Manitoba Hansard — 11 October 2007 (Sitting 18A, 39th Legislature, 1st Session)

39-1-18a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LIX No. 18A – 10 a.m., Thursday, October 11, 2007

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Ninth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BOROTSIK, Rick Brandon West P.C. BRAUN, Erna Rossmere N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. BRIESE, Stuart Ste. Rose P.C. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P.

DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARCELINO, Flor Wellington N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin Southdale N.D.P.

SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

1125 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, October 11, 2007 The House met at 10 a.m. PRAYER ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Would you please call the Committee of Supply with the understanding that this afternoon and tomorrow morning the House will also be sitting in the Committee of Supply? Mr. Speaker: The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply.

Madam Deputy Speaker and the Chairs, please proceed to the respective rooms you will be doing, and also with the understanding that this afternoon and tomorrow morning the House will also be sitting in the Committee of Supply. The honourable official opposition–we've already resolved into Committee of Supply. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) FAMILY SERVICES AND HOUSING Madam Chairperson (Marilyn Brick): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Family Services and Housing. As had been previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in the committee of Estimates as they pertain to Child and Family Services department. In Portage la Prairie there was an announcement made by Child and Family Services about three years ago now as it pertained to Manitoba Developmental Centre.

In the press release there was an indication that it would be an ongoing 10-year project for redevelopment of that facility, and the redevelop- ment would lend itself to the basics of community living within a structure supported by institutional supports. Everyone that was present at the announcement was ecstatic that the quality of life issues, which had been so long not addressed, were finally going to be addressed. * (10:10) Now, I'd like to ask the minister, because there has been a change in responsibilities within the Executive Council.

As the minister reflected upon his appointment that fresh eyes were going to take a look at the expenditure and the redevelopment of the Manitoba Developmental Centre. It's now been a little more than a year since that took place, and I'm asking the minister, as I asked the Minister of Government Services earlier, that indicated there had been, basically, just maintenance and upgrade addressed to building code require- ments, but no real initiatives of redevelopment had taken place over the last year.

So I'd like to ask the minister about the progress, as it pertained to the 10-year $40-million redevelop- ment at Manitoba Development Centre. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Housing): There was one preliminary matter to put on the record. Yesterday, I was asked about out-of-province travel and had referred to the '06-07 report. I wanted to add, because I don't think the question was only about '06-07, but just several weeks ago, as well, I attended at St.

Paul for briefings and research on child protection, the differential response model in Minnesota, and state and national responses to child sexual assault, parent training. There was one meeting on affordable housing approaches and funding models for investments in early childhood education. I just wanted that to go on the record. When we are looking at the issue of the Manitoba Development Centre, we're looking at the envelope of investments for persons with intellectual disabilities, which is a remarkable budget line to see.

When you look at the Estimates, I think, particularly, since 1999, there's been an increase of about 184 percent in the community living and in that area, 184 percent. It's one of the biggest increases anywhere in government. I think the increase is about $112 million since 1999.

1126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 With that new investment, we've been able to support about 1,300 more Manitobans in the community. I understand there are about 4,700 now, and with the increases this year, the department advises that we may be able to have about another 160 with supported living in the community. But there are a number of pressures at play here, and it's important to have just a brief dialogue on that one. First of all, the wages have gone up about 32 percent since 1999. There are continuing to be wage pressures in this area.

It's a sector that is now becoming more organized and, certainly, there's been enhanced recognition of the importance of providing services in this area, so there's an additional 2 percent provided for funding salaries this fiscal year. As well, there's $3 million for a fund to raise the lowest salaries in the sector. That's one of the trends. There's another pressure and that is the demands from families, particularly older parents, and concerns then about their family members' future and an urging that government accommodate more and more independent living for those family members.

The third issue, and the third pressure that the member talks about, is pressures to deinstitutionalize people from places like MDC most notably. That movement is not cheap, of course, as the whole budget line attests to. When it comes to MDC, this year, it was originally planned that there would be about as few as 10 discharges. The department is working to double the number to 20 in this fiscal year, and there are plans in place for some of those residents already. Some have moved out, I understand, already this fiscal year; five have already moved out.

The other challenge that we're looking at, recognizing that it is an overall government policy objective to support community living, and that is to work towards a plan in the next fiscal year so that we can halt admissions to MDC. We recognize that that is very challenging because there are many complex needs usually that arise for individuals who are now being admitted to MDC. So plans are afoot to try and devise a strategy and accommodate those individuals, although not many in number, but with high-level needs.

Just historically, and the member is probably aware of this as anyone, but we know that there were about 1,100 residents in the '80s at MDC. By March 31st of '99, the number was about 482. My understanding is that at the end of last fiscal year, end of '06-07, the number was about 330, 331, something in that range. A decrease of about 30 percent, I think, since '99. So that is addressing part of the pressure and part of the policy of the government, but it's also important to recognize th e importance of MDC and the continuum of services for persons with disabilities.

The member has heard me, and I've had face-to-face conversations with him, that we are confirming our commitment to make safety enhancements at MDC and to continue services at MDC into the future as part of the spectrum of services for persons with mental disabilities. I have heard very loud and clear from people, for example, the Linden's, that the member will know from Portage la Prairie, of the very deep concern of some parents, in particular, about the continuing role of MDC in providing some of the services in Manitoba. So that's the lay of the land overall.

The safety enhancements, I understand, are continuing. My understanding from the department is that there is engineering and architectural and costing work that is ongoing. Mean while, there are cottage improvements. I understand one cottage has been finished, and I understand that another one is now being renovated and being redesigned. We're going to carefully proceed with the safety enhancements then, and we will be giving a very close look at the engineering and architectural reports as we receive them. So that's where it's at right now. I might also say that I am interested in two other approaches here.

I would like to see, as we continue to devolve residents to supported independent living in the community, that Portage la Prairie and that area continue to provide the services. It's a hub of excellence in services. There's a great deal of expertise and caring. We think that there may be some innovative options at hand that we can encourage developments in that area for community living for residents coming from MDC. So that's something that we will consider.

The last point I wanted to make was that, given the situation that I just outlined and the pressures, the budget line increase, it raises a question as to whether that kind of increase is sustainable in the longer term and whether Manitoba, in fact, is employing models for independent living that are as diverse as meets the need of Manitobans and the models that we have currently used, and whether they tend to be more on sort of a group-home model,

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1127 whether that should continue to be the foundation of what we rely on. * (10:20) So we're going to look in a longer term way at supported living and have continued dialogue with stakeholders including the expertise at MDC and St. Amant, for example. In fact, there's been an offer from St. Amant to participate in any discussions about other models and how MDC fits within the continuum of services. Of course, as well, it's always important to listen to the voices of families and residents and consider their wishes and needs. Mr. Faurschou: Just briefly, Mr.

Minister, I do believe that there is a win-win scenario. We can have the community living lifestyles supported by the institutional amenities that already exist. We could discuss that at greater length, and I'd appreciate the opportunity, because I do belie ve that quality of life issues are indeed at the forefront of what we should be aiming for, for all persons that are afflicted with mental disabilities. Also, too, we could also look at how our Province addresses those that have been affected through either disease or accident, brain dysfunction, that affords them reduced abilities.

Potentially, Portage la Prairie and MDC may very well be able to be looked upon as, indeed, a centre of excellence for those persons afflicted with mental disabilities. So I hope the minister will have an open mind to this because I truly believe that the concentration of the health-care professionals in this field are already in Portage la Prairie, and we should continue to draw upon their experience and their expertise to the benefit all those affected by brain dysfunction. Mr.

Mackintosh: I neglected to introduce Wes Henderson, who is the director of Supported Living and who has been charged with developing longer term approaches and options for consideration of government. Just on that, I appreciate the member's remarks in that regard. I visited MDC and it was remarkable to see that caring, loving community and the expertise that exists there and, as well, to see the range of services that are now being provided in Portage la Prairie area.

I think there is a lot to be said for the considerations he put on the table and I can assure the member that we'll give consideration to his ideas. I know, too, that in the times of a shrinking institutional population there will be concerns by those who have been employed and who have settled in the area because of their role in MDC. So we are mindful of that and we will proceed with that advice under consideration. Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste.

Rose): I know the department has been subject to literally hundreds of recommendations in the last year, and I don't think we have time to go through them recommendation by recommendation. So what I would ask, though, is: What are the time lines on completing them in their entirety, and do you plan to issue any kind of status report regarding these recommendations? I'd like to know, briefly, what stage they're at right now. Mr. Mackintosh: Joining us at the table is Carolyn Loeppky. She's the ADM for–Child Protection? [interjection] Child and Family.

Also joining us is Tammy Mattern, the director of Strategic Initiatives. Last fall, the Province was presented with reports on child welfare that together comprised about 289 recommendations. The recommendations came from, notably, the Children's Advocate and the Ombudsman as well as other outside independent reviewers. I think it was remarkable, I think it's unique in the history of the province that the Ombudsman and Children's Advocate had worked together on looking for ways to improve government services of any kind, let alone child welfare.

I think it's been recognized that over the last two or three decades in particular, there have been considerable challenges in the provision of child protection services, and I would say not just in Manitoba but across the continent, which raises all kinds of challenging questions for communities. But here in Manitoba we, of course, have not been immune to these challenges.

They have, in large part, related to diffe ring approaches to child protection, in changing best practices, challenges in the area of human resources of attraction and retention of workers to the area, which I think more recently has been compounded with the general challenge of the attraction and retention of workers generally.

There have also been issues of funding that I think have been too long recognized but, as well, an increase in the number of children coming into care and, notably in Canada and disproportionately in Manitoba, a reduction in federal funding for child welfare services on reserve and, indeed, the

1128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 development then of a two-tiered child welfare system in this province and other provinces, particularly with large First Nations' populations. So, as a result of those challenges, we see recommendations that certainly vindicate the need for that kind of systemic review of what's been happening in the area of child welfare.

As a result of the receipt of those recommendations, and the government has accepted them as a blueprint for action, an initiative called Changes for Children was launched with the four child welfare authorities in Manitoba so that they would be addressed in a systematic way. The recommendations have been prioritized and grouped. We had some outside co-chairs, Dr. Catherine Cook and Reg Toews, help to put together the action plan in terms of how it would be organized and where the priorities would be.

As a result of that there have been, I think, about 20 working groups put together in 20 different areas, I should say. An emphasis was put initially on enhancing foster resources, also an emphasis on enhancing foster rates, an emphasis on enhancing the role of the Children's Advocate and the Ombudsman in case of what are called

section 10 child deaths. That is where parents or guardians have received services within the last year. An emphasis most notably, I think, on workload relief, and that was in fact one of the earliest areas where funding flowed in addition to the foster care rates that started as phase 2 last year. Mr.

