Manitoba Hansard — 2 July 1985 (Sitting 81B, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-81b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA TUesday, 2 July, 1985. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - COMMUNITY SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order . Just like drawing a circle, we end up where we started . 4.(b)( 1) Child and Family Support: Salaries; 4.(b)

(2) Other Expenditures; 4.(b)

(3) Maintenance of Children; 4.(b)

(4) External Agencies - the Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, under Mai ntenance of Children, and if I understand the Minister correctly , then the caseloads have been growing. Yet we notice that there is an expenditure of almost $1.5 million less in that particular area. I wonder if the Minister can explain why the Maintenance of Children would be going down when ever ything else seems to be increasing. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. M.

SMITH: The numbers of children in care are actually going down, and the form of service from the rather expensive institutional type care in staffed group homes is shifting to more use of foster homes and support services in families. That is why you'll notice, if you compare Item 3 and Item 4, that it's down on the Maintenance of Children, which refers to their maintenance in group homes, but it is up on the External Agencies which provide the direct service to families and foster families. MR. A. BROWN: Have we been cutting back on Maintenance of Children?

In other words, are we providing the same type of care that we were providing previously , or have we been cutting back on the type of care that we were giving? HON. M. SMITH: The type of care given has changed from taking so many children out of their families and putting them in group homes, which are staffed three shifts around the clock, larger numbers of youngsters.

We have shifted more to either putting someone into a home to help the family parent better , learn how to work with a particular child or day care or some relief for the family, or placing the child in foster care. it's because the per diem charge when they are in a group home would come under the ma intenance figu re;

whereas the other types of care are allocated through what we call the External Agencies, the children's aid systems, that it appears to be a decrease in maintenance. But the comparable increase on the other side, if you take them togeth er, there is more money being spent on the children, but it's being spent in a different way. it's because when we evaluated the success we were having with children in the group home setting, although it did still seem to be fairly appropriate for older teenagers, it seemed to be less than effec tive for the younger children.

So we've been gradually r3ducing the number of group situations for under-12s and then more gradually reducing or bringing into a slightly different balance the group home care for the older youngsters. But I think if you combine those (3) and (4) togeth er, you'll see that there's not a reduction in resources. MR. A. BROWN: My concern, Mr. Chairman, would be, especially in cases of child abuse, for instance, where I believe it was the former policy of Children's Aid Society that you didn't fool around too long.

If there were evidence of child abuse, the child was removed until such a time as they were certain that the problem had been solved and that the child would have been looked after. In other words, child care and child protection was of the ut most importance. Are we now trying to keep them in a home and resolve the problem while they're still at home, or are we still awarding them the protection we were giving them previously? HON. M. SMITH: There's no reduction of protection fo r ab used children.

I should just say that the Maintenance of Children figure is an open-ended figure. it's an estimate of what our caseload will be, should more children come into care and require care during the year that figure would go up. In other words, it's a guesstimate at this stage. On the child abuse side, we are still removing children where we think it's in their best interest. So again, there's many kinds of ab use, it depends how you define it. If it's neglect, sometimes you can move in and by helping the parents, enable them to overcome that problem. Sometimes it's necessary to really remove them.

The serious removal cases are when you're getting over, physical or sexual abuse, and certainly there's no backward move in that regard, there's willingness to move them out if that's indicated. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Can the Minister tell us what the increase in funding is to the Child Protection Centre? HON. M. SMITH: There's no increase to the Child Protection Centre. MR. G. MERCIER: What is the existing level of service? HON. M. SMITH: $449,400.00. MR. G. MERCIER: And what was it the year before? HON. M.

SMITH: Same, remember that that's just one component of the Child Abuse Program. MR. G. MERCIER: Is there any provision in the Budget for dealing with third party child abuse? 3512

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 HON. M. SMITH: The agencies are the responsible bodies to deal with that. MR. G. MERCIER: Did the Mi nister advise that the Child Protect ion Centr e received a grant which they had requested, probably at least a year old now, through the Core Area Initiative, but would have been dealt with by her department in making a recommendation? HON. M. SMITH: We confirmed suppo rt for the centre and the core area has told us that their decision did not hinge on whether we suppo rted the approach or not. MR. G.

MERCIER: How does a Minister justify no increase in funding for the Child Protection Centre? HON. M. SMITH: The number of cases is levelling off but we also have been training people througho ut the system to deal with, not only the emergency need, but the follow-up treatment. We've devel oped protocols for nurses and doctors througho ut the province to help them identify and deal with the emergency situation, and then we've been holding training and added some staff to the total chil d and family service system, to develop a capacity for follow-up treatment.

The emergency treat ment in the medical setting is just one component in the overall Child Abuse Program. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, that seems to be a consistent argument of the Minister whenever a problem is raised in this particular field. The evidence is clear that the number of child abuse cases are increasing significantly and are having to be dealt with.

The Minister finds it quite easy to increase money spent in adminis tration by very signific ant amounts, for increases in salaries or in communications, but when we have a fundamental problem of child abuse, and we have a Child Protect ion Centre with people in it, particularly the do ctors, McR ae and Ferguson, who are renowned througho ut Canada for their expertise in dealing with this particular problem, they received no increase in funding. We're told by the Minis ter that, along with the tho usand and one other problems that the workers have to deal with, they're going to have to deal with this problem too.

The priorities of the Minister in this department seem to be out of step with reality and with the real problems that childr en, in particular, are facing. I find it very hard to accept the incr eases in admini strat io n, in communicatio ns, and in other areas that are more politically orientated than dealing with the real problem of children. for example in this particular area. with child abuse. Now it's my understanding that this centre is the only agency or organization that deals with problems of third party abuse. The Minister suggested that other agencies are dealing with that particular problem.

That's certainly not correct according to represe ntations that were made by, I believe it was, Dr. Ferguson. when I saw a program he was on during the winter on CBC. on 24 Hours. HON. M. SMITH: The main increase in the incidence of abuse are occurring in rural areas and the Indian agencies where we are developing the child protection programs. To put all the money into a Winnipeg medical emergency service wouldn't be putting the money where the need is most emerging. In developing, we had a long discussio n the other night about the child abuse programs.

I have a long listing of the elements of it and the different groups of discipli nes that are involved which I would probably be quicker to hand out rather than to read out. But to put all of one's resources into one central location when the emer gency case, the need for medical treatment and examination, is occurring right across the province really isn't the best way to go.

Early on, when we met with people from the Health Science Centre, the y too said that they felt that a lot of their expertise would be better used out teaching other doct ors and other workers how to learn from the very great expertise that they had acquired. We have been using the Child Abuse Centre as a training place also for doctors from the rest of the province. Either they come in or there is an outreach by that expertise. Because, overall, I guess it is the way we found almost all of these emerging problems are that you can't just thro w a lot of staff and a lot of money on emergency care.

You have to develo p the preventive, the early identification, the suppo rt for the legal process, the supp ort for the medical examination and then the follow-up treatment of the child and the abuser and the family. lt is that type of system approach that we have been working with. MR. G. MERCIER: Is it not the Min ister's policy to return abused children to families in which the y have been abused? HON. M. SMITH: The policy of the government is to have a multi-disciplina ry group look at each case and each situation and get a court determination as to the appropriate handling of a child .

In some cases, a child can be returned to the home. In some cases, a person can be put into monitor what goes on. In others, it would be quite dangerous to return a child to the family and sometimes there' s permanent separat ion. What we do is put together a multidi sciplinary group to examine each situation and make the most appropriate determinatio n for that child in that family. MR. G. MERCIER: Can the Min ister answer this question; has there not been a change in policy under this Mi nister or this government, to return more children who have been abused to the family in which the y have been abused? HON.

M. SMITH: No. The policy of this government is to make available, in a flexible form, resources to the workers in the field so that they can make the most appropriate determination in the case of the individual child; the goal being for protection for the child in the shortrun; appropriate emergency treatment in finding of evidence if it's going to be required later; and then proceeding to the court case, if that is indicated and at the same time, to the longer-term treatment of first to the child and then of the family unit.

And only where there seems to be a very good indicatio n of a secure return to the family is it practised, but tho se situations are monito red. 3513

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 We've been helped a great deal in developing these policies and getting them to work well in the field by the very expertis e devel oped at the Health Science Protection Centre where they've had a long enough experience that they're beginning to identify more readily the types of families which seem to respond well to intervention and help, and the ones that are really difficult.

So we have a little bit more, I sup pose you could say, diagno stic wisdom, but again the government is primarily int erested in protecting the child, then treating and preventing, and wherever it makes sense to have the family reunited; and where it doesn 't, to proceed with the separation. MR. G. MERCIER: Where these families have been reunited, how many subsequent instances of child abuse have occurred? HON. M. SMITH: One reason we've instituted a child abuse registry and a systematic approach is that we will acquire the ability to monitor and follow.

We're doing the best we can with the kind of data and monito ring systems we have now; but the only way for it to be as successful as a human institutio n can be is to build up that registry and central monitoring because people are mobile. All repeat cases, should they occur, are charged as criminal cases, so there's quite a heavy response. We talked a bit about the registry the other day where we register the child that seems to be at risk and we only enter the name of the adult, where evidence is firm. Again, the goal at all times is to provide maximum protection to the child. MR. G.

MERCIER: Is the Minister saying she has no statistical evidence of the number of cases where children have been reabused after being reunited with the family under their government policy, say in the last two or thr ee years? HON. M. SMITH: We are building the data; we have the different types of abuse collected over the years. The areas where they come, we have guidelin es which req uire that, say, where there is a repeat there must be a criminal charge, so that there is the involvement of the heavier penalty, as it were, the greater seriousness of the case is looked at.

The guidelines have been developed in consultat ion with all the multid isciplinary professionals in the field to arrive at the most workable approach to it. Now the data are being developed, but I think we have said all along in the field of Child and Family Services that the failure of the previous 10 years, I guess you could say, of a systematic approach in Child and Family Services has meant that we are having to build the data from a somewhat inadequate base. We are moving along to where we will have more complete information, but it's in a devel opmental stage. MR. G.

MERCIER: How many criminal charges have been laid in the past th ree years? HON. M. SMITH: 22 percent have pro ceeded to Criminal Court proceedings; that's a total of 155 this year, in 1984, which is the last year for which we have the complete data, compared to 102 in 1983, and 73 in 1982. MR. G. MERCIER: Was the Mini ster implying in her previ ous answer that it is only in cases of where child abuse occurs for the second or more times that criminal charges are laid? · HON. M. SMITH: No, it's that it is an automatic charge if there is a second incident.

The multid isciplinary team makes the decision in the first instance, and where there is sexual abuse the police are involved, on both kinds of abuse, so that the determ inatio n is made by that group. MR. G. MERCIER: Could the Minister indicate out of th ose numbers of charges then how many were sort of second time child abuse of fenders where the charges went forward automatically, and not the first time cases? HON. M. SMITH: We don't have that breakdown. 1t -would be obtainable from a manual search.

