Manitoba Hansard — 22 July 1991 (Sitting 90B, 35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-90b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature ofthe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honoursble Denis c. Rocan Spes/cer VOL XL No. 908 • 8 p.m., MONDAY, JULY 22, 1991 Printed by the omce of the a-s Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature LIB - Liberal; NO - New Democrat; PC - Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRElT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Gu izar CHOM IAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold , Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

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

LIB NO NO LIB LIB NO LIB NO PC PC PC PC NO ND PC PC PC LIB PC PC NO NO PC PC NO LIB PC ND PC NO LIB ND PC NO PC NO PC PC PC PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC ND PC NO PC PC NO NO

5015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, July 22, 1991 The House met at 8 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY-FAMILY SERVICES The Acting Chairman (Jack Reimer): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This evening the section. of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the comm ittee last sat, we had been considering item 1. (

b) Executive Support: (1 ) Salaries $379,300, on page 57 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Acting Chairman, I would just like to pick up from where we left off at six o'clock. On the information that the department used to determi ne the cost levels that were eventually accepted as the guideline upon which the funding changes were made, I believe the minister said that the working group had provided detailed castings of the cost of operations. Yet that seems to be at variance with the understanding of the information that was worked on by the working group.

I am wondering if the minister could just clarify that. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Acting Chairman, I said that the figures arrived at on the daily cost of care and the annual cost of care were figures that the department worked out, and some of the input into that decision making was information that was brought forward by the working group. Given that information and other information that the child care office has, based on their experience with the system and with the subsidies and the grants and the costs involved, they determined what is called a daily cost of care.

On that basis we have factored in the government grant, the optional fee, the parent fee, and have from that shown and discussed with centres and homes how they access that daily cost of care. In some cases it will be by subsidy, and in other cases along with the government grant. In other cases where the family is accessing the daycare, because of family income, they are required to pay a portion of that in the parent fee. So this was part of the exercise that was involved with the study of daycare and the information brought forward by the various groups and compiled by the department.

As a result, we now have some figures which reflect through the operation of the homes and the centres what can be called a daily cost of care. Mr. Alcock: That cost of care is reflective of actual operating figures brought forward by centres or reflective of figures that were worked on but were provided by Treasury Board? *

(2005) Mr. Gllleshammer: This was data from a variety of sources including the centres. Recognize that the cost of operating a centre will vary and that there are centres that have different staffing components. There are centres that, because of their thinking, want to supply service above and beyond others and, as a result, will have different staffing patterns. The input into the ability to arrive at a daily cost of care was from varied sources.

You can appreciate that a number of people and a number of organizations had input on this and the daycare office compiled this information and the costs that centres had in their operation and worked out this figure. I am not aware that those figures have been challenged by daycare home operators or daycare boards in the centres. It has been, I belie ve, accepted as being reasonably accurate. The member will appreciate that it is probably not as scientifically correct as some figures that you may arrive in different ci rcu mstan ces.

Given the best informa tion available and the information brought forward by the various sources, these were the figures that were brought forward to identify that daily cost of care and an annual cost of care. From my information, these have been accepted by the homes and the centres. Mr. Alcock: The information that has come to me is somewhat in at varia nce with that, in that it is suggested the data that was used by the working group was not supplied by the centres but was supplied by Treasury Board and the department. That is one of the reasons why they have gotten into this problem.

It is that when you are talking about a cost of care, you are not talking about a true cost of

5016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 1991 care. You are talking about a figure that the department, with or without the assistan ce of Treasury Board, has determined is the cost of care and is more related to the amount of support that is avai lable as opposed to some actual accounting of the cost of operating a centre. Mr. Gllleshammer: I would repeat for the member that the department and the Child Day Care Branch arrived at these figures by looking at all aspects of the daycare system and gathered input from a variety of sources.

I am not aware that any of the daycare centres or daycare homes have challenged the figure that has been arrived at. H what the member is saying in his analysis, that the cost of care Is higher, I would be surprised, but we would be prepared to receive information from the centres and have daycare staff work with them to analyze their figures, and I think the member is aware that the centres do have different costs, that they are not identical. What we have taken is averages.

We looked at samples of different budgets of different centres, and based on the average of their actual expenditures, we have come to that figure.

I, again, would repeat that the various centres will have costs related to the rental of property, that, in some areas of the city and some areas of the province, the property they are renting will be of less value than in other areas. * (201 0) I think staffing-and we have acknowledged that somewhere around 80 percent of the cost of a centre Is staffing costs- the variability of the staffing component will also play a factor in figuring out the cost of that particular centre. Most assuredly, the percentage of the spaces that are fully occupied with a full staff will also play a factor in this.

As a result, centres, I would suggest to you, will have a different cost per space but what we have done is taken some samples and averaged them out. Part of the management role of a board and a centre director, I would say, would be to analyze those costs and see why the costs of one centre are higher than others. Through their staffing, their rental and their other costs, they can vary those costs. Boards have complete autonomy now as grants are not specifically earmark ed for salar y enhancement, and some of the other grants were there before.

Boards can use as much revenue as they cho ose for salaries or for any other expenditures. I know that the critic of the official opposition touched briefly on the question of salaries, and there appears to be a variety of salaries out there, not a standardized salary for directors and staff in some of the centres, and a variety of hours worked. If you look at the number of hours worked by some, it is far more or far less than others. So one has to be careful, I suppose, in attributing annual salary figures to staff.

I can assure the member that we did have input from the daycare office who brought forward representative budgets and that represents an average. So if these daily costs are at variance, we would be happy to hear from centres and talk to them about it and have a look at how their budgets are arrived at, and we will be pleased to help them in any way could. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Chairman, in the Chair) Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister for that last offer.

I am a little confused though in that he says that none of this has been raised with the minister, that he appears to be surprised that there would be a concern about the financial support available to centres, where I have seen several letters directly to the minister in which this very concern has been raised. Now, have circumstances changed since the time that these letters were written In this Estimates? * (2015 ) Mr. Gllleshammer: Well, let us not be talking about apples and oranges here.

We are talking about the daily cost of care, and I am saying that the daily cost of care that has been enunciated by the daycare office to my knowledge has not been challenged as being inaccurate, that the working group and the daycare community were privy to the information on the daily cost of care. So let us not confuse that with centres who have indicated that there may be a shortfall in their revenue. I recognize that we have had representation, letters and comments on the feeling that centres are expecting in some cases that there may be a shortfall.

I have also talked to centre directors who have a waiting list to get in those centres and have indicated that they did not see a major impact in the short run and were prepared to reserve comment until they had some longer term experience. So I say to the member, we are talking about two

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 501 7 different things here, that centres that have been funded on the basis of spaces, and in some cases spaces that were not occupied, may have to make some adjus tm ent s if those sp aces remain unoccupied and they are staffed at a maximum level. On the daily cost of care, I am not aware and I believe staff have confirmed that the daycare community, the daycare homes and the centres have not challenged the daily cost of care that has been arrived at.

We have indicated in the previous answer, and I would indicate again, that if people want to come forward and say that those figures are wrong we are prepared to work with organizations, and we indicated there were a number of organizations who may comment regarding the daycare community. H these groups come forward and say, we think the daily cost of care is too low or too high, we would be prepared to look at additional data and adjust those figures in succeeding years.

But I would indicate, if the daily cost of care is too high and it has to be lowered, it does lower the parent fee but it also lowers the income for centres . H the daily cost of care is perceived to be too low and should be raised, then that impacts on the grants, as well as the parent fee, as well as the subsidies. It is a complex setup but we have not been challenged on the figure that we are using for daily cost of care. Mr.

Alcock: Rather than belabour that particular question, I will take that back to those who have been writing expressing concern about the financial support available under the new funding system and translating previously sustainable centres into the ones that are now running deficits. There seems to be some difference of opinion between those who served on the working group and the min iste r's depa rtm ent about wha t information was used to what purposes.

The information the minister has put on the record before supper and now seems to be at variance with the experie nce of people who were involved in this very process, but the minister has opened the door and said that he will hear from people in centres that are having these difficulties and will see if adjustments are warranted. We may come back to that, but I need to give them some time to respond to it. Let me ask a question though about the amount of money that is available here.

When you roll grants and financial assistance together, and you take what was a grant and you now translate it into a fee, can the minister give us the '90-91 budget figure for the salary enhancement grants and the figure that was used in determining the budget for this new structure in '91 -92 ? *

(2020) Mr. Gllleshammer: The recommendation of the working group was to combine this myriad of grants and the--1 am not exactly clear on what the member is looking for. We have reduced the amount in the grants and subsequently have increased the amount of subsidy, but I can give you some figures. For a preschool centre space, the grant was $6.78, and under the new system the grant is $4.60. For an infant centre space, the grant was $1 4.88 and is now $6.80. For a school-age centre spa ce, the government grant was $3.72 and is now $3.

The preschool home space, the government grant was 75 cents in the previous syst em, and it continues to be 75 cents in the new system. The infant home space, the grant was $3.05 in the old system , and now it is $2.20. The school age home space was 75 cents and it continues to be 75 cents. So there has been, in most cases, a decrease in the government grant and an increase in the parent fee. Mr. Alcock: In the previous system though there was a method, the salary enhancement grant, whereby they protected a certain amount of the resources that were available to a centre .

The policy now is not to protect that funding. Would that be a fair statement? Mr.GII Ieshammer: The previous system had quite a list of grants, and the recommendation was that these be combined into one operating grant, so un der the previous system the grants were identified. There was a maintenance grant, an audit grant, a salary enhancement grant, an infant grant and, I believe, some others. These now have been combined into one operating grant. If the member is saying that they were identified as certain items before, the answer is yes, that they were earmarked for certain specific items.

By their very name, an audit grant or a salary enhancement grant was earmarked for those specific things. So those four or five grants, in a restructured system, have been lumped into one operating grant. We did separate out the start-up grant which still exists . As well , there are grants for children with disabilities or special needs and there are some other grants as well, but the existing grant system then was rolled into one operating grant. Now the operating grant, of course, is reduced because the

5018 LEGISlATIVE AS SEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 1991 parent fee has been increased and also the subsidies have been increased. Mr. Alcock: The salary enhancement grant did exist up until this change. Can the minister tell us the size, the total amount of money that was allocated to salary enhancement grants in '90-91 and in the first quarter of this fiscal year? Mr. Gllleshammer: On an annual basis, the salary enhancement grant was $4,350. *

(2025) Mr. Alcoc k: Wh at did tha t transla te to province-wide? What is the total amount of money for salary enhancem ent grants allocated in the '90-91 budget? Mr. Gllleshammer: I am not sure if we have that with us here. Some of this information would be more readily available under that line in the budget where we had staff here to identify it, but apparently we do not have that. Per individual, the salary enhancement grant was $4,350. Mr. Alcock: Well, the province has to be assured that information will be forthcoming. Mr. Gllleshammer: The staff indicate that we can have the figure for you tomorrow. Mr.

