[ Page 3279 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special visitor from Kenya. His Excellency Hasan Bagha is the newly appointed High Commissioner for Kenya to Canada, and is making his first visit to British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. van Dongen: Today I have a number of visitors in the Legislature: Dan and his wife Miriam Wiebe; his son Dion Wiebe and his wife Julie; their daughter Erin Hiebert and her friend Andrea Chatwin. Dan and his family operate a very progressive chicken and turkey farm in the city of Abbotsford. As an illustration of that, a couple of years ago they won a B.C. Hydro Power Smart award for their efficient operations. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: Today in the Legislature we have two very distinguished guests: Mr. John Ratel, director of the British Columbia Automobile Association; and with him, Mr. Bill Bullis, president and CEO of the BCAA. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I would like to introduce to the House, Jerry and Ines Pape. They live in Surrey and are the parents of Lisa Pape, who is the legislative intern for us. I bid the House make them welcome.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to be able to introduce five important people in my life: my wife Janet, my mother-in-law Daphne Read, and my three sisters-in-law, Lesley Dukowski, Jo-Anne Midmore and Shirley Ross. Shirley Ross has come all the way from Aberdeen, Scotland, to watch us misbehave here, and I ask that the House make all of these important people welcome.

M. de Jong: In the gallery today are 20 grade 10 government and history students from Abbotsford Junior Secondary School, with their teacher Mr. Born. They have travelled from sunny Abbotsford, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it was sunny this weekend. I hope the House will join me in making them feel welcome.

E. Gillespie: For the following introduction today I had to arm-wrestle the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I'm happy to say that I won. I'm happy to introduce today a constituent and friend, Mr. Cliff Boldt, from Union Bay in the constituency of Comox Valley. Would the House please help me make him welcome.

I. Chong: Visiting today in the gallery is a constituent of mine, the past president of the UVic Students Society, Mr. Ian Flemington. Along with him is a friend visiting from Australia, Mr. Dean Griffiths. After an exhilarating weekend of bungy jumping, I assured them that the House question period would be just as exciting. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 25 grade 5 students from Stride Avenue Community School, which is a school in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Freeman, and some other adult guests. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Oral Questions

USE OF FOREST RENEWAL REVENUES

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Environment. When Forest Renewal B.C. was established, it was established to help the lot of all forest workers in all forest communities in the province of British Columbia. When it was introduced, plans were explicit and left no room for question about how funds from Forest Renewal would be used. To quote the government's own plan: "By law, all the net revenue will go directly into renewing our forests. No money will go into general government revenues."

However, an article in the Northern Voice reports that the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment said: "Funding from Forest Renewal B.C. and the habitat conservation fund for specific projects should help offset the reductions in the region's base budget."

Will the Minister of Environment confirm that FRBC funds are being raided to offset reductions to the ministry's base budget?

Hon. C. McGregor: FRBC funding is used and accessed through our ministry to provide a number of services around the province, including watershed restoration. There are large numbers of dollars that come through that, and we use that money to provide watershed restoration programming through our ministry.

G. Campbell: The story in the Northern Voice is quite straightforward. The people in region 6 are concerned about the reduction in funding for the base programs of the Ministry of Environment. In that story, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment said "internal budget transfers are being made at present," and he goes on to add that funding from Forest Renewal B.C. should help offset these reductions.

Can the minister explain why, contrary to the NDP's promises, the government continues to raid money from Forest Renewal B.C. to pay for general government operations?

Hon. C. McGregor: We use FRBC revenue for a number of projects throughout the ministry, including watershed restoration, resource inventory, and recreation and research programs -- all of which support our objectives as a government to restore the damage that's been caused by long-abusive policies of the forest industry. In fact, we are restoring those forests through those programs, and yes, they are partly delivered through our ministry.

G. Campbell: This government was clear to people in forest-dependent communities across the province of British Columbia: Forest Renewal funds would not be used to fund the general operations of government. The question is to the Minister of Environment. If she first reduces the base budget for Environment and then uses Forest Renewal funds to in fact cover up the reduction in funds, she is using those dollars 

[ Page 3280 ]

exactly contrary to the government's own position. Can the minister explain why anyone in a forest-dependent community should trust this government, which consistently breaks its word?

[2:15]

WORKER ELIGIBILITY FOR FRBC FUNDING

T. Nebbeling: The NDP have once again devised a plan to pay off their friends and insiders. The Minister of Forests. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: There's the prince of polyester again.

The Minister of Forests has now admitted that the NDP is looking at ways to deliver FRBC funds to companies that only employ union workers. Can the Minister of Forests explain. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please, members -- both sides. I do want to hear the question, as I'm sure you do.

T. Nebbeling: . . .to the thousands of non-union forest workers why this government is planning to exclude them from any FRBC-funded projects only because they choose not to be IWA members?

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Sit down, please. I believe you asked your question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I think I know what the question was. The answer is nothing different from I said in this House a year ago, when we introduced. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please -- on both sides of the House. I'm having real difficulty from both sides, hearing either commentary.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that I have nothing to add to what I said in this House a year ago, when we brought in the bill that said we would give first priority to displaced forest workers. We stand behind that commitment, and we intend to find ways to do that so that we consider the need to hire locally and the need to hire from within both unionized and non-unionized sectors of forest workers.

T. Nebbeling: Well, let's see what happened with that bill that was introduced a year ago. IWA president Dave Haggard, who is also a director on the board of FRBC, wants all of FRBC's $200 million for land-based programs to be spent on union workers. In a speech given to the Northern Forest Products Association, he stated: "You continue to say those workers have got to have a choice, and I'm saying that's bull. We want them unionized and we want them organized."

Can the Minister of Forests tell the thousands of displaced students who depend on summer tree-planting jobs to pay for their education whether their jobs will be gone for the IWA agenda?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think there are a lot of statements in that, but there also seems to be a question.

This year there will be more spent on silviculture in the province than last year, and students will have opportunities to be employed in silviculture jobs as they were last year.

J. Wilson: When the NDP created Forest Renewal B.C., they promised to help forest workers upgrade their skills. Last year FRBC spent $1.3 million to train 150 workers through the Central Interior Logging Association. This year well over 500 forest workers have signed up to receive the same training. Unfortunately for these workers, FRBC has rejected this application for funding. Can the Minister of Forests tell us why skills upgrading was a priority for FRBC last year but not this year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, that was quite a question, hon. Speaker -- it was. What this question reveals is that there is demand far in excess of what we can deliver. Every program exceeds our expectations. In the Williams Lake and south Cariboo area, we had a program to train some 150 people, but over 200 went through it. We are putting more people through every program that we set out to. . . .

The opposition seems to think that everybody who applies for any project should be funded. The demand for projects exceeds by about twice what the annual budget of FRBC is, and we're exceeding the expectations every year and in every project.

J. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the minister should be aware that most of these workers who have been affected by the cuts to this program are non-union workers.

In light of comments made by the IWA president that "we want all FRBC funding programs to go to union workers," will the Minister of Forests tell us why FRBC is singling out non-union forest workers for program cuts?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, if this member thinks that a successful program to train 150 people last year, which all of a sudden became a 500-person program this year, is a cut, he should do the math again. That program was designed to train loggers in things like the Forest Practices Code so they can go out and do their job. It was very successful.

I can say that not every project is going to be funded every year. In that region there is no singling out of non-union forest workers.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING
AND SECURITY AGAINST CRIME

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, in March this government announced plans to increase revenues from casinos by 1,800 percent. In April the Attorney General admitted that he had done nothing to prepare for either increased crime or court and policing costs flowing from this massive expansion 

[ Page 3281 ]

in gambling. Today we learned that in February the gaming audit and investigation office reported ongoing theft by a single casino employee of up to $1,300 per night for almost a year.

My question, therefore, is for the Attorney General. Given the timely report of the gaming audit and investigation office, how could he allow the Deputy Premier to blast ahead with gambling expansion when the present security system is so obviously weak?

Hon. D. Miller: I'd like to first of all thank the member for his question and say that I've missed his critical voice in the last short while. Hon. Speaker, I think he continues to overstate issues, but perhaps through time. . . .

There were some issues that arose at one casino. That was investigated very quickly. The results of that came to us. That was turned over to the Attorney General's ministry. There is a report. We released that report last week. We've taken action already on some of the recommendations with respect, for example, to random inspections. They were monthly; they're now weekly. We've completed a new volunteer orientation program.

I think any objective analysis of the security available around gaming would indicate that in British Columbia we have a very good, secure system. It can always. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Would you please wrap it up.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .be improved, and as a result. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, please.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting how whenever a gambling question comes up in this House, the Attorney General isn't allowed to speak about crime, the Women's Equality minister isn't allowed to speak to speak for women. . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. I do want a question.