Again, the procedural guideli nes for an auto matic charge, if there is a second case, in a sense we have provided the procedure to deal seri ously with a second one before we know precisely the incidence. As the system matures, we will get a more accurate breakdown, but we don't have all of that breakdown as yet. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, does the Minister not think it important enough to examine tho se cases to determine the number of instances where abuse has occurred after the child has been returned to a family, after the first circumstanc es of child abuse, so that the whole policy of how and when childr en who have been abused are reunited with their family can be looked at carefully and some careful set of criteria can be used? HON. M. SMITH: At the moment, we have already dealt with it procedurally. The director would review such a case, and a charge would be made if there were a second incident.

Again, the counting can be pulled out manually, but we don't have it to hand at the moment. I just want to say that I think it's partly true that when we are able to see, when we are dealing with repeat cases, it would be very important to know; but, in terms of the success of the program, we are still in the phase of public awareness and public reporting where we are still getting increased numbers being reported, particularly on the sexual side. The other, the physical, seems to be stabilizing, and we don't yet know whether we are seeing more occurring or whether we are just gett ing more being reported. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, is there any program that removes the abuser from the home, rather than the child? HON. M. SMITH: lt is in the new act that is at committee stage. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Then, just to carry this a little bit furt her, what I'm hearing is that the department and 3514

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 the Mini ster have embarked on a new type of program where you try not to apprehend and you give services in the home or to the family, yet what you are hearing from people who are working with families and who are in the Family Care Services, and no one is saying it up front because that is just not the thing to do, is that they are not apprehending, and there are kids left there in crisis position because no one is apprehending. When I say no one, I mean that is an absolute last resort that is happening.

So a lot of people out in the Child and Family Services are feeling very concerned about some of the services because they are just not sure what they are leading these kids into . I guess the question I want to ask the Minister is, if you put a homemaker in a home, how long does a homemaker stay in the home, and are they there 24 hours a day, and would there be one year, could they be ther e lo nger , what happen s in a ho memaker situation? HON. M. SMITH: The protocols for child abuse have been toughened, rather than relaxed.

They have been developed, and they are strong proto cols, so that there is strong guidance and protect ion for profess ionals in the field who rep ort suspected abuse. There are more alternativ es available to families for the social worker to use in the field. There has never at any time, from my office or any other, been a di rec tion that apprehension is not to be used. What the social worker in the field has been given Is more alternati ves. If they use a homemaker or a parent aide, there must be a three-month review on the placement, and there is a limit at one year.

If the family has not been able to come around and manage the child, or overcome any dangerous tendencies, then another level of intervention Is indicated. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, the apprehension may not be right out, but as far as people who are out deliv ering care and also social workers, without do ubt, are very nervous about apprehending to day. Whether that was the meaning, and I think it is, I think the whole idea is to keep the family together .

In this case, what we have in the system are children at risk. lt seems to make no sense at all to me to find the Mi nister coming to Estimates and not having any stats at all on childr en who are maybe abused a second or possibly a third time. Just because the courts automatically do somet hing about it doesn 't mean it hasn't happened. 1 think that there has got to be some, I would say, immediate statistics brought forward so that we can be assured, not just that there is protocol in place.

Protoc ol is darn cold comfort, and I would like to see somet hing far more - well, I'd like to see some facts in front of us to say that this isn't happening a second and a third time. I do n't car e that somebo dy is automatically charged a second time. I would hope that they are charged the first time; I don't think that is good enough. I think that it is incumbent on the Minister and her department to have th ose figures at hand so that we can know what is happening because this is a whole new system that, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister has brought into place, and it's just not good enough when we are talking about kids. You can talk about caring, and you can talk about anything you like, and how much extra supp ort there is, but I would like to have some facts that this is happening, that these kids aren't in jeopardy because of the system that maybe sounds good but maybe isn't that great in practice. I would like to see some facts here. HON. M. SMITH: One of the uncomfortable facts is that there was no investment in statistics gathering years ago.

We have put $365,000 into this year's budget in a very difficult year in order to increase our capacity but, rather than wait for precise numbers, we do know enough about the situation to put in the procedu res to follow. I submit that we would be more subject to criticism if we delayed in putting protocols. Protocols can be improved on, but not to have them there at all on how to deal with the more serious cases, I think, we might be remiss. What we said is put the protocols in that lean towards protecting the child and then gather your more precise statistics.

I agree, thro ugho ut these programs, that more statistics and more analytical capacity so that we can carefully evaluate what we're doing would be a help. But there are judgments that can be made in the field where you can act prior to having all the precise information. If a professi onal in the field is operating from the basis that it's ei ther all appr ehensio n or no apprehension, then to me they haven't absorbed the basics of their professional training, which is to use judgment. What we have done is giv en them more varieties of option so that they're not just left with doing nothing or appreh ending.

They have a range of resources and remedies to call on and it's up to them to make that professional judgment. There is no artificial limit on the budget. If they ch ose to put more children into care, that maintenance budget can go up, the same as it would if more people had to go on social assistance. So there is nothing in the budgeting that is artificially pushing it one way. What we have done though is give them more of a range of tools because you may remove a child and get a sh ort-term solution, but you may be setting yourself up for an even more complex, long-term solution.

We also have to deal with the courts. it's a balance of rights between the individual child and the family. The courts traditio nally have put very heavy demands on to any child and family system when they want to recommend permanent separation. We've done the best we can with a more precise law so that the courts get very clear direction to the extent that good legislation can gi ve them cl ear guida nce. We've made the resources available in a flexible way. But we are going to require good professional judgmen t from workers in the field.

I think again, if any individual case comes to light to the member that they know about and feel that there is some serious problem, then I think the onus is on them to report it and we'll certainly look into it. But these agencies do have professional staff. They are working in teams. They do have many lines of communication where they can raise those issues. There certainly have been no directives from our end that 3515

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 they must go only one way and not the other . They must use judgment in the field based on knowledge of the individual and the family and the situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(bX1) - the Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too must express my concern over this particular area of child abuse and the amount of money that we are spend ing. We did not receive a figure as to how much we were spending on the Child Protection Centre. Do we have that figure? HON. M. SMITH: Ye s, I gave you one. MR. A. BROWN: Did we receive the figure? Okay, I'm sorry. Then I missed that.

Now when we take into consideration wife abuse, child abuse, I think this is an area where, as far as field service certainly is concerned about that and direct services to the abused spouse or to the abused child, that we're not doing nearly enough in order to look after the care of either one of these. There is no doubt about it that the advertising that has been done and so on has brought forth a lot of cases which hitherto before had not been brought forward, but they are coming forward now and we find that we really have very little money to follow up on these cases.

I hope the Minister is going to take that under consideration and possibly try to find some extra funding in that particular area because, once you start a program such as that, once a wife comes forward and declares that she has been abused, and we do not have the funding or the staff available or the facility available to look after her, then all that has happened is by her coming forward it has resulted in the situation getting much worse than if she never would have come forward in the first place. So, Mr. Chairman, we have to spend more money in this particular area. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid the member is talking about 4.(e), Family Dispute Services. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about programs - and I know that this runs from one area into a number of areas - but the Children's Aid Societys is involved in here and there are child care institutions and you have your program support, all this really is involved in this particular item. If we're not going to ask the questions here, we're going to ask them later on and I'll make those comments. HON. M. SMITH: That's okay. We don't object to the questions. MR. A. BROWN: So it really doesn't matter all that much.

But what I would like to express concern about at the present time is that the former Member for Wolseley used to be very concerned about all the group homes which were in that particular riding - (Interje ction) - That's right. He used to refer to them as all the tree swingers that were moved into his area, which probably was not a kind remark. But what I would like to know, is the Minister doing anything, because the Minister is in charge of many many group homes, mentally retarded, Children's Aid and so forth?

With the decision by the City of Winnipeg of licensing of group homes that they have to be a certain distance apart, one from the otht.r, what has the Minister done in regard to selection of group home locations? HON. M. SMITH: In our licensing capacity, we have been undertaking to try and spread the group homes around. One of the difficulties is that many group homes are initiated by various groups of volunteers, and they have tended in the past to initiate their programs in the areas where there are larger older homes that aren't too expensive.

However, we agree that that haphazard development of social housing or group homes is not the best, and we have un dertaken to look at geographical distribution of these homes in our licensing process. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Is there any correlation between wife abuse and child abuse in the sense that if you are finding one in a family you can almost be guaranteed that the other is going to be there? HON. M. SMITH: There is a big overlap but it's not always a coincident. MR. C.

BIRT: Does the government have any monitoring agency or any policy or procedure in place that where one occurs they start invest igating to see if the other is also there? HON. M. SMITH: The programs on the wife abuse side are at an earlier stage of development, in a way, than the child abuse. In the child abuse side, we do have protocols where, when we deal with the child, we try to look at the total family situation. On the wife abuse side, of course, the shelters and so on that are provided for women and children usually will uncover a common situation, but you are dependent on the reporting system.

In a sense, you can't live in the family and know where you are going to find it; you are dependent on adults or interested neighbours or teachers or so on to report. So we have set up a family dispute unit - that's under

Section 4.(e) - it has both the marriage conciliation under the Unified Family Court and the - well, we are calling it Spousal Violence Program. There are occasional instances where the male is the victim, although they are not frequent. We have hired a co ordinator and will be, here again, doing a lot of training of the network of people out in the system so that they are better able to identify and deal with this particular social program.

But you often find that both wife abuse and child abuse, you may have seen that person for some other reason, and now that people know how to dig a little deeper and get at the underlying issues, they often come to this sort of common cause of distress. MR. C. BIRT: I don't think the Minister has said this, but is it the intention to put in a co-ordinated check system? You know, you have a regist ry, I think, for child 3516

Tueadey, 2 July, 1985 abuse, and the new Child and Family Act calls for a Central Registry, is it the government's int ent ion to get to that point so that you are not perhaps picking somet hing up on a way-out peripheral referral thing, and it may take some time before you can pick up the other concerns, whether it be the wife or the children involved? HON. M.

SMITH: Yes, actually I th ink that would be a fine idea and we could build in the same not ifications and so on so that people won't find themselves - you know, we have to again balance when you are keeping registry and records, the right s of people to privacy and some protection for their individual rights. That's, of course, one of the great advantages if we get the centralized comput er system, that we could use it that way. Again, it would need careful design to balance the need for confidentialit y and protection of individual rights. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Chairman, referr ing now to some of the information given to me about the Legacy Fund and the motion that was provided to me, a series of motions. As I read the fiscal statem ent for the year ending March 31, 1984, there is some $600,000 in the Legacy Fund. There is a General Trust Fund, but concentrate primarily on the Legacy Fund. First of all, I am making the assumption that the fund is about the same size at the end of this year as it was last year. Am I correct? HON. M. SMITH: About the same. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you.

