.
Mrs. Mitchelson: There have been a lot of little issues that have to be sorted out with the release of this. I want to indicate to my honourable friend that the next report of the Chief Medical Examiner will have that information in it. The reason, again, it took so long was because we needed to know whether there was an amendment required for The Fatality Inquiries Act or The Child and Family Services Act. We have determined that no amendment is needed and that the Chief Medical Examiner can release that information on a yearly report, and it will happen in his next annual report.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me approximately when we can expect that report?
Mr. Chairperson: It has just been brought to my attention that maybe the minister would please introduce the staff that has joined us at the table, now before you answer in your next response.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Besides the two staff that were introduced yesterday, David Langtry has joined us at the table. He is the ADM for Child and Family Services.
I do want to indicate that the Chief Medical Examiner falls under the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews). I would imagine his report comes out probably at the same time every year, and I would have to check to see when that is. I am thinking it might be fall, but I would not want to make any commitment until I know what the pattern of release of his reports has been. So I will check and provide that to my honourable friend.
* (1500)
Mr. Martindale: I would like to deal with some issues, Mr. Chairperson, that come out of the Fourth Annual Report of the Children's Advocate. The Advocate has expressed frustration experienced by complainants who felt that the Children's Advocate should have a broader mandate, particularly to investigate educational issues and custody and access.
He points out that parents and children have virtually no rights and limited avenues of appeal in these areas, and I am wondering if the minister is in favour of broadening the mandate for investigating what, I guess, would be the concerns of children in other government departments.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I know that we went through an extensive process. I know my honourable friend was a part of that process when we reviewed the Office of the Children's Advocate and held public hearings throughout Manitoba last year. As a result, we received a majority report, and then subsequently a minority report from my honourable friend's caucus on the majority report that did not quite agree with what was being recommended.
I think the recommendation of the majority report was that the Children's Advocate report directly to the Legislature rather than the minister, that in fact the mandate stay the same and that there be some other minor changes like--maybe not so minor, and that is time limits to the appointment of the Child Advocate. So we have accepted the majority report, and the legislative changes that have been brought in to be passed this session reflect that majority report--that is, to maintain the mandate of the Child Advocate to service for children under The Child and Family Services Act.
Mr. Martindale: Does the minister plan to keep the existing Children's Advocate after the amendment is passed, or will he be invited to apply for the time-limited position? What are the minister's plans?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Once the act is passed, it will be entirely up to the Legislature, which will be an all-party process, to determine what the action would be. I would presume that, given its new piece of legislation and a different reporting structure, there would be some sort of competitive process, and the present Advocate would be entitled to apply for that job and be assessed through that competitive process.
Mr. Martindale: Under the existing mandate or even after the amendments are passed, is it possible for the Advocate to produce special reports on any area, and, if not, is that something the minister would consider adding to the Advocate's responsibilities?
Mrs. Mitchelson: At this point in time, and I guess even with the amendments or the change, his mandate is to investigate under The Child and Family Services Act, and that is what would continue to happen, even though the report is to the Legislature.
Mr. Martindale: The most telling comments, I think, in the Advocate's Fourth Annual Report are on the last page, on page 17, where he says, and I quote: "Sole reliance on the good will and philanthropy of neighbours, social agencies, and communities is not enough as we prepare for the next millennium. The needs of children and families involved in the Child and Family Services system cannot be isolated from the broader social problems of poverty, unemployment, family violence, et cetera." I am wondering if this minister understands what the advocate is saying, and if so, if she thinks that is reflected in the policies of her government.
We know that we have had an environmental scan or review of Winnipeg Child and Family Services, and we have heard in that report and in many other reports to government that poverty is one of the contributing factors to a high rate of children in care--not the only one, but it is one. I think the advocate is pointing out that you cannot operate the Child and Family Services agencies separate from other departments of government, and in fact, in this case Employment and Income Assistance is part of the same department in this province. So I am wondering if the minister understands these very good observations of the advocate and what she is prepared to do about it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely. I think we all understand the need and the reality that statistics have told us for many, many years that children that are born to adolescent parents, single parents in many instances, have greater needs. Very often they do live lives of poverty if they are on their own and dependent on welfare as their only source of income. Statistics have told us that they are six times more likely to need the services of a child welfare system. We all know that life on welfare is a commitment to a life in poverty, and it is all interrelated and all of the research that has been done by the Fraser Mustards and many others throughout our communities have indicated that we need to look at better ways to invest in our children and especially children at risk.
Our government is very aware, and as a consequence, many of the things that have been announced and will continue to be announced as we have resources freed up as a result of a commitment to the National Child Benefit, we will see those very intensive supports going into children with high needs, families with high needs and children at risk. Everything is interrelated; I have never denied that. I have never denied the fact that--and I know my honourable friend quotes the statistics about the number of unacceptably high number of children that we have in care per capita as compared to other provinces across the country. It seems that we are taking more children into care rather than doing the up-front work, even working with families wherever possible to keep families together and put supports into those families.
I want to make it very clear that if there is an issue of abuse and neglect, we are not going to leave children in those circumstances, but if we can work and ensure that the tools are in the hands of parents that need a little bit of support in order to make that family healthier, we are focusing our energies and efforts in that direction.
So I want to indicate that I am very cognizant and very aware, and the comments that the Child Advocate makes are comments that I think we all know and we all understand. The only thing is that we have got to channel our resources in different directions, and we are doing exactly that with the announcements that have been made to date around BabyFirst and Earlystart; some things that will be announced in the very near future around adolescent pregnancy and nutrition programs; the increase in child care support for low-income working families; and the tying of some of our programs for early intervention into the child care system, tying of some of our early intervention programs into the public health system.
The whole issue, and the first step that we announced around fetal alcohol syndrome, just last week I think it was, is all an indication of our wanting to work with the community and ensure that wherever possible we have families that need support connected into something that will have a positive impact, not only on them and their ability to parent but most significantly on the children that are going to be our next generation and those children that we will need working as productive members of society so they can pay for us to be in nursing homes when we need that kind of support.
Mr. Martindale: This government made cuts in social assistance and foster care rates and eliminated funding for friendship centres in Manitoba and numerous other cuts. Now, in the runup to an election, we are hearing a whole bunch of good-news preelection announcements.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.1.(c) Children's Advocate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $233,800--pass; 1.(c) (2) Other Expenditures $82,200--pass;
9.1.(d) Social Services Advisory Committee.
Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I have a very interesting letter which was addressed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and copied to this minister from the Village of Winnipegosis dated January 12, 1998, and it is a very disturbing letter, and I am going to quote from it. It says: This letter is to express our deep concern over a ruling by the Social Services Appeal Board which we feel has far-reaching implications for the administration of social assistance throughout Manitoba. In this case, the appeal board allowed assistance to an applicant, in spite of the fact that the family net, after-tax income was over $36,000 and the family's gross income was in excess of $50,000. This is someone who is employed seasonally. This appeal was successful, in spite of the fact that this family was advised in 1996 to plan their income, and they failed to do so. The municipality also pointed out that they have the ability to access short-term funding.
* (1510)
I would like to quote again from a letter which says: it is generally understood in society that, when a person, family or business has a temporary cash flow problem, they look to their own resources, including the ability to borrow money from banks, in order to cover these periods. The municipality says it would appear that, if the family chooses to ignore the appeal board regarding planning their finances, they could, again, obtain assistance in spite of a very large family income.
