Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Law Amendments Chairperson Mr. David Newman Constituency of Riel Vol. XLVI No.4- 7 p.m., Thursday, October to, 1996

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATH LIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political AfTiliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirktield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River � N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P.

P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

33 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Thursday, October 1 O, 1996 TIME-7p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON- Mr. David Newman (Riel) VICE-CHAIRPERSON-Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain) ATTENDANCE -11 - QUORUM -6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Downey, Hon. Mrs. Mitchelson, Hon. Mr. Reimer Messrs. Dyck, Lathlin, Martindale, Ms. McGifford, Mr. Newman, Mrs. Render, Messrs. Sale, Tweed WITNESSES: Ms. Theresa Ducharme, People in Equal Participation Inc. Ms. Joan Johannson, Canadian Association of the Non-Employed Ms. Donna Ansell, Private Citiz en Mr.

Sid Frankel , Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and U ofM Faculty of Social Work Ms. Ellen Kruger, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and U ofM Faculty of Social Work Ms. Annie Marie Partanen, Private Cit izen Ms. Michelle Forrest, Private Citiz en Mr. Glen Murray, Councillor, Fort Rouge Ward, Cit y of Winnipeg Mr. Jim Finlay, Community Action on Poverty Ms. Pauline Riley, Manitoba Action Committee on the Status ofWomen Mr. Allen Bleich, Canadian Union of Public Employees of Manitoba Mr. Brent Rosnoski, Manager of Intergovernmental Affairs, City of Winnipeg Ms.

Leslie King, Director of Social Services, City of Winnipeg Mr. Paul Moist, Local 500, Canadian Union of Public Employees Mr. Doug Lambier, Private Citizen Mr. Raymond Blue, Private Citizen Mr. William Seymour, Choices Ms. Valerie Price, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Ms. Alison Norberg, Church in Society Committee, Winnipeg Presbytery, United Church of Canada Mr. Garry Loewen, Church in Society Committee, Winnipeg Presbytery, United Church of Canada Ms. Mary Ross, Inner City Ministries, Volunteer Project Ms. Tammy Sutherland, Inner City Ministries, Volunteer Project Ms.

Denise Flett, West Broadway Community Ministry Mr. Raymond Despatis, West Broadway Community Mini stry Ms. Sharon Olson, Private Citizen Ms. Kristine Barr, Manitoba Young New Democrats Ms. Catharin Johannson, Manitoba Young New Democrats Ms. Susan Bruce, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 36-The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act *** Mr. Chair person: Good even ing. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. This evening the committee will be considering Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

Bef ore the committee can proceed with its business it must elect a Vice-Chairpers on. Are there any nominations? Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Chairman, I would nominate Mr. Twe ed.

34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October I 0, 19 96 Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Tweed has been nominated. Are there any other nomi nations? Seeing none, Mr. Tweed is elected as the Vice-Chairperson for the committee. To date, we have had a number of presenters registered to speak to the bill referred to for this evening. I will now read aloud the names of the persons who have preregistered to make a presentation.

The persons registered to speak are Joan Johannson, Donna Ansell, a spokesman to be named for the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, Fiona Muldrew, Lorna Wilson, Frances Evers, Annie Marie Partanen, Michelle Forrest, Councillor Glen Murray, Jim Finlay, Cheryl Bryton, Pauline Riley, a spokesperson to be named for the Canadian Union of Public Employees of Manitoba, Leslie King and Brent Rosnoski, Paul Moist, Doug Lambi er, Kay Slaunwhite, Raymond Blue, Theresa Ducharme, William Seymour, Valerie Price, Alison Norberg, Tammy Sutherland, Margot LaVoie, Deborah Graham, Morgan Brock, Rhonda Chorney, Eric Cote, Marlene Vieno, Denise Flett, Paul Mallea, who is an out­ of-town presenter, spokesperson to be named for the Village Clinic, Julia Segal, Karen Tjaden, also an out-of­ town presenter, Monique Foucart, Louise Simbandumwe, Dr.

Mary Pankiw, Sharon Olson, Yvonne Naismith and Irene Sale, Kristine Barr and Catharin Johannson, Linda Churchill, Susan Bruce, Bonnie Caldwell, Kathy Sinclair, and a person who has not preregistered but who has walked in this evening and has now registered, Sylvia Bector. If there are any other persons in attendance today who would like to speak to the bill and whose name does not appear on the list of presenters, would you please register with the Chamber branch personnel at the table at the rear of the room and your name will be added to the list.

In addition, I would like to remind those presenters wishing to hand out written copies of their briefs to the comm ittee that 15 copies are required. If assistance in making the required number of copies is needed, please contact either the Chamber branch personnel or the Clerk Assistant and the copies will be made for you. Did the committee wish to establish a time limit on presentations heard this evening? Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, before we do that I would like to recommend that we establish a reasonable time to adjourn tonight, and I would like to suggest midnight.

We have 45 presenters, but the government House leader has taken steps to accommodate people by scheduling another hearing tomorrow morning starting at nine o'clock if necessary. I think rather than stay here-it does not matter to us; we get paid to be here--but rather than keep these people here till three or four or five o'clock in the morning, I would recommend that we adjourn at a reasonable hour, like midnight, and resume the committee hearing tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr.

Chairman, I would, I think, just in the interest of fairness of the people who have shown up tonight that perhaps we proceed with some time limits based on presentation and question and see how the evening presents itself before we put closure on the end time. Mr. Martindale: Well, I think I would like to speak against that. I know that the briefs are various lengths. I know that, for example, one person has a one-page brief. I also see from the list that there are presenters here like the Social Planning Council that I expect will have more lengthy briefs, and I think it will all even out.

I would be opposed to limiting the right of anyone here to speak. I know I was in the committee a few days ago and one of the government members tried to limit presentations to I 0 minutes. I think that would be most unfair given the importance of this bill.

These are probably the most major changes to social assistance legislation in Manitoba in decades, and to limit presentations to I 0 minutes would be very unfair to people here who want to tell their stories, to people who have more lengthy presentations-I presume the City of Winnipeg and the city councillor will have longer presentations-and I think we should hear everyone according to the length that they have prepared to speak. Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Well, just to add to what Mr.

Martindale was saying, I know that members opposite have chosen not to debate the bills, but that does not mean that other citizens in Manitoba have made the same choice. I think, as well, regarding the closing hour, I am sure that there are single parents who are making presentations tonight who would much better be able to make accommodations for their children if they knew, for examp le, that we would wrap up tonight by 12. Thank you.

October 10, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 Mr. Chai rperson: I am hoping that the committee can come to an agreement on this on relatively short order because we are takin g up time, of course, of the presenters. Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we limit presentation and debate and question on this to 15 minutes per presenter in order to create fairness to the people who are sitting here. They will know, based on the

schedule that they have been presented with, at what time approximately they will be asked to make their presentations, as we have, I would suggest, in several of the other committees that we have sat on and also basically in accordance with the rules of the House where each member is accorded a time limit to make their presentations. Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Well, I was going to midnig ht. The time limit is something I oppose as well, Mr. Chairperson, but the notion of not being willing to set a humane adjournment time, considering the nature of this bill and its impact on people's lives, I think is simply unconscionable. *

(1910) Mr. Tweed: I believe I have put forward a motion, and I would ask that the question be called. Mr. Chair person: Mr. Tweed has moved that there be a 15-minute time limit for presentations and questions and answers of presenters, so it would be 15 minutes inclusive. Voice Vote just put out as a suggestion that perhaps if there are Mr. Chairperson: All in favour of the motion, say yea. moms with children here tonight, maybe there might be some allowance made to move them up farther. I do not Some Honourable Members: Yea. know whether that would help matters at all. Mr.

Chairperson: I will point out that at the moment I have already had an indication that Ms. Theresa Ducharme, who has had her hand up at the back the last few moments, probably to tell us that she has a tim e constraint due to having to rely on suitable trans­ portation, and she has expressed the hope that maybe there will be agreement that she could be moved up the list of presenters with the collective approval of the group here. Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I oppose the motion.

Simple arithmetic suggests that by midnight only 20 people could be heard if we had started 1 0 minutes ago, and there are 46 on the list. Many of the people who are here use public transit to get home. Many of the people who are here have families and have to work. They are not people who have a great deal of leisure time. Survival is a difficult matter for them. So, to suggest that they should sit here until three or four in the morning to accommodate a timetable that they had no say in making, I think is discourteous. It is insensitive to the real world in which they live, which is a difficult world.

So I think it would be very bad for any kind of sense that this Legislature is concerned about public dignity, it is concerned about the dignity of its citizens and any sense of civility, to require people to sit past Mr. Chairperson: All opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: The Yeas have it. Mr. Martindale: I request a counted vote. Formal Vote A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. Mr. Chair person: The motion carries 6 to 4. We can now proceed. There will be then a 15-minute time limit for submissions.

Did the committee wish to hear from out-of-town presenters first? [agreed] Did the committee wish to indicate at this point how late it is willing to sit this evening? Mr. Tweed: I believe that, again, as I stated earlier, I think that as we approach that time frame it should be at the discretion of the Chairman to make a suggestion as we proceed through the evening, not set the time limit at this point.

36 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October I 0, 1996 Mr. Chair person: Can that be agreed, Mr. Sale? I app reciate you have your hand up, but just to save everybody time, if we approach that time and there are some people that want to stay beyond that time and get it done rather than come back tomorrow, perhaps because they cannot be heard tomorrow, would that be a satisfactory resolution? Mr. Sale: Mr.

Chairperson, no, it would not for the following reason: that people have lives to lead, they have work to go to, they have children to care for, and to suggest to them that they should sit here past a particular time when they have no idea whether they are going to speak before nine o'clock tomorrow morning or not is simply unreasonable. We are not dealing with people who are always in com plete control of their own lives. They cannot make some of those decisions. They are not theirs to make because they have children, they have jobs. So I think that Mr. Tweed has suggested that you suggest an adjournment time.

The people in the room can do arithmetic. They know full well that if they are thirtieth or whatever on the list and we are taking 15 minutes or so for each presentation, they are not going to be heard before midnight, and they can come back tomorrow morning. I see the minister is agreeing. I hope that the com­ mittee would also agree and do the humane thing. I wish you would suggest an adjournment time that is fixed so that people who are here can govern themselves accordingly. Mr. Chairperson: Well, it is up to the committee to come to some resolve on this.

That is the process we are going through at the moment. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I agree with my colleague that we should adjourn at twelve o'clock. It will be approximately halfway through at twelve o'clock. That is a very reasonable time to adjourn, and then people would know whether they are going to be presenting tonight or tomorrow, and then people can decide whether they are going to stay and listen to all the presentations until midnight or go home earlier and be back here at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

Otherwise, we are going to be making this decision at twelve o'clock, and we will be opposed to it again at twelve o'clock. I think we should come to an agreement now and adjourn at a reasonable time. Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): There have been some good points made around these issues. I do also feel, though, that there may be some people that would prefer to stay tonight and do their presentation, and we are trying to determine for them. I know some of our honourable friends are trying to say that no, they should have to come back tomorrow morning if they cannot get on before 12.