Alcock: Now, if I understood the minister correctly, when he was answering the question about the timing of the announcement, It was because there was a desire to get the new system in place, effective in the second quarter of this fiscal year so that the old funding system was In place in the first quarter of this fiscal year. Mr. Gllleshammer: There were a numb er of reasons for the timing of it, but your conclusion about the funding is correct. The first quarter of the year, we operated under the old system, and just recently, the second quarter, we are shifting to the restructured system in July of 19 91 .

Mr. Alcock: So then, would some portion of salary enhancement grants, like one-quarte r of a year's worth of salary enhancement grants, be made available? Mr. Gllleshammer: Yes, funding flowed in the first quarter based on the old syst em , and salary enhancement grants were part of that, so about a quarter of the salary enhancement grant was flowed in the first quarter. Mr. Alcock: How much was that? Mr. Gllleshammer: The figure I gave you was $4,350, so it would be a quarter of that-you are looking for the total? Mr. Alcock: No, that will do. Mr.

Gllleshammer: Okay, so it would be a quarter of that figure that I gave you, somewhere around, just short of $1 ,1 00. Mr. Alcock: With no increase factored in. Mr. Gllleshammer: That was the figure we used, $4,350. Mr. Alcock: The minister said, if I understood his earlier comments correctly, that they have created a system-you have now created a system that is funded to meet existing standards, and the minister is confident that any daycare operating in this province with this funding can ope rate in accordance with the current standards? •

(2030) Mr. Gllleshammer: If you are referring specifically to centres, they are able to meet the standards and regulations that have been in place which are recognized to be the highest in North America. We have not changed those standards and regulations, and the restructured system will give them the ability to increase their revenue by two percent, but this is based on having the centre full and also staffing to regulation.

Some centres, as the critic from the official opposition indicated earlier today, are staffed over and above those regulations, provide enhanced services, and, as a result, their costs may well be higher. Those are management decisions that boards and executive directors have to make. I can recall meeting with an executive director-or a director of a centre that was in my office with another group and was willing to talk about the restructuring program where they had, I believe, four special needs children and a total of 40 children-or 48 children, if I recall in that centre- but they also had a waiting list.

They do have extra staffing over and above the regulations, but she felt that they would be able to cope with the restructuring and saw no great impact in the short run but was waiting to see what the long-run trends were and felt maybe two years from now may have a different opinion. I also looked at some data on a centre that somebody raised-1 do not know whether it was in the House or elsewhere-and that particular centre was indicating it was going to have some difficulty

July 22, 1991 LEGI SLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 5019 with the restructured system and was going to be dipping into surplus to cover some of the costs that they felt there would be a shortfall for, but they had a fair number of vacancies. In the old system, it appears to me, that centres were funded to some extent whether the position in the centre was full or not. If they had been running with a 25 percent vacancy rate and a full complem ent of staff, as if the centre was full, they were probably going to be in a position where they would have to make some adjustments. Mr.

Alcock: There is an interesting dilemma that arises here and it is not unlike the dilemma that has arisen in other forms of care where you are staffing to meet a certain standard, and if your occ upancy falls, particular ly on a 1 00 percent occupancy funding system, if your occupancy falls even marginally below the funded level that they can put you exactly in the dilemma that you are in. Now there are two questions, it seems, one is: Is the centre simply in an area where the demand has dropped off and those spaces would be better allocated someplace else?

Perhaps it is a sign that the centre is not viable, or it may be attributable to any one of a number of case s--s ome short-te rm turnover in the population being served, et cetera. If the centre occupancy for a very short period of time falls below the maximum level and the-1 think what I hear the minister saying is that the centre should be laying off staff or bringing on staff as they are needed. This presumes a pool of trained staff that are sitting out there waiting to be rehired at these centres.

It just strikes me that there is dilemma here because there will be in the short run in any organization that is providing care like this, there will be times when they will have unoccupied space s. H the centre is viable, hopefully, it will be for a very short period of time, but this concept that you can get rid of trained staff and then re-acq uire them, much as one would with some other form of commodity, I think is fallacio us. People who have the training and ability will simply move on to where there is greater stability.

So you tend to undermine your own standards by the very policy that you are bringing in. I am wondering how the minister proposes to do the two things: provide stability and quality in the staffing in the centres and enforce this policy that seems to run counter to that. I guess the question is, on a policy sense, is there a threshold point? I mean, what is the trade off, where you begin to move from that short-term consideration that this is simply reflective of an all- business of a centre? This is indicative of other problems where the centre should be downsizing. How do you make that decision? Mr.

Gllleshammer: I might just point out that we do pay a full subsidy for 75 percent or greater of attendance . It is not on a daily attendance. There is some leniency within that. Also, if the attendance is below 75 percent, we will pay the amount owing for the actu al attendance, and respective of other jurisdic tions, that is quite a lenient treatment of the attendance . You know, in the bigger pictu re, and the way the member has phrased the

preamble to the question and the question itseH is that, yes, I think centres have to be aware of what is happening within their particular jurisdicti on. It is not unlike, I think, what school divisions go through in the city where they have to look at enrollment and project staffing patterns, and, in some cases, project the closure of schools. I am sure the member knows more about it than I do, but I recall the Winnipeg No. 1 division in their public meetings struggling with whether to keep a school open or close a school and where to transfer students. I heard comment on the St.

James school division closing eight or 1 0 schools in part of St. James through the 1980s as population shifted from a particular part of the city, and I recall talking to somebody who taught in St. James Colleg iate where, I believe he said, the enrollment was 1 ,400 and over a matter of years went down to 600. Obviously decisions about staffing had to be made and also, I think, the board made decisions about whether to change the grade levels in that particular school.

I can tell you from first-hand experience, when I first becam e a principal in Minnedosa Collegiate in 1972, we had a student enrollment of about 400, and some 15 years later, the enrollment was just down over 200. That is a decision that the board struggled with and in the rural areas cont inues to struggle with. As we have had a population decline in rural Manitoba, as everyone is aware, there is a debate not only whether to reduce staff, but to close schools.

There has been that issue around this spring as school boards are charged with making very, very difficult decisions, and they all have to make decisions about staffing levels as enrollment goes up and down.

5020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 1991 *

(2040) I say to you that centres are in somewhat the same position. If, in a particular area of the city that a centre serves, the population is growing older and there are fewer children to access the centre , they may have to make those staffing adjustments and downsize, and over the course of time there may be centres that close and others that reopen. In the time that I have been minister, I know that I have signed many letters with start- up grants for new daycare homes, and I know there have been new centres opened.

I believe we accommoda te something like 17,000 to 18,000 spaces in the province at this time, and one has to ask oneself from time to time how many more of these start-up grants are we going to be proceeding with? When does the system reach a point where there are enough spaces to accommoda te the children and the parents who are looking for this type of service? We know that throughout the 1980s there have been fewer and fewer children coming Into the school system, and I suspect It means there are fewer children that need to access daycare. So it is a delicate balance here.

Before a centre migh t want to open, the proponents would have to survey the market, see what other services are available and then make a decision not only on whether to open, or not to open, but at wh at lev el. Many of those centres accommoda te up to 40 children and more, and again they would have to do a market survey to see whether there is a need there. So the operation of daycare centres does, no question, take some business acumen on the part of the board and the daycare , that centre director.

From the department's point of view, we have tried to be reasonably lenient in that full subsidies are paid for children whose attendance is 75 percent or more. I think part of the responsibility of the director and the centre is to have some sense of the manner in which enrollment will fluctuate from time to time and make their decisions on that basis. Mr. Alcock: It is an interesting question because the minister poses or uses as an example the declining birth rate and the declining number of-the pressure that is placed on school divisions in different areas.

Although I am not certain that the gross number has dropped dramatically, it implies that we were meeting the demand. Like in the school divisions, because of the way legislation is structured , there is a sense of how many kids will require school in a given year, and the distribution of available spaces may not be adequate for the distribution of the population or we may have an oversupply in some areas and undersupply in others, but that presupposes that the original supply met demand.

I am not certain that has ever been the case in daycare, or perhaps I simply misunderstand the position the department has taken on this. Is the minister saying that the current number of spaces is adequate to meet the current demand for daycare ? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairman, that depends on what criteria you place on the supply and demand.

We know that we have got centres with vac ancies; we know we have got centres with waiting lists, and it is not just a question of directing those people from a waiting list at one centre to a vacancy at another, because there are so many other factors that come into play. We are licensing more homes, and these tend maybe to spring up more readily to meet a need in a certain geographic area, but the daycare office I believe will direct people to places where they know there are vacancies, and again, parents will have to make a decision on the type of child care they want.

The workplace daycare, reports I have are that this tends to be very suitable for many people. I recall being at the annual meeting at 1 01 0 Sinclair, along with one of the members of the official opposition. We were talking to the director of 1010 Sinclair, and he expressed to me the convenience that he saw in having a workplace daycare In their fac ility. Ther e are others wher e they are in the development stage where there are substantial vacancies. I think I got information on one that was licensed for 40 children but only had 19 children there.

It is, I suppose, a matter of the point they are in, in the evolution of the centre, hopefully, or else they are going to have to make those adjustments because, with only half the population, they would not need the full complement of staff for 40 spaces. We are trying to develop a measurement that can be used to determine demand. Again, this is a complex issue and we are developing a needs assessment. While we are on that, I might just mention the rural daycare where the member for Swan River (Ms.

July 22, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 5021 Wowchuk) has brought to my attention the need for rural daycare . I accept the premise that there are times of the year in the rural area, particularly with farm families at seeding time, where most members of the family are involved in the seeding.

It often has to be something that is accomplished before too far into the month of May, and if weather conditions have been such, or if there are other conditions which have delayed that, those people will work very, very long hours to do their seeding and require, in some cases, daycare to be able to have the comfort that their children are being taken care of and that they can seed with long, long days to get the job done.