The municipality points out that this is the same situation--seasonal employment--that Manitoba's farmers experience. During some times of the year they have no cash flow. They go on to say there are people on fixed incomes throughout Manitoba who manage to pay property taxes and provide for themselves. It is most inappropriate that their tax dollars support social assistance applications in such cases.
I am wondering if the minister took any action as a result of this letter or whether she has some sort of explanation of why this appeal was allowed.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I know that the Social Services Advisory Committee heard the appeal, and they followed guidelines and procedures when people come forward and do not have any money and are not earning any income. In fact, there is a responsibility to provide support if that family is in need. So they followed the guidelines and the procedures that are set down and allowed the appeal.
Mr. Chairperson: Before we continue, would the minister like to introduce the staff that is present today?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes. Thanks. Joining us at the table is Isabel Furtado from the Social Services Advisory Committee.
Mr. Martindale: The municipality pointed out that there are other people in--well, we are talking about the village of Winnipegosis--employed in the same industry, employed in the same seasonal business, who did not apply for income assistance and whose income may be the same or similar.
So I am wondering why the decision was made in this circumstance, and does it not open the door for other people who may want to take advantage of this precedent?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The Social Services Advisory Committee deals with each appeal on an individual basis. They do not go out and recruit people to come before the appeal board, and they do not go out and recruit people to apply for welfare. They are the appeal process if someone feels they have been unjustly treated by the welfare system. So anyone who is a citizen of Manitoba can apply for access to the welfare system. They are assessed on an individual, case-by-case basis, and if it is felt that it is warranted, they receive assistance or they may be denied. If in fact they are denied, there is an appeal process that is set up, and that is the Social Services Advisory Committee. They look at each appeal on an individual basis and make that assessment on an individual basis, but they do not set policy for municipalities or for other levels of government.
Mr. Chairperson: For the benefit of the committee, the page here present now is going to be floating back and forth to the committees. So, if there is any wish of the committee to use the service of the page while the page is present, please take advantage of that now, rather than wait until she is not here.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, could the minister tell me what percentage of appeals was successful for clients enrolled under The Employment and Income Assistance Act in the previous year, whichever year that is that the minister has information for?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Right, this is for the fiscal year 1997-98, ending in February of 1998. There were a total of 993 appeals filed; 52 were allowed; 265 were withdrawn because they were resolved to the satisfaction of the client. What happens is that they file an appeal, there is further discussion with the department, and the issue is resolved without it having to go to appeal.
Mr. Chairman, 319 were dismissed; 93 did not appear; 33 were outside the jurisdiction of the appeal body because they were not filed in time or whatever; 98 are still in process; and there were 133 that were withdrawn without resolution. That might be because they just abandoned the process.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what percent were successful of municipal assistance clients?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I cannot remember what the question was. There were 488 municipal assistance appeals. Was that the question?
Mr. Martindale: How many were successful?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, 18 were allowed; 186 dismissed; 157 withdrawn; 80 did not appear; 18 are outside of jurisdiction; and 29 pending.
Mr. Martindale: If the figures are correct, that there were 488 appeals and 18 were allowed, the success rate was .03 percent, which is extremely small. Is the minister concerned about that at all?
Mrs. Mitchelson: This is a little confusing, and I do not have the figures here to tell you. If you look at--we do not have the breakdown between municipal and provincial income assistance clients who withdrew from the process because they were resolved in a satisfactory manner to the client.
* (1520)
Mr. David Faurschou, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
So the 157 that were withdrawn, a significant number of those would have been withdrawn because they were satisfactorily dealt with at the departmental level without having to go to appeal. So when you look at the number dismissed, which is 186, when you look at the number allowed, which was 18, I cannot give you the exact number, but in general terms about 32 percent of the total appeals are resolved in favour of the appellant. There would be a significant number of those withdrawn that would have been dealt with satisfactorily. So the percentage is about 32 percent that are resolved in favour of the appellant.
Mr. Martindale: Well, that percentage is certainly much better than the percentage I was calculating. I think the message to people is that there is a good chance that their problem will be resolved before it gets to an appeal hearing.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): 9.1.(d) Social Services Advisory Committee (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $194,100--pass; l.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $157,400--pass.
9.1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $829,500--pass; 9.1.(e)(2) Other Expenditures $89,400--pass; 9.1.(f) Policy and Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $772,000.
Mr. Martindale: I note that under Policy and Planning, the staff are responsible for co-ordination of program evaluations and reviews. I would be interested in knowing if this includes an evaluation of Taking Charge!.
Mrs. Mitchelson: If just before we start I could introduce Drew Perry, the executive director of Policy and Planning who has joined us.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Welcome, Mr. Drew Perry, to the committee.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Policy and Planning within my department is co-chairing the steering committee with the federal government to do the external evaluation of Taking Charge!.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what company is doing the external evaluation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is Prairie Research Associates.
Mr. Martindale: I have a document called "Taking Charge!": Strategic Initiative Evaluation Framework and Request for Proposal dated January 1997. By the way, it was not leaked to me; however, I will not tell you how I got it. Very interesting reading, I must say. There is an evaluation component in it. I am wondering if this is the same evaluation that Prairie Research is doing or whether their evaluation is different?
Mrs. Mitchelson: If my honourable friend would like to share the document with me, we could compare it. I have no way of knowing whether it is the same, unless I know what the document is about.
Mr. Martindale: I would not want to appear too co-operative with this minister, but as long as she assures me that she will return it, I will certainly give it to her.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Is it the wish of the member for Burrows to have this document tabled and available for duplication?
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I think it would probably be better if I tabled it than have a private arrangement with the minister. So, yes, I will table it.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Thank you.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I certainly will undertake to get it back to my honourable friend as soon as we possibly can. So we will be having a copy of it made, and then if we could take a little bit of time to look at the document, we might be able to indicate whether it is the same evaluation as Prairie Research is doing.
Mr. Martindale: I guess, I just need to know--it certainly will not take long to photocopy--when or under what line I can ask the minister questions so that her staff are here.
Mrs. Mitchelson: If we want to discuss this under Employment and Income Assistance, Making Welfare Work, that would be probably the most appropriate, and then that would give us a bit of time to look at it and get the answers.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Item 9.1.(f) Policy and Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $772,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $176,900.
Mr. Martindale: I see there is a small item here, Grants and Transfer Payments, I believe it is $15,000. Can the minister tell me what these grants are for?
* (1530)
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is a $15,000 grant to the Vanier Institute of the Family that we have committed to. They do research on the family and publications periodically.
Mr. Martindale: It is not often that I commend the government on the record. Our caucus was lobbied as well about supporting a grant to the Vanier Institute, and we said that we would support it. I am glad to see that this minister did as well.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Item 9.1. Administration and Finance (f) Policy and Planning (2) Other Expenditures $176,900--pass.
Item 9.1. Administration and Finance (g) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,749,900.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister some questions regarding Public Accounts, Volume 2, and Public Accounts, Volume 1, Financial Statements for the Consolidated Fund. I guess I am beginning with Volume 1.
I do not know if the minister's staff have these here, but it probably does not matter, they will be aware--or I would be happy to share my copy with the minister--that the way Public Accounts shows expenditure is different than the Estimates book. For example, I have in front of me--I guess this would be the most recent one for the year ended March 31, 1997, on pages 4-29, under Family Services, the first category being Administration and Finance, there are a number of categories, and there is a total, and, of course, there are dollar figures beside each category. The only number that corresponds with the Estimates book is the total for Administration and Finance. None of the other categories are the same as the Estimates book.
