Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, if I could ask if you would canvass the House to see if there is leave to waive private members' hour, given that we are scheduling that for Thursday morning.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour today, with the understanding that we will have private members' hour Thursday morning? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, for today I would ask if you could canvass the House for leave for the Estimates of the Executive Council to continue in the Chamber, and should that be completed, to be followed by Highways and Transportation. In Room 255, the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture to be called for that particular room. Should that wind up, Consumer and Corporate Affairs are normally in that room, but I do not think that will be necessitated today. For members' information, the Estimates of the Department of Family Services will continue in Room 254. So I believe we need leave for two of those.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave firstly for the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation to be considered in the Chamber following the completion of the Estimates of Executive Council? [agreed]

Therefore, is there leave for the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture to be considered in Room 255, and upon completion of those Estimates, the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to follow? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 9.3. Community Living (a) Regional Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, on page 67 of the Estimates book. Shall that item pass?

The honourable minister, to complete your response to the question that was raised yesterday by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on two counts. I think we were just discussing–and if I can remember my honourable friend's comments, it was around staffing, retaining and recruiting staff and salaries of staff who work in the community in the area of service to those with mental disabilities.

Certainly, he has raised an issue that I know he has heard about and we have, as government, too, an ongoing issue and one that is not, I do not think, easily resolvable. I will explain why, that being that we are seeing a significant increase in the number of disabled who are living within our community. That issue is not going to go away or the numbers are not going to decrease. We are going to see increases on a year-by-year basis in the areas of support and service for the mentally disabled.

We all know that some of the reasons for that are that today newborns are living, when in years gone by they may not have survived for any lengthy period of time. We know that with new technology and monitoring and intensive care supports, children who would have died in the past at birth are living now. So we see the increasing demand at the front end, plus we know that with improved health technology, we are seeing people live longer who would have died years earlier in the past.

So we have an issue that is certainly significant, certainly is increasing, and we are going to see increasing numbers I think year after year to come. So it does present some unique challenges, I guess, for us because we have provided support and service and we have moved toward community living, away from institutionalization over the last number of years, and then that has created the need to provide additional supports in the community.

There always was the theory or the feeling that services provided in the community would be less costly than institutional services. I think we have found that that is not the case because if you are looking at the quality of life of individuals in the community, there are several different components. It is not only the facilities and the creation of the facilities that they are living in, but also the support services, the day programming, the transportation, all of the other activities where, you know, some things may be less costly, but in the overall it is probably more expensive to house people in the community than it is in institutions, although you will see in institutions that salaries are probably higher than salaries that support people in the community.

So there are issues to deal with and we know that they are not going to go away. We have to try to figure out how we can best provide those services and supports in the most cost-effective way. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to try to find those answers and those solutions. So I recognize and realize and have been working with those who support people in the mentally disabled community out in the community, the organizations and the agencies, understanding their issues and knowing that we need to be making some changes.

In the past, years ago, we used to provide grants or per diems based on certain things. We have tried to give block funding or block grants so that organizations can move dollars around in the best and most appropriate manner possible to provide the supports and services, and in some instances that allows them to pay staff more. If you have grants tied specifically to certain kinds of supports, it makes it more difficult for organizations to be able to be creative and innovative in the way they deliver service. So we have tried that measure, and I think there has been a very minimal amount of success achieved in allocating the resources where they most appropriately need to be allocated.

We also have given increases in grants, 5 percent last year and 5 percent this year, to residential services, and it does allow them to change slightly the salary that they are able to pay to their employees. We have also done the same thing on the day programming side, giving 5 percent this year, only 2 percent last year, but 5 percent this year, to day programming.

So we are trying again to recognize the difficulty. I understand completely the issues. How do you find the right balance between–I mean, we are putting $8.7 million into services and supports for the mentally disabled in this year's budget. Every year, even in times of recession, when departments were getting less funding, I was able to make a case with my colleagues for additional support in services to the mentally disabled. We have had increases, I would say, of $22 million in this area over the last four years, which is a significant increase, but again the demands are increasing and the number of people that need to be served is increasing. There is not just a limitless amount of money that can go into programming, but we are trying to be as sensitive as we can.

Also, I have started to talk with the community about, you know, are we doing things in the most appropriate way or are there better ways to do things? We have tried, in some instances, to look at self-managed care. If the family or the support network had the resources allocated to them directly, could they provide a better service to their family member or to the individual that they are supporting? I have asked those questions and, in some instances, yes, we have done that across the board, even with services for children with disabilities. We have said if we are spending the dollars anyway, can you think of better ways that that money could be spent? Do you have to fit into certain criteria in order to get grant funding or grant support?

* (1440)

You know, we have to work at this together. I have to indicate that it is not going to be easy for any government into the future to find the answers in this area. So what is the most appropriate service? Is there a more cost-effective way of doing it so we can provide more services to more people, so we can increase the salaries of those that are working in the community? No easy answers.

I suppose it is a time for debate and dialogue. We are coming up to an election. We have put significantly more dollars, $22 million over the last four years, $8.7 million this year, into this area of programming for the mentally disabled. What number is the right number? Would it be $16 million or $24 million or $100 million? Would we then be meeting the needs of everyone and paying adequate salaries? I do not know what the answer to that is. I do not know what more of a commitment I could make as someone who has had experience in this area and knows that the needs are increasing, more people are needing to be served. We have got to strike the right balance.

We know that Manitobans want us to support people with mental disabilities. That is one area where taxpayers certainly do not seem to object to finding dollars and really believe that we support those who cannot support themselves. I have tried to the best of my ability to find as many resources in this area as we can possibly find, balancing between the needs of all the people that we serve in my department, because many are very needy.

So it might be interesting to hear whether my honourable friend might have any suggestions or ideas or sense of where his party might come from when we move into an election campaign and what, you know, their recommendations or suggestions might be. It is not easy. I mean, you cannot put a number on what might need to be there or, I mean, what is an appropriate salary. We do not set the salaries in government. The agencies set the salaries based on the grant funding that they get. Their dollars can only be stretched so far too.

I just want to let my honourable friend know that this is an area that needs some significant work with the community that supports and serves people with mental disabilities and government departments. I know we do not have all of the answers as yet. All I know is that the issue is not going to go away. It is going to get more severe. Governments down the road and through the next generation are going to have to think about how we can best deliver the services in the most cost-effective way so that most people are being served and people that are working within the system receive decent remuneration for the service they provide. I have had these discussions with organizations when I meet with them when the requests come forward. I guess we are seeking some solutions. I am not sure that government can find those solutions alone.

But I do know that organizations such as the Association of Community Living, for instance, the Steinbach branch has written and has indicated that the 5 percent increase that they received in the budget this way will give us the opportunity to begin sort of recovering salaries within the front line staffing component that they have. We are going to have to continue to look at that in successive budgets.

Again, I have to say that there is no easy answer, and there is not going to be a quick fix, but I think we need some public dialogue around what is appropriate and what can be achieved because, as I said, we will have more and more people in these circumstances. We will have more and more people with complications or more significant disabilities as a result of the new technology, our medical technology, our ability to keep newborns alive and to keep people alive longer at the retirement end.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I thank the minister for her answer. Since the minister made reference to increasing numbers, I am wondering if she could tell me what the increase in numbers is year over year? I do have the numbers in the Estimates book at page 50, but I do not have the annual report from last year. I know that her staff have all these numbers at their finger tips. I see it is broken down by different categories, so I just wondered if the minister can give me the increases.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is not an easy number to pull together, and I think we do have some analysis that tells us how many. We are talking about adults with a mental disability, but we do know for instance, because we have supports through Children's Special Services for children with mental disabilities, we have some sense or understanding of how many people will be coming up. So there is a difference between the number we serve now and the number that might be turning 18, sometimes 21, because we know that many can stay in the school system until they are 21 and receive support. So it is not an easy number to get. I do not know if the question is coming from the angle of saying: what is the issue going to be over the next number of years as a result of children that might be added to, or are we just looking for a specific number on how many people we are serving today?

* (1450)

Mr. Martindale: Since the minister said that there are increasing numbers, and she gave reasons for why that is true, which I certainly accept, I am wondering if you could tell me how many people were served in each of these categories a year ago as compared to today's Estimates book. If there is an increased number, that should be illustrative.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we can do this one at a time then. I have the numbers for residential accommodation. For 1997-98 it was 3,134; 1998-99, 3,262. For 1999-2000, it is estimated at 3,350.

This is for day services: 1997-98, 1,951; 1998-99, 2,127; and estimated for 1999-2000, 2,220.

For respite services, 1997-98, 641; 1998-99, 672; estimated for 1999-2000, 723.

For vocational rehab, I guess 1997-98 it was 1,220; 1998-99, the same number, and we are estimating the same, so it is 1,220.