Now I am also advised that the series of motions provided to the Minist er, or at least to the department today, by the Interim Board of the old CAS of Winnipeg, deals with certain motions. I would like to deal with the merit s of some of these motions. it's really a plan of action on how to disbur se the money. Is the Minister in any position to talk on the merit s of it , because I have a series of questions on it? If not, maybe tomorrow or the next day might be more appropriat e. HON. M. SMITH: We are suppo rtive of the general approach.

We have again just received these motions and want some time to look at them in detail, but we would appreciat e hearing any que stions or concerns. When we originally iden tified the fund, of course, it was realized that it belonged to the CAS Board and, as the Interim Board that we had appoint ed was increased throughout the year with people named from all the regional agencies, it has become quit e a represe ntative board and, therefore, we feel that that collectiv e group and the recommendations they would make, we would certainly predispose to accept them. MR. C.

BIRT: The money that is being administ ered by the board, the board is acting as a trust ee or trustees for that money, and the thrust of the resolution seems to be in one aspect, to give a specific sum of money to the Ma-Mow-We-Tak Organization of some $1 00,000 and then there is a motion to set up a children's foundat ion and then the balance is to be distribut ed in a certain manner. Firstly, why is not all of this money being turned over to a children's foundation? HON. M.

SMITH: Well, I presume that the group looked at a variet y of ways of sett ling it and as you know the breakup of the one large and two small agencies, int o six more equal size, there are some things which need to be worked out by the group in a way that they all accept. They seem to feel that if they divided it up this way, each group would feel that it had in a sense, ownership of a proportional amount - proportional based on the caseload - and that they would then be free to put it back int o the foundation with themsel ves in a sense having some legal control over it.

So it looks like they're int ending to achieve that without going in quit e such a strai ght line. Now again, I don't know whether they would in turn put it in with some criteria as to how they wish to use it or whether that would be worked out in whatever decisio n-making set up they have, but I guess they found that this was someth ing that they all considered fair. MR. C.

BIRT: The concern I have is that it's not their money; someone else dictated how that money was to be used and the people who are administering are merely trustees of that fund, so really no ownersh ip falls to the board as to how they see fit to do it. So I'm having a lit tle trouble here because, is the Mi nister saying that if this money is distri buted to the six agencies, then the government will pass an Order-in Council compelling it then to be recircled back into the children's foundation which is to be est ablished? HON. M.

SMITH: I understand that most of these monies, all of these monies really, we're given to Children's Aid to manage on behalf of children, not with specific inst ructions that when there's a legacy with specific instructions, people are more likely to give it to the Winnipeg Foundation. So that again the legal su ccessor, in a sense, to the Children's Aid are these groups. The existing board prior to it s dissolution, is recommending this disposition and as I understand their legal right, they do have that. MR. C.

BIRT: Well, as I read these motions, they can siphon off this money for their own use and some of them may give some money to a children's foundation. So out of $600,000 approximate ly, there's at least $1 0,000 to create the foundation and then after that it depends on volun tary donations. The question I ask of the Minister is, will it be part of the Order-in-Council passed by the government that will compel each of these agencies to turn over all of the money received from th is tr ust accou nt to th is new childr en's foundation? HON. M.

SMITH: The expectation is that they will turn it over to the central group; but whether they do or run it separat ely, the y'll still have the same legal oblig ation th at the previous board had. If it was rest ricted , then it will restricted. If it was general for whoever's the legal body enti tled to run Children's Aid Services, then it will be that group. The new agencies are the legal bodies and they have the same rights and responsi bilit ies. 3517

Tueaday, 2 July, 1985 MR. C. BIRT: But the motions of this unified board or this community-based board, plus the appointees of the government says to the Ma-M ow-We-Tak group, you can have a $100,000, that's it, there's nothing tied to it. Then we'll allocate $10,000 to create the childre n's foundation and then maybe some money will be handed over and there's nothing in here that puts any control on them on how they're to handle it. There's nothing to say that they can't mix this into their funds.

As the Minister ind icated, her department is only providing 95 percent of the funding and they can use alternate sources of revenue. Now this money was set up in a trust for one specific purpose. If the method of delivery of service is to be changed, fine; but if the whole question of trust monies for children is to be breached, then I have some concern. There's nothing in these res olutions that says these monies will be carried out in the same way, in the same manner, as they were before and in fact, it would appear that they can use it any way they want. HON. M.

SMITH: Well, the M a-Mow-We- Tak group are an integral part of the service deli very to children. These funds were left for the well-bein g of children; over 60 percent of the children in the system are Native children and it's· been one of the reasons why the M a-M ow We- Tak centre has been developed, to try to get more involvement by the Native community in deliv ery of service by Native people to Native people in a culturally appropriate and acceptable way, because it's believed that they're going to be able to do part of the job as well, or better.

If the group that has the legal responsibility for terminating the old CAS in a sense passing on, there has to be some thing done with the fund. If they've agreed with this, and the y have legal advice, again I don't think I want to get a legal review of it too, because just to assure myself. lt seems to pass the test but I want to study it and again, if what the member is saying is, have they looked at this other way of doing it? I suppose they have. I'm more concerned about the legal ity.

If they recommend this use of, what in a sense is their joint legacy, I'm predis posed to accept it unless my legal advisors tell me there's some impediment. MR. C. BIRT: My concern is not necessarily whether they can legally do it or not, it's a matter of public policies and anyone can do anything they want. In the previous operation of this, the funds created under this legacy fund were kept separate and a separate accounting was kept of them.

In fact, at one time the same accounting firm had recommended that the trust monies be included as part of the asset base of the Children's Aid Society to secure their loan. Quite properly, I think the boards of the day said, those were not funds that belonged to the agency for their purposes. They were there being held as trust monies for the use of the children.

So the concern I have is that it would appear that there's a fair amount of skimming of money for whatever purpose necessary that could be used to buy furniture; it could be used to buy cars. lt is not necessarily a guarantee that it will be used or should be used in the direct manner that the trust fund was planned for. If these funds were received on behalf of Native children for a specific purpose, then it should be carried out that way.

I'm afraid that, yes, legally they can pass all these motions and probably, legally, they can allocate these funds to be responsible for the six areas but, once this money is gone, it can't be replaced. So I am merely indicating to the Minister that, quite frankly, I don't care if they can legally do it, it is more of a moral and a social issue here, and a policy issue, that one should protect these funds for these children. Because, for whatever reason, why did they get it; what's it to be used for? Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if the Minister found that you would just fritter it away.

I like the concept of a children's foundation because it is the re, obviously, under control and to be used for specific pu rposes. I have no quarrel with that type of an approach with this thing considering there is going to be a change in distribution. But I do, as I say, get concerned about the lack of accountability and the ability to really , in effect, do with the money as they see fit. I don't think that is what the purpose of the whole program was for. So I would hope that the Minister would look beyond the legal aspect of it and look at the broader policy implications.

As she will be bringing the Order-in Council to Cabinet approving this, I would hope that she would look at the whole broad issue of the support for children that this fund was created for. HON. M. SMITH: I welcome the suggestion, we will certainly look at setting them up as a Legacy Fund which has a formal accounting process tied in with it. MR. C. BIRT: There are in the same motion, three, maybe four, three group homes are to be turned over to this corporation, and we discussed that earlier this afternoon.

I note in the financial statement on the trust funds that there were sale proceeds of group homes, and those sales were included in the trust funds. Are the group homes that are being turned over to this corporate shell - and I'm ref erring now to 254 Bannerman, 273 Oakwood and 212 Lipton - do they belong, and/or are they part of the assets of the Legacy Fund now? HON. M.

SMITH: They are to be looked at as straight assets of CAS Winnipeg and will be turned over to the corporation we discussed earlier to do some of the windup detail and to handle the receiving function for a maximum of three years, pending a resol ution of how that function is to be developed. MR. C. BIRT: The point that I am raising, and I know the Minister hasn't answered it, is that are these three homes currently the asset base of the Legacy Fund of the old Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg. lt would appear to be that the y did own some of the group homes, and they have sold them during the year of 1984. HON.

M. SMITH: Apparently they were purchased from Legacy Fund money, and what we'll have to check into is what was the term of that decision. Was it money that was handed over, in a sense, for the purchase and then the CAS Winnipeg owned them and did with them what they would; or was there some retention of ownership by the Legacy Fund? We'll have to look into 3518

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 that before we determine our reaction to Motion 8. lt may be that is a complexity that is a little different, that would mean that we couldn't do just as they've recommended. But they are good points, and we'll undertake to review them in our analysis. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, while we are dealing with the old Children's Aid Society and the interim board that the government appointed, I want to raise the Pitzel case, the case in which the less than a quorum of the interim board appointed by the NDP made a decision to take away a three-and-a-half year old child from the Pitzels with whom she had been since she was eight days old. Contrary to the opinions of every Children's Aid worker and expert involved in the case, the Minister persisted in allowing that situation to go on and on.

The case went to court a number of times - I believe the Pitzel 's lawyer obtained an injunction against the Children's Aid Society. Then, at the last moment, finally taking some advice from an expert involved in this situation, in this case legal advice, the Pitzels were allowed to keep the child. lt was, in my mind, Mr. Chairman, an unbelievable experience for a set of parents to go through, particularly when nobody but two members of the five member board were of the view that that child should be taken away. No body in the child-care system supported that decision.

As a result of that case, I believe it was reported publ icly, the Pitzels received a legal bill of over $7,000.00. Every other lawyer in that case was funded by a public agency, except the couple who were looking after this child, who looked after her since she was eight days old. My question to the Minister is, in view of those circumstances, how can she justify not providing some financial assistance to that set of parents, the Pitzels, who were the only party to that legal action and had to pay their own bill?

Everybody else was funded out of the public purse, a completely wrong decision, simply unsupportable by the interim board appointed by the government. How can the Mini ster justify not compensating the Pitzels for the legal expenses that they incurred? They can't compensate them for the trauma that they went through and the publicity they went through, and everything else they had to go through as a result of this wrong-headed decision by the interim board, but at least they could be compensated for their financial expenses they had to incur to keep the child they'd looked after since she was eight days old.

How can the Minister not justify compensating them? HON. M. SMITH: The case that the member is ref erring to was a difficult case. lt caught the system, as it were, with child welfare legislation that didn't deal maybe in as full a way as one would hope, and of course one reason we are moving to better legislation and better guidelin es is that we can have better guidance for people in the field to prevent that type of a conflict situation. In fact, the case was eventually settled outside of court by Judge Hamilton where he, I think, got the conflicting parties to negotiate and come to a reasonable agreement.

One of the underlying issues had to do with Native people feel ing very distraught at having seen a lot of their children separated from them for reasons that were perhaps good and sufficient in their day, but maybe in retrospect accord ing to the Kimelman studie s, questionable public policy; and we were in the process of trying to change our procedures and law and services so that we could have a healthier process in the future. In a sense, this case came both before the guidelin es and the new legislation were in place. Now as public policy, we didn't have an obligation to pay legal fees for foster parents.