The problem that this raises and the question that it poses is: how is it possible to compare the Estimates book for the fiscal year and Volume 1 of Financial Statements--and I would say it is impossible because the categories are different--and therefore how is it possible to hold the government accountable for their spending? In this case, we are talking about $7,615,900 in Administration and Finance.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): The honourable minister, could you introduce to the committee the staff member now joining you?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Sheila Lebredt has joined us. She is the acting director of Financial and Administrative Services.
If I might indicate to my honourable friend that I have a feeling we discussed this last year in Estimates, did we or was it? [interjection] Not discussed. This might have been an issue that was raised last year through the Estimates process, and I think I might have given some advice to my honourable friend.
Public Accounts is produced by the Department of Finance right across government, and it is an indication of actual expenditures by appropriation. What you are probably seeing in the Estimates book is an estimate of expenditures for this year's budget. So it is a format that is developed by the Department of Finance, and my advice to my honourable friend, if he is having difficulty sort of following the two different formats or comparing the two, would be to have him write to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and seek his comments on why or ask--I mean, I think there is a committee that deals with Public Accounts that sits either during session or between sessions. That might be an appropriate time to ask the Minister of Finance, or just a letter to him. There might be a very simple explanation, but that might be the appropriate place to ask that question.
Sometimes the Department of Finance has its reasons for printing things in a certain format, and he would be the most appropriate minister, or in his Estimates, possibly, ask that question and find out the reason or the rationale.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I certainly could raise it either by going to Public Accounts committee or writing to the Minister of Finance, but I would like to suggest that in this committee it is impossible for me to do my job. I would point out that, under Income Security and Regional Operations, we are talking about $391 million in the last fiscal year. So how can I hold this minister in this committee accountable for the expenditure of a huge amount of money when the categories in Public Accounts are different from the categories in the minister's Estimates book?
You know, I know the minister might want to repeat her answer, but I am wondering, then, if this minister is willing to talk to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and, on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba, improve the accountability of this department and this minister and her spending, which is considerable.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think that, if my honourable member took a look at the Annual Report for the Department of Family Services, certainly the questions that he could ask and the way he could hold this minister accountable would be to look at the actuals in the annual report versus the Estimates. Right there, then, you would see whether we were overspent or underspent in each line, and questions could be asked appropriately.
Mr. Martindale: Is this minister willing to raise this issue with her colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and see if he is willing to change Public Accounts reporting, so that it is in line with the Estimates of the Department of Family Services, or conversely, I suppose, is she willing to change the categories in her Estimates book to correspond with Volume I of Public Accounts?
Mrs. Mitchelson: As I already indicated, our annual report spells out very clearly what is estimated and what is expended in any given year. So I would indicate to my honourable friend that there is the appropriate vehicle to ask about the issue of Public Accounts, and that is through the Public Accounts committee or through the Minister of Finance's Estimates. The other option, of course, would be to write to the Minister of Finance, and I would certainly appreciate a copy of his letter.
Mr. Denis Rocan, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Martindale: Obviously, the minister is not willing to improve her accountability or change the way she does things, so I would like to ask about the special warrants. There were three in the fiscal year ending March '97. The first one, under Income Security and Regional Operations, was a special warrant for $3,984,900. Could the minister tell me what that was for?
* (1540)
Mrs. Mitchelson: For clarification, what year are we talking about?
Mr. Martindale: The fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I am informed we have the 1997-98 special warrant information here, but we do not have the '96-97. We could get that and provide it.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister also provide for me at a future meeting of the Committee of Supply, then, the expenditure under Child and Family Services under special warrant of $3,129,400. There is another one under--I guess that is it. I guess there are two, and she can report at a future meeting of this committee.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Rocan): Item 9.1. Administration and Finance (g) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,749,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $530,700.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister might remember from last year questions that I had about the way United Way agencies presented their financial statements. My concern was that there were considerable sums of money given, I guess, in grants, perhaps grants and per diems to agencies, and some of them were not acknowledging under revenue that the source was the Province of Manitoba. The minister agreed with my concern and said that she would write or contact the United Way and that reporting would be changed.
I am wondering if the minister can tell me what resulted. Did United Way agree to talk to their member agencies about their financial statements?
Mrs. Mitchelson: As a result of the discussions last year we did have a conversation with the United Way. They are still reviewing it and they have not got back to us.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I am disappointed that the United Way would not act more expeditiously. A year is a long time. Certainly they could have notified all their member agencies that in their next annual report, under their financial statements, that they should acknowledge the government of Manitoba as their source of income. I think we are probably only talking about a small number of the many agencies that belong to United Way.
I have a similar question. I recently requested a copy of the annual report of the Knowles Centre, and I do not want to criticize the Knowles Centre, I am just going to use them as an example. I know that the Knowles Centre is near and dear to the minister's heart. I have been to their annual meetings and their family fun day, and I think they are doing a good job. However, for their financial statement highlights for the year ended March 31, 1997, which was what they sent to me--I guess their '98 financial statement would be available at their annual meeting, which I think is coming up in June--but for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997, it says, revenue, residential care $2,240,101; and other $330,000.
Now, my guess is that a substantial amount of that money, probably the vast majority of that money, comes from the Province of Manitoba. I know there may be federal government money. My guess is that probably 99 percent of their funding is from government, and yet there is no acknowledgment of this in the annual report that I received. Now, it does say schedule 1, and probably if I had a copy of their detailed financial statements, which is not in the annual report that I received, there may be an acknowledgment of the government sources of funding and maybe even by department.
But I am wondering if the minister is willing to review not just the Knowles Centre, I am just using that as an example, but all of the agencies that are funded by the Department of Family Services, because there are millions of dollars going out to external agencies, and I think the minister should look at all of their financial statements and make sure that all of them acknowledge that the Province of Manitoba is one of their funders under their income statement. I think it would also be appropriate if they acknowledge how much money is from the Department of Family Services in addition to other departments. Is the minister willing to do that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My honourable friend makes a good point. It is always nice to get credit as a government for supporting things that are happening in our province. I would venture to guess that there are certainly more than one department of government that funds or supports Knowles Centre. I know the Department of Education has a significant role to play, as does our department. I do not know if there are any other departments, but I will certainly undertake to review the agencies that are funded through my department and see whether it is appropriate or feasible to have that kind of reporting.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for promising to undertake that. I would say that it is entirely appropriate and feasible to do that. I have some other financial statements here. The Manitoba League of, well, formerly the Physically Handicapped Inc. acknowledges the Province of Manitoba Department of Family Services, the Secretary of State of Canada, Thomas Sill Foundation; St. Amant Centre acknowledges the Province of Manitoba, Northwest Territories and others; Marymound actually itemizes the Province of Manitoba under grants, low incidence funding, and per diem, and then in another category it says Family Services. So we know that some agencies are providing very specific acknowledgment, and there is no reason why all of them not only can but should.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Rocan): Item 9.1.(g) Financial and Administrative Services (2) Other Expenditures $530,700--pass.
