Thursday, May 7, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), 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.
* (1010)
Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Family Services.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 9.2. Employment and Income Assistance (b) Income Assistance Programs (1) Employment and Income Assistance on page 54 of the Estimates book.
Mr. Chairperson: Before proceeding with the Estimates, I have a ruling.
On May 4, 1998, the Acting Chairperson took under advisement a point of order raised by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It concerned words spoken by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to a question asked by the member for Burrows. The words were: "This is politics at its slimiest." When speaking to the point of order, the member for Burrows asked that, if the words are unparliamentary, the minister be asked to withdraw the same. While the word "slimiest" is not listed in Beauchesne as unparliamentary, there have been several Speaker's rulings in Manitoba that have ruled variations of the word out of order.
I would draw to the attention of the committee that Madam Speaker Phillips ruled the word "slimy" out of order on several occasions. I would also draw to the attention of the committee that Madam Speaker Dacquay also ruled the word "slimy" be withdrawn as it caused disruption in the House.
In light of the above-referenced rulings, I would ask the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to withdraw the words.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, I will withdraw those words.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister.
Mrs. Mitchelson: My honourable friend had asked for some information about the grants listing to external agencies the other day, and I have that for him this morning.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I have not quite got to those yet, but I am wondering if it is in the same format as it used to be whereby it was divided into sections according to the part of the department.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, no, it is not. My understanding is it is the same one that we tabled last year in the same format.
Mr. Martindale: I was going back to 1994-95 where it was divided up into--for example, Community Living was the first page. Then there was Child Day Care, Child and Family Support. I wonder if next year the minister would consider going back to the format where it was divided up according to parts of the department. It is a little easier to use if it is in a more useable format.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Certainly we can undertake to do that, but we have not mixed them all up. I think if you look through the list, you will see that the Child and Family Services agencies are all together. The support for women's services are all together. But we will undertake to do that for next year.
Mr. Martindale: I have some miscellaneous questions, I guess, before we get back to the Child Benefit. I wonder if the minister could tell me how many persons--or rather what was the average caseload on municipal assistance and the average caseload on provincial assistance in the fiscal year '97-98?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The average provincial caseload in '97-98 was 25,103 and the average municipal caseload was 14,126.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what the numbers were at March 31 for provincial and for municipal?
Mrs. Mitchelson: For the provincial caseload, just for the month of March 1997, the caseload was 25,018, and for the municipal caseload it was 13,615.
Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that some individual workers, and I am using provincial as an example, have very high numbers of files; for example, one worker that I talked to has 585 files, all disabled. It is always a concern when workers have that many files, and in this instance she says she gets 60 to 70 phone calls a day because it means that it is almost impossible to do home visits and keep in touch with those individuals on a regular basis.
My question would be what is going to happen with the One Tier system? Do you anticipate that caseloads are going to go up per worker or down or stay the same? What are your plans in that regard?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Presently, I guess, the average number of caseloads per counsellor would be around 245, but I do want to indicate that it is the counsellors that do the intake and that then there are also financial workers that determine the budget and the amount of payment for individuals. So, in combination with the counsellors, there are also financial workers that deal with the budgetary issues. The counsellors would do intake, and then a significant amount of other work is done by the financial workers within the system.
Mr. Martindale: So is the number of cases that I quoted an anomaly, or is the minister saying that there is also a financial worker assisting this counsellor?
* (1020)
Mrs. Mitchelson: I am informed that there is a disabled pilot project going on right now where counsellors do have 500 to 600 files each, and that is because of the nature of the disabled community and clients. Many of them are long term; they will be on social allowance for an extended period of time. So we are determining whether this is an appropriate approach to be taking with the disabled caseload. I know that much of our focus--I mean, certainly we do not have to do as extensive work as on our Employment First initiatives.
If, in fact, there is an ability to work with a disabled client to move into the workforce, we do that, but we have a significantly more focused approach on others in developing personal job plans and determining where they are going to end up. So, if I can indicate to you, there is a little more stability in the disabled caseload than what we want to see in the nondisabled and the employable caseload.
Mr. Martindale: What is going to happen with One Tier of income assistance delivery in the city of Winnipeg? Are we going to see more than 245 cases per counsellor or less? What are your plans in that regard?
Mrs. Mitchelson: One of the goals or objectives of the One Tier system is to try to ensure that we have more people working on the front lines, working with individual clients than we do doing paperwork, so with the one system and the new technology it should make it much easier for us to focus our human resources working with the clients that need that kind of support and service. So we are anticipating and expecting that, in fact, there will be more one-on-one support and services as a result of the One Tier system.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that this minister and her department are learning from the City of Winnipeg where, in recent years, they hired additional staff. I think at one point they hired 20 additional staff, and they saw a great decrease in their caseload. They believe it was because they were working on a more intensive basis with individuals, so I hope that what the minister says is a good sign of things to come.
The minister will be aware that there have not been any increases in welfare rates, in fact only cuts in recent years, whereas in the past she and her predecessors, both in her government and previous governments, usually gave an annual increase based on the consumer price index. This minister and I have had disagreements about things like the poverty rates and low-income cutoffs, and as the minister knows, while I hate to give her any credit or agree with her on anything, I would have to admit that one of the problems with the low-income cutoffs is that they are a very rough measure of poverty, because they are based on cities of a certain size. So there are no regional variations, and there are no variations as a result of living expenses being higher or lower in a particular city.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Now, there is an alternative to that, and that is the alternative that the City of Winnipeg Social Services Department used to use, and that is a market-basket approach. I am wondering if this minister would consider, the next time benefit rates are reviewed, looking at a market-basket approach which would therefore be a realistic appraisal of people's needs, and, presumably, it would include food and clothing and personal needs, household needs and shelter.
There are precedents out there--for example, the acceptable living level that the Social Planning Council did--but the minister and her department might want to do their own market-basket approach of measuring the costs of goods and services in Winnipeg. Would the minister be willing to at least consider that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I know that different provinces right across the country handle the amount that they provide to individuals or families in a different way. There is not any one standard way right across the country. Certainly, the issues that my honourable friend raised around the low-income cutoffs are issues that have caused much concern, not only in our province but right across the country, around how do we measure poverty. Stats Canada themselves say that clearly. I mean, they have written to me, and they have written to other ministers across the country and have said that LICOs are not a measurement of poverty. It is spelled out very clearly, but it is the best measurement that we have, and they do lump Winnipeg into the same category of all cities over the population of 500,000, not taking into account the cost of living, the cost of housing, the cost of food and clothing or sales taxes that might or might not be applied in different provinces.
They also do not take into account any of the rebates or supports for low-income families. When you look at the GST and PST rebates, those kinds of things are not taken into account. I guess on the GST, it is similar right across the country, but PST rebates are different province to province. There are many programs that might support low-income families that are not taken into account. When you look at the child tax credit, the tax credit that we put in place several years ago in Manitoba I think reduces the income tax paid by about $250 per child per family. At the time we implemented it, and I think it was back in 1992, we raised the threshold from $50 to $250 for each child. Anyway, it was a cost of about $28 million a year to our government and to our Treasury, and those kinds of things are not included when they do the low-income cutoff.
Each province has different programs in place. I look to the support that we provide for older children. As children get older in Manitoba, we give them increased support through our welfare system. I know that in many other provinces it is a standard rate right across the board no matter how old the child is. I always look to British Columbia, and I often mention British Columbia when I say that they pay through their welfare system $103 per child. That is in the city of Vancouver and right throughout the province. Our rates for children are anywhere from about $116 to as high as $189 per month for older children in families, so we have a different system.
* (1030)
Everyone deals with it differently. I will commit today to trying to ensure that we have the ability to help as many people that are in our welfare system today move off of welfare and into the workforce. Anyone that remains on welfare for a lifetime is committed to a life of poverty. I do not think you will ever see any province that will pay what Stats Canada, through LICO, says is the low-income cutoff in welfare payments. That is not in the cards, so you will never see anyone living on welfare that rises above that poverty line as it is measured today.
I can indicate that all provinces certainly are looking. We are looking at a federal-provincial level at whether there is another way to measure truly what the poverty line might be and then determine how we provide supports from there, but, at this point in time, I am not prepared to commit to--any change we will continue to review as time as goes by, the way we are delivering our support, and, as we believe changes are necessary, we will attempt to make those changes. But I am not going to commit to anything today.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, could the minister tell me as a result of Order-in-Council changes requiring persons turning 60 to apply for CPP benefits, how many people aged 60 to 65 have received either full or partial CPP, or, I guess, another way of saying that would be partially on provincial or municipal assistance or partially on CPP benefits?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, before the policy was put in place, there were about 1,100 people on the caseload that had income from CPP. When we changed the policy and required people at age 60 to collect CPP before applying for welfare, the number increased by a hundred individuals. So it is up to 1,200 individuals now.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have some questions about the supposedly new National Child Benefit. Could the minister tell me if she considered allowing individuals on assistance to keep maintenance payments or part of their maintenance?
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, as the policy has existed and exists across the country pretty well, if people are receiving maintenance payments, that is taken into consideration as income, and then if it is not enough, they would receive a top-up from the welfare program and that remains consistent here and right across the country.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister surely knows that people who are on income assistance or receive maintenance are no better off as a result of having maintenance income. Either they receive it and it is deducted dollar for dollar, or the money just goes directly to the Department of Family Services. But in Saskatchewan, under the new benefits, the money that was clawed back, some of it has been redirected to families receiving maintenance so that they are better off, and I am wondering if Manitoba considered doing that.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we have researched what Saskatchewan has done, and there is no increased revenue for people on welfare who are collecting maintenance. I think my honourable friend might be mistaking it for welfare recipients. Low-income working families who are receiving maintenance are receiving additional support through the Saskatchewan child benefit.
Our whole purpose and objective under welfare reform and Employment First is to try to assist people, wherever possible, to be trained and to enter the workforce. Anyone who does enter the workforce and has a job, certainly, would continue to see their maintenance support be in addition to or augment the salary that they might make from a job, but I do not think anywhere across the country have any governments left any more money in the hands or pockets of those on welfare.
The whole focus and the objective of the National Child Benefit is to try to help people secure attachment to the workforce, because we know that people are better off working than on welfare, or should be.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister explain the $1.5 million for families on Income Assistance who are making the transition to the new National Child Benefit, which is one of the items in her press release of March 10, 1998?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I will start, Mr. Chairperson, to try to explain this. It is a little complicated. It was really the federal government that created this problem, or this issue. When provinces first recommended to the federal government that we look at a National Child Benefit with additional support from the federal government, we made it very clear that there were to be no losers. No one was to be worse off as a result of the National Child Benefit. That was one of the principles that provinces presented in their paper to the federal government. We believed that by indicating right across the country as provinces that we would not create any losers, that no one would have less money as a result of the National Child Benefit, we thought that the federal government, when they agreed to work with us to develop the National Child Benefit, would understand and agree to that principle.
But the federal government, who previously had a working income supplement program, prior to July of 1997 paid $500 per family to families with earnings up to I think it was around $21,000. In July of 1997, when they converted the working income supplement to a per-child amount--they gave $500 per family previous to July 1997--they paid the higher amount out.
* (1040)
So because the federal government changed the payment mechanism for the working income supplement in July of 1997, prior to the National Child Benefit coming into force, families that had some income earnings and were partially on welfare received the higher amount in July of 1997. So if, in fact, dollar for dollar, we removed money from those families that had some working income, there would be people that would be worse off. So as a result we have invested the $1.7 million into those families so that no one is worse off as a result. That make sense?
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us what the federal government plans are for the future? Because their commitment right now is time limited I believe to the year 2000. What indications have they given for the Child Benefit after the year 2000?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is not time limited. This is forever. This is a National Child Benefit that will continue. What they have done is make a commitment to another $850 million more in their next mandate which has started. So they are talking over the next two years. They have announced $425 million next year and an incremental $425 million the following year.
So we should see the National Child Benefit doubled over the next two years. It will continue. There is no end that we are aware of. It would not be the first time the federal government has gone into something and withdrawn but, quite frankly, the whole end objective or intent of the National Child Benefit would be to ensure that children would come out of the welfare system completely. That would be the main objective and goal.
Certainly it is not going to happen over the next few years, but they say, as resources come available, investing more, and they have committed to another $850 million over the next two years. So we should see the amount that we have to reinvest double over the next two years.
Mr. Martindale: I am glad the minister is willing to promise that the federal money will continue in perpetuity. My concern, though, comes from a Globe and Mail article on March 13 this year that says that in last month's budget the federal government promised 1.7 billion over the next three years if the provinces announce matching programs to get parents off welfare and take more than a million children out of poverty.
The minister has already answered my question, I guess, but someone seemed to have some doubts fairly recently about--maybe because it was only budgeted for three years, but maybe the federal government has made a commitment to continue the extra money beyond the three years.
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding from the federal government and from the meetings that we have been at that this money will continue but it will continue to be incremental. So as more resources become available at the federal level, they will increase their contribution to children in low-income families, whether they be working or on welfare, in an incremental way with the ultimate end goal or objective being to take all children off of the welfare rolls in provinces and provide extra support to working families through the National Child Benefit, so those people will have more money in their pockets and it will augment those low-income working families.
Mr. Martindale: Since the government of Saskatchewan has taken children off welfare and put them on a family benefit plan, would the minister consider doing that in Manitoba?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I know we can compare and use different examples from different jurisdictions, but if you look at the current basic rates in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba, and we take, for example, a single parent with two children, ages 10 and 13, we pay $604.40, and the same example in Saskatchewan would see only support of $550. So we are already paying more for children, and they are not receiving any more as a result of the change to the Saskatchewan child benefit if they are on welfare.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, well, I think we are talking about a philosophical shift or change. You know, it was the minister who said that the eventual plan is to take all children off welfare. I think if you think about it, there are some benefits to that. One is, and I think the major one is that there is a stigma to being on welfare, and if you change it, as they did in Saskatchewan to the Saskatchewan child benefit, then their income can be seen as coming from a different source. It is like a pension, which does not have that kind of stigma. So I would hope that the minister would consider it.
Did this minister consider improving health benefits or having a training allowance or some kind of income supplement program with some of the money that could be redirected?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think we considered all options when we looked at how we wanted to reinvest. Certainly, with our focus on the Children and Youth Secretariat and our knowledge and understanding of what early intervention can do for children, we chose to place our priority this year with the resources that we had on many of those initiatives, whether it be our BabyFirst or Earlystart programs, our additional support to the child care system so we could have the spaces available for those people who want and have the ability to move off of welfare and into the workforce, the kinds of things that we believe needed to be reinvested in right now. We will be getting more money next year and the year after, and all of those issues are on the table and we will be looking to see how we might deal with the additional money that we will have as a result of the additional federal commitment.
* (1050)
So those are all things that we have looked at. I think we determined that our first and foremost priorities would be trying to find secure attachment to the workforce through additional training dollars, ensuring that the child care spaces were there and available as people needed those, putting money into early intervention through the BabyFirst and Earlystart programs, the nutrition program that will be announced in the near future.
So those are the kinds of things that we chose, and other provinces chose different things. You know, for instance, I know that we spend millions and millions of dollars more on child care than the Province of Saskatchewan does, so there are some differences there. I am not sure whether they reinvested any of their money into additional child care spaces. So everyone has done--no, I understand they did not, so everyone has done different things based on what they felt priorities were. I know that every province will be looking and assessing what other provinces have done and maybe move in some of those directions as they have more resources available.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I think we were going to do Taking Charge! under line 2.(c), so we may be ready to pass 2.(b).
Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.2. Employment and Income Assistance (b) Income Assistance Programs (1) Employment and Income Assistance $206,053,300--pass; (2) Health Services $19,841,400--pass; (3) Municipal Assistance $85,419,700--pass; (4) Income Assistance for the Disabled $9,960,200--pass.
Item 9.2.(c) Making Welfare Work $4,460,000--pass.
9.2.(d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Martindale: I am sorry, I was daydreaming, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson: Is there unanimous consent of the committee to revert to item 9.2.(c) Making Welfare Work $4,460,000? [agreed]
Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for being so accommodating. I wrote to the minister, I believe, April 21, 1997, asking for a list of all of the organizations that received contracts under Taking Charge! of which I believe there must be quite a few, because Taking Charge! has sent me all their faxes on all their courses and all their programs so I can publicize them, I suppose, and there are a quite a few of them, some in the private sector, quite a few in the nonprofit sector.
I would be very interested in knowing the names of all the organizations that got contracts, how much the contracts were for and how many people were going to be trained by each organization. I also asked about the cost per person of training for each organization, and I am wondering if the minister could share that with me.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We can provide that information. Does my honourable friend want us to go right back to the beginning of '95-96 and provide a list of--what information specifically, the contracts, the costs of the contracts?
Mr. Martindale: I will table my letter to the minister. It has the information that I need.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Okay, and we will provide that once we get the copy of the letter.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister. I have a document called Taking Charge!: Strategic Initiative Evaluation Framework and Request for Proposals which I tabled the other day. The Clerk pointed out to me that I only have the odd-numbered pages, which I guess shows that you cannot rely on leaked documents too much. Maybe I only have half as many questions if I only have half the pages, or maybe I should have only got half as excited as I did when this fell into my lap. I should maybe point out that it was not leaked to me by a civil servant; it came from another source. I do not want to get anybody in trouble here.
I was told that the evaluation of Taking Charge! would be public, and I am wondering if there is an evaluation that the minister could share with me.
Mrs. Mitchelson: This document--by the way, I have a full copy for my honourable friend, because it is a public document, which I will share with him. It is the document that was put out in the requests for proposals for companies to bid. Prairie Research was one of the companies that did bid, and they won the contract. So the evaluation is in process, but we do not have the results yet.
Mr. Martindale: When the minister does have the evaluation, will that be available to me or not?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My sense is that it would be a public document once it is completed, and I will ensure that my honourable friend gets a copy. I do not know what the process is, whether we do have to check with the board of Taking Charge! on that or not. Yes, so, Mr. Chairperson, it will be shared publicly once the document is completed, once it is shared with Taking Charge! and they have the ability to provide their comments, and then that will become a public document.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.2.(c) Making Welfare Work $4,460,000--pass.
9.2.(d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister could provide me with some statistics on individuals receiving CRISP, and then I have some questions on individuals receiving 55 Plus. I am wondering if the minister has a breakdown according to categories. For example, what percentage of families receive the maximum per child benefits, and what was the average benefit per family for CRISP?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I have the figures for the CRISP program, and there are approximately 3,300 families that are receiving CRISP benefits. The average benefit per family is about $62, and 75 percent of those families get the full benefits.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, there has been a considerable decline in the caseload for CRISP, which is well documented in the annual reports. For example, in June 1987, there were 9,380 cases--I will call them because I am not sure exactly, I guess, I am talking about clients--whereas in the '98-99 Estimates book, I believe we are looking at 3,300. Now I know there was a decline in '97-98 because a large number of people were declared ineligible, but why has there been such a decline even from '87 to '95-96 when the caseload went down from 9,300 to 6,100?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My honourable friend is quite right. In 1996-97, many clients did become ineligible, and there was a significant drop that year. But all I can say is that reapplication forms are sent out, applications are out there in the community, and as people apply and are deemed eligible, they receive the support. So we are not anticipating that there will be any decline in this year's budget as opposed to last year.
* (1100)
Mr. Martindale: Since this is a targeted program for working families of low income, how is this program advertised and does the government spend money on advertising? How are people notified that this benefit is available?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Anyone who was receiving the benefit in the previous year sent a reapplication form. We have them available in all of our offices through community organizations. So they are there and available for people, should they choose to apply for the program. So that is the way we deliver the program, and we know that the forms are available and accessible right throughout Manitoba.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, so in other words, there is no advertising. If people are lucky enough to find out about the program, they apply or they phone and get an application form sent to them. If they do not know that it exists, they do not ask for an application form, they do not apply, and they do not get the benefit, because this government chooses not to make the public widely aware that this program exists. Is that not the case?
Mrs. Mitchelson: As we do the preorientation intake sessions for those who are applying for social allowance, and as we work with those individuals as they move into the workforce, they are made available of the program, and they can choose to apply or not apply. It is an application process. Those who apply who are eligible do receive the benefit.
I just want to introduce one other staff member who was at the table. That is Gerry Schmidt, who is the executive director of Client Services.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for the introduction. It is also good to put a face on somebody, though I am aware of the name and talk to on the phone. It makes the person a little more real, I guess, when you see them in person.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, we are all real people.
Mr. Martindale: I have some questions on 55 Plus. Could the minister tell me what percentage of clients receive the maximum benefit and what was the average benefit per quarter?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The average quarterly benefit is $97.49, and about 62 percent get the full benefits.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what was the average benefit for those persons in receipt of OAS benefits?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Maybe we could go on to another question. We have to calculate that figure.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me what percent of the caseload were women?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We do collect that data, but we do not have it here. We could undertake to get it.
Mr. Martindale: I am looking at the annual report for 1996-97, the most recent annual report, page 37, 55 Plus, and I found one asterisk at the bottom of the page for '96-97 in one of the columns, and then there were two asterisks. For the life of me I cannot find where the two asterisks are on the page, other than on the footnote. I am wondering where they are supposed to go.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think it is a typo. I think that both points underneath relate to the date of 1996-97. So there are two points. I am not sure how it should have been shown, but they both are an explanation of the date.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.2. Employment and Income Assistance (d) Income Supplement Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $647,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $335,000--pass; (3) Financial Assistance $8,335,100--pass.
Resolution 9.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $351,448,200 for Family Services, Employment and Income Assistance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
Moving on to Resolution 9.3. Community Living (a) Regional Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $14,283,800.
* (1110)
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I received a lot of correspondence last year, some of which was directed to staff in Community Living, some of which was directed to the minister, some of which was directed to the Premier, some of which came to me as the opposition critic, all having to do with wages and budgets of group homes. I know that the minister is very aware of this issue, and it is a rather serious one because these group homes accommodate vulnerable persons who are living in the community instead of in institutions. These organizations and their boards and staff provide a very valuable service to the individuals and to the community, but because of inadequate funding they have numerous problems.
For example, it was pointed out to me that funding rates were decreased by 4 percent in 1993 and have not increased since and that those rates make it very difficult to attract and keep staff, to comply with labour and licensing requirements and to meet increasing costs and administrative demands. Most of the correspondence repeats all of those concerns. We are talking about people who are living on very low wages, probably a lot of young people. My guess is that a lot of the staff would be under 25 years old. I would say it would be impossible to support a family on that kind of income. In fact, even an individual would probably be living below the poverty line at those kinds of wages.
In a letter from the Manitoba Coalition of Service Providers, their figure is an average of $6.75 an hour. Those are very low wages indeed, especially when you consider that there would be deductions, and we are looking at about $7,000 a year for these individuals. So it is no surprise, then, that they would have a high staff turnover and could not keep qualified people.
I know that there has been an increase in the budget in Community Living, and I am sure the minister is going to tell me all about it now, but I am wondering how much is going to be available for group homes because even if you have a percentage increase for group homes, a 2 percent increase in their wages is not going to make a very significant difference. So I am wondering if the minister can tell us how the issue of wages, in particular, has been addressed by her department and by her government's budget.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, just before I answer, I would like to introduce Martin Billinkoff who is the ADM in this area and Wes Henderson, executive director.
Well, I listened very carefully to what my honourable friend had to say, and, yes, I know he received a lot of copies of letters that came to me, probably copies addressed to himself, and indeed we as a government realized and recognized over the last number of years, when it has been very difficult to increase budgets and find additional resources--and one area within my department that got additional money year after year was this area because we all know and recognize that people with mental disabilities are individuals who need and will continue to need our support as governments.
But the money that we have received in previous years has just really gone to deal with crisis issues where people who are living in the community without the required support--and it went to serve additional people who needed that support--but there really was not any money for agencies. This year I am pleased to say that we certainly heard the issues that were raised in the letters, and there has been significant additional support, especially for group homes.
I know that the Coalition of Service Providers certainly met with me and my department, met with others throughout government and talked about the issues, and I am very pleased to say that we were able to address some of their issues in a very significant way this year. I did have the opportunity to meet with the coalition after the budget was tabled and indicate that the funding levels for residential care agencies had increased by 5 percent in this year's budget, which is what they were asking for and I think what we felt was certainly warranted. So they will have the ability through that funding issue to address some of the wage issues of their staff.
Also, there was an issue around employment standards and compliance with employment standards, and we have given them additional money to address those issues. It was around $700,000, in addition to the 5 percent increase to agencies. So that should deal with the employment standards issue, plus it gives agencies an additional 5 percent, and in many instances, I think most of that will go directly to employees.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, according to my calculations, a 5 percent increase on an average wage of $6.75 an hour is 33 cents an hour which would bring them up to an average of, well, no, I do not have the total, but the 5 percent would work out to 33 cents an hour. Some of the figures that I saw in the correspondence and in phone conversations suggested that they would like to bring the wages up to the area of $10 an hour, and we know that there is a big discrepancy between people working in large institutions like the Manitoba Development Centre and other institutions and people working in group homes.
Does the minister plan to go to Treasury Board and cabinet for future wage increases for these group home staff?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I and our government, I think, recognize and realize that sometimes it is very difficult to recruit or retain individuals in this area of service to people in Manitoba who need support. I do want to indicate that I am sensitive to the issues. I think it is a step of good faith in working with these agencies, and we will continue to see what we can do. I cannot make any commitment today. We do not do multiyear budgeting, but I do want to indicate that we have made a significant effort to get the 5 percent this year, and as we look at what resources might be available next year, we will see what we might be able to do to further address the issue.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I think the minister said that the Manitoba Coalition of Service Providers was hoping for a 5 percent increase in wages, but in correspondence addressed to members of the Legislature, on February 26, 1998, they say: we trust our concerted effort to receive an increase in our funding by 15 percent has been heard and acted upon by legislators who are preparing the budget. So I think probably the Manitoba Coalition of Service Providers is going to be disappointed with a 5 percent increase in wages.
* (1120)
Mrs. Mitchelson: No, as a matter of fact, I have received a very positive letter from them and good response at the meeting I had after the budget. What they had requested was a 15 percent increase over three years, and we have made the commitment. We could not make a commitment, and I could not make a commitment for three years, but we recognized the issues.
I mean, they had asked for 5, 5 and 5 over three years, and we were able to accommodate in this year's budget the 5 percent. Quite frankly, I have received very positive correspondence from many in the community that are very pleased with the effort and the increased support that is available this year.
Mr. Martindale: So is the minister committed or going to commit to fight for further increases for these group homes in at least the next two years?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think I indicated in an answer just a few moments ago that we understand the issues. We are sympathetic to recruitment and retainment of people working in this field. I cannot make a commitment today to additional increased resources in other years, but I do want to indicate that we are very sensitive to the issues that have been raised with us and will continue to work with the coalition and those who are working in the community to be as sensitive and do what we can in the future. I cannot make any commitment today.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have some questions under Residential Licensing so maybe we can pass two or three lines here.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.3.(a) Regional Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $14,283,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,137,900--pass.
Item 9.3.(b) Adult Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,652,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $552,300--pass; (3) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $73,325,000--pass.
Item 9.3.(c) Manitoba Developmental Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,869,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $3,056,800--pass.
Item 9.3.(d) Residential Care Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister will be aware, because I wrote to her on February 16, about a licensed home at 2886 Ness Avenue, and also because I talked to one of the staff in the department about problems in this home that I have numerous concerns, especially on behalf of the family of a former resident there. Very sadly, this resident wandered away from this facility twice and the second time was found by a taxi driver walking near the airport, wearing only a coat and slippers in minus 25 degree Celsius weather and ended up in the hospital with severe frostbite.
When I phoned and made some inquiries, I found out that this home had been inspected four or five times since June 1997 and that the licence is in a conditional status. I also discovered that there were numerous problems at this licensed facility, such as a padlock on the kitchen door, not serving food at the correct time, problems with windows being open or open inappropriately, providing relief duty staff for days off, hiring relief staff to do rounds at night, electronic monitoring and numerous other complaints. In spite of that, the residence was not put on a conditional status until January 1997, or maybe I intended 1998, I am not sure, after one of their residents ended up in the hospital. I am wondering why, given the numerous complaints about this operator, action was not taken much, much sooner to put the operator on a conditional licence.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I know the facility that my honourable friend mentions is a facility that houses mental health clients, which are not clients of the Department of Family Services, but nonetheless we have the licensing function and authority through our Residential Care Licensing branch.
So I do want to indicate, and I think I have corresponded with my honourable friend just on March 16 of this year with a response to this individual specific case. I know that staff both from my Residential Licensing branch and from the Department of Health under the Mental Health branch or division or whatever it is have worked together with this facility to ensure that corrective action around all of the concerns and the issues that were raised has been taken. It is my understanding that corrective action has been taken and that this facility remains licensed as a result.
Mr. Martindale: Does correction action mean that all of the outstanding complaints were dealt with to the satisfaction of the department so that the conditional licence was lifted as a result?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We will continue to monitor them very closely, but, in fact, all of the conditions that were placed on them have been resolved.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to go back to the original situation then. I am pleased on behalf of the residents there and their families that all of the outstanding issues have been dealt with satisfactorily, but why was this individual not put on a conditional licence much, much sooner.
In my letter I said January '97, but the correct date was January 26, '98, according to the minister's letter to me. It seems to me that if the operator had been put on a conditional status much, much sooner or if the department had been much, much more vigilant that we would not have had one of the residents leaving the facility and wandering the streets in extremely cold weather.
This individual could very easily have been on a street where there was no one driving and died, and this would have been a terrible tragedy. The fact that they now have electronic alarm monitoring is closing the barn door after the horse is out. I mean, this electronic monitoring should have been put in before people were wandering away, not after. Why was this operator not put on a conditional licence much, much sooner?
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mrs. Mitchelson: We had identified issues with this operator, and I think that the process that the department uses is that they make contact and try to work with the facility and the owner to see whether corrective action can or will be undertaken. If that is not successful, then we move to the conditional licence, and a requirement of those conditions being taken off would be that they conform to all of the issues that have been raised. So our process is that rather than the conditional licence right up front, we try to work with the facility very closely to see whether they will conform before the need for a conditional licence takes place. So that is the process that we use.
Mr. Chairperson, my understanding is that when we identify problems or issues with individual facilities, in many, many instances just the discussion with them and the working with them resolves the issue without having to go to a conditional licence. But if we have more difficulty with the facility and we find that they are not moving forward in a satisfactory manner, then we do give them a conditional licence and work very aggressively to make sure that they comply or lose their licence.
* (1130)
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister has given me a very fine general answer about what is supposed to be the normal process in the licensing branch, but my specific question was why, given all the problems with this particular licensed facility and its operator, the operator was not put on a conditional status much, much sooner.
For example, the individual that we are talking about had wandered away on a previous occasion, and many of these issues were outstanding not in January 1998, when the operator was put on a conditional status, but months before. It seems to me that if the department or if the licensing branch were to put somebody on a conditional status, it sends then a message that if they do not clean up their act, they are going to lose their licence and therefore lose their source of income.
An Honourable Member: Oh, that is tough talk.
Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister of something here wants to make fun of a very sad situation, the Minister of I, T and T, where someone wandered away from a licensed facility and could have died.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): If the member wants to reflect what I said, he should do it properly, not improperly. I just said it was tough talk, Mr. Chairman, which was accurate.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Martindale: I think the Keisman family will find these remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism very interesting when I send them Hansard. We are talking about a serious situation here where someone could have died. I guess I will repeat my question to the minister. Why were they not put on a conditional status much sooner, which would have sent the very serious message to this operator that the operator needed to comply immediately and not drag their feet any longer?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I do want to indicate to my honourable friend that we would prefer, and I do not think this is new practice just with our government, but I think in many instances we would prefer to work with operators of facilities in a co-operative way to try to get them to conform to licensing standards rather than walking in with a heavy hand shutting down a facility and turfing people out on the street with nowhere to go. I think that is the right direction to take, and we do not issue conditional licences without thinking through and trying to work through the issues with the operator. As I said in many, many instances, we find that operators will comply without the need for a conditional licence, but we have from time to time had to close facilities down because there has not been co-operation from the facility operator.
I do want to indicate that the issues that we had with this particular facility were not issues only around the individual that my honourable friend references. We had some issues with other things in that facility that we were working with them on, but there is not a requirement on behalf of facilities to have an electronic monitoring system. That is not a requirement of licensing, and we were already working with the facility when this unfortunate incident happened with this individual. I can assure my honourable friend that the facility now with the electronic monitoring device should never have this problem occur again.
So there has been co-operation and there has been working--and I feel very badly for Mr. Keisman's family and the circumstance that happened. I do want to indicate that corrective action has been taken in that respect, and the electronic alarm system should alleviate that 100 percent. So this facility has gone beyond what is required under licensing, and that is a result of very significant close working with them to get them to comply. They have gone over and above what they needed to do to comply with licensing, and, I think, as a result, we have a safer facility but we have not stopped monitoring. We will be working and monitoring them very closely over the next period of time.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me how many licensed facilities like this there are that her department licenses?
Mrs. Mitchelson: There are 840 licensed facilities that my department licenses, but they are licences for the mentally disabled, for mental health clients, for the aged and infirm, for child and family services. There are 32 mental health facilities, out of that 840 that are of this size, the one that we are referencing.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me, out of the 840 that are licensed by this branch, how many currently are on a conditional licence?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we would have to check that and get back to my honourable friend.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Item 9.3.(d) Residential Care Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $235,400--pass; 3(d)(2) Other Expenditures $35,000--pass.
Item 9.3.(e) Office of the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $234,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $248,300--pass.
Resolution 9.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $118,630,600 for Family Services, Community Living, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
Item 9.4. Child and Family Services (a) Child and Family Support (1) Child, Family and Community Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,899,800. Shall the item pass?
* (1140)
Mrs. Mitchelson: May I introduce staff first?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The minister will introduce her staff, please.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I just wanted to introduce staff. I just have to get the real official titles for the introductions. We have David Langtry who is the ADM of Child and Family Services; Phil Goodman who is the executive director, Child and Family Support; and Fred Besant who is the divisional senior manager, Financial Planning and Review.
Mr. Martindale: I notice that in the Estimates book, under Activity Identification, staff are responsible for budgeting. I am sure that is a major function of these people at the table, at least some of them. We know that the budget of Winnipeg Child and Family Services had to be augmented through a special warrant of $8.8 million, which I have raised before.
Now, on the positive side, we do not want to be limited by a finite budget amount and say when the budget runs out in February or March or whenever, that the agency shuts down and there is no more service. So, you know, it is appropriate that the minister went to cabinet and got a special warrant so the agency can continue to provide service.
But my questions have to do with the adequacy of the budget-planning process for especially Winnipeg Child and Family Services. I know and the minister knows that the Auditor has commented on this in the past and so has the Children's Advocate, I believe. I am wondering why this continues to be a problem year after year where either there has to be a special warrant or there is a deficit, and the department has to bail them out, I guess, in the next fiscal year. I wonder if the minister can tell me what the problem is with budgeting in this area.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I know it has been an ongoing issue, one that has been going on for years and years. Ultimately, I think I want to leave on the record the fact that we have never denied the support to the Winnipeg agency, and, in fact, although it has been supplementary funding or special warrant or whatever, if there is a deficit, we have always covered that deficit. So I want it to be clear that we have never denied the support for children when the need has been there.
But it has been an issue that has been raised on an ongoing basis in many different reports. I know the Auditor has commented. I know that the Operational Review of Winnipeg Child and Family did indicate that as an issue, that we always seem to be deficit financing rather than providing what was required.
We have talked to the agency about it, to the board, many times. I think you will find that we have addressed that issue this year in the budget for the first time, that we actually are funding the Winnipeg agency this year based on what they say their requirements are going to be. In the past, we have never sort of given them that full amount, but this is the first time ever that we have increased the budget to the dollar amount that Winnipeg believes they are going to need to provide service. So we will see what happens at the end of the year. Hopefully, we have addressed the issues that have been raised over the years by different reports and different authorities.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I am sorry, I do not have the list of grants to external agencies because I think I loaned it to my colleague, but does that mean that if we compared the budget for Winnipeg Child and Family Services for '97-98 with '98-99, we would see a big increase, and if so, how much?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We budgeted last year for $57,843,000, and budgeted this year for $63,336,000, including Family Support Innovations Fund and exceptional circumstances funding. I guess that would not be in the grant list. Well, you do not have the grant listing in front of you anyway, but that is okay.
Mr. Martindale: So last year they were budgeted for $57,843,000, I think the minister said, plus they got a special warrant of $8.8 million. This year their budget is $63 million. But the minister is saying that that was what they asked for.
Mrs. Mitchelson: As a result of the operational review, Mr. Chairperson, we have been working with the Winnipeg agency to find out what the actual amount of expenditure should be. This is what they have asked for. This is what they believe they are going to need to spend this year.
Mr. Martindale: Since the total for last year, including the special warrant, would be approximately $66,643,000, if my calculations are correct, and this year they are asking for $63,336,000, the agency must believe they can get by on $3 million less. If so, could the minister tell me why?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, we have worked with the agency as a result of the operational review on a lot of the recommendations that came forward. With the leadership now at the head of Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency being new there, going through a strategic planning process, they have already estimated that, as a result of some initiatives that have been undertaken already, they believe that they can save a million dollars from hotel placements, close to a million dollars that was being spent on placing children in hotels. They believe there are more appropriate placement options available, and it will be at a cost saving. That is one area where they believe there can be significant changes.
They are looking at, certainly, administrative functions that might be overlapped or duplicated. They have never really amalgamated the four areas in a significant way in the city of Winnipeg with the changes. As they move to centralize program functions within the agency, they believe that they can save well over a million dollars. So those are the kinds of things that they are looking at.
As I said, they are going through a strategic planning process right now on whether there are better ways to deliver services, whether there is a way to decrease the number of children that have to come into care. We all know that we have a very high number of children coming into care in Manitoba, as compared to a lot of other provinces, so they are looking at better ways to deliver service to children and families.
* (1150)
We know that we are working with them on the family group conferencing model that we have put in place to try to work with families and extended families and neighbourhoods, where there is not a protection issue, to keep children out of care. So there are all kinds of new activities that are ongoing that Winnipeg Child and Family is partnering with us and the community on to see if we cannot find better solutions. So I think all of us would like ultimately to see families healthier, families staying together wherever possible. I think a lot of the new initiatives that we have undertaken in the early child development, some strategies around adolescent pregnancy that will, hopefully, lead to fewer adolescent pregnancies, but also less need for the child welfare system for those children who are born to young single mothers that seem to require the services of our child welfare system at six times greater degree than other families.
So there is activity ongoing. We recognize and realize there is a long way to go and lots to do. We are working at it, and they are too.
Mr. Martindale: The minister says that the agency has identified $2-million worth of savings--a million in hotels and a million from amalgamation--and that leaves $1,307,000. Where is the other million and a third savings coming from?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that they have gone through their budget line by line and identified areas where there may be nonrecurring costs. There are some $600,000 in legal fees and other nonrecurring costs that they believe can be taken right out of their budget. They are consolidating their after-hours service so they will have a more efficient and effective service. There are some savings there, so they have gone line by line, and they have identified larger amounts or smaller amounts in each line. It does add up to some over $3 million.
Mr. Martindale: The minister is hinting at further amalgamation. Are there plans to amalgamate offices or to rent offices that are in one location instead of a number of locations? What plans are in the works?
Mrs. Mitchelson: As I indicated earlier, they are right in the middle of a strategic planning process. So I would hate to try to predetermine what the agency might decide to do. I think the main focus and objective of the planning process is to try to ensure that families are served in the most comprehensive way and the best way possible in our city. They will be looking at ways to do that. I think that their ultimate end goal is to try to ensure that the resource is available, that families and children get the best service possible. So I am anticipating that the process they are going through right now will lead to a better child welfare service delivery in the city of Winnipeg.
Mr. Martindale: The minister cannot say on the record that they are going to save $1 million in amalgamation and then, when I ask a subsequent question, say that they are in the middle of their strategic planning. Either they are saving $1 million from amalgamation or they are not. If they are saving $1 million from amalgamation, I would be interested in knowing how, in what ways are they planning to save that amount of money from amalgamation.
Mrs. Mitchelson: The agency, in working with us through the operational review, has indicated that--I said there was $1 million in savings on hotel rooms, because they will have better placement plans for children. That was one place. We did talk about administrative efficiencies. I indicated they went line by line through their budget and looked at where there might be efficiencies. They are going through a strategic planning process. I guess, I do not profess to be an expert in sort of the hands-on delivery of child welfare in the province of Manitoba or in the city of Winnipeg. I do not want to predetermine what those in the field, working in the field, will come up with through that strategic planning process.
At the administrative level in the agency, they have indicated as they have gone through their budget line by line that there are some efficiencies that can be found. There are some nonrecurring costs that they do not need to book in their budget or put in their budget, and they are removing those things. I think they are taking a very responsible approach, and I want to give the agency and the front line workers the benefit of the doubt through the strategic planning process, as they move to trying to ensure that they be the very best that they can be and serve the families and children in Winnipeg, the very best that they can, within the budget that they believe they need to achieve that.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
They have come up with these figures and these numbers. They are going through the process right now to try to ensure that they can deliver not only upon the budget that is approved but upon the service to the families and children that they serve. So I am not giving them any clear direction on what that should be. They are the experts. They are the people who are doing the job on our behalf in Manitoba or in the city of Winnipeg, and I want to give them the ability under new leadership to develop that plan and to look at new ways of--God knows, I mean, we have been putting more and more money into the system year after year after year, millions and millions of dollars more, and are we seeing a healthier society today? I am not sure. I do not know whether families are any healthier.
We are putting more money into early intervention. We are putting more money into programs to try to ensure that people do not need to access the child welfare system, but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt to look at the direction they are taking, to look at innovative ways of delivering service. I guess, we will have to judge them based on their desire. I know that everyone who is out there working in the system wants to see healthier families. They want to ensure that they can protect children when there is a need to protect them.
But obviously in Manitoba we are not doing everything right or we should be seeing fewer children coming into care and healthier families. I am not sure we are seeing that yet. That is one of the reasons why I said earlier, under our reinvestment through the National Child Benefit, that we focused on early intervention. All indication and all research show that there is less need for the kinds of services that we provide throughout the child welfare system if we can create healthier families, healthier children born to parents who have the tools to parent.
It is frustrating. Being the Minister of Family Services is not the easiest job in the whole world. I would love to see healthy, happy families in every corner of our province, in every part of our city. The reality is that it is not there. We have to continue to look for ways to do things better and to serve families better.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me how many children on average are in hotels in the month of March or April 1998?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we would have to get the exact figures, but I am told that it is probably an average of about 15 per night in comparison to last year, when there might have been a high of 84, so there has been significant improvement in our ability to place in other than hotels.
Mr. Martindale: I think, going from memory, the numbers were about 42 per night on average in February '97. It is down. But how many are in four-bed units?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We can obtain that information from the agency. We do not have it.
Mr. Martindale: How many are in other kinds of temporary placements?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We will undertake to get that information also.
Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 12 noon, I am interrupting the proceedings. The Committee of Supply will resume sitting this afternoon following the conclusion of Routine Proceedings.