K. Krueger: . . .and the Aboriginal Affairs minister isn't allowed to speak for aboriginals?

But I'd like the Attorney General to answer this question. This government is increasing betting limits by 2,000 percent right now and is anticipating gaming revenues to increase by 1,800 percent. If we haven't detected theft with the present betting limits for almost a year, then how in the world are we going to protect British Columbians from crime when 20 times that amount of money is flowing through casinos?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the only voice that's been missing from question period has been that of the gaming critic.

I indicated during estimates, and I say it again: we have a beefed-up gaming enforcement branch within the Ministry of Attorney General. . .

Some Hon. Members: Where's the beef? Where's the beef?

The Speaker: Excuse me, members. Members, I would remind you that we have a relatively short time set aside for question period.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . .and the gaming enforcement branch is completely independent of the Gaming Commission or the minister responsible for gaming. I have indicated that in this modest expansion of gaming in British Columbia, the Ministry of Attorney General would continue to monitor the situation. If changes need to be made to the enforcement policy, that would be done.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

On vote 40: minister's office, $462,000.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to present to this committee the '97-98 spending estimates for the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.

Last year I did truly enjoy the estimates debate as an opportunity to talk about this government's vision for health, a vision that is the foundation for a publicly funded health care system that has been widely praised as one of the best in the world.

This year our vision for British Columbia's health system remains clear, and our commitment to that vision stronger than ever. The '97-98 budget estimate for this ministry is $7.3 billion, an increase of about $300 million or about 4.3 percent. At a time when this government is facing enormous fiscal pressures, we've kept our promise to protect and improve health services for British Columbians.

In fact, when it comes to standing up for health care, we've stood apart from the federal government and most other provinces, increasing the dollars we devote to our health care system by $1.8 billion over the past six years. And that really was at a time when other governments were cutting budgets and cutting programs and cutting people off from the services they need.

The increase in this year's Ministry of Health budget will mean more funding for all key areas in our health system, including hospitals, doctors' services, Pharmacare, community care, cancer treatment and reduced waiting lists. Health is the most important service people expect from government, and when it comes to this year's budget, we've got our priorities right.

We've made some very difficult and, I think in some cases, unpopular choices and sacrifices elsewhere in government. That's in order to keep our promise to protect patient care. We'll take our lumps on the cuts we've had to make in other areas, because they've given us the ability to invest more resources into the services that matter to B.C. families.

[ Page 3282 ]

We all want our kids to grow up healthy and our families to get immediate care or surgery in an emergency, and we want our parents to get the care they need to help them retire with dignity and security in their own community.

We will achieve this by investing more to fight cancer and heart disease, doing more to prevent injuries and illnesses that threaten our kids, working hard to keep prescription drugs affordable for all British Columbians, and sustaining emergency and hospital care as our health care system's number one priority.

These goals flow from the same values that have shaped five years of action by our government -- action to ensure that the people of British Columbia have a health system they can depend on, despite the pressures that we may face.

This budget shows our government's consistent dedication to sustain our medicare system despite massive cutbacks by the federal government to our health transfer payments that we've suffered in the past. They've been $345 million over two years; that's $213 million last year and $132 million this year.

B.C. patients will not pay the price for this shameful federal neglect -- neglect that has led many other provinces to simply throw up their hands in defeat, prop open the doors for the purveyors of private health services, and inch a little further down the road to an American-style, two-tier brand of health care, an approach that even Americans recognize as unacceptably costly both in dollar and human terms.

Indeed, our commitment for the most vulnerable in society is to care for them through the provision of high-quality health care services. This is our measure of our humanity and a testament to all of those who have paved the way for a system that would never turn its back on a person in need, regardless of their ability to pay.

Our government remains undaunted in our belief that medicare is an ideal that must be sustained. We believe that medicare with all of its flaws is a necessity, one that takes precedence over virtually every other service we deliver as a government. But unlike our federal counterparts, we know that a commitment to medicare is meaningless without the dollars to sustain it.

Our government will provide more funding in 1997-98 for all key areas of B.C.'s health system -- funding specifically targeted to meet our health care priorities this year. That includes an increase in B.C. hospital funding of nearly $83 million. This additional investment includes $6.5 million in new funding to help reduce waiting times for patients in need of cardiac surgery or kidney dialysis services, and $3.7 million to protect and improve cancer care, funding which will enable cancer clinics in Victoria, Vancouver and Surrey to extend their operating hours and ensure that cancer patients get care when they need it.

Hospitals remain at the heart of our health care system, and this year's budget increase will strengthen the ability of our hospitals to meet growing demands on their services.

We also recognize that our commitment to protect and improve patient care cannot be realized if we neglect those individuals on the front lines of our health care system who deliver the services B.C. families depend upon. So we're also increasing funding for the services of B.C.'s doctors by 2.4 percent over last fiscal year, bringing the budget for doctors' services within our Medical Services Plan to nearly $1.5 billion -- dollars which will enable doctors to provide the medical services British Columbians need.

Managing and reducing wait-lists is something we've worked particularly hard to address in recent years. In fact, since 1992 our government has invested over $120 million toward reducing waiting times for patients in need of cardiac surgery and treatment, cancer treatment, MRI scans, and hip and knee surgery. We've seen the proof of this added attention and funding, because it has made a difference for hundreds of British Columbians and their families.

We're also looking beyond the hospital setting and increasing spending on community health care services by 5 percent this fiscal year. This additional funding will open the door to vital services such as home care nursing and rehabilitation therapy to 3,000 more British Columbians. We'll be stepping up our emphasis on the PreventionCare program, giving people the tools they need to make informed lifestyle choices that can help them stay healthy longer and ease the pressure on our health care resources.

We'll work closely with our new regional health boards and community health councils to ensure that all of our health care spending reflects the needs and priorities of British Columbians -- because the additional dollars we're investing in our health care system this year represent only a part of the equation. We know the solutions to the challenges facing medicare. Those solutions must in part be realized by changing the structure of the health care system itself. We have dared to take aim at the corporate enemies of publicly funded health care, be it multinational drug firms or major tobacco peddlers who have for too long enjoyed a free ride to riches on the backs of Canadian patients.

We've been innovative, implementing smart new policies like PharmaNet and the reference drug program to provide B.C. patients with the drugs they need at a price taxpayers can afford -- a program that in its first two years of operation will save $74 million without affecting patient care. We'll continue to challenge the status quo, if it will result in better health for all British Columbians.

This is why we've moved forward with our Better Teamwork, Better Care approach to regionalization, moving health care decision-making out of Victoria and into the hands of community and regional authorities with their hands on the pulse of patient priorities; working together to break down the walls of bureaucracy by reducing the over 700 different boards formerly governing the delivery of health service in this province and forging a more cooperative and cost-effective relationship among all of our major publicly funded health care providers; taking dollars out of administration; eliminating waste and duplication and investing in those priority areas of patient care that B.C. families rely on. In fact, we will realize at least $24 million in administrative savings throughout B.C. as a result of the streamlining of health care delivery through the Better Care approach in this year alone.

But perhaps the most significant feature of our Better Care approach concerns the issue of accountability. We've established clear priorities for improving services and care for British Columbians -- priorities that will be spelled out in performance guidelines which all of the boards and councils will follow, allowing us to track and audit the quality and accessibility of care, patient satisfaction and waiting times for treatments throughout the province. The public will for the very first time be able to review the results and progress of the local and regional authorities through the publication of an annual report.

The ministry is also doing its part to keep the public better informed about the status of waiting times for surgery and treatment through a new monitoring system. It will 

[ Page 3283 ]

provide quarterly public reports, with updates on waiting times for cardiac surgery, cancer treatment, MRIs, hip and knee surgery and organ transplants, and will set goals to ensure that B.C. patients get the care they need without waiting too long.

In this year of transition to our Better Care regionalization approach, we're providing both stability and flexibility to ensure that the highest standards of care are upheld.

I know that both sides of the House will recognize that there's still more work to be done. But the reality is that every day in this province thousands of British Columbians are receiving the high-quality health care they need and deserve. It's there when they need it, it's there where they need it, and it's available regardless of their income. Their stories may have escaped the notice of us in this Legislature, but their experiences offer legitimate proof that our publicly funded, universal system of health care can do the job it was designed to do. And for the vast majority of British Columbians it does that job very well.

Our challenge today, of course, is to make it work better. We're committed to meeting that challenge by investing both dollars and ingenuity to deliver better care to all British Columbia families in the future. The only bottom line that counts is patients and continuing to keep our promise to all British Columbians to preserve the high-quality health care services they depend on, now and for the twenty-first century.

S. Hawkins: I too have some opening comments. I'm looking very forward to engaging in these Health estimates with the minister and this government.

Hon. Chair, I want to just bring up that in 1991 the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, the Seaton report, was released, and one of its key observations at the time was the following:

"We are unanimous in our opinion that the system of health care in this province is one of the best, and quite possibly the best, in the world. We do not make this claim lightly or to soothe anyone's temper. We have talked to representatives from many different health care systems, and we have not found a system that we would accept in exchange for the one currently in operation in British Columbia."