I would suggest that, if there are those people that are making presentations that would prefer to stay because they do have other commitments tomorrow, we should accom­ modate them as well. So I think that as we move along through the process, if there are those people that would prefer to come back tomorrow morning, maybe they could make that known to the committee clerk, and we can try to accommodate. We want to hear from everyone, but I do think, too, for us to say to people that if they cannot be heard tonight they have to come back tomorrow morning is not fair.

If people do want to stay and do want to make their presentations, then I think they should have that opportunity. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, is the committee and is the minister committed to a nine o'clock meeting tomorrow mor ning regardless? In other words, if people get utter fatigue and leave at one o'clock and there are no more presenters, is the committee going to rise and say, well, we will not have a meeting at nine o'clock, or is the nine o'clock meeting an agreed commitment? Mr s. Mitchels on: If there are presenters to be heard tomorrow, there will be a nine o'clock meeting. Mr.

Martindale: I will agree to this suggestion by the minister on the understanding that people will be able to present tonight if they cannot come back tomorrow morning but that people who are unlikely to get on tonight, that we will have a committee hearing tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. Mr. Chair person: It appears that we then have agreement on that, and thanks all of you for your co­ operation and your patience, presenters as well.

October 10, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 37 We had one indication already then that we had a person that due to time constraints wanted to move up the list. Would it be appropriate, given there is only-it looks like two out-of-town presenters who we have agreed go first if Ms. Ducharme would go third? [agreed] How did the committee wish to deal with the names of persons who are not in attendance this evening if a person, having registered, does not appear?

Would it be agreeable that the names be dropped to the bottom of the list if the person is not in attendance when his or her name is called? [agreed] If the name is called a second time and there is no response and the person therefore not being present, what is the will of the committee in that situation? Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chainnan, I would suggest that not only do people have the ability or the right to make a presentation here tonight, they also have the right to make a written presentation and that we should accept that as such. Mr.

Martindale: Well, I will agree to that suggestion only if it is not like what happened here a few years ago when people's names were read a second time at four o'clock in the morning. If those names will be read at nine o'clock tomorrow then, yes, we will agree with you, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: I think everyone at this table is more reasonable than that, and thanks for that commen t. The Clerk is going to go to the back of the room at the moment and will receive indica tions as to whether anyone wants to be dropped down the list.

Otherwise, I will call people in order as follows: Paula Mallea will be the first presenter, Karen Tjaden would be the second presenter, and Theresa Ducharme would be the third, and then we start with the list unless it is agreed otherwise by you in association with the Clerk. [agreed] I would like to call then on Paula Mallea. Paula Mallea, would you please come forward. Is Paula Mallea not here? Has there been a call for Paula Mallea? Paul Mallea not here, she will then be dropped to the end of the list.

The next call is for Karen Tjaden, Manitoba North­ western Ontario Conference of the United Church of Canada. Floor Comment: Mr. Chainnan, Karen Tjaden is unable to be present this evening. Now, I was to present on her behalf but I am not rural, so I would be happy, now that we know that there is a meeting at nine o'clock, if she could reschedule at that time or in the morning or else just simply left in her current order, which is about 35. *

(1920) Mr. Ch airperson: Okay, what we will do then, if she appears, she will be shown as put at the end of the list for tonight, but if she does not appear tonight and does not have a chance to speak, she will be on tomorrow's list for nine o'clock. Is that agreeable to the committee? [agreed) The next individual then is Theresa Duchanne. Theresa. Ms. Theresa Ducharme (People in Equal Participa tion Inc.): I am a little short for the micro­ phone but my voice is quite strong this evening, being the first speaker.

Thank you for this opportunity of speaking on Bill 36, which is long overdue, and I am glad that I am still alive to have it amended. I, Theresa Ducharme, on behalf of People in Equal Participation Incorporated, agree with most of the changes proposed to the social assistance act. In fact, I am proud to be here this evening and honoured. I affinn that there needs to be only one system of income assistance as the three current systems overlap and invite abuse from the federal, provincial and the municipal levels of welfare or social assistance .

I am proud to see that we have changed the name to income assistance so that we can all have income and feel proud that we do have a right as citizens to be part and parcel of Canadian citizenship and the financial benefits that we all reap whether we are senior citizens, family allowance or whatever the assistance is. We are part and parcel of equality as we should be. The province is the logical government to administer this act. We are proud to see that Manitoba will be taking on that responsibility. I believe that is how it will be delivered, is it not?

38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10, 1996 It is important, your honour, that those rece1vmg income assistance have their cases reviewed annually.

I was on the welfare system for about 25 years, but I was not sure if I was interviewed or revie wed or assessed once every 16 years or 15 years or when it came about because I was one of the administrative mess that everybody else was there, and now that I am a married woman for 18 years, I am my husband's responsibility on his income, so I am proud to say that the welfare system should have an annual assessment, not just an annual report as is indi cated in the act itself It says an annual report will be granted, but I am not sure if that is on an annual assistance of reviewing each client or how it will be done so I would like more detail in that fashion because I do not know how it is going to be administered in that fashion.

Okay? It is important that those receiving income assistance have their cases reviewed annually. If this is not done, as is the case with Handi-Transit-I am bringing that in-and the disabled parking permit program, where you are only reg istered once in a lifetime, there will be mis­ administration allowing certain individuals to remain on the program who need to be removed.

Just like my mother when she becam e deceased, if we did not inform the old age pension, they would not have known if she was dead or alive or where she was or how she was still receiving her income if the family did not provide that service or that information. So it has to be done on an annual basis so that people are either registered or they are back at work or they are moving in the direction of future change and future development and stability. I would strongly advise, under

Section 5(1)(

a) that the director, who is given power to decide who may or may not receive assistance must be required to consult with medical personnel in charge of those physically or mentally incapacitated, because in the statement itself it says that the director will decide who is a person. I would like to know if an embryo is going to receive allowance, social assistance or not, because the wording is not adequate to my knowledge or to my physical or mental abilities. So I would like that incorporated, so that the director is not going to be the sole God and parcel of the whole package here.

Do you understand what I am trying to say? Because right now the social assistance act, which will be incorporated into the income act, we cannot leave it in the power of one director. So that is how my inter­ pretation is that he will oversee and precede the Premier and everybody else in power. So please do not let the director have that much power, because every time when I was assessed on welfare or social assistance in my years of encouragement, that when I mentioned that, the person would say, Mrs. Ducharme, we are here to assess you. We will have to find a job.

So I said, if I can get out of this wheelchair and breathe on my own I definitely would find that job because I would like your job. I think I could do it better, and that is how I always left the people who came to assess me when it was once every six years or whatever it was. And they would say, well, we will have to have a doctor's confirmation that you cannot go to work. Oh, lovely.

From the observation of this person coming to interview me, to see that I should stay in the program or not, I did not know what I had to do, or what I did not have to demonstrate on my own behalf as to how I belonged on this program, or could I please stay on this program and not send me out to work, because I would love to take your job. Your Honour, and all those at this table, I am sure I will give you a challenge in the next election. See, I am planning to run for politics in the upcoming provincial elections, so be prepared for many changes for yourself there.

So that is why I am here, amending the social assistance act because I am looking for a job, and I plan on taking your job. How do you like that? So I am starting right at the top. Floor Comment: Do you want any suggestions as to whose seat you should start with? Ms. Ducharme: The one at the head of the table. Mr. Chair person: I look forward to the challenge. It will be formidable. Ms. Ducharme: Okay. Well, you have one right here and I have my seat and table ready to go, so I can do a better job because I am halfway there. See?

So. continuing good luck with this-and hard work because, please, the negative people and the other ones are hurting

October 10, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 39 because change is very difficult for all of us and having an amendment or change even when they say, okay, now you are an adult, you must find a job, mom and dad cannot look after you, you have to do things on your own. Thank God, we are not a little bird where the mother pushes you out of the nest, and you have to go flying whether you have wings or not. So that is exactly what this Social Allowances Act becoming the income act is positive action for future change.

It can only be the purpose and the positive that is going to come out with people like myself and others who cannot walk, cannot breathe, cannot move a muscle, and yet I am giving a job to a young lady, to others to care for me so I can do a darn good job, better than any one of you. So there you go. That is my sales pitch for the future, so there you go. Mr. Chai rperson: Thanks very, very much for your presentation. Ms. Ducharme: Do you have any questions? Mr. Chairperson: Are there any questions by members of the committee? Ms. Ducharme: Anybody awake to ask me a question? Mr.

Chairperson: They are all awake, and you have done so well with your presentation. You have made it very clear. Ms. Ducharme: Mr. Newman, Chairman, I am also going to leave you 10 ballpoint pens. We are selling ballpoint pens for our PEP organization, and you did not say that there are no solici tations, so they are $3 each and each member of this board must purchase one. So how do you like that? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation and your very concise presentation. Ms. Ducharme: So that is my gift to The Social Allowances Act becoming the income act and that is our income for PEP.

Do I have your support of leaving those ballpoint pens? Mr. Chai rperson: No. I am afraid I do not have any authority to do that, but the people in the back of the room would probably be grateful to receive them and maybe some of them would be prepared to make a contribution to you. Thank you very much, Theresa. Ms. Ducharme: Thank you, love, and no IOU. Mr. Cha irperson: The next presenter is Joan Johannson. Would Joan Johannson please come forward. Ms. Johannson, you can now proceed with your presentation. Thank you for coming. *

(1930) Ms. Joan Johannson (Canadian Association of the Non -Employed): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. This brief was prepared by the Canadian Association of the Non-Employed. All the people that had input into this brief were recipients of social assistance, so the people that actually are on social assistance, we asked them, what do you need to see happen, what do you want to see happen? And that is how this brief was prepared.

We then took the brief to some organizations in the community, and Bonnie Hoffer-Steinnman is here representing the Manitoba Association of Social Workers and the Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers, which have endorsed the principles in this brief. She is not speaking, but they have endorsed this brief. Thank you very much. I will just carry on and read this then. The Canadian Association of the Non-Employed presents the following rights and principles upon which we believe a fair, just and effective income support system can be built.

We request that the following rights be written into the social assistance legislation being prepared. Every individual has the right (

I) to an adequate income; (2) to appeal decisions made about their income support; (3) to not be required to work or train for assistance and to freely choose work. Also, we request the following principles be followed in preparing the legislation: (1) establishment of an advisory council on poverty that includes people living in poverty; (2) a government program that allows people to live in dignity, not destitution; (3) separation of education, training and job search from income support;

40 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10, 1996 and (4) our long-tenn goal is that income support be in the fonn of a basic income supplement delivered by the income tax system for every adult aged 18 to 64 years. I will now elaborate these rights and principles. First, an overview. We recognize the need for refonn of the social assistance system. Our recommendations reflect three years of research and discussion with people living in poverty. Canadian workers have suffered greatly from technological change, globalization and public and private downsizing.