I guess when you look at whether you should or you shouldn't, there is always a desire to help people who have got into a particular difficulty. On the other hand, if you set the precedent of paying legal fees for one set of foster parents, you're running into it again and again.

There is a Legal Aid system there to help people if the y need legal help and can't afford it and it's a generic service that's available because we felt that, given all the different factors that entered this case, the court system is there to help resolve difficult issues where the law is not perfectly clear or the guidelin es don't help people work out the case at the ground level. There are situations where we, as a government, have to let that process take its course and live with the result and learn from it what we can.

I think what we now have, which are the guidelines in the new legislation, that such a situation should be dealt with very early on and negotiated, not be allowed to get to the point where you have such strong conflict of values. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is the Mi nister suggesting that the Pitzels (phonetic) wer e in any way responsible for what happened? HON. M. SMITH: As so often happens, they were caught in a situation where social values were in conflict.

There are complex issues out there, and their case came up at a time when neither the law nor the procedures were fully able to deal with it in a timely way. What we think we have in place now with the new guidelin es and with the new legislation is a system that should help those kinds of cases get worked through in a humane and mutually satisfying way earlier on and close to the ground, as it were. There still will be the odd case that doesn't get resolved that way and will need to go to court. In this case, they went under a different law than The Child Welfare Act.

So as you know, as a lawyer, some of our laws are not all co-ordinated and that's part of the legal system we live in. But we've done the best we can to develop a co-ordinated and as wise a set of laws and guidelines as we were able to come up with at this point in time. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is one of the most heartless and cruel decisions I've ever heard anyone in government make.

To allow this kind of a situation to go on where everybody in the child care system said the decision by two members of the five member board - and it was only made by two out of five, not even a quorum - to put this couple thrc· :gh 3519

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 this traumatic experienc e, combatting lawyers all paid by the public purse and, there by, incurring their own personal legal expenses of over $7,000 to be paid out of their own income, I find this just unbelievable, just absolutely unbelievable. I don't think there is any danger, I certainly hope, that this would be a preced ent, because I would hope that it should never ever ever occur again in the child care system in Manitoba.

I find it unbelievable that the Minister and the government would not provide some compensation to this couple for having the expenses they were put to in combatting this silly decision by their interim board. I would ask the Minister to explain how the standard for adoption of Native children differs from the standard applied to all other people in Manitoba? HON. M.

SMITH: The only way there would be any difference to an ordinary adoption would be that, where a Native child comes up for adoption, the guidelines outline a series of choices which the worker is to explore, favouring first of all placement in the extended family; failing that, if they are status, in the band of origin; failing that, in the council region or in the broader Native community again, as one factor among all the factors. it's not the only factor, but there must be a conscientious search to find a culturally appropriate placement. MR. G.

MERCIER: Is the standard of home and care of the child not different? HON. M. SMITH: The requir ement is for a safe home and an emotionally nurturing home. There might be, depen ding on whether one was thinking of whether there was indoor water or flush toilets or some thing of that sort, more willingness to look at community standards. But the basic health and safety issues would have to meet a minimum standard, and attention would be paid to the nurturing capacity of the parents. MR. G. MERCIER: What follow-up has there been on child ren pl aced for adoptio n in Nat ive homes on reserves? HON. M.

SMITH: Hold-up? MR. G. MERCIER: What follow-up? HON. M. SMITH: Follow-up. it's the same practice as elsewhere. There is follow-up in the first six months, supervision. Then the court would finalize, so they would have to have evidenc e that thing s had worked out all right. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is the Mi nister denying that, in a number of instances, Native people on reserves have not allowed child care workers to come on the reserve to investi gate concerns about the care of the children? HON. M.

SMITH: The Native agencies are responsible for the supervision and, in the sense that they have their supervisors on the reserve, they don't require people coming from off-reserve once they get their manda ted authori ty. If the mem ber has spec ific instances where he thinks proper procedures haven't been followed, he should bring them forward to us so we can look into them. MR. G.

MERCIER: Is the Min ister denying that her office and the Premier's office have on occasion been contacted by Native organizations who want to prevent child care workers coming on the reserve to inquir e into the care of certain children? HON. M. SMITH: We're not aware of any suc h case. If the member again has specifics that we are not aware of, if he would bring them to our attention. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Mini ster has said that, once you form these Native child caring agencies on the reserve , they are responsible. Does not the Director of Child Welfare retain ultimate responsibility? HON. M.

SMITH: Well, it works the same way as with any other agency. The supervision powers are delegated to the agency, particularly under the new guidelines. If there is any dispute, if any party feels that correct procedu res aren't being followed, they have the right to raise the issue to the dir ec tor . Those are the safeguards, I guess, we have built into it. But the agencies are required to evaluate their program and, in a sense, meet standards of care and management. There is a lot of training going on and, in a sense, I supp ose anyone on the . . . MR. G.

MERCIER: Well, has the Director of Child Welfare or the people working with him been at any time prevented from evaluating the program or inquiring into specific cases of abuse of children who come under ostensibly the supervision of these Native child-caring agencies? HON. M. SMITH: We don't know of one. MR. G. MERCIER: What evaluation has been done of the adoptions of Native children handled throug h thes e Native child-caring agencies on reserves? Are they su ccessful? In what way are they comparable to adoptions off-reserve? HON. M.

SMITH: At a little more than two years, it's early to get an adoption breakdown, if we can judge by what occurs under the standard population. The Dakota-Oj ibway Child and Family Servic e has undergone a formal evaluation process. We're going thr ough a tripartite evaluation as we move into the renewal of those agreements. The court does an evaluation at the point of adoption, if there are any breakdowns of adoption, we are advised. So there is monitoring, or at least one can move in, and there is monitoring of individual cases, not frequent on all, but there are certain cases that we do.

There is quite extensive monitoring for the first six months. MR. G. MERCIER: How many breakdowns have there been? HON. M. SMITH: We will have that kind of data coming to us regularly as the new information system gets up 3520

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 and running, but it is cer tainly not a chronic problem, because we are not aware of it sort of popping up frequent ly. The figures at the moment are in there, but they haven't been spotted as anything untoward. MR. G. MERCIER: Well how many have there been? You said they were reported if they were breakdowns. How many have there been? HON. M. SMITH: The report goes into the individual file at the moment. As I say, in time, we will have the statistical summar ies coming to us regularly . The information could be unearthed, but we don't have it quickly acce ssible. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I find that difficult to believe. The government instituted a particular policy almost three years ago now, yes three years ago. I believe it was in April or May of 1982 that the former Minister brought this in. The Minister is now saying they don't have any statistics available, any evidence of the Director of Child Welfare monitoring this whole new policy so that the Minister could at least come to this committee and try to justify what the government has done. HON. M. SMITH: We can get you a figure by tomorrow.

Again, our experience is, if we get adoption breakdowns, it generally occurs during the teen years. lt hasn't come forward with such frequency that it's been starred as a major problem. We can draw that number for you by tomorrow. We don't have it tonight. MR. G. MERCIER: What is the ratio of adoption breakdown in other than Native adoptions? HON. M. SMITH: I think the issue here is how do we get appropriate and effe ctive evaluation. We have resources allocated to improve our ability there.

Again, when you're doing a comparison, you have to look at matched groups and so on, you have to set it up in a fairly careful way. But, as I say, that's the type of analytical information that will increasingly help us fine tune our program in future. When you don't have precise stats, what you do is go by the experience of people in the field, and try to draw the best policy conclusion out of it and then, as you progress, you can fine tune it. We certainly hope to be in a position to do that kind of finer evaluation, but it's a mistake to think that we've had that capacity province-wide in the past.

The system hasn't been developed to that point at this level. There may be a lot of that data at the local level, but it's never been aggregated to where we had province-wide stats. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I don't believe there has been any type of post adoption evaluation that has gone on in the past. Is the Minister and this department committed to a program of post-adoption evaluation in order to develop some criteria, some principles and some policies that might be followed?

I frankly am not aware of it being done anywhere in Canada. lt's something that I believe certainly should have been done, and should be done in the future. Is the department committed to doing that type of evaluation from here on in? 3521 HON. M. SMITH: Again, I think the issue raised is one that's probably had a longer history than I'm aware of. The principle behind adoption has been that there is attention paid to preparing parents, selecting child and parent for the best possible match, and doing the six month intensive review prior to a court finalization.

But once the court finalization has occurred - I'm not sure what the legal term is - then that family has all the rights and privileges and obligations of an ordinary family. If they were having difficulties or whate ver, or there was abuse and neglect, they would come under the same regime as an ordinary family. There hasn't been a desire to impose on them either anything more rigorous or, in a sense, anything more supportive, I guess you could say, than exists for the general community.

Now if it's time for a great leap forward and some new concepts there, I think they would be worth discussing. lt's probably the type of study that we need a lot more of. We need more research into what's going on in other provinces; has that been done elsewhere; what's been learnt about it; what are the things to look for? I guess we're all too painfully aware that there can be post-adoption problems. lt's certainly one of the issues that the Native community have been very concerned about with regard to the adoptions down to the United States.

I think, from the past, we've just never had the kind of data that would enable us to know whether those adoptions broke more often than others or whatever. I think we have to develop more sophistication in that regard. I would be interested in the member's views, whether he thinks we should move to an ongoing supervision of adopted parents. How long should it last? What form should it take? When does an adoptive family become a real family? I don't know the answer to that.

Most of our evaluation works rather like, in a sense, the legal system where you try to evaluate court decisions and you find that there is very little mapping of trends or tendencies. lt isn't aggregated, what you get is the unusual case. A lot has been that way in Child and Family Services where evaluation is on a case-by-case basis, not the overall statistical type of analysis. We would like to get to where we have that type of information. I guess, to date, it's tended to reside in the judgment of people experienced in the field and their personal review as profes sionals.

But I think in future the more fine tuning, the more testing of some of our ideas we can do with research and evalua tion, the better. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a matter I asked the Minister about during question period with respect to her new act. Has she had that act reviewed in the light of the decision in Ontario regarding their child welfare legislat ion, in view of the concerns that have been expressed about discrimination?

I think I saw the head of the Children's Aid Society in Ontario the other night on a national program saying - I beli eve it was The Journal - that as far as he was concerned, the test will remain in Ontario the best interests of the children. He would recommend to the government that, if necessa ry, they opt out of the Charter of Rights in order to ensure that principle is maintained.

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 HON. M. SMITH: We have had some discussion around it. Again, I guess issues around the Ch arter are not going to be finally decided in our lifetime, and there may be some that are going to require legal defi nition. it's, I think, our opinion that we had an era of non discrimination in Child and Family Services, and much was accomplished as people became more accepting of different racial-cultural groupings, but there also were difficulties. I'm certainly not Solomon who can say in every instance it's right to go one way or the other.