Mr. Martindale: In the letters that were addressed to the Premier and to the minister and mostly copied to myself, people assumed that institutional care is more expensive than living in the community. The minister has just indicated in previous remarks that it is more expensive to support an individual in the community rather than in an institution. I am wondering if the minister has data on per diem costs or daily costs or costs on a daily basis which would illustrate her contention that it is more expensive to have people living in the community.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess to make a blanket statement that it costs more in every instance for someone to live in the community is not right, but the more medically complex an individual is, the cost there, it is. It does cost more to support them in the community than it does in an institution. And, as a result of places like MDC and St. Amant not admitting more people, that means that more costly clients with more severe medical needs are being placed in the community. If you are relatively high functioning in the community, the cost would be less than in an institutional setting. But the reality is that we are not placing people in institutions today, so the costs and the needs are higher, and it is more costly to support someone with high medical needs in the community than it is in an institution.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister: who is providing services to the individuals who have the high medical needs? Would it be St. Amant Centre's community living arrangements or are we talking about the groups that are writing letters to the Premier, the minister, such as Eastside Thames and other organizations, for example, the ones in Gimli?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Eastside Thames is not a residence; it is a day program facility. But the three, I guess, organizations that would provide support to very high medical needs individuals would be St. Amant through their community. There is the odd person who is admitted to the St. Amant Centre now, but most of the services are delivered in the community. St. Amant, New Directions and Hydra House would be the three that deal predominantly with the very high medical needs individuals who are living in the community.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister said that block funding and block grants allow organizations–and I think we are talking about nonprofits who provide services in the community–to pay their staff more, and I am wondering if the minister can expand on that for me, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess rather than as I explained it as block grants, it is block per diems.

In the past we had about six different program lines with six different per diem rates that each organization had to account for and apply for on a yearly basis. By going to one per diem across the board, that gave the agencies and organizations the flexibility to use the dollars with less administration. I mean, when you have got to do the administrative work around accounting for six different per diem rates for individuals, it makes it administratively top heavy, and it allowed them the ability to cut down on administrative costs and ensure that the dollars were going toward the programming for individuals whom they were caring for and into staff salaries.

They were quite pleased, actually, when we made that change. I do not recall having any organization say that it was not the right direction to move. It freed up some of their time to do the kind of work that they wanted to do for the residents whom they were serving.

* (1500)

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister how she feels that reducing the number of categories from six to one, other than maybe freeing up some bookkeeping time, allowed these organizations to pay their staff more. If they are getting the same amount of money but have fewer categories, what difference does it make?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Chairperson, in addition to streamlining the administrative function, we have given a 5 percent increase last year and a 5 percent increase this year to the per diems. So there is less administrative work that needs to be done and more ability with the additional funding on the one per diem rate. I mean, my honourable friend may want to argue, but it certainly was a direction that was supported by all of the agencies and organizations that we fund to deliver the service.

Mr. Martindale: The minister said that they do not set salaries, which is true, because you give the money to the organization and they do their budgeting, at least that is my understanding, but their ability to pay their staff decent wages is totally dependent on the grant that they receive from government. So it seems to me that it is irrelevant that you do not set the salaries. The real issue is how much money they are getting from government.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely. They have to use the grant dollars that they get or do some other sort of fundraising in order to run their operations, and some do, to varying degrees. Some do fundraising and use that to augment the grants and supports that they get from government, and others maybe do not have as great an ability to do that or choose not to for whatever reason.

So, yes, he is right, but I want to indicate to my honourable friend that our priority has always been on trying to provide support and service for as many individuals as we possibly can, and when times were tough and budgets were tight and there was not more money within government, our priority was to ensure that we delivered service to as many individuals as we possibly could.

I will admit and have admitted to organizations that I know that there is not an ability to pay the staff high wages. That is the reality. I know where my honourable friend is coming from. He should say our grants should be higher in this area so we can pay more. We have increased by 5 percent the grant last year; we have done another 5 percent this year in good faith, and we will continue to look, as our resources permit, at increases in grant funding to these organizations. Will it be significantly more than 5 percent? I certainly cannot say, yes, it will.

I know that my honourable friend when it comes to the daycare line is going to say increase grants so that higher salaries can be paid, and I guess my question is, you know, if that is a commitment my honourable friend feels he could make, what is the appropriate amount? How many millions of dollars would he put into this area and where would he take it from?

So those are all questions. It is fine to say we should be putting more money in, and we agree that we have to continue as resources permit to move in the direction of ensuring that those who are working in the community with some of the most vulnerable within our society are adequately remunerated and agencies that are providing the service have the ability to recruit and retain staff. We have got to move towards that.

Are we going to fix that overnight? No, we are not. Are we going to continue as resources permit and as the economy continues to do well with all of the economic activity and the increased tax revenue and increased revenues that are being generated and balanced budgets, because balanced budgets and paying down the debt give us money that we would pay on interest to provide support to the social side of government, which is very much in line with all of the issues that we deal with in the Department of Family Services. We will continue to look at that.

I think that we have indicated, with our five percent increases over the last two years, a commitment and a seriousness to trying to address the issues. But they will not be addressed overnight. I can indicate again that we are going to see increasing demand for support and service in this area. So you have got to balance the grant money and per diems for an individual on an individual basis with the number of people that need to be served and how can we get some services to those that need them.

So no easy answer in this area, but I think that we have shown our commitment over the last number of years in increased financial support in this area and in the last two years an increase in grant support so that we can start to address the issue of salaries.

Mr. Martindale: The minister earlier said that they want to deliver services in the most cost-effective way. I am wondering if the minister would like to expand on that since it is certainly possible to interpret that as meaning that if you keep wages down you are being more cost-effective. Can the minister assure me that that is not what she meant?

Mrs. Mitchelson: It makes no sense at all to keep wages down and not be able to retain trained staff. Ultimately then you are not providing the best service to individuals that need that support. That is not what I meant. I am saying we have to review the way we deliver service today, see whether the programs that we have in place are the right programs for the right reasons. If we, for instance, were able to give a cash payment of what we support one individual for today to the family or to the support network or to the agency in some way and have self-managed care, is there an ability for them to get better service at the same cost? I mean, those are all things that have to be looked at. That is the common-sense approach.

My ultimate goal would be that we would be able to pay staff more because we are able to deliver services in a better way. I do not know whether that can be done, but I have challenged the community to work with us to see whether we can find some answers.

Mr. Martindale: In correspondence from an employee of Hope Centre Residential, the question was asked about salaries in Manitoba compared to other provinces. At the risk of the minister telling me that some other provinces pay less than Manitoba, I wonder if the minister could indicate maybe what our rank is in Canada? Are we near the top of wages or at the middle or near the bottom?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have any comparison to salaries in other provinces at all because the programs are so diverse, the programs are so different province to province. I do know that other provinces do look to Manitoba. I mean, in many areas we have shown leadership, and we are further ahead and provide more services than many other provinces do provide.

* (1510)

As a matter of fact, I know that my colleagues when I meet with them talk about programs like the wheelchair program in Manitoba that is not available or accessible in many, many other provinces. When we talk about barriers to mobility, one of the ministers said: Well, you know, is Manitoba's wheelchair program a barrier to mobility because if they move to Nova Scotia they would not get that service?

Manitoba does have a lot of good programs. We are innovative. We are ahead of many other provinces, and we are looked to as a province that does support our disabled community as one of the best provinces that provide that support.

We do not have any information on specifics around what other provinces do. Every province delivers its programs and services in such varied and different ways that there is not really the ability to make those kinds of comparisons.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to quote from this same letter where the author says: We appreciated your response, but it was clearly not enough for any of us to plan our careers around. We value the work we do on behalf of the people with disabilities, and most of us would like to establish a career path in this field. Many of us are university or community college graduates. Please give our agencies sufficient funding to keep us working for them and developing with them as we provide services to vulnerable people.

I would like to ask the minister if she thinks that wages are sufficient that it actually attracts people so that they want to have a career working with vulnerable persons in the community.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I have not received any of those letters since the budget was announced and the increased funding was announced. But if he is asking whether 5 percent goes all the way to ensuring there is an appropriate salary, I would have to say no, it does not. I will admit that.

But I guess, again, I will go back to my honourable friend and say to him what in his mind is appropriate and what would he do if he were the Minister of Family Services to change what we have done? I know he voted for the budget this year, which included a 5 percent increase for these organizations and these agencies, and I have indicated that in the last two years it has been a step of good faith in recognizing that there are issues that need to be addressed around remuneration. But I guess I would ask the question: would it be his party's policy to set wage levels for all salaries for all external agencies and organizations that are funded by government, and what would he think would be appropriate levels?

I am saying that we are a government that has said we will continue to fund per diems or grants, but that agencies that are delivering services will have to manage those dollars. We will continue, as the economy permits and as the tax base permits, to try to ensure that we are providing additional resources to address the salary issue, but agencies that deliver those services are going to have to determine what the appropriate salary level is. Maybe my honourable friend's party would have a different way of doing things and would commit to setting salary levels at a certain amount for every agency or organization that is funded by government to deliver service. I would be interested in hearing my honourable friend's comments around these issues.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, it has been suggested to me by several people in different agencies that the staff in Family Services–I presume acting on behalf of the minister–are suggesting to these agencies that they have to look at the most cost-efficient way of delivering services. There is the feeling that there is pressure on them to get out of high-cost services, for example, support of employment programs, which could be described as high cost, because usually they have one-on-one staff ratios at least at the beginning of supportive employment, and that if individuals were in sheltered workshops the staff ratios are much different, and therefore those programs are much cheaper to run and deliver.

So I would like to ask the minister if she feels that this is either the direction that people are being pushed in the community and if so, if this is her policy.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, quite frankly, I have to tell my honourable friend that I have heard a lot of good comments about the staff in the department on the Community Living side and how they are certainly accessible and working very well with community, indicating that staff in our department have a very good track record and a very good reputation around supporting agencies and organizations and individuals. So I want to say that on the record, because I do believe that we do work with people, with organizations and with individuals to try to find the answers.