Item 9.1. Administration and Finance (h) Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, under Information Systems, it says that they will continue to refine the way the department manages and utilizes information technology. So I would like to ask the minister about their outsourcing agreement with, I believe, IBM. Well, first of all, could the minister confirm what company has the contract for the outsourcing agreement?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, before I answer that question, I would like to introduce Brian Konopski who is our Director of Information Systems. It is IBM that has the contract.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us what year the contract was signed?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The arrangement that was developed with IBM was started in November 1995.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me why the government went to an outsourcing agreement and how much the contract is worth, I guess on an annual basis, or is it an ongoing basis?
* (1550)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, there certainly are some ministers who might be more technologically astute than I am, so I am going to try really hard to help my honourable friend understand what we are doing.
The contract that we have with IBM is for approximately $1.3 million per year for outsourcing, and it fluctuates slightly. But what we are outsourcing is the management of the department's technical resources, including hardware, software and local wide area networks and providing a single point of contact help desk for staff who use the department's different information systems. So that is basically what we are outsourcing.
Mr. Martindale: How much was your department spending on computers before this IBM contract, which presumably would have been mostly purchase of equipment and staff time, staff years?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that a significant amount of new resource would have been required to maintain the programs and upgrade the programs and the systems internally to meet the demands of the new technological era that we are in and, therefore, rather than expanding and hiring more staff internally, the best option was to go to outsourcing this. We get better value for our dollar by outsourcing this kind of work so that the staff internally can ensure that they are doing the kinds of activities that are needed to keep our programs up and running and meeting the needs of the clients that we serve.
An Honourable Member: Good answer.
Mr. Martindale: I hope you realize you are not supposed to comment on the record. I hope Hansard did not pick that up. Good. Mr. Impartial Chairperson, I would like to ask the minister, she said that the contract was worth $1.3 million a year, but it also fluctuates somewhat. What does fluctuates somewhat mean?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I am informed that it could fluctuate to as low as $1 million, but the maximum is $1.3 million on a yearly basis. I guess it just depends on what activities need to be undertaken in any given year, how much training is required, whether there is moving of equipment from one place to another to meet the demand.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me how this contract relates to the Systemhouse contracts or whether there is any relationship?
Mr. David Faurschou, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mrs. Mitchelson: I am informed that in 1995 this was a prearrangement before the desktop initiative, which is Systemhouse. So this happened prior to the desktop initiative, and we are now in the process of looking at what the timing would be to merge with the desktop initiative.
Mr. Martindale: Does this mean that the Department of Family Services is also going to purchase services for the desktop initiative from Systemhouse?
Mrs. Mitchelson: At some point in time we will be part of the desktop initiative. We are in the process now of determining when that will be.
Mr. Martindale: Will there be a cost to that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: There will be a cost, but we are in the process right now of determining what that cost might be.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to ask the minister if she has an estimate of how much that cost might be, even an approximate cost.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are not that far into the process now to be able to give any estimate even of what that might be.
* (1600)
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if there were staff from her department who left the Department of Family Services to go to work for IBM, staff who used to do computer work in the department and left to go to IBM?
Mrs. Mitchelson: There is no one who went from our department to IBM.
Mr. Martindale: Is anyone going from your department to Systemhouse, or have there been any who left to go to Systemhouse?
Mrs. Mitchelson: There were six departmental staff who went to Systemhouse from the Department of Family Services.
Mr. Martindale: Were there any staff who went to any other computer companies?
Mrs. Mitchelson: There were seven people from the department who left for private sector opportunities, six to Systemhouse and one to another small computer company.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me for what length of time was the IBM contract? Is it a one-year renewable or five years? What is the length of the contract?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The arrangement was an initial three-year term with an option to extend for an additional two years.
Mr. Martindale: I notice in the annual report that there is a separate system for Child and Family Services called CFSIS. Is that still in place?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: Are there any plans to change that system to some other system?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are continually trying to ensure that it is updated, and it will be part of our Better Systems initiative.
You will have to excuse me, Mr. Chairperson. When we get into the technical questions around computerization, I do not have the expertise. I do not know if in this instance my honourable friend would like to hear from the experts who work on the technical side of things, so that maybe we both gain a clearer understanding of what is happening technologically within the department, or I can attempt to answer questions.
Mr. Martindale: I will ask the minister to answer the questions. There were not very many more, and I am sure she has expert advice beside her here at the table.
Could the minister clarify if CFSIS is going to change to desktop, I think she said? Does that mean that they are getting new hardware? What does this mean?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, desktop is replacing the hardware, and at some point in time, the Child and Family Services Information System, CFSIS, will require new hardware. But the program itself has some very good qualities and very good applications that might be adapted into case management throughout the department. So we will continue to try to make CFSIS the best that it can be and adapt some of its good qualities and some of the case management applications for Better Systems.
Mr. Martindale: I am glad the minister came back with the word "hardware," because I thought I meant "software." If my son heard these questions or read them in Hansard, he would be appalled at his father's ignorance. So the minister is not the only one here with a problem.
However, on a serious note, what will be the cost of replacing the hardware? You said at some point, it will need replacing. What is that going to cost?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are just in the process of determining what will be required for integrated case management which we are embarking upon through our Better Systems initiative. So we are in the process of determining that. We all know that from time to time, even in our own homes with computers, the hardware needs to be replaced and updated and upgraded, and that will be continued and will be required in government as it is in business as we move forward and there is new application of technology.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, when the minister says "case management," is she talking about staff in the department, for example, in Health and Family Services in the regions and Child and Family Services agency staff? What do you mean by case management? Are we talking about families and children as cases?
* (1610)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Really what we are looking at is a way to better serve the clients that we serve and have workers within different program areas within our department have access to, in a holistic way, the family or clients that we serve, and maybe if I could give an example that might help. They presently have a family that is on social allowance, maybe a single mom with a disabled child that would need special needs daycare, but that single parent may be moving into some training programs that we might provide through our association with training and income assistance. So we would want to be able to ensure that we had information available that could help her access different programs, rather than having each program work independently of each other. So if you wanted to ensure that she could access child care in her community so that she had the ability to go into a training program and receive the kind of support that she might need through income assistance, we could have all of that information available on one file so that you are not having to go into different programs to serve a family in several different ways. So it is integrated case management, better service for the client, easier for those that are delivering the programs to support those families that need our support.
Mr. Martindale: I think I understand what the minister is saying, but maybe I can explain where I am going here. We began with the IBM contract, which is mentioned in the annual report on page 18, so the minister answered my questions on that. Then I asked questions about Systemhouse, and we found out that, yes, the department will be taking part in the desktop initiative. So both of those have to do with the Department of Family Services. So then I went to the bottom of page 18 where it says: continued implementation of the Child and Family Services Information System, CFSIS, in private agencies and regional government offices. So my next line of questions had to do with computer systems and contracts in Child and Family Services agencies. I think I got lost some time after that, so maybe we can back up a little bit. Is the CFSIS system still being implemented or is it going to be changed to some other system?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Ultimately--I mean, CFSIS will continue to be used. The software for case management under CFSIS will be refined and updated and improved, but the case management applications under CFSIS will be enhanced through the integrated case management and better systems initiatives.
Mr. Martindale: Now you have really lost me. Does this mean that there is going to be an upgrading of computer systems in Child and Family Services agencies?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Ultimately, the software in the package for CFSIS, which is a case management tool, will be used because it has some really good capabilities. But it may be improved or enhanced, and it will be a model for the integrated case management system that we are implementing throughout the department.