Thus, a fair and just income support system needs to be devised so that the victims of massive social change are not punished but rather are supported by the community in which they live. The first right, every individual has the right to an adequate income. Every individual living in our society needs their basic needs met. An adequate income would make it possible for people to have money to cover housing and utilities, food and household supplies, clothing, personal needs, transportation and com­ munication.

In the society that we live in, no one can be a healthy member of their community unless they are able to parti cipate in it. This requires access to transportation and communication. The situation as it is today forces people to rely on food banks to supplement inadequate social assistance. People should not be forced to rely on a charity to meet their basic needs. As the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states in

Article 22, everyone, as a member of society, has a right to social security. Number 2, every individual has the right to appeal decisions made about their income support. An appeal process is essential in any bureaucratic institution that makes crucial decisions about people's lives. This right to appeal can occur at the place in the system where the issue first arises, or later at an appeal board. Each individual must have the right to have an advocate with him or her at every step of the process, beginning at the initial place of difficulty.

If the problem is still not resolved, the person has the right to be heard by an appeal board. In the justice system people can choose to be judged by their peers. The welfare appeal board is made up of people who have likely never experienced living in poverty and/or living on social assistance. We expect an appeal board to be comprised of people who are the peers of those they are judging. If necessary, financial resources should be available for a person wishing to appeal. Number 3. Every individual has the right not to be required to work or train for assistance and to freely choose work.

Canada ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, which states in

Article 6, the states parties to the present covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to gain his or her living by work which he or she freely chooses or accepts and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. The practice of requiring people to work or train in order to receive social assistance is commonly called wor kfare. Workfare and trainfare programs clearly violate this right. We believe that people want to work and to have the opportunity to prepare themselves for work. It is not necessary to force people into training, retraining or workfare programs.

Workfare programs in Canada today have paid people less than minimum wage. Workfare participants are also not covered by employment and health and safety stand ards. Thus people on workfare programs are not entitled to the same basic rights as other workers. Wor kfare has been tried in many states and in three provinces in Canada. In the United States, it has usually been abandoned because workfare programs have proved to be more expensive than simply writing out welfare cheques because of the administrative costs of the program.

In practice, in both Canada and the United States, unionized workers have been replaced by unemployed welfare recipients. No new jobs have been created. We have, in effect, created a revolving door. Workfare programs mean that some workers on welfare replace others who are working and the original workers end up on welfare. Now the principles around delivery of service. Number I. Establishment of an advisory council on poverty that includes people living in poverty.

October 10, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 41 When the Minister of Finance, Eric Stefanson, held a prebudget consultation in Winnipeg on January 23, 1996, one of the recommendations was that an advisory council on poverty be created. Mr. Stefanson, in his letter to CANE, April 30, 1996, states, with respect to the proposal for an advisory council on poverty, I have been informed there are no specific plans for such a council at the present time. We feel that such a council is a necessary part of any government process to monitor and/or change policy and/or legislation concerning issues related to poverty.

This council could reflect the various interest groups within the community. An important component of the council would be people who are actually living in poverty. Number 2. A government program that allows people to live in dignity, not destitution. At the present time, the City of Winnipeg Social Assistance Program is a, quote, program of destitution­ from the City of Winnipeg. Social assistance programs were supposed to provide sufficient income to live a modest lifestyle and to live with dignity.

We expect the government to provide a government program that allows people to live in dignity, not destitution, as the case is today. When benefit levels are determined, the market basket approach as presently used by the City of Winnipeg should be the guideline. This approach means the actual cost of goods and services be taken into account. Currently, reductions have been made in assistance levels that do not have any relationship to the actual cost of goods and services. Also, certain key issues need to be addressed. ( 1) Assets a person can have before qualifYing for social assistance.

The psychological devastation that is caused by requiring people to use up all financial assets-bank account, cash, RRSPs, insurance policies, et cetera- before receiving social assistance outweighs any short-tenn savings by the government. As you probably know, now to be on Winnipeg social assistance you have to be left with $10, and I know that workers will ask people, how much money do you have in your pocket when you go into apply. *

(1940) We recommend that a person when first applying for social assistance be allowed to have and keep a thousand dollars cash, RRSPs, insurance policies that will not be available to them until they are of retirement age, and a car of modest value. Many jobs require ownership of a car. (

b) Money that people are allowed to keep while on social assistance (

l) from a job. If people are working, the cost of working should not be deducted from their welfare. When people are working, they should keep a basic amount for working expenses calculated per day's work, for example, $7 a day. Going to work should not make people worse off than before. Above the working expenses, the amount deducted from the social assistance benefits should be calculated to permit an increasing individual income up to minimum wage. Thus, when people work they are better off and rewarded for working.

(2) Money from other government programs such as CRISP, SAFFR, 55 Plus are put into place in order to assist low-income families. By denying people on social ass istance access to these programs, they are penalized because of their source of income. These people need the amount just as much as other low-income people. The recent changes in the tax credits also penalize people on social assistance. The purpose of the cost of living tax credit and the property tax credit was to redistribute income to the poorest members of society. The poorest members of our society are mostly those receiving social assistance.

It makes no sense to penalize these people because they are not part of the labour force.

(3) From child support payments. Here again, low­ income people are being put into different categories depending on their source of income. A child has need of this money regardless of the custodial parent's source of income. (

c) Availability of health care-prescriptions, dentist, eye exam, glasses, et cetera. These services should continue to be available. (

d) Special needs. It has long been recognized that special needs occur above the regular monthly expenses. Furniture and household goods need to be repaired or replaced. Children attending school need supplies. Every household has these needs. Therefore, every household should automatically be given a special needs

42 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10, 1996 budget. There should be no need for people to have to make an appointment with their social worker, travel to this appointment, explain the situation and justifY the need. A special needs allowance on a regular basis, for example, twice a year, should automatically be given to recipients of social assistance.

(3) Separation of education, training and job search from income support. We recognize the good work done by the City of Winnipeg to assist people on social assis tance to re-enter the workforce. However, these prog rams do not need to be linked to social assistance cheques. In a more efficient social services system, the income support

section should be separate from help with education, training and job search. People on assistance should be able to choose and access the resources they need. As well, people not on social assistance should have access to the same resources. There is no reason why such resources should be linked to one's source of income. The federal government recognizes this principle. It is now in the process of putting in place resource centres for people who are job searching. These resource centres are available to everyone in the community.

The assumption has been that a person who requires social assistance also requires the assessment by a social worker. Just because a person has been laid off from their job it does not mean they need to discuss their situation with a social worker. Some people may require resources from the larger community to deal with concerns such as illiteracy, addictions, family issues, et cetera. There are social service agencies set up to deal with these situations. The best way to help people find the resources they need is to set up community resource centres.

These resource centres would be appropriate places to access community resources. All resources, whether employ­ ment, education, job search or special needs, could be publicized and available to the whole community through such community resource centres. Finally, our long-term goal is that income support be in the form of a basic income supplement delivered by the income tax system for every adult aged 18 to 64 years. Overall we believe that many of the inefficiencies of the present system could be eliminated through delivery of income support through the income tax system.

Such a system also makes clear that people have a right to an adequate income and people who are not in the labour force are no longer discriminated against. We believe that Canadians are a compassionate people. An overwhelming majority of people have continued to maintain that underprivileged Canadians have a right to an adequate income. The Bibby report states that in 1995, 84 percent of Canadians believed that people who are poor have the right to an income adequate to live on. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Johannson.

You exceeded your time limit briefly, and I did not interrupt because I knew that you were approaching the end of your presentation. Mr. Martindale: I have some questions for the presenter. Mr. Chairperson: I would appreciate it if we could try and keep this brief to honour the commitment to all the presenters at the back and the people at this table. Mr. Martindale: Under Rights, No. I: Every individ ual has a right to an adequate income. Is it your belief that the rates now are inadequate? Ms. Johannson: Yes, definitely. People are hungry. People are eating only two meals a day. Mr.

Martindale: Do you see your recommendation to use the market-basket approach that is currently used by the city but not by the province as a solution to setting rates that are adequate? Ms. Johannson: Yes, then the rates would have some rel ationship to the actual cost of food and clothing and housing. Mr. Martindale: But do you realize that because the province is taking over city social services that positive feature of the city system is going to disappear in all likelihood? Ms. Johannson: It does not have to disappear. It is up to the people around this table to make it disappear or to keep it.

I cannot believe that-1 mean, I do not know how the people that make these laws can believe that anybody can live on $411 a month.

October 10, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 43 Mr. Chai rperson: Mr. Martindale, I hope this is your last question. Mr. Martindale: Yes. Well, you will be pleased to know that I have been promoting the market-basket approach of the City of Winnipeg and recommending it for the provincial government, but that suggestion has been ignored. I presume that when you say that assistance should be delivered through the income tax system that you mean a kind of guaranteed adequate income? Is that right? Ms. Johannson: Yes, and it depends how you implement that. You would have to have a whole discussion.

We have a paper on that specifically if people are interested in that specifically, the details of how you would do that. We know that in Manitoba it was tried for three years under the Schreyer government, a program called Mincome, where we had a guaranteed annual income in Manitoba. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Johannson. What I will do, just for the benefit of presenters to follow, is I will indicate when there are three minutes left in your presentation.

I also want everyone to know that if you submit a written presentation, it is not necessary to read every word for the sake of having it put on the record because what you say is tmnscribed, so sometimes you may wish to summarize your presentation. Even though you know it is going to be 15 minutes or more in length, summarize it and leave more time for questions if you wish. So I just leave that open to all of you. Thank you very much, Ms. Johannson, for your very complete presentation. The next presenter as agreed on the list is Donna Ansell. Donna Ansell, please come forward.

You may begin to proceed with your presentation while your brief is being circulated. Ms. Donna Ansell (Private Citizen): You will notice on the first page I have given you a brief synopsis of my curriculum vitae. All I am saying is this new program which is being set up for social assistance is not going to work. I have been on social assistance for four ,years. I have tried desperately to find a job. There are no jobs out there. All you are going to do is make it even harder for people to find jobs. Jobfare does not work. When I first went on welfare l was with Community Home Services.

That, pardon my English, is a crock of monkeys. All it does is give people no money, take away all their benefits and make them feel like slaves. You think that you are doing us a favour; you are not. You have taken away our pride, our dignity and our self­ esteem. I would like to see all of you for six months live on what one person makes. I would love to have somebody give me a $1 4,000 increase when I got elected. Most Manitobans and most Canadians have seen a deduction in their salaries. Why does the Conservative government not do the same thing? You are doing a rollback on everybody for 2 percent.

Why do you guys not take a 10 percent cut and realize there is real world out there? I would love to be able to live on what you guys get per day, because I can tell you most social assi stance recipients would love it. I would love to be able to go out to Le Beaujolais and have a meal. I cannot do it. * (1 950) Mr. Chair person: Can I just interject just for a moment. I would appreciate it if the presenters to come and the public at the back would try and restrain themselves from participating in this way.