I want to indicate that my honourable friend is wrong, dead wrong in the comments and the–I am not sure what the word is I am looking for, sort of the–I would not really call them allegations, I guess, that he has made. They might be that we are not being sensitive towards individual needs, individual-supported employment and individualized planning. We are very much supportive of that, and we are not looking to take away anything.

We do want to ensure, though, if a person does progress in a supported employment process and no longer needs a one on one, is there the ability to bring someone else in? I mean, that only makes common sense to be looking at that. We work on an individual basis, individually client-focused. Each individual is different; their needs are different. We want to make sure that the dollars are going to the most appropriate places. And you know my honourable friend talks about being cost-effective and efficient. I think the taxpayers of Manitoba want us to be cost-effective in our program delivery, and I think they want us to be working with families and be accountable.

I think families want to be accountable, and I think families want to make suggestions from time to time to government on how we might better be able to be more cost-effective. They do that, as a matter of fact. So we have to listen to that. So very often, I know back in my honourable friend's day and even when I first came into government, we have tried to change that. But government develops a program, a new initiative, and you have to fit into a certain mold in order to access some programming. I do not think that is most appropriate. I think that there are always exceptions to the rule, and so we are trying to look at very much community-focused support and service. We are trying to look at individual planning.

* (1520)

All of the families that I have worked with over the last number of years, we have tried to say: How can we do things better; what suggestions can you make to the government? For instance, I had some families with children with disabilities living in the community that were on my doorstep saying: You know, we need more; we need more appropriate service. So I started to ask some questions, and they were receiving respite. There are certain rules and regulations around respite. Families would be allocated a certain number of respite hours, and they needed those hours at the time.

But then they said to me, well, you know, we do not really need those respite hours right now because things are working fairly well, and we might need a little more money somewhere else to do something else, but we are afraid to give up our respite hours because we may never get them back again if we need them again. So therefore there were not respite hours for some other family that might need it. So I said let us sit down and work together around how we can best manage the support and services. If you had the dollars available that might be provided for respite, could you use them for something else? And we have been able to find some solutions and some answers that would be more cost-effective and serve clients better. That is my belief and my philosophy.

So, again, I would ask my honourable friend to maybe indicate whether he agrees with that direction or whether he feels, in order to get programming or support, you have got to fit into a certain program. Very often we build programs, but we do not build programs that are appropriate to the supports and the needs of clients and individuals who need that support and service. We have tried to change that in the six years that I have been in the Department of Family Services. And we are working towards it. Have we fixed everything? No. But I guess that is the challenge, and that is why I remain so committed to this department and the programs and the people that we serve. Things will change and will continue to evolve, and some of the supports and services that were put in place years ago are maybe not appropriate to today's families and today's needs. So we have to continue to try to do better. I think, generally speaking, that we have tried to make changes where changes are needed and brought to our attention as needed.

So, I guess, with that, I certainly would like to hear my honourable friend's comments on what his approach might be on what he believes might be the right way to go. It is always very easy to be critical of supports and services, but it is sometimes a little more difficult to provide constructive solutions to the issues. These are not easy issues that we deal with, and I know that, but you know it sometimes would be nice to see some acknowledgement for some of the things that have changed that have made a positive difference in people's lives and families' lives.

Mr. Martindale: The minister is trying very hard to get me to answer questions, and I would do that on one condition, that is, if we switched places at the table, but we have no power to do that right now.

The minister wants to define this issue in terms of being cost-effective and efficient, but what we are really talking about here is a philosophical difference between some programs which are higher cost, such as supported employment, versus other programs, such as sheltered workshops, which I think can probably be delivered more cheaply.

So I would like to push the minister a little bit harder and ask her again if she would categorically deny that there is pressure on organizations to change from programs which are high cost to programs which are of lower cost.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am trying to keep this dialogue and discussion on a pretty even keel and even tone, but I would not say it is any sort of a philosophical difference. We have not changed our approach. Whether it is supported employment, it does not matter how costly the program is, I want to get the best bang for my buck within that program. I think that is what I believe in. I would hope my honourable friend would not want to waste tax dollars in saying the program is costly, but it does not matter how much it costs, you know, we do not care. There does not have to be any accountability around the programming.

I am saying if it is an expensive program, I want it to be managed with accountability and efficiency and be cost-effective even if it is a high-cost program. I want the same for a low-cost program. I want our programs to be efficient and effective and serve the most clients that we can possibly serve. So I do not want to get into this being a philosophical discussion around whether we support supported employment or we support vocational rehab or shelter workshops or whatever. We support a broad range of services.

I want to make sure that every dollar that is spent is spent in the most appropriate fashion and that there is accountability around those dollars, but we support all that broad range of support and services. So there may be a philosophical difference in accountability between my honourable friend and myself. I want our tax dollars and the tax dollars of Manitobans to be accounted for in a manner that makes sure that the programs are the most efficient and effective, but providing the supports and services based on an individual client-centred plan.

Mr. Martindale: I am still not hearing the answer that I would like to hear or that I think organizations in the community would like to hear. That is that there is no pressure from the minister or her department or the staff to pressure people or persuade people that some of their programs are too costly and that if they would move in a different direction that they could provide different programs at a lower cost. I have not heard the minister say that there is no such plan in her department.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, again, Mr. Chairperson, I am not sure what angle my honourable friend is coming from. I think that we look at a client-centred plan and process, whether it is working with an organization or working with families. Families seem to be wanting to move to community residences and vocational rehabilitation programs, and we have been supporting that. We are supporting what is best for individuals. We have not denied anyone programming that sort of meets their individual plan. I am not sure, again, where my honourable friend is coming from.

I am saying unequivocally that we are not changing the focus and we are not saying we are not paying for high-cost programs. I want efficiency, though, for the dollars that are being spent. If he feels differently, that is his prerogative, but I sense that the taxpayers of Manitoba want us to make sure that our programs are efficient and effective whether they are high-cost programs or low-cost programs.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, no one has a problem. Certainly I support and taxpayers support getting the biggest bang for their buck, but the minister does not seem to want to answer my question. That is fine, there is no point beating a dead horse, so I will just move on.

In a newsletter from I believe it is ACL Beausejour, I think this is actually a reprint of a letter to the Free Press. I would like to quote one paragraph and then ask some questions. The author says: Nine years ago, after the death of a client in a group home, the government initiated a review of issues concerning Manitoba's services to people with mental disabilities living in the community. The government's consultant looked at issues such as minimum wage level salaries and the rapid staff turnover and nonexistent staff training programs that result from this. These conditions have not changed, despite the consultant's strong recommendations for change.

Now, if it was nine years ago, it was before I became the critic. I am wondering if the minister can tell me which consultant's report, is that an accurate summary, and were indeed those the recommendations? If the minister wants to take it as notice, that is fine, but if she could do some research and get back to me in a day or two, that would be good.

* (1530)

Mrs. Mitchelson: We do not have a copy of that report with recommendations here, but we could certainly get it.

It was several years ago, I think, as the result of a drowning of an individual in a group home, there were recommendations that were made. They have been acted upon in a fairly significant way, where we now have certainly a program that has been developed at Red River Community College called the developmental services worker training program. We have other ongoing in-servicing and training of staff that are working within the system right now. We contract with Red River and ACL to do training on nonviolence, crisis intervention, first aid. We have new licensing procedures that are in place.

So there have been a lot of things that have been addressed that were recommended in that report. The wage issue is an ongoing issue.

Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that answer and for getting me a copy of the consultant's report.

I have received quite a few letters, as has the minister, from Eastside Thames day program, both from staff and parents. I am wondering if the minister could bring me up to date on their funding problems, which they describe as a funding crisis. It might save some questions if the minister could give me a general update on how they are doing since they began writing letters to the minister.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, this is one of the organizations that, among other things, supported employment programming, day programming with those with severe disabilities, and in many instances, it is sort of a one-on-one support program for work experience. I would believe that that letter probably came before the budget was introduced. So the 5 percent would have helped somewhat, but it certainly would not go all the way to addressing the issues that have been raised by Eastside Thames.

We are working with them and will continue to work with them. My understanding is we are fairly close to a service and purchase agreement with them, but there are some issues that still continue to need to be addressed. I am not sure that our funding model will provide all of the resources that they would like in order to deliver the programs that they are contemplating for all of the individuals that they serve.

We from time to time do adjust per diems. I think one of the specific issues with Eastside Thames was some transportation costs, and I think we have tried to address that issue with them. As I indicated earlier, we are trying to provide support and service to as many individuals as we possibly can. We do know that these are very costly programs. We support those programs, but we cannot always provide the complete amount that the agency would like to see for each individual circumstance.

* (1540)

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, in the letters that I received, which are dated in January, I believe, most of them, and the letters that the minister received as well, there is reference to their transportation problems, which the minister briefly touched on. In the letters, someone mentioned that they were in a deficit position in their transportation budget.

I wonder if the minister can tell me how their transportation budgeting problems were solved, if indeed they were.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is my understanding that Eastside Thames was over their transportation budget primarily because of the nature of the programs that they are running and the excessively large amount of transportation that was required to move people from place to place during the day. We have been working with them, and I think we have agreed to give them some additional support for exceptional circumstances around their transportation requirements.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I guess since these letters are from employees and from parents and most of them mention wages and ability to keep staff, we might as well get into that issue now. If I could summarize all of the letters here–and certainly I will refer to more of them–the one common theme is that 5 percent this year is not going to solve their funding problems, although most of the letters were written before this year's budget, but I think they anticipated another 5 percent increase.

So the letters refer to all kinds of problems that their lack of funding contributes to. For example, employees that have two and three jobs in addition to being employed by organizations like Eastside Thames, but other organizations as well, the inability to attract and keep good staff, parents concerned about continuity of staff because it is their children that are being cared for, and they are not happy with the high turnover of staff.

I am sure the minister is familiar with all of these issues, and so I am wondering what she has to say to the parents and to the staff about the underfunding. In fact, one of the newer issues that came up–and I am sure the minister would like to wax eloquent about this–is that the so-called booming economy and the increase in the minimum wage is causing a new problem in attracting and keeping qualified staff. That is that the difference between the minimum wage and what the starting wage is for many of these organizations is very small, in fact, about 50 cents an hour or a little bit higher, and the fact that people can leave and get better-paying jobs, which I suppose is different now than it was during the recession of the early 1990s.

If jobs are hard to get, then people are going to stay longer because they do not have alternatives in the marketplace or the workplace. They are going to stay at poor-paying jobs because there are not alternatives out there, but once there are alternatives and those alternatives pay higher wages, the staff are gone. For example, I had an individual who wrote to me, who said: In the two years I have been working at my current place of employment–and this is a residential home for women with developmental disabilities–we have experienced almost a complete staff turnover in two years. Later on, I guess I will get into a very good and detailed brief that was submitted to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and to the minister and copied to us, comparing starting wages in a number of different, very similar occupations. But I wonder if the minister would like to respond to me and to these individuals and their boards, as well as the employees, about the difficulties that the current wages are posing for the employees, the boards and for the clients that they are trying to serve.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think I have tried to respond to part of this before in my earlier comments today, but I will continue by trying to indicate to my honourable friend and helping him understand that I realize the significance of the issue. These letters were written before the budget, and I think they were written to try to ensure that the 5 percent increase that they had asked for last year was indeed–they actually asked for three 5 percent increases, one last year, one this year and one next year, and I think the letters were written again in an effort to try to ensure that that money would be there and available and approved in this year's budget. I have responded to absolutely every letter that I have received as a result of the budget and the announcement of the 5 percent increase and have indicated very clearly that we will continue as resources permit to look at the issues of the funding of these agencies. A very big issue.

I am pleased to see that my honourable friend supported our budget and voted for the increases that were provided. If he had had a significant concern as a result of the correspondence that he received, I am sure that he would not have supported the budget, but he did. He did vote for it, and he probably did recognize and realize that we were going and doing what we could this year to try to address the circumstances and the situations that were alluded to in the letters that again I repeat I have responded to.

Now, again, the question becomes, we are not going to set salaries for external agencies. We are going to listen certainly to what they have to say around our grant support and funding, but we are a government that will not set salaries for every agency that provides service and support. Again, I have to ask my honourable friend if that is their party's policy that they would set salaries. If they should set salaries, my question would be to him: what would be the appropriate salary that they would set for this area of government support and funding? Because we do provide support to external agencies.

I could probably go back and count this afternoon how many times I have said that we have started to address the issue by giving additional grant support in the amount that we felt we could accomplish and do this year. We will continue year after year, as resources permit, to try to address the issue.

But my question would be what does he feel is an adequate salary or support? I know that his party did support the budget, which gave a 5 percent increase, and I am thankful for that, but, again, I have to say if he felt that was inadequate then it would have been his recommendation that another number or another amount be provided. I guess that probably should have been raised in an amendment or a vote of nonconfidence in our government's budget, but that was not the case.

* (1550)

I know my honourable friend thinks I am fishing, but reality is you cannot have it both ways in opposition. You can sit and be critical and say that government should provide more, but then you can vote for a budget that provides a certain amount, and you do not have to indicate what you might do because there is no accountability in opposition. I mean, I guess in this instance, in this year, the opposition has it three ways. They can be critical but they can support our budget, but they also do not have to tell us what they might do differently.

So, you know, I am sitting here struggling right now and indicate that, again, this is the one area within my department and in many instances across government through very difficult times and difficult circumstances and recessions that has received additional support year after year because there are more people who need support and service. I have been able to make that case in the six years that I have been Minister of Family Services, and I will continue to make that case. I will continue to try to address the issues of salaries and workload and recruitment and retainment of staff.

I am not going to be able to fix that in one budget, but I think that our government has made a significant step forward in increasing the grant support by 5 percent both last year and this year on the residential side.

Mr. Martindale: The minister mentioned she had written a reply to everyone who corresponded with her, and I am wondering if she would be willing to table a copy of that correspondence. I presume that the letters were all quite similar, and if she would like to white out the addressee, that would be fine, but I would be interested in getting a copy of the minister's correspondence.

Also, the discussions that I have had with people since the budget suggests to me that they are saying that 5 percent just does not do it, and I am wondering if the minister has had any correspondence or if people in her department have had any correspondence or contact with people providing services since the budget which would offer a similar analysis.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, I have not received any correspondence that would indicate that.

I have never said that 5 percent has fixed the circumstance. I do not think my honourable friend can say that I have said that 5 percent fixes things. I have said that 5 percent goes some way to try to address the issues, and I have indicated that as resources permit in years to come, we will continue to try to address the issue. So I do not want my honourable friend to put anything on the record or suggest even that I have said we fixed the problems with a 5 percent increase.

I do want to indicate that the only correspondence I have received is a letter from ACL Steinbach that has acknowledged our funding increases and that the additional funding will give them the opportunity to begin recovery of wage levels for front-line staff to address long-term operational deficits and to consider additional supports for the people we serve. So it is a thank you letter. It says thank you. My concern and my commitment, what they are saying is much appreciated. So that is the only letter I have received.

I have indicated very clearly that there is an ongoing issue in this area. We are going to continue to try to address it in successive budgets as resources permit and as we have the ability to do it. But, again, I want to say if my honourable friend has some suggestions or ideas on what might fix the problem, I would certainly like to hear those, because I ask that question of every group and organization I meet with.

I cannot find the solutions or develop the answers unless I know what the issues are and unless I get suggestions on how we can better serve individuals through our programming. Estimates usually is a time for some debate and dialogue, and I recall from time to time suggestions and ideas being put on the record on how we might better deliver service or do things differently.

So I would encourage my honourable friend to comment and make some suggestions. You know, quite frankly, it does not matter where the suggestion comes from if it is a good one. Very often I try to follow up.

Mr. Martindale: One of the parents who wrote to me who has a child in Eastside Thames said that a proposed solution is to cut the hours of programming for participants living at home to three hours per day. I am wondering if that actually happened or not and if the increased funding meant that solutions like that did not have to be considered or implemented.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I know that, when an organization that receives a certain amount of grant funding comes to a point within their budget year where they are having difficulty meeting that budget or they are running into deficits, we sit down and work with those agencies and organizations to see what we might be able to do to help them get through the year without running a deficit. There might be suggestions or ideas that are tossed around or looked at. In the instance of where we are providing one-on-one support for someone on a full-day basis, would an option be to look at one-on-one support for an hour less or two hours less a day to see if they could stay within their budget?

These are suggestions and ideas. They are all talked through and they are all looked at, but ultimately it is up to the agency to determine what they are going to do to try to meet or live within their budget. There is responsibility, an onus on organizations too to live within their means and provide the supports and services to the clients that they serve within their budget allocation. So it is important that we work with them and all kinds of suggestions and ideas are tossed around, and ultimately they make the decision on what they can do or what they choose to do in order to try to live within the allocation that they have been given. I do know that they were given an extra 5 percent this year.

Mr. Martindale: I have received quite a bit of correspondence from Gimli, and I will have to give a copy of this to Hansard because this could be Icelandic. I am not sure, but I will try to pronounce it anyway. It is from Heima Er Best Inc. in Gimli. This organization has provided a very good brief, which was submitted to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the minister dated December 1998. The topic is the chronic underfunding crisis to agencies serving the mentally disabled in Manitoba. Maybe the first issue that I will raise is one that the minister has already mentioned in passing, and that is service contract agreements.

I wonder if the minister could basically give me some background information on what service contract agreements are or maybe they were referring to purchase service agreements. I am not sure of the exact terminology here.

* (1600)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Right throughout the Department of Family Services we have many service purchase agreements. Basically, that is a contract, if you will, between an organization and government on what services we will purchase from them at what amount. It is a template that we have, and then it is adjusted with an appendix for each organization. We negotiate specifics with each organization that are put into that appendix. It works fairly well.

Ultimately, it is another accountability mechanism. It is holding government accountable for funding organizations and holding organizations accountable to provide the service that we are funding them to provide. It goes right throughout our department. We do that with most of the organizations or agencies that we fund.

Mr. Martindale: One of the concerns raised by this organization is, and I guess I will quote from their brief where they say: "Boards are being asked to sign Service Contract Agreements with the province without the funding crisis being addressed. Most agencies probably cannot afford to hire a lawyer to even review this legal document. Those that do have the financial resources to do so are advised by their legal counsel that the contract is very one sided in favour of government and that there is no appeal process written in as there is in most contracts."

I am wondering if the minister agrees with this analysis that they are so badly underfunded they cannot afford to hire a lawyer to reveal it, and, secondly, if there is an appeal process.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, when we originally started doing service and funding agreements with our agencies, yes, the agencies as an association did hire a lawyer and worked with us to develop a template and that was the template for the agreement. There is no need or necessity to have a lawyer to do the appendix, so we do not require anyone to have a lawyer to do the appendix to see what we are purchasing what kinds of service. We are purchasing from individual organizations, so there is not that requirement. Many organizations do have legal services and legal advice, and they might from time to time use that lawyer, but there is no requirement. We do not force an appendix or a service and funding agreement on agencies; we work with them. This is a two-way street. I mean, we are not dictating from high what they will deliver. We work with them to see what they want to deliver and how we can fund them to deliver those services, so it is a two-way street.

Many agencies really appreciate having a service and funding agreement, because it gives them a long-term stability to the kinds of service that we will probably purchase from them into the future, so it gives them some stability around the funding arrangements. I am told that many of the smaller agencies we do not have service and funding agreements with. It is not necessary, but probably a third of the organizations in this area would have service and purchase agreements. Many of them are the larger organizations which, of course, would receive the lion's share of funding for programming, so it is accountability.

It is an accountability mechanism, and it does from time to time certainly hold government accountable for the amount of support. It is written in stone that we are going to support certain activities undertaken by an agency, but it does spell out too what we are funding that agency for. So from time to time, agencies will expand their mandate or move into areas of other support, but that does not necessarily mean then we are obligated to fund something that they choose to support in a different area.

We are basically saying that these are the kinds of services we are purchasing from you, and we are funding those services accordingly. So it does give a level of comfort to both sides, to government and to the agency, that this is the kind of service government is prepared to fund. This is the kind of service an agency is prepared to provide to clients. So, as I said, it is a two-way street. It is not something that we force upon agencies, but we work with them. This is a co-operative approach trying to work together to ensure that the taxpayers are buying from agencies that support taxpayers that are in need.

Mr. Martindale: Since this brief suggested that there should be an appeal mechanism, I am wondering if it is possible to appeal decisions under the Social Services Advisory Committee.

Mrs. Mitchelson: There is not an appeal process for the amount of funding we might give an organization or an agency. I mean, budgets are set. We work with agencies and organizations to develop a service and funding agreement, but once we come to that agreement there is no appeal mechanism. There is a dispute resolution procedure that can be undertaken, and that is through discussion. There is not any appeal ultimately on, you know–we have X number of dollars to provide the service. We work with agencies and there is give and take in the service purchase agreements, but ultimately we have to come to a decision on what is the appropriate amount of funding.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to go into some more issues in this brief, but I hardly know where to start, because there are so many issues and it is so detailed. But maybe I will just read some of the headings before I get into some of the issues. Some of the headings are salary comparisons; inadequate and obsolete universal rate structure; recruitment is very limited and turnover is high; no financial incentives after training to stay in the field; effects on our clientele; effects on families; effects on our personnel; effects on volunteer board members; and effects to the community.

* (1610)

Perhaps I will start with the salary comparisons, because they submitted a very interesting chart. In the text of the brief, it says starting wage is $6.40 or $6.50 per hour, while starting wage as a teacher aide is $11.01 per hour or a personal care aide at $10.83 per hour. Our staff working in group homes have a lot of responsibility on a daily basis. In the chart, it compares this group home in Gimli with Evergreen School Division special needs teaching assistant; personal care aides in Betel Home Foundation, Gimli; Manitoba Health home care worker in Gimli; Selkirk Mental Health Centre support service worker and psychiatric nursing assistant; Manitoba Developmental Centre worker, Portage la Prairie; and Marymound residential youth worker in Winnipeg, two categories actually, youth care worker without certificate and certified youth care worker. Of course, all of them are higher and all of them are quite a bit higher.

I am wondering what advice the minister has for these group homes in Gimli in terms of keeping workers when with very similar qualifications, maybe in some cases even lesser qualifications, they can go to other places of employment for higher wages and, in some cases, substantially higher wages.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again I think these are somewhat redundant comments and questions from my honourable friend. But I will take the time to answer again, because I think it is really important that my honourable friend understand that we know there is an issue around salaries for people who work in the community with those with mental disabilities. I said that at the start of my comments today, and I will say it again.

We know that there are issues. That is exactly why, when we were not giving significant increases in other areas of support, we gave a 5 percent increase last year and another 5 percent increase this year to residential services for those with mental disabilities and their operating grants. It still is not going to pay the employees a fortune. I admit that. It is going to make a small increase in the ability to support wages for those working within the field.

We do have an issue of recruitment and retainment of staff. I have said probably on at least three occasions today that as resources permit year after year, we are going to have to continue to try to address this issue. We did what we could in last year's budget with a 5 percent increase in operating grants, and we did what we could in this year's budget with a 5 percent increase in operating grants plus a significant, millions of dollars to try to support more people living in the community and community residences in day programming and respite, in crisis stabilization. So really we have had to balance and look at trying to ensure that we serve as many people as possible, recognizing that we are going to have to address the salary issues.

So my honourable friend again is reading from a proposal. I do not know what the date of that proposal is. Is it before the budget or–

Mr. Martindale: December '98.

Mrs. Mitchelson: December '98. So this is a proposal or a brief that was sent in prior to the budget. We are continuing to try to address the issues. Now, again, I have to say to my honourable friend he supported our budget with the 5 percent increase in support. Now, if he really felt that he had a better solution or other ideas or suggestions, I am sure that he would have brought in an amendment that would have tried to defeat the budget and do something differently.

But, again, I am saying that it is fine sometimes in opposition, and this year the NDP in opposition has it three ways, not only two ways: (1) because they can be critical, (2) but they can vote for the budget, and, (3) because it is an election year. I have asked several times today for my honourable friend to give me some suggestions or ideas on what he might do differently. Well, he is indicating that there are many, many concerns, and I have told him many times today that I understand and know and recognize there are concerns in this area. These are concerns and issues that are not going to go away, because we have more mentally disabled population, and that number is going to continue to grow. It is not going to get less.

Well, I know, it is going to grow because we are now today keeping babies alive at birth that would never live before, and they have multiple handicaps and disabilities in some instances. Also, with new technology at the far end, we are keeping people alive longer that have mental disabilities. So we have an issue that society, Manitoba, Canadians, around the world, are going to have to deal with year after year. There is going to be increasing pressure for additional support and services not only for more people that need to be served but to ensure that we pay adequate salaries, so that people will stay in that field.

I have to say that I recognize, too, that there is a real significant issue here, because many of the people that provided support in this field or this area in the past have been women. Women who maybe were the second income earner in a family, who maybe worked on a part-time basis from time to time. We are seeing now that women, because they have more equal opportunity, are choosing other professions other than caregivers. They are choosing professions that will lead them to higher salaries and higher incomes.

We very often now have two people working or we have a single-parent family that has to earn a living to support her children, his or her children, I should not say hers necessarily, but the issue has become extremely complex. So the question for me is: are people going to want to go into this field into the future, and what is it going to take to recruit and retain them? I do not have the answers to that today, but I think that we are facing some significant challenges.

I know I am not going to be in government forever. We may be elected forever as a Conservative Party, but I will not be here forever. I will not be in this portfolio forever, but I will also not be around. I want to say that long after I am gone, these issues and these pressures are going to continue to be there. There are no easy answers.

That is why I have said many times today that if my honourable friend has some suggestions or ideas, Estimates is certainly the time and gives us the opportunity to talk about these issues and to see whether there might be something that he would have to offer. Again, I say it is very easy to be critical, but it is easy to be critical–but then to support a budget, on the other hand not have any ideas on how to fix the issues that he has criticized.

I will leave it at that for now and see whether, again, I might convince my honourable friend that we might like to hear some of his enlightened solutions to some of these issues. I do not ever want to make light of these issues, because I want to tell you that year after year, even in times when government was reducing funding, I was able to convince my colleagues that we needed additional support for additional services in this area.

I am actually proud of that achievement because I think that in this area, certainly the taxpayers of Manitoba believe that we need to support those who cannot support themselves. I have been able to make that case, and I will continue to make that case although we have not addressed all of the issues around the support services that need to be provided. But it will be an ever-increasing demand on tax resources for generations to come, I would believe.

* (1620)

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister if, and this is a very big if, your government is re-elected, are you on track for a 5 percent increase in this area next year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I cannot make that absolute commitment here today. You know, if the economy continues to do the way it is doing, if we continue to have more tax resources, if we are able to continue, and which we will continue, to pay down our debt, we will be able to use the money that we pay on interest for social programming, and I have to indicate that we have lived up to–I mean, there was a request two years ago that we would provide 5 percent per year over three years in this area. We committed 5 percent last year; we committed another 5 percent this year. So I think our track record has been consistent, and we have dealt with the issues in good faith, but I cannot make a commitment today to next year's budget or next year's funding.

It would be wonderful if things were doing so well that we could commit more than 5 percent, but as I said, I cannot make that commitment, and no government and no minister does have the ability to make that commitment.