I think what we do know though is that racial-cultural factors, maybe cultural linguistic even more than racial but racial is one factor, are of more significance to an individual's emotional health as they're acquiring self concept and learning to find an identity than we used to think. I think that's about all I would care to say. I don't think there are absolutes in this field. I think we're saying, in an intimate relationship like a family, that other things being equal it's wise to look at cultural, linguistic factors.

I think probably the best argument for upholding that has been not so much that adoptions haven't worked out where a child's been placed in a different racial family, although there are always some that break down, but the patterned experience of the Native community where, often for reasons· of poverty and social problems that they were encountering that would be amenable to some help, very large proportions of their children were moved out of their families and communities.

I think it's been that whole social problem that, through Kimelman and so on and his studies, we have been trying to address and work our way through. Certainly at the moment, I think we'll beg to differ with the Ontario position, recog nizing that those kinds of issues may take many years to work through the courts. We may end up just agreeing to differ. What the legal disposition will be, I don't kn ow. But I think, until that gets resolved, our preference is to go along with the act as we've developed it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr.

Chairman, what percentage of adolescent girls are keeping their babies? HON. M. SMITH: We don't have the exact slats but for ballpark figures - and some of these would be married - they would be, 18 and under, around 2,000 births a year , of whom 600 receive service from our agencies. Of those 600, there are about 120 youngster s that are put up for placement. So that would mean 480 are keeping. Then I guess all the rest of that, another 1,200 to 1,400, are either in a married situation, they're keeping as a single parent, or perhaps in a family setting, the parents. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: I'm specifically asking about cer tainly the under 18's and the un married . I'm wondering what percentage are around the 15 and 16 age who are keeping their babies. HON. M. SMITH: We're dealing roughly with the two groupings, the 16 and under and the 17 and 18. In all cases, to keep the child, there has to be a plan that meets some basic standard. Usually, the younger ones meet those standards by living with the extended family. The older girls, 17 to 18, again must demonstrate some capability of parenting and have some kind of plan of how they're going to manage. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Could the Minister explain what kind of plan and what kind of help is given to young moms who are on their own? HON. M. SMITH: They would have to either have a way of earning their living, or have acquired social assistance. They would have to accept counselling where they could get some insight into their situation and their choices and could be required to attend parenting groups. Again, it's an area of work that needs further development. it's not something that we feel is fully developed.

The resource centre model out of the Child and Family Service groups is sort of a good way to start meeting some of those problems in a neighbourhood way where they can be identified and helped. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, a lot of these kids, I understand, that are keeping babies have a lot of problems themselves. it's like babies keeping babie s. They want something that is their own and something to love.

But in a lot of cases, and the Minister would know probably from having children, as any of us do, that even with the support in a home with two parents, that it is very difficult when we have a young baby who constantly cries and just doesn't sit there and look pretty. How much abuse goes on, and how much abuse is found with young adolescents keeping their babies? HON. M. SMITH: I guess young women are like older women, only less so or more so; it is very hard to generalize. I guess everyone sees children partly as something to love and feels a bit possessive about their children.

I know of my own memories of my feelings with my four, and I was into my 20's. I certainly had those feelings. Again, the rights of the young women are respected, but they are balanced out with the requirement of some kind of plan and indication and maturity. What we do know is that of the total abusers, of whom we have almost 700 cases a year, around one-sixth of them are under 20. Now, we don't have the breakdown by sex of the age categories.

We do know that overall, of 693 cases of abuse, we were able to identify a male abuser in 493, a female in 209, and uncertain - not meaning uncertain sex - but uncertain which had caused the abuse in 47. We don't have the breakdown by age though. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, is there any counselling to these young mothers that the best thing for the baby might be to give it up? HON. M. SMITH: There is mandatory involvement with the agencies by the young parents or the parent, as the case may be. I guess the und erstan ding of counselling can vary.

Some groups traditionally thought that older , wiser people told young people what to do and then how to do it. Another school of counsel ling 3522

TUesday, 2 July, 1985 is that you help the young person think through their situation and look at what is available, the pros and cons, try to think forward to the possible consequences, and then to try to assess their own strengths and weaknesses on the basis that that is, if you do that, rather than just a crisis situation, over a somewhat extended period of time. But then the young person is best able to make a decision.

There is, what we call, a service that is called Birth Resolution, that is, making a decision about how to handle the birth. lt is mandatory, the complaints we tend to receive are that the workers are too biased to removing the babies. These things go a bit by - I wouldn't say fads - change of attitude. I think the truth is, there is no easy answer. Many of our grandparents or great-grandparents probably married and had large families starting at a tender age. Now it is more common to think of people being in their late teens and early 20's and older.

The mandatory involvement with the agencies has been the one method we found to try to bring some realism and maturity, but I don't know of any jurisdiction that would just move in and say, unless you are of age, you can't keep the child. I don't think the courts would back us up if we did say that. lt is like a lot of human problems. Probably we have to get back to a lot of family life education, and access to family planning information and services, and healthy development of young people. There are no easy answers in this field. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Could the Minister indicate what increase in grants was given to the Pregnancy Distress? HON. M. SMITH: The Pregnancy Distr ess Service that I am familiar with is funded under Health. Some of the people involved in it did develop a Young Parenting Program and got funding under Core. They came to us, sort of at the end of our budgeting year when they thought they weren't going to get a renewal at Core, to see if we could pick it up.

Since that is the type of programming we anticip ate the agencies purchasing, and since we were running a pretty tight budget line ourselves, we didn't agree to move in right away with the program, but wanted to talk to them for next year. We urged them to go and see if they could get bridge funding from somewhere else, but we are still talking. lt is very hard to add on a lot of these services when we are trying to maintain what we have. At the same time, we acknowledge that it is a needed service and a desirable one. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr .

Chairman, th e whol e emphasis certainly seems to be prevention, and yet when an agency or a service like the Pregnancy Dist ress comes along and needs money for exactly this type of help is needed, the money isn't there.

I can't help but wonder about when we have a young mom - and I am talking about the 16 and unde r, I won't even talk about the 17 - and 18- year-olds - but the 16 and under, these are just kids thems elves, and I am wondering what the balance is when they go in and when they go to a young mom who is going to have a baby or has just had her baby and they tell all the supports there are because you can go on social assistance. I imagine that they can get a homemaker if need be; there's all sorts of assistance for them to keep the child. But where is the balance?

These kids aren't able to look after themselves, let alone a baby at that age. Maybe you can't arbitrarily go in and take a child. I certainly don't get the feeling that there is any area where you have people that are stressing, and if as the Minister says, the workers are biased in removing, I imagine that they are biased about removing children and want to remove them because they have seen these kids with kids of their own and how hard it is to cope. How long can you keep a homemaker? How long do you keep the support services up? Is one year enough when you have a 15 -year-old? Probably not.

Very few young kids, I would imagine, are good mothers because today isn't like years ago when our grandparents, as you say, had child ren young. That was the pattern - families all around them - but today this isn't the pattern. Their friends are out having a good time, everybody is doing all sorts of things, and they are stuck at home with a baby. I am wondering what kind of help these kids are getting to steer them in such a way that they will give up these babies. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Scott: Madam Minister. HON. M. SMITH: There are no easy answers.

We do require a good plan which doesn't automatically give them homemaker help and so on. So I think anyone who has known a young woman who is raising a child on social assistance on their own would know that it's not an easy road. I think the counse lling tries to be very realistic, but to arbitrarily say that it's always right or always wrong Is one solution. Biology doesn't seem to respect the age that we think education and maturity and employment are all there. Many people mature as their children grow and I am sure I count myself as one of those.

I don't think it's ever going to be an area of public policy where there is an absolute answer. I agree that the more networking we can do so that if that is the path a young woman has chosen that she can do it with some dignity; and emotional support is important. At the same time I think to have young women also able to give up a child, and there are certainly adopt ive parents around who are eager to have them, is also a worthy decision for some. I think counselling that tries to help a young woman be realistic is very important.

I think anything we can do to create better neighbourhoods and community connections, the more like ly a young woman will be to make a choice that she can live with rather than one where she is just feeling terribly lonely and neglected and sees the baby as a doll or a toy or a warm puppy. I mean those are very sad cases but it's part of the human experience to be very devoted to your own offspring for whatever reasons, and I don't think we can just move in too heavy handedly.

I think the current practice does require a fairly specific thought-through plan. and most young women I know are eager to get out and get some training and get some work and often manage quite well but it's not easy. I don't think there are any easy answers in this field. 3523

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, that brings up an altogether other point because how long do you keep the supports for these young moms if they choose to keep their babies, their childr en, and then they want to get training and get jobs because if they're 16 they won't have had much schooling, what day care is available for them then? What support is available for their children? There is nothing - when I say nothing literally nothing for childr en under two - so how long then do you support these young moms? How long do they keep that system up? HON. M.

SMITH: There is not enough of any of these services, but there are some services and there are training programs that provide some support for family needs and many of them are able to make formal or informal arrangements for their youngsters. The day care program is an essen tial part of the total scene. But even when we plan ahead for day care and to meet that need, there is still a substantial proportion of people who are able to make their own arrangements and some of these young women, even when they are quite young, are still pretty resource ful.

So again I don't think we should look for simple answers or the same answer for everyone. Most of the ones that I run across have a fair desire to get out and get some training but not all of them, certain ly. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I would like to just go back to the - I guess it's the Young Parents Community Centre project that was preventative programs for young mothers. Back in 1983, Mr. Leskiw was the program director at the Core Area Initiative. and Mr.

Alcock had written saying that: "Community-based, inter-agency preventative programs for young mot hers and pre school children such as this one are entir ely consistent with the overall reorganizations of Child and Family Services in the City of Winnipeg." Then we go on to March of 1984, and another letter to Mr.

Leskiw concerning the same community centre. lt says: "Fur ther to your request, I would like to advise that my department will look at the appropriate funding when the Core Area Init iative grant terminat es in two years." Then we come to 1985, and the Min ister is writing to the chairman of the Young Parents Commun ity, and says: "I regret to advise that this funding is not available, and I would encourage your committee to explore other funding options." Now the department has been aware of this coming along for the past two years in any case.

To say that it's come at the end of a fiscal year, I don't think, is accu rate or is the case at all, because the correspondence certainly started in'83, and well aware that they were going to be approached for this type of funding. I think that if the Minister and if the department is sincere at looking at prevention this is an area that certainly should have been encouraged because, as the Member for St. Norbert indicated, there seems to be all sorts of resources for highly paid staff, but there are not the resources right down at the street level where you need it. HON. M.

SMITH: Core had planned to be in it for two years, and only stayed in it for one. We have got it as one of the things we hope we can do next year. But one of the problems with the whole social service network up to now has been that a group comes and they get funding, and wtodt you have are very spotty systems where you get a little package of service here and not over there. What we're trying to do is develop a system that has more capacity to provide a network of services.