By the same token when harvest time comes, sometimes the farm families are on the land at six and seven in the morning, or getting ready to do their harvest, and a number of combines running, a number of truck drivers and somebody who is taking supplies to the field and so forth, it is certainly more con venient for them if they have the comfort that their child is being well taken care of. *

(2050) Historically, farm families have relied on the extended families, on the grandparents, on the neighbours, are very independent people who tend to solve their own problems and have relied on that good nature of extended family and neighbours to provide that service for them. In recent years we are seeing a demand by our country cousins to have the same sort of service available that Is available in the centres on a full-time basis in the urban areas. There are some interesting experiments going on.

I believe there is one in langruth, Manitoba, where a cent re that is flexible in terms of hours in accommodating farm families and others is being tried. Recently we received a report from I think an adjunct of the Women's Institute whereby they did a-it was the Federated Women's Institute of Canada. The person who presented this report to me in person is a constituent of mine who is well known to some members of the opposition.

This cross-cou ntry survey found that the greatest number of users of licensed facilities were in Manitoba, where 63 percent of respondents said they used the available services regularly. Rural child care services include daycare centres providing extended-hour care , family care homes, and child minders where care givers go into a home of families for irregular or overnight care . More and more, it is not just the farm families that need this service in rural areas, but people who work in the health care institutions, where they are on the job at off hours, are looking for the type of care that can be provided.

Again, I say to you that rural families have been very patient and very independent in working outtheir own resources to get the child care thatthey want, and while they are asking that we look at some flexible daycare, I think they recogn ize, too, the econom ic viability sometimes of the rural daycare centres is not there. There are other examples where there is evening, overnight and weekend service that is flexible in the rural areas. I mention the langruth experience. It is called the lakeview Children's Centre. It has 18 spaces, and it is open in the daytime up to 10:30 p.m. at night.

That does allow a certain degree of flexibility for the farm families even thou gh, if the weather is good and it is dry conditions, sometimes those combines will run till two or three o'clock in the morning and, again, these people have to be resourceful in finding the care for their children that is available. There is also one in Brandon called the Brandon Kids Centre, which has 70 spaces and is open in the evenings and on Saturdays.

In Portage Ia Prairie, there is one called the Westend Day Care Centre, which has 19 spaces, and It is open for evening care until twelve midnight Here, in the city of Winnipeg, there are four daycare centres that are open in the evenings, one of them overnight and on weekends. It is the Child Care by Sandi & Associat es, and it has 1 0 spaces. So the flexibility is difficult, and the centres that I have indic ated, three in rural Manitoba and four in the city, make up some 183 spaces.

While I am optimistic that the ones here in the city and the city of Brandon have some chance of success, it Is the ones in the rural area that are difficult to see being viable on a 12-month basis because there are a couple of times of the year where the people wanting to access it particularly need that type of service. So the department will cont inue to work with groups that want to provide that service.

The establishment of centres, in particular, is difficult because there you have to have staff and you have to have flexibility of staff, and often, you know, people looking for full-time work just are not available on a part- time basis. The other component in the off hours, as far as daycare is concerned , is the family daycare homes. We have quite a number of them in Winnipeg and

5022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 1991 Brandon, Thompson, The Pas, Morden and a couple in my constituency that I am aware of, in Strathclair, Rapid City and other parts of Manitoba, some 7 4 spaces. These people provide overnight service and evening service, and probably in the rural area, are a more achievable way of providing care for childre n.

So it is a complex problem, and in many cases, the commu nity will respond to those needs, but I say to you, it is easier to do in the daycare homes than it is in the centres because the start-up costs and the maintenance costs of running a centre are greater. We have not resolved that yet. I know the member for Swan River (Ms.

Wowchuk) who has raised it at least once, maybe twice, in questions about daycare is no doubt pleased that we are pursuing that because I am sure that, in the Swan River valley and in other areas, this is a question that is raised from time to time. 1 tell you, if there are solutions that come forward from those areas--we are very interested in the Langruth experience, but if there are others that are coming forward in her area, we would be pleased to hear of them. Maybe there are possibilities that what works in one area of the province would work in another.

I know she will keep us apprised of that to see if we can learn from the experience of others. Mr. Alcock: 1 thank the minister for that rather complete review of the problem. There were two things in his statements that did raise questions for me, but 1 would like fi rst jus t to ask him specifical ly-he references waiting lists and vacancies. Can he tell us how many there are on a waiting list at any particular time, and how many vacancies on a verage do we have in centres?

The third thing, just so I can get the list up there and give him another half hour to �hat is, given h!s belief that daycare homes are eas1er to manage 1n this way, does this reflect a policy change? Is there a movement toward more daycare homes and fewer centr es, or is it simply identifying the problem that exists because of the larger size and stability of centr es? *

(2100) Mr. Gllle shammer: Staff is getting some information together on vacancies and waiting lists, his first two questions. I will address the third one. 1 am saying to the member that in rural areas where families are looking for daycare services that are required outside of the working day, in small communi ties it is easier for a daycare home that would accom modate two or three children to spring up to answer the need for that service. There are communi ties out the re that have very, very few children in them.

I can think of four or five commu nities in Rolling River School Division that have schools with three, four and five children in kindergarten. That is reflective of the number of children in that area. It just does not make economic sense to open up a daycare centre with so few children to draw from, and then, of course, all of those children are not going to be requiring the services of a dayc are. I would not read any more into that answer than that. It is just that in small commun ities, sometimes smaller is easier to access, and the costs are not there for 260 days of the year,

whereas, if you set up a centre, then your costs are fixed in some case s, and it just makes them not economically viable. The member also asked about vacancies and waiting lists. I will read into the record some of the information the member is looking for, and I will do this by region because it does vary from region to region. In the city of Winnipeg, there are 7,053 spaces in centres. Of those 7 ,000-plus spac es, 6,111 are ac tually filled, so we do have some vacan cies, nearly 1 ,00 0 in the licensed spaces In the city of Winnipeg.

We have in Winnipeg, 711 spaces in daycare homes, and these are filled by 590 children. -(i nterjecti on)- Yes, I will maybe get the mike a little closer and you can hear me. In the city of Winnipeg- you got the numbers for the centres? Okay, the homes-there are 711 licensed spaces, and 590 of those are being utilized, so there are 121 licen sed spaces that are currently empty. In the Westman area, there are 862 licensed centre spaces, and 670 of those are currently being utilized. There are 562 licensed home spaces , and 455 of those are being utilized.

In Eastman, there are 606 licensed centre spaces, and 397 of those are utilized. In Eastman, there are 51 licensed home spaces with 34 children in them. In Central, there 523 licensed centre spaces with 385 children. There are 1691icensed home spaces with 132 children occupying them. In the Interlake, we have 402 licensed centre spaces with 228 children. We have 130 licensed daycare home spaces with 98 children in them. So you can see that the trend is that there are empty licensed spaces. In the Parkland, there are

July 22, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5023 283 centre spaces with 192 children. There are 55 licensed home spaces with 47 children in them. In Norman, there are 210 centre spaces with 189 children. There are 76 licensed home spaces with 60 children. In Thompson, there are 398 centre spaces with 310 children in them. There are 40 lice nsed home spaces with 31 children in them. So that is a snapshot of the province. Out of those 10,337 centre spaces, there are 8,485 children. In the licensed daycare homes with 1, 794 space s, there are 1,449 childr en.

These are the funded spaces only, but in all cas es, there is a vacancy rate, so if you are wanting to open a daycare home, I think you have to be aware of the number of licensed spaces and the number of children who are being accommodat ed, the number of vacan cies. Again, I say it is easier probably for somebody opening a licensed daycare home in that you are looking for a smaller group of children, three or four children. If you are opening a centre , it becomes a major decision.

I think one has to be aware of the other centres that surround it, the pool of children that need to or want to be accom modated and the vacancy rate in that general area. Now there are centres of course that have a waiting list. From my analysis these are centres that are providi ng, in some cases, specialized service. These are centres that perhaps have established a sterling reputation for the care of high-needs children. They may be centres which have just a reputation for excellence and people want to have their children there.

It may be centres that are geographically located that is in a region of the city where there are a number of young children and young families. There are many, many factors that go into the decision making before one opens a licensed home or a licensed centre. I am pleased to say the daycare staff are willing and able to meet with individuals and to meet with groups who want to start either a licensed home or a licensed centre . Particularly with the centre it becomes quite a business decision. I believe that some testing of the market has to take place to establish that there is an unmet demand there.

Before one rents space and starts to hire staff and buy equipment, one would have to be fairly sure that it is viable. You can see from the number of licensed spaces and the number of vacancies, In all areas of the province, whether it is the city of Winnipeg or the outlying areas, there tends to be vac ancies that people can access. I did not give you the information on the waiting lists. We have some waiting lists-1 have them broken down into Winnipeg and non-Winnipeg. Let me just check here to be sure I understand this.

We have some information in the city where we have centres that some are wanting to expand, some are proposed centres, some are currently operating and they are underfunded; some are operating and they are partially funded. There are 30 centres that would like to expand. There are seven proposed new centres. There is one operating currently that is unfunded. There are 17 in operation that are partially funded. Those are all in the city of Winnipeg. Outside of Winnipeg, there are 14 centres that are seeking to expand. There are six proposed centres that wish to get up and running.

There are four that are operating partially funded. There are centres that are wanting to get licences or extend their licences to get more children involved. *

(2110) I can break down that rural component for you a little more. In the Eastman area, there are three groups with a total of 36 spaces that are on the waiting list. In the Interlake, there are three groups with 1 07 spaces that are on the daycare waiting list. In the Westman area, there are four groups, a total of 37 spaces that are on the waiting list. In the Parkland Region, there are five groups with a total of 34 spaces that are waiting. In Thompson, there are three groups with an additional 80 spaces that are on the waiting list.

In Central, there are three groups with a total of 34 spaces who are waiting. In Norman, there is one group with a total of 30 spaces that are waiting to be licensed. We have, l suppose, a dilemma in some ways that we have some 18,000 licensed spaces now. I gave you figures before showing the vacancy rates, and we have others who want to start up. I think the member also wanted some detail on existing centres who have waiting lists. We do not have that information with us. In fact, that information is kept by the centres themselves.

We do know of the ones that have vacancies, but the waiting list is something that I think they keep themselves and perhaps do not share it that widely.

5024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 1991 Mr. Deputy Chairman: I am going to ask the guidance of the committee at this time. Seeing as we will more than likely be recessi ng at one o'clock, I am hoping that possibly the committee could tell me which areas we are going to be touching on this evening so that we could possibly send some of the staff home. It is no sense keeping all of them here until one o'clock if we are not going to hear them. I am asking if you could give me some advice on where you want to go from here. Mr.

