Manitoba Hansard — 26 March 1981 (Sitting 46B, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-46b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA Thursday, 26 March, 1981 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CORRECTIONS MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris MacGregor (Virden): I call the Comm ittee to order. Community and Corrections, Page 26, I believe when we left off at 4:30 we were 5.(b)(2) ... MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Or (b)(1) weren't you going to get us information on (b)(1) in the institution in Portage. You are asking for what, 14 more? That's all in Portage. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. GEORGE MINAKER (St. James): Mr .

Chairman, I believe I gave the information to the Hon ourable Mem ber for Transcona just as we adjourning, and indicated to him that the population for the school in December 31, 1980 was 828 and I asked the honourable member, when I saw him in the House after the Comm ittee adjourned, if he wanted any further information. He said that was satisfactory. I believe it works out to about $47.00 per diem. MR. DESJARDINS: Oh, that's in Portage. MR. MINAKER: Yes. That was the question he had raised, he wanted to know the comparable cost. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chai rman, how ma ny inmates do you have in Portage now?

Residents or inmates or whatever. MR. MINAKER: Residents in Portage now are 828, as compared to 854 last year. lt has gone down continually since 1975. lt has gone down since 1975, continually gone down. MR. DESJARDINS: Okay, fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(b)(2) - pass; 5.(b)(3) - pass - the Mem ber for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: What is the per diem now at St. Amant Centre, compared to last year. MR. MINAKER: Last year the per diem rate at St. Amant was $50.44 per diem and for the Day Care Program the rate was $22.95.

This year the per diem rate is $55.25 and for the Day Care Program $25.30, and I'd say the increase in the cost of the operating at the St. Amant Centre progams in the amount of $846,700 and results in the short-fall of the 1980-81 budget of $142,800; and the price increase, an 11 percent incr ease, of $67 4,3 00 and a worklo ad change of an additional staff to provide for holiday relief of $29,600 to give the difference. MR.

DESJARDINS: The Dental Program that you have there for Special Needs and so on, they we 2181 taking people from outside the institution, it was a, I don't remember the name, but a very dedicated dentist; is he still there doing that work? Would that be covered under this here or would it be under a Dental Program? I want to kno w if we're still fortunate enough to have that dentist, I don't recall his name, but he was fantastic? it's in Health? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I've been advised that the cost of the Dental Program is under the Health portion of it. MR. DESJARDINS: Excuse me, Mr.

Chairman, can the Minister, or his Deputy Minister, remember if that dentist that I mentioned, is he still there? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, when I visited St. Amant last summer the gentleman was there. I can't verify that he is still there this year or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5 (b)(3) - pass; 5 (c)(l) - pass; 5 (c). The Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: I don't know if the Minister has given a breakdown of the SMYs in this small grouping and I wonder if I could just hear it as related to the tasks they perform. How many all together?

I just want to clarify; I would like to know how they divide up their responsibilities? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, the Central Directorate has a staff component of 10.5 SMYs. We have the Director, the Psychologist, three Program Consultants, one volunt eer Co- ordina tor and a Su ppor t Staff; and they're res ponsible for administering the funds for the purchase of services, establishing standards, monitoring program delivery, dev eloping and supervising reg ional staff, co ordinating government and private agency programs and maintaining a central registry of disabled persons.

The two additional staff consis t of a volu nteer co-ordinator to expand services through assistance from volunt eers and an admin istrative officer who will co-ordinate financial reporting and data system. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(b) (3) - pass; 5.(c)(1) - pass; 5.(c)(2) - pass; 5.(c)(3) - pass - the Mem ber for Seven Oaks. MR. SAUL A. MILLER: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, could you get the details on this Financial Assistance to clients? When you say "clients", do you mean the individuals or do you mean the organizations or what? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, the doll ars cover basically the 900 disabled persons attending the 21 Occupational Activity Centres and these include a monthly fee of $100.00 for each disabled person and we have now increased this to $110.00. In addition we have added, based on a reco mmendation of the CAMR and our concern that we would like to have some type of a maintenance grant, that we have added a $5,000 maintenance grant to each centre in

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 the 1981-82 budget, for a total of $105,000.00. The centres will then be able to use that money in the way that they see fit. it was recommended that we look at a possibility of $15,000 per centre. We are trying to reach that objective over a period of three years. MR. MILLER: Is the Optimist House operating? MR. MINAKER: it is my un de rstanding, Mr . Chairman, that it is,yes. MR.

MILLER: Can the Minister tell us whether he feels that the additional per diems that are now being paid, are adequa te for them to function properly because they can't really exist on their sales the are minimal - they can never really make money on it or even break even. I gather the sales represent about 39 percent of their income but I don't know if they will ever achieve more than that. Is the Minister satisfied that they can function adequately with the support that he's just indicated? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, as I indicated earlier this afternoon when the question was raised, had the particular appropr iation been unde rexpen ded, I indicated that we had looked at the Occupational Activity Centres and found that three had been in deficits, out of the 21. We feel that with the 10 percent increase, or a little more than 10 percent increase that we are giving the centres this year along with the $5,000 maintenance grant, we feel that the majority, if not all of the centres, should be able to satisfy their requirements this year.

I believe the approximate figures I had looked at a few months ago were that about 45 percent of the funding, on an average, came from sales, the communi ty do nations and activities; and the remainder, the 55 percent, came from government financing and that is sort of an average across-the board. They varied slightly from centre to centre. MR. MILLER: My concern is the two or three that the Minister mentions might not be able to make it with the $5,000, and can we really expect them to depend again on the commu nity at large or from their sales?

They are providing a service which no one else provides and it doesn't make sense to treat them as other kinds of agencies or organizations and simply say, well, you 've got to make it on your budget and if you don't, you're in a deficit, because once they are in a deficit position they can never catch up; there is no way they can catch up. it's a paper deficit. They are into the bank, perhaps. Somebody has gone good for it.

I guess somebody on the board has put their name on it, but the fact is they can never recover their deficit except through increased grants from the province; and although the Minister says he's now sort of recognized this by increa sing the grant somewhat, shouldn' t the Minister be thinking in terms of eliminating the deficit and saying all right start afresh, the per diem is increased, and now see how it goes, rather than have a deficit carrying on from year to year even though it may be some what sma ller than the previous year. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, I recognize what the honoura ble memb er is saying, and the three 2182 particular centres that did have a deficit this year, it was an accumu lative deficit over a two to three year period which we have now cleaned off the board, if you want to call it, and they are starting fresh, all 21, that I am aware of, and that we obvio usly would look at each one from year to year.

But we anticipate that this increase, along with the maintaina nce grant, particul arly will help out the smaller centres who seem to be the ones that might have the difficulty, and we feel that impact of the $5,000, while it doesn't seem a lot in many of our minds, will help the smaller centres that have had some problems. But we will definitely look at them at the end of the year and try and keep them above board and in the blacl<. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: Is there Federal mone ys cost shareable in this program, in this line (c)

(3) Financial Assistance to clients? Is that under VRDP? MR. MINAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is, and I believe it is approximately $2.7 million. I might say that in addition to . MR. DESJARDINS: Excuse me, all under (3)? MR. MILLER: All under (c)(3)? MR. DESJARDINS: We know, we have the amount here, $2.746. MR. MINAKER: (3) and (4). I might say that also, in addition to that, we provide transportation costs for the clients to travel from their residence to the Occupational Activity Centres. That is not handled by the Occupational Activity Centre, which I am sure the honourable member remembers. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister will have to recognize that when he talks to my other two colleagues they have a lot of background knowledge that I don't have, so I start from further back, and I am trying to understand what the Minister said when he said that we're giving, I think he said we're giving $5,000 now; we are aiming towards $15,000.00. Did he say that you are planning gradually to get up to $15,000.00? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, that is my personal obj ective. it was recomm ende d by one of the asso ciations that we should look at providing app roxi mately $15,000 towards a general maintainance grant that the Centre could have to utilize at their own discretion. What the present financing method is which, I guess, has been in existence for many years, is that we provide so many dollars per month per client, and this is the $110 figure.

If you had an example of an Occupational Activity Centre with 30 clients, they would receive $3,000 per month under the old system, and we have now increased that by $10 so they would now get $3,300 per month. But in addition to that we have now injected $5,000, which the Centre can utilize the way they see fit in the best interest of the Centre. That grant was not available prior to this year.

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman. if $15,000 is right, then what's the justification for giving less than $15,000.00? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, this year, as the honourable member probably remembers, there were many requests for new services by CAMR and other interested people in the mentally retarded field.

We have tried to satisfy many of those requests, which we have done by adding approximately $605,000 worth of new programs, above and beyond the normal growth of the 10 percent or 11 percent increase, or whatever is requ ired to satisfy the requirements of existing agencies; made up of the $5,000 for the 21 agencies, would represent $105,000 of new money. We have other programs related to apartment living, independent apartment living and so on. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, if the $15,000 is an enrichment, that's one thing; if it's needed, that's another thing.

So what is the difference; what is the impact on the recipients of this service by the fact that they are getting $5,000 and not $15,000.00? What is the difference in their style of life or the quality of the service they get? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, nobody said that $15,000 was needed; it was recommended by an association, that they felt that's what should be given. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Ch airman, the Min ister agrees with it though; there's the di fference.

He says it's his personal objective to get to $15,000, so it means that not only did they ask for it but he has judged it and found that the party's agreeing to it, unless I misunderstood him. I'll give him a chance to back away if he wants to. MR. MI NAKER: I agreed that I thought that in approximately three year's time that $15,000 would be a reasonable figure. MR. CHERNIACK: Is that based on the inflationary trend for the next three years?

Really, I want to understand why, if $15,000 is right, why is it right three years from now and not now; or how can you be sure it will be right three years from now, looking ahead that way? None of us have, as far as I know, that crystal ball. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I am right or not and I'll have to analyze it each year. Maybe it might be more than $15,000, or it could be less. MR. CHERNIACK: Right now $5,000 is enough, in the Minister's opinion? MR. MINAKER: In my opinion, yes. MR.

CHERNIACK: I have to assume that $15,000 is just some kind of a vague number to look at from year to year, that it could be $12,000, it could be $4,000, it could be anything and that it isn't a planned program that assures anybody that it will be $15,000 in three years. Is that a correct assumption? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, I can't completely answer that because one other reason that I am 2183 hesitant to go immediately to $15,000 is the fact that, as the honourable member is aware, we have a Task Force on Mental Retardation that is presently gathering data for us to look at what would be recommended or is felt is required in the next years to come in Manitoba. lt may well be that they make recommendations contrary to this decision, I don't know at this time. The other thing that I have recognized as we get to

Section 4 in the Estimates, that we have recognized the Manitoba Council of Rehabilitation Workshops, who repr esent the workshops from which the vocational rehabilitation services purchase service for disabled persons. We hope that this council will help to evaluate the present programs, make adjustments to training and other activities and I would expect that they will come back to us with recommendations as well. So in the interim period, we feel that the $5,000 additional money that is not tied directly to the client attendance and space, will be useful to the majority of the centres.