The mone y for this type of program is what we are seeing flowing thre>ugh the Child and Family Service agencies. it's a marvellous type of resource centre program, just the kind we've envisioned and would like to see occurring. We are still talking with them, and there is a rate that we could pay where there are wards of the department using the centre. But there are unrnet needs throughout the community service area, and the rate at which we can expand the need has a lot to do with the overall, fiscal capacity of the province. There just is not perfect elasticity to meet all the need.

I agree that it's a good preventive program and a good developmental program. There are a lot of other needs out there, too, and we have to arrive at some system where the priorization and the planning is done. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, I guess I just have to say on this area that it's true, as the member is saying, that your department has encouraged them to come back for funding. But I would just think that, even though I know that the idea is to have an overall service but, at the moment until that's in place, there are going to be cert ain community services that will arise.

If the Min ister had felt that this was a deserving program, I think then that it possibly could have gone to Treasury Board to get some of that advertising money, because 30,000 out of that budget is just a drop in the bucket. I think that this is a far more useful program than some of the advertising that's been going on. lt seems a shame that something like this isn't funded in favour of all the advert ising that's been going on. HON. M. SMITH: There is a lot of need out there, and it's very difficult to priorize.

Part of the role of advert ising in this department is public education, prevention and awareness. We think it's an essen tial component of a total system. Committee rise? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Is it the will of the committee, committee rise? (Agreed) Committee rise. SUPPL Y - MANITOBA JOBS FUND MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, come to order. We are considering the Estima tes of the Manitoba Jobs Fund. Item 1. {a)( 1) - the Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us how many companies - and provide us with a list of the compani es - that have recieved grants, and also tell us the amounts that the busine sses have received. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Culture. 3524

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 HON. E. KOSTYRA: Well, I'm not certain which program the member is ref erring to. If he is ref erring to all aspects of the Jobs Fund, I don't have that information because it would include all of the various programs which include Jobs in Training Program, Careerstart. If it's all of the areas, I don't have that detailed information. If it's reference to development agreements, I have that information. Is that what the member wanted?

The development agreements that we have signed to date are; one with Toro, which has been announced, which is a $625,000 five-year industry loan; Gravure Graphics Ltd., which was also announced already , a $500,000 conditional forgivable loan and $637,000 interest-bearing repayable loan and $1. 3 million bank and mortgage guarantee; Wes teei-Rosco was $820,000 interest-free forgivable loan and $180,000 grant; and Vicon was up to $400,000 conditional forgivable loan, which was equal to the Federal Government assistance, and then a further $600,000 conditional forgivable loan.

Those are the four development agreements that have been signed to date. MR. R. BANMAN: Since we are dealing with Estimates, I wonder if the Minister could tell us what he anticipates will be the amount of money that he will be spending this year on the development agreements. HON. E. KOSTYRA: The total amount of money that is budgeted for potential development agreements, loan and budgeta ry, is $18.3 million. MR. R. BANMAN: What does the Minister anticipate spending on agreements such as the Westeel, the Vicon, Toro and the Graphics Company?

In other words, what are you anticipating in spending on either attracting or saving busine sses here in the province? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I wasn't sure of the question. The amounts with respect to Toro is, as I presented, we expect to have that amount this year. MR. R. BANMAN: I'm wondering if the Minister could inform us what he is anticipating the Jobs Fund will be spending on companies either for trying to attract them to the province or to maintain their operations in a similar fashion than he did with the four that he just mentioned. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Well, there would be approximately $15 million, because the rest of it has already been committed; that is what is budgeted. These kinds of areas, obviously you can't say for cert ain how many will be finally concluded, but that is the amount we have budgeted. If possible, we'll spend less than that. MR. R. BANMAN: A further two questions, the Minister in dealing in applications from these companies, could he outline briefly how one goes about applying for this type of assistance, for this development assistance? No. 2, are there any guidelines established, in other words, size of business?

Are you basing the grant on a per-job basis? What kind of criteria are you using, No. 1, for entertaining applications; and No. 2, in the granting of these monies? HON. E. KOSTYRA: The development agreement in concept is open to any busine ss that's looking at either any form of significant expansion in the Province of Manitoba, or new inv estment in the Provinc e of Manitoba; that is, companies that don't presently have operations in the province but are looking at expanding are eligible for assistance.

The basic approach to the development agreements is one, first of all, that we attempt to maximize whatever other assistance is available and is needed for a specific project. The basic position we take is that projects, hopeful ly, can proceed without any kind of assistance but, if there is assistance, particularly as it relates to what may exis t in other provinces or other areas in terms of inducements or incentives, then we will look at the assistance through the development agreement process.

However , we do encourage and ensure that there is the full advantage taken of other programs, such as the DAlE programs or the WTID or any other Federal Government assistance programs that are available. In terms of the specifics of a development agreement, once those conditions have been met, we look at what are the actual needs In terms of the particular investment, and then negotiate some level of assistance based on what the needs of the company might be and what benefits will occur to the province.

The initial attempt is to look at a loan, rather than any outright grant assistance, the bottom line being that there has to be a net economic benefit to the Province of Manitoba through direct tax revenue to at least equal the cost of the assistance that is granted either in actual grant or in inte rest writedown or interest forgiveness. MR. R. BANMAN: I wonder if the Minister could inform the committee as to whether he believes that this type of program is absolutely necessary in light of the general overall economic activity within the province and throughout Canada.

In other words, does he really feel that the $15 million that he has set aside for this type of program, the development agreement as well as the $4 million is some thing that was done in the best interests of the taxpayers, and that is the type of program that governments in the future will have to continue to use to attract business and maintain busine sses here? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Well, I think if we're dealing with an ideal society, then we wouldn't necessarily need these kinds of programs.

However, unfortunately, there is a great deal of competition by governments in this area. lt was in response to the pressures that we felt from other areas that we 're competing with, offers of assistance for business to locate in provinces or even states within the United States.

We felt the need to have some ability to be able to have Manitoba compete with some of those other areas. lt was as a result of that the development agreement concept was put in place two years ago. it's different than what exists with respect to most other jurisdictions, because there are specific commitments that have to be entered into by the company in the form of agreement to tie into job performance, to investment levels, to other factors such as affirmative action or Manitoba sourcing to ensure that there is net benefit to the province in terms of the level of assistance that's being provided. 3525

TUHday, 2 July, 1885 I think, given the natural gravitation that tends to pull some economic activity to centres like Toronto and Montreal, there is a need to ensure that there is some development in areas of our country like Manitoba; there is a need for a comprehensive federal strategy. Un fort una tely, the federal ec onomic, regional development strategy tends to giv e benefits to most provinces in Canada and doesn't actually do what I think it was initially intended to.

So there is the need for provinces like Manitoba to have the ability to attract some of those companies where the level of assistance may help bring that Investment decision to the province. So if we're dealing with an ideal situation, then I would say that there would be no need.

But given that we are dealing in a competitive environment, we felt it important that Manitoba be competitive in that area in a way that we felt would provide the benefits for Manitobans and the protections in terms of having some clearly defined targets in the agreement to ensure that there is benefit to Manitoba as a result of those agreements. MR. R.

BANMAN: So to sum up the Minister's remarks, it would be fair to say - and correct me if I'm wrong - that since provincial governments are competing with each other for the establishment of busi ness within their jur isdictions, under the ci rcu mstances it is necessary and is advisable to give grants to large busine ss to either maintain their operations here or to attract them and have them locate here. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Well, that's not quite what I said. I indicated that Manitoba was dealing in a competitive environment, and that was one of the reasons we saw the need to have this kind of vehicle available.

The emphasis of it has been on expansion rather than strictly, as the member describes, maintenance. The idea behind it is to bring about new economic activity and new job creation. The example that the member is well aware of in his own comm uni ty is a new operation tha t was not previously in the province, in fact, it was not in any su bstantia l way in Canada. They were look ing at expanding their operations into Canada and looked at a number of sit es. With, among other factors, development agreement assistance, they chos e Ma nitoba.

I think that has turned out to be a good investment for Manitoba, one that is already paying significant dividends in terms of the costs that are attached to that development agreement. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Chairman, just to get it, the Mini ster is saying th at, in order to attract lar ge busine sses and try and have local busine sses expand, it is necessary now, in light of the compe titiv e market place with our sister provinces, to provide busine ss with grants for them to either locate or expand their facilities there. Is that really the policy of the government now? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: The policy of the government is to think about greater economic development in the province. That is done through a numb er of vehicles, most of which are contained in the Jobs Fund. One of those components is the development agreement which is there to help busine sses expand or locate in the province. The member seems to want to put his

interpretation on my remarks, and I'm giving him my

interpretation and our governmen t's position. I have already stated that in terms of what their purpose is and what we are trying to accomplish. If we look at another example of a small Manitoba based company that, as a result of a development agreement, has been able to acquire the plant and assets and keep the work force operating of a company that was owned by non-Manitoban interests and was in the process of being closed.

As a result of the development agreement, it helped to give the Manitoba based company the necessary assistance in order to purchase that plant, expand their own plant and continue to provide increased economic benefits for Manitobans; that was a Manitoba-based, Manitoba owned company. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to do is understand the governme nt's polic y and the government's policy direction. All I'm asking the Minister - he has now given a number of grants to large corporations, and they are looking at larger corporations with the intent of creating more jobs in this province.

Now is it then fair to say that, in order to create more jobs and employment in the Province of Manitoba, the government says that they have to provide grants to large corporations, and that is their policy? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Again, I have already answered that question and provided the member with the details, and to somehow paraphrase that it is really grants to large corporations is not what I said, Mr. Chairman.

You heard what I said; that there is a vehicle available as part of the Jobs Fund, as part of a comprehensive package of economic-based activities that we do have a concept called the development agreements. lt is a vehicle to provide a possible range of assistance for compan ies, some of whic h are Ma ni toba based , Manitoba owned, some rather small, some rather large companies, to give us the necessary vehicle to deal with those companies in a competitive way to, on one hand, assist those Manitoba companies that may need that little bit of assistance in order to expand in Manitoba and to employ more Manitobans; or in the case where we are competing with other jurisdictions like Alberta, like British Columbia, like Ontario, to have a vehicle that we can compete in a way that ensures that Manitobans do get benefits.

That's what I said, Mr. Chairman. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Chairman, let's go through it one by one. I wonder if the Min ister could tell us why they decided to give money to Toro in Stein bach. HON. E. KOSTYRA: The reason we had to compete with the Province of Ontario was that the Province of Ontario was offering possi ble incent ives for th e company to locate there. In order to be competitive we had to provide some level of assistance to ensure that that project did come to Manitoba.

