Manitoba Hansard — 6 November 1989 (Sitting 65B, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-65b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, November 6, 1989. The House met at 8 p.m. CONC URRENT COMMI TTEES OF SUPPLY SUP PLY-HEALTH Mr. Chairman (Mr. Harold Gilleshammer): We will call the meeting to order to discuss the Estimates of the Health Department. We are currently discussing item 2.(

c) Maternal and Child Health: 2.(c)( 1) Salaries, $286,700.00. Shall the item pass-the Member for Thompson. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Chairperson, the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema) earlier got into the issue of in vitro fertilization, and I think the discussion was a useful one. I would not want to pass this item through on the Estimates without expressing our Party's view. I think the Minister is quite aware of our views on the decision not to provide funding in terms of the In Vitro Fertilization Program.

In fact, we introduced an emergency resolution which incidentally was not supported by the Liberals at the time, although I know the Liberal Health Critic has been clear on his position on the issue, a little bit clearer actually than the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) who actually is on record in the Legislature as questioning the whole concept of in vitro fertilization. I am not saying there are not ethical moral qu estions that need to be discussed. This type of new technology does raise those very concerns, but I did want to put on the record that we were concerned.

When this program was initially set up in 1986, it was set up as a non-funded program. Part of the problem was the costs were considerably higher than originally anticipated in terms of the initial projections. In going through some of the material that I have, it was indicated the cost would be more in the range of $2,500 per treatment. In the end, the average person I believe was paying in the $3,500 range, which is not out of line with similar services in other areas of the country, although there are some which have been less expensive.

I think one thing that should be noted as well is one statistic that has been quoted, and certainly it was quoted around the time at which the decision by the Health Sciences Centre to cut the program, it was in regard to the percent success rate. I know that was raised at the time. I am not suggesting that was the criteria or the only criteria for the funding decision, but I think a review of any of the material on this particular program indicates that it varies according to which target group the service is provided to.

When you deal with an older target group, when you deal with individuals over the age of 40, for example, I believe the success rate is in the range of about 5 2579 percent;

whereas that increases to the range of between 20 percent and 25 percent in younger target brackets. I do kno w that one of the criteria for, or my understanding was, the program was to initially provide the service to those who were somewhat older and obviously had less time in terms of being able to have their own children.

I raised that not to say that was not an appropriate criteria, but when you are dealing with the target groups where the percentage success rate is lower by definition, I think that has to be taken into consideration because I have seen reports suggesting the Manitoba program was less successful than other programs, and I think that was an unfair comparison from the statistics that I have been able to track down. As I said it was initially started as a non-funded service. I recall some of the discussion that was going on at the time.

I really think the Minister would be the first to admit-I mean he was directly involved in discussions with some of the support groups saying people were very concerned about the need for this service, how the Health Sciences Centre may have decided to cancel the program as an unfunded program. The final decision was the Government's decision, in terms of the decision not to provide it as a funded program. *

(2005) I think both Opposition Parties, and the Minister asked the Opposition Party's positions, are on the record as saying that it should have been operated as a funded program for at least another year or another two years to give it a greater chance of success. The capital expenditures have been made. As a non-funded program, it was clearly losing money for the Health Sciences Centre and in terms of their own budget I can see why the Health Sciences Centre made the difficult decision it did.

I mean, it had to make the decision between essentially maintaining this service on the one hand, and then potentially taking away from other services, other funded services, that it provides and I do not think anyone faults the Health Sciences Centre. I am also not being overly critical of the Minister, but I think he has to be the first one to admit that it was a Government decision in the end. The Minister I believe met with a number of the individuals, there was a brief protest at the Legislature-this is all in July of 1988.

I am not saying at the time he gave any indication that he might be interested in funding the program. I am not suggesting he mislead people, I am saying he was quite blunt, in fact, that he indicated there would be no funding, period. I know it was the subject of a lot of discussion by the groups affected. I am not saying it was an easy decision on the Minister's part, but I do feel that some of the support groups, some of the individuals who took advantage of that program, had a very good point in terms of the

Monday. November· 6, 1989 inconsistencies that we run into, pointing, for example, the many surgical procedures that are funded, whether it be aborti on, or surgical procedures to reverse sterilizations. In that sense I can understand the very real frustration of parents who have been unable to have their own children who find that this service is not insured.

I realize, the Minister pointed this out, that Ontario, as I understand it, certainly at the time, and I believe is still the only province to provide full insurance coverage, but I think what people were looking for was at least some support from the provincial Government in terms of the program. I realize now, with the program having been wound down, it may be much more of an academic matter than anything else because of the capital side of it having essentially been wound up.

I do think the Minister should be quite clear on the public record that it was the Government's decision and they did not intervene and basically the Government essentially, from what I can see, supported the Health Sciences Centre's position on the program. Now, the only question I would have really is in terms of if there has been any follow-up to see what has happened with the many people who were on the waiting list at the time, in terms of the In Vitro Fertilization Program. I believe at the time that the program was cut, July 23 of 1988, there were as many as 65 couples on the waiting list.

I would just like to ask the Minister what follow-up has been done in terms of those couples to see how many of them have been able to take advantage of the service where it is offered and if there has been any follow-up in terms of the kind of costs that they faced because of the fact that the procedure was not available in Manitoba, either as a funded, or the previous unfunded program. Hon . Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information and when we get to the commission I will see if we can provide that information. Mr.

Chairman, let me correct my honourable friend on a couple of points because he needs his memory refreshed and, of course, he was not the critic for the New Democratic Party in July of 19 88. The program was started in '86 when he was a Member of a Government. That Government with projections of costs significantly below the actual costs refused to fund the program. Now f r om the luxur y of Opposition, my honourable friend has an immaculate conversion and says, well, Government should fund the program. Mr.

Chairman, I do not like to use the unparliamentary phraseology of hypocrisy, so I will not, but that is the ultimate and my honourable friend says the ultimate decision was that of Government. let me refresh again my honourable friend's memory. The citizens group came to Government to see if we would intervene and provide funding to either cover in part or in full the program. But that was not a request of the Health Sciences Centre.

The Health Sciences Centre, given the experience of two years, decided that they could no longer reasonab ly justify the use of taxpayer dollars for an uninsured service. * (20 10) Now, again, I know my honourable friend will say, well, all we had to do was provide the money and give it another couple years of life.

Again, that position is one taken from the luxurious position of Opposition when in Government that same political Party faced with costs-and I will only go by rough figures, projected at 40 percent less than the current actuals and indeed upwards of 60 percent less because it appeared as if the cost was going to rise $4,000-plus per couple per cycle-60 percent over my honour able friend now from Opposition is saying, well, a post-election Government, a different Government ought to fund it when the Government he was a Member of refused to fund it when the costs were upwards of 40 and indeed 60 percent less.

Surely my honourable friend stretches any credibility he is trying to build by making that kind of a proposition to this committee and hence to the people of Manitoba. If it was the New Democratic Party's policy to fund this and make it insured service it would have been done in 1986 when it was proposed to Government, a Government of the NOP political stripe. It was not done because the NOP, when they had full control over the funding of health care in the Province of Manitoba, said, it is not a priority service and we will not fund it.

So do not come to this House with this trying to be all things to all people, the immaculate conversion from Government to Opposition, because it will not sell. You would not fund it when the costs were significantly lower , and I submit you would have made exactly the same decision of this Government and that being to accede to the Health Sciences Centre's board and management decision to no longer fund the program. My honourable friends, had they been Government at the time, would not have jumped in and provided money when none was requested.

So let my honourable friend not try to mislead public opinion and try to tell people as a New Democrat he can have it both ways in the public opinion-we will not fund it when we are Government, but we will fund it when we are Opposition. In the layman's language that is hypocrisy pure and simple. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, the Minister once again gets into his rhetoric. I would like to quote some of the rhetoric that he used around the time that this decision was made, and to put his last comments in perspective for the average Manitoban who might take the time to read them in Hansard.

It is the standard line that Government's use I am sure when they take office and that is to blame everything on the previous Government, and the Minister in particular said, well, if we had a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow they might have funded the program, but unfortunately our NOP friends did not leave us with it. Well, what did the NOP Government leave to the provincial Conservative Government in terms of the finances of this province?

What the NOP Government left, due to some tax increases that probably were too much in terms of looking at things in perspective, and I think everyone agrees with that, the Minister and this 2s8b

Monday, November 6, 1989 Government had a significant increase in revenue that was available. Similarly there was a significant increase in mining revenue which nobody foresaw, certainly nobody a year and a half ago foresaw when the original budget was declared and the Minister knows that. I mean I know that because I see it every day in my own community of Thompson. We are producing a significant amount of tax revenue for the Province of Manitoba due to mining royalties and other taxes coming from the production of nickel.

Now there were also improvements in the financial situation due to the value of the Canadian dollar and we ended up, Mr. Chairperson, where this Government went ahead and established the Fiscal Stabilization Fund because they would have been in the position of having a surplus this year. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) himself admitted that a large part of that was because of the moves that had been made by the previous Finance Minister, Eugene Kostyra.

I think that is the key thing that anyone has to look at, and that is making decisions based on priorities, and decisions based on the available resources. * (2015 ) I believe, in looking at the Minister's record, that it is difficult for him to say that they did not have the resources available. I mention the overall global figure. I could mention the more than $20 million that was underspend in the Health Department last year.

We all got into this early on-and I hate to remind the Minister of it because he is rather sensitive about it-the $58 that was spent out of the $500,000 that was budgeted for the Health Advisory Network. Well, Mr. Chairman, we can get into detail about the other areas where the department did not spend the fully budgeted amount. In fact, we raised this in the Legislature, flagged this as something that was happening, and the Minister at the time did not wish to deal with those concerns.

So let not the Minister, who is a master at rhetoric, select a different type of rhetoric-type of speech here as he did when this matter was closed. I think anybody looking at the situation reasonably recognizes that it was a touch decision to make. I am not saying it was an easy decision for the Minister.

The Minister can throw all the rhetoric he wants back in return, but I can tell the Minister that given the resources that the Minister has, the substantially increased resources that were not in existence in 19 86 when this program was established, there were not the same tax revenues, there were not the same mining revenues, there were not the same bottom-line situations that existed in terms of the province's finances. I am sorry that argument does not hold water. The Minister had to make a real decision.

If he was to be honest in terms of putting this matter on the record, I think he would say that the Minister did not feel that this matter had the same priority as other areas now. I assume that was the rationale behind the decision; I assume it was not a misunderstanding of the program, I hope it was not. I assumed that the Minister did not have anything against the people involved, that it was not for other reasons that have been stated, because if that was the factor I think that 2581 should be clear.

I assume what he is saying is, and he is quoted very much in saying that in terms of his comments in the press that there are other priorities in the health care system. If that is what he is arguing that is fine, but for the Minister to now turn around and use this arg ument is spurio us, is absolutely spurious. We are talking about the situation in the 1989- 90 fiscal year in which we have in the Province of Manitoba-or we would have if it were not for the Fiscal Stabilization Fund-a surplus in very large part because of the actions of Eugene Kostyra, the previous Finance Minister.

We end up with a situation where the Department of Health was underspent in a number of significant areas. If the Minister wants to talk about the comments on the record, even his colleague, the current Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Hammond), is on record as having supported the funding of such a program. I can quote from Hansard, direct the Minister to the Minister of Labour's comments at the time supporting that. So there is even support within his own Party for that, that has been on the record.

So I would suggest that perhaps some of the sensitivity of the Minister on this issue is because of that, he has probably had some difficult times in caucus. I would hope that this individual, the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), and others who maybe supported the program argued that. I do not know, perhaps even the Minister himself wanted to continue the program but could not get the support from his colleagues. I very much doubt that, but if that is the case, I will give him my sympathetic comments that we would like to believe that he, himself, supports this but his Government decides not to do it. *

(2020) The Minister can play all the political games he wants; the fact is, the decision had to be made, the revenue was available from other sources. The Minister decided that this was not the prior ity. That is why I asked him my specific question because this is one point that was raised by the previous critic for Health from the New Democratic Party, and that was about the 65 couples on the waiting list. In fact, the number of people who would have taken advantage of the program would have been significantly higher if it was funded if the cost was lower.

I believe that the statistics that were gathered in terms of the program show that a far larger number of people made inquiries about the program and not proceeded with it. A number of them presumably because of the cost factor. I believe the figure was in the range of three and four inquiries and applications compared to the one that was accepted into the program. In fact, statistics, and this is from the Winnipeg Free Press again that they had gathered, showed 88 of the 350 couples that inquired could afford the procedure. That means that a considerable number of people here were unable to afford the procedure.

So the demand was substantial. I mentioned before the 65 couples on the waiting list at the time of the clinic's closing, and that is what

Mc1n<ll ay, November 6, 1989 I want to ask. I do not think I approach this being unfairly critical or trying to misrepresent anything on tt\e record. Quite from it. I said right off the bat that the program was introduced in 1986 as an unfunded program, and it was terminated in 1988 by the Health Sciences Centre as an unfunded program. The real issue in 1988 was whether it should be a funded program or not. I do not think the Minister should talk about the luxury of Opposition. I do not know what he did when he was in Opposition. I do not find it luxurious at all.

I find it frustrating sometimes. very frustrating when I see the resources in this partici.llar case that the Government has that was left to it. I am not saying a pot of gold but substantially increased revenues, and the ability of this Minister to have to make fewer tough decisions than might have been had to have been made if that money was not available. Well, Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if I would say the Minister is in a luxurious position, but I would certainly say that he had a luxury that many Governments do not have in terms of coming into power, and that is the availability of those resources.

In 1988, he decided not to intervene in the closing. and what I am suggesting to him is no matter how he tries to cut the cake, the final decision was the Minister's not to provide this as a funded program, not the Health Sciences Centre. The Health Sciences Centre closed a non-funded program, and it was very clear on that. It was established as a non-funded program, it was closed as one. The people who were on the waiting list. the support groups who were very interested in this program. a lot of people were saying it should be available as a funded program.

The Minister had to deal with that in July of 1988 given those tax revenues that were available to him, and he chose not to. He, in 1988 -ask his department- was three, lour months into the fiscal year when she underspent in that department by well over $20 million, close to $30 million. He decided not to fund this program as a funded program despite the fact this program was in place and many of the capital costs had been incurred. The Minister decided not to fund this program.

Now, he can try and develop all these rhetorical responses he wants and get into his favourite line, his "well, the Honourable Member was in Government." Well, Mr. Chairperson, when this decision to close this facility down at the Health Sciences Centre was made, there was only one person at this table that was in Government, and it was the Minister. He was the one that had to make that ultimate decision. In the same way that when the New Democratic Party was in Government, that when previous Governments had been in power, they made decisions and they have been held responsible for that.

That is all I really suggested to the Minister is there is a difference of opinion on this particular case. I will argue with the Minister. He can argue all he wants in terms of his rhetorical approach, but he has not yet been able to establish to my satisfaction that the revenue is not available because it is. He cannot do that. He has not yet to my satisfaction dealt with the concerns of the parents involved, I said the 65 on the waiting list and the close to 300 people who had inquired about the program who might have taken advantage of the program.

We have not heard anything in terms of the mental anguish that these individuals went through, their last hope in many cases to have a child of their own taken away by a decision made by--in essence, the bottom line, the buck stopped at the Minister of Health's office. •

(2025) I would just like the Minister to say on the record that that is what happened because this afternoon he danced around the subject with the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema) to a great extent. In fact, I do not believe he said at any time that the buck stopped at his desk and that was where the decision was made and it is unfortunate but that is the way it was. That really is the kind of statement that the Minister would make if he wanted to be forth right about the background of this decision. Let him not try and pass it off on previous Governments.

Let him not try and pass it off, as he did in the Free Press, about there not being the money available. That is not true, the money was available. There was far more revenue when the Minister made the decision not to provide it as a funding service than there was a year or two or three years ago. If the Minister is not aware of that, he should talk to the Minister of Finance, his own Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), who argued that point. I would ask the Minister once again, since we put our positions on the record, and I made it quite clear that in 1986 it was not a funded service.

I did not in any way, shape, or form try to suggest it was, that it had been a funded service by the previous Government. Never once have I said that nor did the previous Health Critic. I said in 1988 it was cancelled as a non-funded service; let that be clear on the record. I said in 1988 the Minister was involved in discussions with people and said he would not provide it as funded service. Let that be clear, that is the bottom line. Let him deal with the question raised and that is, Mr. Chairperson, what is being done for the 65 families that were on the waiting list, if anything, what has been done for them?

What has been done for the many other people who were interested in this service? I am not even, in this case, suggesting the Minister did not care about those people. From his statements in the newspapers I believe that he recognized the anguish, the concern amongst those parents about some of the inconsistencies in the Health Department in terms of, for example, funding reversal of sterilization programs, but not funding in vitro fertilization for those who have never even had the luxury of fertility and the choice of whether to take action for whatever reason to stop that fertility.

That is the real group that we should be concerned about, not the Minister's rhetoric about previous Governments. I did not come in here with rhetoric about the Minister on this particular issue, I said it was a tough issue. I really want to know what the Minister has to say to the 65 families, what has been done for their needs. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, for the third time, I will tell my honourable friend, I cannot answer that because 2582

Monday, November 6, 1989 I do not have commission staff here who are more appropriately avai lable to answer those kinds of questions. Now I recognize my honourable friend wants to waste time and dither arou nd, but I have answered that question for him three times. He is not satisfied with the answer so he natters on. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to tell my honourable friend, in case he is wondering, he said what reason did the Minister give for not acceding to the interested groups' request to provide money. I give my honourable friends the reason that he quoted from the newspaper.

Interesting rhetorical question is, what reason did the NDP give in 19 86 for not funding the program when it was being proposed to Government as one of the options in health care that could be funded as a new program? Well, I suggest they said, well, we do not have the money. Now, I guess it is different when New Democrats say they do not have the money than when Progressive Conservatives say they do not have the mone y. My honour able friend, the Mem ber for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), says, we have the money.

But he also asks what circumstances had changed in terms of Government over the preceding six to seven years prior to that election of May 9? *

(2030) I want to tell my honourable friend what changed because my honourable friend came into the House in 1981, a very memorable date in the history of Manitoba.

At that point in time, after 111 years of Government by political Parties of all persuasions, funding every single undertaking that had been done in the Province of Manitoba in 111 years of existence, inclusive of this building in which we are sitting, inclusive of the Winnipeg floodway, and on and on and on, construction of hig hways, construction of public faciliti es, the accu mula ted public debt as of 198 1 required an annual ized interest payment of just in excess of $90 million a year.

After seven short years of squanderous spending by Howard Pawley and the NDP from 1981 on, the annualized interest bill in just seven short years of their Government rose to $560 million on an annual ized basis.

That means $450 million a year is not available in the Province of Manitoba to provide one additional health care service, to fund one additional nurse on a ward, to fund one additional outreach worker in the war against AIDS, to fund one single educational pamphlet, to fund one single additional teacher in the school system, to fund the construction of one-eighth of a mile of road anywhere in the province, to alleviate interest rates on homeowners in subsidized housing anywhere in the province.

That $450 million that we raise every single year through the taxation system that every Manitoban must pay for, that additional $450 million of interest on the squanderous spending of Howard Pawley and the ND P since 1981 denies every single Manitoban a plethora of wishes and hopes and aspirations not only in health but in every other program delivered by Government. Those monies are raised every year from the taxpayers and are sent out of this country to Zurich, to Tokyo, to London, to New York, and do not provide 2583 one single initiative in health care and education and any social program.

My honourable friend asked me, what circumstances changed? If we had not elected the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the rest of Howard Pawley's Government in 1981, we would have some hope of funding programs today. In stead we fund interest, interest which buys not one single iota of progr amming. My honourable friend the Member for Thompson, who claims to be an economist, laughs-laughs. The Member for the Interlake (Mr. Uruski), who has been around this House for something like 20 years, says it is a crock.

Now he says, well the only village idiot here is the Member for the Interlake, because he knows very well $450 million of extra interest is paid every year on account of the Government he was a Cabinet Minister in from 1981 till their defeat in 1988. The numbers do not disprove that and he knows it. Let my honourable friend the MLA for Thompson carry on. I enjoy these kinds of debates because the more Manitobans recognize how their future has been pilla ged by an NDP Govern ment, the more my honourable friends will stay at 12 percent in popular opinion and dropping.

That is the way it ought to be because Manitobans cannot afford another dose of NDP politicians in Government. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, the Minister's bottom line has been revealed once again. The real message that we should take in terms of this issue to the people on the waiting list, the people who wanted to use this service, is that the Minister feels that we cannot offer this service as a funded service because of budgetary problems, to balance the budget, to reduce the deficit. That is really what he is trying to say.

It would almost be entertaining if the Minister did not know better, but he does know better. He should look at what has happened generally across this country in the 1980s. Look at his federal counterparts in Ottawa in terms of what has happened in that jurisdiction in terms of deficits and debt, et cetera. He would recognize that what has happened, there are a number of reasons behind it.

For him to get into this ridiculous suggestion that the people who are receiving this non-funded service should now be satisfied, now that the Minister is in Government with an answer that tries to spuriously blame it on various budgetary factors of previous Governments is incredible. I do not think anyone of the people on the waiting list would do anything other than ask the Minister this straightforward question, why he refused to provide that?

For the Minister to paint this dark cloud, let him recognize the fact that this year there was a surplus because of actions taken by the previous Government, his own Minister of Finance has said. If the Minister wants to talk about the commitment of the New Democratic Party in terms of health care issues, under the New Democratic Party we went from a total cost to the health care system, total funding of $693 million to $1. 1 billion under the New Democratic Party. That is the figures the Minister uses, even he admits that. Like the Minister in Estimates last year,

Monday, November 6, 1989 even he said that we had one of the best health care systems in the country. That is what he said in October of 1988, six months after he had been in office. He can conveniently slip from one argument to the other suggesting there are problems financially or problems with the health care system and both those arguments are spurious. As I said I think it indicates the real bottom line when decisions are made, and I would suggest an increasing number of decisions that would be made if this Minister was not in a minority Government.

I think the Minister would recognize that because the decisions he has made, some of them at least have been in contrast to his own stated rhetoric as an Opposition Critic when he talked about cuts in terms of the overspending as he put it in the health care sector. We can go through Hansard and pick out some of the things that he said at that point in time. I think we have managed to keep that in check in a minority Government situation. Really what he is saying to the people in the In Vitro Fertilization Program is, I am sorry but we are not going to fund it, period. That is what he said.

All the rhetoric he can put aside, he can put it aside, because he knows that he had the resources. We have said about how the Department of Health was underspent. We have said how there were increased tax revenues, how there were increased mining revenues, how the province was able to bring in a surplus this year. In fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has set .up a Fiscal Stabilization Fund. He has put money aside, extra money this year that could have been put into place for this particular service, but the Minister chose not to, or the Cabinet chose not to.

As I sa id, perhaps the Minister was supportive of this; by his statements today, I suspect not because I do not think he has shown much sympathy in terms of the program itself. The Minister cannot hide that fact. He can talk about 19 86 if he wants, I put the facts clearly on the record. I can talk about 1901, he can talk about 1899. The fact is he was Minister, he was faced with making a decision, he made the decision. I think he should put the responsibility for where that decision lies, and that is squarely on the Government. *

(2040) I will raise this question later, if the Minister wishes, under the Health Services Commission because quite frankly my concern is for the parents that are involved. I really feel for the parents, particularly the parents on the waitin g list, the 65 parents. I rea lly believe incidentally that if the program was going to be closed, it would have been far more logical and far fairer to the parents involved to at least give the parents on the waiting list who have been waiting patiently for their opportunity to take advantage of this particular program.

At least give them the opportunity at this particular service. I think that would have been the more logical thing. I believe in fact that the previous Health Critic, the Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan), for the New Democratic Party, had even recommended that to the Minister . As I said it may now be more academic in that sense, but I really believe on behalf of those people we have to keep asking those questions, and I will be continuing to ask them.

If the Minister wants to get into debates, if he wants to use his spurious rhetoric as well, that is fine, but let him not accuse anyone of putting things on the record that are not true. I have stated factually what happened in this particular issue. I have not tried to do anything other than suggest the Minister was faced with a difficult decision, but he made that decision, he should own up to that decision, and he should be responsible for the consequences of that decision. That is the one thing that the Minister knows a Government Minister has to do.

That is what is meant by ministerial responsibility under our parliamentary system. The Minister, of all people, should be the one to accept that. The Minister seems to go to the greatest extent possible to avoid that. He attempts to blame everything on previous Governments, on fiscal situations, on previous decisions, et cetera. I do not understand why the Minister cannot recognize he made that decision. He made it when there was the financial ability to do something in this particular area. Now if he is saying that he would rather see that money go elsewhere, that is a legitimate point to make.

In the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, he thinks it should go there, that is a legitimate point to make. That is essentially what I believe this Government is saying. If he has some other suggestions in terms of why the decision was made, I would appreciate hearing it, but the decision was not made because of what the NOP did in 1986, or what the NOP did in 1981, or Zurich or New York or anything else, other than the Minister himself, on whatever criteria he chose, with the alternatives he faced, made the decision. I would point out for the record, incidentally, Mr.

Chairperson, that the individuals involved had not even requested that there be full funding of the program. The people had not even suggested that they not pay something. In fact, they even said that they were willing-the people on the waiting list-to pay the $3,500.00. They were only looking for support from the Government to cover the deficit in the program, which indeed did exist. That is why it is important to stress that the Minister did have not only a clear black and white choice of fund or not to fund, he also have the option of providing some funding to the program but did not. That is the bottom line.

I will pursue this further with the Minister under the Health Sciences Centre if the Minister wishes, but let him not get out of the fact that he made this decision and will have to live with the consequences. Mr. Orchard: I chastise my honourable friend. I know he got very offended about it and I will not repeat my chastisation, but it was in the other committee room.

I told him not to try and put words in anybody's mouth because now my honourable friend has gone from admitting earlier on this evening that it was a decision of the Health Sciences Centre on an unfunded program, now down to saying it was my decision. 2584

Monday, November 6, 1989 My honourable friend does not have the intelligence to play that game, so please do not. It was, as my honourable friend pointed out earlier on, a decision by the Health Sciences Centre.

My honourable friend earlier on even admitted that he knew that, but of course in his last little flurry where my honourable friend starts hurting when his economics degree starts telling the truth, that you cannot afford $450 million of interest payments per year because of seven years of an administration he was a backbencher in, he all of a sudden then has to start trying his reverse rhetoric and his twisting and turning like a leaf in the wind. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the decision made by the Health Sciences Centre last summer.

I indicated to my honourable friend in the House, or his predecessor in the House, that I had no decision with that and I maintain that I have no problem with that.

Had we had unlimited resources, even close to the $450 million that we paid out annually in increased interest rates because of Howard Pawley 's administration, ·possibly the Health Sciences Centre would not have even had to come to this Govern ment, or would not have had to make that decision at the board, because my honourable friend quite well knows, yes.- (interjection)- My honourable friend says the one word that is correct, "pathetic," because that is what the Howard Pawley Government was is pathetic in terms of their fiscal responsibility in the Province of Manitoba, period. Mr.

Ashton: We will continue this discussion, Mr. Chairperson. I notice the Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) is here, he seems to have heard it all before from the Minister. Let one thing stand on the record, this Minister inherited a surplus situation because of the actions taken by the previous Government. In fact, if there was one big mistake the previous Government made, it was by being too fiscally responsible and I think we recognize that in terms of the tax situation.

Boy, did we ever get the message on that and the Minister knows that, and if he were to look honestly at the politics of Manitoba in the last number of year he would deal with that reality. I would just note for the record, before I switch into another area of questioning, that in the entire 47 minutes that we have been dealing with this issue, I do not think that the Minister once accepted responsibility for the decision that he made and let him not twist words. I said exactly what happened. I said the Minister refused to provide it as a funded service.

I said that the Health Sciences Centre basically decided to discontinue the program as a non-funded service. The decision not to provide funding was the Minister's. He met with the people who were involved in that matter-the people who wanted to see that program continued-and he made the decision. For whatever reason, he can try and blame it on the previous Government if he wants, I would just like to see him on the record admit that he made the decision not to provide the funding. I just do not see after 47 min utes how the public interest is served by his spurious political rhetoric.

I did want to ask a question on another matter before we leave this item, and that was in regard to the whole question of reproductive health in terms of information and various programs. The Liberal Critic (Mr. Cheema) had got into a number of areas, the Member for Ellice (Ms. Gray) as well in terms of programs.

I would like to ask the Minister if he has had the opportunity to review the progress of the program that exists, that has existed in Thompson, in terms of the adolescent health centre which has had a very successful record in terms of its dealings with adolescents, not just in reproductive issues, it is a broad based health system. *

(2050) It was an initiative taken by that previous Government that the Member was waving his finger at just a few minutes ago. Regardless of who initiated it, it is a program that has broken new ground. It has taken counselling and information on a wide variety of issues into the high school systems and has by all reports when I say all reports, I am talking about students I have talked to, talked about to health care professionals and teachers-has been a successful program.

What I would like to ask the Minister is: has he made himself aware of this particular program and is the department in conjunction with the Department of Education considering expanding this type of program into other high schools in Manitoba? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, before I reply, I am pleased my honourable friend with the New Democratic Party has indicated his definition of responsible Government is one that in seven years dr ives up the annual interest bill in the Province of Manitoba by $450 million a year.

That is the new definition of responsible Government "a la NOP," and that is why I say that as long as we have advocates for $450 million increase in interest per year over seven years, that is why the NOP will be at 12 percent and dropping, because that is where they deserve to be if that is New Democratic Party definition of responsible Government. I mean it is ludicrous that my honourable friend would even deign to put that on the record. I mean even my honourable Liberal friends had a chuckle out of that one. Mr. Chairman, the program works well.

It has been surveyed and it is found that the attitude, as emanating from the program in Thomp son, has impr oved awareness, education and the program will continue. Mr. Chairman: Will the item pass? The Member for Thompson. Mr. Ashton: In terms of that prog ram, I wo uld recommend to the Minister that we look at providing this type of service. It was really a pilot project when it was established in Thompson and it is a major initiative. It has provided a great deal of education to people across the province.

Unfortu nately it does not provide education in terms of economics which the Minister might wish to take advantage of. He is a great one for trying to downplay the contributions of others of this Chamber-s ome economist, in terms of the Minister of Health. Without being distracted by his continuous-he is like a broken record, he continues the same point time and time again. 2585

Monday, Novem&er 6, 1989 On the issue I raised in terms of the adolescent health centre, I would recommend the Minister look at getting into the high schools and providing health counselling because what is one of the biggest barriers in terms of outreach, this is something that has been raised by outside funded organizations as well, is it is quite a different fact of the matter as to where the person has to walk into to get the counselling service. In most communities, for example, the Community Services Department will provide counselling.

Regional Services in many communities will provide that kind of counselling, but it requires the person to walk into a huge office facility, an impersonal office facility, where they immediately feel labelled as requiring counselling. The second situation that develops is that most people do not do that, but even if they do go to that point the kind of counselling they receive will often be more formalized than is required. Often what they need is a much lower level of counselling, an information provision and that has been the difference in terms of the Adolescent Health Centre.

That, by the way, has made a difference in terms of other counselling. For example, in Thompson counselling was provided for quite some time through the steelworkers in the steelworkers' facility. A lot of steelworkers who would never have gone into the Community Services building were able to get counselling on important matters. I am raising this in this particular case in terms of the Adolescent Health Centre because it does have a cross over both between Department of Education and the Department of Health.

I would strongly recommend that the Minister review the program in Thompson and its success because it is an acknowledged success by everyone that has had any involvement in it and look at its introduction in other areas of Manitoba. Mr. Orchard: I thank my honourable friend for his comments. Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr. Chairperson, can the Minister tell us about the Pregnancy Induced Hypertension program? Last year we asked him a question of how they were evaluating the program and he said, I believe, that he is going to provide us information next year and I think it is time that we should follow that up.

Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, since April 1, '88-this is for the last fiscal year-there have been a total of 75 patients on the program during that fiscal year, and the average, and this is an average of 12 days of service per individual or per patient on the program and it is ongoing. The program is continuing. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, can the Minister confirm that only 75 patients were under this program and can he tell me the number of staff looking after the 75 patients? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Chairman, there are five staff involved in the program, and when they are not involved directly with this program- because there was 901 days of service collected-so that is not full time and the balance of the time they are spending on other maternal and child health programs. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, maybe the Minister can explain this to me. This is quite confusing that we have 75 patients involved in this study and you have five staffpeople who are working part time. What have we learned from this study of how much money we are saving for the tax dollar?

Number two, what is the follow-up with their physician? No. 3, who is the medical in charge of this program? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Helewa is the head of it out of St. Boniface. Basis the 75 enrolled is found to be safe and acceptable alternative. It appears to be less costly than a hospital. There has been an analysis done and we can share that with my honourable friend. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Chairperson, I will be interested to see the analysis because I think it is quite important as we discussed last year that if the patients can be followed by the public health nurses and the other professional care givers in their community, that could save the visit to the obstetrician and gynecologist plus the family physician. I think it will be worthwhile to see how much money is being saved. Also, what is the outcome of this study?

How many patients have developed complications and are going through this study as compared to that-do we have any control group where we are going to compare this 75 num ber as compared to the specific control number by his special physician or gynecologist for following the patient? * (210 0) Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, the initial indication is that it is less costly or it appears to be less costly than the hospital.

Of all of the individuals that are referred to the 75, none developed complications which could be att ributable to having their care in the home environment rather than the institutional environment. So from that standpoint it appears to be effective. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, is there any control group you are comparing this with, the 75 patients? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, in this case, no, there was not a control because it was not designed to make that direct comparison. It was designed to determine whether it was a safe and an acceptable alternative which apparently it has proved to do.

Now comes the challenge twofold in terms of decision-making to ascertain and to make sure of the cost effectiveness and then, and here is the tougher one, to determine how you achieve the savings on the hospital side because if we provide the service in the community and not in the hospital as we have done in the past, how do we achieve the saving? That can only be accomplished through some pretty rigorous, I think my honourable friend would understand, negotiations. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, this program is out of St. Boniface Hospital, I believe. Can he tell us what is 2586

Monday, November 6, 1989 the criteria for selection of the patients who are involved in this particular group? Mr. Orchard: Criteria for entry. Mr. Cheema: If there is long list maybe I could have a photocopy rather than- Mr. Orchard: Yes, there is 17 -criterion for admission to hospital from the program; there is 15 and, yes, we will provide that to my honourable friend. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Chairperson, I think it will be a fair statement to make that when you have a program like this, if I believe the Minister is saying is successful, why not expand this program to the community clinics like out of the Mount Carmel Clinic or out of the Klinic on Broa dway, because where the patient goes not only for pregnancy but for other things too, then the follow up can be made through those clinics. I think that would save us money in the long run. Mr. Orchard: I am sorry, I missed the latter part of my honourable friend's question. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Chairperson, it is quite clear from the Minister's statement that this is a program which is cost effective as is being only provided to the St. Boniface Hospital. That is a special clinic and only deals with the pregnancy, but to have the most beneficial effects in the long run, this program priority should be provided through community clinics such as Mount Carmel or the Klinic on Broadwa y. I am asking the Minister, will he consider such a proposal? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Chairman, I do not know whether this answer will satisfy my honourable friend, but basically these people who are enrol le d in the program -and to my honourable friend the criterion will be coming to him shortly-this group of 75 was the entire eligible gr oup of patients from the St. Boniface Hospital that met the criteria. They have to have access to or at least services from the fetal assessment unit, and there will always be a fairly high degree of linkage with the tertiary care hospital of St.

Boniface in this case because of the putting in layman's term and the risk group that is involved with this kind of a program. You see what appears to be emerging from last year's statistic is that it can be cost effectively delivered and safely delivered in the home environment. Now, that leads us to the next series of decisions. Having this knowledge, what do we do with the program?

You know my honourable friend will from time to time concur and maybe not always, but concur that the difficulty is that when we have embarked upon a new form of program delivery, it has tended in the past to be an add-on to the health care system, to the formal health care system. This will be a community-based program which will be funded as an addition to the global spending in health care even though it is saving money on the institutional side. We have never developed the ability to extract that saving from the institutional side and transpose it to the community.

We have tended to build both programs at the same time and hence the escalation of costs, that is why I say having this knowledge is beneficial, useful and ought to be applicable, but we cannot do it unless we have a mechanism whereby we have an ability to reduce the hospital side of the costs, if that is possible. Mr. Cheema: That makes my point very clear, it could be done. The community clinics are one example where the patient normally comes for everything else- Mr. Orchard: What is your argument? Mr.

Cheema: No, no, you have said already that these patients were selected under special criteria to be follo wed by a tertiary care centre and have the assessment done by the fetal unit at the St. Boniface Hospital. Even though patients still can be referred from all the community clinics, they are being referred anyway by the fetal assessment unit either at the Health Sciences Centre or St. Boniface Hospital.

What I am saying is that if the patients who are being followed up by the hypertension and could be done through the community clinics, they will save the money because first of all the visit to the physician will be less; and No. 2, the possible complications can be detected at an early stage. I think it is worthwhile to expand this program and try at one of the community clinics. * (21 10) Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, again I just want to point out to my honourable friend that does not appear to be the central issue. It appears as if it is more cost effective compared to the institutional care.

Here is the blunt reality. The budget at the institution carries on even though we have moved some of the service that was normally contained within this global budget to the commu nity and have funded it through the department. Clearly if we are going to expand programs like this, we have to have some way of having a trad e-off of dollars institutional to the community, otherwise we simply build both programs.

I submit to you that is part of the reason why reform of the health care system is so, so incredibly difficult to achieve, because always when you reform the system and you move away from the institution, the institution by its very nature tends to protect what it has and not give up what it has.

Those are mechanisms that we are currently putting in place and attempting to put in place throughout the system so we can assure that we are appropriate, we are safe, we are acceptable and where there are opportunities for cost containment through outright savings that we are able to offer those programs, but without them being a pure add-on to the Department of Health and its programming. We are not arguing about where or when it is how the funding mechanism for them can be put in place. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, I do agree with the Minister. As I said a number of times, it is impossible 2587

Monday, November 6, 1989 to convince sometimes the public, because when you are saving money from one angle then how are you ultimately going to rechannel that money? If you cut in some places, for example the health budget, it is going to be big news, but at the same time the public has to understand that you are saving money for them in the long run. They may not be able to have even those primary services, so I think we will definitely support any program that will help to save money in the long run and also provide the same services. (Mr.

Edward Helwer, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) I said clearly where you can save at least $350 a day by not admi tting a patient into the hospital for hypertension. That service can be provided through a clinic and in conjunction with the community health services' component. So what do I learn, I think it should be pursued as much as possible. I understand his so called political problems, but I think most people would agree with him. That is the way to do it, otherwise how are you going to afford every year an 8 percent to 9 percent rise in the budget.

It is not going to be made possible by any Government at all, it does not matter which political Party comes in. Mr. Acting Chairman, my next question is in regard to the Low Birth Rate Infant Program, and that was a pilot project last year. It was out of the Health Sciences Centre. I understand, after Dr. Oscar Casiro was in charge of the program, and we were told that the information will be available this year. So I want to know what we have learned from that project, and are we implementing the recommendations this year? Mr.

Orchard: We commenced funding in this fiscal year, and we still have to finish off the fiscal year in order that we might make our analysis. Again, the issue is whether we can safely discharge low birth rate babies earlier than normal with an enhanced level of community support. Without knowing what the final outcome is, again we are seeking the kind of measured outcome, if you will, that we have in the program we just discussed here. We do not have that information as of yet. I am just reminded here that in this particular case there is a control group. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Acting Chairman, I would like to add a few comments on that. I again think this is a difficult problem. We have a number of premature babies, and the number is not on the rise, but still it has not gone down. The number of babies staying either in the intensive care nursery and possibly in the intermediate nursery for longer times has been on the rise, and some of the babies are staying for at least months, because of the multiple problems by babies who are premature, but at the same time do not have any other problems.

I think it is worthwhile to explore sending them home, but as the Minister has said you have to put the program in place for them to be cared in the community. Then you are going to have to have more public health nurses to be put in place, and the visits to the pediatricians or the doctors are going to be increased. Ultimately, I think that will still save taxpayers a lot of money as compared to keeping them in the hospital for a longer time, because to keep one baby in an intensive care nursery or intermediate nursery is very expensive. Certainly, we look forward to the answer from this study.

Maybe the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) should explore that, if the other jurisdictions like Saskatoon or Vancouver, I think, to the best of my knowledge they have done similar analyses and that could be used. If he cou ld inquir e from the University Hospital at Saskatoon, I think they may have a similar program as in Vancouver and also in Toronto, because The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto is almost world renowned in the services for premature deliveries and how to handle the babies.

I think we could learn from them and see how the community support can be put in place before we implement that program. That will be very cost effective. Certainly the families would love that idea. It is very difficult for someone to come from 150 miles every weekend just to see their babies. I mean, this is natural. They cannot say, well this is going to cost me and I have to lose a few days. That is a natural part of being a human being. You have to see your kids, and I think it is a difficult problem, but we should look at the other jurisdictions and learn from them. Mr.

Orchard: Fair comment, and of course that is in part what we are seeing, whether we have the backup, the management and expertise in place to do just that. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Acting Chairperson, my question is- 1 do not know whether it comes into this area or not regarding the early discharge program in the post partum period. Can the Minister tell us if that program has been successful and how many hospitals are participating in that program? Mr. Orchard: Currently St. Boniface.

We are in discussions with the Women's Centre at HSC right now, and rather than me answer all the questions, I will give my honourable friend a report on the St. Boniface experience that he would find adequately describes what the outcome is. Mr. Cheema: I ask the Minister if he has reviewed the report and if it is positive then, what are the plans to further expand the program in hospitals such as Grace, Victoria and Misericordia? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Acting Chairman, the report is, I guess, two years old now, and I have to confess to my honourable friend I have not read it, but indications are that the program worked successfully and was able to safely achieve early discharge. Mr. Cheema: My next question is in regard to the new initiative for a breast cancer screening program. Is that a part of the Manitoba Health and Maternal Child or under the Health Promotion and Prevention Program, because the Minister has made an announcement setting the Health trust fund and how much money is going to be spent on this specific program and which- Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Acting Chairman, the breast cancer screening project, as my honourable friend knows, was announced in the- 2588

Monday, November 6, 1989 * (212 0) An Honourable Member: Health trust fund, it was a part of the- Mr. Orchard: No, no, it was announced in the throne speech as an initiative that we intended to bring in. It follows, as my honourable friend knows, a trial -or that is the wrong terminology -b ut a national sponsored Canadian study in which Manitoba women participated in, as I recall, larger numbers than other provinces on the basis of percentage of population involved. We believe that the mammography program is an effective prevention tool to help assist us in early detection of breast cancer.

As a result, we have struck a committee, an ad hoe technical advisory committee, in June of 19 89. It is chaired by Dr. Sharon Macdonald, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health, and has quite a wide and diverse membership. It is a fairly large committee. I can give my honourable friend the people who are on it.

The terms of reference for the committee are to assess options for the early detection of breast cancer, to identify the most service and cost effective option, and to identify a detailed strategy for the planning, implementation and ongoing evaluation of the preferred option for early detection of breast cancer, and to prepare a proposal of the preferred option for consideration by Government. The committee has completed its deliberation. The report is in the final drafting stages and we are expecting mid-December at the latest to have that delivered to Government.

We have budgeted monies to start the program up this year, full year costs are projected of course we do not know that yet, but-we are on track in terms of the implementation of the breast cancer screening program. Mr. Cheema: It may be coincidental but we also, before the throne speech, had a press release asking the Government to have a breast screening program. In tact, we met with the various organizations before the throne speech mentioned about the breast screening program, because it is very widely acceptable in other jurisdictions such as B.C., and it has been done very well.

Eventually it is going to save taxpayers a lot of money, and it is going to provide definitely a chance for-I think the most important thing is to find the cancer at the earliest stage and save as many lives as possible. It can be done, it has been proven successfully. It is clear from all the studies that this will be beneficial and definitely it is going to have an initial cost, but to save money in the long run you ha ve to invest somewhere. As long as it is clearly indicated to the public and to all concerned individuals I do not think any person in his right mind can refuse such a program.

Certainly we would support the Minister on any initiative in that respect. It is going to be a little bit difficult because of the geographical distribution, and the towns outside Winnipeg, but that can be done through a mobile unit or setting up a centralized clinic or maybe selecting a few hospitals in the rural communities where the earlier appointments can be made, and the people who need screening could come there.

I think a lot has to be done in terms of, first of all, telling people we have a program and making sure that there is a strict follow-up and somebody is in charge of the program so that there is no overlap and have a central registry available, the same has been very effective for pap smear, and some further initiatives by the previous and by the present adm inistration. Certainly, I think it is a step in the right direction and we encourage the Minister to continue to do that. Mr. Orchard: I thank my honourable friend for his encouragement. The Acting Chairman (Mr.

Helwer): The Member for Thompson, do you have any questions? Item 2.(c)( 1) Salaries $286,700-pa ss; 2.(c)

(2) Other Expenditures $455,600- pass; 2. (c)

(3) External Agencies $542,000- pass. The total for that department $1 ,284,300.00. We will move on to 2.(

d) Health Promotion:

(1) Salaries $624,800. Shall the item pass-Mr . Minister. Mr. Orchard: I wonder if I might take a two-minute pause right now, thank you. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Helwer): Sure. * (213 0) (Mr. Chairman in the Chair) Mr. Chairman: 2.(

d) Health Promotion:

(1) Salaries $624,800-the Member for Thompson. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I think we should spend some time in this particular area. I realize we spent a significant amount of time on a number of the other areas, but it is certainly an important part of the Health Depart ment's activities, probably an increasingly important part, because it ha s been increasing recognition in the importance of health promotion.

What I would like to ask the Minister to begin with is what status he can give us, in regard to the Cardiovascular Health Promotion Program, that has been aimed at obviously one of the major causes of death, the major cause of death in Manitoba, in particular if there have been any new initiatives in this important health -(inaudible)- . Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend asks a very timely question because, I have to search for the date, it was two weeks ago Saturday on a very beautiful weekend when it hit all the record temperatures, I had the opportunity to be invited to the St.

Boniface Research Foundation building and they were holding a Healthy Heart Fair, the first one they had undertaken. I chose that as the opportunity to kick off the federal provincial Healthy Heart Survey Program. It is a five- 2589

Monday, November 6, 1989 year program involving a little over a million dollars of resource from the federal Government and a similar contribution, in terms of some cash, and certainly contribution in administration, staffing time, resourcing, and that regard. Basically a $2 million program over five years to survey 4,000 Manitobans. That survey started the Mo nday following the announcement so I believe it is now two weeks into the survey.

The survey will involve individual interviews with 4,000 Manitobans to take them through the heart health questionnaire designed to determine where and amongst whom, what the demographic profile of Manitobans are, in terms of their participation, for instance, in heart-health risk activities, i.e. smoking, or heavy alcohol consumption, hypertension, overweight, and other factors associated with cardiovascular disease including cholesterol levels. The idea being to try to establish, because this is a random survey of 4,000 individuals, a baseline if you will of heart health among Manitobans.

The purpose being twofold amongst those surveyed to provide them some-a complete physical as part of the survey. To provide them with advice on what they are doing that may be a high-risk activity to healthy heart, to healthy cardiovascular living, and to provide them with advice on how they might change their lifestyle so that they enjoy a more-I am searching for the word, reduce the risks of heart disease and improve their, really their lifestyle, their vigor for life, and their longevity. So that is first off, there is a direct benefit to all involved in the survey.

Secondly, it establishes for us an identification of risk activities allowing us and health promotion to focus our prevention advertising or initiatives on the areas of highest risk. If we know that it is cholesterol or hypertension or weight, we can focus appropriately. Also it gives us a demographic profile on whether risks change with location in the Province of Manitoba, whether Northerners have a high er risk of- are participants to a greater degree in a certain high-risk activity so it allows us regional targeting, the potential of regional targeting in terms of our health promotion message.

The third benefit to it is to allow us, given that it is a five-year survey and a five-year window, to track whether we are successful in some of our health promotion activities in persuading Manitobans to curtail high-risk activities and to improve their health status, thereby. It is to me a very significant initiative and it is one of those issues that we welcome the participation and the funding from the federal Government, because they are a million dollar partner in this.

The Heart Foundation is also a significant player in that, correct me if I am wrong, they are providing a significant amount of co-ordination, assistance, and voluntary help, in terms of undertaking the survey. So it is a partners-in-health initiative and should l think over a per iod of time prove most beneficial to us in the province. Mr. Ashton: I thirik the information that we gather will prove to be invaluable, in the sense that one of the problems I think in the area of health promotion has been it has been accepted as an area of increased need in terms of resources.

We spent our time developing a health care system that is far better at treatment than it is· in terms of health promotion and health prevention. When we are dealing with health promotion, we are dealing with preven tion of specific diseases, and in particular cardi ovascular disease and kee ping that. I am wondering what initiatives are currently under way, in the fitness

section of the department, because that is certainly the next step, in my mind, is the promotion of a fitter society. I believe statistics in the neighbourhood of 55 percent of Manitoba adults are regular exercisers that leaves 45 percent who are not. I know we all, probably sitting around this table, could use a bit more exercise. I think the difference from a few years ago is that we are a bit more conscious of the value of it, but I am wondering what programs are in place to impr ove that with a specific focus on the health benefits from exercise. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Chairman, I could not agree more because when I get home on the weekend, and I actually do some physical work I find it terribly fatiguing, nevertheless highly beneficial. We all could benefit, particularly in this crazy racket, of a more routine exercise undertaking, but you know in part that is individual discipline because we can easily-I find myself making the excuse that I simply do not have the time, and that is a very bad excuse, and a very bad habit to get into.

I admit that I am fully guilty of that, but to deal specifically with fitness to amalgama te fitness and sports-my honourable friend might recall that sports was attached to the Industry, Trade and Technolo gy portf olio. In the past year we have transferred our fitness positions there, so that fitness and sport is again part and parcel. So that the specific initiatives in terms of the fitness- 1 would have to beg the indulgence of my honourable friend to ask my colleague in Industry, Trade and Technology.

Let me share with you, and I ought not to do this but I feel compelled when we talk about fitness, that the Healthy Heart Fair at St. Boniface was an interesting undertaking. What they did is that the volunteer nurses took their Saturday off and other staff took their Saturday off to staff various booths throughout the research centre, so that you would go through and do basically a brief family history through to height, weight, cholesterol test, blood pressure, risk analysis et cetera, and then you get an overall score.

These heart health initiatives are gender biased, discriminatory against us males because we automatically get two points,

whereas women do not. Getting back to the fitness question that is where I failed and failed miserably, because I am carrying a little too much weight in inappropriate places. That drove me up to a score of six, which was just on the very borderline of low, low risk and I made a New Year's promise two weeks ago that I would do that as soon as the turkey season was over. 2590

Monday, November 6, 1989 Mr. Ashton: A New Year's promise, all right, the Minister is going to be held accountable on this matter, of course- Mr. Orchard: We will still be in Estimates so I can weigh in. * (2 140) Mr. Ashton: -we will still be in Estimates by then and we will be able to check on that. I know, in terms of this area, I always had a kick out of my colleague, Larry Desjardins, when it came to the fitness section. In his particular -I should not make fun of Larry in that particular context. In fact in his day he was extremely fit.

He was very active, we will see if this Minister lives up to his own fine sentiments. I can appreciate the transfer, but I would assume, however, that the Department of Health still has an interest in the promotion of fitness. I realize maybe some of the programs may have been transferred, and I am wondering if there still are any remnants of that particular aspect left, because it seems to me, particularly in terms of cardiovascular health promotion, that fitness goes hand in hand with that.

It would seem to me sort of a logical thing, even if fitness itself is being transferred, it is part of sports and it still has some role in Health and I am just wondering is there still that focus left in this department, or was it totally to be moved over. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, you canno t have a promotion of general well-being in health without a strong emphasis on fitness.

Part of the components of importance, fitness, nutrition, lifestyles like smoking or other risk factors, so that the fitness aspect in terms of, I suppose, creation of new programs and other activities that the SYs, which left the department over to the IT and T were unde rta king -t he actual programming aspect of it is gone, but the intent of fitness promotion certainly is very much a part of health promotion yet. Mr. Ashton: I appreciate that continued emphasis.

I would just like to ask a number of questions, in terms of the nutrition section, and then I am sure my colleague here may have some questions on some of the areas I have touched on. I do not want to prohibit him from asking questions in that area. In terms of nutrition, I am just wondering, are there any new initiatives in the department, in terms of the nutrition section.

I know there have been programs in the past, in terms of various different aspects of nutrition promoti on, var ious different departments of Government have provided information on nutrition, but it is particularly of concern, I want to know in terms of maternal and child nutrition and I think if anyone is aware of the situation in northern Manitoba will know it is a double and tri ple concern in northern communities. Now I know there have been some activities in the past in terms of outreach into northern communities and in terms of general programs.

I am just wondering 2591 what initiatives the Minister has budgeted for this particular budget for nutrition, in particular, maternal child nutrition. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend is it is almost as if he is asking me the questions that I want him to ask, because the initiative again is one that has been very, very positive.

It is a series, and I have asked the director, Ulrich Wendt, to bring a package for each of my colleagues, a program that we launched last spring towards healthier eating, very much nutritionally oriented, very much in series form so that it targets different groups, et cetera and it has a very, very full amount of nutritional information. It has been given wide distribution and the request for that information, that one single piece of information, has been really quite extraord inary, which is proof of its timeliness, and its success throughout the community of Manitoba.

A great deal of interest in it, and it is probably as successful an information campaign as the Health Promotion Directorate has launched, and I will bring both my honourable friends a current package of the brochures et cetera tomorrow. Mr. Ashton: I know one particular area that has receiving increasing emphasis in recent years is in terms of return to breast-feeding, and I know my wife has reacted in the La Leche League the last number of years, so I have been, as a La Leche League father, more than aware of the many advantages of breast feeding.

I tell you that organization has done a tremendous job, in terms of promoting breast-feeding, but I do know once again for example in the remote northern communities that the incidence of breast feeding is very low in comparison to really what it should be. Ideally, I suppose to a certain extent it should be 100 percent given the nutritional and bonding advantages.

In fact in those communities what happens is there is not only a problem with lack of a substitute, in terms of nutritional aspects from other sources of food, but also problems that relate to kids in general not having a balanced diet, and major dental problems that can arise. I am just wondering if the department has either directly , or in co-operation with the La Leche League, contemplated any further promotion in terms of the many advantages of breast-feeding. Mr. Orchard: Well, Mr.

Chairman, we have been close collaborators in health promotion with Maternal and Child Health in terms of advocacy, if you will, and information advocacy of breast-feeding. I think it is fair to say it is very much not only in vogue today, but it is also, in my estimation, and I am not a medical practitioner, but it to me is one of very sound nutritional guide that one can offer to new mothers. I see very, very few down sides to it.

The only one that I am aware of, and it does happen from time to time, is an infant's allergy to animal protein, including mother's milk, which can cause an allergic reaction and then you have to go to a soy milk duplicate, if you will. Other than that all the advantages are certainly there, and I guess just put it to you in this

Monday, November 6, 1989 regard that our forefathers were not wrong before the days of formula. I mean there was nothing other than breast-feeding, probably 50 or 60 years ago, and the formula feeding has only been a more recent phenomenon, some of it stimulated by the allergy reactions, but in many cases those are rare enough, and we find health practitioners almost universally beginning to recommend and suggest breast-feeding again. Mr.

Ashton: I certainly agree with the Minister, and I might suggest that, it is for our foremothers, might be a more appropriate terminology in this particular case, but be that as it may, I think another one of the needs in the area of the promotion is not just to the mothers themselves. but to fathers and also to people in general because the interesting thing that I found, in looking at my own personal experience, and my wife's experience, was that generally the public is accepting of breast-feeding.

In the days of demand feeding, one is dealing with breast-feeding in various situations, but many women feel embarrassed. There are a number of people who do still have some objection to breast-feeding, for whatever reason. I just throw that out because I know, in terms of the La Leche League, they are very active in terms of promoting breast-feeding, but that is one of the areas I know that they have raised, is general societal attitudes and I think it may be appropriate for the health promotion department to also be putting some activities into the general public.

I did have one more question before turning the floor back over again to the Liberal Health Critic, and that is in regard to labelling.

I know in previous years the Minister's department has been in consultation with Health and Welfare Canada, in terms of a national nutrition labelling scheme. * (2 150) I would like to ask the Minister for an update on that, because one of the problems we are running into is that people are indeed becoming increasingly health conscious; that is I think obvious in, for example, looking at the sales of oat bran, or olive oil, or some of the many different foods that are seen as being positive in terms of reducing cholesterol, et cetera.

What is happening is that there is becoming an increasing consumer confusion, in terms of nutrition and also in terms of nutritional health-related claims. We are seeing, in terms of the whole area of oils, for example a great deal of confusion amongst consumers in terms of saturated, unsaturated fats. Many products now are calling themselves light products when in fact they are anything but light products. I am not talking about beer here, I am talking about foodstuffs, which are being labelled as being light.

I think what is happening is that many consumers, who are becoming increasingly health conscious, are also becoming increasingly confused in the marketplace. I wanted to ask the Minister, as I said, what progress has been made in terms of national nutritional labelling, and also whether the department, or else through other departments in Government, in conjunction with those departments is looking at providing consumers with the information they need so that they can translate this incr eased health consciousness into positive purchasing and eating habits. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Chairman, first of all I have to tell my honourable friend that I am shocked and dismayed that in a discussion of nutrition my honourable friend would mention olive oil and not canola oil that is grown in Manitoba, and is the best edible oil in the world. (interjection)-Aha, my honourable friend has confessed as to why. Let me deal with the issue on a serious basis, because my honourable friend- An Honourable Member: Sunflower oil. Mr. Orchard: Not as good as canola oil, no, let me assure you and it is not because I grow canola.

Canola oil, while we are on the subject I think it is important that we get this out, because canola oil developed through the co-operative research of Baldur Stefansson and Dr. Downey from Saskatoon developed the finest canola oil in the world, as a result of that research and breeding program at the Un iversity of Manitob a, University of Saskatoon. It is the best quality oil, human consumption oil, in the world, bar none. It has entered the U.S. market packaged by Gambles under the label of Puritan and 15 months ago, that Puritan oil, Canadian canola oil, received the health food award in the U.S. oil market.

That is an incredibly significant accomplishment for a breeding program of an agricultural crop in Manitoba and Saskatoon. I say that because all too often it is not known, the kind of success that has been achieved in that program. It is the best oil in the world, bar none. That is why we have been able to maintain, even with price premium, our market in Japan. It is because of the quality of oil. It is polyunsaturated. It is the best nutritional oil on the market.

Now let me indicate to my honourable friend that we are expecting the feds to announce shortly, I do not know what shortly means, but hopefully early in the new year, a new labelling policy which we think will provide the kind of nutritional basis for decision making that I think clearly a lot of consumers are asking.

We have been encouraging them to do that because we think the time is right, and furthermore we believe that it will be beneficial for Manitoba agriculture because a lot of our agricultural products like canola, like pork, like beef in Manitoba are the best in the world when it comes to nutritional quality and other qualities. We look forward to that labelling because we think it will be very beneficial to Manitoba agriculture, and consumers certainly want it. Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the Minister adding to my list.

I must admit that, given my own situation, I do eat Greek food rather a lot, my wife being Gr eek, so the first oil that comes to mind is olive oil. I will highly recommend canola oil next time we eat any Greek 2592

Monday, November 6, 1989 dishes and thank the Minister for reminding me that there is more than one oil out there tha t is polyunsaturated. I thank the Minister for that reminder. Mr. Orchard: Thank Baldur Stefansson and Dr. Downey. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, the prevention is probably one of the best tools available to handle most of the debilitating diseases such as ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and problem areas such as smoking, nutrition and substance abuse. Looking at the programs provided in the Estimates book, it does not say anything about the substance abuse at all.

This program does not talk about the abuse of alcohol, abuse ol other drugs. They are being regularly abused by the kids on the street and I would like to ask the Minister what programs are in place again to deal with the drug problem at the street level. Mr. Orchard: Well, Mr. Chairman, if my honourable friend wants to deal with the AFM in this line, that is fine. I will do it without staff being here, but that would be a very appropriate place to pose those questions. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, I am curious.

I think when we are talking about health prevention and promotion this is one of the major areas of concern, and I think it should be dealt in this area at this

section also, but we can certainly wait for the AFM Estimates to come up and then we can ask questions there. Can the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) tell us now, other than the program initiated by the St. Boniface Hospital as the Healthy Lifestyle in regard to ischaemic heart disease, what other programs are in place or initiated by this administration in the rural communities? Mr. Orchard: Well, Towards Healthier Nutr ition is available throughout the entire province.

A health promotion initiative like the Healthy Heart Survey is equally distributed population wise, urban and rural, so that is a program that is provincial wide. Because it was announced in The City of Winnipeg does not mean it is exclusive to the City of Winnipeg.

As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correct, we are working with- one of the criteria in the Healthy Heart Survey is an increased emphasis on participation by Native Manitobans, the Native Indian population, so that we can achieve a better understanding of what risk factors they are involved with and whether they are the same as all Manitobans or whether they have unique risk factors that are more prevalent than the population at large. That definitely is outside of the province and rural Manitoba. Let me go through some of the other initiatives.

We have done participation -(interjection)- It was an answer to a question that was not asked and I did not want to get into trouble with my honourable friends - (interjection)- It is an amazing what? -(interjection)- I was thinking of doing that. Mr. Chairman, we have participants across the province in Drug Awareness Week. Tha t is in collaboration with the AFM and we are working with the AFM in terms of further promotional activities that 2593 would be jointly beneficial, heart health project as I have indicated, Thanks, Mom, prenatal kit available all across the province.

The healthy food booth at the Winnipeg Zoo is an interesting one. I do not know whether my honourable friend had a chance to stop in there or not.- (interjection)- Did they participate in the healthy food booth? Well, of course, they could not have because we are still developing it. At any rate those are some of the examples that my honourable friend wants. *

(2200) Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, we have a number of questions in this area and I think time probably may not allow a question but- Mr. Orchard: We could go past ten o'clock. Ten o'clock is not magic. Mr. Cheema: We still have to look after our families and also we have to see our kids I think. We have to keep that kind of health. Mr. Chairman: The hour being 10 p.m., committee rise. SUPPLY-CULTURE, HERITAGE AND RECR EATION Mr.

Chairman (William Chornopyski): Committee will come to order to continue consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Recreation, and we are on item 1. (d)( 1). Shall the item pass-the Honourable Member for Transcona. Mr. Richard Kozak (Transcona): I would like to proceed with a discussion that was taking place immediately prior to our regular Monday recess. We were discussing, and the Minister undertook to co-operate, the provision of the criteria for the allocation of grants under her department's programs. I would like to raise a related matter.

The matter of the 1, 500 grant requests received annually by this department. As I mentioned prior to our recess from time to time allegations, whether well founded or not, are made regarding patronage as a possible underlying basis for certain grant decisions. I personally feel that it would be in the interest of this Minister and Government in general, regardless of the Party in power, to be in a position to disprove those allegations at every turn.

I wonder if the Minister could suggest to this committee whether it might be workable to either table, or make available for perusal by the Opposition Parties, all of the grant requests received by her department, whether they are appr oved or not approved. Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Chairman, when somebody makes an application for a grant to our department that is information that is provided to Government, and Government makes those decisions. So we could not in fact give out third party information. I do not think

Monday, November 6, 1989 that would be in the best interests of Government or those grants that were turned down for whatever reason. Mr. Kozak: I would concur with the Minister in her answer to the extent that I feel it might by improper indeed unethical to provide to the Opposition detailed information regarding organizations' applications, but that information could be deemed and indeed should be deemed confidential to the organi zation.

Many of these organizations are not required to make public reports of their opera tions, and they can legitimately view their application to the Minister's department as being confidential. However, we do get at least a listing of approved applications, which are subject to review by this com mittee and by the Legislature. We do get a listing of the names of the organizations that receive certain amounts of money.

I wonder if it would be possible for the Minister, or deemed prudent by the Minister, to provide a complete listing of the names of all of the organi zations that have made application to her department without providing financial details that can be deemed confidential? *

(2005) Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, what I can do is provide a list for Members of the Opposition of the grants that were approved by the department, but I cannot provide a list of every application that was made. Mr. Kozak: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that we are proceeding, when we discuss this matter, on grounds that do involve the sense of ethics of every Member of this Chamber and indeed of the commu nity.

I will not at the present time raise any questions whatever regarding the Minister's reasoning for not providing detailed financial information or indeed the names of the organizations that are denied grants. I sense that the ethics of all Honourable Members do imply; that we all have rigorous standards as to what we do disclose and do not disclose. I raised this matter because I thought it would be desirable to have a brief exchange of views on it, but I would not like to pursue it at this point. Ms. Maureen Hemphill (Logan): Mr.

Chairman, I am wondering if the Minister can give us some idea of what the Government's attitude, or what their policy, is towards deficits within cultu ral groups and organizations, and what messages or information they are communicating to them if there is an organization that has been running programs and that has, over a period of time, or even just in the last fiscal year, accumulated a deficit?

What instructions are going to them in terms of deficit reduction, and V(.hat if any effect does the fact that a cultural organization having a deficit have on the Government's attitude towards continued funding for that organization? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, in all instances we, as Government and as a department, try to discourage any organization from running a deficit because we all personally attempt to manage our households in a way where we are not encouraging deficit spending. We do not spend above our means, and we try to encourage each and every organization to be accountable to Government.

We have in the past had deficit-reduction programs. If we foresee a situation where an organization is in trouble financially, what we do is offer, if we can, support from our Recreation Branch in going out and holding seminars with boards of organizations to do board development and to try to help them with different ways and means of financing, so that they can run a fairly balanced budget. We have had as I said deficit reduction programs for some organizations that do get into trouble beyond anyone's control. Ms. Hemphill: Mr.

Chairman, yes, I think everybody would agree with that intention, to have them work within the money that they have got. I guess my question is: has there been any example or any situation where the Government has taken the position that because there was a deficit that funding would not be given, without giving either the support that she described, or some reasonable period of time for them to turn themselves around and the support to be able to do that?

Has there been a case that the Minister is aware of where their head was chopped off for instance or funding was not given, and they were told that the reason was that they were carrying a deficit, when some efforts had been made to reduce it and to turn it arou nd? Would they take that extreme position? *

(2010) Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, the only instance I can think of, since we have taken Government, is the Street Performers Festival and in that instance, if I can go into a little bit of the background and the detail; when they first came to Government for funding they came to our department and to the Department of Tourism. They had two different budgets for the two different departments, and it was a last minute request for funding. We worked together with them a little bit to try to get I suppose a reasonable budget presented.

We funded them the first year round to the tune of, I believe it was, a $10 ,000 grant, $5,000 up front and $5,000 on the presentation to Government of a balanced budget at the end of their first festival. Some of the projections that they had for fundraising were somewhat unrealistic, and we tried to work with them to determine what they could possibly expect. Anyway they did come in with a fairly major deficit as a result of their first year, so in that instance the second $5,000 grant was not given for the first year's festival. Ms.

Hemphill: In that case, in the example that the Minister has given, which is one of the ones that I was wondering about, was the $5,000 committed and then withheld? I mean did they have a right to expect that $5,000 and only very late in the day was that withdrawn, or was that money that had not been committed that they should not have been counting on? Mrs. Mitch elson: Mr. Chairman, the letter clearly indicated to them that the second portion of their grant, 2594

Monday, November 6, 1989 the second $5,000, was on the understanding that they came in and presented Government with a balanced budget. In that instance, they would receive the $5,000.00. Ms. Hemphill: Mr. Chairman, would the requirement be that a deficit be handled all in one fiscal year? Would they be told not to have a program that might reduce the deficit over a reasonable period of time? I think if anybody should be sympathetic to that it is Government itself who knows that as much as it would like to reduce its deficit much faster than it is that it is not possible because of the heavy requirements.

I am wondering if that was not a little extreme of an expectation; that the deficit could be reduced totally in one fiscal year, and if they had made a serious effort and had reduced in itial ly, and then had a plan to reduce that the Government might have been a little more sympathetic with that. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, there were I suppose some serious concerns regarding the management ability of the organizers of that festival and there were serious financial concerns. We felt that attention had to be focused on those aspects.

I do want to indicate that the Street Performers Festival not only wanted the $5,000, and I suppose if we had looked at a financial statement, and sort of some sense that they were able to manage responsibly and get themselves out of that deficit, we might have contemplated, but they did come in with a $42,000 deficit from the first year's festival and asked Government instead for a $50,000 grant for the second year from our department. Normally speaking, the department of Cultur e, Heritage and Recreation does not increase a grant to that extent.

I do not know what percentage increase in a grant that would be, but when you look at most arts organizations they receive anywhere from a O to maybe a 4 percent inc rease, un der the financial constraints that Government is under in the present day. So that would be a major increase, and they did not appear to have their act together so to speak coming back and asking for a grant. There were serious financial concerns that we had as a department. * (20 15) Mr. Kozak: I have one concern related to the Minister's remarks on the treatment of organizations with deficits.

She points out, and I thank her for the information, that a larger than expected deficit can sometimes result in an organization receiving funding less than they would wish to receive. I wonder if the Minister could indicate to us whether this policy is consistent with the policies employed by the Minister responsible for Sport in Manitoba. Mrs. Mitchelson: I am just somewhat confused by the first part of the question. If I understood correctly, you indicated that if an organization was coming in with a deficit that we would look at giving them less money or cutting off funding.

I indicated in one instance, and that was with the Str eet Performers Festival since we have been Government, which was a special consideration, that we did not feel that financially Government should be supporting that organization at this time. We had serious financial concerns, but normally speaking on a regular basis if there is an organization that has a deficit, and we sit down as a department and work with them, we do not normally cut funding to organizations that have deficits, per se. Mr.

Kozak: I wonder if the Minister could suggest to me whether a similar approach would be expected by her to be taken by her colleague, the Minister responsible for Sport, and in fact whether she has consulted with her colleague, who also dispenses Lotteries funds, as to whether his organization is pursuing a similar policy. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Member opposite should ask that question when the Estimates for the Sport Directorate are up. Mr. Kozak: I will certainly follow the Minister's advice and pursue this matter with the Minister responsible for Sport (Mr. Ernst).

However, I would like to state for the record, and it is not my intention to surpr ise the Minister responsible for Sport in a week or two when we consider the Estimates of his department, that in fact there have been cases within the related department of organizations with large and unmanageable deficits making last minute requests and receiving substantial funding, and in deed loan guarantees that obligate the province to satisfy creditors in the event of bankru ptcy. Quite differently from what the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mitchelson) is doing.

I will explore with the Minister responsible for Sport an instance in which a $1 50,000 loan guarantee was granted on an emergency basis to a sports organization that the Minister responsible for Sport will readily be able to ident ify. This approach seems entirely inconsistent with the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation's approach of cutting off funding when alarming requests are made that suggest financial instability within the applying organization. Mrs.

Gwen Charles (Selkirk): You have mentioned that only the Street Performers were given this ultimatum that either they had the balanced budget or else they would not get further funding. I was wondering what alternatives you gave to the Street Performers as you have mentioned that normally speaking you would sit down with other organi zations. Why were the Street Performers not worthy of being sat down with and discussion taken place? *

(2020) Mrs. Mitchelson: They were worthy of meeting with, and my department did meet with the organizers of the Street Performers Festival. My deputy met with the organizers of the Str eet Performers Festival, but Government is in the business of providing funds to those organizations that manage in a good way. 2595

Monday, November 6, 1989 Government is not there to sort of throw good money after bad, and all indications were that there was a $42,000 deficit the first year round and we have some concern for the backers of an organization such as this that the organization is in debt to; that they do not receive payment for services provided. Just preliminary indications show that over the last two years there is some deficit of $10 0,000 or possibly more.

Quite frankly we have an organi zation that has not managed well, has double or more of the deficit that they had their first year of operation, and I question whether the Member from the Opposition would have, if she were Government, a Liberal policy that would support with taxpayers' money those organizations that are not able to manage responsibly. Mrs. Charles: Are there any other organizations in the arts and the granting organizations or the organizations you provide granting to which run deficits? Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.

Manitoba I am told is rather fortunate as compared to some other provinces across the country, and we have fewer organizations that do run in deficit situations. There are instances where there are some organizations that have small deficits that are manageable, and the organization has shown responsibility in good management that has been put in place, and they are working towards reducing that deficit.

I know in some instances in the past we have had some deficit reduction programs, but tho se programs are based on that organization accepting the responsibility to work together with Government towards reducing that. Mrs. Charles: There seems to be a lack of criteria here that some can and some can not, and this particular organization did not know until the last moment that the funding would be withdrawn.

Now although you have said you have indicated in a letter otherwise to the organization but, however, deficits seem to be weighed on some merit procedure, and this merit procedure seems to be hidden within the Government's criteria. Could you table the criteria that allows for some organizations to run deficits and others not to? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, I think part of the criteria is some common sense with the staff that is working with organizations, and the Street Performers Festival was provided with ample opportunity.

They requested several times to bring in a budget to show us where the problems were and it was last minute. The first year the request for funding was a last minute effort, and they did not conform this year either in bringing in projections and providing information that staff requested of them so that we could make an informed decision early on, or help them early on, to try to get their act together. Mr.