Mr. Martindale: When I hear "improved" or "enhanced" I think I hear euphemisms. What I really want to know is: will there be the purchase of new software? Will there be the purchase of new hardware, and if so, how many units are we talking about here? A new computer on the desk of the staff of everyone in every Child and Family Services agency?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I have got this. Our Child and Family Services information system, the software will be used, but there may be new applications that come from time to time that, just like I guess every program, every software program, you might be able to add more information into it, but the application, the Child and Family Services information system is the application we will continue to use.
Right now, government has embarked upon a desktop initiative which says that the hardware, not the software, has to be a certain standard within government, and any new equipment that is being purchased throughout government meets that standard for desktop. As we replace old computers with new, they will have to meet that standard, and that will be on a scheduled, phased-in basis over the next period of time.
That is the hardware. What we are talking about with CFSIS is the software, and that application is a good example of what integrated case management could look like throughout the department to share program information from one branch to another.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if the purchase of hardware by Child and Family Services agencies is something that they do out of their budget?
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is something that we pay for, and we gave them more money specifically for a computer purchase last year.
Mr. Martindale: But at this time the minister does not know how much it is going to cost to buy new computers or upgrade the system?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I indicated we were exploring getting into the desktop initiative. We are not into it yet as the Department of Family Services. We are still doing the analysis, but any new computer hardware that is bought is bought meeting the desktop standards. We are still doing the analysis and trying to determine when we will be fully integrated into desktop management, but in the interim any new equipment that we purchase meets those standards.
Mr. Martindale: When the IBM contract expires, will there be a switch to Systemhouse?
Mrs. Mitchelson: That has not been fully determined yet, but more than likely.
Mr. Martindale: So is this minister's department already negotiating with Systemhouse to sign a contract with them?
* (1620)
Mrs. Mitchelson: The contract with Systemhouse is a central government contract, so we do not do our own negotiations with Systemhouse. There is a central government process for that to happen.
Mr. Martindale: Would this minister know how much the contract would be worth, even though it is being negotiated somewhere else in government?
Mrs. Mitchelson: No, I do not know that information. It certainly has not been determined yet for the Department of Family Services because we are not into the desktop system yet.
Mr. Martindale: The money would be coming from the Department of Family Services, but would any of it be coming out of this fiscal year that we are debating?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have any money specifically in this year's budget in the Department of Family Services for the desktop initiative. We are in the process of negotiations and, I guess, ongoing discussions. We are not down to anything concrete at this point in time. If, in fact, decisions were made that we were to move before the end of the fiscal year, we would either have to find the money within our technology budget in the Department of Family Services to start that move. There may have been money allocated to some other department within government that is not using their resources that may be reallocated to Family Services, but we have not budgeted specifically for the desktop initiative this year in our budget.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Item 9.1.(h) Information Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,429,000--pass; 1.(h)(2) Other Expenditures $683,300--pass.
The hour being 4:25 p.m., is it the will of the committee to take a short recess? [agreed] The committee will take a 15-minute recess at this time.
The committee recessed at 4:25 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:46 p.m.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): I call this committee back to order. We are now considering item 9.2. Employment and Income Assistance (a) Client Services (1) Salary and Employee Benefits $11,793,600.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I would just like to introduce the new staff at the table: Gisela Rempel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment and Income Assistance; Grant Doak, Employment and Income Assistance Policy Co-ordinator; and, Dan Haughey, Executive Director for Welfare Reform.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Welcome to the committee.
Mr. Martindale: I almost thought you said welcome to the game, but I think you must have said table.
Just so that the minister and her staff know where I am going here, I have some questions about contracts, first of all, with the Manitoba Dental Association and the Manitoba Funeral Services Association, but the majority of my time is going to be spent on the one tier system and Taking Charge! and the child tax benefit. Could the minister tell me if a new agreement has been signed with the Manitoba Dental Association, since, I believe, the last agreement has expired?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): I would like to draw the attention of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) that, in fact, we must proceed in consideration of items of Committee of Supply line by line. It has been drawn to my attention that this particular question of dental falls under the Income Assistance Programs which we have yet to address. Is it the will of the committee to consider it at this time and to skip ahead to the line 2.(b) Income Assistance Programs?
* (1650)
Mrs. Mitchelson: I might ask my honourable friend whether there are any questions under Client Services, Salaries and Employee Benefits or Other Expenditures? Maybe we could pass that and move on to Income Assistance Programs and deal with any issues under (b) in 1 and then pass (b).
Mr. Martindale: I was going to do the one tier welfare system overpayment recovery under 2.(a), if this is agreeable.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): We will then ask the question on item 9.2. Employment and Income Assistance (a) Client Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $11,793,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $4,602,100--pass.
Item 9.2.(b) Income Assistance Programs (1) Employment and Income Assistance $206,053,300.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if she is making any progress in negotiations with the Manitoba Dental Association?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Effective September 1 of 1997, we reached an agreement through a letter of understanding with the Manitoba Dental Association for dental services for income assistance clients. That letter of understanding provides for fees to dentists for 70 percent, 75 percent and 80 percent in three consecutive years of the 1997 MDA fee guide. This also includes a provision to increase the annual restorative limit for adults from $300 to $400 in the second year.
Mr. Martindale: Is a letter of understanding the same as signing a contract?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is it is, in essence, the same thing, that the Manitoba Dental Association cannot enforce a contract or a letter of understanding with their membership, but they have agreed to the terms of the letter of understanding.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if there is still a problem with some dentists, particularly in The Pas, not providing service to income assistance clients?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that the dentists in The Pas have withdrawn their services and continue to withdraw their services, but they are doing emergency services. So that means that we are having to transport those who require regular service to other communities for that service, and there are other dentists who are doing that regular work.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if anything is being done to encourage the dentists who are not providing service to provide the service since my understanding is that the alternative is that income assistance patients are being sent to Flin Flon, and, presumably, there is considerable cost associated with that.
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is a fee dispute, and there are other dentists throughout the province that refuse to provide this service to our clients, and we do not have the ability to force them to do that.
So, yes, there is some cost to transport people to Flin Flon, but we are not going to get involved in the fee dispute. If there are dentists who are willing to provide that regular service, we will find those dentists who will do it. We are not prepared to make an exception in the instance of The Pas where the dentists have refused, but they are continuing to provide emergency services.
Mr. Martindale: I have the memorandum of agreement between the government of Manitoba and the Manitoba Funeral Services Association. I notice it was signed in May '97, but the contract runs from October 1, '96, to March 31, '98. Can the minister tell me why it took so long to sign this contract?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We were in negotiations with them and it took us that long to come to an agreement, but we made the agreement retroactive to the time of the start of the negotiations.
Mr. Martindale: We have received complaints from individuals on social assistance regarding the cost of eye exams. They are being charged about $45, and they are being reimbursed, I think, $28. Another concern is that people are having to pay up front the whole amount and then be reimbursed. Is that the process that is supposed to happen?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have an agreement with the doctors, but normally they bill us directly and we pay those bills. If in fact there are certain instances that my honourable friend knows of, because we do not know of any, if he could bring those individual circumstances to our attention and we will look into them.