Alcock: Well, from my perspecti ve, in any event, I appreciate the minister's willingness to be fairly wide ranging in the discussion. I would be prepared to concentrate on Day Care and Family Services this evening and to move on to Income Securi ty and Regional Services tomorrow. H that is agreeable to the other critic, then we could certainly split it that way, and the other staff could go home and have a good sleep and say their prayers. Ms.

Becky Barrett (Wellington): Yes, I would agree with the member for Osborne, those are the two areas I would like to concen trate on tonight, with the proviso that there is no guarantee. I would suggest there is not a guarantee that we will finish everything by one o'clock, particularly given the extensiveness and expansiveness of the minister's comments. Mr. Deputy Chairman: No, I just wanted to get clearance. H we know they will carry us until at least then, they can still come back tomorrow, but let us see that everybody else can go home tonight. The honourable minister, are you in agreement? Mr.

Gllleshammer: Well, I just was judging from the member's commen ts that we may well be on Day Care until one o'clock and then the- Ms. Barrett: No, I did not say that. Mr. Gllleshammer: Oh, I am sorry. Okay, so we have agreement that we will deal with Day Care and Family Services this evening, and then start on the other areas of the department when we meet tomorrow? Mr. Deputy Chairman: Possibly, but we might still have some of this left tomorrow, but the extra staff can go for tonight if you want. Mr.

Gllleshammer: Okay, and because we are not going line by line, I would say if we get into some technical stuff-we do not have a lot of staff because we thought we would be proceeding through the budget in a lock-step fashion as we usually do. We can, I suppose, take the question as notice, and when staff are available tomorrow or whenever, we can get you the answer. Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are we in agreement then? Agreed. Carry on. Mr. Alcock: One of the things that was done, I guess it would be some years ago now, was an attempt to quantify the overall level of demand for service.

In reading off demand, the minister really spoke about demand for new spaces, that it was the agencies coming forward with a desire to open that gave him his sense of the vacancies and the demand for service. There was an attempt, as I rec all, to assign a number to that. Granted, that is at best an estimate, but at one time there was an attempt to say what the overall level of demand was, what size the system would have to get to in order to satisfy existing demand.

I am wondering if the minister can refresh my memory as to what number of spaces that was at the time the study was done, and what that number would be today. Mr. Gllleshammer: I wonder if you could help us out by giving us a little more detail of that study. I am not sure that I am aware of-1 do not believe we have done a study in the last year. Is this back in the 19 70s or '80s? Mr. Alcock: I feel like I am on Front Page Challenge. No, it was more recent than the 70s.

In fact, it was, I believe, between about '86 and the cu rrent time where there was an attempt to determine-because the question has always been, how many spaces do we need in order to satisfy the general demand in the com munity, particularly in light of the kind of comm ents the minister has made about decreasing demand for services in other areas that involve children. I mean, one of the debates always was, how do you determine what the overall level of demand is, what the overall size of the system should be?

If it is unfair to ask the question about an old examination, my question would be, do you have a sense of how large the system would have to grow to meet existing demand? (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) Mr. Gllleshammer: We are just having a little trouble referencing the study the member is

July 22, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 5025 referring to, but perhaps we can get some more information on that. Part and parcel of the normal business of the daycare office is to assess the applications and to assess the viability of opening more centres in specific areas. I daresay that the licensing is done with some regard, particularly under the old system, to the abil ity of government to take on new responsibili ties.

I am not just sure what the numbers are for the new spaces over the last year, but I know that there have been some centres that have opened, and in terms of numbers, probably more daycare homes that have been opened-and again that reflects the financial resources and the human resources that are required to open daycare homes-and by far and away from the numbers I gave you, most of the licensed spaces are in centres. *

(2120) I could maybe provide you with some information on the expansion to funded daycare spaces approved by the end of March of '91 . In Winnipeg, I believe some of these are new and some are expansion, but we have a total of 260 additional licensed spaces, and this is in the 1990-91 year, and these are funded daycare spaces. In the rural area, there were three new centres with a total of 77 new spaces, and that gives us in the system an increase of 337 funded centre spaces.

Now, in terms of family daycare homes, in Winnipeg there are an additional 56 funded spaces and in rural Manitoba, an additional 84 funded spaces, for a total of 140 home spaces. It gives us a provincial total of 477 new spaces in both the funded daycare spaces and funded daycare homes. Again, the department will work with interested individuals and groups in working with them to make a determination of the viability of the homes and centres and to advise them and to license them.

The licensing is a very important aspect of the work that the daycare branch does, and in many cases I believe that individual homes and centres rely to some extent on the ability of the daycare office to give them the appropriate information which really launches them into a business and tries to make them as famili ar as possible with the day-to-day work which is part and parcel of running a centre and to give them the advice and, in some cases, encouragement to get the centre up and running, and when we do that it is our desire that it does become viable.

It is interesting to note that of the 477 spaces, by far and away the majority of them were in centres. In the rural areas it appears that it is probably easier to open a daycare home, and again it is because of the financial viability of it as compared to a rural centre. The rural centres are often in what could be called the bedroom commu nities surrounding Winnipeg where population is growing. There are areas of the province, many areas in rural Manitoba, where population is not growing. It is an extremely diffic ult decision to open a daycare centre in those areas.

Again, there is far less risk in developing a daycare home and far less expense in terms of the start-up grant that is given. In all cases I reiterate that the department works co-operatively with interested parties to show them the ropes, to provide them with the information and to work with them in the process. It is an ongoing evaluation of existing spaces and new spaces that goes on with the department. We are in the process of developing a need s assessment tool at the curren t time so we have more comfort when we give that advice that it is accurate.

I think all individuals opening either a home or a centre want to have some comfort that they are going to be successfu l. Part of the responsibility of the Day Care Branch is to provide them with the most up -to-date advice and information. Given that, the bottom line is the decision to proceed with an application for licensing lies with the individual or the proposed board. While we provide them with the appropriate advice and information to the best of our ability, the final decision is up to them.

The chances of success, I suppose, are based on their understanding of the daycare system, their understanding of the communi ty and their ability to open and operate success fully. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Acting Chairman, again the minister is determining demand-or at least the demand push that he is referencing is one that comes out of the existing system. It is either existing centres wanting to expand or individuals coming together and wanting to open a centre in a given area in response to a perceived need.

Surely the department has a better overview of the need and makes that kind of assessment when they go about determining whether or not a given centre will receive new spaces .

5026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 1991 It is really that question. Surely the department does not determine whether or not there is a need for new service in a given area simply because a couple of people have come together and said that they wish to open a centre .

Surely there is some kind of overview that says here is the number of children in a given area, here is your family and make up in a given area and based on this, when this group comes forward and says that they need it, we agree with that because we determine that there is this kind of pressure in this area and in another area there is not. It is that number I am seeking for. It is the overview and the answer to the question, how many spaces does this province require in order to have a fully operational system? Mr. Gllleshammer: I will try and expand on that for the member.

I have indicated that ultimately the decision to make application is the responsibility of the individual or the group wanting to provide the centre. Initially, the needs assessment is done by that Individual and by that centre. They then share that informa tion with the department. We have a number of criteria which are used to determine which organizations are funded and include some of the following.

The geographic location-if in a small commun ity there is already a daycare centre , and it is licensed for 40 spaces and there are 1 0 vaca ncies, and there is no waiting list, and they propose a new centre; the geographic location is a major factor. Where are the children going to come from? In the city where people probably have more choice, in that it may depend on whether the centre is located near their home, it may depend on whether the centre is located near the workplace of one or both of the parents; geographical locati on is again a primary determinant of whether a group should open a centre or not.

Similarly, if there is an area of the city with daycare homes with licensed spaces that are empty, we have to provide that information. In the case of a home or a centre, they may have the confid ence that they can provide a better service or a service that is different from what is being provided, and they would have to identify those differences and share the reason for their optimism. So geographic loca tion is one factor . The others are financial viability.

If a group wants to open up a daycare centre and it appears that they have no substantial financial backing to pay the rent, to purchase the equipment, to hire the staff, financial viability is a factor in determining whether they should proceed or not. * (21 30) We look at licensing and quality care issues. We look at the availability of other services in the area. We look at the need for subsidy by parents. We look at the relative demands for spaces in other areas of the province.

If there is an area of the province, for instance, that would be deemed to be underserved, and I could go back, I suppose, to those figures I read into the record some time ago where it showed the number of licence spaces and the number of vacancies there. If the vacancy rate is relatively low, it would appear that maybe that is an area of the province that would benefit from an additional centre. We are not able to meet the demand for all of the requests for licensed spaces, whether they be homes or centres, at the present time. So these and other facto rs are taken into considerat ion.

Another one is whether the centre is already operating. We have centres operating that are unfunded because they have started up and are licensed but are not rece iving funding. A question comes whether we should, when we have the financial resources to do so, license them. We have to look whether there is a need for commu nity development of daycare where no group has requested funding. I suppose it is a way of being proactive in that there may be areas of the province or areas of the city where there appears to be a need and no group to proceed with a centre.

The daycare office looks at all of these criteria and have to make decisions on which organizations are funded. We have to do that in some logical way so that we address the needs of an area of the province or the city, and we work within the financial resources that this area of the department has. So it is a complex set of circums tances and information that comes forward to the point where we make that decision. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Ac ting Chairperson, what the minister is saying, though, is that the only way they have of determining demand is if somebody comes forward and says they would like to open spaces.

Now he did reference that when they assessed that, if somebody comes forward and makes such a

July 22, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5027 request, that they have some criteria that they apply relative to other centres. Let us take the kind of situation a school board is faced with when a new division is built. Part of the planning for that is to determine Whether or not new school spaces are going to be required if it is a division that is being built to provide housing for young families.

There will be some assessment of what this new subdivision will produce in terms of housing and what the demand will be on the school system and therefore what the demand will be for new classroom spaces, et cetera. Is there no comparable process within daycare ? Mr. Gllleshammer: Certainly, school divisions have to make those decisions and do that study, but I would point out a fundamental difference is that it is mandatory that divisions provide for the education of children. That same mandatory compulsion is not there with daycare centres.

I know the member is very interested in this, and I want to be sure that he understands that within the boundaries of a school division, they have to make decisions about whether they transpor t those students or whether there is a sufficient number of children in that area to build a new school. That is a major decision. They have to also get some understanding of the grade levels that those children will encompass. School divisions, I think, with some respect have been very anxious throughout the 70s and '80s to build new schools. As a result, they have had to close many others.

As areas of a division grow older and the children disappear, you have perfectly good buildings which are essentially underutilized, in some cases, unoccupied. The decision on busing students is a very, very emotional one. In rural Manitoba, and I am not sure if the member is familiar with busing there, we have students who spend long, long hours on the school bus. In the Swan River area, in the Roblin area, where children want to access vocat ional training, there are times when children in the Roblin area, for instance, are transported to Dauphin and may spend up to two hours each way on the bus.

So those decisions about the building of schools are very difficult ones. With new subdivisions, school divisions are well aware that it is absolutely mandatory that they provide for education. They have to make the decision whether they bus those children or build a new sch ool, and it will depend on how the subdivision develops. In daycare-and the need for daycare is not a mandatory service-it grows out of the needs of the communi ty. We have talked about the rural areas earlier today. I suppose there is more that could be said about rural daycare , but I will leave it to another time.

In a new subdivision it is sometimes difficult to predict the age of the families that will move in there and the age of their children. The subdivision pretty much has to get established. Then, if the parents of that area deem there is a need for daycare homes or daycare centres, they will, in short order, voice that concern, and licensed home spaces or licensed centres will be proposed to the daycare office.

That licensing will take place based on the criteria that we mentioned before: the financial viability, the need for subsidies in that area, the need for the development of daycare centres, the geographic location, the number of spaces nearby. •

(2140) Again, these decisions are made by the Day Care Branch as the requests come in. Obviously, we cannot accede to all requests in that we are limited by the number of spaces that can be licensed. If we license daycare homes and daycare centres freely, without thought and without looking at these crit eria, then we are not only going to put pressure on the financial resources of the department, but we are also going to put pressure on the existing homes and the existing centres, where people may decide that a centre, for instance, is offering a service that is more desirable than the service they are getting.

That could throw the demand and supply of spaces out of whack. We have to be very careful that we do not do that. A lot of criteria have to be looked at. These decisions have to be made with some thought. We rely on the experience of the daycare staff, their previous experience and their analysis of the situation before the licensing goes forward. Mr. Alcock: In referencin g-to take the minister's example-the school division having to make that decisi on, it is true bussing is one facto r, as are a great deal of other options, open to the school board.

In such a circums tance the school board does that based on some kind of forecasts. The school board has a forecast that says, this subdivision will produce X number of new students,

5028 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 1991 and they also have forecasts on this area. Another area is beginning to age, and therefore will not be producing students. They have some kind of forecast of the demand that allows them then to make those decisions. If I am understanding the minister correctly, all he is saying, or what he is saying is that the only forecast that the department has, when it comes to daycare spaces is the demand generated by people who wish to expand existing daycares or open new. Is that correct? Mr. Gllleshammer: Yes, there is a degree of correctness in what you say.

Again I would point out to the member that the provision of public school education is mandatory, and the division must provide for the classr ooms, and the educational program and the bussing for those students. That Is a fundamental right they have in this province and this country. No matter where those students live within a school division, be it rural or urban, the school board has a responsibility to provide for their educati on. Whether it be regular education or special needs edu cation, at the cu rrent ti me, that is their responsibility.

They have an obligation which they must meet, and there is just no question about it. We do not send staff out Into a new subdivision and say, you guys need a daycare out here, you need daycare spaces. I think the onus for the identifying of spaces or the licensing of spaces is based on the demand that comes forward from that area, and chances are they are accessing that service somewhere else now. If they want to, because they have moved their residence, create spaces in their area, they can certainly approach the daycare office and indicate to us that they have a need there.

In a variety of ways, daycare providers or people who are interested in getting licensed to have a daycare home will invariably come forward and apply for a licence. If the number of children in the area is sufficie nt, there may well be a move to form a daycare centre. The daycare office will be well aware of the number of licensed spaces, whether they be homes or centres in the area.

They may be able to direct these people to those spaces or they may well have the ability to assist the individual parents or the group if they want to identify homes or get together for the purpose of determining whether a centre is appropriate. Again, I guess, the difference in the analogy is that education is a mandated service . The school division is already there to provide that service. The parents simply have to phone the school division, give their address and the grade level, and they will be assigned to a school .

With the dayca re, this is not mandated and the daycare office would act in a facilitative way to identify existing spaces or the possibility of licensing new spaces. Mr. Alcock: So does the department have any forecasts of how fast demand is likely to grow over the next few years. I mean, do they do any forward looking at all. Mr.

Gllleshammer: We have already indic ated in the information given to the honourable member that we have a demand for spaces that are either expanded or proposed or currently operating and are unfunded or are operating and partially funding, and I can go through those figures again if the member wishes. As of June 7th of this year, there was a total of 78 organizations requesting a total of 1 ,596 spaces in daycare centres. So the demand is already out there for additional licensed spaces, and we can meet that demand at only a certain rate.

We are increasing the number of licensed spaces year over year, and perhaps I could get those figures for the honourable member. In 1987-88, there were 16,050 licensed spaces. In 1988-89, there were 16,639 licensed spaces . In '89-90, there were 17,246 licensed spaces, and in 1990-91 there was a total of 18,220 licensed spaces, so there has been an increase of a number of hundreds of spaces on an annual basis, and from '89-90 to '90-91 there was an increase of almost 1 ,000 spaces, so the increase in licensed spaces has increased year over year.

We have a demand, as I indicat ed, to license another 78 organizations for almost 1,600 spaces, but we can only license these at a certain rate, and we have to be cognizant of our own resources, but we also have to be cognizant of the vacancies that exist in the system. Well, I can contin ue. I thought I had given a full answer, but if there is some aspect of it that you want me to go over again, I can. We do have an increase year over year of spaces and, if it is more detail you want, I think we can provide some more. * (2150) (Mr. Deputy Chairman in the Chair)

July 22, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5029 Mr. Alcock: I would be interested ac tually in a little more detail on that particul ar-ag ain I am just not certain about what is occurring with the forecasting in the rural areas. You have detailed some of the demand in a general sense, but again I am just not certain as to how you are determining- Mr. GIIIeshammer: Okay, the rural areas. We will start with Eastman.

There are three groups in Eastman, and they are requesting an additional 36 spaces, and they are on a waiting list because we have to again be cognizant of the spaces already there and our ability to fund them. In the Interlake, there are three groups requesting an additional l07 spaces, and they are on the waiting list. In the Westman area, there are four groups who are requesting spaces, and they are looking for an additional 37 spaces, and those Westman groups are in the Brandon area, Deloraine and one other commu nity.

In the Parkland area, there are five groups who are requesting additional spac es, and they are requesting an additional 34 spac es. These are in Ste. Rose du Lac and Dauphin, in Waterhen, and Ebb and Flow. In the Thompson region, there are three groups requesting an additional 80 spaces. If I recall some of the previous figures I gave, there was a relatively high number of licensed spaces occupied in Thom pson , and this would be tak e n in to consideration as we look at additional licensing. In the central area, there are three groups looking for an additional 34 spaces.

That is in the commu nity of Morris, in the communi ty of Langruth and the communi ty of Portage. In the Norman area, there is one group who wants to license an additional 30 spaces, and that is in the Grand Rapids area. So there are requests by 78 different organizations for an additional almost 1 ,600 space s. We have to make decisions on where the greatest need is, where the greatest readiness is. We have to be cognizant that by licensing new home spaces and new centres, that we do not negatively impact on the existing service providers.

I think the member would agree that it would be counterprod uc tive to license a new centre in a communi ty where there is only one centre and it is only partially full. So that is one of the factors that has to be taken into considera tion. This is done by the department staff. People who are on the wait list, I think, understand the process that we have a limited ability to bring new spaces in but, as I indicat ed, there has been a substantial increase in the number of spaces to the point where we have over 18,000 licensed spaces, an increase of around 1 ,000 in the last year. Mr. Alcock: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, just a couple of-or one in particul ar-a quick question on process as opposed to on content at this point. I had asked the minister in my opening remarks for certain information, and I would just like to know before we go on with the questioning whether or not and when the information will be available. One was the grants list for all external agencies funded by the department. The second was a detailing of the $36 million increase to the department, where it has been allocated. The third was the breakup of the budget lines that were collapsed as a result of the changes in this year.

I recognize , although they have had some four, five, six, eight hours since I made that request-! would just like to know from the minister, is that information going to be forthcoming this even ing? Is it going to be forthco ming tomorrow? When am I likely to see that? Mr. Gllleshammer: We will endeavour to get that information before the end of the week for the member. Staff have been here at the Estimates throughout and, like you and I, did take a break for supper, and we will endeavour to get the information the member requested as soon as we can.

You will recall in the last round of Estimates where we spent some 45 hours together, I think both members recognized at the end of it the excellent response time from the department and the sharing of information. We will endeavour to do that as time permits. Most ofthe staff have gone home now, and I think we are back into Estimates. I saw some information from the House leader of the official opposition suggesting that we may start again tomorrow morning, so we are sort of pressed for time here as we have staff involved in this exercise , but we will endeavour to get this information as we have time.

The member made some sort of derogatory commen ts in his opening statement. I was going to wait and read them , but there was not-he questioned the arithmetic that was used in the budget and my opening statement. We would welcome a chance to go over that line by line to show that there were substantial increases in

5030 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 certain areas of the budget. Because there are some areas of the budget that did not get an increase or where we could economize a little, I would explain to the memb er that we would take the reduction in some areas to improve programming and service in other areas. That is sort of a simple explanation for the member, but we could get into more detail on the line-by-line identification of those budgetary changes.

You know, there were other questions that were asked about where these dollars came from and, again, we would have to get into the detail to show you that, and have the appropriate staff here to do that. Maybe I will just leave It at that and say that we will provide that information on as timely a basis as we can. Mr. Alcock: Well, I appreciate that In the last round of Estim ates we did receive a great deal of information, and we had a great deal of time, so it was easy to be somewhat flexible in the acquiring of that.

I certainly can understand where a request comes up that is perhaps outside of what might be expected to be the normal operations of the budgeting process, there were calls for some analysis on the part of staff, the staff needs some time, and I have no difficulty being patient about those requests. I would have thought, however, since the grants list was requested at the last time, it has been reques ted every time we have had Estimates, It is part of- surely the department in putting together its bu dget mak es a det ermi nation about what organizations it is going to fund.

I am a little surprised that document is not simply sitting here ready to hand out at the beginning of the Estimates or failing that, at least available for photocopying out of the briefing books the minister must have. I mean, it is something that is SOP I would have thought. The second thing, I would appreciate from the minister the detailing of the $36 million. That is the qu estion I asked him . I did make a series of comments about his arithmetic. I have questioned his arithmetic for the length of time he has been minister, and I see no reason to change now.

I would simply like to see, in some hard determined way , wher e he has chosen to allo cate the $36-plus-plus million he has received and where he has taken resources from, leaving aside all of the other details, just to know the answers to those questions, that is the request I have made. That second request, I realize, if the department has not already done it, I would be surprised if they had not, but if they had not, then they may need some time to do that. I am not requesting that tonight but the grants list, it strikes me, should be available. *

(2200) Mr. GIIIeshammer: I have indicated that we would provide the member with that Information in due course, but I would also point out to him that the same 240 hours of Estimates is available this time around as last time around. The government has no control over how the opposition uses that time and, I mean, if the opposition-If you are suggesting that your colleagues are not managing their time appropriately, that is hardly an Issue you can blame on government. There are 240 hours, and I am sure that all of the critics want to have an opportunity to put their thoughts on the record.

I would remind the honourable member that his colleague used an inordinate amount of time In Culture this year. I know that the honourable member would make a strong case In his caucus, and the fact that these Estimates are left to the end of the Estimates discussion is largely determined by opposition memb ers. Again, I would point out that there are 240 hours available, and I do not take responsibility for the fact that the member is not getting his 45 or 50 hours in Family Services that he used last time.

I suppose caucus colleagues would want to say that it is their turn, and we are prepared to provide answers to the questions that were asked , and would love to do that as we get into the line-by-line discussion and we can look at the specific areas. The member is questioning my arithmetic, and I would point out to him that he is the Rnance critic who in previous years phoned New Brunswick and Newfoundland to find these great breakthroughs in the budget Estimates only to have to apologize for the errors he made.

We looked at the budget in this department last time around and examined it line by line, and we will do so again this time. I say to you that there are no errors in our arithmetic, and we are perfectly capable and willing to explain all of the budget lines, and I am prepared to proceed with that now.

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5031 Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to just ask a couple of questions. The minister was talking-- Mr. Deputy Chairman: Can I ask the honourable member to bring the mike up a little bit? Thank you. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair. The minister had earlier been talking about rural daycare and the need for such care, and I want to em phasize that that need is not only for farm families and on a seasonal basis.

There are many people who are now forced to seek em ployment outside the home and want safe care for their children. There was a study done earlier identifying the need for daycare in the rural area, and examples were set out on rural daycare and the need. I want to ask the minister when his department is going to perhaps implement some of those trial programs that might work in the rural area, or look at other possibilities, always keeping in mind that the standards be maintained and the safety of the children be the most important thing that we are looking for. Mr.

Gllleshammer: We did have an opportunity to discuss the information brought forward by the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada. I believe that is the report the honourable member is referring to that was brought to government a few months ago and that we are now studying. It does provide some information for us that we are using within the department now. It was a cross-country survey, and it found that the greatest number of users of licensed facilities were in Manitoba, where 63 percent of respondents said they used the available services regularly.

It also referenced rural child care services which included daycare centres providing extended-h our care and family daycare homes and child minders where care givers go into the homes of tam ilies for irregular or overnight care. We do have some trial projects, and I have referenced the Langruth one. It seems from the study that we have done that it is difficult to set up daycare centres in small ru ral com mu nities because, on the one hand, when you establish the institution, you also establish the fixed costs.

Then, if you are looking at a combination of people that require the service for the full year-and I am aware that there are people in the rural areas besides farmers. In fact, the farmers are becoming more and mo re of a min ority in the ru ral areas. -(int erjection)- Well, the member wants to comment on policy and I would say the policy that has made farms much, much larger are the innovations and changes in the 19 70s, 19 80s and 19 90s. If the member, who I think has a rural background, is not aware of that, I am sure the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Downey) and Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Findlay) would be happy to enlighten her on that. The reason there are fewer farmers is that farms have become very, very large, and the massive equipment that is used allows farmers to plant and work more cultivated acres than they did in the past. The memb er cannot live in the past in the days when there were farms and farmsteads in every quarter

section and families were very large. That has changed. At least, it has changed in most of Manitoba. My good friend Parker Burrell tells me it has also changed in Swan River. That report was brought to government by Marion McNabb who, I think, is familiar to the me mbers of the opposition, and it is currently before the department.

The department Is studying it and is prepared to bring forth some recomme ndations and, working with the people in the rural community, will attempt to provide those additional spaces that are needed, and give the advice and support to those who want to bring forward the increase of daycares in the rural area. I had indicated earlier that there are centres operating with flexible hours including evening, overnight and weekend service in Brandon, Langruth, Portage Ia Prairie as well as in Winnipeg. In those rural areas, they provide evening and Saturday service.

The one in Langruth is open during the day up to 10 :30 in the evening. The West End Day Care Centre in Portage Ia Prairie is opening for evening care until 12 midnight. So those are the centres, but there are also a number of homes that provide even overnight care as well as the later hours in the evening in the flexible daycare. There are some seven or eight homes in Winnipeg with a number of licensed spaces.

There are two in Thompson, one in The Pas, two in Morden and about 1 0 in Brandon, as well as homes in Hartney, Strathclair, Rapid City and Victoria Beach with some 7 4 licensed spaces to accommodate evening and overnight and weekend needs for people wanting to access daycare. There are spaces available. The member may argue not enough spaces, but I think centres have

5032 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 1991 to look at the economic viabili ty of opening new centres in sparsely populated areas. There are service providers coming forward to provide home spaces, and these are licensed as we are able to do so. *

(2210) Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to assure the minister that I am well familiar with the rural way of life and the farming communi ty. I was born and raised in the rural commu nity. I too raised a family in the rural commu nity and understand the needs that farm famili es face dur ing times of long hour s of employment. I also want to let the minister know that the answer to the rural commun ity is not being bigger, and larger farms are not the answer. As we see, as the farms get larger, we lose population and lose many services. However, my question is to the minister.

Other pr ov inc es have set mo ney asi de, both in Saskatchewan and Alberta, to test out new and innovative ideas as far as daycare goes in the rural area. These provinces have recognized that there is a high num ber of accide nts in fa rming commu nities where children in many cases are left alone. My qu estion is very sim ple and straightforward: Is this government at this time also prepared to recognize the need that we have children who are sometimes left in dangerous situations?

Are they prepared to invest some money into our future and look at new and innovative ideas of how these children can be looked after safely, not necessarily in the way they are being looked after now because the minister tells us there are many empty spaces In the rural area? Obviously, as we listen to the comments of many people in the rural com munities, there is a different need perhaps that has to be addressed In a new and innovative way but, again I say, always keeping high standards and thinking first of the safety of the children. Mr.

Gllleshammer: I thank the honourable member for the question, and the need is being expressed by parents in the rural area. Many of those parents, of course , find their own solutions and historic ally have. I say to the member, the first obligation for the care and the welfare and the safety of children is with the parent, and the member agrees that is the way it is supposed to be, so that parents will never and certainly do not want to pass that responsibility on to anyone else. An Honourable Member: They have no choice many times. Mr. Gllleshammer: Well, the member says, the parents have no choice .

Whether the family lives In rural Manitoba or urban Manitoba, the responsibility first and foremost for the care of that child and the safety of that child is with the parents, and they have different options in different areas of the city and different areas of the province depending on their own individual circums tances to sometimes seek out and find alter nate care for their children. Government, over the last number of years, has been involved in the licensing and the provision of daycare in an affordable, flexible manner, and we will continue to do so.

I read into the record earlier the number of licensed spaces that have come on stream in recent years and In the last year-almost 1 ,000 new spaces. The impetus for coming forward with proposals for daycare homes and daycare centres has resided with parents and the commu nity with the valuable help of the daycare office, which is there to serve the people who are looking for that type of assistance. Other provinces are experimenting with the provision of service In rural areas, and we are pl eased to gain from othe rs' experience.

Saskatch ewan, a very similar province in terms of geography and population, less similar but still somewhat similar as Alberta-! think that where we have a mix of urban and rural population with somewhat the same geography, if they are finding successfu l ways of accommodating rural daycare for people who need that assistance in off hours, if we can learn from their experience, we will. I recently met with the ministers of Social Service in Toronto, where we shared some information, and we were able to develop some relationship with those ministers.

Of course, the deputies are often longstanding and have a relationship whereby they share that sort of information. If there are things that work in other provinces in the daycare field or any other area, I think we are prepared to look at them. If they have found a solution for rural daycare that fits into our scheme of things, we would be pleased to do so. They too wish to pick our brain as far as our system is concerned . I know in Saskatchewan they spend somewhat around a third of the number of dollars on daycare that we do in Manitoba. You know, in Ontario your

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 5033 colleague has made reference to the Ontario government and the Ontario system of daycare and indicated that they have a system there that we do not want to emulate and that the government I know had planned on making some. revisions in their promises and rhetoric prior to the election and now have found that they are unable to follow through with that. So, in answer to the member, if there are things that we can learn from other provinces of ways to provide a better service and to emulate some of the projects they have, we would be pleased to do so. Ms.

Barrett: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have several issues that have not yet been thoroughly digested as some issues have in this area that I would like to get some feedbac k from the minister. The first one is special needs. This is an area that I will admit to being quite confused about. There has been a great deal of concern expressed by the daycare communi ty. As well, I am sure the minister has received these commu nications from not only daycare centres, but parents with special needs children, wondering what is going to be the status of special needs chil dren and spaces in the daycare system.

I know the minister's announcement inclu ded an additional $375,000 or $376,000 for special needs. I am wondering if he can explain what that money will be used for and if he can attempt to allay some of the concerns of daycare centres and families that are worried about the potential inability of daycare s to be able to con tinue to provide special needs programming for childr en. *

(2220) Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairman, you know, I do recognize that prior to the announcemen t of the budget there were people indicating that special needs care was going to be done away with or severely changed, and that is not the case . I am pleased that the member notes that there has been an increase in funding of some $370,000 for speci al needs. There were approximately 395 childre n enrolled in the children with disabilities program as of March 31 , 1991-395 of these children.

The new budget, the 1991-92 Child Day Care budget has provided for an additional $370,000, which should allow for another 50 children to participate , so that would increase the children enrolled upwards of 445. (Mr. Jack Penner, Acti ng Chairman, in the Chair) We have had some concerns expressed by some of the people in the system that there were problems with special needs and we have been meeting with them to make the adjustments which would remedy the situation.

While I have not heard anything recently, I think that by and large we have worked through that problem and that in recognition of the fact that the salary enhancement grant no longer exists, and I believe the problem identified with special needs was rel ated to the salary enhancement grant, we have made the adjustment whereby the children with disability staffing grant was increased by $50 to $1,720 per billing period.

We are pleased that we have been able to respond to what was seen as a deficiency in the new structure and the increased grant should allow most daycare centres to con tinue to function and the service for these children with disabili ties will continue. Ms. Barrett: Yes, I was speaking with a director of a child care centre in Winnipeg who shared with me some concerns about the funding for special needs, and she did speak to the fact that the $1 ,720 per billing period grant for special needs.

When she went through the comparison of that figure versus the costs that were curr ently being borne by her agent, the daycare , for the special needs worker, it turns out that the new formula with salary and benefits will mean a 63- cent-an-h our decrease for this child care worker who also has an infant in care. So the special needs worker is eligible for a partial subsidy for her infant, but only a partial subsidy and she is getting a decrease actu ally of 63 cents an hour even with the $1 ,720 funding.

I will agree with the minister that the whole funding situation is very complex, and I am not for a moment suggesting that I understand it completely or even partially, but what she is saying is that with the elimination of the salary enhancemen t grant, even increasing the funding for the special needs worker, it is still a decrease from what this worker was being paid. She also says that the manual states that special needs workers should be paid the same as others at the same level of experience and training, and this will not be the case in this particular example.

I know this is only one example, but the minister has also spoken about single examples, too, so I feel I am on fairly safe ground in using this as a case where there is concern being expressed. I just wantto bring thatto the minister's attention and suggest that further adjustments may be necessary.

5034 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 Mr. Gllleshammer: I wonder if you could just clarify for me, you indicated that this was a daycare worker who is also the parent of a child who receives a disability. Can you just clarify that for me? Ms. Barrett: Mr. Acting Chair, I realize that was probably unclear. No, the special needs worker at the daycare centre is getting a decrease in actual salary of 63 cents an hour. That special needs daycare worker, at the same time, has a child in infant care and is only eligible for a partial subsidy.

So she is ending up getting a 63-cent an hour decrease in her actual income and is also being hit at the other end with the major increases in parent fees. It was sort of an aside comment. It does not bear on the main issue which is the funding, their salary levels for special needs children.

I think the issue is that in this case, and in other cases, centres are worried about and parents are worried about the fact that the lack of the salary enhancement grant is putting major pressure on daycares to be able to-parti cularly daycares who have had up to 100 percent of their workers being Us and Ills, and that this decline in revenue from what was funded originally is being felt throughout the system and the pressure is on the special needs, as well.

It is my understanding that is one part of it, and the other part of it is I am just wondering if this is an inaccurate indication, this single issue, this single case, that the special needs workers are not going to even be paid at what they were in many cases before. Mr. Gllleshammer: I would indicate to the member that again, in recognition of the fact that the salary enhancement grant no longer exists, the children with disabilities staffing grant was increased to $1,720 per billing period. This accommodated the majority of the cases that came to our attention.

In addition to that, there is also provision for child daycare to authorize children with disabilities staffing grants in an amount greater than $1,720 per billing period where the situation warrants it. So given that, I would ask that you perhaps relay the message that it can be brought to our daycare office, and we would review the situation. Again, it was an issue that was, I think, first brought up in the House by the mem ber for St. James (Mr. Edwards), and mem bers of the public who had special needs children also brought it to the attention of the department.

So we worked with them in the system to try and find a solution. I believe we did resolve that. Again, we are pleased and I know the member is pleased that we were able to continue with the program for children with disabilities and to, in fact, increase the spending there of some $370,000 which would allow an increase of about 50 children. ..

(2230) Now, I know the member is quite interested in the children with disabilities, and I would like to give her some more information on that. There are 108 centres in Winnipeg that accommodate some 248 children with disabilities. In the Interlake area, there are eight centres accommodating 15 children. In the Westman area, ther e are 27 centres accommodating 42 children. In South Central, there are five centres accommodating 16 children. In Central, there are five centres accommodating 13 special needs children. In Norman, there are five centres accommodating 22 special needs children.

In Parkland, we have eight centres accommodating 11 children. In Eastman, there are nine centres accommodating 22 special needs children, and in Thompson, there are three centres accommodating 11 special needs children. All in all, a total of 178 centres across this province are accommodating some 400 children with disabilities. You can see that there is a distribution of these across the province, and while some centres have a small number of children with disabi lities, som e, you migh t say, are more specializing in the accommodation of those special needs children.

In addition, there are approximately 25 children in family daycare homes in Manitoba on whose behalf child daycare provides grant funding. Again, there are quite a number of children with disabilities who are being accommodated. With the adjustments that have been made by the daycare office, I think we have resolved most of those problems. Ms. Barrett: Can the minister tell us if there is a wait list for special needs children, and if so, what that number is? Mr. Gllleshammer: We are aware that there are special needs children on a waiting list.

Again with the waiting lists that the centres have, we are not privy to all that information. We are aware that the additional funding was able to accommodate an additional 50 children. I cannot give you a figure of

July 22, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5035 how many of the children on waiting lists are in this cat eg ory . The centres, I think, have tha t information, and as I indicated before, we have not compiled that at the daycare office. In some cases, the waiting lists are not made available to the daycare office, but we could attempt to compile that information. Ms. Barrett: Can the minister explain how his department made the determina tion that there would be funding for 50 additional children if there is not accurate information available on the actual number of children on wait lists? Mr.

Gllleshammer: I am told that there are wait lists that are handled regionally by our regional offices. We do not have that information centrally, but we can attemptto compile that, and if I get further information while we are still in session, I would be happy to make that available. It appears that there was a sufficient number in the various regions to be involved in this expansion, and we will attempt to see what information we can get from our regional offices. Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Acting Chair, I appreciate that response on the part of the minister, and while the special needs issue is definitely one that could be expanded upon, in the interest of time I will go on and ask several more questions in this area.

This is a question that I have asked the minister in the House, and I would like to ask the minister again in hopes that I, I am sure, will get a more complete answer this evening, the rationale for forgoing the cost-sharing funding from the federal government by putting additional resources into private centres which are not- those funds which are not cost recoverable from the federal government.

I find it partic ularly interesti ng, especially in light of the fact that the federal government seems to be going into the direction of decreasing cost sharing, and there are other areas in this department that are definitely under attack in that regard. I find it interesting that the government would choose not to take full advantage of one of the few diminishing number of cost-shared revenue sources from the federal government. I am wondering if the minister can explain the rationale for that decision. Mr. Gilles hammer: The subsidy and grant system is a complex one, as we have said before.

On balance, we will receive more cost sharing as a result of restructuring because of the additional resources put into the subsidy system. As a result, we have improved our position vis-a-vis the federal government. I think I can give you some additional information on that. The Canada Assistance Plan, or CAP, cost shares eligible child welfare subsidies at a 50 percent level and grants to nonprofit centres at 50 per cent of two -th irds of the total of total expenditures. Now because we have shifted more subsidies into the system in this offset by reducing the grants, we have increased the subsidies.

In 1990-91 , the federal contribution allowed for a 41.3 per cent reco very of total child day care expenditures. Under the restructured system in '91-92, it is anticipated that the federal contribution will increase to 42.2 percent of the total child care expenditures. Again, this is based on the increased amount of dollars in subsidy. Maybe we will just leave it at that for the moment. Ms.

Barrett: I understand that marginal increase in the percentage because of the more money into subsidies, but it appears to me that the minister could have, as well, made the decision to continue to put resources into the cost-recoverable centres and have increased the overall percentage of money recoverable from the federal governmen t even more, that it is not just the subsidies, it is where they are going. There are two parts of it. There are the subsidies, I understand, and then there is the recoverable part to the nonprofits.

Every dollar that the minister puts into a private, for-profit centre is a dollar that is not eligible for the cost recovery from the federal government. While he has increased the subsidy amount, he has not taken full advantage of the centre-recoverable subsidies. *

(2240) Mr. Gllleshammer: I am very pleased to hear the honourable member change her reference to a decrease to a marginal increase, because that more accurately reflects the situation. It sounds very much to me, Mr. Acting Chair, that the member is heartily endorsing the subsidy system because of the advantages of recovering from Canada increased dollars. These discussions, while they seem lengthy, are bearing some fruit in that I think the member not only has a better understanding but more of an acceptance of the situation. (Mr. Deputy Chairman in the Chair) I know that the memb er is suggesting that there are certain segments of the daycare community

5036 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 22, 1991 system that we should not fund, but we believe very strongly that parents should have a choice. I see the member nodding her head, and I am glad that she agrees with that, because we do believe that parents should have a choice whether they access a private daycare or the centres or the daycare homes. It is, I guess, a good example of how clarification and understanding will bring us closer together on an issue like this. We do have a marginal increase in the dollars that are being accessed through the Canada Assistance Plan.

We are pleased, through the increased subsidies, that the federal government is increasing their contribution to daycare in Manitoba. Ms. Barrett: Mr. Deputy Chair, just a comment. I was not nodding in agreement with anything that the mi nister was saying -a point of information. Secondly, any fruit that these discussions may bear at this time will be very, very sour. We are not in agreement on many, many points in this discussion. I want to put on the record that case, that situation.

I am not going to carry through any more on the cost sharing, because it is clear that the minister is unwilling to discuss the particular area that I am most and many are very interested in. I would, however, like to ask a question on choice or have a bit of a discussion on choice. The minister talks about choice in a large number of contexts, not only the child daycare system , but he was wont to use this word in his earlier discussions, particularly in Question Period, on the choices that Child and Family Services agencies had to made, et cetera.

I think we have a different view of what the word "choicew and the concept "choicew means in this context. One of the things that has come very clear to us and to many of the people who have shown concern and have raised those concerns with the minister, the media, the opposition parties and anyone who will listen to them is that, far from increasing or even maintaining the level of choice that parents have for their daycare, the choices are being severely limited, particularly for the middle-income families who are being most devastated by these incredible increases in parent fees.

Parents in the past have had a choice.

One of the positive things about this daycare system has been the acceptance in theory and in philosophy, if not always 10 0 percent in practice, of the need to provide a wide range of day care choices for families, a wide range within each community as much as possible, certainly within the regions of the province, taking into account local needs, and there has been earlier discussion in that regard, so that parents who want to have their child or children in a daycare centre, and there are many good reasons for parents choosing that option, have in the past had that option available to them, space permitting.

Parents who chose to have their children In a family daycare centre, and there are good and sufficient reasons for many parents to choose that option, had that choice. Parents who wanted workplace, there was some access for workplace, et cetera.