Mr. Martindale: I am glad that the minister mentioned women. I would like to read a paragraph from this excellent brief under the section Effects on Our Personnel. It says, and I quote: "All of our staff are women. A glance at poverty statistics quickly reveals that women and their families suffer emotional and physical consequences when their work is undervalued and underpaid, as it is in our field. Many of our staff at Heima Er Best are sole income earners. Some are single mothers trying to raise two or more children on this pathetic wage. Work hours in residential services are undesirable, after 4 p.m. on weekdays and overnight until 8 a.m. and all weekend hours. The staff have no life insurance, disability or other medical benefits and no pension plans. Many of our staff struggle to work two or three jobs to make a living wage. In addition, many of our staff are taking training to improve their skills on their own time. While the source of our staff's gratification is the people we work with and care for, a living wage is a necessity. Love and mutual respect, while a much-appreciated job bonus, does not help meet basic financial needs."

I would like to ask the minister if she thinks that, because of underfunding, this is becoming perhaps a low-wage ghetto and that it is exploiting women.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I would hope that we would be able to take just a five-minute break in a few minutes. But I take some offence to my honourable friend's comments. I mean, again he is making allegations. I have indicated time after time after time, and I would like to count the number of times I have said we have got to continue to address this issue. We put 5 percent in last year and 5 percent in this year to begin to address the issues. Now my honourable friend supported that 5 percent increase in the budget, and yet he is making the kinds of comments here today that he just made, and I find that unconscionable.

Mr. Chairperson, he has yet, besides reading into the record information that he received before the budget and before the increases and asked questions on them, to give me any suggestions or any ideas on what he might think is fair or adequate, and that is extremely irresponsible of someone who professes to be a minister of Family Services in waiting. He has no ideas, no suggestions, wants to be critical but does not have any of the solutions and yet voted for the very budget that provided the 5 percent increase. Now, I think that he needs to examine internally himself and his party for the kinds of activities that they have undertaken in voting for a budget that provided a 5 percent increase, in listening to my comments that have said we have to continue to address these issues, and then putting statements like that on the record.

Maybe I guess my question would be back to him: does he agree with those statements, because he obviously does not feel that he has to accept any accountability or be held accountable in any way? I would say that that is certainly not someone I would want to put my trust in as someone who could make decisions on behalf of the people or the programs in the Department of Family Services.

Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee? Will the committee take a five-minute break? Agreed? [agreed] We will resume in five minutes.

________

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We will resume the Estimates of the Department of Family Services, and the honourable minister had finished her response.

The honourable member for Burrows, with a question.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask a question about a letter from ACL Beausejour, and I will give the minister a copy of it so she knows what I am referring to. I will just use this as an example rather than the particular agency, but I guess the issue is agencies requesting to close their doors for in-service training and the department position apparently being that the government funding is per diem. Therefore it is not appropriate to shut down, but I will show the minister the letter in case that is helpful. I wonder if the minister could tell me what she thinks the issue is and maybe how it was resolved in the case of ACL Beausejour.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, it is our department's policy around support and services for day services that a disruption in the service by closing down a facility for a whole day creates a significant problem for the clients that depend on that service. Now we do provide all kinds of in-service opportunities. From time to time we pay for sponsorships for staff to go to training options and opportunities. We provide specific training. We do from time to time hire replacement workers to work so individual staff can go and get training. I am just looking at this letter and it indicates that–well, this letter was dated in May 1998. In the year before, there were over 1,500 people that accessed training through the resources that our department provides or sponsorships and that kind of thing. So I guess for us the policy is based on sort of looking at the needs of the client. It is more a client-focused policy to ensure that the clients are served.

A shutdown of the facility for a day, in the instance of the clients that we are serving through this program, is not the most viable option. We encourage facilities to do their training on a rotational basis rather than the shutting down of a facility for a full day and not having any access to service for clients.

* (1650)

Mr. Martindale: I have one more general question, but before I ask that question I would just like to put on the record that I received a very good brief, I guess I will call it, from SC LifeWorks and Network South Enterprises pointing out that special-rate funding from Family Services ranges from $61.93 per day to $76.40 per day, while the related costs are $98.88 per day. The average person's cost exceed the funding by $30.01 per day.

They also did some charting of the difference between their funding increases and the consumer price index in Manitoba. The reason I want to put this on the record is that, you know, the minister keeps talking about the 5 percent that they got last year and the 5 percent this year. But if you look at it over the long term, in the case of this brief from 1991 to 1998, they say that Family Services funding has increased by 2.7 percent over the past eight years, while the cost of living in Manitoba has increase 19.5 percent over the same time period.

My general question has to do with the minister's earlier comments about more and more individuals needing programs and services, which I do not doubt. Someone in the community said that they are under pressure–well, maybe pressure is not the right word–that they are being asked by the Department of Family Service to open more homes all the time, which certainly would be reasonable. If you have more people needing group homes, you know, why would the government not ask organizations to open more homes, but what they are telling me is that they cannot because they cannot find staff. They are in a big predicament. Presumably they would like to open more homes, but if they cannot hire staff, they are not able to.

I am wondering if the minister can confirm that organizations are being encouraged to open more homes and what the solution is. If they cannot find staff, how are they supposed to accommodate more individuals who need to live in the community?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Obviously if we have more need for community support and community residences, we would be working with agencies to try to encourage the opening of more homes. Now, we have indicated, and I have indicated many times today, that the whole issue of recruitment and retainment is a big issue. Obviously, an agency will not open a home if they cannot find suitable staff.

I have not heard that issue raised with me specifically, so I guess my honourable friend does not have to provide any detail around who might have given him that information. Certainly I would ask him to encourage that organization, whoever it might be, to work with us or to identify that as an issue for us so that we could move forward from here, if he so chooses.

Mr. Martindale: I will try to move along a little bit now with some new topics. I am wondering if the minister can tell me if because of the increased funding in her department there is any money to fund new organizations.

I am thinking specifically of the Transcona-Springfield Employment Network, who wrote to the minister September 28, 1998, and has probably corresponded since then, because I also have a proposal for community-based employability projects dated January 1999. I understand they have met with senior staff of the minister's department and possibly even with the minister herself. I am wondering if they have been allocated funding from Community Living or not.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Senior staff within the department did meet with this group and organization. They have received the proposal. There are still some issues with the proposal that have to be worked out, and we need to continue the dialogue. So there has not been any decision made, but we are still meeting with the organization.

Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that staff said they liked the model but it is not affordable and that one of the obstacles is the special rate funding which, my understanding is, allows one-to-one staff ratios.

I am wondering if that indeed is the problem here, that the model is considered too expensive.

Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding is that the proposal that has come forward is a significantly costly proposal, and we have encouraged them to take a look at working with other agencies that are providing this kind of service. I mean, do we want our money to be going towards setting up another bureaucracy, or would it be more to their benefit to partner with someone like SC LifeWorks, Network South, or whatever, so that there could be an expansion of the programming for more individuals through that mechanism?

At this point in time I am not sure that they are keen on that, but it is not something that we can support within the budget allocation that we have presently. So we need to work with them to ask them to sort of explore other options and opportunities. To date I do not think we have come to any conclusion on that, but we will continue to work with them.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask a question about an organization called the Open Access Resource Centre Inc. They have written to me and copied the ministers of Education (Mr. McCrae), Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), Health (Mr. Stefanson), Justice (Mr. Toews), and Children and Youth Secretariat.

So I presume that this minister has a copy of this letter. I have been to their premises and met the staff. They seem to be providing a very good resource to people in the community, mainly technological devices such as electronic and computer equipment with voice synthesizers and adaptive access so that these individuals can voice their needs. Then I received correspondence saying that they were being forced to suspend operations March 17, 1999.

I am wondering if the minister either in her role as Minister of Family Services or lead minister for Children and Youth Secretariat has had a chance to look at their request for funding.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, my department does not have the detail on that, but I do know that Child and Youth Secretariat got involved and worked with them. But you would have to ask when I have staff from Child and Youth here. I believe that we did find some resources of support through the Child and Youth Secretariat to support them. So they have not closed.

* (1700)

Mr. Martindale: Moving right along, I became aware of a new idea for parents who want to take care of their children after they are gone, their adult children, by setting up discretionary trusts. Actually, I would like to send over to the minister a very interesting article from The Globe and Mail. Maybe she can get staff to photocopy it.

It seems like a very good idea. Probably the part of the idea that the minister would appreciate the most is that they are not asking for government funding. It seems that one of the problems is that some governments are going after discretionary trusts, because they see the monies in the discretionary trusts as assets, so that poses a problem. I am not sure whether it is a taxation problem or exactly what it is, but I would be interested in knowing how this minister views, and her government views, discretionary trusts.

Are these a good idea? Should governments be encouraging individuals to set up discretionary trusts so that money is available for their adult children after they, as parents, are gone? I guess it raises a whole lot of questions, and I would be interested in knowing the minister's views on discretionary trusts.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I have met with Continuity Care in Manitoba that has this as one of their specific issues, and certainly they make a good case. The whole asset issue is a significant issue that needs to be addressed, and that is exactly why we are doing a consultation around our Income Assistance program for the disabled. This is one of the issues that has been raised by a certain segment of the community where families would like to provide additional support, but if their individual family member is on social allowance or income assistance, they cannot always provide that. There is only a certain amount of asset that they can have, and then their employment and income assistance are clawed back if the family provides more. That is an issue I think we need to look at and we need to address, but it is only one small piece of the whole employment and income assistance support for clients with disabilities.

It is the broad spectrum of disabilities. We have physical disabilities, mental disabilities, mental illness, learning disabilities, all of those things that have to be taken into account, and there are different issues surrounding each different disability and the support networks that provide support.