It is not fair to the presenter, and it certainly means that there could be equal time going both ways, and then we could get quite a session going. So this is a time I think to show respect for the presenter and the process, and I would really appreciate your co-operation. Please continue. Thank you. Ms. Ansell: There is also a new system set up where every two months people on social assistance have to go down to 294 Main Street. This is specifically for people on the city. I was there two months ago, and I was there again yesterday. I was there for five minutes and that cost me $2.80. That was my money.

Nobody gave me a bus ticket. Nobody did anything for me. Two dollars and eighty cents out of a daily issue is a lot of money. I have basically just covered what I have said in the brief. There is nothing else to say, except you guys are

44 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10, 1996 doing it wrong. Give us dignity. Give us whatever but do not take away anything. I know it is hard. You want to have a balanced budget, but do not balance it on the backs of poor people. It does not work, because if you get poor people, all you have is worse and worse. Stop and think about it. You could be next in line. Nobody's job is guaranteed. No banks are guaranteed that they are not going to fold. Most of you could not survive on what we get per day. I know you could not.

You do not know what it means to be poor, and if you can do it, more power to you, but it takes a lot of getting used to. Four years ago, I was making $26,000 a year. I am now making less than $6,000. That is a $20,000 drop in salary. I do not know if you guys could do it, but I did it. So that is it. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you. Will you now be prepared to entertain questions? Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Ms. Ansell, for a very emotional presentation. I think there is a good reason for that, and that is, you have to live on assistance every day and it has an effect on you.

Perhaps you could tell the committee how much you get per day for various items. I understand that it is broken down on your receipt. Maybe you could tell us how much you get for food and how much you get for personal needs and other items per day. Ms. Ansell: Personal needs is a $1.96 per day; food is $3.87 per day; clothing is 96 cents per day; and there is one other item that I cannot think of off the top of my head. You cannot buy anything, clothing for 96 cents. I do not care where you go, whether it be a Salvation Army, wherever, you cannot buy anything for 96 cents. Mr.

Martindale: You issued a challenge for all of us to try and live on these kinds of rates, and I think it is probably the kind of challenge that all of us should take up. You referred to the people around this table as "you guys." We will ignore the guys part, but you did lump us all together. I want you to know that the people on this side of the table are all in the NDP caucus and we wi ll be voting against this biii. This is a government bill, and we are not supporting it. Ms. Ansell: Thank you. Mr. Martindale: Oh, one more thing.

I do not know if you are aware of it, but we tried to vote against the salary increase that MLAs got when civil servants got a decrease. It did not come to a vote, but I believe we wrote to the Clerk of the Legislature saying that we thought that MLAs should take the same kind of rollback that civil servants got, but the government using its majority gave all of us here a raise. But your point is well taken. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, you made some references to the difficulties of job search and the costs.

Could you just talk briefly about the kind of efforts and costs involved in trying to put a day in looking for work? Ms. Ansell: Well, there is your bus fare. Bus passes are either $52 a month or you go buy bus tickets which are 10 for $13.50. You have to pay to have your resume xeroxed, and most places are 5 cents a sheet, unless you have a place where you can get them done for nothing-it all adds up-plus stamps, plus envelopes. Around the city ofWinnipeg you are expected to make cold calls. Well, that is very expensive. There is nothing worse than pounding the pavement and going nowhere.

Personally, I do not make them anymore because I have been told by numbers of employers that they are not interested in cold calls ; all they wiii do with my resume is throw it in the garbage. So I have to go through either Canada Employment or the paper, and that means 90 cents per envelope. It all adds up, and this all comes out of my issue. Nobody does this for me; I do it all with my own money. Mr. Sale: I believe that the proposal is that you would have to make 15 contacts every two weeks. Am I correct in understanding the new proposal? Ms. Ansell: Actually , it is 15 to 30, depending on you as a person. Mr.

Sale: How long would it take you to make that number of contacts even if they were cold contacts, assuming that you were working flat out? How long, how many trips on a bus would that take?

October l 0, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 Ms. Ansell: Depending on what area you go into. If you decide to hit downtown and do one side of Broadway or Portage Avenue, you could do probably 15 in three­ quarters of an hour, but the walking-when you are going and doing these cold calls, you have to be dressed appropriately. You cannot walk in in jeans and running shoes. You have to be dressed like a professional or a semip rofessional. You cannot walk 15 blocks in high heels. I am sorry, it does not work. Mr. Sale: Thank you. Ms. McGifford: Ms.

Ansell, I heard you say that there were no supports for your employment search as far as bus fare, as far as xeroxing or preparing resumes. I understand-and I would like you to confirm this if you know-does that also apply to child care? Ms. Ansell: I am sorry, I cannot confirm that. I do not have any children. Ms. McGifford: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your perspective and sharing with us this evening. I would like now to call on the next presenter who is a spokesperson to be named for the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg.

Maybe when you come forward, you could identifY yourself and circulate your brief, sir. Mr. Sid Frankel (Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and U of M Faculty of Social Work): Yes, I am Sid Frankel. The brief is being presented on behalf of both the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Manitoba and the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. This is Ellen Kruger, a board member of the Social Planning Council who will participate. *

(2000) First of all, our brief is being distributed. We think it is a thoughtful brief based on hard analysis of data. W e are very sorry that we will not have the opportunity to present it in detail. We think that the decision of the committee and the government in the House has been very unfortunate. The benefits of this legislation are by no means self­ evident, and just to summarize, we think there are three serious problems.

First, we think the legislation will have exactly the opposite impact than that which is intended It will erode self-sufficiency; it will erode self­ confidence; it will erode health; it will erode skills; and it will make it more difficult for people to move into the labour market. Secondly, it contains harsh and wholly unnecessary penalties. There is strong evidence that social assistance recipients always have been interested in working, work when they can. The problem has nothing to do with the attitUdes or behaviours of social assistance recipients.

The problem has to do with the supply of jobs, and this is much too convenient a scapegoat. Thirdly, we think that this legislation invites blatant unfairness. It has an unreasonably huge amount of discretion. The new discretion that is put into place with regard to the director's decisions about reasonableness of seeking work, we think this will lead to unfairness. In the research that has been done on social assistance systems, this kind of discretion generally does lead to unfairness.

Operators of the system are much more sensitive to the cost containment desires of their political masters than they are to what the legislation says or to issues of fairness. We would like to focus on our recommendations. First of all, this bill erodes the guarantees of adequacy of benefits to meet basic necessities. We think the legis lation has to go the opposite way. Therefore we recommend that the legislation guarantee an adequate income to meet basic needs, that these be defined as food, clothing, shelter, health and education.

Secondly, we think that the rate-setting method has become a political football and an extremely unfair one. Therefore we recommend that an alternative rate-setting process be implemented, and this should be an independent commission which reports to the Legislature, much like that which establishes MLA salaries, and we hope that recipients do, as well. This will remove benefit level determination from its role as a pawn in electoral politics. We think this is very important.

Thirdly, we recommend that this commission be required to use objective references and regular pricing of goods and services to establish assistance rates which are adequate to meet basic needs in Manitoba, and we have

46 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10 , 19 96 listed some of those references, some of them produced by departments of this very government. Fourthly, we recommend that the rates be automatically adjusted to keep pace with inflation as measured by the appropriate categories of the consumer price index. We feel this should be guaranteed in the legisla tion and that there should be no question. Secondly, our concerns regarding the broad disc retion and the harsh penalties, we recommend that this broad discretion and extreme penalties be removed from the employment requirements.

As I have said, we find them harsh, unnece ssary and Unfair. However, we do feel that supports are necessary to help people attain and maintain employment. Therefore, we think that the legisla tion should obligate the government to provide affordable child care, subsidized transportation and counse lling to help rec ipients attain and maintain employment. We recommend a raise in the minimum wage and an enhanced program of income-tested subsidies for the working poor, and we think this would help people to move off of social assistance. Manitoba has a very good income-tested subsidy for the wor king poor.

Unf ortunately, it has, over the last 15 years, fallen far behind, where it should be, to make any kind of diff erence . I am talking about the CRISP program, of cou rse. We also recommend that the legislation require an Advisory Council on Poverty, that includes those living in poverty, to provide government with some good ideas about how to help people into the labour market.

Another recommendation with regard to the movement of the City ofWinnipeg tier onto the provincial tier, we feel quite clearly that the way the province delivers social assistance in Winnipeg will be inadequate for city of Winnipeg residents, most of whom are employable. We recommend that if the City of Winnipeg tier is taken over, the province has to develop a more flexible system, a more responsive system and one that contains many more supports for moving people into work.

Finally, with this increased discretion, we are concerned with the very poor appeal system which exists in Manitoba, and this will become even more of a concern if this legislation passes. We are wanting to recommend some changes based upon issues of fairness and independent tribunals, so we recommend that benefits not be eliminated or decreased until the director's decisio n is automatically reviewed by the appeal board. This, I think, is a reasonable control on this very large undefined amount of discretion which this legislation provides to the director.

We recommend that the legislation guarantee no-cost legal assistance so that recipients have a fair opportunity before this appeal board. We are very co ncerned with the limitation that the current Social Allowances Act contains with regard to further appeals, so we recommend that Bi11 36 contains a provision that establishes further appeal to the courts on matters of fact as well as on matters of law, jurisdiction and public importance . We are concerned that the decisions of the Social Service Advisory Committee be open to review by the judic iary.

Now, we are very concerned that the Social Servic e Advisory Committee is clearly not an independent tribunal. It is appointed at pleasure by the Governor-General-in-Council and removable at any time by the Governor-General-in-Counci l. Of course, the Minister of Family Services is effectively the one that makes the appointments and is the one that administers the act, so in a number of ways this violates basic notions of natural justice.

Therefore, we recommend that appointments to the appeal board be made by a conun ittee of the Legislature for a set term of five years, that members be removable only for cause and by that committee, and we think this is a very important recommend ation.

Finally, we think the government could do something positive to help social assistance recipients integrate into the community and into work, and therefore we recommend that The Social Allowances Act conta in a provision that makes it an offence for the following, but not lim ited to the following: landlords, employers, businesses and institutions, to disc riminate on the basis that people are social assistance recipients, notwith­ standing whatever is included under human rights legislation.