Obviously, it will be more useful to those with the smaller numbers of clients. MR. CHERNIACK: Has anybody received any assurance that the plan is to go to $15,000 in three years? MR. MINAKER: I think the honourable memb er recogniz es that it is very difficult to give an assurance from year to year, he kno ws when he was Min ister of Fin ance, that the Min ister of any department has to come before Treasury Board, which is normally chaired by the Minister of Finance, and he has to get the approval of the Treasury Board and Cabinet on each item on a year-by-year basis. MR.

CHERNIACK: I have to tell this Minister that I have known Min ister who didn't wait, that made announcements and commitments in their time. MR. MINAKER: I am not that type. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, good for you. But when I say that, I don't mean our Ministers alone; I mean Ministers of any type. -(I nterjection)- You just got some advice. MR. MINAKER: I have not made that type of approach or decision on this particular subject. MR. CHERNIACK: The reason I raised it, Mr.

Chairman, is that I have not forgotten the debate we had today - a one-sided debate - where there was an arbitr ary decision made that in the school divisions they would be limi ted to a certain percentage related to inflation and if one school division wanted to upgrade its services to measure up to, or to warrant others, because its service or its program was not sufficiently adequate, they were told that's too bad; it's too rich for your blood.

I wanted to know whether this Minister was just gradually trying to achieve what he thinks is right, because he has been blocked - but I'm not going to find that out, that's obvious, so I'll move on to ask again - the Member for Seven Oaks asked whether these were individuals or organizations. I know the Minister talked about a $100,000 and some, but I really thou ght when it said cli ents it meant

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 individuals. and now I'm beginning to think it doesn't mean individuals, that is, Item 3, the $2.5 million. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, that $100.00 or $110 .00 per space or client is paid to the organization that runs the particular Occupational Activity Centres. The individual clients who attend the centre in the majority of cases would be in receipt of Social Allowance for their own particular care and looking after. The $5,000 per Occupational Activity Centre is paid again to the centre; they are all non-profit operations. MR.

CHERNIACK: So when it says "clients", it doesn't really mean that clients get it. What it means is that, related to the num ber of clie nts, an organization gets it, and that the individuals don't get it at all. it's just the organization which sponsors or runs the program that gets it, related on a per client basis. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. In some centres where they have contracts with various industries they do pay a small salary to the persons providing that service, and they would receive a salary from the centre, but that is decided on by the board that runs the centre. MR.

CHERNIACK: The reason I say that is that it seems odd to me that it would be a flat $110, regardless to the budget of the organization, which may be one that looks after 20 people or 100 people, and the difference in the nature of the program really would determine, I think, a difference of the needs per capita. Just a flat payment like this, to me, is somewhat odd, I must say. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, it has been going on for some seven or eight years I believe.

Back seven years ago it was $40 per client, then it went to $65, then it went to $80, then it went to $90, last year it went to $100 and this year it's gone to $110, so it has been sort of a basic policy and program that has been out there. That is why I said that the $5,000 in Maintenance Grants will help the smaller centres greater than it will help the larger ones. I might say the larger ones are normally not doing too badly because they're located in larger centres and have more access to work that they can provide in that particular community. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairma n, I had the impression that this government was a proponent of the idea of zero budgeting and that one should not go back seven years and say, well, that's what we had; what shall we do with it now, but start from scratch? Did the Minister evaluate this program when he took over this department and say, this is a correct way to deal with this, or does he just follow it because the fine New Democratic Min isters establi shed it and he accepts it as being right? I want the Minister to realize that I know that he's not been in this department that long that he will have evaluated every program.

I'm just suggesting, and I don't know that I'm really challenging to answer the question, I'm just suggesting that it's a poor argument, in my mind, to say well it's been going on for seven, eight years and has been increasing year by year. I would hope that in time, if the Minister has that much time, that he'll review this. I'm assuming he didn't yet; if he did then, by all means, I'd like to hear about it. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I was in error. I have to apologize to the Hono urable Mem ber for St.

Johns, that the program has been in actual existence since the early '60s, and that I did review the program this year when we were going over the Estimates because I was concerned that there was possibilities of certain centres being in the deficit. There were three. I might say that two of them were not major deficits, out of the 21 centres, so I thought the system seems to be a sensible type of system and keeps the volunt eer activity going within the commun ity where they operate, by not funding them completely and fully by government funding.

So I think it's a good system and I won't comment for the other members here in the Committee that were Ministers, but it is obvious that they thought it wasn't too bad a system, because they didn't make any great revisions to it. MR. CHERNIACK: The other question dealing with volunt eer agencies is whether their budgets are reviewed as carefully as, let us say, the United Way would be reviewing budgets; and their programs assessed and reviewed to an extent where they can be done adequately by eight or ten people in the entire review process.

I mention that by saying that I have the impression that when your government wound up the old management comm ittee, which was a terrible burden for Ministers to have to deal with when the NDP had it - I think management was started by the previous Conservative government - there was always a tug of war actually. I think that's not a bad description of what went on between certain Ministers and certain management committee personnel, also Ministers, to try to prove out every ptogram.

Now that you're into a Treasury Board system I'm not sure whether there is the same opportunity for review by the, I guess it's sort of an adversary system that developed with ma nagement comm ittee, where it had its own expertise that looked over these programs. Would you say that the review of this process now is mostly internal, or is it external the way I describe it was when there was a management committee review? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not too sure what the honourable member's definition of internal is.

I can tell the honourable member that our process - I've never worked under the management committee process - under the present process we receive our budgets from the internal departments that are our responsibility. We review them, and they answer to why they want new programs there; I make certain decisions with the Deputy Minis ter and other advisers; we then go to the Treasury Board where we are scrutinized very carefully - and I think the honourable member to your left there will verify that, who is a member of the Treasury Board - that doesn't necessarily pass at that point.

We have to come back again to review, and then again it's reviewed by Cabinet several times, so that I think what has happened probably, is that the Treasury Board has replaced the management committee, but the scrutiny is still there. As far as before it even gets to our office, the external agency department 2184

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 has gone over it very carefully and dealt with the particular agencies as well, in the same way they did under the old system. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the only difference I want to accentuate, as I understand it, is that Treasury Board consists of Ministers only; that's my impression. -(I nterjection)- Yes, of course, he's the secretary. That's where there's a big difference, because under the old management board that was established by the - I think it was the Roblin government, if not the Weir government - was one where there was actually staff. Are they program reviewers?

Are they people who look at th e program? Do you get an actual, what we could term "an objective" evaluation of the program itself and they want to recall PBS or PBBS or something like that, review of the program initially and see what the results are in relation to it. MR. MINAKER: The honourable memb er has described it pretty well what happens. They do have staff that do review the programs and so forth, then provide information to us in addition to our own internal staff. MR. CHERNIACK: The reason I ask it, Mr.

Chairman, is that it seems to me that this is a pretty small group of people, although they are handling a total of $6.5 mil lion or $7.5 mil lion, that doesn't mean that they are responsible for the serving of it but rather the review of it and I assume that the Minister got the extra two because he needed them. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, in addition to this particular staff, we have the External Agencies staff as well which Joe Gels heads up, that looks at these particular requests, reviews the budgets and makes recommendations to us.

So there is off to one side this other department that reviews, in the manner that they did for the past number of years. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(c)(3) - pass; 5.(c)(4) - pass the Mem ber for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I see here in (4) that you have the Council of Rehab Workshop, that's something new. That's what you were referring to a while ago that might be evaluation. They oversee the whole thing more or less and make recommendation to the Minister. They work with these agencies and then would Joe Gels or what? MR. MINAKER: No, Mr.

Chairman, they will provide information and recommendations to Joe Gels but they do not review the individual budgets or . . . MR. DESJARDINS: No, but they work with them, the external agencies? MR. MINAKER : They work with their vocational rehabilitation people and make recommendations and sort of are a pipeline to us from, you might say, the administration and working level.

We have CAMR out there working and we also have these people who are directly involved in the workshop operations and they have formed this council and we recognize that they could be valuable to us and we recognized that by giving them $22,000 this year. MR. DESJARDINS: Where is the grant from for CAMR, where is that figure? MR. MINAKER: lt was $90,500 if remember correctly back in, it's either (1) or (2). MR. DESJARDINS: Oh, yes, from $85.5 to $90.1, right. Mr. Chairman, what is the reasons that ARM Industries has gone down practically half in their grant? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, if the honourable member remem bers that ARM Ind ustries experienced a bad year last year with ordering bad lumb er and getting caught with - I guess it was overstocked in material, etc., - and ended up with approximately $190,000 accumulated loss over about a year-and-a-half. Last year's money includes that special one-time grant of $190,000 to bail them out. Actually it was 225, I'm sorry. We gave them an additional $25,000 badly needed capital for equipment in the back shop to keep the thing operating and that is the reason why it has gone down.

Otherwise, from a year-by -year operating basis, it's gone ahead. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(c)(4) - pass; 5.(d)( 1) - pass - the Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr . Chai rman, we had the opportunity the other day to talk about people who have problems that are of a multiproblem nature and I understood the Minister to say that there would be one person responsible for directing - is the term client - to the various support services that are needed, I think we agreed that was advisable. I understood the Minister to say that the vocational rehabilitative officer would be the one that would take charge.

Now, is that right and is that in this branch that this takes place as compared with Social Security personnel? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated the other day to the honourable memb er, it would depend on the individual who has the problem or situation, on whether he or she was mentally retarded, mentally ill or physically disabled, on who the individual would be referred to. Probably initially, if it was a financial problem, they would go to income security and at that point in time after discussion and counselling they would be referred possibly to this department.

Now this department does not deal with mentally retarded citizens. This deals with those particular citizens who have difficulty in obtaining or holding employment either due to their social, or cultural, or vocational handicaps. lt includes funds for the work activity projects that we have at Brandon, Portage la Prairie, Dauphin and Winnip eg and we are now proposing to locate one in the Gimli area. MR. CHERNIACK: On the other occa sion, Mr.

Chairman, I talked about the desirability of what I called one-stop shopping - I think there is a much better term and it doesn't come quickly to my mind - but the desira bili ty of that person involved knowing that there was one governmental person that would be responsible to see to it that all the various services within the department would be 2185

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 made available to this person. I was afraid - that's how it came up the other night - I was afraid that especially with Health taking over some of the functions that there could be a splitting up or a division where somebody might fall between a couple of chairs and that's why I want to explore a little more carefully my concern, and whether or not I am now entitled to say to people who call me - and I do get a number of calls - who is the person directly responsible for all your dealings with the Department of Community Services and Corrections? I have not had that answer in the past.