We have announced that we are setting up a panel that will be responsible for broad consultation, including families that might have some recommendations on how we could better support people with disabilities. I think we need to take into account this whole issue around trusts and people wanting to provide a better life for their disabled adult family member, but sometimes the processes or the disincentives that might be there do not encourage families to participate. I do not think we should discourage families from financial contributions, if they so desire, to make the life of their loved one a little more pleasant.

It is not an area where I have an answer today, but I think it needs to be explored, it needs to be looked at, and I certainly am supportive of families helping their own family members if they can. It sounds like many of them want to. That is why they have an organization here through Continuity Care that is talking about these issues, raising them with the government, and I think we need to have that consultation process and then determine as a result of that where we go from here.

I just want to say, too, thank you for the article. I will read it.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.3. Community Living (a) Regional Operations (1) Salary and Employee Benefits $15,360,600–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,095,300–pass.

9.3.(b) Adult Services.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to raise the issue of Pelican Lake Centre. I have the minister's news release of February 4, 1999, with the background information, which is very interesting to read. I have a couple of newspaper clippings, and I do not think I really need to ask any questions about the original intent of the government, because it is all here in a news release. The government did have a plan for closing Pelican Lake.

I guess my question is: what is the revised government plan or what is the current status, and how has that changed from the original news release?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I need to explain sort of the genesis of the whole move to shut Pelican Lake down, and that was as a result of the San Board that has always had the responsibility, since we moved disabled clients into Pelican Lake, for operating that facility.

There have been ongoing issues in the community. The community and the surrounding community, the people who live in the Ninette area and the residents who have lived at Pelican Lake for many, many years have become a part of that community. But the San Board wrote to us and indicated that they no longer wanted to manage the facility, that they felt that the property belonged to them and that they saw it as an asset, and they would like the individuals moved out. They had given us a period of three years, I think it was at the time.

So we tried to negotiate a longer-term arrangement, knowing that we are not admitting people to institutions on a regular basis anymore and that ultimately probably the population at Ninette would decrease, and when does it become viable to continue it and when does it become viable to close the facility and look for alternative options. Anyway, our feet were put to the fire, I guess, by the San Board who said we were going to have to make some decisions about closing the facility, or they were going to turn the keys over and basically no longer provide the service.

They initially were not prepared to entertain any proposal from the community to operate Pelican Lake, and so we felt we had no choice but to move pretty quickly to close the facility. So we did make that announcement based on the San Board sort of threatening to turn the keys over or say we could no longer have that facility. So we made the announcement.

I guess there were a lot of issues raised by the staff who were working at Pelican Lake as well as families of some of the residents who were at Pelican Lake, indicating that that had been their home for many, many years. They were very pleased with the support and the service that their family members had received, and they did not want to see the facility closed.

* (1710)

So as a result of those issues and concerns being raised, we decided to review the decision that we had made and see whether there were other options and opportunities, and we had the opportunity then to meet with the San Board, I guess, and convince them that if there was a community organization that came forward and agreed to manage the facility, that they would entertain a proposal from the community.

So, at the present time, we have a community organization that has incorporated. They have presently put a proposal forward to the San Board, and the San Board I think is presently looking at that proposal. But the San Board has backed off on their position that the facility will close as of March 2000.

So we are continuing that dialogue and discussion. I guess our focus on the residents who are presently at Pelican Lake is that as we go through the individual planning process with families or substitute decision makers, the determination will be made on what the families or the substitute decision makers in conjunction with the staff believe is the best plan for that individual, and it may be remaining at Pelican Lake, it may be community placement.

So we are doing those individual plans, and we are in the process of–I guess the new community organization is in the process of negotiating some sort of an arrangement with the San Board. So that is where we are at presently. We are not under the threat of closure as of March 2000.

Mr. Martindale: One of the issues that someone raised with me, I guess it is kind of a tentacle issue, but they wondered who actually owns the land and who actually owns the building. There seems to have been some dispute about that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, this has been an ongoing source of aggravation to me for years when the San Board originally indicated their intent to get out of the business and requested that we move our residents out of Pelican Lake. We have done searches in land titles, and we have had legal opinions and whatever. There seems to be some sense that, if we challenged the San Board's legal title to the buildings and the property, we would not win. It would indicate that they own the buildings, so, in fact, they own the property, or does it work the other way around? [interjection] If they own the land, they own the buildings. We have nothing in our records that can indicate to us clearly that we own the land or the buildings.

Now, the issue has become that the San Board has not really ever put any resources into–I think it was turned over to the San Board for $1 way back when, and they have never put any resources as a board into the facility or the management. It has been completely government funded. We have done the capital upgrades; we have put all of our resources in. So there has not really been a contribution by the San Board, so then the question does become: is the San Board prepared to turn it over to the community for what they received it for, or do they consider it an asset that is theirs? Do they want to get out of the business, do they want to find an alternative use, or do they want to sell the property? We do not believe we have a leg to stand on legally if they did want to sell the property, so we are in a bit of a situation where I guess we have asked, as a government, the San Board to come to the table in good faith and try to deal with the issue and ensure that we are not kicking vulnerable people out before there is an opportunity to figure out how we can best serve those individuals.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the minister can tell me if there are any differences or substantial differences between how the government is currently running Pelican Lake Centre and how the community group in their proposal plans to run the centre.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are not running Pelican Lake, as the government. It is the San Board that has been contracted to run the services at Pelican Lake, and it will turn over to a community board that will be responsible. So it is the San Board turning it over to another community board, and we will fund appropriately the service, but we have never run it.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if there is any substantial difference between the way the San Board has been running the Pelican Lake Centre and the proposal from the community group?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we do not have specific detail around that. We are still in the process of negotiation. I would think that, if a community board had the interest in wanting to maintain service and support for the clients that are presently at Pelican Lake, they would have the sensitivity; I know on the community board are representatives of families of individuals who are in Pelican Lake.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me if people in recent years have been discharged from Pelican Lake and if new people are being admitted? My understanding is that there would be either very few or no new admissions.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess over the last four or five years there have been no new admissions, and there may have been two people discharged. It has been a fairly stable population.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell me on page 51 what the increase is under Other Expenditures for Other Operating. Perhaps that is computers?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that is computers.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.3. Community Living (b) Adult Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,733,600–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,286,100–pass; (3) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $82,858,600–pass.

9.3.(c) Manitoba Developmental Centre.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I wonder if the minister could explain on page 53, footnote (1): "the decrease in FTEs reflects workforce adjustments." What does that mean?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am told that those were two vacant staff positions that were nondirect service provision positions that were reduced in this year's budget.

Mr. Martindale: Under Expected Results, it says approximately 482 residents. I wonder if the minister can tell me what is happening in terms of numbers in recent years. Are people being discharged to the community? Are there any new admissions, and, if so, how many?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, back in 1989-90, there were 583 individuals, and in 1998-99, there were 482 individuals. So the population has declined slightly year by year. Some of it would be discharges–there are relatively no new admissions–and some deaths.

* (1720)

Mr. Chairperson: Item 9.3. Community Living (c) Manitoba Developmental Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $23,856,200–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $3,093,300–pass.

9.3.(d) Residential Care Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $247,200–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $36,400–pass.

9.3.(e) Office of the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $240,500.

Mr. Martindale: I have in front of me a resolution from ACL Manitoba with a whole lot of concerns about The Vulnerable Persons Act and how it is operating, so I would like to go through these.

First of all, with regard to training, there is a claim that there is a lack of training and understanding of the basics of the legislation and each of the key groups–families, agencies, self-advocates, and in some cases FSW. Now, I do not know what that stands for. [interjection] It stands for Family Services workers, okay.

Now, it is my understanding that before the act was proclaimed, which, as the minister will recall was a long period of time, one of the delays was in order to train everyone in the new act. So I am wondering if the minister can tell me if she thinks that there is a lack of training and understanding of the basics of the legislation and what her department's experience is.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, my senior staff, deputy and ADM, met with ACL around their brief and all of the issues, and what they have done is go through the brief issue by issue and develop a plan of action in co-operation with them.

What they have done is partnered with ACL, we have, as a department, to do training and develop a training plan which will kick in this September. We did do extensive training before the act was proclaimed, but one of the issues is there is turnover in staff, and because the training was several years ago, there are some staff who felt that they needed some retraining, some additional information.

So we have partnered with them, and we have been working closely with ACL to address the issues that were brought up in the brief that they presented.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, under the hearing panel process, there are concerns that there are blanket or sweeping administrative substitute decision makers and confusion about when to recommend a substitute decision maker.

I wonder if the minister agrees that this is a problem.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess this is the one area where ACL has expressed some concerns. We are not sure that we absolutely agree with all of the concerns or issues that have been raised around this. But I do want to indicate that we sort of followed through with the legislation according to the letter and the spirit of the act and that we will be finished the total review process of all of those that were under the former Mental Health Act by this September. So, once we are finished that review process and have reviewed all of the cases that were under the old Mental Health Act, we will sit down with ACL again, probably this fall, and see if there are any outstanding issues of how we might work together.

* (1730)

Mr. Martindale: I appreciate the general answer, but these are very particular concerns. I would like to go through them one at a time. There is confusion about when to recommend a substitute decision maker. Does the department share that concern?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess sometimes there is a bit of a philosophical difference on whether a substitute decision maker is the most appropriate vehicle or whether a support network is the option. ACL would probably believe that there should be more support networks than there should be substitute decision makers, but I think under the law we have to be extremely careful. I think our legal advice is telling us that there are some people that will need substitute decision makers because they are so severely disabled that, you know, a support network is not probably the option that should be recommended.