Mr. Martindale: So normally the individual is supposed to have the exam authorized, and if it is authorized, then Income Assistance pays for it?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: Is the same thing true for dental work, that it needs to be authorized first?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, normally, if a dentist has a client's file and it is just sort of regular work that is done, they do not get preauthorization. The dentist just goes ahead and does it and bills us. Where there is major restorative work that is required, we require preauthorization.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I also had a complaint about an individual who claimed that they paid $50 out of pocket, but social assistance only paid or reimbursed $30 for an amalgam. I am wondering if that is an anomaly or the normal practice.
Mrs. Mitchelson: The letter of understanding that we signed with the Manitoba Dental Association indicates that there should be no extra billing, so individuals should not be extra billed over and above what the cost of the treatment is. If, in fact, there are specific instances where that is happening, if my honourable friend could provide that information to us, we will look into it.
* (1700)
Mr. Martindale: I received a complaint from a young mother who was taking part in the Healthy Start for Mom and Me program that the minister is aware of, a very good, federally funded program. This individual is a single parent with a two-month-old baby, plus children ages 2, 3, 10 and 14. She applied for provincial social assistance, and she was given an appointment at a future date and told to work out a job plan.
Now, my understanding is that the general policy is that single parents of children under six are exempt, but the major loophole is if they have taken any kind of upgrading, employment or training paid for by the government, that the job expectation applies to them, but it seems to me that this mother probably should be at home with a two-month-old baby.
I am wondering why the job expectation was placed on a single parent with five children, enrolled in a very good program, Healthy Start for Mom and Me?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is highly unlikely that we would place a job expectation on a mom with a young baby, but everyone is required to fill out a personal job plan and a personal plan indicating what their goals are for the future, and how do you start to organize your life in preparation for having at some point in time a requirement to enter the workforce? So we require everyone to think about the future, to do some planning for the future, but there is not necessarily a job expectation placed on them at that point in time.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me how many individuals, I guess, on employment income assistance and municipal assistance were investigated for welfare fraud or summary conviction offences during the last fiscal year?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We have just had Don Feener join us. He is the Director of Investigations and Recoveries, and the actual number of cases that were referred to the Investigations and Recoveries unit were 64 for the year 1997-98. That does not mean to say that there are not other activities ongoing on a regular basis in our district offices that verify people's incomes.
Mr. Martindale: Of the 64 individuals referred, how many were charged under the Criminal Code of Canada and how many under other legislation, presumably some reconvictions under provincial legislation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: In 1997-98, there were 20 charges laid; 13 of the 20 prosecutions were under The Employment and Income Assistance Act and seven of the 20 were under the Criminal Code.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what percentage that was of the caseload in 1997-98?
* (1710)
Mrs. Mitchelson: If you take the 20 prosecutions where charges were laid and relate that to the whole caseload, that is .08 percent where cases have actually had to go to court, but that does not take into account the other 350 cases as a result of the fraud line that are investigated and either closed or repayments made on a scheduled basis as a result of overpayments or ineligibility. So when you look at that number, it is considerably more than the 20 cases that went to court.
I want to indicate to my honourable friend that for the fiscal year 1997-98, there has been a savings to the welfare program of $2.8 million as a result of activity and inappropriate access to tax dollars through the welfare system that people were receiving that they were not eligible or entitled to.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me what the caseload was on average for the year, or even the caseload at the end of March? Last year, I believe the minister said there were approximately 25,730 on provincial and 17,251 on city, so I would be interested in knowing the total caseload so that I can make my own calculations. Last year when I asked this question the minister I think said she would get back to me and did not. My calculations were .001 percent was the welfare fraud rate, so if the minister is saying .08, I would like the number of cases so that I could make my own calculations.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We can look at .0008 or we can look at .08 or we can look at .8 or we can look at 8 percent, the bottom line is that $2.8 million was going to people that were ineligible for welfare, and as a result of the activity that has been undertaken, we have been able to recover that money or remove people from welfare that were fraudulently abusing the taxpayers of Manitoba. That money can be better spent on serving the clients through our welfare system or through many of the other programs that my department provides to some of the most vulnerable citizens in Manitoba.
So my honourable friend may condone fraud and abuse, and people getting money that they do not deserve, paid for by those hard-working Manitobans that are paying taxes to support programs that are really in need, and he may support people fraudulently receiving $2.8 million per year of hard-earned tax dollars paid for by Manitobans, and that is his prerogative. But I want to tell you that our government and our party will not tolerate that kind of activity, and we would rather put that $2.8 million into more support for people with mental disabilities or physical disabilities or into our health care system or into our child care system to support people that are moving into the workforce and off of welfare.
So, I mean, those might be choices that my honourable friend's party might make if they were government, but the choices that we have made are to protect the taxpayers of Manitoba and to ensure that our tax dollars are being spent in the most appropriate and efficient manner possible.
Mr. Martindale: Certainly we in the New Democratic Party do not support welfare fraud of any kind, and we are talking mostly about summary convictions here, not fraud, although I really do not believe that this department saved $2.8 million from 20 people or even $2.8 million from 350 cases. I think there are other savings in here which in the past I have said--well, the minister and I always disagree on this anyway, so there is no point in rehashing it, but we certainly agree with the government that we are opposed to welfare fraud as well.
I have a question about social assistance rates for individuals who I guess are on Independent Living as wards of Child and Family Services. I had a complaint that they are getting less money than Income Assistance clients, and I wonder if the minister could tell me how much they are entitled to, not the amount, but if the same rates apply.
Mrs. Mitchelson: There is no differential rate. The rates are the same if circumstances are the same, and there is eligibility criteria. If in fact there is a concern or a question about a differential rate or somebody being treated outside of the guidelines in a different manner, I would certainly be interested in some details and would look into those individual circumstances.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if she has figures, perhaps percentages, on the number of Income Assistance clients who are employed part time and thus qualify for the earnings exemption. My understanding is that in the past it was historically around 11 percent to 14 percent, and I am wondering if there is any change in that, whether there are more people taking advantage of the earnings exemption.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, since welfare reform was introduced in May 1996, there are 641. Now, this is just on the provincial caseload. I do not know if we have the figures for the municipal caseload, but on our caseload we have 641 more single parents reporting employment income, and since April of '97 to March of '98, it is 174 clients more. Does that make sense? Maybe I should have just given for the last year. There are 174 clients more in 1997-98 reporting incomes from earning than were the previous year.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if she believes that the increase is due to perhaps more people entering the paid workforce because there are jobs available or because of changes in social allowances regulations that made slight improvements in the earnings exemption?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My sense would be that we know people want to work, that there are jobs available and a lot of the training and employment initiatives, plus the whole focus on Employment First through welfare reform has aided in people trying to move off of the welfare system and into the workforce. We know sometimes it is a gradual process. Not everyone gets a full-time job immediately, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.
I think it is a combination of many things. It is a combination of the economy doing better in Manitoba, more jobs being available, and people focusing on where they want to go and what they want to do and gaining some attachment to the workforce.
Mr. Martindale: I have quite a few questions on the one-tier project beginning with rates. Can the minister tell me, after we have one tier, what is going to be done about the difference in rates, particularly for food for children ages zero to 18? Will the province raise their rates to match the city's, or will the city rates be lowered to match the province?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are still in the process of moving towards the amalgamation of the two systems. I do want to indicate to my honourable friend that we are very cognizant of the issues surrounding proper nutrition for infants as they get off to a healthy start to life. I want to indicate to my honourable friend that the final determination about what the rates will be when we move to the amalgamated system is yet to be determined, and those announcements will be made. We are not there yet.