Doug Martindale, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair The information management system as well: It's called CFSIS has been identified as an area for priority, and the re-engineering has begun there and the training for workers. * (10:30) The area of child welfare on reserve has two components to it: The need for more robust support on reserve because it's important to know that the resources on reserve are fe derally funded.

As well, they need to address what has been called Jordan's Principle, the need to develop a mechanism so that when there are jurisdictional disputes as between the Province and federal government that there is an immediate flow of funding so that children are not harmed, and then a dispute resolution process so that the proper jurisdiction will be responsible for payment. On that, discussions be gan with the leadership, the Grand Chief of the Assembly, Grand Chief of the Northern Authority, and the Southern Authority was represented as well.

At meetings, we had asked to meet with Minister Prentice, but we did get a meeting with Rod Bruinooge, who represented the federal minister. We are now cautiously optimistic that we will move toward a bilateral, or I should say trilateral, arrangement in Manitoba and a conclusion of Jordan's Principle model. Having said that, it has taken, in our view, too long for federal representation to be appointed, but there is a working group now in place, I understand, and there is a development now of some options.

There are also efforts to enhance the intake functions, the establishment of what's called ANCR, the All Nations Coordinated Response unit, that's under the authority of the Southern Authority, but it deals with largely Winnipeg calls, and as well there are designated intake offices across the province. So there has been the allocation of additional staff for that, and as well, the development of a new computerized telephone system, more effective operations.

The development of foster resources has been critical, and we began a campaign called the Circle of Care to raise awaren ess of the importance of fostering and asking Manitobans to consider becoming foster parents, and that has certainly been a successful campaign. I might just add that in this year's budget the member will see that this is supported in the current fiscal year by a 25 percent increase on the budget line, or $48.5 million in allocations.

So what we are seeing is a very significant and systemic overhaul in the child welfare system that is underway, in addition of course to the devolution process that began a number of years ago. But I'll just end my remarks and I hope I'm addressing where the member wanted me to go.

I'll just end with the observation that, with all of these changes unfolding–and I know that about 70 percent, I understand, of the recommendations have been addressed or are now underway, based on the priorities established collectively–that the real transformation in the child welfare system is going to be the move to what, in the child welfare, child protection systems in North America is called differential response. I mentioned about my briefings in that regard. But differential response, I guess it’s a social work term, but it really means a formalized triaging of

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1129 concerns or complaints that come into the intake offices according to the level of risk, and there would be two streams. One is the traditional and dominant, at least today, stream of protection. In other words, an investigation as to whether there's abuse, and then the appropriate decisions or responses, to one that both comprises a protection stream and a family support or family intervention stream, and that's going to be quite a change. Mr.

Briese: I think you ran over an awful lot of my questions and one– [interjection]–the answer and I'll move on with this–[interjection] Yes, I know. I would like to know the status of the Child and Family Services standards manual. The on-line manual isn't complete yet. It was recommended over a year ago and I would hope that it's going to be completed soon. Mr. Mackintosh: I’m advised that the standards, particularly around case management have been prioritized and there have been changes made there.

There are several modules that have been concluded and there are several more, ones that relate to what are called foundational standards, in other words the province-wide basic standards of practice that are being developed jointly with the authorities. So that work is ongoing, but it is ongoing and it is a prioritized activity. Mr. Briese: What's the expectation for completion on it? Mr. Mackintosh: With the caveat that new standards can also be expected to be developed based on the recognition of different needs, but the updates on case management have already been updated.

We understand that the standing committee has developed the process on concluding the outstanding ones. We understand that there are currently five that are under review. We expect that we'll go to another set then. All of this we anticipate to be completed within the three-year time frame of the Changes for Children initiative. The objective is to conclude this within the announced time line of Changes for Children. Another example of a standard, though, that has been concluded and developed on a prioritized basis is the hotel use minimization standard.

That now is a basic standard that was developed as a result of some intensive work across all of the authorities in the Child Protection branch. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Under the minister and his government there's been a rather extraordinary increase in the number of children in care. Can the minister give an explanation for that? * (10:40) Mr. Mackintosh: Across, I understand, most jurisdictions in Canada there has been that trend. I understand that that trend may well be experienced outside of Canada as well.

There have been some studies done and, indeed, there have been some publications in journals like Child Welfare that have tried to explain that trend. I think some of the more obvious explanations are, first of all, is ther e a heightened awareness of child abuse and the duty to report, particularly among professionals? I'll say that it's important–and we will be tending to this–it's important to remind all Manitobans that it's not a responsibility that should be left only to nurses and doctors and teachers and child-care workers. It's all of our legal duty to report. So that's one.

No. 2, there has developed, I think, a recognition that a child in need of protection may comprise as well, a child who is exposed to domestic violence. One study does link that awareness to increases in the caseload. That was a study done on the Ontario system. One has to acknowledge that another reason may be increased incidence of abuse. I think that would be what someone would conclude when they first look at the numbers.

That would be a tragedy absolutely if that indeed is the case, but I would suspect that that is part of the rationale and I think that has been generally accepted that that could be the case, particularly in some communities. Another explanation in Manitoba may be that with the devolution of child welfare, there is more local provision of service and awareness of more accessible, culturally-developed child welfare services. There may be more a sense of ease of communicating with the ch ild welfare authority.

Particularly, for example, Aboriginal Manitobans may well feel more comfortable in contacting Aboriginal-controlled agencies. That is speculation, but I'm just trying to answer the question as fully as I can. I will add some other explanations that have been offered. Our enhanced investigation protocols. In other words, better identification tools of child abuse. Also, it has been speculated that the

1130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 publication of reviews and concerns around child maltreatment and the child welfare system may enhance awareness of the incidence of child abuse in the population and therefore, more reporting. It also may have an impact, though, on the behaviour of child welfare workers when the system is under scrutiny, that there may be more risk-averse approaches. So those are speculations. I think I've offered maybe five or six or seven explanations that have been talked about out there. I don't own any of them. Those are ones that have been offered as explanations.

I'll just add this as a footnote: we have seen a reduction in children in care in two places. First of all, in Minnesota with the development of the differential response model, which I, for one, have been introduced to, that has resulted in a decrease in child apprehensions. In fact, the study there is very heartening with the potential of the introduction of a prevention stream. Second of all, in Alberta, there was a significant reduction in children in care when they began to–by the way, both Minnesota and Alberta carefully phased in their differential response models.

So we are going to take that advice here and phase in. That'll be happening in the new year. But, in Alberta, they phased it in; it's still a ways from being fully implemented, but they did see a fairly significant reduction in the number of children in care until very recently. The deputy minister there has advised that it’s the population pressures, the economic boom that they are seeing there, the influx of people which comprise, I guess, at-risk populations, that has seen an increase again in the number of children in care.

So they're saying that the differential response still seems to be an underlying reason for reduction, but there is this upswing now, so we'll be very interested to see how that continues. So that's my understanding of the lay of the land on the trends and reasons that have been offered from time to time. Mr.

Gerrard: I think it needs to be added clearly that the toxic approach of the NDP over the last eight years to the health of children is a major contributor here, and that's been well documented in a report on the first six years which talked about the six lost years with regard to approaches to health of children. I think that, clearly, what you're saying with regard to Minnesota suggests that your record here is quite behind other jurisdictions, and things that we've been calling for for a long time and not been implemented. But let me move on to Jordan's Principle.

As I understand it, as of today, the process for implementing Jordan's Principle is not in place. Is that correct? Mr. Mackintosh: First I just want to–I just find it astounding. The minister wants to get partisan on this one. I will have to remind the member that, sitting around a table, he made a decision in '95 to cut child welfare funding on reserves. I wonder if he told the people in Peguis and Fisher River, Jackhead, that that's what he was doing. That cut made in 1995 has had a profound impact, disproportionately in Manitoba.

Manitoba First Nations children have suffered more as a result of that cut than any other province and, as of 2005, the Wende report reports that there had been about $25 million lost to First Nations children on reserve as a result of that decision. We now have a two- tiered child welfare system in this province because of that. It is just so wrong and it has not been addressed since that decision was made in 1995, and the member should know, of course, of the tremendous efforts of people like Grand Chief Fontaine who have now prior itized this as a national crisis and tragedy.

So I have to put that on the record. Now when the member says, well, what's happening in Minnesota, that must say we're behind. Manitoba will be the second jurisdiction in Canada to introduce differential response. We are not behind. We are going to be pioneers with the development of our differential response model, no less so than Minnesota.

Minnesota very carefully phased it in, going by counties which delivered child welfare in that state, and they've only just recently gone state- wide, so there are not a lot of jurisdictions in North America that have experience with differential response, but we are going to learn very carefully from them. But we, as well, will be pioneers in this important development. On the third question about Jordan's Principle: Jordan's Principle, with out a dispute resolution process, is just code for offloading and a breach of the fiduciary obligation of the federal government to First Nations people.

A principle has to have an enforcement mechanism; otherwise, there is no way to resolve the dispute. There is no mechanism in place, and everyone recognizes that, so that is what is key on going forward. * (10:50)

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1131 The Province accepts, endorses and is committed to working with the federal government to conclude a Jordan's Principle model in Manitoba that I think will be, hopefully, the first in this country. We certainly are going to make our best efforts, as we have with the grand chiefs, to bring the federal government to the table, and now with the working group beginning its work, we're going to work like crazy to ensure that we can deliver that.

It's important that we make that effort, and while we can lament that it hasn't happened earlier and that children have fallen between the cracks in the past, at least now we have engaged the federal government in a process that will move us ahead. I don't know if there's anywhere else in Canada, actually, that now has a bilateral or trilateral process in place to conclude a Jordan's Principle model. Mr. Gerrard: I thank the minister for making clear that there is not in Manitoba yet a process for implementing Jordan's Principle.

Certainly, it's a principle that I've been arguing hard for, and I'm glad that the minister and his government endorse it, but I'm disappointed we don't yet have the implemen- tation approach. I would, of course, remind the minister that he and his government have been in charge for eight years, and it's under those eight years that there's been an extraordinary increase in the number of children in care. Let me now ask a question about a situation in Norway House.

As I understand it, from talking with Councillor Muswagon in Norway House, who has the responsibility for child and family services, that there are currently, I believe, it is 37 children who they are funding on a very temporary basis to keep these children in home. They have been told–and I'm not sure whether this is provincial or federal instructions, but I think that the funding, as the minister has indicated, has been traditionally primarily federal in this respect–that they will not receive funding for these children in their own homes, to support them in their own homes.