The member wants to focus in on that project and, as I already indic ated, we have seen the situation where that company has now doubled its employment from 3526

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 what was originally committed under the development agreeme nt, which I sugge st is a good deal for Manitobans and for the people of his own area. I don't know if he is suggesting that we should allow that company to go to Ontario. I would think that people in his area may well be concerned if that is his suggestion. But I also point out that, while we are focusing in on one component of the $2 10 million Jobs Fund, that most of the projects, in fact, the vast majority of funds under the Jobs Fund, go to assist small Manitoba businesses.

We are dealing in this particular area right now with some $18 million of a $210 million fund. The majority of the rest of the funds go to help small Manitoba busine sses expand and increase their economic activity in the Province of Manitoba. So if he is sugges ting, by focusing in on a couple of the projects of the Jobs Fund is directed to large business, that's not the case.

The Jobs Fund is a comprehensive, co-ordinated program that provides assistance in some cases for larger companies in order to make positive investment decisions with respect to Manitoba, but in the majority of cases it's direct assista nce to small bus iness in the Province of Manitoba. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Chairman, the reason that the government did give Toro a grant was that it put us over the top and then with that assistance they located here instead of in Ontario. So we had to be competitive with Ontario, we had to provide this company with the grant. I think that's fairly accurate.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us what the rationale was for giving Westeei-Rosco a grant. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Again, We steei-Rosco was looking at rationalizing and expanding their operations and were looking at two locations - Ontario and Saskatchewan - and as a result of our assistance, coupled with the company's capital investment, they are expan ding in Manitob a and moving some operations that were previously done elsewhere, such as a roof line, into Manitoba. MR. R.

BANMAN: I would ask the Minister, under the circumstances that he has just described, does he feel that the Manitoba taxpayers' money has been well spent in giving these companies grants to locate and maintain their operations here? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Ye s, I've already indicated given the circumstances of these agreements and given the competitive nature that we find ourselves in, in the Province of Manito ba, I think that we've served the best inter ests of Manito bans ensuring that we do have economic expansion and job creation for Manitobans and I think that has been money well spent.

As I indicated in the case of one of them, it's been a good investment because it's already shown to be better than what was originally negotiated. MR. R. BANMAN: So the Minister is saying, that really if there is a busine ss that is to locate here and will create jobs and we can manage to attract that business by providing them with a grant, that it is taxpayer money well spent? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Well, the member is trying to put his interpr etation on what I'm saying. I will go through it again.

The government believes that it is important to ensure that there is a comprehensive co-ordinated vehicle like the Jobs Fund that provides assistance in a variety of ways to help economic development in the province, majority of its assistance going to small busine ss, the most important sector of our economy and that which provides the grea test degree of job cre ation.

We also believe it's important to have a vehicle that allows us to compete with other provinces in the area of major expansions. it's also important in terms of the concept development agreement to have a vehicle in place that helps a Manitoba company become competitive in the world-class environment and that's certainly been the case with Gravure Graphics as a res ult of that development agreement and their expansion, that they now are going to be a world-class opera tion. So I think under those circumstances, that it is a good investment for Manitobans. MR. R.

BANMAN: I appreciate the Minister not wanting to come forward with a policy statement on it because I know the difficulties he's having in grappling with this issue knowing the stand that his party has taken over the years with regard to giving grants and giving aid to busi ness as a whole. I wonder if the Minister can tell me with regard to the granting structure now, whether or not the MD C is only involved in guarantees, or if they are also involved in what he refers to as the administration of the forgivable loans aspect of it. HON. E.

KOS TYRA: I thought I'd answered that question previously to the member , that the Manitoba Development Corporation is the adminis trative body to provide the loans and that's the mechanism we're using to disburse the loans; also to ensure that the conditions, repaym ent, that had been adhered to. MR. R. BANMAN: I think, if my memory serves me right, it's done under

Part 2 of the Act, which I believe makes the Cabinet responsible, not the MD C board responsible, for the advancement of the loans and the administration - well, not the administration - but the Cabine t is taking respon sibility for the advancement of the funds and thereby it is not a decision that the board is making. I wonder if the Minister could tell me whether or not they have set a sort of a guideline when entertaining application forms. In other words, are you looking at busine sses that will create 10, 15, 20, 25 jobs, or are smaller businesses also asked to apply under this program? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: The nature of the program is to look at substantial job creation that is normally or usually in excess of 25 jobs, but the program is flexible depending on the nature of the need and the request. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister wasn't here from 1977 to 1981, but these questions which I have been posing here this evening are tremendously inter esting because all one would 3527

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 have to do is go back and read Hansard from a few years ago when ther e was a small business development program, which gave, I think - what was it? - a maximum of $20,000 or $30,000 to small busi ness for the expansion and job creation in this province and it was the members in the New Democratic Party, of course. I think the program was about a .5 million program at that time and in terms of this program that we are looking at right now, it was peanuts a members opposite berated the Government of the Day for having a give away program in place. Mr.

Chairman, all I can say, and I guess to sum it up proper ly, is welcome to the world of reality. Th at's what we were trying to say all along. What's happened, Mr. Chairm an, we have a government now, a government who, in opposition, critici zed every dollar that was spent with regards to trying to help create a new job. Mr. Chairman, it is a very interest ing exercise, and the members opposite know it. They know it.

What has happened here is that all we have to do is read back a few speeches, and I would then say that any impartial observer would have to brand members opposite - a word which I will not use because it's been deemed as being unparliament ary, so I won't use it - but, Mr. Chairman, that's right. In a matter of a week we have seen really two dramatic conversions; No. 1, this same Minister admitted that the government can't run Flyer Indust ry, which we told them all the way along, and we have now seen them embarking on this year allocating $15 million to give away to business. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I for one want to tell members opposite, that was a reality back in 1977 to 19 81. We had to, to attract business, to try and maintain business, we had to provide some grants. - (Interjection) - That's right, absolutely right. The only difference was, Mr. Chairman, at that time, it was the members opposite who berated the Government of the Day for providing any funds. Now it is exactly the same people who then went ahead and criticiz ed the previous administration for doing it, the New Democratic Party who said, "Oh, look at all the giveaways.

They're giving every thing away." They're giving money to small busi ness because those small busine sses are creating a few jobs and we know there will be failures. But the fact of the matter is that the other provinces are doing it, and that is why you were in the poker game along with Nova Scotia on the big one the Pratt and Whitney one. I would imagine you were into the game for $40 or $50 million of Manitoba taxpayers' money to try and get them here. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of the Jobs Fund then to tell us how much they had offered Pratt and Whitney?

How much money did you offer Pratt and Whitn ey? Because the fact of the matter is that all the other provinces are doing it, and you have found out that in order for you to attract or maintain some of the busine sses here. you had to get into the same game. So the purest from across the way, who did not want to see any grants go to any busi nesses are now engaged in a system where this year they have set $15 million aside to help busi ness develop in Manitoba. That's what they've done. So, Mr.

Chairman, the government has supported a program which will see large busine ss, business over 25 employees, rece1v1ng taxpayers' money to locate here. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the people out there are going to look at this very interest ingly because it has always been the New Democratic Party's platform for years. I mean, how long did we listen to that corpor ate welfare jargon that we heard from federally and then from members opposite? Mr.

Chairman, I speak of someone who has sat in this Legislature and listened to that type of policy from members opposite for years, because actually I think they really believed it . Now given the opportunity to govern and deal with the se matters, they suddenly have put that policy behind them, and they are now involved and bidding for businesses like every other Conservative Government and provincial government in Canada. That's what has happened and they have forsaken one of their main ideological policies. Mr.

Chairman, I have to tell you that while it hurt politically to see members opposite taking that stand - because I have no hesitation in saying that a lot of people are pretty uptight about giving grants to large corporations - I'll tell you, that small businessman who has under 25 and sees a large company gett ing a grant is very unhappy - very unhappy - because in many instances they say, "Why can't I get in on it?" I think all we have to do is every time the government makes an announcement like this, all you have to do is pick up your telephone and you have somebody who is employing 10 or 15 people giving you a call and say how can I get in on the program, and you have to tell them, "I'm sorry, it is not for you, it is just for the the big boys." So, Mr.

Chairman, I realize the dilemma that the government is in, but it's a dilemma of their own making because they believed throughout the years that government and the taxpayer should not be funding the corporate welfare bums. Now we have seen a total reverse on that situation. That, this week, coupled with the revelat ions at Flyer, Mr. Chairman, really must lead a lot of the New Democratic sup porters to wonder ·really where the se people are philosophically because two major planks within their policies and ideological beliefs have really been pulled out from under them, and they have forsaken them. They have.

The Minister smiles and I appreciate it. He wasn't here listen ing to the tirades from members opposite when we were dealing with that. The Minister of Energy, he knows what we are talking about; members opposite knew what they were talking about. That is why the people of Manitoba will not send this New Democratic Government back to office, and that's a fact. Mr.

Chairman, the members opposite can laugh, but I will tell you, once you start changing your basic principl es, and your basic princi ples were th at government could control and operate business in the public sector as well as in the private sector, and we found out that doesn't work. Mr. Chairman, you have admitted it in the Flyer case. You have. Listen, Mr. Chairman, I mean the Minister of Mines who has this plant within his jurisdiction, within his riding, is part of a government that now says by September the y want to be out of it. Now, Mr.

Chairman, that squar ed off to what he would have said five years ago had our government announced that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 3528

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 MR. R. BANMAN: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I haven't taken the time to go through all the Hansards, but I will tell you there is some pretty juicy stuff there. So here you are a government, Mr. Chairman, who has really in the last week here done a very interesting thing, and that has really foresaken the two pretty significant policies which they had in place all the time. I am glad to see the Minister today announce that they do have money, $15 million set aside, and they will be reviewing from time to time applications that come in from companies that employ over 25 people or more.

They will then, if they deem - (Interject ion) - right, and I would imagine the Cabinet which makes the final decision after some of the departmental staff have gone through it, but they will then decide who will get the money, the $15 million, and it will be handed out to companies larger than 25, which I would say in this province of ours is probably - what have we got? - about 80 percent of the busin esses employ 25 people or less. So what we are targeting this money at is large businesses and, Mr. Chairman, the government realizes for them to be in competition with our sister provinces, they have to do this.

So it's an interest ing revelation and, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to seeing some more of these changes as we get closer to an election because I believe that we are seeing a government now which is compromising all their principles to try and make sure that they can try and get re-elected. I say to you that the minute the taxpayers and the people of Manitoba see what's happening, and they see what's happening now, is that the chances for re election as every day goes by becomes slimmer and slimmer.

So I would say to the Premier that maybe the best thing for him to do now before he steps on any other land mines is probably just to quickly call an election and get this over with so that we can put him out of his misery and get on with doing the business of the province. HON. E. KOSTYAA: Let me begin where the member trailed off with his last comments.

I think that what is happening out the re, Mr.· Chairman, is as more time passes on and people see the imp act of this govern ment, particu larly in the ec onomic area, particularly in the area of job cre ation, the prospects of this government's re-election are growing rather than diminishing. They know that, and I think that is why we are seeing the kind of react ions that we have been seeing in the last few weeks from members opposite because they get the same or feel the same pulse, see the same kind of information that we see.