* (1720)
Mr. Martindale: What is the target date for the amalgamation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are looking at March of 1999 as the target date for implementation.
Mr. Martindale: So less than a year from the amalgamation date the minister cannot give children on income assistance or social services in the city of Winnipeg any indication of what is going to happen to their rates, in spite of the fact that we have one of the highest rates of child poverty in Canada, which I read into the record yesterday. You know we have a huge problem of poverty, not just in Manitoba, but in Winnipeg, where in the past there have been as many as 7,000 children on city social services. I am not sure what the figure is now. I think it is a little bit lower than that. I do not understand why the minister could not give some indication of which direction she is going.
The budget for Employment and Income Assistance is down considerably. The budget for Municipal Assistance is down considerably. We are talking about several tens of millions of dollars. We know that the government has redirected this money in various directions, but why could not some of it be directed to children on social assistance so that we can be assured that the poverty rate in Winnipeg, Manitoba, will not get worse?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I can guarantee my honourable friend that we are not going to move to British Columbia's rates which are considerably lower than what our rates are for infants. Their rate is $103 per child no matter how old they are; ours start at $116 per child. I will tell you, you can certainly purchase more for your buying dollar in the city of Winnipeg than you can in the city of Vancouver. So I can guarantee my honourable friend that we are not moving to British Columbia's rates, a New Democratic government that certainly my honourable friend likes to support and points us to their policy directions in many other jurisdictions. So I want to make that clear.
But I also do want to indicate that we are not--we are, what, in May now? We are looking at the end of March 1999 for implementation, and my honourable friend knows, I am sure he knows, that the higher rates are for infants from birth to one year. Many of the children who will come into the system at the city level have not even been conceived yet. I mean, we are looking at March of 1999 and many of the children who are being supported with the additional rate at the City of Winnipeg will no longer receive that support as of a year of age.
So, I mean, he is talking about circumstances that are certainly unknown. We are several months away. We will be into another budgetary process. We have talked about money in this year's budget for nutrition programs, and I think he should wait to see what those announcements might be before he passes judgment, but I do want to indicate that we are not going to lower ourselves to British Columbia's level for support for children.
Mr. Martindale: The minister specifically mentioned infants. Are the rates not higher for other ages up to 18, or has the city standardized them down to the provincial level?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The city's higher rates were only for infants, ever, and they have always been the standard rates elsewhere for--[interjection] Sorry, Mr. Chairperson, I have to correct the record. The City of Winnipeg for the last two years has--I am informed that two years ago they reduced their rates to half. They cut it in half, and last year they eliminated the higher rates except for infants.
Mr. Martindale: We certainly hope that this minister and this government does the right thing and raises the rates for infants on provincial income assistance to equalize them with the city social services rate.
Could the minister tell me what will happen to the City of Winnipeg employment creation programs under the One Tier? Does this government plan to continue all those employment initiatives?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We will be looking at all of the initiatives that are being undertaken both at the municipal and provincial level. Certainly, any programs that work, we will be looking to continue or even enhance if, in fact, they are proving to have significant success.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I would certainly hope that this government would enhance them because they have many successful programs. Would this government keep the Community Home Service Program or expand it?
* (1730)
Mrs. Mitchelson: As I indicated, we will be looking at all of the programs that are being run whether they be at the municipal or the provincial level. I agree that many of the programs have been successful in the city of Winnipeg.
I also do want to point out the difference, though, between the two different caseloads. I think my honourable friend and I have talked about this privately from time to time, but we have to recognize and realize that those that are on the municipal caseload have always been considered the employable. Many single people that should, with a little bit of help or opportunity, be able to move into the workforce were the clients on the provincial caseload, are single parents that in many instances have young children, and in the past, under former policies, were not considered employable until their youngest child turned 18, or they are in the disabled category. So we have additional issues to deal with, with those that have traditionally been on the provincial caseload.
I know he is asking about specific programs. I want to indicate that we are not going to reinvent the wheel. Whatever is working we will continue, but we will evaluate what has been working and what has not. If there are new programs that could be more successful even, we will look at those. I am not committed to calling any program the same program. I think I want to indicate that if there is opportunity in any sector within our society for Employment and Income Assistance clients to have the opportunity to enter the workforce and we can support those programs, we will.
Mr. Martindale: I am getting pretty vague answers here, but I am going to continue asking the questions anyway. What is going to happen to the Community Services Worker Project which supplies 54 local community clubs with janitorial, icemaking, and groundskeeping service?
Mrs. Mitchelson: As I indicated, we will be evaluating all programs. I have had that issue raised with me personally, knowing that so many of our community centres have the need for the kind of support that that program provides, and will be evaluating that.
I know my honourable friend would like to tie me down to sort of indicating exactly what will happen. I want to indicate and reiterate that whatever is working and if there is an opportunity for employment and moving people off of welfare as a result of these programs and projects, we will certainly be continuing them. I am not going to say forever and a day that programs that work today and are evaluated and find out that they are not being as effective or efficient as other programs will continue forever.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
I have said many, many times that governments have to be bold enough to evaluate programs right throughout our departments and if, in fact, they are still appropriately meeting the needs and the requirements, they should be continued. If not, governments have to have the courage to look at new ways of delivering more effective programs. So I have no bias and no sense that we should be stopping doing anything that has worked and will continue to work. We may want to change slightly the program. I am not going to make any definite commitment today. I know my honourable friend would like some sort of absolute concrete commitment, and I cannot do that. But as I indicated, what works will continue.
Mr. Martindale: The minister says I want to tie her down, but actually want I want is a plan or a direction. Does this government know where they are going? Do they know what they want to do? Why can they not commit to keeping some good programs? For example, will the government continue the city's Dutch elm disease project and infrastructure renewal project which employ a lot of employable people who would otherwise be on social assistance?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I would just like to indicate that Sue Bentley has joined the table, and she is the director of Municipal Assistance.
As I said earlier, I have no reason to believe that programs will be discontinued if they are working. We know we have had positive results from many of the programs that have been run, and I am not going to reinvent the wheel. Yes, we do have a plan. We have a plan to make our welfare program in the city of Winnipeg the most efficient and the most effective with the most opportunity for employment and attachment to the workforce for as many individuals that are on our welfare caseloads. We know that certain programs work well for single employable individuals, and other programs and probably with a little more detail and a little more support need to be developed and continue to be developed for those that have additional issues to deal with, namely, being single parents and alone or disabled.
So I am not indicating today that I am discontinuing anything. All I am saying is that I am not going to reinvent the wheel, and we are not going to reinvent the wheel. I know my honourable friend will be really interested in hearing the announcements that will occur as we move to amalgamating the caseload and ensuring, as our ultimate goal is, to secure attachment to the workforce for as many individuals that that can possibly happen for.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if her department is going to continue or provide for existing functions provided by the City of Winnipeg such as emergency social services response, specifically the provision of emergency food, shelter, clothing, and counselling for victims of disaster and other small-scale emergencies, which the minister knows is a very important function, whether it is a flood or a fire in an apartment block or whatever.
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is all part of the ongoing discussions and dialogue with the City of Winnipeg. We do know in emergency disaster situations, municipalities do have a responsibility to look after the residents of their municipality, but we are still in the negotiation process with the City of Winnipeg around what our roles and responsibilities will be versus theirs. That has not been finalized, but I want to assure all citizens in Manitoba that there will be a response should a disaster occur and emergency social services and emergency placement be needed. It will be done.