They are being told that the only way we're going to support these children as they need to be supported–they're special needs kids, I believe, by and large, and some of them need fairly sophisticated supports–is if these children are brought into care. Clearly, it seems very wrong to have to break up families to bring children into care in order to give them basic support which they should be getting as special needs kids.

I'm sure that I'll receive a rant and a rave against the federal government but, clearly, there is a provincial responsibility in terms of managing child and family services, and I would ask the minister to what extent he has met with the federal minister or advocated on behalf of the children in Norway House and what he is ready to do about this situation which is appalling. Mr. Mackintosh: One of the reasons that we need Jordan's Principle in this province is because of the decision in '95 that the member participated in.

The development of the two-tiered response to vulnerable children is propelling us to conclude an arrangement that hopefully the federal government will work with us on. In terms of the situation at Norway House, I think the member should make it clear as to whether it is his view that the provincial governments in Canada should be responsible for medical services on reserve. Mr. Gerrard: I think, Mr. Minister–and I would say this and I would ask the minister and that's why I asked the question the way I did–that there clearly is a responsibility of the provincial government to all citizens in this province.

There is a responsibility to be a very, very strong advocate with respect to children and with respect to children in care and with respect to Jordan's Principle at the federal level. The approach with Jordan's Principle has been there now–and I think I asked this when the minister was the Member for Fort Rouge, Tim Sale. He said, well, the provincial government accepts Jordan's Principle, and that was a year or two ago, maybe two years ago now.

I would suggest to the minister that is his responsibility as minister to all children in this province to make sure whether the service is delivered or funded provincially or federally, that it is being done with the consideration of children first. I would ask again: What has the minister done in terms of directly advocating with respect to the situation in Norway House with the federal government or taking action in any other way? Mr. Chairperson: Perhaps, for the record, you should say, the former Me mber for Fort Rouge, Mr. Tim Sale. Mr. Mackintosh: This is a doozy.

I then interpret what the member is saying as advocating for provincial governments to now take over respon- sibility for medical services on reserve. That is an astounding position, especially for someone who has served in the federal government, a government that

1132 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 has a fiduciary obligation to provide medical services to First Nations people living on reserve. The member is advocating then for the abdication of the fiduciary obligation of the federal government to perform that role. That's what he is saying. If he wants to correct the record, he can try and do so now, but I have taken that from his remarks. That would be quite a development for that abdication to be advocated. The First Nations people of Canada have made it clear that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide those services.

If the member wants to take a different position, not only will that be a very significant, if not interesting, new financial challenge for provincial governments in Canada, but it goes to undermine one of the whole basic principles of the relationship with First Nations people in Canada. Mr. Gerrard: The minister is going to extraordinary lengths to distort my remarks. He really can't understand English very well, obviously.

My question to the minister, and he still has not answered this: What has the minister done to advocate for–I did not say spend money for; I said advocate for–the children in Norway House, just like I would hope that the minister would advocate for any other child in this province? Whether it is a provincial or federal responsibility for funding, there is a responsibility for the minister and his department to advocate for children. Mr. Mackintosh: The remarks, then, of the member are perhaps becoming increasi ngly cryptic, but we'll take them at their face value.

In terms of Norway House, I have had a recent discussion, specifically, w ith the chief of Norway House on the need for the federal government to recognize its responsibility. We understand that the program that has been in place and has been extended with federal funds is one that has been proven to provide a benefit to the community generally, but specifically to the 30-plus children who have received benefits with that initiative.

I have extended my wholehearted endorsement and offered a robust role for myself, and indeed our government, in raising this issue with the federal government and putting the necessary pressures on the points that might end in a positive response from the federal government so that this matter can be addressed in a long-term way. We see the model that Norway House, with this leadership, has developed as providing a pilot for the country as a whole.

We think that the federal government would be well served by supporting the continuation of this initiative and showing other jurisdictions in Manitoba and beyond what can happen when the federal government does accept its responsibilities. * (11:00) I can tell the member that, as a result of that conversation with the chief, there will be strategy concluded, assuming that the band and council endorse this approach, to advocate specifically for the support by the federal government for this initiative.

As well, the Province is certainly very keen to provide any technical, other supports, advice for this initiative, recognizing that we know exactly where the funding responsibility is. This is not about Jordan's Principle. This is about providing services on reserve, period. Mr. Gerrard: Just one last comment and a very brief question that the minister can answer yes or no. The minister was in Ottawa, I know, just before the session began. Did the minister, on any occasion in Ottawa, raise this: Yes or no? Mr.

Mackintosh: Unfortunately, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, Jim Prentice at the time, declined to meet with me. I met with Minister Solberg on areas of our respective jurisdictions. The issue of funding on reserve is one that has to be addressed with Minister Strahl. I am very keen to conclude a strategy with Norway House to get a message across very loud and clear. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you. I take that as a no. Ms. Sharon Blady, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair Mr.

Briese: I'd like to question: What are the reporting requirements for the four child and family service authorities, and are they required to submit annual reports and audit re ports? If there are annual reports, I would like to ask for copies of them. Mr. Mackintosh: There are two reporting pieces. One is the annual reports from the four authorities and the audited financial statements. We have those available, I understand, for '05-06. For '06-07, we have all but the Southern Authority which has just concluded its annual AGM, which is the approving body for those reports. Mr.

Briese: So those will be available to us. Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, those are public, and we'll make those available to the member.

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1133 Mr. Briese: I'm going to go a step further than that. The agencies that are under those authorities, that those authorities are in ch arge of, what are their reporting requirements? Does that become part of the report of those four authorities? Mr. Mackintosh: The agencies report to the authorities, so the annual report does not contain the annual reports of the individual agencies. Mr. Briese: Are those reports from those agencies current to the authorities? Mr.

Mackintosh: My understanding is that the '05-06 audited financial statements are available and the '06-07s are in progress. Might I add that the fiscal years differ as between the Province and federal government. As the member knows, the agencies that receive federal funding then have a June end year timeline, and so those are in process. Mr. Briese: Just in follow-up to that, you talked about the ones that receiv e federal financing. Are some of those agencies a combination?

Is there a combination of federal and provincial funding and, if so, I guess the follow-up question would be: Are some of them strictly federal? Mr. Mackintosh: I can get the number of agencies that have both federal and provincial funding, but clearly they would be the agencies that serve families and children on reserve. But there isn't any agency that receives only federal money in Manitoba to our knowledge–with one exception, I understand. That is OCN's agency, which in the first year there is a belief that they may have operated only on reserve with federal money then. Mr.

Briese: How is the funding disbursed to the four authorities, and how is the funding disbursed from the four authorities to those agencies? Mr. Mackintosh: The provincial money flows to agencies based on a funding formula through the authorities. It's the authorities then that distribute the money, the provincial dollars, to the agencies. However, with the federal government, the dollars flow directly to the agen cies. The federal govern- ment does not recognize, if you will, or does not use the authorities as a distributing point. Mr. Doug Martindale, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair Mr.

Briese: What I'm trying to establish here is where the accountability of those agencies–who are they accountable to? What is the minister's input into the chain of command, and who in the system is directly accountable to the minister? Mr. Mackintosh: Under the devolution legislation in Manitoba, the arrangement of the scheme of the legislation was agency accountability to the authorities, the four authorities, and then authority accountability to the Child Protection branch, and then through the minister to the Legislature.

For the federal government, it's my under- standing that the accountability is directly from agencies to INAC, which would then be to the minister and then to the Canadian government and Parliament. * (11:10) Mr. Briese: How is the accountability enforced provincially? How do you make sure that they're meeting all the guidelines that are put there? How are you ensuring that each agency and each authority is accountable directly to your department? Mr. Mackintosh: We can identify about six mechanisms that are in place. The first, of course, are the audited financial statements and that's just an obvious.

The other is the contribution agreements with the authorities. As well, the development and conclusion of a quality assurance review process that is starting this fall. Notably that includes spending, spending patterns. The other mechanism is joint reviews of agencies with the authorities and the branch. The next are the foundational standards that are in place across the province. Finally, and this is a more recent development, that is the relatively new Agency Accountability and Support Unit, and the capacity there is now being doubled. I think the remaining positions are in the process of being filled now.

I mean, that's very current in terms of that action. That is to ensure greater accountability and reviews of financial reporting with authorities. So those are–I think there was about six of them there. Mr. Briese: You mentioned quality assurance that you're starting this fall. Could you expand just a little bit on that process? Is that ongoing? Is it going to be a one-time? How do you perceive it working? Mr. Mackintosh: The quality assurance mechanism has been recognized as a best practice. So it's a new permanent role for that function, and it will be done on a regular basis.

The idea is to have quality assurances done on a rotational basis with the authorities, so, you know, anywhere from, say, three to five years. That's a fair description.

1134 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 The other use of quality assurance is by the authorities themselves of their agencies, and this year we provided $250,000 for the authorities to do those. Mr. Briese: I'm going to ask one more question and maybe a follow-up, and then I'm going to turn it over to the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) for a few questions. One of the things that's crossed my mind especially the last couple of weeks is, if an individual calls the minister's office with a CFS-related concern, how is that dealt with? Mr.

Mackintosh: The staff in the outer office have a long experience, of course, dealing with these kinds of matters whether it's child welfare, child care, disabilities issues, welfare issues, housing issues. So there's obviously quite a volume of communications, I think 80 to 100 or something like that every week, something in that range. It really is a call on a case- by-case basis in terms of what the individuals are asking for. It's hard to get into hypotheticals because they can be as varied as the number of calls that come in.

But the staff do as best a job that they can to ensure that the person gets a timely response to the question from the person that can best provide the response. Some examples are, if it's a call about allegations that a child is in need of protection, for example, then the call–if there hasn't been a report yet, then the caller would most likely be referred to ANCR, or if they're outside of Winnipeg to a designated intake agency. There are contact numbers available for the staff to make that referral. If it's concerns about an agency, then sort of the logical referral would be then to the authority.

That's where the agency is accountable to. If it's a concern about an authority, then the call may well go to the Child Protection branch, and I know there's a designated staffperson there that is the contact link for my office for the callers. If it's a more complex ongoing matter, it may be referred to Jenny or Karen, something that requires more monitoring or sorting out what the issues are. There may be multiple issues that cross different departments or different divisions within our own department.

So that's an explanation as to how that–probably it is the same as–maybe the same people worked there even under the former minister. I don't know how long some of them have been there, but I think that has been the process that has generally been followed. * (11:20) Mr. Briese: Ultimately, the responsibility rests with the minister. What I'm trying to get at here is: How serious does a situation have to be before it's actually brought to the minister's attention? Are you briefed on all these situations or just on the more serious ones?

You are the responsible authority for the department and, ultimately, the buck stops in your desk. Mr. Mackintosh: I know that that question weighs heavy on the staff that do receive the intake in terms of, you know, what issues should be brought to a minister. That's the same for every minister's office in this building. It's often a tough call, but clearly matters, though, of policy direction are issues that are more likely to be referred to a minister, letters about overall funding.

Sometimes, too, letters are referred to the department for a draft response and then come back to me for signature, and in that way I see a fair number of matters, like when there's written correspondence. But again, it's just a case-by-case analysis as to what is of such high end, you know, policy-related concern that should be referred to the minister. It's a tough call and one that, I think, the staff have to be commended on trying to deal with each and every day. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Acting Chairperson, just a few questions.

I know that, we all know that child abuse is a very serious, serious issue, and we all take it very seriously. We know that there are a number of people working in child protection that also take it very seriously and are working very hard to mitigate these situations. I would like to ask the minister, and I know that this will be very difficult because it's a difficult concept, but as to how one defines child abuse. Is there a standard–I don't want to say definition–but application of what constitutes child abuse throughout the province of Manitoba?

Is every child taken into care assessed against this standard or assessed as not to be taken into care or to be taken into care, or are there s ubjective situations where people in the process of apprehending children make these kinds of decisions? I'm wondering if there is a standard application or a guideline or whatever you could call it that would be applied evenly to every single case in Manitoba.

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1135 Mr. Mackintosh: I think the best way to start to answer the question is by referring to the governing legislation that is the fundamental of the whole system. There are, in The Child and Family Services Act, sections that guide the practice in this province. For example, the definition of child abuse, as I recall, specifically or explicitly says that this is not only about physical abuse, but it also embraces sexual and emotional abuse. So that's the start there. I don't have that handy here, but I think that's generally what the broad definition is. Then

section 17 does set out the components or the considerations as to what comprises a child in need of protection, and that's a further refinement. The standards of practice, the risk assessments and professional judgment all combine then to lead to a decision in concert with the training and experience of child protection workers. I think the role of professional judgment is one, though, that is always at play necessarily. Of course, then, for children who are apprehended, there is court supervision process in places and there's a

part 3 of the act under child protection. So that's sort of the framework that's in place. I know in Minnesota when they looked at differential response, they spent a lot of time looking at the continuum of child maltreatment from what has usually been described as starting with neglect, and moving to abuse and very serious–well, I think all abuse is serious, you could argue–but there is that continuum there.

As part of the development of differential response, there is a need to look at how child protection workers or intake workers triage the allegations, because even in the family protection side there still has to be a risk assessment when there is a visit with the family. But, for example, in Minnesota, where they have recognized the need to differentiate along the continuum, the neglect end of the continuum, of child maltreatment, has been the realm of differential response. That's where the family support, or in Minnesota they call it the family enhancement stream, has been focussed. Mrs.

Taillieu: Certainly, recognize professional judgment in the cases where children may or may not need to be apprehended, recognize that working in child welfare is a very demanding job and one that has taken its toll on a lot of people, I'm afraid. Also recognizing, fro m what I've heard from social workers themselves, is it takes a long time for people to develop the ability to have these judgments and be professional in their judgment.

I've been made aware as well that there ar e so many people working in the child welfare system that are new, brand new, and are placed in a position of having to make these judgments and often have to call on supervisors.

It seems to be quite hard for some people to handle, as it's explained to me by experienced people that have worked in the child welfare system, that it does take some time to be able to handle these cases sensitively and the way that they need to be handled. * (11:30) Unfortunately, we have, through a lot of chaotic upheaval in the system, a number of people that may not have the level of expe rtise or experience that would be desired that they have.

I'm wondering if the minister can say–I know that there's been a number of announcements that he's made in regard to the amounts of monies that's been put into the child welfare system and the number of people and new hires and what not, but I'd really like to know, specifically, how many new positions for social workers in the province were created, how many of those have been filled, the education qualifications of the people that have filled those positions and–that for now. Mr.

Mackintosh: Just a bit of a follow to the previous question, it's also important to remember that these supervisors in the child protection system have a very vital role so that front-line workers aren't on their own when it comes to making difficult decisions. Of course, all of that is based on the new intake module that was designed and is now in place to guide workers through safety assessments, the risk assessments and the response times.

On the more recent question, as a result of the Changes for Children initiative, up to 150 new positions have been approved to be phased in over the three years of the initiative. It was prioritized in the first year that there be 64 positions to help with workload relief and most recently another 10 for the designated intake agencies for a total of 74 positions that have already been approved. Of the 64, I'm advised that the majority of those have been filled, and it is the expectation that the other positions are concluding their competition processes.

Of the further 10, the positions have now been approved, and so the hirings will begin now, and we can anticipate that will conclude over the next couple of months presumably. So we're at 74 now nearing the end of year one of the three-year initiative. The other positions, it is planned, will be mostly if not wholly dedicated to the differential response or

1136 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 prevention model under Changes for Children. There may be some decisions that there are some other allocations there, but the plan and the consensus was that the remaining 70-some positions are for prevention. In terms of the breakdown of the 64 new positions, the northern First Nations authority has six; southern, 14.5; Métis, 5; general, 22.5; foster care and hotel minimization, 16; for a total of 64. Twenty-nine are front-line social workers; the others are a variety of other worker s.

By the way, it should be remembered that the external reviews put a real focus on the need for administrative support for front-line workers and, as I said at the time, to allow workers out of the coffee room and into the living room. There are included in that even some supervisors where it was demonstrated that that could provide front-line relief by way of supports for the front-line workers providing advice and case processing.

So, when the member asked about the range of education, it will depend on the functions that the authorities eventually concluded were important for workload relief for their respective agencies. As well, the enhancements to CFSIS, the Information Management System is going to help with workload relief so you can't separate workload relief. Workload relief is not only about the new positions. It's also about how information is managed, and so the re-engineering project has begun now.

The RFP is underway now for the re- engineering of that, but ther e's been a lot of work to design how to phase in the re-engineering of the whole CFSIS infrastructure. The member accurately points out that experience is valued in the system, and recognizing the different education, it's a key part of the system that those kind of skills be paired with the responsibilities of workers. There's no doubt, and I recently read an

article ab out the very serious need for child protection workers across North America, and that is a pressure. It's not unique to the sector. It's one that many sectors are feeling the pressures on. I think those were the questions. Mrs. Taillieu: The minister indicated 16 positions for foster care hotel minimization. Could you explain that? Mr.

Mackintosh: The hotel-use minimization strategy was–first of all, there was the development of three teams of workers to make sure that foster beds in particular–somet imes emergency placement beds were being utilized, making sure that they didn't sit vacant while children were in hotels.

So the development of those resources and the timely use of them was really an underpinning of what we had to do to make a change to this culture of hotel uses developed over several years. * (11:40) The other functions were the development of alternative placement options because it's important that there be a variety because of the different needs of children in care. Fi nally, there was deployment involving agencies to develop more foster beds under the Circle of Care campaign.

My understanding, the last count, I don't know the latest, was we were up to 493 new foster beds, which has exceeded our target, and those are in the process of being licensed and the beds being filled. We also recognize, as we've been working on this, the need to continue to better develop fostering- home capacity for large sibling groups and for specialized care, children with unique and special needs. So that is going to be the particular focus now, heading into the second year.

That's with a view to reducing the need for emergency shelter beds which disproportionately, I understand, have been used by large sibling groups, and we really want to reduce that. So that's the next wave, and that's not easy, you know, to find homes with the capacity to deal with large sibling groups. Mrs. Taillieu: So these 16 new positions, these foster care hotel-minimization positions, are these administrative positions? Located where? Are they front-line positions, or are they administrative positions within the minist er's office, or are they actually care-giving positions? What are they classified as?

Where are they located, and whom do they report to? Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, these positi ons report to the authorities. They've been distributed among the authorities. I'm advised that of that number, 14 are social workers, and there are two administrator positions that would be working with them. The reason for that qualification is their direct work on case planning. It really was an identified need that provides not only better placements, but it all impacts on workloads; it all impacts on the long- term ability to have permanency. Madam Chairperson in the Chair

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1137 There's another little piece I was going to add with the distribution of positions for workload relief. For example, in the general authority, it was decided that there needed to be specialized protection workers for new communities like, for example, well, specifically, from African nations, the refugee communities in Winnipeg, and so a new specialized unit was put in place there to deal with the unique needs of that population. I think it was a good practice that I think will provide a l eading-edge service for some very vulnerable children. Mrs.

Taillieu: Just to further elaborate on these 16 foster care hotel-minimization positions, are the duties then front line or are they administrative? By that I mean, do they work behind a desk, or do they work in homes with families? Mr. Mackintosh: I think it is fair to characterize this as indeed front-line work. In doing the critical work of home studies, of licensing, and then the key area of placement of children, that is one of the essences of the whole child protection system. That's working in partnership with agencies.

If the member is looking to see if these are people that are sitting behind computers just doing policy work and so on, they're not. They're doing child protection work. Mrs. Taillieu: Are these people employed by agencies or are they deployed by the Department of Family Services? Mr. Mackintosh: In year one, the plan was to have them employed by the authorities, and in the course of year two, was to deploy them then to the agencies. These are permanent additions because the hotel- minimization strategy has to be a permanent one.

I know there have been attempts at hotel use reductions in the past, but you can't do that without an accompanying complement to make sure that the placements are found and filled. You know, the beds are filled. You can't have a foster care recruitment strategy without then doing the home studies and the licensing. These are permanent additions to the child protection system in Manitoba. It's been a remarkable effort to think that this began just last November and where we are today is a real change. I think it's a significantly better service for children. There still are issues to work out.

The new foundational standard for hotel use minimization is being constantly looked at and reviewed, and we've had input from people on the front line, in particular, around the issue of sibling groups. It's important that we be nimble in ensuring that sibling groups be kept together. We've recognized the importance of that over the last number of years, so there's been clarification there. The authority said, when they concluded the foundational standard, that the standard would be, again, looked at at six months. It began August 1. We're going to be careful about that.

Again, though, the big challenge is making sure that we put in place more diverse options, and that we make sure that we have a greater range of foster placements in Manitoba. I would be remiss if I didn't put on the record right now that we asked Manitobans to open their hearts and their homes to children, vulnerable children, and we've seen how they've come through. This is really tremendous. We had hoped that we would get a response from all across the province, and I understand that that has been the case. Mrs.

Taillieu: Can the minister indicate, at this present time, how many emergency placement beds there are in Manitoba for children in care? * (11:50) Mr. Mackintosh: Unlike for foster beds, the number of shelter placements has not seen significant growth, but I'm advised that, as of August, in Winnipeg there were 278; outside of Winnipeg, in approximately that period of time, but I don't have an exact date, 48. Mr. Briese: I have some questions that I think are going to be quite lengthy and I was looking at the clock, too.

One that I haven't asked yet: Nearly a year ago, the Child Advocate stressed the need for a risk assessment tool and, as far as I'm aware, there is no risk assessment tool in place at this time. I would like to know when there will be some action taken on that and when it will be put in place. There should be, in my view, a standardized risk assessment tool that's used across all agencies. Mr. Mackintosh: Earlier we talked about the intake module and its important role in now guiding workers through safety assessments, risk assessments and response times.

There is a significant debate across the continent, probably beyond, on the, shall w e s a y , d e s i r e o r a n i n t e r e s t i n f i n d i n g t h e m a g i c mathematical formulas for knowing when a child is in need of protection. But it's been found, I understand, that human behaviour and the unpredictability of human behaviours cause a lot of challenges for the development of that.

1138 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 Risk assessment is done each and every day, each and every moment of a child protection worker's career based on, of course, the intake module, competency-based training module. The practice and experience, education of workers–it's interesting that a valiant effort in Canada to develop a, shall we say, an objective-style risk management tool–it was in Ontario when they took a risk assessment model from th e state of New York. Perhaps, unfortunately, they took it before New York's model had been rigorously tested by social scientists.

Ontario implemented this. I recently read a report which, by the way, was after the external reviews, it was a report just published in 2007. I don't have it with me, but I know one of the measures of it was the vi ews of the protection workers of this risk a ssessment instrument. The workers were saying across the board that not only was it unhelpful, but it just took a lot of time and didn't provide, in their view, any accurate measure at all of risk. So we've seen testing and evaluation of these tools. We've got a conclusion by social scientists that there's, at best, mixed results to some of these.

They often lack the ability to bring in the context; the scope is often too narrow. There's inconsistent application across age groups. There are some very serious problems with this. I understand Ontario has been trying to respond to that very serious conclusion in that study. So, for most jurisdictions, it's an ongoing, continuous process of risk assessment. It's not an activity that only occurs at a certain point in time. It happens right through the continuum of care as part of the obligations and the whole raison d'être for the child protection system. Now, we come to this.

The introduction of differential response in Manitoba will certainly challenge us with the need to look to see if there are any enhancements that we c a n m a k e t o o u r r i s k assessment process that has been in place in Manitoba. We'll of course be really interested in seeing how we can enhance training and the tools to provide risk assessment. So the standing committee, which is comprised of the authorities and the child protection branch, is I understand, launching or is in the process of studying the best practices in the jurisdictions, particularly where they have moved to differential response.

I don't know if Minnesota will be–[interjection] Minnesota will be one of them, where they have put considerable efforts into this effort. So the answer is that there will be enhancements in this area, but it is also with the serious consideration of what the lesson from Ontario recently was, and that is that instruments that some people thought was the salvation, would make jobs easy and objective, has not been fulfilled. So the member knows that there are so many factors at play.

How we can predict what's going to happen to a child tomorrow has so far eluded social sciences and child protection systems in North America and I'm sure beyond. Mr. Briese: Where my concern is here is around, as you've mentioned already, there have been quite a number of new child care workers put in place and there's always turnover so there are always new ones coming into the system. What are the criteria, what are the written–what guidelines are they given that are consistent throughout various jurisdictions? Is there a written guideline that they adhere to, that they follow?

That's what I would picture a risk assessment tool to be, or partially be. Mr. Mackintosh: This is the role, of course, of the standards that are in place. The new intake module, it is also, of course, part of the important role of supervisors and their role in this assessment. Further, the training infrastructure that's in place and that is being enhanced under Changes for Children is very important to the development and the maintenance of good clinical skills and risk assessment. Madam Chairperson: The time being 12 noon, I am interrupting the proceedings.

The Committee of Supply will resume sitting this afternoon, following the conclusion of Routine Proceedings. WATER STEWARDSHIP * (10:00) Mr. Chairperson (Rob Altemeyer): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Water Stewardship. As had been previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner, and the floor is now open for questions. Hon. Christine Melnic k (Minister of Water Stewardship): I'd like to introduce Dwight Williamson, who has come to the table. He is the

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1139 director of Water Science and Management in the Ecological Services division of the Department of Water Stewardship. I wanted to respond. I had undertaken to get some information for the Member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson) yesterday. You were asking about science and studies that we had used, so I'll read some remarks into the record. Then I actually have a list of studies which I'll table for you. Removal of both nitrogen and phosphorus was recommended by the Clean Environment Commis- sion for Winnipeg.

That's the CEC commission report of 2003, (a), and for Brandon, Clean Environ- ment Commission 2003, (b), following public hearings which included scientific representation. Scientific studies conducted in the 1970s at the experimental lakes area by federal scientists from the Freshwater Institute demonstrated that nitrogen increased algal biomass by the same amount as phosphorus. This was Findlay and Kasian in 1987. Phosphorus had a greater effect on blue-green algae, but algae problems in Lake Winnipeg and elsewhere in Manitoba involve both blue-greens plus other forms of algae such as diatoms and greens.

The most common type of algae in Lake Winnipeg that clogs fishers' nets is not blue-green, but diatoms and greens. * (10:10) A scientific review of over 60 studies where nitrogen and phosporus was experimentally added to the lakes showed that the addition of both nitrogen and phosphorus together had a greater effect in stimulating algal blooms than the addition of either one by itself, Elser, et al, 1990. These same studies could find no general pattern on the effect of the addition of only phosphorus or only nitrogen on algal blooms.

Scientific studies conducted in the Assiniboine River in Manitoba show that nitrogen is limiting at low flows and therefore the most important nutrient. That's Cooley and Schneider-Viera, 2003. This Manitoba study is consistent with studies conducted by Scrimgeour and Chambers in 2000 in western and northern prairie rivers in which it was concluded that nitrogen limitation is more frequent than once believed and is more frequent in streams than in lakes.

This is particularly the case for types of algae attached to the stream bed, Dodds et al, 2002, and is consistent with work conducted in Minnesota: Heiskary and Markus, 2001. Dodds and Paul, 2007 reported that, because of the widespread importance of nitrogen, control of phosphorus alone in sewage treatment facilities, while it may be easier to regulate, is not necessarily the whole problem.

Scientific studies conducted in Manitoba demonstrate that both nitrogen and phosphorus have increased in most streams over the past 30 years, at least within central and southern Manitoba, Jones and Armstrong, 2001, and in Lake Winnipeg. These findings are consistent with a new study released in late 2006 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that found nitrogen to be the most pervasive pollutant in streams throughout the United States, and that's U.S. EPA, 2006. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency surveyed over a million kilometres of streams across the United States.

A recent study of prairie lakes and streams downstream of Regina, Saskatchewan, found that nitrogen was an important contributor to the eutrophication of the Qu'Appelle Lake and concluded that nitrogen should be controlled at municipal waste water treatment facilities in Regina. That's Leavitt et al, 2006. Ammonia, one of the forms of nitrogen toxic to fish needs to be controlled at the City of Winnipeg's waste water treatment facilities.

The incremental cost to shift from partial nitrogen treatment, ammonia control, to full nitrogen treatment is marginal at one of the City's facilities and may represent an incremental cost of about 20 percent at others. Control of phosphorus alone by the use of cheaper chemical precipitation is not environ- mentally sustainable over the long term. It requires the continual use of either iron or aluminum salt which must be mined outside of Manitoba, processed and shipped to Manitoba.

Use of chemical precipitation binds phosphorus tightly to sledge particles, making it unavailable as a fertilizer when applied to agricultural lands. If waste water sludge generated by chemical means to remove phosphorus is not acceptable by the agricultural sector for application to land, it will need to be disposed in landfill sites where it generates greenhouse gases, and that's found in Leonard, M.D. Webber Environmental Consultant, 2003, and the Brown and Leonard was 2004.

Biological nutrient removal to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus is already practised in at least 10 waste water treatment facilities in western Canada,

1140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 including many such as Calgary and Edmonton, which are in the Lake Winnipeg watershed, Oldman and Rabinowitz, 2002. Manitoba is asking no more of the major treatment facilities in Manitoba than what is already widely practised in western Canada, and I'll table for the member a list of some of the studies that I spoke of specifically in my remarks. There are several others. There's approximately 15 to 20 studies listed as references. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I thank the minister for that answer, sort of a continuation of the end of yesterday.

So I am happy to have that information. With respect to the waste water treatment upgrade in the city of Winnipeg, as I understand it, we're looking at a fairly major project in terms of the cost associated with it, and if the minister could just confirm: Is it around about $1.3 billion? Who came up with that figure? Is that the City? Is that in dispute right now that that's going to be roughly the cost? Ms. Melnick: The numbers that you quoted are the numbers from the City. It has been their numbers that they've developed. We do know that they are reviewing those numbers.

I think it's important to recognize that this incl udes all of the upgrades. These are projected costs over 25 years. When we talk about the biological nutrient removals, or the BNRs, as many folks refe r to them, we're talking about just over 50 percent of what the City is quoting as the entire upgrading cost. The other activities included in their costs would be ammonia control, disinfection control, mitigation of combined sewage overflows and other elements related to the upgrading. Mrs.

Stefanson: And these upgrades are as a result of what the Clean Environment Commission, and I guess the provincial government, has told the City that they need to do in terms of meeting requirements? Ms. Melnick: The majority of these upgrades would be directly related to recommendations from the CEC. Mrs. Stefanson: Are those recommendations that are made–I'm just wondering about how the process works. So the Clean Environment Commission makes recommendations to the provincial govern- ment, and the provincial government goes forward and mandates the City to upgrade its waste water treatment facility.

Can the minister just go through the process and how that works? * (10:20) Ms. Melnick: The CEC is under the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers), and that question would be most appropriately put to him. Mrs. Stefanson: Okay. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate how much–obviously, this is a very serious issue with respect to the effects on Lake Winnipeg, and I think we all recognize that. I think it's about 5 percent–the city of Winnipeg, I think, represents about 5 percent to 6 percent of the phosphorus issue in Lake Winnipeg. You know, certainly, there's a need and a want to deal with that issue.

Could the minister indicate how much the provincial government is willing to put toward the upgrading of the facility? Ms. Melnick: Yes, that question would be better put to the Minister of Infrastructure and trade. There are various programs that fall under his bailiwick. Mrs. Stefanson: Okay. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate how does that work in terms of, yes, it's an infrastructure issue, and it's mandated, I guess, out of the Department of Conservation. What is the Department of Water Stewardship's role in this? Ms.

Melnick: The Department of Water Stewardship would provide scientific advice on how to best protect the environment. Mrs. Stefanson: So was it the advice of the Department of Water Stewardship then, or was it the Clean Environment Commission, I guess, who advised that these upgrades take place? Ms. Melnick: Again, I'll go back to my question from a few questions ago, which was providing the scientific advice on how to best protect the environment.

In this case, it was the science around what level of nutrients would be acceptable to be moving through the waste water treatment plants, but we didn't impose any restrictions. We simply provided the scientific advice on that, yes. Mrs. Stefanson: I wonder if the minister can indicate whether or not there has been a study done that would indicate the amount of phosphorus loading into Lake Winnipeg. The amount of phosphorus entering, I guess, the south basin, versus what's draining at the north end of the lake. Has there been any studies?

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1141 Ms. Melnick: Just help me understand your question: what's coming into the south, loading into the south and leaving from the north? An Honourable Member: Right. Ms. Melnick: Okay. Yes, there are studies. They are ongoing. Certainly, there is more to be done, so I'll go back to our announcement of funding for science and the various partners that we have in that.

We know that the flow in from the south and out through the Nelson River is showing that there's approximately 70 percent more of the nutrients being redeemed within Lake Winnipeg than there was about 30 years ago. So part of what we have to study is: Why is more staying in the lake? How do we move it through, but again also focus on all the point sources and cut back? So we go to the water quality management zones, the buffer zones along the lake. We go to waste water treatment.

We go to the cosmetic fertilizers, to the household cleaning products, all the points that we know are 1 percent, 5 percent, 6 percent, whatever, are adding up to loading the lake to the point where we're seeing the sort of blue-green algal blooms that we've seen in the past number of years. * (10:30) Mrs. Stefanson: Well, I guess what's interesting to me is that it’s the retention of phosphorus which is more than it was 30 years ago, if I am understanding what the minister is saying .

If that's the case, I think it was about 30 years ago, and maybe add a few years onto that, 35 years ag o that the causeway was built. I know that has sort of become an issue of late, that there could be sort of an issue surrounding the causeway with respect to re tention of phosphorus in the lake. I'm wondering if there has been any indication, or if the minister could indicate to us today if she would be willing to support research around the impact of the causeway. Ms. Melnick: Yes.

We'll be looking at studying all aspects of the lake, as was recommended by the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board in its final report which was released February 14, 2007. They identified that the need to study all areas of the lake, and the need to apply pure science to the lake is very important, particularly looking at potentially altered circulation patterns in the lake. So it would be the causeway that would have to be studied, as well as several other aspects.

Again, that's why we're focussing on science where, for the first time ever, we have a federal- provincial science committee with representation from not only the federal government, the provincial government, the Prairie Provinces Water Board–I say acronyms so frequently I forg et the real words. So government and non-government expertise who have been charged with studying aspects of the lake that we know need to be studied. Certainly, other aspects will come up.

But we're moving forward with steps that we know will be effective, but through this study we'll learn other steps that will be effective in helping the lake. Mrs. Stefanson: When will there be a specific study with respect to the causeway? Ms. Melnick: Work has already begun with the fed- prov committee that I was just referring to earlier. So it will be part of a large study, and there will be expertise brought in to look at circulation patterns around that area. Again, we'll look at the lake as a whole, which is what I think we need to do.

It's fine to look at a part here and there, but we need the holistic view to really understand the inter- connectivity of not only the causeway but other changes, and then we need to put that together to find out, again, what will be the most effective ways to help our lake which is currently under stress. Mrs. Stefanson: When can we expect this study to be complete? Ms. Melnick: I think to do a thorough job and to really put some of the pieces together, we would have to do a comprehensive study, which would take, I believe, at least a couple of years to really find results.

One of the things that we do know is that the main water quality problem in Lake Winnipeg is the fact that it's receiving greater and greater nutrient loads each year. That is not affected by the circulation pattern around the causeway or anywhere else. The causeway would be part of the greater study, but again we need to look at nutrient loading and continuing to take effective steps to reduce that. This problem with the lake started maybe 30, 40 years ago. I know there were studies done as far back as 1929 on Lake Winnipeg. So it's been a lake that's been heavily watched.

But the current pattern that we're seeing is one that will take time to halt the current trend and then slowly but surely reverse it. So, while this is a long-term project, I think the steps that we're implementing, the water quality management zones; the best management practices with the producers; the legislation that we'll be

1142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 bringing in on the household cleaning products; the work that we'll be doing around cosmetic fertilizers; working with our neighbou rs for, hopefully, inter- jurisdictional co-operation. This is going to take time, but we are, in the meantime, taking steps that we know will be effective. Mrs. Stefanson: Just to clarify, I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't be looking at ways to reduce nutrient loading. That's not what I'm saying at all. I think we obviously need to be looking at any way we can to reduce, in particular, I think, phosphorus in the system.

I find it somewhat intriguing though that this issue of the causeway has come up and obviously studies need to be done. Studies take a little bit of time. I'm wondering if the minister can just indicate whether or not, if the causeway is found to be a fairly significant factor to the nutrient retention in Lake Winnipeg, is her government willing to take action with the potential removal of the causeway. Ms. Melnick: I think we need to see what the science says. Guessing at this point may not be helpful. We need to rely on the experts, give them the time they need to study.

We've provided a lot of the finances that we believe will be helpful to do, the quality of work that needs to be done, and we'll await the results of that. Mrs. Stefanson: Going back to the legislation that I gather the minister is going to be bringing forward this session with respect to banning of phosphorus in dishwashing detergent, yesterday we spoke in Estimates regarding various legislation that has come forward in the United States. The minister indicated yesterday that, with respect to that legislation, there were issues around restaurants and hospitals.

Those areas were perhaps either left out of the legislation or would be phased in at a later date. What is the reason for that? Was there a reason given with respect to that in the legislation in the States? * (10:40) Ms. Melnick: The question of exemptions is something we're watching very carefully. We're watching what other jurisdictions are doing. We're also working with the CCSPA, which is the professional organization of the industry here in Canada. I believe they would have a counter- organization in the States.

When we're talking about medical facilities, when we're talking about restaurants where there is a heightened need for sanitation, other jurisdictions are currently exempting them. We understand the other jurisdictions are saying that there would be no risk to make the change to phosphate-free household cleaning products in a normal household, but where sanitation is of the utmost importance like in a hospital, other jurisdictions are telling us they're exempting them. Mrs.

Stefanson: Well, I guess my concern with that is, if there is an issue with sanitation health risk here, is this something we should be moving forward with if there are health risks? Ms. Melnick: Well, again, I think there are heightened health risks in a facility such as a hospital. So I think it is prudent to make sure that where there might be some concern, where there might be some further development necessary, that that be respected. Again, we're looking at what's happening in other jurisdictions and watching very carefully for what they're doing. Mrs.

Stefanson: With respect to the 1 percent load on Lake Winnipeg, as I understand, this represents about 1 percent; I think we talked about this yesterday, but I can't recall exactly if we were able to determine what percentage of the loading would be as a result of restaurants and hospitals. What percentage of that 1 percent? Ms. Melnick: I don't have an exact number for you calculated, but it would be minimal. Mrs. Stefanson: Well, I'm not sure that it would be minimal because, in terms of restaurants and hospitals, these are the places that are mostly using the dishwashing detergents with phosphorus.

It's pretty significant, it's a fairly large industry, I would think, and as well as the number of hospitals and so on in Manitoba, I would think it would be a fairly significant part of the 1 percent. If we're really going to make a difference here, we should probably be looking at it across the board. But if there are health risks, I mean, what's the difference between health risks in your own home and health risks at hospitals? If there are potential health risks here, why would you do this? Ms. Melnick: Again, I'll go back to my answer of a few moments ago that we must be prudent in moving forward with this.

That's why we're taking our time to get the legislation right. We had the public consultations; we spoke to Manitobans; we're reviewing their response. But Manitobans are saying

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1143 to us: Yes, let's get on with moving forward on what we can do to help the lake. I'll also reiterate in facilities where there's a heightened need for sanitation such as hospitals, such as restaurants, we're looking at what other jurisdictions are doing. We're working with the association of the industry. We are also looking at what would be the risk in a normal household. We don't feel that in a normal household there would be the risk, the same sanitation needs as in a hospital. So we're taking our time. We're looking at all the angles.

We're looking at what other jurisdictions are doing. We're working with the industry. We want to make sure that we are getting this right; that we are balancing between what Manitobans are wanting us to do, which is to move forward on saving our lake. They want to play a role in this. But we're also balancing it with what the needs would be in a normal household, in a hospital, in a restaurant, and we want to make sure that we are balancing the needs of the people of Manitoba with the steps that we're taking to save the lake.

So, again, we talk about steps that we're taking to save the lake; we talk about the water quality management buffer zones; we talk about inter- jurisdictional co-operation; we talk about sewage treatment; we talk about septic fields; we talk about how cottagers relate to the lake; we talk about the loading that comes in and goes out. All of these are points. They're all very important points. There's 1 percent loading here; there's 5 percent or 6 percent loading there. We have to look at all of that.

We have to balance all of that and take the steps that we believe will be truly helpful in quality of life and quality of water and in saving our lake. Mrs. Stefanson: I want to reduce the amount of phosphorus in our lake as well, absolutely, and certainly that's why I'm very much in favour of anything we can do to do that.

My concern here as a mother with two young children at home and their friends are coming over for lunch now, I mean, obviously we don't necessarily have to wash in a dishwasher, but if you're looking at sort of, you know, maybe some of the average households out there, if they're concerned at all about sanitation and they're going to the grocery store to pick up their dishwashing detergent, I think they're going to go for the one that's more sanitary. I'd be concerned about children getting sick. If that's the case, you know, and you're bringing in a ban. I mean, how do you police that?

How do you say to the mum or dad that goes out to go grocery shopping, you know, how do you say that, no, you can't choose the one that's maybe more sanitary for your family? Ms. Melnick: Well, again, I'll go back to Lake Erie some 30 years ago where there was recognition of two main point sources into the lake: one was waste water management treatment plants and the other was laundry detergent containing phosphates. There was a lot of co-operation. There was a lot of concern. There was good science around that, and in the end, phosphates were removed for the most part from laundry detergents.

We're all sitting here in clean clothes. Again, in a normal situation we would have–I'm sure you recognize–I understand where you're going on your questioning, but I'm sure you recognize the difference between a hospital situation and a normal household. So we, again, are going through a lot of the similar processes where we are hearing people say, Manitobans are saying clearly to us, clean up the lake. They agreed with our water agenda; they've agreed with the steps that we've taken so far. They came out to the consultations on the household cleaning products.