To summarize, social assistance recipients, other citizens and governments all have a positive interest in enhancing the ability of rec ipients to work. Harsh and discriminatory measures which encourage insecurity and unfairness are unnecessary; they are ineffective; and they are palpably harmful. Instead of what is now in Bill 36,

October I 0, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 47 The Social Allowances Act should contain (

I) a guarantee of benefits adequate to meet basic needs for nutrition, shelter, clothing, health and education; (2) provision of affordable and accessible supports to help recipients attain and maintain employment; (3) recognition and financial support for unremunerated, socially useful volunteer work performed by recipients­ we think this can be a real route to employment for many recipients when the labour market does make those jobs available; (4) an improved appeal mechanism which requires automatic preimplemen tation review of decisions to lower or stop benefits; (5) provision of no-cost legal services guaranteed in the legislation for recipients making appeals; (6) broader appeals of the decisions of the Social Services Advisory Committee; (7) impartial appointments to the Social Services Advisory Committee; (8) the disallowance of discrimination by landlords, employers, companies, institutions and others.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Frankel. Ms. Kruger. Ms. Ellen Kruger (Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and U of M Faculty of Social Work): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members ofthe committee. I wanted to outline a little bit, in my day-to-day work most of the people with whom I work are social assistance recip ients, and I have learned a lot over the past number of years. So we wanted to bring a few personal stories of people without any identifying information, for you to understand how much in need of reform this system is right now. *

(2010) I am going to speak mainly to the issues that the Social Planning Council addressed around adequacy of funds for food and rent and other necessities and the work incentive program. I will give you an example. For instance, a person with a physical and mental health disability who required additional supplement for his rent for apartment access because of his physical health. He also needed proximity to his child's daycare centre and proximity to a day treatment program. This had been approved by the director of welfare.

Because of his physical and mental health needs that he had, he was allowed an additional supplement to the usual rent. However, after six months, when that was reviewed, it was withdrawn, and this appeal did go all the way to the minister. The area director said that this man would then have to just use a portion of his and his children's food allowance to subsidize his rent.

The area director also stated that probably about 70 percent of all of the clients of that particular area already do that, and he would have to do likewise or move to cheaper accommodation in the core area and find new daycare and find new health treatment and, if he could not find something that would adjust to his physical disability, well, that is life. That is one story that tells you a little bit about how our system is working now. We find people also where there are restrictions now in allowable prescriptions, elimination of over-the-counter health aids.

Even when those are prescribed by doctors, they have been now said, sorry, you cannot have it. That means that many people are being forced to choose between food and their nonprescription medication and sometimes between food and their prescription medication because their prescription medication is not on the right list anymore. We already have spoken to the issue of the fact that food money is totally inadequate, so if you have to use your food money for your medications, you are really in trouble which leads, of course, to food banks. We know, we have a huge proliferation of food banks.

In speaking to the people that I know on social assistance, the routine is for many people, you get your cheque, you pay the rent, you pay your bills, you go to the grocery store and you buy a month's worth of groceries, however much you can get for whatever money is left and you hope that nothing else comes up that month because you do not have any other money. Mr. Chairperson: As promised, there are now three minutes left. Ms. Kruger: Thank you. Certainly we have dealt with many people that face these kinds of situations. The work assistance program is another program we need to talk about.

And speaking about the whole concept of workfare, here is someone that I met, a person who had suffered with mental health problems for 20 years, had lost many jobs due to this illness, had been very hopeful that with retraining he was really coping well, he would find employment again. He completed a course in computer skills but had been unsuccessful in finding emplo yment and finding himself very discouraged. In order to keep up his skills and feel useful, he went back

48 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10 , 19 96 to the training agency and said, can I help? They said, wonderf ul, we need someone to help. So he started going there to help others who were learning computer skills because he had been so unlucky. His welfare worker called. He was not home, and he was not home, and he was not home because he was off doing volunteer work . The welfare worker determined that if he could do volunteer work he could work , so he was cut off welfare. This man, who suffered from mental health problems and had many physical problems, tried to look fo r work .

His health went downhi ll. He had to quit his volunteer work. He could not find work . He ended up going to a day treatment program fo r mental health difficulties, could no longer either volunteer or work or barely maintain himself during his day-to-day life. I think these kinds of things, what we have is a work incentive program that rea lly should be called a disincentive program . People are allowed either to earn 50 bucks a month or they can earn 3 0 percent of whatever they earn and give everything else back dollar fo r dollar. Now many people do that because they want to work .

However, what happens very often is that once you get on work incentive you have got to report your wages, and they will not issue your next month' s cheque until you report your wages. And if you do not get your last �beque on time to put your stub in, then your rent cheque 1s late, and then your landlord is on your back. We dealt with a person who had this difficulty, and the landlord started not only haras sing this person but then started charging day-by-day late fees.

The last contact I had with this person, he said, I think I am going to have to quit this job, I cannot stand the stress of having welfare on my back, late fees, owing bills, and now I owe more money than I ever did when I was on welfare and I am working full time. I have lost contact with this person, but he may have quit his work because the system is designed to disincent him, to stay where he is, not work ing. So I think these kinds of examples speak to the fact that we have a welfare system now that has become harsh, judgmental, insensitive and disrespectful and a system in desperate need of reform.

Bill 36 does not do it. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: A couple of quick questions. Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): I was wonde ring here as you were going through your No. 3 recommendation where you are prop osing to have a commission establish assistance rates which are adequate and so on, do you have any idea, do you have any data, that would show the gap or the difference between say the price of a dozen eggs and fresh milk, say in Winnipeg, compared to The Pas, for example?

Secondly, I do not really know exactly what the unemployment rate is in Winnipeg, but I know in The Pas it usually hovers around 25 to 30 percen t. That is in the town of The Pas, and it is higher as you go out into the outlying are as. So I was wond ering, you know when you talk about the price of goods and you have-what did the woman say-$161 a month, it must be pretty hard. Mr. Frankel: Two issues. I think we argue fo r a rational standard about what should be in the market basket, but also fo r local pricing. The present system does not really allow local pricing.

There is a small northern allowance which is clearly inadequate. We have asked many times, and there is no evidence of pricing studies. Even in the city of Winnipeg, on the basis of local pricing rat es, the city of Winnipeg rates have historically been higher until they were fo rced down by this government than the provincial rates in the city. So we agree. I mean, clearly the cost of food is more expensive in The Pas, and we think that rates absolutely must reflect that. Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Frankel and Ms.

Kruger, fo r a very comprehen sive brief on behalf of the Social Planning Council and the Faculty of Social Work . I regret that, because this government wants to limit freedom of debate and freedom of speech, we will not be able to ask you extensive questions. However, that was their choice. When you recommend that the broad discretion and extreme penalties be removed, were you thinking of specific provisions in the bill, fo r example, if you quit a job, education or training or if you refuse a job, education or training, your benefits can be eliminated entirely or reduced by $50 a month and then $10 0 a month?

Mr. Frankd: Yes. I mean, obviously we are concerned with those pro visions. We are even more concerned that

October I 0, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 49 the bill leaves so much more to the regulations, which even there do not define very clearly what reasonable attempts to seek work are. That is even more of a concern. There has always been a positive obligation of social assistance recipients to seek work and training, and there have always been efforts by recipients to do so, by and large. There have always been problems of the kind that were just accounted where the department makes some unreasonable accounting.

We are very, very con­ cerned, especially with this very broad discretion around reasonable efforts to seek work. Mr. Chair person : Thank you very much, Professor Frankel and Ms. Kruger. I would now like to call on the next presenter, Fiona Muldrew. Is Fiona Muldrew present? Floor Comment: She is not here yet. *

(2020) Mr. Chairperson: Okay. She will then be placed at the bottom of the list. Lorna Wilson, please. Oh, I have a note that Lorna Wilson is unable to attend and has sent in a written submission. Is there agreement from the committee to include this submission in Hansard? [agreed] I would now like to call on Frances Evers. Is Frances Evers here? Frances Evers not being here, she will be placed at the end of the list. Annie Marie Partanen. You may proceed, Ms. Partanen. Ms.

Annie Marie Partanen (Private Citizen): The reason I asked to be here today and to be part of this process is because I need to know that you people have a clear understanding of what it is like to be on social assistance. I kind of just now had a thought about my plastic bag. The ones of us that are on social assistance are probably bringing their briefs in plastic bags from the Foodfare not far from where I live. I had a crazy thought this afternoon. A friend of mine was going to Value Village and to the Salvation Army Thrift Store on Regent.

For a crazy moment I thought I would ask her to see if she could find me some sort of a briefcase that I could usc tonight. That is what it is like when you arc on social assistance. I draw from my personal experience and from the experiences of friends and family who are on social assistance. I work as a community rehabilitation worker and my clients are persons with mental illness living in boarding homes throughout the city of Winnipeg. Most of my clients are subsisting on social assistance. I have been a volunteer at Winnipeg Harvest this past year.

Most of us at Winnipeg Harvest volunteers are persons on social assistance who are certainly poor people. I work on the referral lines taking calls from people who are not able to buy enough food to feed themselves and their families. I need to tell you about Jo-Anne, a single mom with a four-year-old son, who is living on social assistance. Each month Jo-Anne receives $669 from the province and $102 child tax credit. This year she received $58.60 income tax refund and her GST refund is $440. Her total income this year will be $9,750 or $812. 50 a month. Last year Jo-Anne received $500 GST refund.

Her income tax refund last year was $352.78. Her income last year was $842.07 a month. Her income has dr�ppcd by $29.57 per month. That hurt. As your expenses have increased this last year, so have hers. I have included, in my brief, Jo-Anne's shopping list for a month, how she spends her $669.

Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, repeals the title of The Social Allowances Act to The Employment and Income Assistance Act, but the act still indicates that the province and each municipality may take measures to provide to residents of Manitoba those things and services that are essential to health and well-being, including a basic living allowance, an allowance for shelter, essential health services and a funeral upon death. All this is subject to this act and regulations. The maximum that Jo-Anne is allowed per month for shelter is $386.

Jo-Anne shares the rent for a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and her shelter costs are $245 per month, half, of course, of what the apartment rents for. This arrangement allows her to live in a clean, warm and secure building-$386 per month would not allow that. This arrangement, an obvious benefit to Jo-Anne

50 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October I 0, 1996 and a savings to the province, was actively discouraged by the Social Allowances Program worker. The act refers to the provision of things and services that are essential to health and well-being. I contend that any one of us would have difficulty maintaining our health on the $73 per week Jo-Anne spends to maintain the health and well-being of herself and her child. There are some among us that feel that recreation and a social life are essential to our well-being. Jo-Anne is unconcerned at this time with her funeral costs.

Winnipeg Harvest helps to feed an average of 16,000 households per month. Union Gospel Mission, a soup kitchen in the city of Winnipeg, served 3, 160 meals during the month of August of this year. Jo-Anne has needed to access Winnipeg Harvest for food assistance. When the changes to the Social Services Programs were implemented in May of this year, the calls to Winnipeg Harvest took on an alarming tone of fear and desperation. A young father of two small chil dren called Harvest. He has been out of work for two years. He has used up his UI benefits, all ofhis family savings.

He has sold his car and is now on city welfare. He has tapped out his family and friends and cannot feed his family. We listen to his story, we offer him support and encouragement and an appointment at a food bank half way across the city. We referred him to a soup kitchen for supper tonight. Can you empathize with this person his desperation?

The honourable minister of social services, Bonnie Mitchelson, in her remarks to the House about Bill 36, refers to reforming a system that fostered dependence and reliance on government and which encouraged a cycle that created generation after generation of families on welfare. You may call this bill anything you like, but please do not buy into the erroneous belief that anyone is on welfare because they choose to be. Please do not buy into the belief that if a person on welfare develops and executes a job search plan that he will find employment.