So I think that we are seeing some of that react ion from the increased popularity of this government as more and more people see that this government has had a significant impact on the econo my, a positive impact on the economy of the province. For the member to suggest that these programs and these kinds of things are the same as the previous government is simply not correct. These programs are fundamentally different than what was in place before.

These programs require specific commitments from companies in terms of job creation levels, in terms of investment, require such things as affirmative action and other - (Interjections) - factors that . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. I am having some trouble hearing the Minister. I hope that other people would like to hear as well. Mr. Minister. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think sometimes they don't want to hear this kind of news. The situation also as to somehow suggest that this party in government has somehow abandoned its principles is simply not true.

The government and the party has taken a position in terms of mixed economy and in terms of the role of government in economic development which is actually quite opposite from the role of conservative-minded people, conservative minded politicians and governments where they believe that the less role the government has in the economy the better it is for the economy , and that hasn't proven to be all that effective in those parts of Canada where that has been the undermining - and I say undermining - philosophy of government.

But we have consistently said that there is a mixed economy in this country and one that our party does support. We have also said that if there is need for vehicles for co-operation with the private sector , that too can be used, provided there are specific job levels contained in those agreements, job performance, that the re are other benefits that are accrued to society. That's not a new revelation as the member suggests; that is something that's been on the policy books of this party for some time.

If the member is interested in doing some political history research, I would be glad to provide him with that information so that he can research it himself and to see that there is no contradiction in this party's position in government. So to som ehow sugge st that the se programs are a contradiction of the underlying philosophy of this party in government is simply not dealing with reality . In regard to the comments of Crown corporations, this government has not changed its view in terms of Crown corporations.

We believe that there is a need for Crown corporations and in specific areas of the economy , and that's somet hing that we are not shying away from, for we also recognize, and in the case of Flyer where there is a Crown that wasn't developed in that way but was something that governments over a period of time backed into because of the situations at the time, that we recognize that that isn't an area for Crown corporation activity, and one, given the present circumstances, that we have to look at some other resolve to it.

To somehow say that that is a contradiction of our philosophy in terms of the mixed economy and role of government and role of Crown corporations again is not bearing any relationship to the truth. I think what really is grinding the member is not the fact that this program, our treatment of Flyer; it is the fact that the policies of this government are having a significant impact on the economy of the Province of Manitoba, that these policies and these programs of this government are having an impact on job creation in the Province of Manitoba and that is what's grinding members opposite, Mr. Chairman. MR. R.

BANMAN: I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to tell us this ev ening what amount of 3529

TUescltiy, 2 July, 1815 Manitoba taxpayers' mone y was offered to Pratt and Whitne y for them to locate here. HON. E. KOSTYRA: That's hypothetical. The potential agreement was being discussed with them did not come to an end, so I don't bel ieve it would be appropriate to deal with what might have happened because we were negot iating and are ne gotiatin g with other companies. I don't think it would serve the taxpayers' interest in terms of allowing that kind of information to be made public. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I guess one of the dilemmas we then face whether or not if the Minister isn't going to provide us with the information of what they laid on the table with regard to Pratt and Whitney to try and attract them here, it's pretty hard for the opposition then, or anybody else, to make a judgment whether or not the government tried hard enough to do it. Was it something else? Were we in the ballpark when it came to the number of dollars that were adva nced by the province? Did we offer Pratt and Whitney in the excess of $30 million if they would locate here? HON.

E: KOSTYRA: The situation with respect to those negotiations and others that we've been involved in Is that we dealt, and put on the table, the best proposition we felt was within the financial and other capabilities of the province, to ensure that there was a net return from the province. If that's not acceptable and if someone else is prepared to offer more, or do more, then I'm sorry but that is as far as we were prepared to go into that situation. A MEMBER: How much were you going to give them? MR. R.

BANMAN: Is the Min ister then saying it would be his departmen t's policy not to reveal the offers made to compan ies that didn't locate here? In other words, the companies that don't locate and where funds are not expended , the Minis ter would not be giving the opposition the amounts of money that were offered to corporations that didn't locate here. HON. E. KOSTYRA: No, I don't believe it would be correct to do that in terms of ongoing negotiations that may be taking place with that company or, indeed, other companies. I don't think that would serve the ta xpayers of the provi nce we ll.

In terms of any agreements tha t are formally entered into, that information is available obviously and is being released to the public and it's our intention to ensure that there is even more information provided in terms of any of the future devel opment agreements that are enter ed into. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, just to add to those comments of the Mem ber for La Ve rendrye, I would inform the Minister that if there are 15 people bidding for Pratt and Whitney and that was the figure that was announced, and the winner was in excess of $36 million or just about that to get the corporat ion, plus some other extras by the city and municip ality, in order to be in the finals, in order to be one of the last two, I suggest you had to be very close to their offer. In fact, you had a better offer than 13 othe1 people that were bidding on the proposition. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister discusses the philosophy of the government and it has certainly changed. At a meet ing held in the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism's office with the Deputy Minister on March 11, 19 82, this Is an interesting statement.

He said, "The Minister explained that it was the view of the new government that it had received a clear electoral mand ate for more formal relat ionship between government and business and the mandate precluded proce eding with development assistance grants to establish business of the sort that have been approved on occasion by the previous government ." That was the statement the Minister made and this is all available information for discovery, I might add. Later on

Section 4, Page 2, it says, "And since the government had received an electoral mandate to discontinue such development assistance grants that the government had a political obligation not to carry on with the grant." Now, Mr. Chairman, we now really have a situation, it's all available, and it's also in Hansard this year, that the Minister of Finance said, "K nowing what I know now, I thought entirely different of the arrangements that had been made by the previous government and I might say, Sir, that the lawyer for the other team, was very interested in that statement ." So, Mr.

Chairman, the government has now and also he said that he thought that the . . . Read it careful ly. I will answer the questions, gentlemen. Read it carefully. We ll, Mr. Chairman, November 17, 19 81, ... No, pardon me, I'm wrong, Sir. Mr. Chairman, the note that I read that says November 17 it said, "The previous government left government and this government was elected on November 17." I will search the document and get you the exact date of the Treasury Board announc ement because it's right in ·here. The Treasury Board was passed before the election and it's right there. Mr.

Chairman, I don't care when the letter went out. The Tre asury Board with the designation of the funds and where the funds were coming from were right there. And you'r e the Mini ster of Fi nance, it's righ t documented today. Mr. Chairman, it's all here, it's all here. And the Minister of Finance finally says, "That it wasn't a bad idea", now that he takes a second look at it. Oh, yes, go down and get the Hansard. Mr. Chairman, I've asked the Minis ter of Finance to get the Hansard and have him read his own words.

He even stated, he thought the Enterprise Manitoba Program had turn ed out to be a good program. it's got your answer. I will only suggest that the Minister of Finance read his Hansard regarding Dest ination Manitoba, or Ente rprise Manitoba, either one. Mr. Chairman, he said, of cou rse, he couldn't understand some of the loans. Some of them didn't seem to him to be creat ing manufacturing in the rural area, or words to that effect , because he thought some of them were rather small printing, etc., but it was creat ing jobs and out of 32 1 ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. 3530

Tuesday, 2 July, 1985 MR. F. JOHNSTON: I only ask the Minister for the third time to read his Hansard on the subject. So, Mr. Chairman, after approximately 321 1oans, we had 90 percent success with it. That's why the Minister of Business Development and Tourism called me into the Members' Lounge one night to ask me about the program and how good he thought it was and how he was looking at doing another one the same as Ontario was doing at the present time which was a copy of our program. lt is called hypocrisy, sheer hypocrisy. What's the order about, Mr. Chairman, I said it's called hypocrisy.

I don't recall calling them hypocrites. I said it's called hypocrisy. So we get, Order, Order , from the Little Caesar know-it-all over there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr . Chairman, the Minister announced four projects, four industrial development agreements. My, aren't you great fellows! We did have a DREE system in the Province of Manitoba; we were completely a DREE province. We used to use the government DREE loans the same as the government did from 1969 to 1977 continually.

I remember one day when I got up and announced that there was a new company coming to Manitoba and the First Minister, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, got up and berated us - shouldn't even announce it probably because it was DREE money - and he just took my statement apart like he thought he was a marvellous person. I wonder if the First Minister is going to get up and criticize the Federal Government when they put all the money into the glass plant in Selkirk, and you have been trying to get it and you have been trying to get federal money to do it. it's call hypocrisy.

And he's been fighting to have the DREE program changed because Selkirk didn't quite qualify and he worked to have it done, no less. He's changing it to get it to his constituen cy, fought hard against southern Manitoba to get it, changing it. A MEMBER: Are you for it? MR. F. JOHNSTON: No, no, I am not for it. Mr. Chairman, I was just asked if I was for the tier system. I'm not. But I'm not talking about that, I am talking about the person who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

One year he criticizes, the next year he is out there with his hand out grabbing everyt hing he can get and fighting to change the tier system so it wouldn't go to southern Manitoba. Ye s, Mr. Chairman. Let's take a look at the towns down there that have made repres entation to that company. - (Interject ion) -Y eah. You know, when we had a DREE syst em, Mr.

Chairman, when we had DREE in the Province of Manitoba, they applied to DREE because they wanted to come to Manitoba, there were grants, but DREE would insist on the street they were going to build on, how big they were going to build, how many people they were going to empl oy. And did you know from '78 through 1980-81-82-83, that's the number of companies that came into Manitoba and advanced in Manitoba? - and you gentlemen stand up and say I've got four. What a bunch of hypocrites! Or it's called hypocrisy. Now, Mr. Chairman, when we talk about the Jobs Fund, the Jobs Fund has all this money in it.

Well, I would say the Jobs Fund has provincially $154,000 because that's what's in the Economic Development Agreement over the years, and they have taken the agreement and they have said we will supply our money for the agreement from the Jobs Fund. On one of the classifications of loan communication the Minister says the agreements called for an investment of a total of $2 1 million, the Government of Ma nitoba will be contributing a total of $8 million through the Jobs Fund. A MEMBER: No. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Are you telling us that you would not sign the agreements if you didn't have a Jobs Fund?

Are you telling us that you wouldn't have put it through the different departments as it did before? You are not telling us that; you wouldn't dare because you would have done it Jobs Fund or no Jobs Fund you would have done it. So, Mr. Chairman, here we have Economic Dev elopment $3 million, 150 each; Mi nerals Development 1480 and 90, 2470 million. There is a whole list - I am sure you have it all - it was tabled in the House. Mind you, then there is the agreement between the gov ernments.

So the government conveniently says it came from the Jobs Fund and then they advertise the tremendous job the Jobs Fund is doing about programs that they would have done anyway within th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-81b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 81b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0385cc49fe8b5a77c88584808b4284fda274b7f3

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).