I've had the name of one person and then a name of another person, one being a financial adviser, the other being a social worker. MR. MINAKER: The one person responsible for the complete operation in any region is the Regional Director. MR. CHERNIACK: Oh. MR. MINAKER: And he is responsible for all of the particular services that come under the Regional Delivery Service and that's a multitude - it could be Child Welfare, it could be Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Vocational Rehabilitation - you name it. MR. CHERNIACK: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

I find it hard to believe that a Regional Director - and I assume there aren't very many of them - would have all the files and would have the direct relationship with that particular individual. I assume that Regional Director has enough to do to monitor the entire operation. For example, how many stall persons come under the dir;:>ctorship of the Regional Director; there must be qu••e a few. Although I recognize that in the end it i�·�he Minister himself who is responsible, I want to ko\lW to whom does that person relate? · \ MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, the r,':ional director has a team co-ordinator that reports tl 'lim, has the different people that we just descri t.\1, that an individual might become involved with rejj\ ·ts to that team co-ordinator who in turn reports to th1 • �gional director.

If the honourable member wishe•: trJ know the numbers of employees that we havf that the regional director reports to it was under ;'dction 9(3) and I don't know whether he wants to '.now; under the Winnipeg region we've got 277; u •Jer Westman 91; Eastman 60.5; Central 55; 't.terlake 69.5; Parklands 70; Norman 48; Thompsr;1 47; for a total of 718 and then we have Northern Home Economics that are separate. With regard tc '(he team cordinator or the team leader we ha·1e: in Winnipeg 7; Parklands we have 1; Norman we have 2; Thompson we have 1; for a total of 10. Those were detailed under the

Section 9(3) which we have already covered. MR. CHERNIACK: I am still trying the picture of how a person who needs the services of this department finds his or her way through the labyrinth of all the different skills.

If we can picture a hypothetical case of somebody, and it's not unusual, who needs economic help, budgeting help, public health help, home economics help, vocational rehabilitation and may have a child or two with problems and employment problems, and maybe mental health problems; my question is does that person go to a known indicated flagged individual with all his or her problems and says now here, my kid didn't go to school today and the next day he comes along and says, I lost my job or I ran out of money, is there thqt one-stop operation or not?

I have to tell the Minister it is my impression that it does not exist. lt is my impression that he is referred to whatever specialist there is at any one time and then doesn't know where to turn the next time around; that's my impression.

I want to know whether my impression is correct and have the Minister justify it or whether, indeed, there is what I would consider the ideal, that is one person responsible for that case, carrying that file, and directing them around; maybe I can compare it to a medical clinic where there is one doctor responsible but he then refers the patient to whatever doctors that provide the service. I wonder if you understand what I would like to see and accept the fact that 1 don't think it exists and tell me where you are at in that case. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, what happens, normally there will be one predominant problem that creates the situation why the individual comes to the particular centre or region office to have help. And when the case worker who reviews the situation with that client or citizen then takes it to the team co ordinator and they decide who is the person to deal with that individual. If it's a rehabilitation problem, this is a key problem, then they go to that particular worker. If it's a financial problem then obviously they end up going to the income security officer.

So, one cannot assume that there are five different problems related to one individual necessarily that comes for help. lt could happen but in the most cases it is one predominant problem th�t happens or two or three and the team co-ordinator then directs the priorities of how that person will be served. MR. CHERNIACK: You know I don't even accept the thought of a predominant problem.

I might say most urgent problem or the emergency. lt may well be that the emergency is not having any groceries but the real problem, as in the case I described, may well be the need for vocational rehabilitation so that that No. 1 problem which brings them into your door is not necessarily the most important. I also am inclined, and I am not professional in that field and I have been around a long time and some say too long a time, that most times there is more than one problem.

What I learn when I get these phone calls is that they'll know the name of one person and then they'll say, oh yes, there's another person in the same office who handles another aspect of it and they have both names and they really don't know. And I, as the person they come to, what we call euphemistically the Ombudsman, have to try and find out. And you know, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell the Minister that several times I've had to go to one source only and that seems to be a burden placed on one person. So, where are we at with this?

I mean, are we aiming at what I think is right or am I wrong in my concept of how it should be? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Boniface. 2186

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, isn't it the case that there is a case worker and they work as a team and they ask the case worker; isn't that the responsibility of the case worker. And if you have the name of one by contacting, is that the way it works? Is it working that way? Apparently, Mr. Cherniack doesn't feel that it's working with some of his people, there's something wrong. But that was the intent of the single unit delivery. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, my understanding and the way that I am advised it works is that the case worker, which the Honourable Member from St.

Boniface indicates has his interview with the particular individual, they work with the team co ordinator and have team meetings to discuss cases and decide where and who is the best person to serve that individual. MR. CHERNIACK: That presupposes what the Minister said earlier, that there is one problem; that presupposes that most people who come into the office have a problem which the team co-ordinator decides should be channelled to this or the other specialist and that person deals with it until they discover another problem.

I want you to tell me I'm wrong in my concept, and you know, then I'll stop talking about it. Either I'm wrong in my concept or if I'm right then you should be aiming towards doing it. If you say you can't do it yet, you don't have the personnel or whatever, I may not agree but I would have to accept that. When we, as MLAs, and I can't be the only one that gets calls, I should think in this field just about all of us get calls. I find that the person talking to me does not have the name of one particular person. Now let's get back to that case I mentioned the other day.

You asked me for the name of the person so you could get your side of it and I think you now have your side of it. But what I found when I called back the following morning, having raised it with you and told you I felt I wasn't ready to deal with it, I called that person and he said everything is wonderful, I've got everything I needed, I've been provided with all my needs. But, Mr. Chairman, . MR. MINAKER: I never requested it. MR. CHERNIACK: No I did. MR. MINA KER: Do you know how the system works? MR. CHERN IACK: Oh that's the problem.

The system works when that person knows whom to call and when he calls an M LA he usually gets pretty good service. Unfortunately that's the case. MR. MINAKER: Can I ask the honourable member how many calls he's had this year with cases relating to problems dealing with the Regional Delivery System? MR. CHERNIACK: Not many, not many. MR. MINAKER: So it must be working. MR. CHERNIACK: Oh no, oh, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is so naive. We're talking now about people 2187 who really don't know how to talk for themselves to the largest extent I believe.

I'd like him to correct me again if I'm wrong but I believe that they are people who get pushed around by society and by the time they end up in your offices they're already pretty depressed, pretty unsure of themselves - now I know there's some professional people - but every Minister I've heard of, Conservative or NDP, has said that we have a very very small percentage of professionals who are - what's the term - freeloaders, that most people are in need. I believe that when they're in need they've already been beaten pretty badly and don't know their way around.

I think the ones that call their MLAs are the ones who've already learned something about the system and know if they can't crack it in the normal way they go through the MLA to do it. So I disagree with the Minister and I don't know whether he was serious when he said that it must be working well if I don't get that many calls, because if I cut off my phone I'll get no calls. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I said the system must be working pretty reasonable if the honourable member hasn't had too many calls because he's implying that it is a rotten system with a few calls and now I don't think it is a bad system.

I can answer his earlier question with regard to when someone goes for help and the social worker then goes to the team co-ordinator, they might refer the individual to three or four people. lt could be the public health nurse, it could be the social worker, it could be the mental health worker, so it depends on the situation. So you could have two or three people that they're dealing with when they're panelled. That's why say I can't answer how it'll work for each individual. Each individual isn't the same, let's face it. MR. CHERNIACK: I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, I do not have criticism.

I would never have said it's a rotten system. I think it's pretty good. Nevertheless that doesn't mean it can't be better or that it can't be run more smoothly and I'm not sure that it runs that smoothly, that's my point. I think that the people get served and I think well and I think that we should not be ashamed of the system we have in Manitoba as far as I see it. But, I still see people who are delayed in the provision of services because I think there isn't that one person they relate to.

If they relate to three people, I don't think they really know which problem to take to which of the three people and they also, and the Minister should know this, and when we come to the next item over the page I'm going to start talking about what I euphemistically again, would call the black hole of Main Street.

You try to phone that department right now since the fire and it's two months now or something like that, and you find they don't have phones; you find that they answer you and they say well, we're sorry this and this worker doesn't have a phone there so you'll have to leave a message to be called back. I'm a pretty persistent person, I can get through. But somebody who tried to get through to that north branch and didn't have the courage to insist, was in trouble and that's temporary, I appreciate that. But I'm trying to tell you that I believe many of these people don't know their way around.

When I called, this particular case that we discussed the

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 other day, the following morning and he said life is wonderful, and he got money for all his needs, I then said well now, has somebody prepared a budget for you? He says, you know Mrs. Somebody or other - I don't remember her name but that's not important came to see me and I didn't know that I had a financial advisor. I don't know whether he had her before or not but he just learned recently that he had that financial advisor who was the third name that I was given by him.

I still have not heard that there is a vocational rehabilitation officer because I asked him whether they did any discussion yet about going to work. He said it would have to be very light work. That was his immediate warning to me. If it's going to be work it has to be very light work. I then suggested that he seemed to me, capable of doing something and he was -(In terjection) he didn't hang up but he sort of removed himself spiritually from the conversation.

That's why I feel that he hasn't yet had that experience which I think is probably one of the first things he ought to be involved in. - (Interjection)- I hear my colleague from St. Boniface saying you can't force him. I'm not sure, I'm really not sure, because a 23 year old person who has the ability to find me, to talk to me, and then to start getting certain services, should be able to handle some kind of work.

I wouldn't starve him but I would certainly make it clear that he has to do something but then we have to make sure that's really what we're on right now, that he has certain opportunities made available to him for a vocation and for a very specialized kind obviously, he would need that. I understand that he's been boarded, that it's temporary, he's got to prove himself as to whether or not he's entitled to continue to get the services. I'm not in any way displeased with what has been done in his case.

I want some kind of an assurance that if he didn't know how to reach me what would have happened to him - not that I solved all his problems, I don't pretend that - but would he have one person eventually? Would there be a team co ordinator who would look at all the various reports coming from, I suppose, each of these people and say well now, he needs some kind of special something or other, let's get him in? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. 5.(d) - the Member for St. Boniface. MR.

DESJARDINS: Could the answer be - I believe in the system - but could the answer be that I'm told by a colleague here that fine this might happen, but he needs the public health nurse, he might see her three or four weeks after. Could it be that the workload is too heavy for these people? Could that be the answer? They know, they've gone through this exercise, the case worker brought it to the co-ordinator and they've studied the case and they know what to do but they can't get to that person fast enough? Could that be a possibility?

The system might be well set up and all that but if you haven't got the staff, even if they know what they're supposed to do if they can't do it because of a shortage of staff or too heavy a workload or something, could that be the case? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, as the honourable member recalls the other night that I indicated we have 24 new staff man years in that particular 2188 department that we're talking about at the present time, Regional Delivery Services. That would be 9(3) if I remember correctly. MR. DESJARDINS: . . . maybe that was the case.

They were overworked, that's why you're asking for 24, so that could be the answer then. MR. MINAKER: I was provided with certain information on the individual as the honourable member indicated that I probably was aware of. I did not request that information, it came to me, and if the honourable members wishes to see what developed prior to his raising the issue here at the committee, I can show him afterwards if he likes to have a look at what did actually happen. In my opinion, I think the individual was well served. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR.

CHERNIACK: I can assure you, the individual knows that he was well served. MR. MINAKER: What I'm saying is that this was taking place prior to you raising it here at this time. The honourable member might have a better understanding of the case when he sees what did develop but I didn't want to go into details on it; you can understand why. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister honouring the confidentiality of that case and I accept that and I have to tell him that I didn't raise the case here first, I raised it elsewhere first.

I was going to move towards what the Member for Seven Oaks said, I wanted to know what is the optimum caseload and what is the caseload? (Interjection)- Well, for each of your workers. MR. MINAKER: You mean in

Section 9(3)? MR. DESJARDINS: The workers dealing with these people, what kind of a caseload? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about Employment Services. If you want us to move back to 9(3) I can find out what the average workload would be. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the average workload out in our field is somewhere between 40 to 45. MR. CHERNIACK: What ought it to be for a well-run department? MR. MINAKER: I would think 40 to 45. MR. DESJARDINS: What did you want 25 more for? MR.

MINAKER: Because of the increased home care programs and also the situation where now, because some of our public health nurses or other professionals are typing up reports, that we can release them for more time out visiting people by having clerks do the typing and so on. That's primarily the main objectives of that. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, that's not new. I know there has been trend for some time now to take the professional away from the desk work to be

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 doing the job of a professional. I think that's a great step forward. But the Minister is now suggesting that the staffing last year, two years ago and this year were all at a pretty good level but that there is additional caseload and therefore they need additional people. Now that really does not answer the question that the Member for Seven Oaks raised and that's the possibility of having to wait for one of these workers to become available.

I don't know whether the Minister is prepared to start giving us examples of how long it takes to process a person through the various needs, relating them to the number of days that it takes to get to see person "B" after referred to from person "A", etc. I suppose there are files on these files and they would show up. I am under the impression that you're overworking • your people and that's not uncommon in this field, I mean in private agencies as well as in the government.

But if the Member for Seven Oaks' suggestion has validity, I think maybe the Minister needs help from us in trying to get him more personnel to work for him. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, the major portions of the 24 SMYs that will go into the regional area will be public health nurses relating to Home Care and also Community Mental Retardation workers as well as Community Mental Health workers; they are the major portions of the 24. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you.

Then what you're saying is, you did not feel the need for additional social workers or financial advisers or people on the economic side of the Income Security or Social Security? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, a Community Mental Health worker or a Mental Retardation co-ordinator could be social workers. it's just a matter of

definitions. MR. CHERNIACK: You know, Mr. Chairman, I know that they are professionals who have a training as social workers. I'm talking about the people who relate to the person who comes in in trouble, and they are the ones who steer them in the right direction and in the several directions. The question that was raised - the Member for Seven Oaks raised it - is the possibility that although they know they have to go to a particular specialist, who may be a financial adviser or maybe a child guidance person for all I know, that there may be a waiting period because of the caseload.

I've never seen an organization in government or out that isn't carrying too heavy a caseload and I just don't believe that this government has succeeded in reducing caseload to that extent. For example, I might ask the member to what extent the caseloads have been reduced or is he absolutely quite satisfied to say on a serious basis that the people in the field would recognize that the caseload they are carrying is not too burdensome. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the figures that the honourable member asks for or how the caseloads have been reduced, if in fact they have been reduced.

I can say that there has been indications that they would like more help out in the regional offices which is normal and I think in any office probably you always get requests that they would like to have additional help. We recognize that and added 24 SMYs this year. I might say that when I became Minister I made a commitment to the field staff that we would not delay any request to fill vacant spots that occur through attrition or transfers which I have lived up to and so we are keeping our vacancy rate at a very minimum which helps out as well.

So that with these combinations we feel we have an adequate staff at the present time to handle the anticipated workload that's coming up in the coming year. Now that might change in the next 9 - 10 months and we'll know when we get requests from our departments in the same way that the honourable members did when they were government. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: The Minister indicated a figure of 40- 45, I think it is, the caseload per employee.

You know, that's an arithmetical calculation; that is simply done I suppose by taking all of the entire staff and dividing that into the entire caseload and coming up with a figure and saying it's 45; but in fact where many people require more than one kind of service, they may require employment service, as in this case; they require income security service; they require public health.

So that, since different people have to provide this service, to use a simple arithmetical calculation of saying the size of staff is such and such, the size of all the clients are so much, therefore by dividing it you get a case load of 45, is I think somewhat misleading, because every one of these people may represent really three or four, or two or three different types of service which they require. So you can't treat them as a single case. That one individual may represent really three kinds of service.

I question 40 or 45, except as an arithmetical average, I suggest that in the field I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like 150. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, it's so hard to evaluate when one says that the case load is 40 or 45, because as the honourable member has indicated they vary. They could be dealing with three of the different workers in the regional office, or they could be in the rural area. They might have to drive 25 to 30 miles before they visit them, so there's a number of variables which affect it.

That's why it's so hard to interpret when somebody says in Child Welfare we have 40 or 50 cases on our books. They might only visit some of the clients once a month,

whereas some they might visit twice a week or once every three weeks, so it's hard to distinguish down just on simple mathematics, what meaning that might have, as the honourable member has indicated to me. But the question was asked, and I've been advised by staff that's the approximate load. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm wondering, Committee, are we really discussing 5.(d)(1)? I have a problem trying to follow back where we're at. I thought we'd closed out S.(c), S.(d), (1),(2) or (3) that we're on. The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: On the point of order you raise. I started this on the basis that we're talking about vocational rehabilitation, which is what this is. But I 2189

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 broadened it, and I broadened it deliberately because I feel this is only part of the team approach. I'm quite willing from my standpoint, not speaking for anybody else, to pass down to Social Security Services, Administration, providing I can then talk about the vocational rehabilitative officer as part of that team. So I don't care where we do it, but I want to discuss the package. I still want to do it. So, Mr. Chairman, I defer to you, wherever you say is where I will deal with it, because I have more to say on this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's all got to be covered I suppose. MR.

MINAKER: I don't want to restrict debate. Keep going. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Seven Oaks said there may be one of the case workers might have a case load of 150. I don't know if he said it in jest or deliberately to exaggerate it, but I was shocked because I mention again my experience is limited. But I was involved quite a number of years ago in the Community Chest budgeting, and at that time I was under the impression that 60 was a very big case load for a social worker to have.

Now I do believe that with the introduction of lay personnel to assist a social worker, he or she may be able to handle more cases. On the other hand, I would hope that since that time, there have been advances made where they're able to give a greater service in depth.

So I would ask the Minister rather bluntly, whether he says, well, you always get requests for more people in the field, that's normal and was always the case, whether we should be that sanguine about it or whether I should say to the Minister, is he getting that kind of request from the workers themselves, or are the supervisors saying, we don't have enough people working for us? There is a difference.

You know, if I as a worker, feel tired by my caseload and say I'd like to slough off some to others, maybe I would like to just take my life easier; but it my supervisor says I can't produce from this number of people, then that supervisor has to be taken very seriously. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether he just let it go easily, they always could have more work, or whether really the supervision people are satisfied with the caseload. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, the requests come up through the regional directors to the Assistant Deputy Minister and then to the Deputy.

Normally in the past year of my experience, they are reasonably well equipped with staff in the regional offices. MR. CHERNIACK: I would like to conclude this aspect by saying I hope copies of this Hansard are spread to every individual worker in the department. I'd like to see whether there's a reaction, either undercover, by phone calls or whatever. I only hope they all get to see this. May I move now specifically to vocational rehabilitation, Mr. Chairman, that's one part of it.

I must say that I am not satisfied in my mind that the system that I envisioned is the best system is in place, but I don't see any point in pursuing it further because I'm sure that what I visualize is not correct. Maybe I have to go back to experts to find out whether I'm wrong in the way I think it ought to be.

The vocational rehabilitation officer - and let's take case I've mentioned of a person who is terribly handicapped, and let's assume that person has his or her wits about them, but has a very serious physical handicap and no real desire to work - now I'm talking about young people who in their own minds, for the rest of their lives, are incapable of working. What kind of job is done with them? What kind of motivation is given to them? What are the chances of hoping that kind of person, and there are such, will become a more useful member of society? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, there's a number of avenues that they could follow when they would work with a vocational rehabilitation worker and then they could also work with a behavior psychologist that's out there to assist them. They could receive counselling. lt depends on the extremities of the physical disability and the mental attitude of the individual, and how far the services would go. We have offered training at community colleges for these particular individuals. So it depends on the particular individual that we're talking about and the extremity of the disability. MR. CHERNI ACK: Mr.

Chairman, whose responsibility is it to monitor the system itself? In other words, what person will take that case and will test to see whether all these various types of input are being applied as well as they should be? In other words, is there somebody that monitors and follows it through, or is it just that they're sent from one person to another person to another person, and in the end they either do or do not go to work? MR.

MINAKER: I think I possibly answered part of that quesion earlier, that it would be the regional team co-ordinator, along with the particular social worker that might be working with that individual, and they might be referred to two or three of these individuals that I've indicated when they're panelled. MR. CHERNIACK: Now I want to deal with that particular case I raised in this way.

Assuming that person I talked to doesn't really want to go to work; and assuming that I have the conscience of wanting to make sure that person has been given every opportunity and a real effort has been made, who would I ask about that? Do I go to the Minister and say, three months hence, did it work with that person; or do I go to the team co-ordinator; or is it none of my business. I want to know, what do I do? Where does my conscience tell me to go? MR.

MINAKER: I would suggest that you come to the Minister because cases like this are kept in confidentiality unless the individual himself contacts you as his MLA. MR. CHERNIACK: He did. MR. MINAKER: presume you're talking about a normal procedure where somebody contacts me about something, then I would find out confidentially what the background was on the individual and accordingly decide how much of that information 2190

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 should be made available to you, keeping in mind the confidentiality aspects of the case. Well, I don't want to go any further on the particular case you're talking about. What can happen is, in the case of somebody coming saying physically they can't work, obviously a doctor looks at them to confirm in fact they do have a problem and then they would probably qualify because they are disabled. lt could be a temporary qualification or it could be a permanent one depending on the severity of the disability and the permanence of it. These are the things that are looked at. MR.

CHERNIACK: I want to suggest in most it's a state of mind; that most people are able to do something. You know, as well as 1 do, that there are people who are just about completely physically handicapped and who are doing something that is within their capabilities, so I think it's really a question of a state of mind. I don't mean a sickness, I mean just confidence or motivation or desire or apathy on the other hand.

I really am questioning the Minister because I doubt that you have the number of personnel that may be needed to follow through a thing like this. lt might mean almost daily consultations on that person and I have grave doubts whether any department could produce that many people, whether we have to go out and look for volunteers to work with them because I can't expect this government to spend all its efforts in this particular field. I don't think you have that many vocational workers under this item (d)(1) that would be available to serve all that kind of need.

In this very building, in this very government, we have seen people terribly handicapped doing good work. I think that an investment in motivating or training a person who thinks that for the rest of his life he'll never do anything and making him useful, feel useful to society, is a tremendous investment. I can think of very few human investments that are as great as that. I have a feeling that they're just a number in a file. MR.

MINAKER: I was just going to say that in the particular programs which the honourable member is talking about that we have in the agency, the Society for Crippled Children and Adults, some 44 personnel who try and help out these particular individuals you're describing, to counsel them and try and encourage them to get back to work and to have a program in the Employment Services where they assist them in life skills and work skills and so on to try and get them to work. So that avenue is out there as well and I believe in the case of the individual you are talking about he was referred there. MR.

CHER NIACK: Having done that, having succeeded in motivating them, having succeeded in training them, are there jobs? Are there jobs open for people like that or do you have to go out and find them, create jobs for them? MR. MINAKER: In some cases there are jobs. I can't specifically say there's jobs for every one. I can say that in the particular

section that we're dealing with at the present time, of the total last year of 912 cases that placements in employment during the year there was 470. Placements in training during the 2191 year, there was 600; the total intake was 1,018 - these were at these work activity projects where we teach them. it's sort of a six-month course where we teach them really basic work skills and life skills 11nd so forth. MR. CHERNIACK: Then they end up in a job, permanent employment? MR. MINAKER: Placement employment during the year, there was over half of them; 470 out of the 912. MR. CHERNIACK: Is there a follow through? MR.

MINAKER: I think in the first year there's a follow through. For six to twelve months there's a follow up to see how they're making out. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I might mention that generally this government, the Conservative government, has been critical of its preceeding government in various programs saying, well that's just make-work programs, this is not something of great permanence, criticism of what was attempted up in the north as being looked down on, as being something that is not really worth while.

I feel that in this case that if somebody is motivated to do something and can't find that kind of work now there is justification and a subsidized program being created to give that person that kind of work just like they do in the ARM, where they're making people who are not productive enough to justify their income, to make them feel that whatever it is they're doing, and I would say there's an onus on government to make sure that once having trained these people that there's a place they can go to quickly and do it and if you can't find it in the private sector I think it's an onus on the government to do it.

The person I was speaking about impresses me very well on the telephone, it could well be a telephone answering person in the Minister's office - not that I'm suggesting that he would have to do that but I'm saying that. I'd like to think, from this Minister, to be assured, that jobs are found for people once they are trained and when we have unemployment as we have that that is not an excuse for not finding jobs for these people. I would think that - what is the term, positive action, is that the term for creating a discrimination in favour of these people is justified.

I would like to know if the Minister agrees with me and assures me that's his objective or whether I'm too much of a dreamer in that respect. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to point out that the work activity projects are not work shelters such that might be a make-work type project could end up being. This is a program that trains and they move on, and we have an in and out sitution. We don't have all of a sudden, walk in 900 people and keep them there for three years, so that they're not a work shelter, they're sort of a training program.

I support the idea of assisting in trying to find these people jobs but I find it difficult to say that because we can't necessarily locate a job in the private enterprise for these individuals that the government should start to build up the employment of all people and that's a difference in philosophy; that's basically it.

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MR. CHERNI ACK: Except you're continuing to support them on their social allowances, aren't you? MR. MINAKER: Not unless they're disabled. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm talking about disabled people. MR. MINAKER: If the people are employable, which we're talking about, if the individual you were talking about before might be on a six-month type of probation and if it's found that individual isn't disabled and he is no longer on welfare. MR. CHERN IACK: Mr. Ch airman, the Minister misunderstands me. I am describing a person who I believe can work two hours a day.

I don't see how private enterprise would bother to employ a person who can work two hours a day. I'm describing a person who is physically incapable of putting in a full day's work. Therefore, it's a person who will always need support of some kind and therefore I 'm suggesting that if you're going to keep him on relief at least make use of his capability to work that two hours a day, maybe four days a week or three weeks a month or whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(d)(1) - pass; 5.(d)(2) - pass; 5.(d)(3) - pass; 5.(d)(4) - the Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: Mr.

Ch airman, the work activity projects, I notice in the Annual Report there were four last year, the four are still continuing this year, I assume. But I notice a paragraph in the report here which talks about the projects, although not primarily intended to create continued employment, have created spin-off employment and they indicate where they have, saying all the operations are employing former work activity participants.

I'm reading this and I'm remembering the decision by the former Minister and the government to discontinue a number of work activity projects, about 1978 I think it was, maybe 1979, I th ink it was 197 8, the argument being that the number who successfully got out of the program wasn't high enough to warrant the program continuing.

This is a program which is funded partially or cost shared by the Federal Government and I'm th inking of the program, I thin k it was Pioneer, which was a program operated in the 185 Smith Street, a senior citizen, elderly persons housing development - the cafeteria - and that was discontinued. Yet that was a perfect program from the point of view of using people who are disabled, they really couldn't keep up in a very highly competitive food dispensing facility but did an excellent job there, well liked by the residents and yet that was discontinued. Taking off on what the Member for St.

Johns was saying, it is a kind of sheltered or protective work environment, I won't call it shelter workshop but a protected work environment, which certain people can do. Simply by cutting them off, they end up going back on social allowances because they qualify under social allowances being disabled, whether totally or partially or what have you. They do become a drain on the provincial social allowances.

So I'm wondering whether the Minister is thinking of expanding or reactivating the work activity projects because in the Minister's own words here the former ones that had been discontinued, the spin-off from their graduates are still active and they're operating in different areas of the province. I'm thinking in Winnipeg, surely there could be room for more work activity projects to look after the kind of problems tha t the Member for St. John s mentioned and other kinds where they can work perhaps in a limited way in this kind of project and it's cost shared under

Part 3 of the Canada Assistance Plan. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, the particular work activity project the honourable member has mentioned I believe was discontinued prior to my responsibility of the department. My understanding the reason was that it had started to become a work shelter area that the people who were being trained were not moving through. One of the criteria that the Federal Government funds the program under is the fact that it is a work training program rather than a work shelter.

The other situation was I understand that it was providing a restaurant for the MHRC facility there which is good, but it was not basically the intention of the program just to provide say a restaurant service as a work shelter for disabled people. I understand that was one of the reasons why it was discontinued.

In terms of expanding the work activity projects if the honourable member recalls in my opening statements that we are opening one up and will be opening up one in Gimli this year because there is a basic work base there that we can train and assist and know that it can last for a period of time with the pass through type of program that is required. The other programs I understand were transferred to new locations. The one from Amaranth was transferred to Portage la Prairie because of the problem of having new people come into the program.

Similarly I understand tha t it was transferred to Dauphin for the same reason but the programs in those locations will be contined. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister saying that the work activity project at 185 Smith Street was discontinued at the request of the Federal Government or was it a decision by the Provincial Government? MR. MINAKER: My understanding was it was the decision of the Provincial Government. MR. MILLER: So, Mr.

Chairman, to say that it was discontinued because it didn 't conform with the requirements of the fede ral cost sharing plan therefore isn't quite correct. lt was discontinued because this government wanted to discontinue it and I say to the Minister, so long as there is cost sharing it didn't cost any more than having these people on welfare, as a matter of fact it may have cost less. They were providing a service and are providing a service in enriching a senior citizen home facility, making it possible for the elderly to have meals at a very low cost.

Even though you might classify it as a sheltered workshop, the mere fact that the funding was there and was being used and even though the re may not have been a high percentage of graduates, some were going through and getting into the workforce. lt may only be 10 2192

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 percent but still this 10 percent is better than no percent and I'm wondering whether the Minister, would start that one again - I know he didn't do it, it was done by the former Minister - whether to launch that one again or launch new ones in Winnipeg. I know there is one being planned in Gimli but Winnip eg is the largest centre in Manitoba and there is only one in Winnipeg and that is the WHIP project which is a certain kind of activity, you know, not everybody can do it and I can't see any women in that program, so, it's limited.

You have to be of a certain physical ability to operate in the WHIP program. I'm thinking of other kinds of programs which you may call sheltered but they do make available work experience and even though they don't graduate as many as you would like they nonetheless don't cost any more and meanwhile these people are actively employed in something instead of just sitting home and contemplating their navel. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(d)(4) - pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $37,905,700 for Community Services and Corrections - pass. 6.(a)(1) - the Member for St. Johns. MR.

CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the north area what is the geographical boundaries of that area? While we're waiting, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to be able to report on the reason why he was unable to obta in better temporary quarters than the cellar of 600 Main Street; when the new premises will be ready and why he has located them where he has in comparison with what might be more preferable locations? So can we start with the problem that was created by the fire, the efforts made to cope with it and the geographic boundaries of that area and what they are expected to be? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chai rman, the reason we located in the basement where we did and are presently located was to make sure we didn't interupt service to that area in the city and I have to commend the staff for living under the circumstances that they have for the past few months until we found a new location for them. With regard to the new location I've been advised that the staff worked with Government Services to try and locate a facility that was close to bus routes and they could walk in off the street and other criterion and came forward with that particular recommendation for that location. MR.

CHERN IACK: What are the geographic boundaries of that district? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that we don't specifically tie down the boundaries. it's anything west of a certain street or east but it generally covers the complete north end of the city, east, west and north of generally the Portage and Main Street Area. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I want to be kind to the Minister; it can't be. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, the reason, this depends a lot on bus routes and what you, the 2193 convenience of the person getting to that particular location. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, as I visualize the district, vague as it is, they have picked the north east corner of the district. The Member for Seven Oaks will know better than I but I don't think there are more than about four blocks that go beyond the new location; eight to nine blocks that go north of the new location. There won't be more than about three blocks that go east of that location and there must be miles, I don't know, maybe two miles going west. Four miles, the Member for Seven Oaks says, and I would say two or three miles south. Mr. Chairman, the buses, even at 60 cents a crack now, don't all go there.

You know, many buses that go north on Main Street turn off before they get to, is it Belmont? -( Interjection)- Yes, Jefferson, so it turns off before they get to Belmont. There are buses that turn off at Selkirk, at Mountain, at I guess Jefferson. There are not very many buses that do go north to that location. Now buses that come from the west end, which is the biggest and the furthest distance, are buses which, I believe, force a transfer because I think all the buses going east from the west end will turn south on Main Street. Mr.

Chairman, the impression I have is that this is a very poor location, that a location on Salter or McGregor or even Arlington might be more suitable from the east-west standpoint. Then I would say a bus somewhere around Cathedral or further south on Cathedral would be more logical for the north-south area and therefore I must be very critical of this location. Now, I'd like to know why this is the best location available bearing in mind the fact that I pass very frequently an abandoned bank building which nobody can say is a poor building with a very large parking lot, on the corner of Bannerman and Main Street.

Then there are poorer buildings I'm aware of further south on Main Street; Dufferin and Main is one that stands out. lt may be in very poor shape but it's there, better than a basement and I cannot say for certain but I would think that on one of these streets west of Main Street there could be places. Now if you tell me this is a temporary short-term lease and we're going to find something or build something, you know, it's only a closed mind that is not prepared to invest in what will be a permanent department. There is no doubt there is always going to be need. I even recall, Mr.

Chairman, and I hope this is not reported to my constituents around the Champlain School that there have been efforts to close the Champlain School which is probably in a much better location for this area than what is now recommended. There may be other schools that are planned to be closed. Mr.

Chairman, I want to challenge the Minister to justify this location which I think is terrible and I might also venture a guess that your clients do not live within walking distance at all, that that is an area that is pretty well self-supporting, I'm thinking, and that the people you service would not be around that area at all. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the people in the north end of Winnipeg are very fortunate when it comes to location of income security offices because we only have three in Winnip eg. One is located at, I think it's 880 Portage

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 Avenue, which serves Fort Garry, it serves St. Boniface, it serves St. James. We have one at 600 Main Street, which serves a central part of the city and this new one which was originally at 956 Main Street is moving some 800 numbers north onto 1790 Main Street. So in actual fact the north end of Winnipeg has coverage pretty well I would suggest as compared to other parts of the city, so that the location in my opinion will be permanent as long as the lease is signed for. MR. CHERNIACK: For how long is the lease? What is the size of the location? Can you identify if by memory?

I'm not sure what its use has been up to now. MR. MINAKER: The only other thing I would add is that 600 Main Street, we moved into that basement because it was empty. We did not want to discontinue service to those particular clients and for that reason we located there as a service really, not to discontinue the service, and the best location we could find was 1790 Main Street and as I say that, I believe that particular part of the city is well covered compared to other parts of the city. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, in the first place I am reminded in my mind of a building that has been newly refurbished which is a former bank building which is probably the Pacific or Alexander on the corner on Main Street. lt used to be a bank building which is I think either half a block or a block and-a half which would be and is vacant. I' ve seen it frequently; it's been completely refurbished. I should think that would have been an ideal place if you wanted to continue service because it's right close by. Mr.

Chairman, it is a pretty bad indication of the services being provided by this department if he says that the north-east corner of the north end is a very fortunate location. I know that the geographic area of the city is not necessarily representative of the - would you call it a catchment area or an area where your clients are - but we know, Mr. Chairman, you know, Mr. Minister, that most of the people probably come from the centre core as it spreads out; 600 Main is probably very close to the centre of the people you serve.

I would think that if you talk about Fort Garry, you don't really mean it because I don't think you have very many people from Fort Garry whom you serve. I don't believe that St. James is in that much need or Assiniboia and I think that it is a red herring to try to suggest that the poor people of Fort Garry have to go all the way to, what is it, 800 Portage Avenue, which is probably somewhere around this side, east of Sherbrook -(l nterjection) Oh, Arlington, yes. I just don't believe you have many people from Fort Garry going to Portage and Arlington or 600 Main.

I think that your map of the people you serve is quite different from the map of the City of Winnipeg and therefore, picture for a minute if you will, the people on the east side of the river that the Member for St. Boniface would like to talk about. They have quite a trip to go. Of course if they are in St. Boniface they can probably go down to Arlington and Portage or 600 Main which is not easy but they can do it.

But think of people in East Kildonan or Old Kildonan -( Interjection)- North Kildonan I mean, 2194 who have to come all the way down to Redwood Bridge and hope that it's working and then go all the way north again for about the same distance. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a terrible location and I don't know why you chose it. The Member for Seven Oaks said it's a new building. Was it built on speculation?

Well, maybe it's the best deal you could get on a per-square-foot basis but certainly, as far as location is concerned, it's awful, and therefore I'd like to know what the term of the lease is and whether the lease could be that length of time which would amortize the recapture of the investment in the building, and if it is, then I would really be very critical of that, so can you inform us as to the length of the lease, the term of the lease? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, first off, I've been advised by the Executive Director of Income Security that the Director of Income Security for that office, the former office at 956, looked at several locations tha t were located by the Government Services Department and they selected this one as the one that they preferred and thought was satisfactory. With regard to the lease and the space, I understand it's about 4,000 square feet. I will have to get that information from the Minister of Government Services with regard to the termination of the lease. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, you don't know the . MR.

MINAKER: I don't have it right now. MR. CHERNIACK: If the the Minister doesn't know the term, he doesn't know how permanent it's going to be, but I'm guessing that if it is a new building, it would be a long-term lease and then I would like to look at the economics of it to find out whether it wouldn't have been more sensible to build your own building, or if you want to subsidize, somebody else building it. The location, I have to assure the Minister that although the Director selected it out of several others, I'd like to challenge him to tell us what the other ones are so we could have an idea. Mr.

Chairman, there are three of us who live in that general district and who have a pretty good idea of what it's like. I don't know who the Director is, so I don't want to make any comments about the competence of the Director in deciding which a good location, but I do believe that you have not satisfied my question. There are lots of vacant lots in north Winnipeg, but there are also vacant buildings in north Winnipeg and this may be very nice from the standpoint of cleanliness, light and maybe air conditioning.

There may be all sorts of nice reasons that the building is nice, but I assure you the location is rotten. The building may be nice and maybe it's a nice place to work, and again I don't want to cast any unfair comments about the objective of the person who selected it, but it may be that if I had to decide where I wanted to work, I might have a different attitude than if I decided where I wanted to serve my, again, catchment area. I really would ask the Minister, please let us know what are the choices that were offered to be viewed? What is the term of the lease? What is the rental payable?

I think that it would have been possible to find a better location. So will the Minister oblige with that kind of information? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I will try and get that information as to other possible locations that they

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 looked at. As I said the staff felt that was the best location and I didn't realize it when the Honourable Member for St. Johns said he was retiring after the next election, he would be concerned where the location of the Income Security Office would be located at the north-end. Obviously in the opinion of the Member for St. Johns he thinks it is not a good location,

whereas some other people do. it's a good thing I said it with tongue-in-cheek. MR. CHERNIACK: I have to tell the Minister that I am sure that when his time comes and I hope it will be soon in the proper . . . MR. MINAKER: I hope not. MR. CHERNIACK: . . . democratic process, but whenever it comes, I'm sure his interest for the people he serves will continue long after he leaves. I'd know and I accept the way he said what he did, but I really have to say that there is a terrible tug-of war in the minds of a person whether you choose to work where it's nice to work or where it's good for your people to work.

The Member for Seven Oaks just tossed out his agreement with me as to location and I will follow this up with the Minister's co-operation, which I need, of course, and that is the other choices that were, the prices, the size, the length of term of the lease, in order to see whether it is being subsidized. I marvel that you could get a new building that easily, that somebody built a building and there it was sitting and waiting for you. Apparently it was a speculative building that didn't work out. Maybe it's a cheap deal, Mr. Chairman, we'll find out.

As a say, I want to pursue it further because I think it's my obligation so to do and that of the other members whose constituencies are being served by it, and I need the Minister's co-operation to get that information in the fullest sense and quickly enough for me to be able to follow it up. If I put in an Order for Return, maybe only God knows how long it will take to get an answer, so I will expect the Minister to give assistance. MR. MINAKER: I will request the information from the Minister of Government Services. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a)(1) - pass; 6.(a)(2) - pass; 6.(b)(1) - the Member for Seven Oaks. MR.

MILLER: Well, yes, keep going. I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(b)(1) - pass; 6.(b)(2) - the Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: Is there an amount in here to reflect the increase which will take place annually, if it takes place annually, and took place January 1st of '81? MR. MINAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we've got 10 percent increase for fixed rates for food, clothing, personal household and board and room items. In addition, we have a 12.5 percent increase in variable costs for utilities, shelter and heating. The next question I know what it is, do you want me to give you the answer? MR.

MILLER: Let's hear the answer, go ahead. 2195 MR. MINAKER: The next question would be is why is there less money this year than last year? What has happened . . . MR. MILLER: The next question is how much did you underexpend last year? MR. MINAKER: Yes, the next, which is one of the first items we've . . . We have underexpended approximately $5 million, I think it's $5,420,000 to be exact. lt was lack of anticipated roll on; a number of things, warm winter and hydro rate freeze and maintenance support revenues that we are now getting with the computerized program. MR. MILLER: What kind of hydro rate freeze? MR.

MINAKER: Well, utilities have been frozen for the last two years. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Burrows is the next one on the list. MR. MINAKER: That's the answer I guess, unless you want further. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Member for Seven Oaks finished now? All right. The Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, all right, so there's an amount in here to reflect an increase when it takes place at the end of year. MR. MINAKER: That's anticipated by the way of approximately $7 million, $7,000,061 those rate increases. We've got also in that figure a 2 percent increase in the Disabled category. MR.

MILLER: That's assuming that the cost of living will co-operate by not rising beyond the percentage estimated in these figures. I suppose if the cost of living rises as it has in the last 12 months - certainly the last few months have indicated well above 10 percent that will be taken into account, and that you won't be simply giving an increase of 10 percent when in fact it should be 11 or 11.5. I mean that depends on our rate of inflation. MR. MINAKER: I think, Mr.

Chairman, recognizing that in most cases we pay actual rent, actual heating and actual utilities, that as they go up, which reflect part of the cost-of-living increase, that in actual fact it's higher than 10 percent and is more like 11.5 to 12 percent. MR. MILLER: I'm thinking in terms of food, where it appears that the actual and the projected increases in inflation indicate that 1981 is going to see some very substantial inflation in the cost of food, far beyond the 10 percent that the Minister mentions.

I'm remembering that it's about three years ago, the Social Allowances were not adjusted because the Minister at that time said, sorry, he's run out of funds and he had to postpone the adjustment because he had to pay a higher rental, etc., etc., and therefore there wasn't the funds in the Estimates. That was in 1978, I think it was, so I mean with that in mind I ask this question, that if in fact the cost of food and these other items that come into the

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 calculation go beyond the 10 percent which the Ministers allowed for, is he prepared to state that he would not simply say, well, I've got 10 percent and that's the end of it, I'm not going beyond that. MR. MINAKER: If what the honourable member says does in fact take place, we would obviously have to review the situation if things got completely out of hand. MR. MILLER: The other question is, the CRISP Program, the Child Related Support Program, where people qualify for that to the extent that they are paid under that program, would that decrease the drain or the draw on this program?

MR. MINAKER: Yes, we anticipate because we've made it optional for people on welfare if they want to take it up or not, we have anticipated that it should reduce the welfare by approximately $3.5 million. (Interjection)- No, it's a transfer, that's what I'm saying; we had originally anticipated it would be higher but the fact we made it optional and not mandatory to people on welfare. You can't make any program mandatory in our opinion if people, you know, applied for it. That's the reason why it's reduced. MR.

MILLER: So that's the reason. lt isn't that there's been a drop in the caseload or anything of that nature. lt's simply the caseload is the same as before, but it's simply a transfer to another appropriation. MR. MINAKER: underexpenditure. Yes, in the $5 million MR. MILLER: And the $5 million underexpenditure accounts for it. Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Burrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Chairman, I have a number of questions which I would like to the Minister relating to Social Allowance Programs and not so much with respect to the payment of allowance, but rather to the collection of Social Allowance payments. This follows up on the comments which I had made to the Minister yesterday. Now I know that the Minister assured me that he will look into the particular case that I had made reference to. I've provided his Deputy with the details of it, but I believe, Mr.

Chairman, that there are a couple of matters of principle that are involved here that really should be discussed and should be resolved. My first question to the Minister is: When the Minister makes payments to a welfare recipient because of the neglect or failure of another person to comply with any law or order, and this refers to the case of a sponsor of an immigrant, when does the sponsor, that is the person who allegedly has failed or neglected to make payments, when does he or she receive notice of the fact that the Minister is making payments on that individual's behalf? MR.

ENNS: Ben, I don't these kind of questions are in order ... MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, while I wait for an answer, I wonder if the Member for Lakeside would care to pair with me and we can both leave and then the committee would do better with our absence. How about it? MR. ENNS: You first. MR. CHERN IACK: (Interjections) There's a challenge. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, my understanding is that where a sponsor sponsors someone and they fail to support them after they've brought them into Canada, when we pay the payments to the person that's been sponsored, we lien the property of the person who had sponsored them for life. Unless something happens to that particular sponsor, that they either become unemployed or disabled or some situation, then we would not lien that property, but it's the same as with a man and wife. If the wife separates from a man and requires welfare, then we lien the husband's property, per se, and only I might say, Mr.

Chairman, for the length of the sponsorship agreement. MR. HANUSCHAK: No, Mr. Chairman, that was not my question. My question was, at what point is the sponsor notified of the fact that this is going to happen, when the Minister sends out the first welfare cheque or the second? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, on the second welfare payment. MR. HANUSCHAK: Is there an opportunity given for the sponsor to state his case? MR. MINAKER: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. MR. HANUSCHAK: Is there provision for that within the Act? MR. MINAKER: My understanding is that they can go to the Welfare Appeal Board. MR. HANUSCHAK: Well, Mr.

Chairman, in that event, I would ask the Minister if he would undertake to review the existing legislation and regulations related to it, as it relates to this particular matter too, and to assure the people of Manitoba that in cases where the Minister of Community Services will have to undertake the responsibility of providing for an immigrant, who was sponsored by someone, to make certain that the legislation and the regulations and the procedures followed by the department are such to give the sponsor sufficient notice, to give the sponsor sufficient opportunity to present his case before a lien is slapped against that person's property, because it's a continuing lien.

Each month it grows larger and larger. I think the sponsor should have an opportunity to defend himself. Now the Minister said in his own words, that where the sponsor has failed to provide support, but as I've indicated to the Minister yesterday, using two examples, the one that was brought to me specifically, and the other of which I have some indirect knowledge, that there might be cases where immigrants become a charge on the public purse 2196

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 through no fault of the sponsor, through no failure or neglect on the part of the sponsor. That is the part that I believe, Mr. Chairman, is the unfair part of it. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, the example that I gave yesterday, where the sponsor sponsored a husband and wife. They came to Canada. The sponsor did what she had to do to assist them in settling in Canada. Then through no fault of the sponsor, the wife left the husband and the wife subsequently became a charge of the public purse. Now, really, Mr.

Chairman, I fail to see how, in cases of that kind, one could hold the sponsor responsible for the maintenance of that individual. She agreed to bring a husband and wife, a family unit, into the country, with the hope and the assumption that they would continue living together as a family unit and that one would support the other. Like I said, the Minister himself had said, that where there's failure or neglect on the part of the sponsor to provide maintenance, but I suggest to the Minister that there are cases where there has been no failure or neglect on the part of the sponsor to provide maintenance.

That is what I feel is the unfair part of it. That's one aspect that I would like the Minister to review. The other is making the sponsor responsible for lifelong support of the immigrant. Now I can appreciate the example that the Minister gave yesterday, where an individual sponsors the immigration of his aged parents, and he knows that the people are well up in years and for a whole host of reasons, age, education. training or lack of same, might be unable to find employment and might be unable to become self-sufficient.

So I can appreciate the fact that sponsor should realize that the maintenance and support of those immigrants will become that person's responsibility. But if one sponsors someone capable of finding employment, and who in fact, does find employment, then I do make a distinction in that case. I think that there should be a point in time where the responsibility of the sponsor should cease. That's point number one. Point number two, Mr. Chairman, what I think is even more reprehensible is the fact that the Minister sort of takes an assignment of an agreement made by a sponsor with the Department of Immigration.

With the Department of Immigration, the sponsor made certain commitments, certain undertakings for a certain specific period of time, a maximum period of time. In the case of sponsoring relatives, it's five years. Then of course, I appreciate the fact that within the agreement that the sponsor signs with the Department of Immigration, the sponsor is made to understand that the Minister of Immigration may assign his interest in that particular undertaking - I haven't got my glasses with me. Mr.

Chairman, so I won't read all of it - but I had explained this to the Minister yesterday, that -( Interjection)- Yes, yes, the Minister may assign his interest in this undertaking to Her Majesty and the right of any province in which a named immigrant or immigrants reside or resided during the settlement period. So the sponsor would naturally assume that what's being assigned to the province is the agreement which the sponsor signed, and the agreement which the sponsor signed was for five years.

Then once this agreement is assigned to the Minister and the Minister finds himself in a situation where he has to 2197 enforce it, then the Minister of Manitoba responsible for the enforcement of this contract says that the sponsor now becomes liable for life. MR. MINAKER: No. No, Mr. Chairman, maybe if I correct the honourable member just on the one point there, it might ease his mind on one item anyway. We only lien the sponsor for the length of the sponsorship's responsibility.

If it's five years, which in the case of the one that he described, it was, it was only liened for five years and after that it was discontinued, the liening. I understand that the City of Winnipeg also liened the property, and I understand that the lien on the property from the City of Winnipeg was paid off. But in actual fact, we never lien any longer than what the sponsorship 's agreement was for. Also that the sponsor has the same opportunity as anybody else that wants to appeal any decision of the Executive Director of Income Security through the proper channels which are in the Act. MR.

HANUSCHAK: This is very interesting, because I certainly did not understand the Minister to say that yesterday. Now, I want to make certain that I understand this. The lifetime of the lien is only for the lifetime of the period of sponsorship, is that right? MR. MINAKER: No.

What I'm saying is if we had an immigrant who came and was sponsored and the sponsor had agreed with the Federal Government that they would sponsor that person for five years, and say after a year they didn't live up to their commitment, and the person had to come on our welfare rolls, then we would lien them for four years, but once that legal document that they have signed, the five-year commitment was up, we would no longer lien that property, but we would continue to pay payments to the immigrant, but the lien isn't lifted off that property, it still stays on. MR. HANUSCHAK: The original lien still remains?

MR. MINAKER: Until it's paid. For only that amount, though, for the four years. MR. HANUSCHAK: I appreciate that. Now, could the Minister outline to me the procedure that the department follows in imposing a lien of that kind? MR. MINAKER: My understanding is that when the first payment is given to the person who is being sponsored, the person who sponsored the immigrant is notified that we are making payments to this individual, and that their property will be liened accordingly. I understand the City of Winnipeg has the same policy, Mr. Chairman.

Then the person has the opportunity to, I would imagine, come to the Director and declare that is not fair. They then can go to the Appeal Board to deal with it at that point, then go one step further and go to the courts, if they wish, to appeal the decision of the Appeal Board. MR. HANUSCHAK: Now the Minister imagines that the sponsor could do that. Is the sponsor told by the department that he has this right of appeal to the Appeal Board?

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MR. MINAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. HANUSCHAK: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(bX1) - pass; 6.(bX2) - pass; 6.(b)(3) - pass - the Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, on the 6.(b)(3). Is the policy continuing to have each municipality determine its own rates for municipal assistance, or is there any further talk about uniformity across the province? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, we still allow each municipality to set its own rates, and at the present time we aren't looking towards uniformity across the province.

We feel that the CRISP Program will have some effect, we believe, on reducing to some degree the amount of moneys that municipalities will be involved in in the welfare payments. Again, it's up to the municipality if they wish to decide whether they will count CRISP as an income. I see. in reading the newspaper, that the City of Winnipeg chose to look at it as revenue rather than non-revenue. MR. MILLER: The Minister is saying that, to the extent that someone gets CRISP money, their welfare will be cut accordingly. MR. MINAKER: That will be the decision of the individual municipality.

The only one I know that is taking the policy that it would be counted as income, is the City of Winnipeg to date. MR. MILLER: Then the city's decision makes sense though, because in a sense the province is doing the same thing. They're taking people off the Social Allowance Program and putting them on the CRISP Program. They're not getting any more money, they're just moving to another category. The other question I have is, the recoverable amount from Canada, the $4 1 .9 million which represents over 50 pecent of this figure, how is that possible? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, I've been advised that some of that is 100 percent recovery from Treaty Indian payments that we make, and Canada recognizes it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: I have a question on that. Are you losing out on this, under CRISP? If they were getting the $30, the child they're under welfare, you get part of that from Canada. Now under CRISP, do you get that? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, we notified the Federal Government of our program and we've not had a reply back to date on it. (Interjection)- lt would represent a half of $1 7 million, which we have -(I nterjection)- I mean half of $3.5 million, my apologies. Right. MR.

DESJARDINS: . . . it might be that these people should not qualify. lt might be worth it to get them back on welfare. lt's okay to say look at our welfare roll is going and look at how much money we're spending on new programs, but that could cost you a lot of money. 1t could cost the people of Manitoba more money, and Mmybe you should have a real good look and really press Canada to pay it. Is there any indication that they might, or you haven't heard anything, no commitment so far? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, we have had no commitment so far, but we understand that the Saskatchewan Program was accepted favourably. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(bX3) - pass. Committee rise. SUPPL V - ENERGY AND MINES MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): Committee will come to order. I would direct the honourable members' attention to Page 54 of the Main Estimates, Department of Energy and Mines, Resolution No. 58, Clause 2. Energy (

a) Energy Management (1 ) Salaries - pass - the Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister gave us some information on the number of SMYs in the different branches and I understand under 2.(

a) Energy Management there are 10 SMYs, and then I note that there are seven under (

b) Conservation and Renewable Energy, 11 under the Canada-Manitoba Energy Agreement and three under the Bus Agreement. I can't help but think that this, from my recollection, is quite a large increase in the number of staff. Now it may not be as of last year but as of I would think two or three years ago that we've seen quite an enlargement of the staff involved in this area of the department. As I look at the titles and so on, it seems to me that there's some element of repetition in the functions under these different headings, particularly the item we're looking at specifically, Energy Management.