Please do not buy into the belief that if he just tries harder he will get off welfare. No one is on welfare because they choose to be. Poverty is quite simply not having enough money to meet the basic necessities of life, not being able to afford decent housing, food, clothing, transportation cost, not really having enough. People living on welfare are living in poverty. The poorest of all, who will be the poorest for the longest time, are female single parents. In Canada, one out of every 25 teenage girls will become pregnant before they turn 20, so a lot of single moms raising their children.

Two of every five marriages will end in divorce and, of these, 75 percent will be unable to collect suppat fiom their spouses. More than 60 percent of singl e-parent families live below the poverty line. These same single parents are raising children in substandard housing, poor food and with little hope. These children are not living up to their potential. They are unable to learn as well as children who are not living with poverty. Children living in poverty are sicker more often and take longer to recover from the usual childhood illnesses. Juvenile delinquency and poverty are directly related.

Marital discord and socioeconomic circum­ stances of poverty are being found to be the major contributors to youth misconduct. I need you to understand the control and intimidation people existing on welfare live with. Persons on welfare must submit to surprise visits from Social Allowances program workers. They may have their homes searched for evidence of their sharing their homes with partners they may not have declared. Their landlords might insist they have their rents paid directly by Social Allowances.

Their benefits may be reduced, suspended or discontinued if they fail to comply with employment obligations or fail to undertake an employability enhancement measure. The Social All owances Program allows a single parent with one child to earn up to $50 per month. If they earn more their benefits are reduced dollar for dollar. If a single mom is to receive spousal support or child maintenance payments, her benefits are similarly reduced. A major problem arises if her ex spouse is delinquent in making his support pa)ments. *

(2030) The Social Allowances Program may require you to sell any assets you may have acquired or been given. A social allo wances recipient is not allo wed to accumulate a savings account and must declare to her financial worker any gifts of value. If a recipient fails to comply with the regulations, his benefits may be suspended or discontinued. It is the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. In no other place in our society are people required to live like this, with this little control or input into decisions that will directly affect their very basic needs.

October l 0, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 Jo-Anne's story. I will try to read it. I sometimes get weepy. Jo-Anne's words to me, I asked her if I could get from her a statement: We live from cheque to cheque. Every penny is gone-if my voice begins to crack, just bear with me, I will just keep right on trucking-no clothes are bought, no haircuts, a huge pile of laundry that will never disappear, no light bulbs, no dish detergent left. I would really have liked to take that parenting workshop on discipline but it cost $28 and I am still using the last of the laundry detergent to wash my dishes.

With $1 5 for laundry every month at $2.25 per load, I can do almost seven loads a month. That is only a load and a half a week. Although I must use some of my food money to do laundry, I have a small child who makes a mess when he eats, occasionally pees his pants and sometimes he wets the bed. I cannot wash my sheets and pillows and blankets. I did not know what I was going to do when my son and I had the stomach flu. He was sick all night. He vomited on our pajamas, the sheets, blankets, pillows, and everywhere else between the bed and the bathroom.

If it had not been for a kind neighbour who had noticed we were sick and saw and smelled my pile of sheets by the door and given me some money to wash it, I do not know what we would have done. We happened to get sick in the middle of the month when we did not have any money. Sometimes people, after having their independence, dignity and self-esteem ripped away, need a little push once in a while to go in the right direction, but to help and encourage clients to create and execute job-search plans? Who on welfare does not know how to look for work? It is awful, you do not forget.

It is just like being on welfare, it is awful, you do not forget. Honourable Bonnie Mitchelson refers to the system as creating a cycle of generation after generation of families on welfare. I was never raised on welfare; I was raised in a middle-class family. So, so close to being poor, you do not realize it. After an incident I cannot change, I went on welfare. I needed to stay with my son and raise him the best I possibly can. Because I am a single parent, but mostly because I am poor, we are in a high-risk group. I have to do all I can to prevent my son from being labelled.

Labelling sets limits and heading in the wrong way like into gangs or crime, et cetera. I believe by being with him and loving him and caring for him, teaching and supporting him, I have set the groundwork for a wonderful, kind and productive member of society. Circumstances led me to welfare, so I could do this. I am thankful for the opportunity, but let me tell you, it is very hard to keep up and do the best I can with what I have. When my life is so controlled and people are trying to rip away my self-esteem, my dignity and pride, what kind of role model for my son does that make me?

Honourable Bonnie Mitchelson refers to jobs in the apparel industry, call centres she indicates she is morally against, and transportation. This placing of welfare recipients in these jobs at minimum wage will take jobs away from those who would otherwise have had them. It makes the vicious job search unequal for everyone. Are more people going to go on welfare to get equal opportunity at a job? It will keep welfare benefits down which keeps the minimum wage down. How can the economy grow and how is that helping? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Partanen. That still gives two minutes for questions. Mr.

Martindale: Thank you for a very good presentation. On the first page you referred to the GST refund. I am wondering if you really should consider that as income since it is really to replace money that she has already spent. In my opinion, it probably should not be counted as income. It is just a refund from the federal government for a low-income person. Also, I wonder if you could tell us or expand briefly on the alarming tone of fear and desperation that you detected in the voices and perhaps the stories of people phoning Winnipeg Harvest. Ms.

Partanen: To the $400 or the $500 GST refund, it was spendable income for Jo-Anne when she got it, of course; that is why it is included as part of her income. Winnipeg Harvest, I worked there on a Friday, which is their slowest day-thank you, God. The tone has changed. It did immediately in May with those first couple of city welfare cheques that were reduced. People

52 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10 , 19 96 were just making it, and now, suddenly, we are going to have to make it with less than they had last month. It is frightening to think that I just barely got through, I just barely did it, and now I am going to have to do it this month with less money, and fall, with school coming and a thousand things. You hear it in people's voices. They are saying to you, well, lady, what am I going to do? How am I going to feed my children?

Like I say, Friday fo r me-thank you, God, I work a Friday-we have the fewest calls come in on a Friday, and there is a chance to go the bathroom and cry between calls. It is desperate, it is rea lly desperate . Ms. McGiff ord: Thank you very much, Ms. Partanen, fo r your presentation, I fo und it very moving. I do not have a question, but I have a comment, and I want to thank you particularly fo r re ading into the record the plight of adolescent parents and single female parents. We speak of this situation very often in the Legislature, but, as you can see from this bill, to no avail.

I am glad also that you have highlighted the rea lly ludicrous situation where maintenance support is deducted from social assistance, and when it does not arrive, of course, children suffer. I would like to point out that my caucus proposed an amendment to The Maintenance Enf orcement Act in June 19 95, whereby this would not happen, whereby support would not be deducted from social assistance but the government re jected it, which made us very sorry. So thank you again fo r your presentat ion. Mr. Chairperson: Right on time. Thank you very much, Ms. Partanen . The next presenter, please.

That will be Michelle Forr est. Michelle Forre st, you may proceed . Ms. Michelle Forrest (Private Citizen): Initially, my presentation concernin g Bill 36 was designed to explain the ramifications of Bill 36. Then I realized that the proponents of this legislation understood and wanted the inevitable results of this dracon ian response to unemployment and the resulting devastating poverty . The fo cus of the brief changed. As a cultural anthropologist, I have decided to fo cus on the nature of the bill and will use an analysis of abusive relationships as the motto.

Part I, individual behaviour, the abusive partner externalizes blame. This means that the reasons they abuse others is always someone else's fault. The abusive partner has a variety of punishments ranging from emotional and psychological abuses to physical violence. Bill 36 incorporates this type of proces s. The bill implies that people on welfare do not want to work . The punishment is denying, suspending or red ucing income support if the client does not obey the ever-changing rules, cannot fmd a job or simply leaves an unfair or unsafe workplace .

The legislation does not take into account that a person 's skills, education or training simply might not meet the current needs of an increas ingly difficult job market. Bill 36 also ensures the increase of physical punish­ ment in the fo rm of hunger, homelessness and isolation fo r a welf are recipient. The curr ent basic rate fo r single people, excluding rent and utilities, is $17 5 per month or $6.25 per day in a 28-day cycle of welfare payments. This amount covers food , clothing, personal needs, telephone and transpor tation.

People on welfare will have these benefits reduced by $50, then $10 0 per month if they cannot find a job within the allotted time frames. This will absolutely increase their hunger, homelessness and isolation. Fear of such measures mirrors the victimization felt by an abused spouse. Like an abusive partner Bill 36 fo llows a control ritua l. From the moment people enter the welfare system, they lose control over their lives. Ever ything from housing to foo d, from defining medical needs to training and education is absolutely ruled by othe rs. Victims of abuse feel that there is no hope and no end to the pain.

They often come to believe that they cannot, nor can anyone else stop the erosion of their lives. For people living in poverty , the situation is often the same. Denied dignity, education or training, adequate food and clothing, despair becomes a constant compan ion. Because others are in control of their lives, they cannot see an end to their pain. When government legislation and actions support and fo ster such hopelessness, we see a rise in crime, including child abuse, substance abuse and spousal abuse amon g the poor.

But, in this instance, we can blame both the abuser and the victim, avoiding any respo nsibility fo r the social ills poverty underscores .

October l 0, 19 96 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 53 Indeed, we can applaud our eff orts to force these unsuccessful people to get jobs. *

(2040) Part 2, cultural issues, one of the ways our culture supports abusive relationships is the mythology we create about the victim. Everything ranging from "you have made your own bed, now lay in it" to cultural and gender stereotyping becomes part of the cultural framework. With Bill 36, we see the end result of the mythology government and media "spin-doctoring" have created concerning poverty and people living in poverty. These myths include: Myth l: There are lots of jobs; people just do not want to work. Fact: People on welfare are unemployed people.

It is ludicrous for anyone to believe that people want to live in poverty. People want to work and get on with their lives. They have the same goals, ambitions and needs as employed people. A casual survey of the current unemployment figure should tell you why people are unemployed. A conservative figure for job loss as a result ofNAFT A, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is 850,000 jobs. We have created 35 0,000 jobs to make up for these losses. That leaves 500,000 people still unemployed from NAFT A alone.

When the current economic climate and downsizing by private enterprise and government is factored in, more reasons for unemployment become visible. Everyone simply is one job away from being on welfare. Myth 2: The establishment of the fraud line creates the fiction that people on welfare are liars, cheats and thieves. Fact: People on welfare are no different from anyone else. The absolute silence on the part of government concerning the numbers of those convicted of fraud speaks for itself.

In reality, the percentage of those who are convicted of abusing welfare is less than the percentage of people convicted of similar off ences in the larger culture. Myth 3: People on welfare are responsible for high taxes. Fact: What employed people pay towards welfare payments amounts to less than $30 from their pay annually. This means that employed people give about $1 .20 per pay cheque, if they are paid biweekly, to support welfare payments. This is not excessive to ensure adequate food, shelter and clothing for individuals and families. I would also like to point out that people on welfare pay taxes, too.