They are recognizing that they can do more; we can all do more. This is one way we can do more. I don't think this is going to be a big policing exercise. I think there will be voluntary decision- making on this. Again, we're looking at the science. We're looking at what's happening in other jurisdictions. We're looking at Lake Erie of 30 years ago, Lake Erie of today. And I think we'll continue to consult with Manitobans, continue to work with Manitobans.

Again, I go to the balance, the balance between a normal household versus a hospital where heightened sanitation is of the utmost importance and look to work with the industry on this as well. * (10:50) Mrs. Stefanson: Well, what I want to see happen, and I think what Manitobans want to see happen is that, if there is a program brought forward, it is effective. My concern in all of this would be if you're going to sort of apply it one place and not another.

I'm just questioning how you know, if there are exemptions here and there and this sort of thing, how effective will it really be on Lake Winnipeg if you've got all these exemptions out there. Is that part of the

1144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 plan to look at exempting the restaurants and hospitals from having to go this route? Ms. Melnick: This is why we're taking the time to get it right. This is why we're looking at what's happening in other jurisdictions. This is why we're working with the industry, very welcome partners who came forward of their own volition to say they voluntarily want to reduce the amount of phosphates in their dishwashing products by the year 2010.

We're working within the department, within the province, internationally to make sure that we get it right for both Manitobans and for our water. Mrs. Stefanson: With respect to this and I don't want to hang on to this too much longer. I've got a couple of issues around it. Are there studies out there right now that would indicate what we could replace phosphorus with, within these detergents or whatever, something that is more environmentally friendly? If that is the case, what is that and where are we at in terms of an industry moving forward on that? Ms.

Melnick: Again, we don't have the studies with us right now, but I can undertake to get those for you as I did yesterday. Mrs. Stefanson: Has the minister been in consultation with the Restaurant Association and various hospitals? Were they part of the discussions that took place around Manitoba, the consultations? Ms. Melnick: Throughout the public open houses that we had, they did not identify themselves as an association, but we will be discussing with them as we'll be discussing with all the stakeholders as we move forward. Mrs.

Stefanson: The minister has indicated that legislation will be brought forward within the session, I believe. Ms. Melnick: After the Throne Speech. Mrs. Stefanson: When will these consultations take place with respect to the industry? I'm just a little surprised, I guess, that they haven't taken place already when the minister's indicated that she's got a plan in place and that legislation's going to be coming forward. At what point do you sort of include these very significant components as part of the consultation process? Ms. Melnick: Again, I'll go back to taking the time to get it right.

We had public consultations. There was a good response from Manitobans. We are in an ongoing consultation working with the industry. We will be working with the association for restaurant and bar owners. We'll be working with all the stakeholders. So, again, this is where we're not rushing into something. We're looking at who the stakeholders are. We're looking at other jurisdictions, working with the industry that produces the products. This is something that we're very committed to, that we really want to get right, and so we will be working with all the stakeholders. Mrs.

Stefanson: How many public consultations were there across Manitoba and, with respect to this issue, how many in Winnipeg as well? What was the turnout at these consultations? How many people showed up? Ms. Melnick: I'll just read into the record the open houses that took place: Dauphin, September 4; Brandon, September 5; Lac du Bonnet, September 6; Thompson, September 10; Winnipeg, September 11 and 12. Over 200 people came to the consultations, and we've had e-mails and comments of at least a hundred more. Mrs. Stefanson: What was the process of these consultations?

Were people allowed to give presentations of concern at the consultations? Ms. Melnick: The open houses were advertised in advance locally. There was background material provided for folks. They got in touch with us to let them know exactly what it was that we were going to be consulting on and what our plans were. Additional information was provided at the open house. There was knowledgeable staff at each and every open house, and folks were encouraged to make presentations, to give discussion, ask any questions that they had.

Then they were invited to either provide their comments there or they were also given the opening of providing comments by e-mail or written letter, however they wanted to communicate. Mrs. Stefanson: I'm a little concerned about the lack of turnout to what I think is an issue of concern to many Manitobans, and I know in particular, in the city of Winnipeg. What kind of notice was given? The minister indicated that there was notice in the local papers. Was there any other kind of notice or was that it?

How much time was given with respect to when it was put in the paper and when the actual meetings took place? * (11:00) Ms. Melnick: The events were well publicized. There were notices published at least twice in local

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1145 communities. The 200 people coming out to consultation is actually a relatively good turnout. The main message was, get on with it. I think one of the reasons that more people didn't come out is that they agree with what we're doing. They agree with our agenda on water. The main message from the folks who either came out or who communicated with us after was, let's get on with it. Let's move forward with it, and that's exactly what we're going to be doing. Mrs. Stefanson: Well, you know, I would beg to differ about why people didn't show up.

I mean, I think it's because they weren't aware of them and there probably wasn't enough time given. As I understand, some of the consultations were taking place during the day, which is very difficult for people who are working to make it out to these meetings. I think if the minister really wants to consult the public on this issue, that there should have been more notice that was given with respect to these meetings and more emphasis placed on real consultation in the public with respect to this.

I agree that the public probably wants to move forward with some of th ese issues, there's no question, but if there's going to be a consultation process, let's make it a real one. I don't believe that this was very indicative of a real consultation process, and I don't think that there's anything we should be afraid of when we're discussing issues of the environment, how we can be more environmentally friendly when it comes to various things we can do around our households to help out. I think people are looking for information. They want to help.

They want to be a part of this process and I think it's unfortunate that I don't really believe they were given an opportunity to come out and truly be a part of the process. As I understand, one of the meetings in Winnipeg, there were maybe about 20 people that showed up, or 25 people that showed up, and they sort of were walking in and were looking for a presentation. They were handed a leaflet and that was the end of the meeting. Forgive me for being just a little bit critical. I don't know why you'd be afraid of making a real–if you're going to say you're going to consult, then really consult.

I just don't believe that that was a real consultation process, and I would hope that in the future when we're looking at consulting the public on issues related to how we make our environment a cleaner, safer place to live, that more notice is given, that people are really made aware of the fact that they can come out and truly be a part of this process. I think a lot of it is quite frankly an education process as well. We need to teach people how to make our environment a safer, cleaner place to live.

I think people want to be a part of that, there's no question, but we need to truly give them the opportunity to be a part of the process. I'd ask the minister with respect to this legislation, at what point–obviously we're looking at probably, I guess, if it's going to be after the Throne Speech, it will be late November that legislation will be introduced with respect to the phosphorus- banning on dishwashing detergent. I'm wondering what other consultations will take place between now and when that legislation is introduced as part of this minister's consultation process. Ms.

Melnick: Well, again, I'll go back to the fact that we had an education program throughout the summer that was made available to Manitobans in print, via the radio and also on TV. I want to correct the member where she was talking about afternoon-only open houses. That is– [interjection] Well, okay. So, to let you know that we had afternoon and evening. We wanted to make sure that shift workers would be able to partake if they would like. There was local notice given one month in advance and then two weeks in advance. A lot of MLAs sent out notice as well. There was a general press release.

I think, also, I just want to point out that, having over 200 people come and talk, having over 100 people respond to us via e-mail or via phone call, via comment of, perhaps, through a written letter is a response that is positive. We haven't had complaints about the public consultation. So the main message, again, that I want to go back to, is that the people of Manitoba are telling us they want us to move forward and that's what we're doing. I would encourage the Member for Tuxedo (Mrs.

Stefanson) to get in touch with her federal party, the Minister of the Environment, and encourage the federal government to be a part of this as well. The most effective strategy that we can have here is a Canada-wide strategy, is a national strategy. In the last Throne Spee ch the current federal government talked about their water strategy for Canada. I would encourage her to talk to Minister Baird about being a part of the phosphate reduction in dishwasher detergents across the country.

1146 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 Again, I'll go back to one of my points in my opening statement, is that, when someone puts dishwashing soap in their dishwasher in Edmonton, it makes its way into Lake Winnipeg, and so we need interjurisdictional support. We need interjuris- dictional co-operation, but we need the federal government to really be a player at the table.

The federal Throne Speec h is, I believe, coming down on the 16th of October, next week, and I'm very hopeful that the federal minister–that in the Throne Speech there will be a commitment that the federal Minister of the Environment will, in fact, be joining the partnerships that we've formed with Québec and with the industry and that we're forming with jurisdictions in the States to be part of what could be a very effective North American-wide ban that we could really move forward very quickly. So I hope the Member for Tuxedo would undertake to do that. Mr.

Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Madam Minister, I would just like to go back a little bit and just maybe understand a little more thoroughly that the dishwashing detergent, I believe you stated, makes up 1 percent of the phosphate in the lake. Is that so? Ms. Melnick: Yes, 1 percent of the phosphate loading. Mr. Graydon: In your opening statement you had indicated that science was the base, the basis for these, this type of an estimate. Can you explain to me just what that 1 percent actually means? Does that mean then that–I don't really understand parts per million, but I probably understand milligrams per litre.

Could you make me understand what this 1 percent really means? Ms. Melnick: Well, you'll be happy with the first part of my answer. Parts per million is the same as milligrams per litre, but I have more information to give you. * (11:10) We estimate on an annual basis what the load is into the lake, and then we average that and we look at–of the hundreds of tonnes of phosphorus that go into Lake Winnipeg on an annual basis, what percent comes from household cleaning products? That's where we get the 1 percent load that you referred to earlier. Mr. Graydon: Thank you for that answer.

When we talk about the south basin and the north basin or the many entrances to the lake, and you mentioned as well that a national policy was what you favoured more than a provincial policy, can we then identify what comes from other sources other than the south basin entrance to the lake? Ms. Melnick: Yes. All of this is laid out in the final report of the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board, and I'd be happy to get a hard copy for you if you'd like, or you could access it on the Water Stewardship Web site. Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Madam Minister.

When we talk about the dishwater detergent, and we talk about phosphate–and I fully agree that we need to limit the amount of the phosphate in the lake–can you maybe enlighten me on what types of phosphate there are? Ms. Melnick: Well, I think I have an answer for you. Let me know if it's what you are looking for. Fifty percent of the load of phosphorus into the lake is natural. That comes through elemental phosphorus. That can be found in manure, waste water, household cleaning products, and then there are synthetic fertilizers. So those would be the four big hits for phosphorus loading into the lake. Mr.

Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Madam Minister, if I can just switch gears a little bit, I just have one particular question for you, and it's in regard to the community of Lavenham. They have a community well in their community and it serves 20 families. The water has been tested, is deemed safe. However, under new regulations, they've been told that the water must be treated. The issue is not the cost of the treatment. They're quite willing to do the treatment of it, but it's the monitoring and the testing of the water.

They've been in consultation with their local municipality, the municipality of South Norfolk, but it is a significant cost in terms of having someone actually to be trained and also to do the testing. Their alternative is to hook up to the rural water system that's coming through by Rossendale, close by, but the cost is $10,000 per household, and that becomes a very significant cost for each household. So the question is: Just what is the status of the situation in Lavenham? Will the community be forced to hook up to rural water, or can they continue to use their own community well?

Is there any available training and, particularly, financial

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1147 assistance for training and for monitoring the community well? Ms. Melnick: There are actually a number of questions in there, so I'll go through what I have, and if I've missed something just let me know. The situation in Lavenham is that we're looking at basic bacteriological testing. We do have a well- testing program that we pay 70 percent of. In times of concern of contamination, we would pay 100 percent. This was a program that was wiped out during the 1990s that we've brought back. So that's one of the options for them.

Currently, the folks there are looking at what options are available to them. This would be one. You also asked about training programs. There is an operator certificatio n training program of–are there three levels? There are four levels. I think what they're considering right now is through Red River College, who has actually partnered with the Department of Conservation. They're looking at an operator certification level 1 training program. But I don't think–I don't know, they haven't quite made up their minds exactly what they're doing. They're just, like I say, exploring their options right now.

But, certainly, we're working with them and we will continue to work with them. Mr. Pedersen: Madam Minister, the water quality is not an issue here. The water has been tested, from what I understand, has been tested and is deemed safe. But are the regulations now that they cannot use a community well unless it is treated? Ms. Melnick: What we're working with them on is a preventative program where there would be regular testing. This is a requirement of drinking water systems throughout the province.

It only makes sense that if you're testing on a regular basis, if something happens you're hopefully going to catch it before there's any negative effect on the community or even on an individual household. So that's what we're working with them on. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My first question for the Minister of Water Stewardship concerns the situation of the problem of erosion along the Winnipeg River. This is close to the outlet into Lake Winnipeg. I initially asked about this to the Minister of Northern and Aboriginal A ffairs (Mr.

Lathlin), and he told me that the lead minister on this file was the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers). I then asked the Minister of Conservation in Estimates and he said he was not the lead minister, and he referred me initially to the Minister responsible for Hydro and then to yourself. I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), who's also the minister of Hydro, in Estimates whether he was the lead minister on this file and he said no.

So my question to you, after searching around and asking several other ministers, are you the lead minister on the file dealing with this problem of erosion in the area of Sagkeeng First Nation along the Winnipeg River near the outlet to Lake Winnipeg? * (11:20) Ms. Melnick: On the question asked by the Member for River Heights, we are, in fact, the department which would provide advice on erosion. We have the Shoreline Erosion Technical Committee which is currently dealing with Lake Winnipeg, but we are looking at expanding the mandate.

Local people from the department have, in fact, been in contact with the people from Sagkeeng, so there is discussion ongoing there. Mr. Gerrard: I would ask the minister whether she's been to Sagkeeng and I would ask the minister what her plans are in terms of dealing with the erosion. Ms. Melnick: I have not been to Sagkeeng. I have not received any communication from the Sagkeeng people, but the department has been working with them and I will let the department do their job. Mr. Gerrard: Well, the situation is quite severe there and has been for some time. There has been a considerable extent of erosion.

Put simply, for example, Mary Courchene's house where originally the river was so far out that you couldn't even see the river standing at the house. Over a period of years, that riverbank has eroded back and back, and last year, in one night, the riverbank eroded back some 15 metres and undercut the house. The foundations of the house are now a crumpled mess hanging over the bank and, of course, Mr. Courchene has had to build another house further back. At that rate, if it were to continue, the bank will shortly threaten his new house. The bank may threaten a major road in Sagkeeng.

The bank may threaten the school. It would seem to me rather important that the minister should know what's happening and that the minister should have an action plan. So I would ask the minister, can she table an action plan?

1148 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 11, 2007 Ms. Melnick: The member, I know, is well aware of the jurisdictional issues, of jurisdictional boundaries. I believe you're talking about property that is on reserve. I'm wondering if the member, if he was really concerned about this issue, if he's taken this to INAC, if he's taken this to the federal level, which is the appropriate authority to deal with it. Mr. Gerrard: It seems to me that it is the minister's responsibility to have a plan that may involve partnerships with the First Nations community.

It may involve partnerships with the federal govern- ment. It may involve working relationships among various ministers, but it seems to me, that's an important area to have a plan. I would hope that the minister would be able to table an action plan agreed to by all parties in the very near future. Let me move on, seeing as how the minister at this point doesn't have a plan, to talk a little bit about erosion along Lake Winnipeg. When you have erosion, whether it's of the shoreline of the lake or whether it is of the river, the erosion takes into the lake particles of dirt.

Those particles of dirt have phosphorus on them, and it's well known that erosion contributes to phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg. Can the minister tell the Legislature, tell the committee in Estimates, what proportion of the phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg comes from erosion? Ms. Melnick: That percentage would be included in the natural background and undefined sources, which is a total of 17 percent of the total sources or 35 percent of the Manitoba sources. That information is available, again, in the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board final report. Mr.

Gerrard: I thank the minister, and I hope the minister can give an estimated proportion of 17 percent which is related to erosion. I think it's interesting, and I would like to get a little bit of clarification here. Not all erosion is natural in the sense that some of it, clearly, has had a considerable influence from human activities, whether it's on Lake Winnipeg or whether it is on the Red River, which will increase erosion, or the Assiniboine River, and so on. Just to make sure I'm correct, the minister is categorizing all erosion, whether it is man-made or whether it is natural.

It would have historically been to that extent before much human activity which would have affected erosion that that would still be classed as natural background. Is that correct? Ms. Melnick: Approximately 50 percent of the nutrient loading is naturally occurring. Erosion is a natural phenomenon.

So, when we look at natural background and undefined sources, we look at a total of 17 percent from the total sources and 35 percent from Manitoba. * (11:30) Natural erosion can be exacerbated by human involvement, which is why we're working very closely with the agricultural sector around best management practices, around buffer zones, around erosion control.

We have the riparian tax credit that is a joint initiative between Water Stewardship and the Department of Finance which works with producers to make sure that they are taking care of the riparian areas by planting trees, by taking other measures to control erosion, to control flow-off from the agricultural lands. So, while we're looking at what is natural, we're also looking at ways to work with our land and make sure that the flow is minimized as it can be. Again, this is a long-term project. Since 1999, Lake Winnipeg has been taken very seriously by our government. We've worked very closely with the producers.

We're working with the urban and built- up areas around other ways to protect Lake Winnipeg and to halt the current trend and eventually see a reversal of the trend, and we'll continue to do that. There are multi sources. There are multi points of those sources and, again, we need an overall comprehensive plan that would include interjuris- dictional co-operation. Mr. Gerrard: Since this is clearly a significant contributor in terms of phosphorus load, as the minister has indicated, it would be important to have an effective plan.

I raised earlier on, for example, the problems of severe erosion in the Sagkeeng area, and the minister and her government I know have embarked over the last coup le of years with a major, I think it was $8-million or $15-million diking program. I had the opportunity to examine one of those dikes just recently, and instead of preventing erosion at that site, the dike was approximately half completely eroded away. It almost seems like, in that instance, the erosion was accelerated not decreased.

So I look forward to when the minister brings forward an effective plan related to erosion on Lake Winnipeg and would look forward to some more detailed breakdown. I also think it's pretty clear that

October 11, 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1149 there is a contribution of man-made activities here. One instance which has been implicated is the building of the Hecla Isla nd causeway some years ago. I wonder if the minister would comment on what her department is doing with regard to investigating whether the Hecla Island causeway has contributed to either erosion on Lake Winnipeg or to the problem of algal blooms on Lake Winnipeg. Ms. Melnick: When we talk about the shoreline along Lake Winnipeg it's–perhaps, the member doesn't know about the Shoreline Erosion Technical Committee.

This is a committee that has proceeded in three areas: implementing shoreline erosion control demonstration projects; working with municipalities to develop a local permitting system for shoreline protection works; and developing minimum design criteria and reviewing erosion- control designs submitted by landowners to the municipalities and forwarded to the committee. The committee consists of membership from representatives from Manitoba Conservation, Water Stewardship, Manitoba Hydro, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, federal department, and a geotechnical engineer as a committee chair.

Oftentimes, the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) tries to create a shock factor in the way that he poses questions. He's just talked about a dike that he was made aware of that there's concerns over. I wonder if the Member for River Heights encouraged the individual to get in touch with the department. Did the member contact us to let us know that there may be a problem? Time after time, questions are posed in a way that I think is quite irresponsible.

Rather than seeing that there might be a problem and taking some action on it, he kind of stores it up and then tries to present it in a rather fantastic way in a situation like this. So I would encourage him, if he does have real concerns, to be more responsible with his concerns around issues that are important, and to contact myself if there are concerns around issues in my department, to contact other ministers, rather than letting what he considers to be a serious situation lie until a situation like this.

So I would hope him to be a little more responsible with the knowledge he claims to gather along the way. On the issue of the causeway, I have already answered that question. The Member for River Heights was not in the room, so I'll go through some of the points that I made earlier, which is that a couple of months ago we announced close to a million dollars for scientific study, specifically on Lake Winnipeg. For the first time ever, we have been able to bring the federal government to the table. That didn't happen during the time when the Member for River Heights sat in Cabinet in the federal government.

We do have federal representation on the science committee. They have already embarked on a study of Lake Winnipeg. A study of the causeway will be part of th at. The Member for River Heights may not know that nutrient loading is not contributed to by the causeway and that we are moving forward with again water quality manage- ment zones, dealing with phosphates and household cleaning materials, working on water sewage treatment plants, all the multi-source points that I've talked about, including the technical committee on erosion control.

So that's our commitment to look at the causeway, but also to focus on nutrient loading. Mr. Chairperson: Just before I recognize the next speaker, I just want to reminder all honourable members that it's not regularly acceptable in debate to refer or allude to the absence or presence of members. Mr. Gerrard: My follow-up to the minister, I mean, her comments are, in this case, totally wrong and a little bit outrageous.

The reason that I was approached with regard to the Hecla Island causeway is that her government had been approached and, in particular, one of the senior ministers in her government who is an MLA from near there, the MLA for Gimli (Mr. Bjornson), on a number of occasions with regard to this, and his concerns were totally dismissed. It was only when h

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-1-18a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 1st hansardpdf 18a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	da3afebd9781063a0684ed782862e64be3cf922a

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