What has happened since then? In 1997 we have seen -- and I've mentioned this before -- the leadership of the Ministry of Health go through a revolving door. We've seen four Health ministers and five deputy Health ministers, each with a different vision, each going in a different direction. We're now witness to health care havoc created by this government. Health care in British Columbia has suffered a significant setback. There has been a sad lack of continuity and leadership in this Ministry of Health. There's been a lack of prioritysetting for health care programs. There's been a lack of a provincial strategic plan. In fact, New Directions seems to be going in every direction -- and certainly in wrong directions -- and there's been a gross mismanagement of precious health care dollars.

Shamefully, we see newspaper headlines today like "Hospital Waits Get Longer," "Hospitals on the Edge," "U.S. Firm Cashes in on Surgery Delays," and sadly: "Toddler Dies as Ambulance Service Busy." Patients across this province are at risk under the NDP's mismanagement of our health care system. I travelled around the province, and what patients are telling me and what families are telling me and what health care providers are telling me is that patients are not getting the treatment they need when they need it.

[2:45]

I know from a series of meetings that the backbench committee the NDP had struck to review regionalization. . . . They met with so-called experts that they called in. When I talked to some of these so-called experts, they said that one of the first questions the backbench committee asked them was: "What is the objective of health care reform?" Well, if they don't even know that, why are they embarking on it? Why didn't they even know that the objective of health care reform is to improve health status? That's a very, very simple question. Health care workers around the world know that health care reform is about improving health status.

We measure health status in our communities, in our province, in our countries. We look at health status indicators. Those indicators include health care, housing, jobs, economy. We measure these by performance indicators. And those would be things like waiting lists for cardiac surgery, hip replacement, cancer treatment; length of stays in hospitals; admissions and readmissions. We've certainly seen the NDP fail in this regard, because we have seen waiting lists grow significantly. From last March 1996 to December of 1996, we saw an increase in the cardiac surgery waiting list of 30 percent. That's not a small increase. Somehow we've failed those patients.

With regard to health care reform, it certainly doesn't seem to be meaningful in any way. If we're to do it, let's do it right. Let's make sure that we have a model for integrated and coordinated, full-scale health care reform that covers the spectrum, right from prevention to treatment. What we have here is halfway health care reform. It's just gobbling up money. There seems to be no direction. It seems to have turned from New Directions to another direction. And it's the NDP way or the highway. We've certainly seen that in the form of boards being fired and replaced with people who will support what this government wants done and not what communities feel that their needs are.

There are certain factors that indicate a good health care system. One is high quality, and when I travelled the province, I certainly saw that in the way of providers, in the way of services that were given. We do have the personnel and resources if we use them effectively.

We've got a problem with accessibility, though. That's the second factor that indicates a good health care system. We 

[ Page 3284 ]

know that, because we've got problems with waiting lists; we've got a problem with capital funding -- proper capital funding over the last few years -- for programs and hospitals.

The third factor that indicates quality health care is stability, and we have seen a problem with stability. Providers, patients, administrators are not comfortable with what's going on. We've seen layoffs; we've seen firings; we've seen morale absolutely diminished. We've seen doctors, nurses, administrators and community people say that they're just fed up. They're telling us that we should just slow down, look at what we're doing and make sure we're focused on patient care. And I don't know that we are, hon. Chair.

I take my responsibility as a patient advocate very seriously. It's important that we as the official opposition carefully scrutinize any health care policies put forward by this government. It's also important because the people of this province -- especially those that have been touched by the painful consequences of health care reform and those who work within the system and know too well about the pain that this government has caused -- no longer trust the members opposite. The people of B.C. have lost faith in this government, have lost faith in this minister. They simply don't believe the government promises that no more beds will be cut, no more jobs will be lost. The people simply don't believe that anymore, because this government has demonstrated over and over again that it will do that.

Let me just step back for a minute, hon. Chair. The members opposite -- and I think I brought this up last year at estimates -- say that they are the protectors of medicare. They say they are the ones that implemented medicare. For the record, I just want the members to be reminded again that it was a Liberal government in Saskatchewan that first proposed publicly funded hospital insurance, and it was a federal Liberal government that legislated medicare at the national level.

The members opposite continually tell the people of B.C. that they should trust their government, this government, to preserve medicare. I am going to say to this House, yet another time, that I can only hope that the members opposite will listen. It's no longer appropriate and it's no longer enough for this government to ride on the coattails of their Saskatchewan predecessors and claim that they are the solitary protectors of medicare in this province, because we know they have failed in the last few years. We're seeing the results of that. It's clear that the people of this province no longer trust this government in the management of their health care system. They no longer trust the government. They promised to save Medicare, and they've thrown our health care system into unprecedented turmoil and instability. And I saw that as I travelled around the province.

The government did this without any clear indication of what the end result would be. When health care reform began, the government couldn't really quantify what was wrong with the system. Nevertheless, they jumped in and formed regional districts and regional health boards; then they decided no, we've got to step back; then they developed regional health boards and community health councils; now we've got. . . . We'll get into what they're planning now, with the sole objective of cost containment.

As I said before, we have yet to find out whether any of this is going to be of any benefit to the patient. We know they're tinkering with bureaucracy, we know that it's still sucking up money, we know that they wasted $40 million setting up this system, and we know that it's going to cost us in the next year, I understand, $8 million or $9 million for administrative costs. So when the minister talks about $24 million in administrative savings, I would like her to break that down for us as we move into estimates, because I still have to wrap my mind around where we're going to find this $24 million in administrative savings, when we've wasted $40 million and we're still setting up bureaucracy.

It's very, very essential that the government begin to really listen to the serious concerns of the health care providers and the home care workers. Since the government hasn't been listening to these people, let me just share with the minister some of the concerns that representatives put forward to me as I was travelling.

The unions which represent health care workers in this province are concerned about layoffs. They are concerned about the shift away from full-time jobs towards more casual, part-time positions, the increase in the number of workers on layoff, the replacement of health care workers with volunteers or less-qualified people, the deterioration in housekeeping, lab and dietary service, and even more so, the more stressful work environment which is resulting in sick leave or, as some of the nurses put it to me, burnout. They tell me that they are doing more and more with less and less; they get absolutely stressed out. It comes on them physically, they just can't take it anymore, they end up taking time off work, and it costs the health care system. This is the whole thing about instability that I'm talking about in the health care system.

The people and the patients of B.C. have become cynical, and they're discouraged. They believe that the main reason this government set up regional boards and community health councils was to protect themselves from the consequences of politically sensitive decisions. One example I can give is that the capital health region hired a past NDP cabinet minister, Elizabeth Cull. They paid her $1,000 a day, and people in that region raised their voices and said: "Hey, this is wrong. Why are we paying somebody who is connected to the NDP $1,000 a day when we should be using that money for services in the community? We should be using that money for health care for patients. Why are we paying her $1,000 a day?" The minister sitting opposite said it was inappropriate; the Premier said it was inappropriate. But nothing was done, and she continues to collect $1,000 a day. So they've protected themselves a little bit from these kinds of decisions.

I did travel around the province, and I want to say that I honestly feel that people in different areas of the province are feeling like they haven't had fair funding. In certain parts of the province they feel that their health care system is underfunded, especially in the north. In Quesnel, patients continue to be cared for in hospital hallways. The day that I walked through Quesnel hospital there were four patients being cared for in the hallway. As an old nurse, it just pulled at the heartstrings, because that is not the kind of care I was trained to provide. I thought the patients were waiting in the hallways to be taken to tests, but that's where they are cared for. That's where they're bathed; that's where they get their bedpans; that's where they're fed. That is absolutely appalling. Where is the privacy? Where is the dignity? Where is the quality of care that this government talks about? It was shameful.

Patients in Prince George find themselves strewn about a very crowded emergency room with not enough beds. The day I was in Prince George Regional Hospital there was a. . . . There is a 13-bed emergency unit; there were 26 patients in. So 13 of them were stuck in a back room, probably about 11 feet by 12 feet, gurney to gurney, male and female, bed to bed. They had pulled nurses and staff off the wards. We don't 

[ Page 3285 ]

know what quality of training those people had, but they have to bear with patients, some who are critically ill, some who are very sick. They're making do. They're doing more and more with less and less, and I was witness to it.

Patients in Nanaimo find themselves sleeping on stretchers in the cast room for days on end. When patients come in to get their cast taken off, patients who are ill sleeping in those beds have to listen to all the noise of a cast being removed or. . . . Where's the privacy? Patients are being interviewed, and other patients are listening in. It's not right. This is not health care.

There are serious problems in the health care system, and this government must open its eyes to the mess that's been created and begin to do something very constructive to rectify the crisis the system is in. And it is in crisis. We plan to consult further with individuals and groups directly affected by the decisions with respect to health care that this government makes, and I suggest that the government start doing the same.

When this minister talks about waiting lists and alleviating waiting lists, I sincerely hope that there is some kind of plan in place, because I'm still getting letters. The saddest letters I get are from patients who tell me they are waiting for treatment for cancer, for surgery, for hip replacement, for a whole variety of things. Patients have been gravely affected. They've been gravely affected by a deterioration in ambulance and emergency services, by a shortage of hospital beds, and by a shortage of health care personnel to look after them. I can't say it enough: this casts serious doubts on the stability of our whole health care system, and all in the face of a government that is implementing so-called cost-saving reforms.

Over the past few years, problems in our health care system. . . . It's been reported by providers, media and patients, and the minister knows, because I know she gets the same letters I do. People are dissatisfied with care in hospital due to shortages in nursing staff and other types of health care personnel. There are longer waiting times for surgery and for diagnostic testing and procedures. There is inappropriate use of hospital beds. I know the minister has a report that indicates that -- that finally quantified that there was an inappropriate use of hospital beds. There is a lack of community home care support to cope with increasing needs of seniors. There is a lack of post-day care surgery requirements. In some places there are problems with early hospital discharge policies and with the trends in deinstitutionalization -- and Riverview certainly comes to mind with that issue.

As I travelled around, I sensed that there was a growing recognition and a real fear amongst British Columbians that our health care system has deteriorated and we are in a state of crisis. We on this side of the House believe in the five principles of health care in Canada. We believe in universality, portability, public administration, comprehensiveness and accessibility. We believe in a strong, publicly funded health care system, but we believe that health care reform should not lead to barriers and delays for patients. Health care is about patients getting the treatment they need when they need it, and this side of the House believes in putting the patient first.

[3:00]

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to introduce the ministry staff who are with me. On my right is David Kelly, the Deputy Minister of Health. On my left is Leah Hollins, who is the assistant deputy minister of acute and continuing care programs. And behind me is Bob Cronin, who is the assistant deputy minister of corporate programs. It is with a great deal of regret -- and I'm quite annoyed -- that Mr. Cronin is retiring on us. He has been an invaluable contributor throughout the public service. So I say thank you very much to him.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know. He doesn't look old enough to be retiring, does he?

There are 34 community health councils, 11 regional health boards, and seven community health services societies. The CHSSs are to form an employer association for employees that are being transferred from the Ministry of Health into the field but whose services cross over community health councils.

S. Hawkins: Getting into the boards in a little more detail, then, these boards were all appointed. There were provisions in the Health Authorities Act that these boards would be democratically elected. Unfortunately, that route wasn't taken by this government. Can the minister tell us how many appointees have been appointed to date?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, there are 15 for each community health council and regional health board. I think the Vancouver regional health board allows for an appointment of 18. We are almost at the maximum appointments in each and every area.

S. Hawkins: Would the total number be around 500, 600, 700 appointments, made by this ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's 15 times 45. So yes, probably.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell us how these appointees were vetted? Did they apply? What were their qualifications? What were they looking for when they appointed these appointees?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Many of the appointees had already served on community health councils and regional health boards. The range of qualifications we looked for were, first of all, a community base: experience within your community; experience in managing large sums of public dollars. There were considerations for aboriginal appointments, where aboriginal appointments were made in relationship to the amount of aboriginal population in the community. We looked for gender consideration, multicultural consideration. There is a physician appointment on each and every regional health board and community health council, as there is a front-line health care provider appointment on each and every health board, as well.

S. Hawkins: Was there a committee that vetted all the applications? Were there applications? Was there a committee that chose, and who was on this committee?

[ Page 3286 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're ministerial appointments, but I received much input from many sources across the province. Some health boards actually had their own appointment policy and submitted names to me for recommendation. The physicians themselves conducted their own survey and submitted names to me for recommendation, as did the front-line health care workers. But the appointments were made through my office.

S. Hawkins: Are all the appointments complete?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, they're not all complete. There are a few communities where we still need community representation, but we're almost done.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister explain why it was more important to appoint than to let the communities choose and elect?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I will only say this once. We conducted a review across this province in the summer, which the opposition didn't participate in. That review was thorough; it consulted widely with all of the people that the member opposite listed in her opening remarks. We put questions to them such as, "What do you think health care reform should be all about?" -- not asking them about what we should think. . . . We put it to them -- what their opinion of what health care reform was all about. It's unfortunate that particular question got twisted in the member's opening remarks, because that was where we received from people working in the community a great deal of very valuable input about what they were looking for in health care reform. It was as a result of their opinions that change occurred. It's unfortunate that, by virtue of just reading and not participating, that kind of question got twisted.

When we actually asked people in the communities themselves about how we should proceed with selecting people to represent the newly formed community health councils and regional health boards, we received feedback in three areas. First, there was a majority of opinion that said the system is so complex that there should be appointments to the health care board but that we should have community input -- that the appointments should be from the community.

We received input from the elected officials who were mandated to sit on the regional health boards, such as school trustees and councillors: "Please don't appoint us, because we've got a big job already. We don't want to do this work. It's a job all unto itself, so please don't do that for us." And the third situation where we received feedback across the province was: "Keep the voluntary aspect of appointments. We do not want our health care system to be governed by people who are remunerated for those jobs. There is a tradition of volunteerism in the health care sector."

When we then put to them the question, "How do you conduct elections and ask people to run for office and invest in that; how do you then ask them to do that in the context of standing for a voluntary position. . . ?" People then came to the conclusion that it makes sense to have an appointment system in order to get the most diverse number of people ready to stand and not be precluded by the expense of an election.

I have committed that in the next two years -- actually, it will be in about a year and three-quarters -- we'll be receiving input from our communities around the province about a community input process for reappointments or new appointments to the community health councils and the regional health boards. I've already received some very valuable input from people who sit on the UBCM, from individual councillors, from smaller communities, and then also from our regional health boards and community health councils themselves about how we need to have input for a community process.

S. Hawkins: It's unfortunate that the minister. . . . She talks about twisting words around. They're the ones that appointed an NDP backbench committee. There is a Select Standing Committee on Health in this parliament that's never met; I sit on that committee. I would put to the minister that that was the appropriate committee to review health care. Health care doesn't belong to one party in this province. Health care is not a partisan issue. Health care is something that affects all of us. We were elected -- just like the members opposite -- from different parts of the province to represent different people in the province, to represent different points of view. And it's unfortunate that the government sitting opposite here chose not to include in a direct way this side of the House in their review of health care -- in the mess they made of health care in this province. They made a mess of regionalization. We have always been very open and have said we want to participate.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

There is a committee that sits in this parliament that probably should be reviewing some of the government policy, should be listening to groups, providers and interested parties around the province. But we've never met; we've never been called to meet. There are problems; there are very serious problems. I travelled around the province and I spoke to people, because as a responsible critic in the area, I needed to go out and see for myself what kind of care is being provided in communities around the province. I took the opportunity to do that; I would have taken the opportunity to travel with the backbench committee, but we were never asked to do that. We were asked to make a proposal. Well, I don't think that's proper participation; I don't think so. The right way to have done it was to put it to the Health committee that sits in parliament; that's the way to have done it.

To say that we never participated. . . . I think that's very crass and that's very misleading.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Well, I participated. The minister asked if I participated. I participated by doing a six-week tour of the province. Actually, I didn't go with promoters. I didn't put up backdrops and have photographers take a picture of me shaking hands or ribbon-cutting. I didn't do that. I actually walked around with physicians; I walked around with nurses; I walked around with X-ray techs; I walked around with patients. I actually heard firsthand what was going on. I didn't go to ribbon-cuttings and then say, "There's nothing wrong with this hospital," when 40 feet away, there are three patients sleeping for three days in a cast room. I didn't do that.

I recall that the minister accused me of taking secret tours of public places. A hospital is a public place. Accusing me of taking a secretive. . . . I didn't wear a mask; I didn't wear a disguise. I didn't walk around and say: "Hey, what's going on here?" I didn't do that. You know what I did? I walked around, and I made sure that I listened to people. I talked to people, and I asked: "Look, what's your workload here? What 

[ Page 3287 ]

kind of care are you getting? Is it adequate? Is there treatment getting to patients that need it?" I went and toured the beds that were empty, the beds that weren't being funded. I went and saw patients lying in hallways, being treated with no dignity -- lack of care and lack of privacy. I saw that; I saw that firsthand.

I went to Quesnel hospital. I understand that it's going to be awhile before this government gets to that hospital. I went to that hospital and toured their kitchen area. They were supposed to get an expansion and a new kitchen area. You know what? You know what's running through the top of the food service area of the kitchen? Sewer lines -- and they've backed up more than once. Now, I would think that was kind of a priority. But, you know, it doesn't seem to be for this government.

So when you say we're not participating in health care, I think you're very wrong. I think that's very misleading, because I think we have been constructive. I think we have raised the issues on behalf of British Columbians. I think we've actually got the government to move on a few things this year. We raised the issue of waiting lists. We actually got the government to put some money into funding. Hopefully, it's getting there. We have raised the issue of ambulance problems. Out of that, we got a review. Sometimes it takes that little bit to get these guys moving. But good -- we'll keep on doing that, and we'll keep them moving.

With respect to the boards, we'll try and get back to that if we can, if I don't get sidelined with some of the other stuff. I'm just wondering, again, with respect to the boards that were replaced. . . . There were a lot of boards that had guns held to their heads -- that's what they tell me -- and were told that they either had to amalgamate with the regional health boards and community health councils that this government appointed or be fired. We found that a lot of boards bucked the trend. They said they didn't trust this government. They didn't trust the way health care reform was moving along in this province. They felt that too much attention was being focused on administration and bureaucracy and not enough on the patient and the health care needs of the community.

These were people who had served the community well. These were people that had worked in the health care system, that were good community people, that came from elected, accountable positions, that came from municipal councils. You know what? They said: "Just a minute. Things aren't moving along the way they should be. There's money being wasted here. We don't trust that this government is actually going to focus on health care here. We think that they were more interested in tinkering with bureaucracy and taking control when they promised that health care was going to move closer to home. What's happening now is that we're getting mandates from the ministry to do things instead of us deciding what's best for our community."

[3:15]

I notice that the minister's heading was "Better Teamwork, Better Care." You have fired the team. The minister has fired the team, hon. Chair. I notice in the press releases in the last few months I haven't seen "Better Teamwork"; I've seen "Better Care." Maybe she doesn't refer to it as teamwork anymore, since the team that she has comprised is totally an NDP-backed team, not necessarily coming from the community.

Why was it so important to fire these boards instead of working with them, making them comfortable and maybe giving them time to move along? Why did everything have to move on a deadline? Why was there no time to build relationships with these boards to make them comfortable with what the government was doing?

Hon. J. MacPhail: On November 29 our government announced Better Teamwork, Better Care. At that time we said to every single health care society in the province that April 1 would be the day that regional health boards would be put in place, that we expected amalgamation to occur by that time and that we would work with them in a voluntary way during that time. We said that for community health councils there would be a few months after that when resolution and amalgamation would take place.

The vast majority of boards of the 700 health care societies worked with us. In fact, of the list that the hon. member reads, it was about less than a quarter of the boards that actually had to be dissolved. No one was fired, actually; they were dissolved. The notice was sent out at the end of November, and on April 1 we had to get on with it. The fact of the matter is. . . . I don't think that the opposition can talk out of both sides of its mouth and say that the system is in crisis and yet that it wants to carry on with 700 boards and not get on with bringing resolution to the system.

Many of the areas that have moved forward in a cooperative way are well on their way to working with all of the health care providers in the community in a concerted, integrated way, and it's working.

S. Hawkins: I want to talk about a letter that I received. It's interesting. When these appointments were made, obviously a letter had to be sent out from the minister to the appointees. Someone handed me one of the letters. This is a letter appointing an appointee to a board in Nanaimo, and it comes from the Minister of Health. Frankly, I find it a bit lacking, because nowhere in this letter does it say that this appointee has a responsibility to ensure that responsible health care decisions are made for people in their area and that quality of patient care and safety should be a priority concern. Nowhere in this letter does it say that; nowhere in this letter does it say what is expected of the appointee on that board. I would think that certainly when the hospital societies appointed and elected people to their boards, that was a priority: quality of patient care was a priority, and safety of patients was a priority.

[ Page 3288 ]

It's interesting. The last paragraph of this letter from this minister says:

"It is not necessary for you to report to me on the day-to-day-activities of the board. However, I would anticipate that you would advise me or my deputy minister on any matters of special significance that come before the board, such as issues relating to severance settlements."

Isn't it comforting to know that the minister says nowhere in this letter that that should be a priority of the appointee she has put on this health board? It doesn't say that, and I was very, very disappointed to read that. But she wants to make sure that she has people on these boards that will report to her on issues such as those relating to severance settlements. That's why I was saying before that people have been telling me that the reason they think these boards are appointed rather than elected is so the accountability from these boards will flow to the ministry, not necessarily to people in the community. The appointees will basically be puppets of the ministry; the ministry now has more control.

We saw before that people who served on boards were accountable to the community, because you know what? If they didn't do their jobs, they didn't get elected again. That's just like each one of us who sit in this chamber. If our constituencies don't like what we do, if we don't represent them fairly, if we don't represent them effectively, they have the option to get rid of us. Not on these boards, because they are appointed. The minister has the option to get rid of these people -- and she did, because she fired a whole bunch that didn't go her way.

Politically sensitive decisions are going to be reported back to the minister and not necessarily to the community. These are supposed to be health care dollars. The decisions that are going to be made by these boards are supposed to be for the community, on behalf of the community, on behalf of patients in the community. But who are these boards accountable to? Perhaps the minister can answer that question for me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The health boards are accountable to the government -- to me. But they also have a series of guidelines and principles -- we announced Better Teamwork, Better Care -- for patient care that's first and foremost. The principles were read into the record earlier -- but perhaps the member missed them -- in terms of patient satisfaction and reduction of wait-lists, and that the care be affordable, accessible and there when and where they need it. It's all about patient care.

Certainly the board members understand that. They have had that communicated to them not only in the announcement around Better Teamwork, Better Care but when I've met with them, as well. I have a different view from the member, I guess, on what's an important matter in times of transition, when there will be staffing changes, especially at the administrative level. If the member somehow, because she objects to the fact that I asked board members to make sure that the matter of severance is brought to my attention. . . . That has nothing to do with patient care. Is the member somehow thinking that's not an important issue to take into account in transition?

S. Hawkins: I'm not saying that's not an important part, but it seems interesting that that's what's highlighted in the letter. We know that was a politically sensitive issue for this government, considering all the kinds of severance disclosures we've been receiving from freedom of information and from other sources in the last few months -- that is embarrassing for this government. It's interesting that it's highlighted in an NDP appointment to a board -- that that is one issue. It would have been even more understandable if she had highlighted an issue relating to waiting lists, surgery lists or whatever. No, the highlight here is something that's politically sensitive, and that's why I just found it a little disappointing and interesting that that's the main thing that jumps out of this letter that this minister wrote to this appointee to report back on.

I would like to know if there is an accountability framework or if the accountability from the boards flows straight back to the ministry, and how the reporting is conducted. I'll leave it at those two questions for now.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The regional health care system. . . . Autonomous legal entities are responsible for providing an integrated continuum of care and have an arm's-length relationship with the Ministry of Health. The November '96 announcement surrounding Better Teamwork, Better Care included a commitment to specific guidelines for the new boards and councils, allowing the ministry to track and audit the quality and accessibility of care, patient satisfaction, waiting times for treatments throughout the province. It's what I referred to earlier.

It was also indicated that results and progress would be made public through an annual report; I also indicated that earlier, in my opening remarks. The establishment of an accountability framework is in keeping with my ultimate responsibility for health care delivery in a decentralized system and is a continuation of the Ministry of Health's role in assuring accountability in the health system.

Accountability will be a three-step process. The province funds the provision of services. Health authorities report how they have used the funds and what they have accomplished. The ministry takes action to ensure that service quality, efficiency, appropriateness and effectiveness are met. The health authorities will be required to report specific types of performance measures similar to the types of measures that health agencies have traditionally reported to the ministry. Some new performance measures will be implemented to better reflect health service outcomes.

The ministry is interested in obtaining information on the following types of measures that are new: input measures for budgets and expenditure plans; output measures, such as volumes of services such as caseloads -- contacts and visits; appropriateness measures -- provision of appropriate care as compared to guidelines, protocols and, in some sophisticated organizations, care maps; quality measures -- performance against the established standards, often measured through what is now the accreditation procedures; and outcome measures, such as patient-client satisfaction, relief of pain and suffering, mortality rates and birthweights.

S. Hawkins: Is there any accountability that flows down to the community? And if so, where?

[ Page 3289 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just outlined those, hon. Chair.

S. Hawkins: Somewhere in that answer I missed that. I'll go back to the Blues and have a look at that, I guess.

My next question is regarding the liability issue around these boards. Are these boards liable in any way for the health care decisions they make and the services they provide?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it's ultimately me who is liable, and that's the way it should be. I don't mean corporate liability, in the sense of a corporation; there is collective liability but no personal liability.

S. Hawkins: What kinds of things would these boards then. . . ? Do you have specific examples that they might be liable for if they were to attach liability to the boards?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I need clarification: are you talking about legal liability?

S. Hawkins: Yes, I am.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just as it was before with the health care societies that were in place, there is a legal obligation to act in good faith. So it's only the legal liability. Again, I qualify this because I'm not a lawyer, but there is no legal liability unless they are not acting in good faith.

[3:30]

There were advisory committees set up in the old structure. I understand that there are some groups -- one that comes to mind is the registered nursing group -- that are quite concerned that advisory committees may not. . . . It's at the discretion, I guess, of the boards. It's advisable that they be set up, but it's not mandated that they be set up. Who is going to advise these boards, and what kind of committees will be set up?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I'm aware of the concern of the registered nurses, having met with them just last week or the week before. What many of the registered nurses suggested was that they would like a separate seat on each community health council and regional health board, and we had some interesting discussions about that. But the advisory committees will now be structured according to what each regional health board and community health council needs in its own community. The provincial advisory committees are still being designed and are under discussion.

S. Hawkins: When the minister says that advisory committees will be set up as needed in each health region, are there any that the ministry is proposing that are mandatory for these boards?

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, other than the medical advisory committee.

S. Hawkins: The minister mentioned annual reports just a short time ago, and I understand that when the announcement first came out about regionalization, there was going to be a quarterly report. I could be wrong about that. If there is going to be an annual report, can we be advised when we might see that report?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The annual report will be at the end of the first year that the system has been in place. April '98 will be the completion of the first year, so I would expect that the report would be in the quarter following that. I think that what the member is thinking about in terms of quarterly reports are the wait-list reports that, for the very first time, will be done. We can expect the first wait-list report in September.

S. Hawkins: The minister also mentioned audits with respect to health regions and community health councils. I wonder if she can comment on what they're going to audit, what they're looking at, how often the audits will be done and who is going to conduct the audits. If she can give us some information around that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two aspects. One has to be held accountable, and then you audit according to that accountability. We've already reviewed the accountability principles, but there are also contract principles that are the nuts and bolts of what the ministry will embed in the funding and transfer agreements. The contract principles speak to the quality and cost-effectiveness of care. The auditing will be done according to the meeting of the effectiveness of these contract principles.

When we sign funding and transfer agreements with the regional authorities, we make it very clear to them at the time they're entering into a contractual agreement that they are agreeing to participate in the quality and cost-of-care review exercise, including the provision of the requested information. When their patient outcomes or other health outcomes fall below a specified level, they'll be obligated to participate in an approach that will lead to improvements in that particular area.

If the result of the audit has them coming up short, they then have to put in a program that would bring them up to the contractual principles, and this could involve changing a particular technique, tool or approach. The results of the audits will also be part of the annual report, and that annual report will have a comparative nature to it, as well.

S. Hawkins: The minister mentioned contractual principles. Are those outlined right now?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They are being developed right now. The contractual principles are per contractual arrangement with each regional health board and community health council.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the ministry will commit to getting them over to us as soon as they are developed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I will. They are public information.

S. Hawkins: I may have missed it in the minister's answer, but who is going to do the audit?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The government, as the funding agency, through the Ministry of Health.

S. Hawkins: The audit will be done according to these contractual principles. Will there be a boilerplate tool 

[ Page 3290 ]

developed that will be used throughout the province? Will everyone have to meet a certain mark? Is that what's being developed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are standards that are per program. Each program area has its own standards that are developed in conjunction with the industry itself. We will then audit whether these standards are met. Separate and apart from that, we're all subject to the auditor general coming in and auditing.

S. Hawkins: Just as a matter of public interest, is there money in this budget being set aside for those audits if they're going to be done for the report next year? How much money is being set aside for these audits?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Perhaps when we get to corporate programs, we can explore that. It is part of our regular corporate programs, and we don't anticipate any increased cost doing it.

S. Hawkins: I believe I heard the minister talking about provincial health goals. We talked about that last year in estimates, and I'm wondering if they have been developed. If they aren't, where are we at with them? I think those are the measurements that were going to be used to determine and evaluate health care in the province. If they are developed, will the minister make a commitment to get them to this side of the House?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the provincial health goals are developed. They're very comprehensive -- so comprehensive that I think it will break ground. The provincial health officer has done an excellent job. The hon. member made a comment in her opening remarks about the health outcomes -- the indicators of good health -- being beyond just hospital care. She talked about employment, housing and nutrition as well, I think. All that is included.

We have started the process -- well, we haven't just started it; it's well on its way -- of informing the other ministries that will be affected by the establishment of these provincial health goals. We're on the verge, actually, of completing that notice period for other ministries, and we'll be releasing the provincial health goals very shortly.

S. Hawkins: I'll get back to the boards for a minute. Can the minister lay out the structure of the boards? We know that we have board members. We have a chair; we know that. What administrative support does each board have in the way of CEOs, vice-presidents and that kind of stuff? What structures have been set up for these boards and community health councils?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The boards themselves have 15 appointees. In Vancouver, again -- Vancouver and Richmond -- I'll just say 18. The chair is selected from among those appointees. The regional health board is then responsible for hiring their executive. Typically, I would suggest there would be a CEO, and then they'd put together an executive team that goes across all the services that are provided in that particular area. There would be someone responsible for patient care, and that may go across continuing care as well, and there would be corporate services and financial services. Each regional health board is responsible for putting its own administrative structure in place. We are there to assist them, but one of the goals in putting the administrative structure in place is to eliminate the duplication that exists across individual institutions now.

S. Hawkins: I have heard concerns from different regions about CEOs being fired prematurely -- being fired and being paid severance. I guess we'll get to the severance issue now. How much has been paid out in severance to date, and how much is expected to be paid out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually have to go to my question period book. I thought that would be a question period question.

As of April 20, 1997 -- and I don't think there's been any action since then -- 14 displaced CEOs have secured new permanent employment, and three are in alternative temporary employment. For instance, one has been assigned as the project manager for the teleradiology project, one has been assigned as a public administrator, and one has been assigned to work for the Ministry for Children and Families as a regional operating officer. So far, the severance via salary continuance to the end of last month has cost $97,000.

S. Hawkins: The $97,000 doesn't sound right; perhaps you're just talking about since April 1, when the ministry took over the boards. But before that, we understand there were some major severance pay-outs that amounted to more like $1.2 million and counting. Am I correct in understanding that these CEOs were fired, got severance and now are working for government again? Am I correct in understanding that the CEOs that were fired -- the minister likes to say displaced, and I've used the term "dehired" when I've had to do that; we try to couch these in nice terms -- are now working for government again?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I guess this is the appropriate time to distinguish amongst the areas of severance. The information that I just gave you is as a result of the bringing in of regionalization of health care and the collapsing of whatever may have been in place for regionalization of the 82 previous boards -- now down to 45 boards. Those are the stats that I gave you. So that has been the severance. The severance that I've outlined to you is what has been as a result of bringing in the final step of the regionalization of health care.

But I also know that there have been hospitals that, through their own volition and against our wishes, have severed people. In fact, they severed people who were offered jobs and were told there would be a place for them in the new system, perhaps even in the job from which they were being severed. So those severance costs are what the hospitals themselves have to be accountable for. We do not include it in the regionalization costs, because we actually advised against these hospital boards taking such actions. Against our advice, they went ahead and severed several people. I can name those hospitals for you. So that may be where you're getting the $1.2 million: for people who were severed who had nothing to do with the regionalization of health care.

[3:45]

[ Page 3291 ]

S. Hawkins: It was always my understanding and the understanding of different members who were involved in following the health care reform that there was going to be streamlined administration and compressing of the bureaucracy. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that CEOs or administrative people are being dehired and then reabsorbed in the system. How do we get a smaller, more streamlined system if we're just recycling these people?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the good news is that there's attrition and turnover in the system. And within the context of that, we're not adding new people and making up for the people who are leaving the system but reassigning and offering to keep the expertise within the system but in a very much smaller context, where attrition takes place in the downsizing. But at the end of the day, I expect that there will actually be fewer people in the system -- in fact, I know there will be fewer people in the system -- than there are now.

S. Hawkins: Back to board structure, because again it's not quite clear how things are set up. I understand that the boards now have a medical person and a union person. Now the minister might be considering a nursing person on the boards. At least, I hope she is, because they make up a large part of the health providers in the system.

Were the boards making decisions with respect to moving ahead with regionalization before all the appointees were appointed, as far as the front-line workers are concerned? And are all of the front-line workers on the boards now, so that they're involved with the decision-making?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Regardless of my personal bent towards nurses -- I'm a big nurses fan, coming from a family of them. . . . From the conversation I did have with the Registered Nurses Association, I understand fully the value of the input of the nursing profession in the context of designing the health care system, but I couldn't commit to saying that a nurse from their professional organization would be appointed on every health board.

I think that if we look at the boards that are appointed now, there's a nurse on almost every single one. She's not there on behalf of her professional association, but she is there in the context of being a practising nurse. As far as I know, the front-line workers are all appointed. I think almost all of the physicians are. There are sporadic appointments that still have to be made.

S. Hawkins: I guess that's a concern I want to raise on behalf of front-line workers appointed to these boards. They feel that the people who are appointed don't totally have a grasp of health care administration and of the health needs of the community. Certainly they might not be sensitive to the needs of people working at the front line.

It was promised. . . . Regardless, I guess, of how this has panned out, we now have appointed boards, much to the discontent and concern of communities. But, at least, we expect that the boards will have the expertise they need to make the very important decisions as they move ahead now in taking over and making decisions for communities. We expect that they'll have advice from people who actually work in the front lines in their communities, and we certainly hope that these people will find their way to the board in a reasonable amount of time.