What has happened now or what Is feared to be going to happen now with the increase in parent fees is that those parents just above the subsidy cutoff-and we do not know how many of those families there are, because there is no statistical data on those families-w ill not be able to have the range of choice that they had before, particularly parents whose children have been in daycare centres.

The fear is that many of them will be forced to go into daycare or child care arrangements that are less than optimal for them, such as a family daycare where they would prefer to have their children in a daycare centre or in some cases where there Is not access to even family daycare, the latchkey-kid syndrome. Now this concern has been raised on a broad level.

It has also, again to go back to the Ontario situation, been shown to have the effect of the Ontario experience, which Is to do exactly the same thing that this government is doing, has been to vastly increase the number of latchkey kids, the number of families who cannot afford to access the system.

I just want to make the point that I think the minister is incorrect in his use of the word "choice,w that parents have far less choice than they did on June 30th before the rate increases took place, and that it is inappropriate for the minister to make those comme nts about the new system, that the impact is going to have a very negative effect rather than a positive effect.

I would also like to raise a concern about earlier comments that the minister made about the funding and how the costs have to be met and the fact that centres, if they have less than a full complem ent of children attending, may have to make some staffing adjustments. The comments had a very familiar ring to them. They were almost word for word the

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5037 comments that the minister had made in the last Estimates when talking about staffing for shelters and how the shelters staff for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The minister was saying that pi:lrhaps that level of staffing would be unavailable to some shelters, and the same kind of suggestion he made, that daycare centres may have to lay off staff and this kind of th ing, is again, I believe , showing a lack of understanding on the part of the minister about what child daycare is all about and the issues of quality.

This is another one of the major issues that have been raised. This whole area is one that is of deep concern to me, that the minister can state that daycares may have to make adjustments based on numbers of children. The analogy that occurred to me was like it was a fast-food store, fast-food shop, that if one week your revenue is down, you lay off the staff, and the next month if your revenue goes up again, you can hire the staff back on. That is not how the system works and it is not how the system was meant to work.

If that is how the system Is going to be forced to work because of the minister's change In funding, then we will not have the model daycare system we have had in the past; we will have a model, but it will be a negative model, of what not to do. •

(2250) I have one question I guess before the end. I am sure the minister probably will want to comment on some of my comments. He talked about if there Is a 75 percent or more attendance for subsidized spaces, the centre will be paid at a full-time rate. That Is my understanding of what he said.

Am I corr ec t to as sume then that for nonsubsidized parents of a daycare centre there Is no-of course then the government has eliminated their supp ort in that regard, so the parent-a daycare centre, when you are talking about the 75 percent gets paid at full time, for a daycare centre that has virtually all subsidized children, that makes that centre a little more secure in its funding base. Many of the centres we have talked to, a vast majority of their children are subsidized. Many of the other centres have exactly the reverse.

So this 75 percent occupancy getting funded at a full rate does not help those centres or those portions of those centres that are not subsidized at all. Again I think the funding increase has not taken account of the implications that the new changes will have on centres' ability to raise revenue. There is no case where 1 00 percent attendance will be achieved throughout the entire year. So centres are going to be forced into reductions. Those reductions, in 80 percent of the cases, will be in staff, because that is where 80 percent of the costs are. I am wondering if the minister would like to comment on that.

Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairman, the member covered a wide range of issues there from sub sidies to shelters to fast-food stores and attendance. I would make comment on a number of those issues. We do pay the full subsidy for children enrolled up to 75 percent of the time. There is some flexibility there in that if there is nonattendance or poor attendance the subsidy is still paid If there is at least 75 percent attendance. I think it Is recognized as one of the most generous provisions of that nature across the country.

Now , the pol icy regarding attendance for nonsu bsidized children is set by the individual boards of directors. I am sure that would be the way the memb er would want it to be, to allow the board to make those decisions regarding the attendance policies of children of parents who are paying the full cost. The board can be as restrictive or as generous as they want, and I suspect that If they perceive there is a problem with attendance of children, It is one that they have to deal with in policy and practice at that local level. The member started by talking about choices.

I think we have a reasonably similar understanding that parents, first and foremost, make the decision about their children. Your colleague from Swan River was talking about the dangers for farm children if they are left unattended. Well, it is the parents' responsibility to care for that child or to make arrangements for that child, and surely the official opposition is not indicating that government should take the responsibility for the safety of childr en. First and forem ost, that is the responsibility of a parent.

The choices that parents have are that they can place their child in a centre or in a licensed daycare space or they can make arrangements with extended family, and that has always been the choice of parents, and surely the member is not suggesting that government should make those

5038 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 decisions. There are a broad array of choices out there given the services available. Your colleague suggested that we should be building daycare centres in more of the rural areas and to have the flexibility in those centres to accommodate farm families. Well, there are places where that has worked, and we use langruth as an example, but again, the creation of those services is largely the responsibility of the parents and people seeking daycare out there, so there are a wide range of choices out there.

The member seems to, in her discussion about subsidies, be suggesting that we should expand the su bsidy syste m. We have put substantial new money into the daycare department over the last four budgets, an increase of some 60 percent. We are making a change in structure this year by moving from grants to subsidies, and we have expanded the range of those subsidies. That range that was in place when her political party made decisions has been expanded, so those subsidies have been expanded. The member is recognizing that expansion and, I think, suggesting that we should expand even further.

There is a cost to that, and at the same time that she is asking government to spend more on social allowances and her colleague from Burr ows (Mr. Martindale) is frequently suggesting that we enha nce the social allowances and the amount of money we spend in that area, there are those who want to put more money Into the Child and Family Services agencies across the province.

There are those who reco gn ize the many vul nerable Manitobans we have in the rehab and commu nity living area of our department where we need additional daycare programs and additional group homes to accommodate those people who are reaching the age of the majority or coming out of the provincial facilities. So atthe same time that those demands are being made on other areas of the department, the member is also asking us to further expand the funding for the subsidies.

I would point out to her that this department received a 6.9 percent increase in funding, the largest funding increase across government, at a time when provincial revenues were flat. There are departments of government who made many, many difficult decisions that her colleagues have criticized. I guess we could have followed the Ontario model and increased taxes and increased the provincial deficit further than it is now and, of course, increasingly the long-term debt.

The minister from Ontario, at a conference I was referencing earlier, gave a one-hour dissertation on the $1 0-billion deficit in Ontario, and how important that was, and that they had no other alternative. I clearly see the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is suggesting the same thing, that not only must we increase spending in other areas of this department, but we should also be increasing the subsidies. We did increase spending with Child Day Care by some 2 percent. Again, it has been a tremendous increase in this area of the department over the last four budgets-a 60 percent increase.

We do have some limits, and we have said to the taxpayer and the taxpayer has said to us, do not increase the provincial taxes. So the other choice was to increase the deficit, and we chose not do that. So we can look at increasing these subsidies in subsequent years. I tell you the pressure is on government and all departments to expand and spend more money. I know that some of your colleagues have been helpful. They have suggested that we could spend less on the Environment or less on Natural Resources and spend more on Family Ser vices.

We are already spending more money in this area than any other area of government in terms of our increase, so we will take that under advisement, and we can expand subsidies in subsequent years. We have already indicated that the subsidy system is going to be monitored to look at the uptake in the subsidies. We have expanded the upper end of it. If the member persists in asking for a further expansion of that, I can just say it is something we will look at as we build our subsequent budgets. *

(2300) The memb er wanted to talk about wife abuse shelters as well, and is saying that those shelters should be fully staffed even when they are empty. We have to look carefully at that, and I can refer to one shelter that was empty for three weeks and, at the same time, was increasing their staffing. You know, we are committed to working with the boards of those shelters in terms of board development and assistance from the department. We inherited a rather under funded shelter system, and I think the memb er probably in her previous life was closest to the shelter system than any other area of the department, or at least had

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 5039 some knowledge of it. So there was a tremendous amount of rhetoric regarding the shelter system by members of the official opposition, but there was some really bad underfunding, and the funding to the shelter system has been stab ilized with substantial increases. There is a core funding and a per diem funding which has allowed for the stability of those shel ters and the expansion of those shelters.

At the present time I believe we have 11 or 12 -1 guess the 12 th one is coming on stream-sh elters across the province, and we are spending nearly $3 million on the shelter system now. If the member is proposing that we can simply have the boards staff those and expand programs and develop programs when the shelters are empty, I say to her that those boards have to be responsive to the numbers of people who are accessing those shelters.

The boards of the shelters have to make informed decisions and have the capacity to bring more staff on stream at certain times of the year or when those shelters become more busy than they normally are. We have increased that funding and we have worked with the boards. We have also committed to the shelter system that we would review the funding model and we are currently doing that.

I can tell you, talking to one director who indicates that there is a substantial surplus in the shelter that she is the director of and that there are other shelters where the surplus or the amount of money thatthey access is not of the same amount. We are looking atthat and working with the shelter directors and boards to come up with a revised funding model that we can all live with. I say that there has been a lot of attention given to the shelter system. We have enhanced it. We have expanded it and we have done more than provide rhetoric.

We have provided the funding that was required in that system to have those shelters work in the various communities. lastly, I would address the memb er's comments about the fast-food store. I say clearly that is the rhetoric of the member. At no time have I or anybody in the department talked about the vital services provided by daycare providers, whether it be in the private sector or the centres or the homes that are licensed, have we ever referred to this system as a fast-food store.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work that has been done by the department and by the various organizations that make up the cross

section of services that are provided in daycare. The Family Daycare Association, the MCCA and the Manitobans for Quality Child Care, who have sent information to me, and others who are active in the pursuit of providing service for children, that I believe that those organizations and those individuals take very seriously the sacred trust of looking after children, not only children with disabilities but other children who access the system .

I think the training which is provided for daycare workers, whether it is Red River Commun ity College or whether it is on-the-job training, is meaningful and that those workers take their job very seriously. I am rather surprised that the me mber would equ ate the type of service to a fast-food store. I do not believe that truly reflects her vision of child daycare. It certainly does not reflect the vision that we have in the department or in government, that the care of children is very, very important.

I think by and large parents take the care and upbringing of their children very seriously and when they entrust that to someone else when those children are at a very tender age and are putting them in the care of a licensed provider, someone who has had years of experience and considerable training, they do so with some level of trust and confidence in the system. The member, I think, is suggesting that parents will simply drop their kids off at a licensed place as if they were attending a fast-food store. That is a sad distortion of the system .

I do not think you can refer to children in a cavalier manner like that and

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-90b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf 90b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c26dbda49201c3687f3803e93f6579e1d18927ef

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