Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to.

* (1440)

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $25,700 on page 51 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, I kept my comments extremely brief last evening when we wound up, because I thought that the Estimates were going to be passed and the time was running out. But, given that we do have the opportunity today to spend a little bit of time discussing some of the comments that my honourable friend put on the record, I thought I just might take some time to expand a bit on our whole welfare reform initiative because I think that is where my honourable friend was being most critical in this department. He seemed to be indicating that we have been meanspirited in our approach to trying to ensure that those that have depended on social allowances should have the opportunity, in fact, to gain meaningful employment through some of the initiatives that we have undertaken not only in our Department of Family Services but also through initiatives in the Department of Education and in our work with the private sector.

We all know that government is not going to be the vehicle for job creation into the future, that it is going to be the private sector that invests in our Manitoba community and our Manitoba economy that are going to be the generators of jobs and economic activity into the future. So I think it is very important that the private sector understand and recognize that there are many of those that have never had the opportunity to have an attachment to the workforce and that are presently on our social assistance caseload that do indeed merit some consideration, as we look to trying to ensure that they are a part of the workforce in a very meaningful way into the future. So I do want to indicate that we have several initiatives that are underway that are very positive initiatives. When we talk about caseload, the single-parent caseload that is part of the responsibility of the Department of Family Services, part of the provincial responsibility as it presently exists, I think we have been moving in the right direction.

When I look to what some of the other provinces have done and are doing, I think, that our way has been a very balanced way. We have taken a very balanced approach to trying to ensure that those that we have targeted as employable are those with children over the age of six, in school full time. When I look to moving in that direction, I see it as being a very humane way of moving when, in fact, most other provinces right across the country, including those provinces that are governed by New Democratic administrations, have taken some tougher approaches to single parents than we have. In fact, the approach that we have taken is only to benefit those that in the past were never considered employable, where they were allowed to just be maintained or sustain themselves in a life of poverty on welfare until the youngest child turned 18, and then we would be presented with circumstances where women through no fault of their own reached the age of 30 or 40, their children were grown up, had turned 18, and all of a sudden with no self-esteem, no skills, no attachment to the workforce, were expected to go out and get a job.

We all know that kind of a policy only contributes to a life of poverty on welfare for many women in our society, and that is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to our government, and it is not what we want to see. We want to see women in our province have the opportunity to have a workforce attachment, to be trained, and to develop the self-esteem and the ability to be productive and positive members of society. That kind of a life impacts not only them, but it impacts their children, and when their children see a mom that is happy and feeling good about herself and a part of the workforce and making a meaningful contribution to community, to society, I think, that changes the whole attitude of the children in a very positive and meaningful way. So the direction that we have taken, I believe, is an extremely positive direction, and I make absolutely no apologies for the direction that we have taken as a government.

When I look to what is happening in other provinces, and I look to some of the decisions that other provinces have made, I kind of wonder where my honourable friend is coming from when he makes comments about the direction we have taken in Manitoba, because I know for a fact that--you know, it is fine to sit in the opposition benches and criticize government for decisions that they make, but in reality when you are in government and if my honourable friend ever has the opportunity to be in government, he will recognize and realize that he has to make decisions and be accountable for those decisions. I know that his cousins in British Columbia, for instance, the New Democratic Party there which is in government has taken some very tough decisions and made many decisions that probably go a lot further than what we have gone in Manitoba.

I do want to just read into the record a couple of comments that I have heard as a result of decisions that the New Democratic government in British Columbia has made. I think one of the most significant issues that my honourable friend should be aware of is that, in fact, there is dissension in the ranks of the New Democratic Party in the province of British Columbia as a result of a government that has had to make decisions.

I just look at an article from The Globe and Mail on Monday, March 3, of this year that says, and I quote: Party faithful wrap Clark's knuckles over welfare cuts, and, B.C. New Democrats flout party tradition by agreeing to accept corporate donations. That is the subheading under there.

Can I just read a few paragraphs from the article, because I think it is extremely important to note what New Democratic governments do. They talk very differently in opposition with a position that does not necessarily reflect what they do when they have to be accountable for their decisions when they are elected to government.

It says in this article from The Globe and Mail that New Democrats challenged--okay, just let me find my spot here: B.C. New Democrats delivered a slap on the wrist and a surprise to Premier Glen Clark's NDP government at their annual convention here this weekend. Despite a concerted effort to defuse the controversial issue, delegates voted overwhelmingly yesterday to ask the government to revise several aspects of its welfare reform package that they believe make life worse for the poor.

* (1450)

There is a quote from someone from the New Democratic Party that says: This party has a historic tradition of standing with the poor and disadvantaged.

Those are the words that New Democrats use, but, in reality, when they are faced with decision making, they are empty words and rhetoric, and although the party put forward a resolution and asked New Democratic Premier, Mr. Clark, to change direction, Mr. Clark's response: The Premier and the party that made the decision in British Columbia agreed that there were some problems with the system but said that overall it had been a great step forward for low-income people in the province--and he refused to commit himself to making the changes that were demanded by his delegates from his own party.

So that is reality, Mr. Chairperson, when you look at the difference between being in opposition and being in government. When in opposition, you can be critical of absolutely every decision that a government makes, but when the reality is you are in government and have to make decisions and be accountable for those decisions, it is a completely different scenario.

I look at other newspaper articles from the province of British Columbia, one here that talks about welfare category being abolished, and it says: The B.C. government has abolished the welfare category of unemployable recipient in a move that could save it millions of dollars annually. The category includes about 27,000 people who have varying degrees of physical, emotional or mental disability. It is suspected about 17,000 will face a cut of up to $96 a month in their living allowance, a move that would save the government up to $20 million a year. Human resources minister Dennis Streifel said Thursday, the government is not dropping the category to save money but because it stigmatizes people. Recipients with permanent disabilities will remain at $596, but others in that category will be reclassified as employable and will lose $96 a month.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Now you tell me if that is the kind of policy, the kind of direction my honourable friends might take when they are in government. Mind you, when they are in opposition, they can sit back and say that we are a hardhearted, meanspirited government. I tell you that the direction that British Columbia has taken is much more severe than the approach we have taken in Manitoba.

There is another newspaper article from British Columbia that says: Welfare parents are worse off in the poverty-fighting program that has been implemented by the New Democratic government in B.C., and that a single mom living on welfare in Honeymoon Bay in British Columbia will have to make do with a little less money this year as a result of the decisions that that government has made.

Here again, we have another article from The Vancouver Sun that says: Welfare is to end for young people unwilling to learn job skills. Cheques will soon end for young B.C. welfare recipients unless they join a new program that helps them find jobs, but Premier Glen Clark denied Wednesday that the legislation translates into workfare for people between the ages of 19 and 24. So they can make these draconian decisions, but he says it is not workfare.

Again, Mr. Chairperson, I want to indicate that the approach that the New Democrats take when they are in government and have to make decisions is completely opposite to the rhetoric that we hear on a day-to-day basis from New Democrats that sit in opposition and do not have to be accountable for anything. They seem to want or think they can have it all ways. I think Manitobans see through that kind of rhetoric and that kind of comment that comes on a regular basis from my honourable friends that sit in opposition.

I think that, if you look at some of the positive comments that have come as a result of some of our initiatives with the private sector, we have an article in the Winnipeg Sun, in the Business News, just this last month, in May of 1997, that talks about welfare innovation paying off in Manitoba. It talks about the program that we have developed with the Mennonite Central Committee, the Mennonite business community and Trainex that has, in fact, seen over a hundred individuals, some single parents, and some that are off the City of Winnipeg caseload. I think it is some 130 individuals that are in meaningful full-time jobs now as a result of that partnership.

I had the opportunity to attend the first anniversary of that program, and they have an excellent, positive track record as a result of initiatives that have been undertaken. One single parent that I had the opportunity to talk to was just thrilled with the opportunity to have a job. There was a single-parent male that had been hired at Palliser Furniture who had two young children that had subsidized daycare spaces. He talked about balancing work life, getting the kids off to daycare, and the challenges that he was presented with in trying to get his life together, but how excited he was about that chance and that opportunity.

There was also an individual that came from a Latin American country to Canada, immigrated here, and because of the language barrier--he was Spanish speaking and did not have any English background, and was a very qualified individual--was unable to enter the workforce at the level that he was qualified to enter the workforce in some sort of a managerial position. He also could not get a job because he was overqualified for many of the entry-level jobs that were available. Although he applied and although he tried, he just could not find employment. Through this program, he now has a position with Palliser, and he is doing some work.

Because of his Spanish-speaking background, because Palliser is looking to expand, he is able to be the link and liaison for Palliser to expand into foreign markets. This was a very positive experience, and he was just elated at the opportunity to find a place of employment in a very meaningful way. It also benefits one of the businesses in Manitoba that is growing, expanding and hiring more people. So there are those kinds of things that are happening, Mr. Chairperson, that I think really speaks to the direction that we have taken and the positive things that are happening as a result.

I know that the Department of Education and Training has entered into many initiatives that are finding meaningful ways of employing and giving people that opportunity to have a work connection, a work experience, to earn a living, to pay taxes and to feel very positive about themselves as a result.

If we were the only place across the country, around the world, that was moving in this direction, I would welcome the opportunity to debate and accept the criticism from my honourable friend, but I know that we certainly are not. It is the direction that the world is taking. We all want people to have the opportunity to have a workforce attachment and connection and to feel that they are contributing in a positive way.

Even if we look to the Labour government that was elected just in England last month, I note an article from the Free Press just a couple of days ago, June 3. It says: In London, declaring life on welfare should no longer be an option, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced yesterday single parents will be called in for job training once their children are in school. Blair hinted at penalties for single parents and young men who refuse training or job opportunities but gave no specifics.

* (1500)

Mr. Chairperson, that tells me that socialist governments right around the world are making the kinds of decisions that we have made here in Manitoba, that New Democrats have made in British Columbia, that Liberal governments have made in other provinces. So this is not an issue of party policy or party direction. This is an initiative that governments of all political stripes right across our country and right around our world are taking. So I think it is rather hollow for my honourable friends in opposition in Manitoba who do not have to take responsibility, who are not held accountable for anything that they say, to be critical of the direction that we have taken in Manitoba.

I just would like to also read into the record some copies of some letters that I have received from people that have written to those that have helped them find employment, single parents that have meaningful employment as a result of the Taking Charge! initiative or other initiatives that we have put in place. I will not identify the individuals, but I will read into the record a couple of notes that have been received by those support workers that have helped find employment for individuals in our community.

I quote: Just a note to say goodbye and to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your kindness and help throughout the couple of years I have been in need of assistance. It can be sometimes very frustrating as well as scary being a single mother, and cold, uncaring government offices can as well be very intimidating places. I try to thank you for all that you have done for me and my daughter. You opened doors for me that have helped me a great deal. You got me into a coat--I cannot read this letter or this word--and helped me when I needed a clothing allowance for my job in a bank, as well as at one time helping me to get a hepatitis vaccine when I thought I was going to die. For these things I will forever be grateful. You always treated me like I was a person, always returned my calls and were always fair and kind. I hope you realize what a great help you were to me, and I hope peace and joy are with you always. Thank you very much.

That is from a single parent, a single mother, that was helped through a program, and I believe it was the Taking Charge! program, one of the programs that has certainly changed her life and the life of her daughter.

Here is another letter I will just quote from, and it says: I never thought that I would be thanking you for making me fill out this job plan report, but I guess there is a first time for everything. In the beginning, I did not really care whether or not I found employment, because I knew I would have a job to return to within a fairly short time. With each store I walked into, each dropped off resume or application and each conversation I had with a prospective employer, my confidence grew. I used to be afraid to apply for a job in fear of rejection. Now I look upon this as an opportunity for advancement and pride for trying to get off the system. Although I am starting my regular seasonal fall-time job fairly soon, I will continue to look for part-time employment during work simply because I am perfectly capable of working two jobs. Thank you for helping me to change my attitude to one of excellence.

So these are letters that have been sent to staff in the department, two individuals that have been part of the programs that we have implemented to try to ensure that people get off of social allowance and into meaningful jobs. You can tell by the letters that have been provided and that I have read into the record that indeed there are people that have benefited, that have their self-esteem built to a point where they have confidence in their own abilities to contribute to society. So I just wanted to put those comments on the record, because, Mr. Chairperson, I think my honourable friend, from time to time, gets carried away in his own thought and philosophy that certainly is out of touch with the reality of what his party and their policies are when they are in government.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): The point that I would like to make on part of what the minister is saying is that I believe that this government's job-creation goals are way too low. Now, I think that there are some good programs like the MCC training program, so I concede that you are on the right track with that particular program.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

However, if you look at the numbers of people that are supposedly going to be hired from income assistance into employment programs, they are very small. Taking Charge!, I understand you are working with about 1,100 clients a year; Community Services program, which is actually a City of Winnipeg program, 580 clients; Rural Jobs Project, 50; Opportunities for Employment, 150; Manitoba Conservation Corps, 100, for a total of 1,980, while there are at least 28,000 people who are deemed employable, including the numbers that the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) included in his misleading letter to his constituents, which we have debated extensively here, where he said that they decreased their caseload from 13,888 to 12,876.

It was only after extensive questioning of the minister that we found out that he did not really intend to say that those are the number of people on income assistance in Winnipeg or Manitoba, just the number of single parents deemed employable, which he did not put in his rather misleading letter to his constituents.

So we know that there are between 12,000 and 13,000 single parents plus the City of Winnipeg caseload of 16,000 people, plus people outside of the City of Winnipeg who are in families and deemed employable. So I think that the numbers of jobs that this minister plans to create or the number of people that she plans to move from income assistance to paid employment is very low, very minimal, pathetic even.

The one thing that this minister is not doing anything about, absolutely nothing except to make it worse, is the problem of poverty, particularly child poverty. The minister summed up her government's policy quite well. In fact, she took the words out of my mouth, because the minister said that I believe her government is hardhearted and meanspirited, and I could not have said it better myself. I was going to say this government is mean and extreme.

Last year we had a debate in these Estimates about Income Assistance workers withholding cheques while they do investigations and, every time I raise this with the minister, she denies it, but I have had it confirmed by the staff at Winnipeg Harvest, who say that they get people phoning saying they have no money to buy groceries with and that their cheque is being withheld during an investigation. I know the minister does not want to believe me, but I would hope that she would believe the staff at Winnipeg Harvest.

The other thing that concerns me greatly, and not just me but people that have written documents, including documents for the government, is the connection between poverty and other social programs. We know, for example, that the Postl report, the health of Manitoba's children, had a lot to say about poverty and pointed out that there is a connection between, first of all, poverty and inequality and inequality and health outcomes, that when you have great disparities in income in a society or a country, those who are poor have poorer health.

They recommended that the food allowance within social assistance programs be increased to allow for adequate nutrition of infants as reflected in formula costs. What has this minister done? Instead of listening to a report commissioned by the Department of Health, she has reduced the amount of money, mainly through standardization, that children are getting, particularly children whose parents are on City of Winnipeg social assistance.

We also have had the Justice Hughes report about the Headingley jail riot, and I quoted extensively from that previously in Estimates, where Justice Hughes really went outside his mandate to talk about the causes of crime and the causes of gangs and talked about the poverty and the hopelessness and despair and how, if we are going to do something to reform our Justice system, we also need to address the root causes of crime, one of which is poverty.

* (1510)

We also have a very interesting document, really an amazing document, amazing in that it was made public, called Trends, Issues and Innovations in Winnipeg's Human Care Services, a report on discussions amongst United Way of Winnipeg member agencies, dated February 1997. They talked extensively about the problems of poverty and the problems that are presenting themselves to the United Way member agencies.

In this report they said many people require basic physical support such as food, bedding and housing. Many children feel marginalized and need hope for the future. Many people need help to help themselves build a better life. Again and again agencies made the link between poverty and increasing need and stated that changes have affected individuals by impacting levels and availability of services.

Agencies were concerned about increasing levels of anger and despair among young people, even in six- and seven-year-olds. This hopelessness translates itself many times in involvement in gangs, petty crime and prostitution. They made comments such as, we are competing with gangs because they are perceived as having more to offer. They repeated that poverty and lack of employment opportunities had a particularly acute effect on young people, resulting in increased discrimination against young people, increased activities such as prostitution by very young boys and girls, increased involvement in gangs.

I could go on and quote more extensively from this document. They said there has been a shift in philosophy from a justice model to a charity model, and certainly this government is perpetuating that.

Well, I could go on, but I will not. We could talk about the numbers of children living in poverty in Manitoba, which are not going down, which are considerable in the National Council of Welfare report. The number of children under 18 living in poverty in 1994 in Manitoba was 59,000, a 21.7 percent poverty rate for children in the province of Manitoba. We are perpetually the second highest. We were the worst; now we are the second-worst in Canada, trailing Newfoundland.

So I think that this minister's policies have been a total failure when it comes to poverty. The only thing that she has done is contribute to poverty, and we know that the way to get families out of poverty is to have them off Income Assistance and in the paid workforce. That is certainly the best way. But when it comes to job creation goals, this minister's efforts are far too low; in fact, I said before, they are pathetic.

So, you know, the minister had an opportunity in this budget to make improvements. We know that they have $400 million in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, also known as the Tory re-election slush fund, and they could spend this money now. They do not have to wait until the election. They are probably going to use it to buy votes in the next election instead of spending it on children and improving Manitoba's abysmal poverty rate. Instead they will use it for a tax break in the next election. We know that tax breaks do not put a lot of more money into the economy. What they tend to do is to help the rich. We know that, but that is the choice that they are going to make. But I think that Manitobans are concerned about the rate, particularly of child poverty.

So I move that the salary for the Minister of Family Services be reduced to $117.20 per month, which is the same as the social assistance rate for children up to age six.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable member for Burrows that the salary of the Minister of Family Services be reduced to $117.20 per month, which is the same as the social assistance rate for children up to age six.

Any debate on the motion?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I am just aghast that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) would put the comments on the record that he has today. They seem to be at odds with many of the things that I have heard him say in the past where I think that he praised the minister and the government for some of the initiatives we have taken. Today, for whatever reason, he puts comments on the record attacking the minister that are completely unfounded. I just cannot sit here and accept his characterization of the situation here in Manitoba.

Now I know that we have just gone through a federal exercise where my honourable friend's party talks about getting back into the taxing business and the spending business, of course, where they have promised at the federal level to increase taxes many, many times and to increase expenditures across government. I would have thought that at this point in history that my honourable friend would have learned that those were the ways of the '70s and '80s practised by the party of which he is a member, and these practices have been discredited and discarded right across the world. Here my honourable friend, I think, has bought into this old theory brought back by his fellow travellers at the federal level, and I tell you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that this simply is not acceptable. I do expect, of course, a higher standard of honour from my honourable friend considering his background, but every once in a while he disappoints me.

I know that I meet him at Folklorama venues where, again, of course, he is out of character from the way he portrays himself. [interjection] Well, my honourable friend comes to this committee and puts on the record things that are completely unacceptable and, I think, at variance with the facts and plays fast and loose with what the actual facts are, and, by and large, is very much factually inaccurate when he puts some of the things on the record that he does. We know that he also was involved at an exercise down the street here where he marched with the casino workers a few years ago and comes here and portrays himself as some pillar of the community, and we see kind of an inconsistency in the way he acts and the things that he says.

So I do believe that this minister has brought about tremendous reform to the social allowance system, reform that is consistent with what is happening across Canada and in other provinces. I expect that, if my honourable friend from Burrows has done his homework on these things, he probably is aware of these things, but perhaps chooses not to put them on the record--chooses only to put on the record the things which tend to build his case. There is a lack of honesty there, I think, in terms of the way he portrays himself by putting factually incorrect information on the record.

Mr. Martindale: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. The member for Minnedosa is attacking me personally and my motivation, and I would like him to be factual himself. If he thinks my information is inaccurate, I would like to be corrected, and I wish he would tell me what he thinks is inaccurate, but not to attack my honesty. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Labour, to continue.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I would ask my honourable friend to be aware of what is happening in other jurisdictions across Canada. In fact, this crosses over many departments as we look at governments around the country. In my new responsibilities, we inherited a situation in Workers Compensation where that particular arm of the Department of Labour was in debt by $232 million, and I thought this was just a horrible situation. I am pleased to be able to report that over the last number of years this has been remedied to the point where that debt has been completely paid off. So, when I was lamenting this fact with my colleagues from across the country when I first met with them in late January or early February, I came away feeling that maybe it was not so bad because in Ontario after the Rae days their Workers Compensation Board was $11 billion in debt, and that $11-billion debt was created after only four years in government. Small wonder that in the province of Ontario where they remember a socialist government, they did not treat them very kindly at the polls in the recent exercise that was just completed.

* (1520)

But I say to my friend he wants me to be more specific about where he is not representing the issues as they are across Canada. He completely disregards the fact that the governments across this country have had to deal with social allowances and, in many different jurisdictions, have done many of the same things that have happened in Manitoba. I would just ask my friend to recognize that governments of all political stripes have taken the opportunity to make these changes where the system encourages people, encourages people to seek employment, encourages people to find work, encourages people to take training.

I think if he looks at the western provinces, two of them that are governed by fellow travellers of his, this is fairly consistent, yet he portrays this government as being the only one which is taking some innovative steps to get people back in the workforce and off social allowances. So I would ask him to recognize this, that the programs that have been brought in are truly reforms and that they are intended to get people back to work and have people gain self-esteem and be able to support their families.

I would be pleased to ask the minister a couple of questions if that is in order at this time. I think that in all departments across government, in all departments, one of the true tests of relevance is if you compare the rates from one province to another, because it is fine for my honourable friend from Burrows to come to committee and say the rates have to be raised. He knows the statistical basis on which child poverty numbers are generated but does not recognize that because the city of Winnipeg is a municipal jurisdiction of over 500,000 people, that the lines are drawn in comparing ourselves to cities like Vancouver and Toronto and Montreal, and that simply is not an accurate way of defining poverty in our country.

The most true test, I suppose, is to compare our rates with nearby jurisdictions, and I would be pleased to ask the minister how the rates in Manitoba compare to rates in Saskatchewan. Is there a great discrepancy between what recipients receive in Manitoba as compared to the province of Saskatchewan, whether there is a difference between the rates in the city of Winnipeg and in cities like Regina and Saskatoon and whether there is some level playing field between neighbouring provinces.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, I would just remind the committee that we are to be speaking to the motion that is on the floor, that the salary for the Minister of Family Services be reduced to $117.20 per month and so on and so forth.

I would ask that the committee members direct their questions specifically to the--we should be talking about the motion rather than asking questions of the minister.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, for clarification, as I read it, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has put on the record the social assistance rate for children up to age six, and I was simply asking for clarification of rates in Manitoba in respect to other provinces.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee for the question to be raised to the minister? [agreed]

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is unfortunate that I do not have staff with me here at the table because we are now on the Minister's Salary, and I do not have a lot of the details and a lot of the comparisons at my fingertips, but I notice with great interest that the motion that was put forward to reduce my salary to $117.20 per month which is the rate for children under the age of six in Manitoba, those rates go--and I am pretty close to accurate when I say that the rates for children do increase as children get older, and many older children receive the rates of around $180 or $189 per month, if memory serves me correctly.

When you compare that to British Columbia, for instance, I know that the rates are $103 a month across the board for children. Now, you look at the cost of living in the city of Vancouver compared to the cost of living in the city of Winnipeg, and you tell me that a New Democratic government which reduced the rates in British Columbia to $103 per month per child reflects any of the rhetoric that my honourable friend has put on the record in the last half hour or so.

I mean, it is just unbelievable to think that he, who has absolutely no accountability for any of the comments that he makes because he does not have to make decisions and he does not have to be held accountable by Manitobans for any decisions that he makes, can talk about the meanspirited approach of this government when you look at the cost of living in our province, the tax rates in our province, as compared to the cost of living in British Columbia, in downtown Vancouver, where I know for a fact that the rents are considerably higher and the costs of many other items and articles are considerably higher than in the province of Manitoba, and yet the rates that they provide for children in British Columbia under his party which is in government is $103 a month.

Now, you tell me, Mr. Chairperson, how my honourable friend can sit there with a straight face and put forward a motion like the motion he has put forward. I guess I am a little disappointed because I thought that my honourable friend would have done his research and would have looked into the issues in greater detail, would have looked into what is happening in the real world out there, not in his little--whether it be in his caucus office that discusses philosophy and how they think the world should be run and programs should be delivered, when we know in reality that New Democratic governments that have to make decisions have made decisions that are certainly more meanspirited than any decisions that happen in Manitoba.

So I thank my honourable colleague for that question, because it did allow me to put on the record what New Democratic governments do when they have the opportunity to address child poverty in the provinces that they govern.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I thank the minister for that response, because I suspect that my honourable friend from Burrows knew what the situation was in the province of British Columbia but chose not to bring that into the discussion on rates. I, too, am disappointed that he would talk about the minister and the department and the government setting rates that he does not agree with. As I say, the truest test of programs is to compare with what other jurisdictions are doing. I suspect that the member for Burrows, who is a bright person, has done that comparison. I suspect that their army of researchers has provided that information for him.

So it really is a question then what he chooses to put on the record and how he chooses to portray it. That is where my real disappointment is, that he would hide those facts, not choose to bring them forward, and this was a wonderful opportunity for him to praise the minister and praise the government.

* (1530)

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Burrows, on a point of order.

Mr. Martindale: On a point of order, I would like to ask the minister to refrain from making comments like this, because I am not hiding anything, and if he thinks I am hiding something, he should have some evidence. Nor did he point out what was factual after my last point of order, so I would ask him to temper his remarks, please. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Gilleshammer: On the same point of order, I accept my honourable friend's comments then that he was not aware of what the rates in other provinces are and that he did not put them on the record, because he simply did not know about them, and that he was talking about Manitoba rates in isolation of other provinces.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Burrows does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

I would think that this would be an opportunity for my honourable friend the critic for the New Democratic Party to praise the minister and praise the department in saying, you know, good for you, your rates are higher than they are in British Columbia, where the cost of living is higher, where the taxes are higher, and this is, I think, a sign of a minister who truly cares for the department and the citizens and the clients that she is responsible for.

To her credit, she has been able to stabilize these rates at a level which does exceed what other governments, and governments, I might add, of New Democratic persuasion who, while they are in opposition, of course claim that they are going to do all sorts of things, but when they are faced with the reality of government and the reality of a Treasury Board and the reality of living within their means--I do not know whether they do have a balanced budget in British Columbia or not. There was some talk about it before the last election, but, so, I mean, they have to take these things into consideration too when they set the rates, because in a beautiful province like British Columbia where, of course, they attract citizens from other jurisdictions, from western provinces in eastern Canada, they have to be aware of what the rates are and be aware of what the rates are in other provinces.

Well, the province of British Columbia, of course, has been very innovative in the way they portray things, very innovative in putting forward proposals and policies of their government which, I guess to be charitable, one could say are sort of at odds with the philosophy expounded here by my honourable friend from Burrows. If their research department has not had time to look at the rates in British Columbia and he has not had time to reflect on them, I would urge him to do that because, again, one of the truest tests of rates, whether it is within the Department of Family Services or right across government, is to look at what other provinces do when they are in government.

Now my honourable friend from Burrows has had the advantage of being in opposition now for almost 10 years, and it is a tremendous opportunity--[interjection] Oh, pardon, me, just six and half years, but he can look forward to many more years in opposition. It is a wonderful opportunity without having a lot of responsibility to be able to devote that time to doing the extensive research that is necessary to get a fuller understanding. I know that he has been a critic in that department for some time and, by and large, does an adequate job of it. I have heard him speak on a number of occasions where he has had a lot of praise for the minister and praise for the civil servants who work within Family Services. I think in many ways he is gaining more of an understanding of the department and more of a respect for the job that has to be done in terms of providing for disadvantaged people within the province of Manitoba, but he has moved a motion dealing with rates and he has talked about the poverty line.

I did indicate in my first question some concern about his comments about the attempts by government and by the department to train people for work, and he, in a very disparaging way, said it was not enough, that there were only some 2,000 people who are participating in programs like Taking Charge! and other urban and rural programs to find work for them. I am surprised that he would take such a negative attitude towards programs that are working. I would remind him that these are the numbers of people that are participating in the program at any one time, and as there are graduates of those programs and people go into the workforce, there are opportunities for more people to come on board and take that training.

So I would like to compliment the minister and the department for the tremendous job they are doing in creating programs, in conjunction with the municipal level and the federal level of governments, to be able to find meaningful programs which help people to find meaningful jobs.

Of course, this is a far cry from the reality of the 1980s when members of the New Democratic Party had the opportunity to govern, and I believe their crowning glory was the Jobs Fund as a means of throwing money at these issues. Even the current Leader of the NDP (Mr. Doer), I think, spoke rather disparagingly of that program, where he said that they hired people to go out and count flowers and put up green signs, instead of using the resources of government to do adequate training programs. Mr. Doer, at that time who was leader, I think, of the Government Employees' Union, criticized the party that he is now the leader of. Yet we have not seen him or critics or the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) bring forward alternatives other than to do more and to criticize that not more people are taking part in this, and, of course, to raise the rates, again neglecting the fact that our rates our quite comparable to other jurisdictions in this country.

He also mentioned in his comments a few minutes ago this whole issue of how you define poverty in this country, and it does raise another question in my mind as it relates to rates and to the way the department is doing business. It is my understanding that Statistics Canada is only one of the places that one can go to sort of define where that poverty line is. As I indicated earlier, I would like to ask the minister for clarification whether that Statistics Canada interpretation and determination of poverty is the only way to determine that, and how it reflects to people living in rural Manitoba, for instance, when some of them are quite shocked and surprised when they are told that, because they are only making a certain income, they are at or near the poverty line. I am wondering if there is any information or research that has been done that would perhaps draw a truer picture of that, and a further supplemental question to that, are there any extenuating circumstances in Manitoba that perhaps make that particular test an inadequate one?

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee for the question to the minister?

An Honourable Member: No, no leave.

Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been denied.

* (1540)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) would be here to stifle debate and understanding on this issue. I do not know where he is getting his instructions from, but I would have thought that there were areas of debate and discussion within the Department of Family Services that he would want to get further information on because he obviously does not have a good understanding of what the cross-Canada comparisons are, and does not understand some of the information put forward by Statistics Canada. I would have thought that he would welcome the opportunity to gain more knowledge in that area and participate in that debate instead of just raising points of order to distract the committee when we are here to talk about this department and the work that they do. So I know that he is going to have opportunities over the next coming years to do that research and get that understanding.

As I say, I know there are other members of the committee that want to make comment and ask questions, but this is an issue that, I think, is of concern to all Manitobans. Unfortunately, because of the restrictive nature of the Estimates process, I guess, we are running out of time, and there may be are other priorities that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) wants to discuss.

But, just in closing, I would say how disappointed I am in him that he would bring forward a motion like this, knowing what a tremendous job the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has done over the last number of years in leading this department, in providing innovative programs, new solutions that are being emulated by other jurisdictions and getting, I think, acclaimed from many sources for trying to find long-term solutions to the problems that exist in the social allowance system. So with those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would pass the floor to anyone else who wants to make comment.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I just want to respond briefly to the comments that were put on the record by my honourable colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) and certainly want to thank him for his support. I know that he set many of the policies in place in the Department of Family Services that continue to work today under his leadership when he was there, and I want to continue on. We have seen many positive things happen since we took government and have changed the way business is done in many areas of the Department of Family Services. So I thank him for his contribution before my time, and I also thank him for his comments and his support today.

But, you know, around the issue of the low-income cutoffs, although I did not have the ability to answer the question directly, I think it is very important that we put on the record some of the discussions that we have had on an interprovincial basis. As Ministers of Family Services, Social Services get together right across the country, and we are all in agreement with some of the comments that are raised from time to time about whether the low-income cutoffs are indeed a true measurement of poverty. Although I know that they are used and they are the statistics that are gathered by Stats Canada--and I have even written to Stats Canada and asked the questions on what is taken into consideration as they gather the information and provide detail. Stats Canada has written and I do have a copy. I have a letter of response I have received from them, and I have shared it with members of the media from time to time. I know that when I have been on Peter Warren's show, we had the opportunity to discuss this, and I have shared with him the letter that I got from Statistics Canada that came back and said that the low-income cutoffs are not a true measurement of poverty, but it is the best measurement we have.

They do not take into consideration the demographics, cost of living or any programs that any government has in place that might not be included in income. There are lots of programs, like the CRISP program in Manitoba, that are not taken into account. What is not taken into account is any additional tax benefit that is provided to low-income families. So those things are not taken into account and they are not measured in the income when we look at the low-income cutoff measurement.

Also, they take all cities over 500,000 in population and lump them into one category, so that, for instance, Winnipeg is lumped in with Toronto or Vancouver, and they do not take into consideration the cost of living and any other factors that might impact what poverty might mean. I mean, I would imagine if you are making the same income in the city of Vancouver as you were making in the city of Winnipeg, you would probably be quite a bit better off in the city of Winnipeg, because the cost of living, the cost of housing is considerably lower. But that is not taken into account when the statistics are gathered, so that puts us at a disadvantage. It also does not give a true picture of possibly what is happening in the province of Saskatchewan, because they do not have a city over 500,000. There is a different standard for the city of Regina or the city of Saskatoon than there is for the city of Winnipeg. We are compared to Toronto and Vancouver. We are not compared to Regina or Saskatoon. The expectations and the poverty line is lower in Saskatoon and in Regina than it is in Winnipeg, but if you look at the cost of living, you would probably find comparisons very similar in Winnipeg to Saskatchewan--or to Saskatoon or Regina. So they set the poverty line lower in Saskatchewan in those major cities than they do in the city of Winnipeg only because we have 500,000 people.

So when you look at that, is that really a true and fair comparison when nothing else is taken into account or consideration? I guess, we can argue whether the low-income cutoffs are a true measurement or they are not. I guess, the reality is we all have to recognize that there is poverty, and any level of child poverty is not acceptable in our country, in a country that has so much to offer to families and individuals. So how then do we start collectively to take a look at what we can do to reduce the impact of child poverty? I guess, as a result of that discussion and as a result of premiers right across the country, regardless of political stripes, making this an agenda priority for First Ministers' meetings--indeed, our Premier (Mr. Filmon) has made a recommendation that we look at the issue of child poverty and try to determine how we can deal with it. We also recognize that there is a role for the federal government to play in trying to eradicate child poverty in our country and that there need to be some standards and some consistent approach right across the country in dealing with this issue.

So our Premier has raised it, and I guess I might just comment briefly on why it became an issue on the national agenda for premiers, and that was because the federal Liberal government's decision to reduce transfer payments to provinces for health, for education and for social services. As a result of those reductions, that limited the provinces' abilities to provide the kinds of programs that we needed to provide.

The premiers decided that, with the lack of a federal vision or any federal action on the issue, provinces would get together, and we established a ministerial council with a representative from each province that was to sit down and look at the issue of child poverty and see whether there was a common approach that could be taken by all provinces to try to deal with the issue. As a result of that, we had a report to premiers that did indicate that we should be looking at some national standards, a national approach in recommending to the federal government that kind of approach. So, as a result, the premiers forwarded a report that they all agreed to, regardless of political stripe, to the Prime Minister. I often say I am not sure whether it was timing or what, but the Prime Minister agreed with and endorsed the report and indicated that he would put his ministers together with provincial ministers to try to look at dealing with the issue of child poverty.

The whole focus, there were three objectives to the approach that was to be taken, and that was to reduce the depth of child poverty, to ensure that people that were working were better off than on welfare, and also to look at the overlap in duplication and administration of programs between the federal and provincial governments so that we could save some money on administration and put that money into supports for families and for children.

* (1550)

Those were the three objectives, and, as a result of that process, we now have an endorsement by the federal government and all provinces on a national child benefit that does in fact start to address the three objectives of what our premiers directed us to do. So I am really pleased that we have made a first step. Now the issue, of course, and the objective should be that no child receives support through the welfare system into the future, but every child in a low-income family, whether they be on welfare or whether they be a working family with a low income, should receive support on a standard basis from the federal government so that the federal government will provide support to children to take children out of the welfare system and put them on a level playing field across the country with a standard amount of support for a child, no matter where they live.

I think it is the right approach to take. I think that all governments of all political stripes across the country have endorsed the process that has been put into place and the new national child benefit. The one issue that we do have, of course, in this province is that we have heard the federal government talk about how wonderful this was and how this, I think, $600 million that they have put in the budget is a down payment for children. Well I might argue, and I think several other provinces would argue, that it is not a down payment, it is a partial repayment of what they have removed from provinces as a result of the reductions in transfers that they have made to provinces.

What we want to see and what we are all calling for as provinces is incremental stable funding from the federal government and a commitment to that year after year till we get to a point where all children are off of the welfare system and supported by the federal government, whether they be in working families or welfare families. It is the right direction; I think we all agree it is the right direction to go, and what we need now is a commitment from the new federal government, or the renewed federal government, to ensure that the money they have committed in next year's budget is incrementally higher year after year after year until we get to a level where every child is supported outside of the welfare system by the federal government if they are in a low-income family.

So that was the objective, and that was the purpose, and I think we have accomplished in a fairly short period of time, given that it is the two levels of government that have been working on this process, an approach that we can all endorse and we can all agree to and we can all buy into. I think that has been a very positive step, but I wanted to discuss the low-income cutoffs, and it is an issue that all provinces have highlighted as an issue. I am not sure whether there is any sort of consensus on what might be a better measurement of poverty because I think what we want to do is truly identify those families and those children that are in need and ensure that the programming is there for those children to grow and to succeed.

So there are some things happening. I know that my honourable friend and I might get into some hair pulls or some discussion from time to time because, philosophically, we come from a different background, but I guess I want to stress, and what I really want to indicate is that regardless of whether it was the Liberal social services minister from Newfoundland or the New Democratic social services minister from Saskatchewan or--

An Honourable Member: In Manitoba, a United Church minister.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, as a matter of fact, a very good man, but I do want to indicate, regardless of what our backgrounds or what our philosophical beliefs are, we have attempted to work co-operatively. I think we have all endorsed the process and the outcome of that process, which will mean, ultimately, if the federal government lives up to its commitment of increased incremental resources year after year, that children will be better served right across this country as a result.

As I said, although my honourable friend and I may have differences in our approach or he may recommend a different way to deal with things, I know that my counterpart in Saskatchewan that is part of a New Democratic government and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to dealing with the issue of child poverty and how we approach that.

I do want to say that we may argue from time to time, but I think the Minister of Family Services in Saskatchewan and I have very much in common and support and endorse each other when comments are made around the table interprovincially, because we all know, we understand the reality as a party, as a government of different political persuasions but also having to make the right decisions for the right reasons for the people that we serve in our respective provinces.

So I just want to leave those comments on the record. I probably have a couple of other things to say around--maybe I will leave it at that for now and see if there is any other comment or discussion.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I too would like to put a few remarks on the record with regard to this motion that is before us today. When I look at the motion, and the suggestion from the honourable member opposite is that the salary of the Minister of Family Services be reduced to $117.20 per month, I react and say, how demeaning can one be? I am incensed that anybody would suggest for a moment that this is the worth of our present Minister of Family Services, and in fact--

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): The high end.

Mr. Radcliffe: The honourable member for Radisson--

An Honourable Member: Wellington.

Mr. Radcliffe: Wellington, Radisson, whatever.

Ms. Barrett: She will be furious.

Mr. Radcliffe: --is indicating that this is the high end of what she thinks the worth is.

As a newcomer to the political scene here, I am incensed that somebody would take such a personal attack against an individual who has committed themselves to the public service. I just wanted to put on the record that I have had the distinct honour and advantage to be able to work with the minister of Child and Family Services when I was a backbencher, which was up until this January of 1997, and I found that our current minister brings a skill and professionalism to her job as responsibility as minister.

She has a professional background. I believe that she brings a real knowledge and grasp of the topic but, more importantly, I think, as well, too often you see politicians, and politicians are perceived to perhaps have a fast and snappy answer or tend to be a bit on the glib side, whereas I would point out to you and through you to our colleagues present that the present minister brings a sense of compassion and real understanding and grasp of the department which she leads. This was nowhere more evident than when we were debating and discussing the parameters for the review of The Child and Family Services Act, in which I had the distinction of playing a very small part, but this was done under the guidance of this minister.

This minister is very analytical and perceptive. She was aware that just because the Province of Manitoba, the government of Manitoba, in its wisdom had seen fit to pass legislation some 10 years ago with regard to Child and Family Services that it was time for a review and readdressing some of the very human issues that were involved with the Child and Family Services department and touching on adoption, touching on child abuse, touching on many of the areas which were within her department.

I can tell you that I have never seen anybody who is more in touch with the advocacy groups, with the special interest groups, with the common individual in the street, and who has greater feeling for these individuals than our current minister. I think that--

Ms. Barrett: She met them outside Beaujolais.

Mr. Radcliffe: Oh, no, the honourable member from, I am not sure, was that--

An Honourable Member: Wellington.

* (1600)

Mr. Radcliffe: --not Riel, but Wellington she comes from, is it, is making another personal imprecation that is in fact trying to demean the dignity and the worth of this individual. I have no problem. In fact, I welcome challenging colleagues opposite to bandy opinions, philosophy, ideas about in this Chamber and in these rooms but, in fact, when it descends to attacks of a personal nature, which this motion to me suggests, that in fact this is the worth of the individual, then I take umbrage, and I must react.

I think that the critics opposite, it is their job to criticize, to be discerning, to look at the policies of our government, to point out the shortfalls, to bring to our attention, perhaps, individuals who are falling between the boards or issues that perhaps we have not considered. That is all fair ball, but when they bring a motion such as this, to reduce the salary of the minister and a minister who is so hardworking and so committed to her task, I think that this is totally unacceptable, and I am feeling compelled that I must rise in the defence of this minister to speak to this.

I remember when the departed Mr. Orchard, I believe it was, made a motion that Mr. Plohman be paid $1 for his minister's salary. I was a practicing lawyer at that point on the street, and I heard that this was the practice in this House. I think that I would urge honourable members opposite to end this practice, that, in fact, it only reflects upon the originators of the motion, the people who propose this sort of motion. It speaks more of gamesmanship and chicanery than it does of real concern over the individuals whom members opposite profess to be concerned about, and I am sure what I want to emphasize today is what this minister is concerned about, which is our poor, our marginalized and our underprivileged. I can add--

Mr. Martindale: That is why you are cutting the rates.

Mr. Radcliffe: Well, the honourable member opposite says that is why we are cutting the rates, and he has failed to address or acknowledge that in the child support levels between 12 and 16, I believe that Manitoba has one of the higher levels of support if, in fact, one were to remove the component of housing from the levels of support, which are a local variance from community centre to community centre.

In fact, the rest of the rates for support of families and individuals in all the different categories in which they are designated, we in Manitoba rate at least in the middle of the field, and I qualify those remarks by saying if you take out the housing component across this country. So for a population, Mr. Chair, of 1,100,000 people, Manitoba can measure up to provinces of the economic force of Quebec and Ontario. I think that this is, in fact, very, very significant.

I want to add that I have had the opportunity to watch the leadership skills that our present minister has exercised in the deployment of her responsibility with her ministry, and, in fact, she is a person who believes in collaboration of collegiate thought. When we were about the process of addressing the issues of the workbook of the legislation on Child and Family Services, this minister's, one of her initial reactions was to say, well, what do the spokespeople in the community feel about these issues that the department had addressed to her as shortfalls of the current legislation, and she conducted an assessment amongst some of the more outspoken groups and directed me to go out across the province of Manitoba and to find out what the rank and file thought of the suggestions for reforms.

So this leads me to conclude that here is a woman who is forward-thinking. Here is a woman who is not afraid to address the public. Here is a woman who has commitment to her department and to her responsibility. She shows innovation and leadership. She does not look upon the status quo as acceptable and, in fact, is eager to embrace change where change is going to be a positive element in our community.

So for someone to step forward and be so deprecating and so demeaning as to suggest a rate of employment at this level I think is incredibly insulting and somebody who bespeaks perhaps that they have no awareness of the skills, of the feeling, of the compassion, of the commitment, the sense of commitment that our minister has in this particular area.

I have heard this minister say that, in fact, what she wants to do for the people who are falling under her charge is to give them the best of help, and the best of help is to find them a job. That is the best security of any Manitoban, and she wants to create an environment where people will seek employment where reasonably possible. I think that we can look to the employment rates in the province of Manitoba today, and our employment rates are among some of the better employment levels in the community in this nation. We are leading the country in many, many cases, and I think that this minister here has also brought a sense of professionalism, of vigour to this job. One of her predecessors, Madam Charlotte Oleson, had a more grandmotherly aura about her, whereas this minister has some vigour.

Mr. Martindale: What aura did Harold have about him?

Mr. Radcliffe: Ah, Harold's was one of rectitude.

But these are just a few of the personal attributes that I think this minister has brought to this office, and for somebody at this stage now to suggest that, in fact, a personal attack is in order or personal criticism is in order, when I have seen the quality of commitment, the level of compassion and understanding of this department--and, Mr. Chair, as you perhaps very well know, having preceded me to this Chamber and public representation, the department of Child and Family Services has the potential to be incendiary, to be confrontational, to be very emotionally laden, whereas our minister has brought a sense of reason, a sense of calm, a sense of order to an area of government which is laden and fraught with many, many emotional difficulties because, of course, we are looking at, in many cases, the raw edge of life where people are being confronted with child abuse issues, with issues of family matters and in fact, as one well knows, one's children are perhaps the most precious and closest thing to oneself that we have in this life. Our minister of Child and Family Services is responsible for all the children across our province, and I have seen her make that commitment, and when there have been cases that have hit the newspaper, I can tell my friend opposite--

Mr. Martindale: How much did she pay you?

Mrs. Mitchelson: One hundred and seventeen dollars.

Mr. Radcliffe: --and I have heard the minister opposite say when any one of those children is abused, be they in care or out of care, those are my children, and that is sincere, Mr. Chairman. I have seen her make those remarks, and I think that the public needs to know that. All facetiousness aside, I think that this is why this minister has done such a wonderful job in this department, and I believe that, rather than continuing to snipe and backbite and critique, it is time to extol some of the real and positive attitudes that this minister brings to this department.

* (1610)

Therefore, I can only chastise my honourable colleague opposite for bringing such a motion, and I would assume that he really has no knowledge of the real incumbent who occupies this position. He has no knowledge of the skill, no knowledge of the commitment; and, if he were aware of those things, he would never have the temerity to advance such a demeaning motion that has been presented today. So this is why I wanted to take this opportunity to put these remarks on the record on the off chance that he might have a change of heart and see the wisdom of withdrawing this motion and letting us get on with the real business of government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, again I thank my honourable colleague for River Heights, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), for the comments that he has put on the record, and I know that, given we have had many opportunities to dialogue and discuss the issues around Family Services and we have had the opportunity to work together through the whole process of The Child and Family Services Act, I just want to say that, although he said some very flattering things about me, I just want to comment on the good job that was done as a result of the whole process of the review of the act. I know members of the Legislature are just now seeing the final product of the consultations and the community input into the changes that we will see undertaken as a result of the new legislation on adoptions and Child and Family Services.

Indeed, the children that are involved in our Child and Family Services system are very often children that live in poverty, and we know from statistics that those children that are born to single-parent families are six times more likely to use or need the child welfare system, and many of those children are living in social allowance families. So we know, we all know that there are contributing factors to the need for the kinds of services that we provide on a day-to-day basis throughout the province for children that are abused, neglected. So it is very important that any new direction we take is a direction that we believe is going to improve the circumstances and the lives of those children and those families.

But I would like to comment just briefly on some of the, I think, terrible comments my honourable friend for Burrows put on the record about the small numbers of people that have gained employment. When I look at single parents and I look at a total of 1,097 fewer single parents on the caseload today, that was almost an 8 percent decrease in the numbers. I have to think that is significant for our first year of really focusing on trying to find meaningful ways to help these single parents improve their life style and their own sense of self-worth.

When I look at the numbers for the municipal caseload and I see that there are some 3,690 fewer individuals on the municipal caseloads, which is an 18.4 percent decrease in a year, I do not think those numbers are insignificant. I think it is a very positive step in the right direction.

I just want to go back and comment on single parents because not only are there 1,097 fewer single parents on social allowance, that means that there is at least double the number of Manitobans that are not on social allowance anymore. It is probably more, if you look at the average of 1.6 children per family, you are looking at 2,500 individuals who have had their lives impacted in a very positive way as a result of the single-parent caseload going down and another 3,690 possibly single individuals who, through the municipal system, have had their lives impacted in a very positive way. So I do not think that is minor. I think it is a very major significant step in the right direction.

Another statistic or another fact I would like to put on the record is that there are close to some 700 individuals, clients that were formerly on social allowances alone, that are reporting employment income. So I think that is very positive, too, because sometime a part-time job or some income is a positive step in the right direction which can lead to meaningful, full-time employment.

Anyway, those things, I think, warranted being put on the record. I will leave it at that and see whether my honourable friend the member for Burrows might like to reconsider his thoughts and his motion that he has presented this afternoon and take a second sober thought about really how he set himself out and apart from any of the leadership that has been shown by governments of his same political persuasion right across the country.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to call the question.

Mr. Chairperson: The question has been called. The motion before the committee: Moved by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) that the salary for the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) be reduced to $117.20 per month which is the same as the social assistance rate for children up to age six.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the motion pass? All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Mr. Martindale: Recorded vote, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been--does the honourable member for Burrows have a second person to support the motion--to challenge for the motion?

Ms. Barrett: Yes, I support the call for a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested by two members. This section of the committee will now proceed to the Chamber for a formal vote.

The committee recessed at 4:18 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:48 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Order. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will resume the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $25,700 on page 51 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, one of the problems with being in three Committees of Supply is you do not necessarily have the opportunity to be in all places at one time. What we had done was done some background from the member for Burrows in terms of why it is that he had in essence moved the motion and understand it is related to a very important issue which really was highlighted in the '95 election from our former Leader, that being Paul Edwards, of child poverty.

We have always felt very strongly on that particular issue, as I am sure virtually all MLAs do. Now, having understood what it is that the member for Burrows, the point that he was trying to get across, we did feel that was appropriate to be voting with the NDP on that particular motion. I just wanted to get on the record that in fact we did have somewhat of a discussion and to indicate why it is that we voted in that fashion. I know, as I say, the child poverty is an area that needs a lot of work, and there has to be a high sense of co-operation between both levels of government and in both areas there is some need for improvement.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: I will just leave it at that.

* (1650)

Mr. Chairperson: Okay. I was just going to interrupt the honourable member for Inkster with regard to the motion that is on the floor. The motion was already dealt with.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thanks, Mr. Chairperson, but given that the member for Inkster had the opportunity to put his few uninformed comments on the record, I would like to indicate that this motion has been debated since somewhere around three o'clock this afternoon, and there were all kinds of issues discussed and comments put on the record. It is passing strange that a party that had such a focus on child poverty was not around to ask one question on the Estimates of the Department of Family Services where we have made significant changes, and there was not a member of the Liberal Party present for any part of the Estimates.

So, when they make a decision that they are going to vote on a motion that was put in place when they have heard none of the debate and none of the discussion and are not informed in any way about the kinds of dialogue that the official opposition and the government have had, I say I am extremely disappointed for a party that professes to support eradicating child poverty, that they have absolutely no interest in the Department of Family Services or the Estimates or the budget or the issues surrounding child poverty.

Also, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to comment again about the offloading by the federal government, the reductions in transfers to the provinces that have left us with $220 million less per year for Health, for Education and for Family Services. We have been able to maintain the support for single parents with children under the age of six at the levels before the federal government made the reductions.

I am extremely disappointed that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) would come in after the fact and make an uninformed decision to vote for his own pure political purposes because it might look right in the eyes of the public, when he knew absolutely nothing about the background or the issue. He might have thought twice about standing in his place and voting when he recognizes and realizes that our rates of $117, which were maintained despite federal cuts, which were maintained by our government, are higher than the province of British Columbia, that provides $103 per child.

So, when he votes on something when he is not informed but based on a little bit of hearsay, without hearing any of the dialogue or any of the discussion that has taken place around the motion, I think it is extremely irresponsible. It does not do anything to promote any sense of ethics or responsibility for his elected position here in this Legislature to make decisions based on common sense and based on understanding and full and factual information. I am extremely disappointed in the Liberal Party in the province of Manitoba for the actions that they have undertaken today. That had to be on the record, because I guess I am extremely disappointed, because I thought very often that my honourable friend did think through the issues and make informed choices and vote based on fact.

What we have seen here today is something that I am not proud to say I am a part of, and that is making a decision without any facts, without any information. I suppose I take my elected responsibility to my constituents and to the people of Manitoba a lot more seriously than the activity I saw here today. I am extremely disappointed. I will ensure that every opportunity I have that the people of Manitoba know how seriously or how insincerely the members of the Liberal Party take their responsibilities here in the Legislature.

There are three committees that are ongoing on a regular basis. There are three members of the Liberal Party. The debates and the discussions have been going on in the Estimates of the Department of Family Services for several days now. It has been a week, I guess, and we have noticed a complete absence of the Liberal Party in this committee room, and there seems to be no genuine desire to discuss the issues of child poverty and yet they make a decision to vote on an uninformed basis.

So, Mr. Chairperson, that will conclude my comments around the member for Inkster's after-the-fact input into these Estimates debates.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister put some very strong comments on the record, and I disagree wholeheartedly with the minister. I think that what she has done is in fact a disservice to the position which she holds in the sense of negotiations that occurred.

We sit in three committees today because there was a sense of co-operation. The concern that we expressed when we agreed to the leave that allowed the three committees to sit was that you have to respect the fact that we have very strong limitations. You cannot expect that. The minister who just spoke, the critic that is currently here, is not in the Estimates for the full 240 hours. It is unrealistic to believe that three MLAs are going to be able to have a full-time presence for 240 hours when not one member of the government nor one member of the official opposition has had that sort of attention given to the Estimates.

If the Minister of Family Services likes to believe that she has given more time into the Estimates than the Liberal MLAs, I would challenge her on that thought. When the minister says, look, we talk about child poverty and the member for Inkster is ill-informed, I take great exception and I know the temptation might be there to talk about relevance. This is a very relevant issue, because I am going to be talking about child poverty to the Minister of Family Services, and at the end of that I will be posing a question. I will sidestep the--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I just remind the honourable member that what we are to be debating here is the Minister's Salary under Resolution 9.1(a) of the Family Services Estimates, and I would ask that you centre your remarks around that aspect of the Estimates section. So if you could do that, the Chair would appreciate that.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Burrows, on a point of order.

Mr. Martindale: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to suggest that we try and pass this before five o'clock, so we do not have to come back. We have been here for a week, and it was my intention to pass it today. I know the minister would like to see it pass today, and then we can concentrate on the other two Committees of Supply.

Mr. Chairperson: It is not a point of order, but it is a suggestion that the honourable member has put forward to the committee, and it will be up to the committee to decide.

Mr. Lamoureux: We are on ministerial salary. There is no staff here and my intentions are to continue to ask some questions, to talk about child poverty, because I believe the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) is quite concerned in terms of the Liberal Party's sincerity in dealing with what is a critical issue.

You know, Mr. Chairperson, if I reflect on how important it is to the Liberal Party, this particular issue, I would suggest that the minister needs only to look at the last provincial election. In the last provincial election, with the many different issues facing the electors of the province of Manitoba, you will see highlighted the signs of balanced budgets, deficit control and there was a third one which escapes me currently.

The New Democrats focused very heavily on health care as an issue. I think what you saw was a very hard concentration on the issue of child poverty coming from the Liberal Party, and it was highlighted during the leadership debate itself, where you had Mr. Filmon, Mr. Doer and Mr. Edwards sitting around a table talking about a wide variety of issues, and at that particular discussion they talked about the importance of child poverty and it was highlighted by Paul Edwards.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.