The description of that function in many, many ways, you would think, could very well fit under the Manitoba Energy Authority which we discussed the other night. In other words, one wonders why there seems to be bifurcation of function in the department here. I know you can organize the department in many different ways; there's more than one way to skin a cat and there's more than one way to cut up the pie, etc.

There's no one best way, I suppose, but I think one should endeavour to eliminate duplication of functions. lt seems to me that as one quickly reads over this that there is some, what looks to be, like overlapping, unless perhaps we're not as familiar as the Minister and his Deputy with the organizational patterns.

Why for example and I'd like to ask the Minister this very specific question, why could not this function of Energy Management be lumped in with the Manitoba Energy Authority, appreciating the fact that the Energy Authority has the responsibility, I believe, for negotiating export sales by Manitoba Hydro and so on, I realize that. But why couldn't you put Energy Management for example with Manitoba Energy Authority? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (R iel): I guess, Mr. Chairman, the answer is that there is in fact quite a 2198

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 bit of overlap as it stands now. The Energy Authority is designed to be the group that works with supply side and as a result there has to be some sort of overlap with the planning on the Energy Management side and this group has been pretty much occupied in things like the National Energy Board hearings and the reports, historical supply demand and projections into the future and so on that you would expect the Energy Authority to be involved in. So there is without question a fair degree of overlap.

However I have to point out that the Energy Authority · at this point and time does not have a staff to draw on for this purpose and this group has been providing that staff requirement for the purposes of the Energy Authority. Whether it'll be a year from now, of course, remains an open question, but at the present time the Energy Management Group personnel does provide the staff requirement for the energy authority. MR. EVANS: I was wondering in looking at the organizational chart given to us by the Minister where the Information Branch would be located. Would it be under Energy Management?

Also where would the Energy Economics Branch fit? You can't just easily reconcile these blocks with what we've got here and I'm just trying to find out where we would discuss for instance the work of the Economics Branch. Specifically, where would the Information Branch go as outlined in the chart here plus the Economics Branch? I can see Conservation and Renewable Energy in the Estimates Book here, and would presume it's a counterpart to this block, and I see the Energy Council up above but I don't see any ... I presume that the (

a) Energy Management includes the Information Branch and the Economics Branch. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, it's in the next item, Item 2.(b). MR. EVANS: I'm not sure whether the Minister understood my question, but at any rate let me recheck what I thought he told me - that the Energy Economics Branch plus the Energy Information Branch are under (

b) not (a). MR. CRAIK: The Information Branch is under (b). MR. EVANS: The Information is under (b), but the Economics Branch is under (a). At any rate, and I see the Secretary of the Manitoba Energy Council is down in the Energy Division although the Council is up above and I presume the differentiation here in the chart is that the Council is a citizen council, some sort of an advisory body, although I note that you have an Advisory Committee to the Council. At any rate, my general observation is that ...

I don't want to be overly critical in terms of the staffing - but it seems to me that compared to at least two years ago, I think, maybe not with last year, but according to my recollection of two years ago, maybe of three years ago, but it seems that there's been quite a large increase in the staffing, in the Energy portion of this department.

I recall when the New Democratic Party was in government and we had a Manitoba Energy Council made up of five or six senior government officials involved in this area, such as the Deputy-Minister of Mines, such as the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro and so on, with the Minister as chairman and we had a very relatively small staff four people, maybe five, I'm not sure. At least it seemed to me that we had a relatively small group and what I see now is 10 here, 7 there, 11 over here and it seems to me that there has been a very substantial proliferation.

Percentagewise I know we're dealing with small numbers so maybe it's not fair to talk about percentage increases but there has been, I think the Minister will have to admit, some fair increase considering what existed before. As I said, I don't want to be overly critical about this but I just want us to recognize that we have added considerable staff in this area which is I think contrary to what we've seen in a lot of other departments where there have been cutbacks but if I'm wrong or if I misunderstand, maybe the Minister can enlighten us.

Perhaps he's got SMYs from some other branch of some other department that have been moved in or what have you, I don't know, but it seems to me unless the Minister can advise otherwise that there has been quite a large increase in the staffing in this area. MR. CRAIK: I think, Mr. Chairman, it's fair to say that the only really significant increase has been in the cost shared agreements area. As I indicated the total increase indicated by the Estimates are five over last year.

But if you want to go back years before, the increase, I don't have the exact numbers but there were about seven SMYs, I think, involved at the time in the Energy Council. But either out of the Energy Council or the accumulation from the planning priorities and with the change in structure that occurred three years ago, there were I think about seven positions in total resulted in the Energy field. Most of the additions have been really in the item that follows next in the Canada-Manitoba Energy Agreement. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR.

EVANS: Yes, the title of this section, Energy Management, intrigues me. I'm just not sure how one manages energy in our society. I understand by this that the Minister is talking about research into the supply in energy and of course the only supply that we have, apart from a very minor amount of oil, is hydro-electricity, but for the life of me I don't understand just how one manages energy. I can understand the next area where we talked about promoting conservation and looking into new energy sources by mass and so on, other renewable energy sources, that which is in the next section.

But just what does staff do to manage energy? Energy management at first blush sounds like control of demand but I gather from earlier remarks of the Minister that it's really on the supply side. But any any rate I wonder if he could explain, what do we mean by energy management? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, it's simply a broad enough term to catch a number of the responsibilities of that group and as I indicated this afternoon in a fairly wide-ranging discussion that a lot of the work has been involved in the National Energy Board presentations and I can tell you some of the topics that have been covered.

There was the 2199

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 Quebec Maritime, the Q and M Pipeline Hearings of the National Energy Board. Manitoba had a fairly long and lengthy presentation made in that debate or in that presentation before the NEB, there was the Trans-Canada Pipeline Facilities Hearing and the Trans-Canada Pipeline Rate Hearing and then the Omnibus Supply Demand Hearings and then finally, the most recent one, the Trans-Quebec and Maritime Pipeline Construction Application. So that's the type of thing that is involved.

This group also with the Economics people that are involved in it have been involved in the other direct projects of the government, the Alcan, ManFor, Heavy Oil Upgrading, Hydrogen Utilization and so on, studies that have been going on. Mixed in with that all the reports that have gone on; the Manitoba Hydro, the Western Power Grid, all of these things come out of this particular section. Whether or not there is a better name than "management", is open to suggestion but that's what is applied by energy management. MR.

EVANS: Yes, as a matter of fact, it seems to me that the organizational chart that the Minister handed out makes more sense than the way the material is outlined here to us in the Estimates. You know, one can buy, sort of an economics branch, an information branch, renewable energy branch and so on but energy management sounds very very powerful. I have two areas of questions: Number one, what are the qualifications of the professional people?

In other words, particularly if you're getting into the so called Western Grid or the interconnection, the electricity interconnection that has been discussed, do you have electrical engineers on staff? I don't mean the detailed qualifications but what are the professional backgrounds of the professional people in that division? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether to laugh or cry on that one, as the Minister of Finance says, but they are all economists. MR. EVANS: I don't want to knock economists but it would seem to me, Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister is using this division or branch, whatever it's called, to provide backup to the Manitoba Energy Authority which has the resp onsibilit y for marketing of electrical energy that you would think it would include one or two, at least, electrical engineers or some people who have that kind of expertise as well, because as the Minister told us, the Manitoba Energy Authority as it is now constituted is only person; that's all, one person.

Perhaps that person is an electrical engineer, I'm not sure and that that is adequate but it seems to me that it's unusual to have all economists in there although I see in the chart it's called an Energy Economics Branch, but no less, it doesn't matter, there's still room for some people in the engineering field. Another question I have is, what is the overall riding purpose or function of the department, of the government, being invvolved in all of these hearings?

Supply and demand, these comprehensive hearings of supply and demand I can see, but Trans-Canada Pipeline Hearings, the pipeline to the Maritimes and so on, I perhaps can guess and imagine what the purpose may be but I wonder if the Minister could elaborate on that. Why are we spending money, why are we using staff man years to engage in all of these areas that at least on the surface don't seem to have a direct bear ing on the Province of Manitoba? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have to say that they do have a direct bearing on the Province of Manitoba.

Maybe the best way to answer it is to provide the Member for Brandon East with the briefs and presentations that have been made to the NEB and so he can get a complete picture of what has been done by the province in this regard. Certainly they haven't received a lot of public comment or a lot of public attention but for someone like himself who takes an interest in these things I'm sure that he might find it valuable to have them available to him and I'll see that he gets copies of the NEB presentations and so on so he can have a look at them. MR.

EVANS: I thank the Minister for that offer and I'll be very happy to see these reports when they're made available. I would imagine the overall purpose of course is to protect the position of the Province of Manitoba. In other words, we don't want rates set on any particular portion of let's say of a gas line that will penalize consumers in Manitoba. In other words, I presume we don't want Manitoba consumers to pay for the cost of an Eastern Canadian gas line for example. I would imagine those are the sort of things that staff are doing.

In other words, they're there to protect the interests of the consumers because we're dealing with a utility type of industry with pipelines and pipe distribution systems and there is such a thing as sharing of costs and allocation of costs and so on. Specifically, I wanted to ask the Minister - one is an adminitrative question, then I have another on policy. The first one is: What about legal counsel? Many of these board hearings are of a quasi-judicial nature. Where do we pay? Do we retain legal counsel or do we use our own staff to make presentations? If we pay legal counsel is that under this item here?

Is that where we pay them, under Energy Management? MR. CRAIK: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legal requirements here we've used the Attorney-General's office entirely and so it's been entirely government staff so I'm happy to report that the costs from that part of it show up under the Attorney-General's Budget rather than here. MR. EVANS: The other question is a policy matter and that is the question of the utilization of natural gas produced in Canada. We are fortunately in this country blessed with large amounts of natural gas.

We've discovered more I guess as a by-product of looking for petroleum, looking for oil and there seems to be ample reserves, potential reserves in the high Arctic and I think that by and large one can say that we do have ample supplies from our point of view now of natural gas, so much so that one way to help alleviate the demand for offshore oil and to become more independent in oil of course is to substitute natural gas for oil wherever we can within the country. However, the Federal Government has permitted a certain amount of natural gas to be exported to the 2200

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 United States and I know there are many producers in Alberta who have a great interest in exporting even more because if they can export more, presumably their net revenue increases and they make more profit which, and I'm not faulting them for that, that's the name of the game. But I recall some years back where we had something of a crisis, a minor crisis if you like in the City of Winnipeg because there wasn't enough additional gas available. I think it had an inhibiting effect at the time on the matter of supplying natural gas to new sub-divisions in the City of Winnipeg. We became at that time, I recall, Mr. Chairma

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-46b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 46b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	729e3c654656f8a83cfb216b0775ad90dc9dfcbd

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