The advisory committees that the minister mentioned before are going to be set up at the discretion of the board, and I'm wondering if a lot of these people who sit on the boards. . . . I'm saying again that I've heard concerns from around the province that not all these people have the expertise, and we hope that through the administrative support the boards have hired that they'll get some of this support. But is there no boilerplate plan for these boards to have a medical advisory committee, a nursing advisory committee or some kind of quality assurance committee? Are those not being set up? Or is that at the discretion of the board -- again, if it feels good we do it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The medical advisory committee is mandatory. But in terms of the structure of board activity, there is a wealth of experience already in the health care sector -- about quality assurance committees, finance committees -- and that will continue. The reason why we're saying that it's up to each regional health board or community health council to structure their own advisory committees is because there is not the same boilerplate array of services offered throughout each region of the province. We want to make sure that we're not foisting upon regional health boards and community health councils mandatory activities that don't have anything to do with patient care in their own community.

S. Hawkins: With respect to the board meetings, how often are the boards expected to meet?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's standard corporate entity practice for the boards themselves to meet as a whole once a month, but committees will meet more frequently than that.

S. Hawkins: I understand that these are volunteer positions. That was the commitment that was made when these appointments were made. I understand that for some people, that's a bit of a hardship. I understand that there's at least one board chair, anyway, who has requested that the minister provide remuneration for employment-loss on the days they have to meet.

Some of these regions that make up a regional health board are fairly large, and people come from quite a ways away to meet. Certainly at this time -- when they're trying to get health care sorted out and meet all the requirements that the ministry expects them to meet regarding amalgamation and getting their house in order, if you will -- it makes it difficult for these folks to meet, say, two hours on a Thursday evening or whatever. What's being done about that? And are these people being remunerated?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Several things are happening. This is an important issue, and I did discuss it with the regional health board chairs and community health council chairs when we met for our first-ever meeting in March, I guess -- or in February.

I have asked the chairs to form a provincial health association and to advise me on exactly this question, because there's a debate on both sides of the issue -- amongst themselves as well -- about how you fairly compensate if you're going to compensate. What is the value of an at-home mom? What's the value of a retired person who may be taken away from other duties in her community? What's the value of a person who may be there representing an organization? All of these questions. . . .

[ Page 3292 ]

Now, we do compensate for expenses, including child care. And we've also asked the regional health boards. . . . Actually, we haven't had to ask. They've suggested, and we've agreed, that they want to travel for their meetings so that where it's a fairly large extended area, they actually travel amongst their various communities. But I've asked the newly formed provincial association to advise me on how best to proceed in terms of this issue around recompense. What they've agreed to do is take a few months to let it work out and find out where the successes and the failures are, and then they'll come forward.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell us how much has been put aside in the budget over the next year for these people to be compensated for their travel and meeting time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll make that available to you no later than tomorrow.

S. Hawkins: I just want to tell the minister that we're going to be watching that, because the societies ran on a volunteer basis. Those were people in the community who put that time in for free. We've sort of thinned things out. We've got people from all over the place now trying to get together and meet in one place. When decisions were made closer to home, people lived in those communities; they met in their communities. Now we've got people from communities as far as 150 miles away, or farther, meeting to try to sort things out for a larger region.

I always get nervous when I hear that there's going to be cost savings, and later on we've found out that millions and millions have been spent on administrative waste and on spinning our wheels, trying to figure out how things are going to work. Health care dollars are precious right now, and they need to be well spent.

That is an area we will be watching to see that people are compensated fairly for the time they put in, but not necessarily to the extent that this is going to be costing patient-care dollars. Our first priority, again, is to make sure that health care dollars -- at a time when they're very, very precious -- are directed toward patient care and not tinkering with administrative waste and bureaucracy.

Right now I understand that as of April 1, the regions were supposed to take control of funding. But when we had our briefing for estimates. . . . I understand there was a special account set up to help administer funding for the regions. I wonder if the minister can explain to us how that works.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The special account that I think the hon. member is referring to is a transitional account that will maintain responsibility for the staffing until the new system is in place for the regional health boards and the community health councils, so that they're not going ahead and setting up a duplicate system just to take care of the transition.

S. Hawkins: When do you foresee that to be in place so that the regional health boards get that envelope of funding and administer it accordingly?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It won't extend beyond this fiscal year, and it should be in place before the end of this fiscal year.

Hon. Chair, could I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a good job, because it's my mother who just arrived. Mary MacPhail from Hamilton is here with my ministerial assistant, David Perry. I hope she hangs around so that all of you can behave properly toward me, in face of my mother. May the House make her welcome, please.

S. Hawkins: I want to say fat chance, but I won't. I'll be nice -- to the extent I can.

Right now, is this transitional account a general account, or is it split into regions and each region allocated its amount of funding as of April 1?

[4:00]

S. Hawkins: I won't ask the minister for details of each account if she commits to getting me the figures.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: I hear time and time again that the government expects to save $24 million in administrative savings because of this new process. I wonder if we could get the time line on how soon that $24 million is going to be saved and in what kinds of administrative savings. I wonder if the minister could break that down for us.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, 13.7 percent of the regional health budget is currently spent on services that are of an administrative nature. This equates to $514 million across the regions, so for every 1 percent reduction in administrative capacity a saving of $5.1 million can be achieved. In order to achieve a savings of $24 million, a reduction in administrative costs of approximately 4.67 percent will be required. We certainly anticipate that that can be easily achieved by the year 1999. In fact, that's the minimum amount of savings; 4.67 percent in administrative savings across the system is well within any corporate target in the private sector, and we certainly think that our health care sector can meet exactly the same target.

The areas where services can be amalgamated for cost savings are areas such as finance, human resources, laundry, payroll, purchasing and material management, information services and health records. That will be between acute care institutions, for example, but as continuing care comes on board, there will also be an amalgamation of their administrative services in those areas. Our government has committed that all of the money saved will be left in the regions for patient care.

S. Hawkins: I always get nervous when I hear the NDP government talking about meeting targets, because it's the same old story that we've heard in the last three years. We were going to save money by implementing regionalization, and they admitted that unfortunately they wasted $40 million on regionalization. That was their figure. I've heard higher estimates, but they do admit to wasting $40 million. So when I hear them talking about meeting targets and saving $24 million, I'm very cautious, and I worry that we're actually going to be spending more money on administration rather than saving. We will keep an eye on that, and we will hold them to the numbers they're quoting.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

[ Page 3293 ]

I'm just interested, again, in the funding of the regional health boards and the community health councils. I'm wondering if a funding formula has been developed and how it's going to be used.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope we don't get into estimates where we have to correct the record all the time, but there has been no admission by our government that $40 million was wasted on New Directions. In fact, I don't know where the hon. member gets the figure $40 million from.

There were two factors, though. One, there was an investment of about $30 million over three years. I'm sorry, it was actually five years of investing $30 million toward regionalization, starting back under the Seaton report. That worked out to a cost to the health care system of about 0.07 percent of the entire health care budget over that period of time. And yes, there was an admission that some of the investment didn't work, and a great deal of the investment did work. I just hope that we don't have to rehash this ground. We have admitted that change needed to occur, and that's what we're getting on with.

The budgets for the regional health boards and the community health councils for this fiscal year are a continuation of the programs as they were funded prior to regionalization, with the increases given this year. This will be the year that the regional health boards and community health councils will work with us towards a formula of global funding based on population. But we're proceeding cautiously in this area, because that's what regionalization is all about. There have been certain components of health care that have never had to work together and decide what would be a good continuum of care, including funding. So we're working with the various boards this year to establish that.

S. Hawkins: Last year there was a formula that was raised, and I believe it was called "Jeet's formula." I'm wondering if that is a formula that's still under consideration for regionalization funding.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I wasn't familiar with that formula. I said: "What does it stand for?" And someone said: "It's his name."

We were starting to do background work with the various regional entities. That was one formula that was proposed. That certainly will be on the table for discussion, along with some other formulas, as well.

S. Hawkins: I understand that the ministry was moving towards allocating funding on a population basis. Can we find out what kinds of factors they're going to take into consideration in designing the formula they're going to use to allocate funding to the regions?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure the hon. member is aware that this is a very complex area. We wouldn't want, through ill-informed comments by me, to mislead people in the community around this. But I will commit to this: as we develop the formula for population health funding, I will keep the member well informed of the progress as we enter into it.

I actually look forward to this process, because we will be breaking new ground in terms of giving recognition to certain health outcomes and health factors that have not been recognized before in funding.

S. Hawkins: The reason I bring that up is that when I travelled and went to different regions -- and certainly when I went up north -- there was a feeling that the unique factors affecting health in the northern regions and in other regions of the province. . . . In my region there is a high number of seniors. Those kinds of considerations and those kinds of factors haven't been taken into consideration with funding.

Yes, I would be very interested in being kept informed of how funding in the regions develops.