* (1740)
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us what will happen to the 350 staff approximately who are currently employed by the City of Winnipeg?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Ultimately, staff from the City of Winnipeg will move over. The ultimate end result will be that all employees in the Employment and Income Assistance program will be provincial employees. But we are still in the process of the labour relations negotiations with the City of Winnipeg, and those details have not been finalized yet, but I do want to indicate that the ultimate end result will be that there will only be one level of government delivering social allowance in the City of Winnipeg and that they will all, at some point in time, become provincial employees.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I should probably correct the number that I quoted. I think 167 staff would be a much more accurate figure. I think I was looking at the staff of provincial and city. The city is a much smaller figure.
Can the minister tell me what is going to happen to the city's financial contribution, and do you know how much that will be? Since the government said it would be cost neutral, presumably there is an ongoing cost to the city.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are still in the midst of negotiations around cost neutrality, and we are not that far apart as a province or a city in coming to the final numbers and what exactly that will be, but that still is in the process, and I am not at liberty right at this point in time to indicate what the exact figure will be.
Mr. Martindale: I think that is it for one tier. I could probably go on and on, but I am trying to get through this.
Could the minister tell me the reason for the reduction in the budget for both Employment and Income Assistance and Municipal Assistance? I presume it is based on caseload reductions, but I wonder if the minister could tell me the reason for the reductions.
Mrs. Mitchelson: The majority of the reduction is in caseload reductions. We do know that in total there are over 8,000 individuals or families that are no longer on our welfare caseloads as a result of increased employment opportunity and our focus on Employment First.
As I indicated, as a result of the caseload decrease, there is a $20-million decrease in the budget line, and there is also a $9-million decrease as a result of the National Child Benefit. I indicated there was $9 million that the federal government will be adding to cheques through the National Child Benefit that we will be either reinvesting in the welfare program--$1.7 million of that is to ensure that as people transition from the National Child Benefit that they are not losing any money, and there is also some money that will be reinvested for nutrition programs, and there is another half-a-million dollars for increase in the Making Welfare Work line. That is increasing our agreement with Opportunities for Employment to find work placements for an additional 115 clients. Also, there is an increase of about $4.4 million in cost of utility, shelter, prescription drugs, dental and optical care.
So there are some increases and some decreases.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for those explanations. I wonder if we could deal with the categories separately beginning with Employment Income Assistance where there is a decrease of approximately $8,277,000. This category is single parents and disabled people. So I am wondering where the savings come from there, if it is partly from the child tax benefit and partly from clients going to gainful employment. Maybe the minister could give me a breakdown for that category.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Roughly half is as a result of caseload decline, and the other half is as a result of the National Child Benefit.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister give me a similar breakdown for Municipal Assistance where there is a saving of over $17 million, or I should not say a saving, I should say a reduction in the budget number of $17 million.
Mrs. Mitchelson: About $1.4 million under the Municipal line is for the National Child Benefit, and the rest is caseload reduction.
* (1750)
Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister could tell me how many cases, then, the reduction is expected to be approximately.
Mrs. Mitchelson: This is as a result of last year's decline in caseload of 3,126 and an additional expectation that another 700 cases will decrease on the municipal side this year.
Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister is aware that even though the caseload did decline substantially in the last couple of years, it has also crept up in recent months. Also these figures are almost unbelievable if the minister is saying that she is going to save approximately $16 million by having 700 fewer clients. Is that what the minister is saying?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, no, I am saying that the decrease in the caseloads last year was significantly greater than what we had anticipated or budgeted for. Therefore, we had savings that accrued last year that we did not have to budget for this year, and we are anticipating another 700 decrease. So we did better than what we thought we were going to do last year because of the booming economy in Manitoba and all of our efforts as a government to create economic activity and employment opportunities for people. As a result, there are many, many more people. I would love to see that number of 700 that we have estimated be twice as many this year. It may even exceed that, who knows, but we are being realistic in saying that 700 individuals more on the municipal caseload will be working over this next year.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I am grateful that the minister clarified that for me because certainly I did not expect that they were going to save that huge amount of money in one fiscal year. The numbers look a lot better than they actually are. We are really talking about savings from 3,000 clients less rather than 700 clients less.
Can the minister tell me: as a result of changes in Order-in-Council, how many Income Assistance recipients between the ages of 60 and 65 were forced to apply for CPP benefits five years early?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have that number. We can get it, but I want to clarify for my honourable friend that the practice that we have put in place here in Manitoba is not unlike what is happening right across the country with all provinces. Quite frankly, I make no apologies for trying to access a few federal dollars. Maybe it is offloading in reverse, but I mean we certainly have lost a considerable amount of money in transfers from the federal government. If, in fact, people have a legitimate claim on federal dollars, I make no apologies for having them access those dollars before they apply for provincial dollars. I think you would find a consensus right across the country because I know that all the provinces are using the same method of providing support to individuals in their respective jurisdictions.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I assume that the next time the Committee of Supply meets, the minister will have the figure for me.
But I must say that I am disappointed in the answer because while it might seem fair to the provincial government to offload expenses to the federal government, in fact, it is very unfair to the individuals because when they apply for CPP, they lose, I think it is 0.3 percent per month for every month between the time they apply and they are 65, which works out to a third. They lose a third of their benefits from age 60 to 65, and they continue to receive CPP at a rate that is one-third less for the rest of their life. If you figure that out, which I did, for a person who lives to age 85, they are losing about $22,000 in benefits from the time they are 60 to 85.
We know that the one category of poverty that has been coming down consistently over the last 25 or 30 years is the rate of poverty amongst seniors. There are some reasons for that: one is that there are more women in the paid workforce and, therefore, more women paying into a CPP and company pensions; and the other major reason is the Guaranteed Income Supplement. So there has been a considerable reduction in the rate of poverty among seniors.
However, I read into the record yesterday that there has been an increase in the poverty rate among seniors in Manitoba. So when I see this government trying to offload expenses to the federal government at the expense of individuals, on behalf of those individuals, I am disappointed that this government would take that action.
Mrs. Mitchelson: If I just might take a moment to respond to that. Our welfare program is a program of last resort, as it is right across the country. People are entitled to only a certain amount of benefit total. If they are getting money from the federal government by way of pension or benefit or OAS or GIS, in many instances, there is not a requirement for additional support from the provinces. Those kinds of benefits offset what the province would have to pay. So reality is that if the money is available from the federal government, that should be accessed before any additional support is provided through the province. Those people would be no better off or no worse off, because we take into account any money they are getting from the federal government in determining what we would pay. So it ends up being the same, and they would never have any more benefit as a result of them receiving federal and/or provincial resources. So I am not sure where my honourable friend is coming from.
Mr. Martindale: I am going to have to review Hansard and see what the minister said and perhaps respond to it the next time Committee of Supply meets.
The next section that I would like to ask questions about is the child tax benefit. I presume it is appropriate under this line. This province had some choices to make as to how they were going to use the new money from the federal government, and I am disappointed that they chose--in fact, they made the wrong choice. They chose to claw back all of it from Income Assistance recipients when they did not have to. It was really up to the provinces as to how they used that money and they could have made better choices. One of those choices would have been to let people on income assistance keep some of the money. That is what happened in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise.