Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

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 and will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 9.1.(a) Minister's Salary $25,700, on page 51 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions I would like to ask the minister, who I appreciate is under her salary, and I guess it is really more of a policy question which arises out of a constituency matter that has been drawn to my attention, of this young mother--while I would say I am not sure of her age, I would say probably late 30s, maybe early 40s, who has two children.

One of them has a learning disability, but, regardless, she desperately wants to upgrade herself to get off the social assistance system. Her ambition and her objective is to get her Grade 12 which she does not have. There is an adult learning centre in Brandon which is prepared to take her and assist her, but for whatever reason the staff are not accommodating of her request, and she cannot understand why when she wants to desperately get off the system. She presently is a very hard-working, determined young woman but does not seem to be getting a sympathetic ear from any of the staff.

I understand that one is expected to do a job search if you are capable of employment. I think it is 15 job searches a month. She was saying something about being penalized to the tune of $100 a month unless she was regularly seeking a job. So I think she is in the position now of being prepared to even lose that $100 a month. She can barely make--she only gets $947 a month as it is keeping herself and her two kids. It is a real struggle. Now, if she does not seek a job, look for a new job or look for a job--because she is studying and attending classes--she is going to be penalized by another $100 a month.

So it just seemed to me that there is something here that contradicts statements that you have made as a minister where you are anxious to help people upgrade themselves so that they can hopefully get employment. I appreciate Grade 12 is not employment specific. It is not a training for a specific occupation. But, nevertheless, there are a lot of employers today who just will not look at you unless you have Grade 12.

So it seems to me there must be some discretion here on the part of the staff, and I just wondered whether the minister had any comment on this. Are you not allowing people to upgrade themselves to Grade 12 under the system?

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee for the minister to respond to a question? Leave? [agreed]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. I guess the reason why I raise it as a point of order, yesterday when we were having some discussions, the Chair seemed to be more than eager to try to keep people relevant.

I think what is important here is that we have to realize that we are on the ministerial salary, and virtually anything can be asked of the minister on that particular issue. If she feels there is a requirement to have staff in order to facilitate a better answer, she can always take the question as notice. I say that because I, too, have some questions, and I thought maybe it would be better just to get it on the record now as opposed to possibly having to comment on it later.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order. The minister will answer the question of the honourable member for Brandon East.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, I thank my honourable friend from Brandon East for that question because--or the individual circumstances that he has shared with me. Certainly, it is not our government's policy not to allow individuals to complete their education in order for them to become employed.

I guess I would like a little detail and some more information, and I certainly will check into that circumstance or situation. Our policy has changed, whereby we do say that once your children are over the age of six or in school full time--it has to be both of those two things--there will be work expectations placed on you. I think we have tried to be as accommodating as possible in every instance to ensure that people have the skills or there is a job, and there should be no penalty if there is no job available and if there is no child care in place.

All of the other pieces need to be there before--and then you would have to outright refuse a job. If everything else was in place, there might be sanctions which would be, first of all, $50 per month and then $100 per month. So there is not anyone who is sanctioned unless everything is there. Now, if people are interested in training--and I guess one of the problems, I suppose, and probably it is because we have the highest numbers of individuals in the city of Winnipeg who are single parents on social allowance, we have more programming in place.

Like, Taking Charge! is only in Winnipeg at this point in time. I know that I have talked to the board and the staff over at Taking Charge!, and I think they have had some requests from parts of rural Manitoba. I would imagine Brandon would be one of those areas, to see whether we could expand that kind of programming into Brandon.

I think that might be important, but all of that is very training-related and related to trying to get individuals the training required to help them enter the workforce at some level, but there is nothing in our policy that says that we do not allow people to upgrade their education. [interjection] There is nothing in our policy that says we will not, so we will, and I would certainly like to get some more detail around the individual.

Our main goal and objective through our whole Employment First strategy is indeed to get people into meaningful employment, out of the dependency of the welfare cycle, and whatever we can do to assist on an individual basis, we are wanting to do. So if there is something that is wrong in the Brandon area, we will certainly try to correct that if I have some more detail.

* (1500)

Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for her comments, and I certainly will write her a letter and give her the specifics, which will enable her to look into it, but I just want to make this point, and that is that others have also indicated to me--in the community, people on welfare and people in the educational system--that there seems to be an attitude prevailing in your Brandon office which is thwarting a lot of people.

Now, I do not want to be unfair and judgmental, because I do not have all the data, but in this case, I just might add, the children are 10 and seven; one has a learning disability. The fact is the staff have said--I think they do not feel that her taking Grade 12 is necessarily going to prepare her for a job, so it is a judgment call. She is very convinced, though, that she needs that to get on, and she is very determined, but the point is she has mentioned about being penalized $100 a month, and it seems to me this is incredible. I mean, we all say we would like people to get off of welfare, the ideal is zero welfare, zero social assistance, and we have to do everything we can possible. It seems to me that we have to be on the, if I can use the term, liberal side of interpreting the regulations, so give people the benefit of the doubt to take training.

If it was just the one person, I would have just written a letter, but there have been other people who have spoken to me about this too, so it seems to be a general situation. So I thought I would draw it to your attention, because I really believe that any administration should bend over backwards to allow people to get training, including academic upgrading, if that individual thinks that it will help him or her. They may not succeed, but at least give them a chance.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think our ultimate goal and objective is to try to ensure that everyone has an opportunity and some hope in their lives, and if, in fact, we can accommodate that and try to be sensitive through the process, we certainly will try to. So if there is an issue that needs to be looked at in any of our offices, I can make the commitment to undertake that.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do have a number of questions that I would like to ask the minister. We were talking about child poverty yesterday, and I wanted to continue along the line.

In doing a little bit of research, one of the more interesting documents that I came up with was a document that was actually produced by Winnipeg Harvest. A while back, I actually had a tour of Winnipeg Harvest, as I am sure the minister and the critic have also had that tour by Mr. Northcott. You see a lot of community--hard-working, committed individuals doing what they can in terms of trying to provide the basics for people that are unfortunately put into a situation which is quite often, more than not, beyond their control. So they do have to rely on Winnipeg Harvest in order to provide food.

It is interesting, you know, over the years what we have seen develop is more and more food banks. In fact, I can recall a couple of years ago when we had the--I am not too sure which critic it actually was, but the critic was talking about the competition between the number of food banks and the number of McDonald's restaurants. I believe the comment was to the extent that the number of food banks now exceeds the number of McDonald's, and that actually took place in the last number of years.

When I was down there and I had the tour, I was provided all sorts of wonderful information. One of the pieces of information was kind of like 10 years ago compared to today, and I asked if I could get a copy of it. Mr. Northcott was very gracious in the sense that he faxed me over a copy of it. I wanted just to go over that particular document, because I do think it says a lot. Now, if I can read from the fax here--take out the staple--this would have been, I guess, faxed to me the 10th month, eighth day, '96, so it is fairly recent. The headline is, Winnipeg Harvest, a 10-year snapshot: 10 years ago compared to today.

So that would have been, I would assume, roughly between 1986 to 1996, which is not too far off in terms of when this government was, in fact, elected, Mr. Chairperson, because we all know that it was in '88 when this government took office. A lot has happened, and when we talk about poverty, if you take a look at this particular snapshot, I believe it says a lot.

What I wanted to do was just to go over this and ask the minister to comment on it, and then possibly to even then go into some of the issues that have really had a dramatic impact from my perspective, or from our party's perspective, that have had a very negative impact with respect to, for example, gambling in the province and the Lotteries policy of this government and what impact that has had on the whole poverty issue in the province of Manitoba.

Anyway, I wanted to make reference specific to this document where it talks about 10 years ago that there were 835,451 pounds of food shared with Manitoba families. Now, that, I would anticipate, would be through different food banks or, I should say, Winnipeg Harvest. Today, over five million pounds of food is shared with more Manitoba families and clearly demonstrates just the size, or the amount, I should say, of food that is being circulated. It is just phenomenal in terms of the increase, from 835,000 to over five million pounds. That is in 10 years. So we have seen really a huge reliance on trying to put food on the table through the donations of sorts, Mr. Chairperson.

One could talk extensively about the types of foods that are actually being donated. It was interesting. When I was going through the tour, one of the things that Mr. Northcott had mentioned was the biggest problem area in terms of donations of food was that of baby products--canned, if you like, baby Pablum, food requirements that can feed the youngest of our population. So, quite often, what will happen is they will get cash donations in order to be able to purchase some of those food requirements.

I guess one could even ask the government with respect to what are they doing in order to address an issue that is as basic as providing baby food to the population. The minister, I am sure, knows full well of the negative side, if, in fact, you do not provide good nutrition to infants. I am sure she is well aware of the benefits of ensuring that our young children today are, in fact, properly fed. Here is an area in which--as we all know, it was clearly demonstrated through the flood how generous Manitobans are--there is just not enough in order to feed our children. I think that is very unfortunate, and one of the areas which, in particular, this minister does need to look at. Mr. Chairperson, I do not say it lightly. I do believe that the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has been negligent in addressing that particular issue.

Another thing coming from the 10 years ago to today--again, I qualify the today being, that would have been back in early '96, because that is when I was provided the document, but 10 years ago, it says 3,624 people needed food assistance. Today, over 34,000 people need food assistance. I guess when I think of that particular point, there are a number of things that come to mind. It is a very, very humiliating experience to have to go to a place and ask for food.

So, ultimately, many, including me, would argue that, look, if I were put into that sort of situation in which I did not have the ability to be able to provide food on the table, I would have to then approach these nonprofit groups such as Winnipeg Harvest, and that is quite the leap for a lot of Manitobans.

I do not believe that all Manitobans have, in fact, made that leap. I think there are a lot of Manitobans, Mr. Chairperson, for a number of different reasons just do not feel that they can go to Winnipeg Harvest. I have personally, over the years, talked to people. When I talk to these individuals, I try to explain in the best way that I can that sometimes it is necessary, in order to provide that food on the table, that you have to put your hand out, and you should not feel shamed or inadequate to have to do that.

* (1510)

My colleague for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) always made reference to the phrase, there by the grace of God walk I. That could happen to any one of us. Even the MLAs, you lose an election, you find yourself in an unemployed situation, you have the monthly bills that continue to come, and sometimes the amount of bills and the total of those bills exceeds how much money you are bringing into the house. At times it means you do not have the proper financial means in order to get the food which is a basic. That puts people in a very awkward spot where they go to families, where they go to places like Winnipeg Harvest, so it could happen to any one of us is what I would argue.

Those individuals should feel no shame in the sense that, at times, they should go to Winnipeg Harvest and agencies such as that in order to ensure that they are getting their food requirements. I bring it up in that context, Mr. Chairperson, for what I believe is a very good reason. Because if we look at those numbers, 10 years ago 3,624; today over 34,000. Well, I would argue that that 34,000 is likely underestimating the size of the real problem, and that is the reason why I put it forward in the fashion that I did in terms of context.

Another very interesting point that came out was 6,500--this is again 10 years ago--6,509 hours for volunteers. Well, where does that compare today? I am sure most would not be surprised that are now in the committee room because I have talked about the amount of food and I have talked about the amount of people requiring the food--well, no surprise that there has been a tremendous need to get more people involved in the distribution of the food. Would you believe--now, this would have been back in 1996--that that amount increased to almost 100,000 hours are volunteered?

My hat goes off to the type of people that feel in their hearts that what they want to be able to do is contribute to people that do not have the means in order to provide that basic service. It once again reinforces how generous Manitobans really are, not in terms of just donating food, but in terms of donating their own personal time in order to make it work.

I believe, you know, Mr. Northcott would be the first to admit that it would not be possible if, in fact, we did not have the food, No. 1, donated, but if we did not have the volunteers to ensure that these sorts of things could be done. The types of volunteers, and again I would go back to the tour that I had, were varied. You had individuals that were not so young as opposed to seniors, let us say. We had young people there. We had individuals of different ethnic backgrounds, all recognizing the importance of ensuring that there were enough people there that were processing the food.

I know in the area that I represent in Inkster there is Gilbert Park which is a large nonprofit housing complex. They actually have things such as food bingos. They actually have had food banks, and what is encouraging is that, again, we might tour Winnipeg Harvest, but Winnipeg Harvest feeds into a lot of other groups, and those groups actually distribute out the food in different ways.

Again, what we are talking about is more volunteers that participate in the process. Do you know what I believe we have seen over the years? Well, we talk about 10 years ago and we say 6,500 hours of volunteer time, and we see almost a hundred thousand hours today, today being back in 1996. What has been lacking, I believe, is some sort of government action that would complement those volunteers, that you do not have to rely strictly on the good will of Manitobans in order to address this issue. The government should be more proactive in working, Mr. Chairperson, to ensure that everything--the volunteers are appreciated to blocks of money given to provide things such as baby formula or infant formula. There is a role for the government, and the government needs to get out of the mindset that, geez, if we kind of step back, the private sector or the generous hearts of Manitobans will fill the gap.

I think that is important for the government to look at. I should say this, Mr. Chairperson, that it goes beyond giving a social assistance payment, because some of those social assistance payments that go out, in some cases--maybe it is misappropriately spent, those monies, which deprive children of groceries. In some cases it is not enough. So it goes beyond more than, well, you know, I am the Minister of Family Services and I am going to put a grant or I am going to provide this particular social service and then just leaving it at that.

The minister does need to look at those nonprofit groups, and I just happen to be talking about Winnipeg Harvest. There are other groups that are out there that also the minister should be looking at in how government can interact in a better way.

Another point that it brings up is, again, 10 years ago a single parent with one child employed at minimum wage needed to work 41 hours a week to bring the family to the poverty line. Well, 10 years ago, there was a 40-hour workweek for most Manitobans, and I think that the expectation was virtually that. It is not necessarily to endorse the New Democrats were doing a good job. It is just the fact that, look, back in and around 1986, if you buy into that the information that is being provided here is factual and correct, that they are not too far off in terms of the 41 hours versus 40 hours.

* (1520)

But today, what is it today? Again, I qualify today by saying that this would have been 1996. The same single parent would need to work 75 hours per week to make the equivalent income. Well, you know, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to think that I, like the minister responsible, try to keep up to date on information of this nature and I would really be interested, and she does not have to give me the answer to date per se with respect to this particular question, but I would really be interested in her explaining that particular issue because, again, that says so very much in terms of what is expected of people and lifestyles that would appear to be deteriorating as a result of maybe the government not doing some of things that it could be doing.

One of the things that I would suggest when I think of this line if, in fact, it is accurate, and the minister needs to confirm its accuracy, is that why did it take so long for this government to recognize the importance of minimum wage. For years this government did nothing with respect to minimum wage, and now we see that we are in a situation, according to this, that it now takes 75 hours per week in order to do the same requirements of 10 years ago. You do not think that contributes to child poverty? Do you really think that people are working the extra 25 or 35 hours a week? What sort of proactive actions is the minister taking to address an issue of that nature?

Other points in this, and there are three other points--maybe before I go on to those other three points, because I know there is somewhat of a limitation on how long--could I ask how much more time I have, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Chairperson: 10 minutes.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, I might be able to cover the points. It states, again, 10 years ago approximately 25,000 people were unemployed and, again, approximately today 34,000 people are unemployed. Now, the government, on this particular point, relatively speaking in comparison to other provinces, strictly speaking with employment, is doing a fairly decent job. So, I guess if I can give government credit, this is probably one of the areas in which you could get credit in terms of actual numbers of jobs relatively speaking compared to other provinces where it seems to be doing a decent job.

But where it could receive criticism is the types of jobs that are out there and how is this government trying to fill in some of these jobs. For years, for example, within the garment industry there have been hundreds and some would argue well into somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 jobs and they are better than minimum wage jobs. It has only be the last couple of years, because I know if I stop talking right now and I left that particular point the minister might say, well, geez, you know, we do now have some training for the garment industry that is taking place, some monies that have been provided.

Again, you have to look at it in terms of how long were you in government prior to taking some action on that particular issue, and what does the government do to try to promote or to assist individuals who are on social assistance to get off unemployment.

For the longest time, what was happening and still happens today is that if you get a job in which you hit a certain threshold, dollar for dollar you lose in terms of welfare once you hit a certain threshold. What incentive is, in fact, there in some cases? Now, again, there have been some changes. There have been some very negative things that the government has done with respect to working and getting people off social assistance.

I am sure the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) will recall, for example, the big billboards--the snitch line. Do you know someone that is frauding welfare? Well, call this number and the heavy hand of the law or the government will come down on them. I personally do not think that was a wise way of dealing with people that are living, in most cases, in poverty; that government can, in fact, take a more positive approach.

Another interesting point was the one of the city of Winnipeg welfare cases and, again, 10 years ago, 6,958, the city of Winnipeg; back in '96, there was currently 14,593. Now, I do know that there are some changes, there are some differences. For example, single parents going through provincial assistance, I do not have those numbers at hand so I really cannot comment in terms of the number of single parents on provincial welfare today, compared to 10 years ago, but it would be interesting to know, and it is quite possible, because I do know that the Estimates have been going on for a while, so has the health care Estimates, and I have been spending time in the health care Estimates because I cannot be in two places at one time. I trust and assume that there would have been a great deal of dialogue with respect to the numbers of individuals that are on social provincial assistance and what the government is doing in order to concentrate its efforts on assisting these people in getting off of provincial social assistance.

Having said that, Mr. Chairperson--and I do not want to say that the Liberal Party coined the phrase because, quite frankly, it could have been coined many, many years ago--the fact remains that the best social assistance program is a job. If you provide the proper atmosphere, you will allow for more people to get involved in the workforce. The more people you get involved in the workforce, the less the requirement for social assistance. The less requirement for social assistance, obviously, that means you get to spend that much more money on other more proactive issues such as literacy and so forth which will enhance one's skills. I think that that would be a very positive thing. I am sure the Minister of Family Services would like to have additional funds.

The other issue that I thought was interesting was that they pointed out 10 years ago--again that would have been just prior to this government coming into office--no rural food banks existed in Manitoba. Today 43 rural food banks are operating in Manitoba. I would have thought that that would raise a great deal of concern from within the Conservative caucus, especially given the make-up of the caucus. There is fairly decent strong representation, one would think, coming from rural Manitoba, and yet we have seen just a huge number of food banks being created in rural Manitoba, and that has got to say a lot in terms of what it is that is happening.

Earlier, I commented on the issue of food banks to try to demonstrate that I do not believe that the government is being successful at ensuring that people, both in Winnipeg, urban centres, Brandon and Portage, and not only those, our smaller communities in rural Manitoba, do not in many cases have the ability to be able to provide food on their table, that they have to rely on food that is being donated. The minister, I am sure, is aware of that. I guess at this time, because I do want to pick up on the Lotteries issue, because I think that, Mr. Chairperson, the Lotteries is an excellent example of, here is a policy that the government brought in and has had a dramatic impact on the size of poverty in the province of Manitoba.

Prior to getting into that, I do not know if the minister wanted to respond to those points that I have; otherwise, she can take them as notice, and I can continue on a bit different line.

* (1530)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Without getting into a long dialogue with my honourable friend around the issues that he has raised, I think--and it is unfortunate, I think we talked a lot yesterday about the whole issue of child poverty and where we are headed, not only as a province but as a country. Maybe I will just try to briefly indicate to my honourable friend that there has been an awful lot of work done at both the federal and the provincial level.

It goes back to a couple of years ago when the federal government initially decided to unilaterally cut, I think it was about $7.5 billion from the provinces for Health, for Education and for Social Services. As a result of that, many, many provinces were facing unprecedented decisions that had to be made around how they were going to spend very precious resources.

So it was the Premiers at one of their annual Premiers' Conferences that unanimously agreed, all 10 provinces and two territories, that with the absence of some federal leadership in this area, they would bring together representatives from all of our respective governments--and I want my honourable friend to know that this was unanimous. Premiers of all political stripes right across the country--I think Newfoundland was the lead at the time, so Premier Tobin from Newfoundland would have been the lead Premier--decided that we should get together and put a ministerial representative from each province and territory together in a ministerial council to take a look at making recommendations to Premiers that might deal with a lot of the social issues, health issues and education issues.

So that committee was struck, and there was a report that was developed over the process of a year or so that had several recommendations to Premiers which they endorsed and which they sent to the Prime Minister as a result of that endorsement, calling on us to look at integrated supports for children and for the disabled across the country. Those were two of the main key areas of discussion, at least those that affect my department.

As a result of the report going to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister agreed absolutely that it was good work, the provinces had done good work, and he wanted to put together a federal minister to work with the ministerial council to try to move ahead or move forward on some of the issues. One of the issues was child poverty. As a result of that process, there were committees of officials struck, working committees, to see whether we could find a process to reduce child poverty right across the country. My honourable friend tends to be very critical of our government, and I do not think there is any government across the country, regardless of political stripe, that is not trying to deal with this issue. If we can work together to deal with it, I think it is important, because I do not think any of us agree that any level of child poverty is acceptable.

So as a result we have, I think, on the table, a really positive approach to the direction we need to take right across the country and that is the new national child benefit that was announced. The federal government did put some money in their budget next year for the national--[interjection] It is around $600 million. That really, you know--the honourable Pierre Pettigrew was the lead minister federally for the ministerial council process. I know he indicated that this would just be a down payment on a national child benefit, but that, in fact, there would be incremental funding year by year by the federal government.

There were three objectives of the program. One was to reduce the depth of child poverty. The second objective was to try to ensure that those that were working were better off than those on welfare so that there would be some support to children in low-income families regardless of whether they were working or on welfare, and that we would try to reduce overlap and duplication between the two levels of government and so reduce administrative costs and have more money available to go to families that need it. Those are the three objectives. I think we probably have done better on the first two than we have on the reduction of overlap and duplication at this point but, hopefully, that will come.

The whole objective would be to take every child out of the welfare system. So there would be X number of dollars provided by the federal government, direct payment to children in families, and the commitment on behalf of the provinces was that any money that was saved as a result of those payments not being part of the welfare system to children would be reinvested in programming for children, Earlystart, Headstart, nutrition programs, child care, training for moms so that they could get back into the workforce or enter the workforce. In fact, the federal government was making a greater financial commitment, but the dollars that we were presently spending as provinces would have to be reinvested into programming.

I think it is the right direction to go. The ultimate end result would be that no child would be supported through the welfare system. Every child would receive X number of dollars based on what provinces and the federal government believed was the right amount for children, but that the dollars that we presently spend on welfare payments for children would be reinvested into other programming that would give children a good start to life.

So that really is where we are at. All provinces have endorsed it. The federal government has endorsed it, and we have a small down payment. I argue sometimes with the federal minister saying, well, it is not really a down payment; it is a partial repayment for what you have taken away. When you have taken $220 million away from our province and you are prepared to reinvest $20 million back, it is still not back to where we were, but it is a good start and it is--the process is right. It is the right thing to do for the right reasons. As I said, every province has endorsed the process, and the federal government has endorsed it too. I think it is very significant to note that it is one of the first issues that we have all been able to agree on is the right direction and the right way to go. So I think the federal government recognizes there is a need to do something.

The provincial governments recognize there is a need to do something, and my honourable friend has made a lot of comments about what the community is already doing. These are issues that we all have to work on together. I think we are moving in the right direction and we are not there yet, but it is at least a start. There is a consistent approach. It is an approach that governments of different philosophical backgrounds have come together and said this is the way we need to go for children. So I would rather talk about the positive than some of the negatives, and there are lots of negatives out there, but I think we are on the right track and we are moving in the right direction.

I just want to put those comments on the record, and I would be prepared to share documentation or whatever around the issues that we have come to agreement on and we will continue to agree on. Now that we have sort of got a process for children, we are looking at people with disabilities to see whether there is not a standard approach that can be taken and some agreement we can come to, as two different levels of government, around how we support people with disabilities right across the country, because everyone is struggling with that issue too.

So those are the two priority areas. We seem to be on track with the children's agenda, and we will be working pretty aggressively on the disability agenda over the next year or so. So I just wanted to put those comments on the record and indicate that there is a fair, significant amount of co-operation and recognition by politicians that we need to get our act together.

* (1540)

Mr. Lamoureux: When the minister started off, she made reference to the $7.5 billion, I believe, that was cut from transfer payments and the impact being $220 million in the province of Manitoba. It seems to me that you do get ministers that exaggerate the actual cut within their particular department. To be very specific on that, for example, today I asked a question of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and the Premier tried to give the impression it was $220 million that was cut out of health care. You ask the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), and it is $220 million that was cut out of education. This minister, you know, just gave the impression that it is $220 million that is taken out of this particular area.

That is why when she made reference, she says, well, look, they took out $220 million from us and they gave us a meagre $20 million, which I assume is a portion of the $700 million. Where it is, in fact, taken out of context, but that is not--and I acknowledge that that is what the government has been doing, and by my raising the issue, government jumps to its feet saying that I am just trying to protect my federal counterparts in Ottawa. It is not necessarily to protect them, it is just trying to get the government to be a little bit more honest with the numbers as they talk to different groups.

I have heard these different ministers talk to outside groups, all attributing these millions of dollars coming out of their particular department, which I do not believe is accurate. Yes, there was an overall cut. Yes, I personally did not support the cut; I would have liked to have seen it come out of other areas, but I was glad that there was a threshold that was put in. I guess that is the area in which I want to bring it to the Minister of Family Services, that if you put aside the cut for now--and what I have been asking the ministers of Finance, Health and the Premier was to get their opinions on the social transfer which she just finished making reference to, because part of that social transfer, that block fund, goes towards the financing of the Department of Family Services for social assistance.

I am interested in knowing if this minister would support the transferring of cash transfers in favour of tax point transfers. Which one would she rather see? It is important to ask in the sense that if you favour the tax point transfer, then you are--ultimately the national government is not going to be able to, I believe, have as much influence on giving a national direction. The minister herself talked about how important it was to have a sense of co-operation with the national government and other provinces, and I agree wholeheartedly with her on that particular point.

If we are going to come to grips with fighting child poverty, not only in the province of Manitoba but in Canada, what we do need to see is a high sense of co-operation between the provincial government and the national government. It is not just one provincial government.

You know many, including myself, find it absolutely amazing that in B.C. they attempted to exclude people from claiming social assistance if they were not living in the province of B.C. for a number of months. That was under a New Democratic regime. I found that that was absolutely amazing, and you know what? If it was not for the transfer payments, that block funding of cash, the federal government would not have been able or would not have been anywhere near as effective at forcing the New Democratic government in Ottawa to pay social payments to all Manitobans. In fact, as one of my friends expressed to me, if you carried that on to many, many years ago and you had that sort of a policy, Manitoba would not have very many people living in it.

That is the reason why it is important that we do have a strong national influence with respect to combatting child poverty, much like when the minister says, look, other parties in other jurisdictions, we all agreed this is an area, and we are all going to work together, but, Mr. Chairman, as someone that is in an opposition position, part of my responsibility is not only just to provide creative ideas and resolve all problems but is to point out where I can where the government does have some deficiencies. I do believe that there are some areas within the province of Manitoba that this government needs to do more work towards.

That is somewhat a digression from the question that I was actually asking the minister, and that is the importance of those cash transfers. The minister indicated that she has met with fellow ministers, her counterparts in other provinces. I would be interested in knowing if, in fact, they even had discussions along the line of the cash transfers because I think that is critical.

The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says from the table, did he ask this question in Question Period? The whole issue of devolution of powers is something which I am greatly concerned about, and one would think that the official opposition should also be greatly concerned about, especially New Democratic opposition, because I had thought that the New Democratic Party believed in the benefits of having a national, strong central government with strong, national standards, as he nods his head in the affirmative. He knows, as I do, if it were not for those national standards, that NDP government in B.C., Mr. Chairperson, would have disallowed people in need to receive social assistance only because they were not living in B.C. long enough.

I am glad that the member for Burrows is with me in opposition to what the NDP in B.C. were supporting. That is the reason why it is absolutely critical that the government, the national government, the one which both I and the member for Burrows are in support of having good national standards and those standards to be enforced. The way in which you enforce those is you better have some levers. The best lever you are going to have is cash, cash in hand, because if you allow it, and under Brian Mulroney--if the Chretien government did not make that change and set the base, what would have happened is the whole block fund would have gone towards tax transfer points. This government today does not acknowledge the tax point cash cow that it has received over the years. Today it does not acknowledge that, so why should we believe that they are going to acknowledge it in the future?

That is what Mr. Charest was talking about, which really put a lot of confusion into the issue. That is the reason why, over the last few days, it has been a very important issue for me personally, because I believe there needs to be a strong national government. There has to be that presence and that presence of co-operation between the different jurisdictions, all of the provinces and the national government, to ensure that child poverty, not only in the province of Manitoba but across Canada, is maintained. The reason why you have to emphasize that time and time again is because I do not believe the government in Manitoba is advocating for a strong national government that has the ability to enforce national standards in three critical areas, post-secondary education, health care, and family services. If I were to put them in an order of priority for me personally, health care is No. 1, followed by family services, then followed by post-secondary education.

Every time I ask the question, we keep on getting stonewalled. If you cannot have a province like Manitoba who has a vested interest in protecting those cash transfers, if we as a province are not going to be advocating that, then who is, outside of the federal government? If you look at the factions within Ottawa currently where you have only three national parties but two of those national parties are not that great in terms of numbers, and I can sympathize with them with respect to numbers in Chambers, Mr. Chairperson.

I know the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and I would like to see us do the same sort of thing that the Conservative Party did in Ottawa and go from two to 20. We remember the good old days of 20. I tell you, when we did have 20, this government was a little bit more accountable. Hopefully, some day soon we will be refurbished with a large number of Liberal MLAs. Anyway, I digress somewhat.

* (1550)

The issue that I am looking for a comment from the minister on is the tax points versus the cash transfer. The reason why I ask that is because in her response she talked about the need for the co-operation of all parties and their working together and how Ottawa does have a responsibility for funding programs. That is what the minister said in her response. Well, Mr. Chairperson, I am asking her to carry it a little bit further and ask does she believe that the block funding, which is absolutely critical, is equally important in terms of ensuring that it remains as a cash transfer.

Before I go on to the next component, I will leave it with the minister, see if she wants to respond to that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: After all of that dialogue, I suppose--I am not sure exactly what I would call it--I want our fair share of dollars to come to Manitoba for Manitobans for programs that they deserve. That is as far as I am going to go. My honourable friend can ask me again, but I want to indicate to him that I want to see Manitoba get its fair share of dollars from Ottawa.

I will tell you, cash transfers were provided to Manitoba with 50-cent dollars for welfare programs and everything else, and as a result of block funding under the CHST, Manitoba is getting considerably less and the programs that we fund are no longer 50-cent dollars cost-shared.

I do not know where my honourable friend is coming from. All I want to do is indicate that I want to see Manitoba get its fair share of dollars to support Manitobans in need.

Mr. Lamoureux: One of the things for a politician is to try to build their self-confidence, and I am beginning to question whether or not I am explaining it properly, because, you know, what I get from this minister is the same thing I get from the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and that is, they are saying we just want to ensure that we have our fair share.

Well, the question that I have been trying to get across is, yeah, we all want to have our fair share. There is no doubt about that, but not only do I want our fair share for today, I want to ensure that we are going to be able to protect our programs for tomorrow, and the ways in which we can do that is by looking at issues like block funding and trying to get anyone within the minister's--and there are five key people within this government that I would be so happy and so pleased if I could actually get a straight answer on that.

And those people are hers truly, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Now, I would even settle for the second-in-command of the grand Pooh-Bah.

An Honourable Member: Jules Benson.

Mr. Lamoureux: Jules Benson. Well, if Jules Benson could speak on Hansard, I might comment on that.

An Honourable Member: He has had a lot of power, Big Jules has.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, he likely has more power than most of us, but anyway that kind of takes us a little bit off. I would dearly love to get at least one of those. It would do me wonders in terms of my own self-confidence in knowing that they understand what it is that Manitobans actually want.

What they want is to have a government that recognizes the importance of issues such as child poverty not only today but also in future years, and the best way we as provinces in Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces, Saskatchewan can ensure that is to watch the way in which our national government distributes their programs and their cash.

I do not like it at all when I get a government or when I see the provincial government completely sidestepping a major issue when we are going into a summer when the minister meets with her counterparts, and I have absolutely no assurances from anyone from within this government speaking positively for cash transfers over the tax points. It just does not make any sense, and I do not understand why it is or why the great reluctance.

I could see it, you know, and maybe the mistake I made was I asked the question prior to the federal election and I put in Mr. Charest's name, and that would have meant that there would have had to have been a conflict in policy. Maybe I should not have asked that particular question then.

An Honourable Member: Mr. who?

Mr. Lamoureux: Charest. Maybe I should not have asked the question then, but I do believe that Manitobans have a right to know what position this government is going to be taking on a critical issue when we are looking over the next year, year and a half, of the types of discussions that are going to be occurring with this minister and her counterparts and in the Premier of our province.

If a constituent of mine asked me, I would not know what to tell him other than fair share. Well, that is nothing new. We would expect you to fight for the fair share. You would not accept for anything less than that, I sure hope. But what we are asking for is some indication on policy, on what sort of a vision does this government have and maybe giving a national perspective.

One does not have to be a member of Parliament in order to give a national perspective. One can be an MLA and be a proud Canadian at the same time and talk about the benefits of living in a federation which is second to none throughout the world. That is all I am asking the Minister of Family Services, and she could do a better job than the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), because he has waffled on the question--the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the Premier (Mr. Filmon). I am not sure, I cannot recall right offhand if I have asked the Deputy Premier. If I have not, I will have to look at the research and no doubt I will get the opportunity at some point to have the same sort of a discussion.

The relevancy for this particular minister, before I leave it with her, because I am hoping that she will say a little bit more than just, we are fighting for our fair share. The relevancy of this whole issue is because even though we are in provincial Estimates talking about child poverty, the national government, I believe, has a role, and its role is not going to go away in the future.

* (1600)

I would argue that that role needs to be maintained into the future. What we have to do is ensure that there is going to be a national government that is going to have the ability to ensure that there are going to be some standards, especially when you compare Treasury Boards of Manitoba versus Ontario or Alberta and other provinces.

You know, the biggest problem that I had with the Meech Lake was the opting-out clause, because under that particular clause, Mr. Chairperson [interjection] The Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) says ditto. It is something which we recognize, that the federal government has a role, and in fighting child poverty, the federal government and the provincial government have to work together, or we will not get rid of child poverty.

There are some changes that one has to be very much aware of. The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has a lot more in terms of resources. That is why when we say, look, you have a responsibility not only to think about child poverty today but also for tomorrow, when you sit down with your ministers, if the Government of Canada, no matter what its political stripe might be, chooses to say, look, as a province you can opt out of this sort of a program, well, the minister I would think should be saying, just hold on a minute, as a province, and you should be building alliances with other provinces that do have a vested interest in saying that, look, by allowing for the opting out, the feds say here is a program that we are going to institute and, by the way, you can opt out of this and it is fighting child poverty.

Well, Mr. Chairperson, the provinces that have the resources, plenty of resources, why would they not opt out, take the money, maybe add a little bit more, take the credit for the program? We might not necessarily be able to compete with those sorts of treasury boards. That is the reason why, when you meet with your other provincial counterparts, this should be an issue.

We sit for 240 hours of the Estimates, and we have lots of line-by-line discussions of, well, how is this dollar here being spent; how is that dollar here being spent. That occurs for 240 hours every year on the different lines, and those are important questions. But equally, and I would ultimately argue more important, are some of the principles that guarantee that we are going to be able to provide some of these social programs.

That is where it takes leadership, Mr. Chairperson. That is why the challenge to the minister--and I ask the minister to do something that her other provincial ministers have not done, and actually reinforce that, yes, there is a need with respect to the transfer payments, that cash, that block, to ensure that it remains cash transfers.

Ideally, it would be nice to see that cash transfer increased and, hopefully, it will increase. The government will always have my support in terms of lobbying for more. I would like to see some sort of objectives coming from the provinces saying that, look, we would like to see the cash transfer hit this percentage of a budget, Mr. Chairperson; get some goals so that we can strive to achieve those goals. That is the way in which we can reassure Canadians that we are going to have a government that is going to be able to ensure that there are standards. In the long term, that is in the best interests of Manitobans. That is the reason why I believe this is an absolutely critical question.

The Minister of Family Services should be bold. I know she has been bold in the past on certain issues. This is one of those issues which I would say that she could say a few words, and if she does say it in a very positive way, I promise not to ask the question on Monday trying to put the minister or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on the spot, but I reserve it for Tuesday.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have already answered that question.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I do not want to beat a dead horse, or I think it was the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed)--

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on a point of order.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I take some offence to my honourable friend talking about beating a dead horse. I wonder if he was referring to me.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, in defence of the minister, I would not want anyone to misconstrue the Chairperson's remarks. I would never even want to remotely imply that the minister would be anywhere close to being a dead horse. I have a deep amount of respect for many of the things that the minister has, in fact, done. If she did take any offence to that comment, I would be more than happy to retract it.

Mr. Chairperson, I will leave it, but in the back of my mind I hope at some point in time to raise the issue once again in hopes that she will have some time, maybe over the summer, to rethink, and would strongly recommend to her that when she does meet with her federal counterparts that she does have to think in terms of the long term, not just strictly within the province, because the long term, in fact, protects the interest of the province also.

I know there was a will to try to pass this minister's line so we can go on to a different committee. I did have one other thing that I would like to comment on, and I will be somewhat brief on it. That is the issue of the lotteries. At one time I used to be the Lotteries critic--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Is there will of the committee for a five-minute recess?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, what I will do maybe is just put it on the record, just to express--unless the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) will have some questions? [interjection] No? Then we can pass the line. There has been a great deal of concern in terms of the negative social costs of the gaming policy from this government and, again, the direct impact on poverty and the impact on children, in particular. It has just been grossly underestimated.

I am sure I will get other opportunities to address this particular issue. I appreciate the patience of all the committee members. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: l. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $25,700--pass.

Resolution 9.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,441,300 for Family Services, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

This completes the Estimates for the Department of Family Services. This section of the Committee of Supply shall now rise.