They pay property taxes through their rents; they pay for social services through tobacco, alcohol and sales tax. Myth 4: People on welfare are drunks or worse. Fact: People on welfare are unemployed people. They face the same personal and social issues as employed people. This casual survey of government mythology concerning unemployed people living on welfare should give us all pause. Like the abusive partner who blames the victim, proponents of Bill 36 would have us all believe that poverty is solely caused by the poor. Abusive partners accept no responsibility for the anguish and physical damage they cause.

This government also does not accept any responsibility for the despair, hopelessness or hunger it causes. Abusive partners say the abuse will end if only the victims will do what they are told to do when they are told to do it. However, the rules constantly change. The legislators who would give us Bill 36 say similar words and constantly change the rules, forgetting that may of their victims are too young to understand the rules or are too young for employment enhancement programs.

The acceptance needed by abusive partners and governments only happens when we accept the myths they promote and remain silent in the face of the abuses. I do not believe the myths and I will not be si lent. I believe that everyone is entitled to adequate employment. When it is not available, I believe we must provide for the basic needs of people. I also believe that in the face of8 percent unemployment, a Conservative government estimate, governments and private companies must make job creation a priority. In closing, I would like to speak directly to the proponents ofBill 36.

Ifyou really believe that Bill 36 is the best we can achieve for unemployed people in families, I challenge you to live for one month by the

54 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10 , 19 96 economic conditions and social justice concepts contained in this legislation. Of course, for you, it will be a fiction and a myth because you have a job. Thank you so much. Are there any questions? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Forrest. Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Ms. Forrest, for an excellent brief. I wonder if you could expand on a couple of comments that you made about an increase in homelessness and an increase in crime as a result of this bill.

I am wondering if there are reasons for you saying this and also examples, particularly of crime, other than the ones that you gave in your presentation. Ms. Forrest: I am not sure I heard that as well as I should have. Mr. Martindale: I am happy to repeat it. I am wondering if you can expand on your comment that this bill will create more homelessness and more crime, and if you could tell us why you think that? Or other examples. Ms.

Forrest: When a government gives itself permission, such absolute permission I might add, to deny welfare to people who are unemployed, perhaps you can tell me where you think they will live, what clothing they will have and where they will get food? Homelessness is a direct result of Bill 36. Direct. Crime is also. In fact, this morning on CBC I heard a very interesting comment on Information Radio. They were commenting on the absolute tragic death of the young boy that was murdered, perhaps by his father.

The doctor that commented on CBC this morning said that we are seeing an alarming increase in these kinds of crimes in Manitoba because of the despair and hopelessness caused by unemployment and the lack of appropriate social and economic supports for people in this province. I wholeheartedly agree. Mr. Chairperson: For the record, that was Ms. Forrest speaking, not Mr. Sale. Mr. Sale: Ms.

Forrest, I think that you have done a great service by doing a cultural analysis because this is one of the ways in which we perpetuate the kind of structural injustice of poverty is by living off myths that we create for ourselves, and I think to do that kind of analysis is both appropriate and really helpful. I wonder if you could comment on one other myth that has always puzzled me, and that is that the rich seem to need low tax rates to stimulate them to work more

whereas the poor need extremely high confiscatory tax rates in order to get them to work at all. Is this another myth that we might add to your list? Ms. Forrest: I think so. The myths that I outlined were only the most glaring ones, the ones however around corporate welfare. I am unsure in Canada how much money is spent on corporate welfare, but in the United States it is $18 5 bill ion.

I would think that population percentages, being what they are, you could probably say the same kind of percentage of our gross national product goes into creating corporate welfare which works out to be welfare for those who are adequately clothed, adequately housed, adequately sheltered, and certainly have many supports in place. Mr. Martindale: I appreciate you attacking the myth of welfare fraud. I am wondering if you know what this minister's figures are on welfare fraud in Manitoba, and how that compares with the literature about welfare fraud in terms of percentages. Ms.

Forrest: I am unsure about the current rates of convictions. The last time I checked they were under 3 percent which certainly does not, to my mind, rate an entire phone line, a staff, a prosecutor and the time of Manitoba courts. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Martindale, three minutes to go. Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that most est imates are 3 percent or less, but in Manitoba it is under 1 percent. If you want to make a distinction between fraud and minor offences, there is very little fraud-fraud being a Criminal Code provision and almost nobody is charged under that.

So I am glad that you attacked this myth because it is very, very small in terms of percentages in Manitoba. Mr. Chair person: Thank you very much, Ms. Forrest, for your presentation.

October 10, 19 96 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 55 Ms. Forrest: Thank you for allowing a voice. Mr. Chairperson: I would like to call on Councillor Glen Murray, please. *

(2050) Mr. Glen Murray (Councillor, Fort Rouge Ward, City of Winnipeg): I have a brief. The last time I was here, I was here to complement the government on a heri tage tax credit initiative. In the seven years that I have been here-I am not sure with such favourab le reviews today I regret to tell you-but it has always amazed me when we have come to tax breaks for those who own property and buildings -and I have no problem doing that. I am not anti-investment as you know. The minister and I worked very hard together, and I think succe ssfully.

We are not exactly ideological soulmat es, but in the political forum I come from, it involves stretches across lines sometimes to achieve things. I just wish the poorest were treated as well as the wealth iest. I want to tell you, I am kind of personally offended as a Manitoban. You see this amount of change. This usually falls out of my pocket when I go and do laundry. This is what you are taking out of my pay cheque this week to support the welf are system. So I just thought I would double my contribution this week .

I want to tell you as well, when I read such specific wording as prote ctions, I came from a family that grew up in poverty. My parents were immigrants. My mother and father grew up in families with nine children in a two-bedroom apartment in the east end of Montre al.

Had it not been for social services and literally, because I am adopted, and had I had to grow up in the system that you have created today, with the challenges that you have put bef ore young people and families, I doubt I would have ever succeeded to have created a business and probably employ dozens of people in my life through the jobs and partners that I have had in business and go on to productively contribute to my-fortunately, I had affluent parents and when I was 14 my father phoned a friend of his, the manager of a large department store, and like most affluent middle-class people that you repr esent, we had the connections that I could work through my teenage years and my father was very Presbyterian and told me at 14 I had better learn how to take care of myself because I was going to have to do it the rest of my life.

He was a small "c" conservative businessman in the extreme who came from great poverty and fortunately had the benefit of those. So when you take clothing and food out in this bill as a specified right of people who were unemployed, it was redundant because you have already done that. Why have you already done that? I do not know why you need this bill except we are going to play a bureauc ratic shuffie that you say is cost-neutral, that is not going to save the city or you any money, because five years ago if you were a single person you got $5,479. Ten years ago, you got $4,2 14 .

Today, in 1996 dollars, those constant dollars, you are gett ing $3,1 55. That is the real income . Do you know anyone who has seen an income decline in the last decade like that? Would you work today as an MLA for that kind of pay cut, 40 percent roughly in real spending power? No, you would not. You just gave yourselves a raise, because that is not re alistic. You would not sec good people coming into public office if you cut their pay by 40 percent over 10 years . You have not done any differe ntly to families with two child ren . Ten years ago, they got $10 ,486.

Today that same family gets $9,295, soon to be substantially less as these latest redu ctions and penalties get in. All you have done is institutionalize poverty. I am bewildered in the extreme. There is this thing on the right in politics about talking about personal commitment and that is going to end poverty. Well, we do that. I have been a foster parent. Every year I go out and raise $1 2,000 and two of the MLAs to my left here, Ms. McGifford and Mr. Sale, help do that for Habitat for Humanity.

Lots of us do those things and most of those are here telling you that we think we as a community are fulfilling our respo nsibilities but you are not. You have switched from a global basket and avoided accountability. Under the old system as recently as three or four years ago, we had to account, you had to go out and shop for clothes, for food and for shelter. Now you have global budgets and if you total them up they do not amount to anything. How does someone live on $418 a month? How do you do that?

How do you fre eze my taxes year after year after year, my spending power grows and my poorest neighbours cannot even afford fresh fruit for their children? Do you think I as a Manitoban, do you as Manitobans think that is the kind of society you want to live in? When you go into public life, you enter a privileg ed class and all of us can afford to pay a li ttle more.

56 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA October 10 , 19 96 The irony of this is that you are spending more of my tax dollars wastefully. That brief I gave you actually, as you may notice, is somet hing that some of you in the government benches had seen because I met with Mr. Ernst and Mr. Gillesh ammer and a parade of ministers. You turned down this proposal to employ people because you said you did not believe, for five years now, that it would actually save money, so you said two years ago, do a test pro ject. This is a program that hires people rebuilding infrastructure.

As you know, the city is $280 milli on short in its capital budget, that it cannot afford to repair streets, and we said, if you hire people who are long-term unemployed to fix up neighbourhoods, parks and streets, you would save money . Well, as you can see, the fe deral government on this small $1 million, $2 million program would save $533 ,000, less than the status quo, than allowing the level of those peop le being on social assist ance. You save nearly $1 00,000, and this has no economy of scale. It multiplies.

If you did a program like this, something creati ve, someth ing inspiring, people in Winnipeg would wake up to lower taxes, streets that were fixed and driva ble, and people would have jobs and hope. Why not do it? Why, when we are smart, they are probab ly smarter. Why can we not when it costs us less money do that? You announced infrastructures where you had to raise debt, and we had to raise debt as a city; you had to raise taxes, this Liberal fe der al, provinc ial Tory job infrastructure program. Could you have spent more money to create a job?

You talk out of one side of your mouth, saying we do not have money, and then you intr oduce a job crea tion program which you all stand behind which costs more money. You have to raise taxes; you have to pay debt, and the unemployment statistics, city welf are in the '70s went from 4,000 people on city welf are, in the '80s re cession to 8,000 to 17 ,000, that is 30,000 people, 35 percent of which are children; sorry, 18-24 is 35 percent . Over 50 percent of the people living off welf are are under the age of24, are basically young adults and children .

Do you think these people are not getting their first job because the economy has jobs for them? You freeze taxes, then you take VL Ts. The fe deral government cancels the national housing program. We are the only industrialized nation without a national housing program . We are not building one single new house. Housing deteriorates. The pro vincial Conservative majority on council elim inates recreation funding, so that recre ation centres like Norquay in some of your constituencies are open for four hours a week, so kids have no place to go.

Then you reduce the welf are levels to subsistence that your own medical officer of health tells you arc insufficient for proper standards or minimal standards of child nutrition, and what do kids do? Gangs take over; housing deteriorat es; there is no jobs; there is no hope. One hundred and seventy-five dollars a month, that is what those people live on. No jobs, no hope right now, and we cannot do anything better than that? Then gangs come along.

You think if you have 30,000 people out there living subsistence, almost forced to steal because you cannot eat properly on that, with no hope, the gang comes along and says, look, we are running booze. We run booze cans. You only have to walk over there . We will offer you security and status and employment, and it is all illegal, but, heck, who believes in the system anyway anymore, and you can at least have some income security and status. No wonder they are rife, and you acknowledge the problem because you give us $4 mill ion more for policing.