Kozak: Is it this Government's policy that it is fiscally irresponsible to bail out a failing organization, an organization that admits its deficits are un manageable with Lotteries funds dispensed by Ministers of the Crown of the Province of Manitoba? Mrs. Mitchelson: Organi zations with a sound financial record that get thems elves into difficulty for one circumstance or another I suppose are afforded the benefit of some working together with Government to see whether they can get back on that financial footing. Mr. Kozak: Mr.

Chairman, I assume that the Minister would then suggest that organizations that, in fact, have no track record of financially successful operations do not merit such consideration. *

(2025) Mrs. Mitchelson: When an organization comes to Government and requests funding and Government decides to, I suppose, take the risk, you might call it, of funding them initially to get them started and find the circumstance of the Street Performers Festival, that they really do not have a good management or they have not managed their financial situation well, it begs the question, I suppose, as to whether taxpayers' money should be going to support or to promote something.

How long do you continue that on, I mean do you do it for two years or three years or four years, and how muc h taxpayers' mone y do you put into those organizations to attempt to make them viable? Mr. Kozak: I certainly have no difficulty whatever in concurring with the Minister's argument that fiscal responsibility should be a prime factor in considering the dispensing of Government funds. I would simply like to state that this is a matter I will be pursuing further in the Estimates of the Minister responsible for Sport (Mr.

Ernst) whose policy, to all appearances, appears to be rather different from that of the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mitchelson), and whose policy, quite frank ly, I find it much more difficult to find sound or fiscally responsible. This debate will then continue at a later time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Ms . Hemphil l: I guess we are trying to get an understanding of the position.

I guess we know the position that the department took, but the reasons for it and, I am wondering about the timing, I do not think either Opposition Party are suggesting we think that any amount of money should be thrown at a group that wants to put on a cultural program, or that there should not be direction to control deficits and eliminate deficits and to work within the money that has been granted. We are not suggesting that at all. I think the question here is one of timing.

Our perception, and the Minister may feel it is inaccurate, but they really were not told that they were not going to receive the funding until very late in the day, and that a lot of people had been lined up to perform. I could not find my figures, and my recollection may be wrong, but I thought there was something like 17 ,000 or 18 ,000 people that had been lined up to perform, a lot of our own people in Manitoba that would be given a stage and an opportunity to perform, and some very excellent acts from outside the province. 2596

Monday, November 6, 1989 The previous program had been very successful. I think you have to look at that success in more than one arena. Certainly you look at the control of the money, but you also look at what they have done. I understood in some discussions with people that they had a lot of support from the business community, on the major arteries and streets where a lot of the performances would take place, that the business community believed it was an excellent program, that it added to the life and the excitement and the colour and character of our city at a time when we are trying to attract tourists, make us a more vibrant city. *

(2030) I think we all know that we are leaning towards, lhink, a growing recognition that tourism has the potential to be a No. 1 industry in Manitoba and certainly has the potential to replace, or should be used to offset some of the difficulties in manufacturing and agriculture that we are having, that are going to be more difficult to turn around, I think, than promoting the province as a tourist industry. This was a great tourist attraction, so I guess we are feeling that on the one hand you are saying they did not seem to be managing well.

I do not remember hearing that they had been given that message clearly early on, and I would like the Minister to respond to that and to her perception of the project. Apart from the funding, the number of people who were perfor ming, the number of performers, the opportunity for Manitoba artists and actors to perform, the improvement of the life and the character and the colour of our streets during our primary tourism area, and the tremendous support that they had received from the business community for the festival to continue. Could she comment on those? Mrs.

Mitchelson: I do not have a problem with the Street Performers Festival, as such. I think it is a good idea and it works well in some cities across our country. Regrettably it was not well managed and it was not planned. There was no financial plan in place. The concept of the Street Performers Festival is an excellent one, and I think that it could work really well for the people of Manitoba and for the City of Winnipeg if in fact we have someone come with a proposal to us that was a well-managed, financially sound proposal. Obviously the organizers were not able to manage it well.

I believe that our department gave them every opportunity. They did know ahead of time, as early as February of '89 , that we were not going to provide any funding for them this year because of the problems that they had had in the past with their $42,000 deficit, and we did not believe that there was a sound financial plan in place. Even though they knew at that date that the Government was not going to be in for any funding, they planned an expanded program for their second festival. I have concerns over the problems that might arise as a result of Government no t acting in a responsible manner.

We did let them know ahead of time. They came back and appealed. We had them in again, sat down and met with them, and upheld the initial decision not to provide funding for this year's festival. Mrs. Charles: To continue that, could the Minister comment on the indication that the Street Performers Festival has given me that two reasons for the deficit were including the fact that the tourism grant was not received until February of '89, a grant of approximately $40,000, and also the fact that the poor weather of the previous year had turned down some of their numbers and monies coming in. Mrs.

Mitchelson: When the Street Performers Festival was first conceived by the organizers and they came to Government for funding in the very first year, we had very serious concerns about their planni ng programs. Some of their projections for revenue generation were very unrealistic, and that was one of the reasons why the department made the decision up front, and they knew full well that they would receive half of their grant up front, $5,000, and the other half upon receipt of a balanced budget. They were well aware of that before they ever put on their first festival.

They came in with a $42,000 deficit and all indications were that their projections were out of whack, and I have to question, again, whether it would be Liberal policy. I believe the department when they assessed the situation acted in a responsible manner, and I would support them 100 per cent in that decision, and as a matter of fact I did. I question again whether it would be liberal policy to fund, year after year, a financially unsound organization that, in spite of knowing that they were not going to get a grant in the second year, went ahead and expanded their festival. Mrs.

Charles: Can the Minister give an indication of what numbers the street festivals, the Fringe Festival in general, brought in tourist dollars or in monies down into the core area of the city? Was information gathered on what the Fringe Festival brings to the city? Mrs. Mitchelson: We can provide that information but I do not have it with me tonight. I will bring that to the House tomorrow? Mrs. Charles: To go further on in this section, Mr. Chairperson, can the Minister indicate if any untendered contracts over $1,000 have been given out since the fiscal year of April 1? Mrs.

Mitchelson: I believe there have been a few small ones, but those ones are tabled on a regular basis with-is it the Department of Finance? I could get that information, but there have not been many. Mrs. Charles: It is my understanding that early this fall tentative agreements were put in place with the western provinces, as well as Ontario, making an agreement to have an industry based Film Classification Board. Could the Minister comment on whether that agreement is going forward ? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, would that be on home use videos? There is no agreement.

There have been ongoing discussions for several years about establishing some type of a system where provinces could share in 2597

Monday, November 6, 1989 implementing some type of a program, but there has been no agreement to this date. Mrs. Charles: Can the Minister state in the House this evening whether her Government is in favour of public classification system or an industry supported system of classification? Mrs. Mitchelson: The industry related program is certainly not acceptable to any of the provinces at this point because it excludes adult video and there are not acceptable standards that are agreed to throughout the provinces.

I believe that the publically supported one we are prepared to mount, but there does not seem to be a sense that there is going to be, at this point in time, anything that is going to be inter provincially supported. We are at this point in time looking at going ahead with our own classification system here in Manitoba. *

(2040) Mrs. Charles: I take it then that the memo entitled, "Proposed National Film and Video Rating Board" dated August 16 , 1989, then is out of date and this has not gone forward through the Film Classification Board? Mrs. Mitchelson: That is the proposal that went to a meeting in Regina on October 17, and that is the proposal that I have indicated has not received support from the provinces. Mrs. Charles: Then the Minister indicates that the province, that is the Province of Manitoba, is going forward in looking into video classification.

Could the Minister indicate what the costs of set-up for that will be, and why, when I understand the plans were in place five years ago to do the same, that has not been picked up any further? I think I know the answer to this one, but could the Minister indicate if those plans are still workable and, again, what the cost will be to the province? Mrs. Mitchelson: The cost to the province that we might anticipate would be about $75,000, but the program that we intend to possibly implement, and what we are looking at right now, would be cost recovera ble. Mrs.

Charles: Could the Minister elaborate on what type of rating system there would be, would it still depend upon the U.S. standards or will we be going towards our standards in radio and video? Mrs. Mitchelson: We would be looking at our own standards, and I think it is really important to the parents of Manitoba and to the people of Manitoba that the films that come into the stores for home use are rated and screened by Manitobans who set the standards for classification right here in our own province. It is our first and foremost responsibility as a Government to get into place a program.

I guess the reason it has taken so long to try to implement something is that several provinces have been trying to work together to make it happen and it just does not seem possible at this time to get anything into place, nationally or interprovincially, for three or four years. So that is a concern to me because I believe that parents that are renting movies or allowing their children to go into video stores and rent movies should be able to tell, from the classification on the movie, whether it is suitable for viewing by that age of child. Mrs. Charles: I certainly support the Minister's attitude on that.

We all, especially with videos and VCRs and those machines, are really dependent upon what is given to our children over the counters and therefore the question is, have you discussed or proposed what inspection methods will be in place to guarantee that these videos are indeed handed over appropriately? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, that will all be a part of sort of the assessment and the recommendations that will come from the Film Classification Board. We have had staff working on it.

I have met with the Film Classification Board and they are working right now on proposals to come forward to Government with on how it can be handled and managed. Once we have the details and the options we will have to choose an option from what they present and move forward with it. Mrs. Charles: Could the Minister give us a time frame that we could expect such legislation coming through, or some regulations coming through? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be realistic to say that next Session we should have something that we will come forward with. Mrs.

Charles: Understanding that there are staff working, or it is necessary that staff is working toward this classification, and I also understand that over the last few years there has been some capital costs in new housing for the Manitoba Film Classification Board, could the Minister explain the reductions in the amounts given in expenditures? Where would these super costs be incurred, if not shown in the fiscal year this year? Mrs. Mitchelson: The reduction, I guess, is because we had been expecting that we might be able to put something in place this year , looking at an interprovincial-type of agreement.

That has not come forward so we are going to have to go it on our own. Mrs. Ch arles: The Minister mentioned , just for clarification though, that she had staff working on this new agreement, our regulations. I would expect that your staff are hard-working people, but they certainly can be not super-human people, given that you have cut down some staffing levels and you are asking more work to be done. Is there any other area that this had to be cut back for that, or has there been fewer films having to be viewed by the board? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr.

Chairman, there is policy support from the department and the staff over at the Film Classification Board are working together, along with the board to make this happen, so there is support service available within the Government department. 2598

Monday, November 6, 1989 Ms. Hemphill: Mr. Chairman, once again, I am not on the line, but would like to move back to asking some questions about specific fundin g to some cultural groups. Could the Minister give us an update on the Agassiz Theatre and the funding request, the status of funding and the status of the program? Is it in danger of shutting down, or has it shut down and, if so, is it because of lack of funding by the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-65b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 65b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	63fb60d61f0c34b9677025ff0c2419aabae3845c

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