I do want to indicate that there have been orders eliminated as a result of this process. I mean, we have limited the areas of a person's life in some instances where a substitute decision maker might need to be appointed. That might be in areas where that person might need financial help or something like that. So I believe that the process works, that the panels are set up and doing their job.

I have had many opportunities to meet with ACL over the last six years since I have been in this department. There is a bit of a different philosophical approach. ACL for the most part has said they want to see institutions closed down immediately, that there should be no institutionalization. They have asked me many times to sort of make a decision and set a date and say MDC will be closed. On every occasion when I have had the opportunity to meet, I have indicated that, philosophically, we are a government that believes there needs to be a broad range of services from community to institutional.

We are prepared to continue to try to support people in community rather than institutionalizing them, but we are not prepared to make a decision to shut down our institutions tomorrow or next year or the year after. So that is our policy, that is our philosophy, and there might be a slightly different philosophical approach by ACL and the reality of what the legislation is and how we can implement it. So there are some minor differences, but I think there are many areas where we do work together really well and will continue to do that. This might be one area where we have a little bit of a philosophical disagreement.

Mr. Martindale: There is a concern that there is confusion about people who are not under orders of supervision who may require substitute decision makers. Where do they fit in the process?

Mrs. Mitchelson: From our perspective, we do not believe that there is a lot of confusion around this issue. We do recognize and realize that maybe people need to be reacquainted with the act, but we are following the spirit and the letter of the act. That is one of the reasons we will be working to ensure that there is training and retraining done. We are working in co-operation with ACL around that issue.

Mr. Martindale: There is a concern that decisions are not being given back to hearing panellists. Does the minister share that concern?

Mrs. Mitchelson: The process under the legislation is that the hearing panels meet, review the situation and make recommendations to the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner. But it is ultimately the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner who makes the ultimate determination. I think, in many instances, he does follow the recommendations of the panel, but not in all. I guess he is very careful sort of not to, on an individual case-by-case basis, go back to a hearing panel and say this is a decision I have made for this reason or that reason, mainly because he does not want to try to start influencing the decisions of the panels. They are made up of different people and they have a right to hear the issues and make recommendations.

But I know that he does from time to time meet with members of the hearing panel to discuss general, broader issues, but he does not get into a case-by-case sort of rationale or reasoning for the reasons that he accepted or rejected the panel's recommendations.

* (1740)

Mr. Martindale: There is a concern that families, consistently designated as substitute decision makers, and where no families are involved the Public Trustee is identified. There is little or no planning or thought given to other options. Does the minister share this concern?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, this is probably one of those arguments that might be a little bit philosophical. I know ACL would like to see fewer substitute decision makers and more support networks. I mean, ultimately, where there is a family, sometimes the family wants to become more involved, and we want to encourage that. We certainly support that as them being the substitute decision maker or part of a support network.

But, ultimately, when you have someone that is very severely disabled the family may have lost connection, and the Public Trustee may have been the vehicle for that support for many, many years. The family may be very happy with that arrangement and they want that kind of accountability.

So all of those things are taken into consideration before the ultimate recommendation is made. Certainly if families are wanting to be involved, if they are wanting to be the support network or the substitute decision maker, we certainly encourage that kind of activity, too.

Mr. Martindale: I just sent out the resolutions so that I can give the minister a copy, so I am going to have to make up a question while I am waiting for the piece of paper. However, it is not hard.

I would like to ask the minister why the Public Trustee would be asked to be responsible for an individual. The PublicTrustee's office, as the minister knows, has a lot of power, but usually they are involved with seniors and people who are not able to manage their own financial affairs and usually where there is not somebody in the family who is either trusted or has power of attorney. I am wondering why the Public Trustee's office is used with vulnerable persons.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Virtually under the old legislation and the old process, the Public Trustee was the substitute decision maker for all individuals. What is happening now with the review is there will be fewer individuals under the Public Trustee, because some families are becoming involved.

In the past, it would just happen. I mean, virtually all of our clients would have been involved with the Public Trustee's office, and if a family wanted to be more involved and help make some of the decisions, they would have to go through a court process which would be costly and whatever. Now I think we have the ability, through the review process, to grant authority or more power to families, if they should so choose, than we have in the past, and they do not have to go through the cost of a court case to make that happen.

So, actually, we will see a reduction in the need for the Public Trustee's office, but there still are families that are saying they are quite satisfied with the way the Public Trustee has managed and that they do not really want to become involved. In that case, we cannot force families to be part of the process.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I have given a copy of the ACL resolution 2, The Vulnerable Persons Act resolution, to the minister. I was hoping to get through No. 2. Hearing panel process; 3. Disclosure of abuse; and 4. Person centre planning, by six o'clock, but we are probably not going to make it.

So maybe we will skip from the micro issues to the macro issues and the BE IT RESOLVED at the bottom recommends one of two options: that the province initiate a full social audit facilitated by people agreeable to both the province and ACL Manitoba, ensuring that the spirit and integrity of the legislation is being respected, the processes, protocols and people designated to implement are on track, and areas that require modification of thinking are identified and resolved; or that the Vulnerable Persons' office and the Commissioner be reframed within the provincial structure to be freestanding and not responsible to the Minister of Family Services.

I am wondering if the minister has had a chance to discuss this with ACL Manitoba and what she thinks of either of these two options under the BE IT RESOLVED section.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, before I get to the BE IT RESOLVED, maybe I could just talk about do we want to talk in brief about this bulletin No. 3. Disclosure of abuse and person centre planning. As a result of the meeting with ACL, it was agreed that our department would work together with ACL to develop workshops around disclosure of abuse, how you report abuse and how you deal with the issue of abuse, and around person centre planning which would talk about who is responsible for what.

So we jointly developed and held workshops right across the province with ACL. Apparently, the feedback was excellent, that they were excellent training opportunities for staff throughout the regions of the province. So that has happened and there seems to have been an ability for us to work together to make that happen. I guess, as a result of this brief and this resolution, both the deputy and assistant deputy minister met with ACL. Certainly, we have agreed that we will do a review of the legislation some time in the future when we gain some experience with the legislation. In the interim, I think, when they met it was agreed that there was not really a need for a social audit if we could sit down and work together around trying to address these issues. You can see by my answers to three and four that there was certainly a co-operative working approach. I think that is what ACL wanted, and that is certainly what we want to do. If we can work together, sit down and present our points of view and ultimately come up with a process that seems to be satisfactory to both sides, then I think that is probably the best way to go.

* (1750)

My understanding is that we came to the conclusion at the meeting with ACL that a social audit would not be necessary, but that if we went through this process and worked together and agreed to work together, we could probably resolve a lot of the issues that had been raised in the resolution. That is what has happened, and that is what continues to happen in developing some of the training that will be rolled out in the fall.

Mr. Martindale: I am glad I gave the minister this page. It probably saved a lot of questions. She is probably glad I did too. So I take it, just to summarize what the minister is saying, ACL is satisfied since they agreed to workshops around the issue of disclosure abuse and person centre planning, is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think in general terms we have come a long way in trying to address many of the issues that were raised in this phase. There would probably be areas where we might agree to disagree on certain things. I talked a little earlier about ACL philosophically believing that there should be some more support networks rather than substitute decision makers and that kind of thing. It will always be those kinds of issues. I think the process that has been undertaken has helped, has certainly gone a long way in trying to ensure that people are trained and up to speed on the act, and we will work together, as we can, to try to ensure that that the best possible information is out there and we are working together towards a common goal, and that is supporting those with disabilities that we both care about.

Mr. Martindale: Does the minister see any merit in having the Vulnerable Persons' office or Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner be free-standing? I guess this recommendation parallels the change that was made in the Children's Advocate reporting to the Legislature rather than to the minister.

Mrs. Mitchelson: This is not an office that you can compare to the Children's Advocate's office in any way. It is more like a function of a human rights office or the Public Trustee's office. So this person or the office is not an advocate. The Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner is performing an administrative function. I do not think we can really compare the two. I guess our sense is that we need to continue to work with the law as it has been set up. We have just about finished the review of all of the orders, I think, within the time frame that we indicated we would. We will continue to work with this legislation. It appears to be working fairly well right now. I mean, there will be a timely review sometime down the road of the legislation and the office, and we will go from there. At this point in time, I do not think we would want to do that without having some experience and working with the laws that presently exist.

Mr. Martindale: Resolution 6 by ACL talks about institutional care. The minister has already commented on their position on closing down institutions. The minister does not have it in front of her, but I do. What I am wondering, if we could take a part of this resolution which says: create well-planned alternatives for people currently living at the three institutions. I am wondering if there are plans for individuals to move out and into the community as opposed to closing down the whole institution.

Mrs. Mitchelson: We are in the process and do individual case planning and reviews of circumstances. When it is deemed appropriate that some alternative support in the community might be a viable option, we look at that. So we are continuing the ongoing review on a case-by-case basis and doing individual case planning and will continue to do that. People have moved from our facilities into the community, but in some instances the option for support is deemed the most appropriate in the institutional setting.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Item 9.3.(e) Office of the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $240,500–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $252,500–pass.

Resolution 9.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $131,060,300 for Family Services, Community Living, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.