Why do you not give us $4 milli on more to get people back to work, to recreate inner recreation programs that used to be there, to help rebuild families, get rid of those VLTs which are a tax on the poor. What kind of values do you have when there are not jobs, you cannot even do something like that that costs you less money, and you introduce lotteries instead of work ethic?

When people come to Christmas, you have parents who cannot afford when they tum on televisions, the fe w that have them, and they see this consumer drive to toys, and the kids are asking for the same things that some of us can afford to buy for our children. They go down and pump their welf are check into a VL T machine sometimes out of despair, so they hope they cash in 500 bucks, so they can buy their kids the same basic toys and clothes that many of our own children take for granted, and we would never do that to our own children.

Why do we not, why you as parents and I as a parent cannot love that child, ensure that child is fe d and has proper nutrition, because we would never want our O\\n

October l 0, 1996 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 57 child ren to go hungry? They do not have jobs and they do not have choices, and you have taken it away. I know the game. I have been elected for seven years. I work in a city that is a have-not city with tight budgets, and I have to make tough choices, and I have come here with one suggestion that I have presented to you for five years . Your own economic analysts and your own advisors have told you it would work and you could not even launch a $1 0-million program . Not even that? Not even offering some hope? * (2 1 00) I believe in this province.

I believe we can get that real unemplo yment rate, according to you about ll percent to 18 percent in my ward depending on the neighbourhood, down to a level where only those people who cannot work. I know these people want to work. I know what they have to do. It is hor rible to tell someone that if you have not gotten 15 job interviews and you have $17 5 income, we are going to take $50 or $10 0 away. What do you think these people are? We as politicians who have some prob lems with public esteem should know better. We expect to be treated with respect .

We would like to see our prof ession restored to the place where we grew up with inspiring leaders, whether they were John F. Kennedy or Lester Pearson or Tommy Douglas or Duff Roblin, whoever you happen to hold in esteem . No wonder people fe el let down. Take another 20 cents from my salary. This sweater can last another month. You can afford to give a little more. I know what we have to do and you have no problem giving break s. I do not think you have to be antibusiness to do that. Great-West Life has had tax brea ks. It is paying 50 percent less business tax to the city.

It made $88 million profit last year and laid 314 people off from its computer science departmen t. Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book called The End ofWork . We lost 10 ,000 jobs. We used to have 10 ,000 people working in the Transcona Shops; there are now less than 2,000. We used to have 4,000 in Weston, even less today if you read the paper; there are less than 700. All of those people do not have jobs. They are 40 and 50 years old. They are not easily retra inable. It is not that they do not want to work . These people are not any different. Why do you have to believe they are different?

Why do we have to get so miserly that we take food and shelter out of a language bill? We are playing with language when people are going hungry? I do not expect you to spend more money . I realize budgets are tight. I did not come he re asking you to spend more money . I have given you about 60 pages there of one way for five years that everyone from David Aschenhauer [phonetic] , who was one of Ronald Reagan 's, a very radical leftie, that guy. David Aschenhauer [phonetic] is the foremost repub lican econo mist who has quoted, who supports that. You can look at his work if you do not want to believe me.

He argues for this. Ruben Bellan, a Manitoba home-grown econom ist, is quoted often in there, who has also put forward the same ideas. Right or left, it should not be an ideological issue. We have a responsibility to do somet hing more than tamper with who is going to run welf are and what the langu age is we are going to use to take someth ing from people. Mr. Chair person: Two minutes to go, Councillor. Mr. Murray: Thank you. I am asking you to raise your eyes . I am asking you to be inspired.

I am asking you to stop pra ctising the politics offear, of holding up what is different about each of us, that telling if some people who are unemployed right now get some sort of break it is going to take something away from those of us who are afraid about our jobs. We have far too much fe ar. We have fe ar in the middle class. We have fe ar in the investment community and we have great fe ar in the reality of pain amongst the poor, and leadersh ip is about repr esenting everyb ody.

I came here and complimented you when you went to the wall and took some things and did something to help us reb uild the Exchange District and give 50 percent tax breaks to people who own older buildings, to wealthy people so that the economics of our downtown changed, and I applauded you then . I am disappointed prof oundly that you will not make the same measure of effort to those people who cannot even afford to live in one of those buildings. Thank you. Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Councill or Murr ay, for a very powerful presentation and, as you can hear fr om the

58 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 10, 1996 applause, it resonates with the many people in attendance here tonight. Rather than ask you specifics about what you said, I have questions instead about the takeover of city social services by the province. The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has said that it will be cost­ neutral. I suppose there are a number of ways of doing that. I suppose one way would be for the province to absorb the cost of social assistance and the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to reduce the grant to the City of Winnipeg by $20 million or $25 million.

Regardless of how the province does it, it means that city property taxpayers are going to be paying, in perpetuity, for welfare for a service they do not even deliver. Does that strike you as strange and unfair? Mr. Murray: It strikes me as strange and unfair-[interjection] I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I should wait. My apologies. I appreciate your patience. I realize that this is an emotional and difficult issue, and I will apologize if I offended anyone with my, let us say, unbridled concern.

I think it is sad that-I mean, I am going to be very candid-the relationship between the city and the province is at an all- time low. It is not particularly the province's fault. I do not think we have a very communicative or respons ive leadership at City Hall right now, and I am sad to see that we are constantly bickering. I think it is even sad that the discussion about poverty and about unemployment between Manitoba and its largest city would be about who should run it and who should pay for it. Obviously, in principle, things like social assistance should be on income tax rather than property tax.

I mean, I think most thinking people agree with that. But that is not the big point. Who cares? That is small potatoes. That is an issue five times on the line. The issue that I think the public, whether we are unemployed currently or not, wants us to be gripped with is the dialogue about how we solve the problem. I do not think that any of you find the level of unemployment acceptable. I hope you do not. If we do not, and if that is sincere, then we should be talking about that motion that just passed council unanimously recently about here is a solution from the city.

I wish the mayor-my collea gue Amaro Silva, who is supposed to represent the city, decided not even to show up. I think the city took a selfish pos1t10n. I mean when you are representing, when you have got the poorest neighbour­ hoods in the country right now right north of here, why would you be concerned, why is the driving concern you have, which level of government pays for it? Do you think the public cares? What they want is efficient use of tax dollars. They want to see a system to get people back to work.

They want to see a system that respects people that are unemployed-because, God knows, we are all very close to that on some days and some of us have experienced, and may experience, it again-that values those people and sees them as positive. I wish that we as a city and a province could understand two things: The people who are unemployed for a long time do not get jobs because very few employers in a surplus labour market hire people who have been on welfare for two years. They fall to the bottom of the heap.

The other thing is, when you look at people-and I have friends who have been unemployed who have university degrees who got dumped, who had technology jobs that we celebrate as being important, who have been unemployed for two years, whose self­ esteem is in the toilet. These are people who did master's degrees in engineering, who were not lacking in confidence, who after two years of doing 15 every two weeks do not get out of bed any more because they have expectations. They feel like failures.

What we should be talking about is, how do we build self-esteem? 1be phone line from the government should not be a rat line; it should be a help line. It should be a line that says, you are a good person and we are going to help you get a job. It should not be a fraud line. Why we are not talking about those kinds of things, why Mrs. Mitchelson and I and Mr.

Reimer and you and my colleagues on council have not all sat down in one room and made a promise to behave ourselves, treat each other with more respect and start dealing with the real issues like unemployment and stop bickering over who has got the worst financial problems and who has got the bigger tax problem: the province is so mean to us at the city because they do not give us enough money and enough authority; and the province says, well, you get your house in order because you spend too much money. I mean, it is so childish.

Let us all grow up, you know, and start dealing with some real issues for a change.

October 10, 19 96 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 59 Mr. Chai rperson: Mr. Lathlin, quickly. Mr. Murray: I am sorry. [applause] That is why the mayor likes me so much. Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Murra y, I also would like to thank you for your present ation. I do not have a question, but I would like to relate to you a bit of a reality that I am dealing with right now as a parent. I guess I am telling you the story to more or less illustr ate. You know, people ask us, you do not know because you are not in that situation.

I should also tell you that in my younger years I was on welf are and I know what it is like for your mom to tell you, go to the groc ery store and get some grocer ies, and you know dam well that your money for that month is gone, but you are going to go there anyway and ask the storekeeper to maybe go over $50 or $1 00, because you are going to pay him from your next month's cheque anyway. I know what that is like. Also, at that time, as I was growing up, I told myself that I would never, never go on welf are again, that I would die first bef ore I go on welf are.

My daughter and I, this week-she is going to the University of Manitoba-we will be looking for an apartment for her. So I tell her, we have to look for something that is safe , that is clean, that is secure . We figured we have to spend $400 on an apartment, but so far we have not found anything. They are over $600, $700 a month. I wonder about that person who has $178 to live on. Wow, it just blows me away. We are going to go again tomorrow evening, and I have a story to tell my daughter about what I have heard here today.

She and I, this evening before I came here, were complaining because we cannot get a place that we like for the $400 that we have set aside for ourselv es. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Lathlin, and thank you very much, Councillor Murray . Mr. Murray: Thank you. llr (2 11 0) Mr. Chair person: Jim Finlay is the next presenter. Would Mr. Finlay plea se come forward. Mr. Finlay, you can begin your presentat ion. Mr. Jim Finlay (Community Action on Poverty): This Bill 36 should not be passed because several sections are violating the Charter of Rights.

I see, such as on the amendment No. 5, with your removi ng the surgical, medic al, dental, you are leading to medical discrimination right there and contradicting the present act. That way, you are going to lead to treat ing people in the more extreme, blatant, life-threateni ng discrimination way of all. It violates several sections of the Charter of Rights. It should be changed altogether to a national standard e qualization guaranteed income, which, you find, will cut down crime cases, chron ic illness, too.

It will make it a more specific standard of decent living, too ,because you are not going by the adequate standard ofliving. If you read page 1 of the press release, a fe deral court declared that you cannot bleed people from the pove rty line or lower, which means the poverty line would be the standard equalization guaranteed income, too. I have the decision statement right here that shows it, too. You see, with the way you are on the work incentiv e, too, you are discriminating against people by penalizing them on every dollar over the $50 you deduct .

If you want people to work, you strictly have to stop deduct ing earnings even if they earn $20,000 a year; nothing must be deducted. I can give you strong proof, if you look at pages 9 to 12 of the press release where I was provided a special grant by the Minister of Labour and Industry and Commerce for business train ing. When welf are came across this, they went and deducted it steady for 48 months which was, as you will see on the letter, included. Industry and Commerc e stated it was in lieu of welf are .

See, that is written by the Industry and Commerce because this was a complete, separate program altogether. So, until you learn to stop deducting earnings, people will not look for work . Plus, you have to learn that there are standards that you are not counting that are the mo st extreme basic necessit y to life, which is tr ansportation and phone, because there is no way you can expect people to look for work in any way with you not providi ng transportation and phone as basic needs, because that way you a