There has also been another concern that comes to mind. As I've travelled through the province, I've heard that the funding for a region will be based for that region. How will patients move in and out of a region, and how will they get services? If they live in one region but must be treated in another region because that region has programs that aren't available in their own region, how will that money flow from region to region, and how will patients be treated?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There will not be a transfer of money from region to region; instead, what we will do is actually fund the region for the work they do regardless of where the patient comes from. So it's the best for the patient in that area; the patient can't be used in a way that's a factor for an unpaid bill or whatever. Each region will be recognized for the contribution they make -- indeed, maybe for services beyond their own community.

S. Hawkins: On the issue of funding, again, we know now that there are multiple health care facilities. The regions have widened to include multiple health care facilities. How will those facilities be funded under a regional health board? Who makes the decision to fund the different levels of hospitals that are in that region?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to clarify a previous answer: the current funding will continue for this fiscal year in terms of program funding. The regional health boards will then work with us in the coming years to establish not an institutional base funding but a program funding -- for instance, acute care in the region. And then eventually we'll get to a stage where there will be discussions of funding across divisions of health care, as well. For instance, you mentioned the issue of the aging population and the shifting of funds. But initially, for this fiscal year, it will be funded as it has been, according to the funding methodology in the past.

S. Hawkins: Maybe I'll just refer specifically to hospitals. In a region where there are three, four or five different hospitals in different communities, the regional health board, I assume, makes the decision on how much funding goes to each facility. If the community is not happy with the funding they get for their hospital, what is their appeal? Who do they talk to?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It might help if I could understand what's behind the question. I'll tell you what my fear is in this area, my concern in this area. It is that somehow, decisions for funding are made. . . . It's an unfounded fear, I want to make clear, but I've heard from various communities that perhaps there would be favouritism -- or lack thereof -- shown in the funding formulas based on a community hospital.

That would be prevented on several levels. The first is that the funding methodology will always have the involvement of the provincial Ministry of Health. Secondly, there will be service principles, patient care principles and outcomes that have to be met through the auditing and accountability process. They will have to be met on an institutional basis, not 

[ Page 3294 ]

on a regional basis. Thirdly, the first line of appeal for the institution itself will be to the regional health board of the community health council, but then it will also have an appeal to the Ministry of Health. The auditing process, which has never been done before, will, I think, probably point to areas of weakness -- maybe even before the community is aware of it -- and we can straighten that out.

S. Hawkins: I think the concern I've been hearing is about the amount of representation on the boards from varying communities and the way the appointments were done. Some communities feel they don't have the representation on the board that they're afforded. They understood that there would be representation by population, and certainly that hasn't panned out on different boards. You can appreciate that communities are very affiliated with their hospitals, with the health care in their communities, and when they see that somehow the control of it or the decision-making is being removed from them, they certainly do get concerned.

I'm just raising that point, and you're certainly right: that is where the concern is flowing. There are members on these boards who don't represent some communities in the region, and those regions do have health care facilities and clinics that will be affected. They're afraid that they're not going to have a voice on those boards, and that those boards will be making decisions on behalf of their community health centres or their small hospitals. They fear that health care in their community will deteriorate. That's why I was asking. If they feel they're not getting their fair share of funding -- and the minister has said now that the province will be involved in those decisions -- if the communities, by way of their elected representatives or a group that is not happy with the funding they receive . . . how is that going to be addressed?

[4:15]

S. Hawkins: Getting back to the accountability framework, then, is there an appeal process set up? Is there any accountability that flows from the regional health board back to the communities?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm trying to look for something that. . . . I'm sure it's a legitimate question, but I'm trying to look for something, because the question seemed to be based on an adversarial approach to community health delivery, and I'm sure that's not the intent.

Each region and community will have to develop a community or regional health plan, and it will have to have health outcomes in it. That community or regional health plan will be agreed upon by the Ministry of Health as well. In the context of developing that health plan, if there's a gap or an inappropriate concentration in the delivery of a particular health care service, then that will be brought to our attention in the health plan.

Certainly there is no mechanism for appealing the health plan other than us working with the regional health board to say: "You have to deliver all of these health care services in a way that meets the needs of your community."

S. Hawkins: I'm merely reflecting the concerns of people in the communities that I've heard from. What they're saying is that they feel they're losing some control over health care decisions that are made in their community. And with the board being totally appointed and with the accountability, as it seems now, flowing from the board to the ministry, when before there were elected officials and people from the community on the hospital society boards and facility society boards that had to answer to the public. . . .

It just makes sense that there should be some vehicle so people from the community can address the regional health board when they have concerns. When you talk about gaps or something lacking, it doesn't seem to be clear if there is a mechanism for people in the community to voice their concerns. Because right now, what seems to be happening. . . . And that's the perception right now; I'm telling you what the perception is. You may have a different view of reality. The perception right now is that the regional health board is making decisions that are not in congruence with the community.

If the community has a concern, if members in the community have a concern -- they do pay their taxes and they do help fund the health care system and they certainly donate to hospitals and to facilities; they try and make health care in their communities work -- is something being set up? Is something being considered? Is there an appeal process? Is there a committee, perhaps, that the regional health board will have that will meet with community groups and work through some of their concerns, instead of some communities feeling like they're totally left out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have actually travelled the province and met with some of the communities that are concerned as well, and the regional health board chairs have come with me. There has been agreement reached in several communities that there actually be a community advisory committee. In fact, in some communities they wanted it larger than just one community, because the communities share services.

And the regional health boards. . . . I'm finding, actually, that the regional health boards and community health councils are more than amenable to bringing in all of the various communities' concerns to the one table.

I have a different perception only to this extent. It's simply not the case that somehow in the past services were isolated to a particular community and there was no sharing across and amongst communities of health care services. But there wasn't any way in the past that various communities that had to share the same services could get together and plan for those on a cross-community basis. So I'm actually quite looking forward to seeing the process work. But something that I am concerned about as well is that where there is a health care service upon which only one community relies, then we have to pay particular attention that that health care service is properly funded, adequately discussed and considered in a larger context.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate those comments, and I certainly hope that there will be some way to bring the community groups together. From my experience talking to groups in the last few months, it's been very difficult for the regional health boards to organize not only their own meetings amongst themselves to figure out how they're moving ahead with regionalization but in addition to work with groups in the community and try to get them sorted out. It's a challenge. It would certainly be advised, and it would certainly be accepted, that there were some kinds of committees involved in advising the board from community levels.

I want to talk a little bit about core programs. I understand that the province will keep some core programs. Some 

[ Page 3295 ]

programs will go specifically to the Vancouver-Richmond regional health board, which has been referred to as a superboard. I wonder if the minister can share with us what programs the province is going to keep and what programs are specific to the Vancouver health region.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two aspects to the question that I want to offer the member. One is that the Medical Services Plan, Ambulance Service and Pharmacare will generally remain provincial entities across the province. But specific programs are offered in the Vancouver-Richmond regional area that go beyond servicing patients and clients. The reproductive care program, I'm sure, is one that would come to your mind.

For tomorrow, why don't I get you a list of those programs that are under the auspices of the Vancouver-Richmond regional health board, and then we can discuss those on a program-by-program basis, if you wish. But there are two distinctions there.

S. Hawkins: I certainly would appreciate that. There were several societies that were replaced with public administrators in cases where community health councils and regional health boards were dissolved. I'm wondering if the minister has broken down costs related to this. What's the cost of the public administrator taking over these societies?

Hon. J. MacPhail: These people were truly public servants in that they didn't get any extra money for doing the job they did. They were assigned from other duties, and there was no increased cost to the health care system.

G. Abbott: I don't know whether the minister's mother is still here, but I'll try to be very civil as well.

I'd like to begin by perhaps ventilating a couple of corners in the regionalization structure. Obviously the Health critic has done an excellent job of laying those questions out, but I just want to look in a little bit more detail at some of the issues.

Now, as I understand it -- and I hope the minister pardons my ignorance, if I reveal it here; I just want to make sure that I have a clear understanding of what the current universe looks like in terms of all the primary actors in the new health care governance model -- we still have the Ministry of Health at the centre of things. We also now have regional health boards and CHCs, on the one hand, but we also have in the new model of health care governance the continuation of regional hospital districts -- that adjunct to regional districts that has existed for some time. Is it correct that they will continue, and could the minister advise what their continuing role will be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Regional hospital districts will continue to perform their function of planning and sharing in the costs of capital projects in that area.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise, in the functional plan for these organizations, how the interests and concerns or thoughts of the regional hospital districts will be integrated with those of the regional health boards or community health councils, as the case may be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The assistant deputy minister responsible for acute and continuing care met recently with the regional hospital districts -- it was actually sponsored through the UBCM. Our ministry will be engaging in a consultation process that will address the boundaries where community health councils exist and the cost-sharing ratios -- whether there would be any change there or the continuation of that -- and really ensuring a continuing partnership between the ministry and the regional hospital districts, even within the context of the regional health boards and community health councils. Part of that will be that we will make sure that the proper communication lines between the regional hospital districts and their community health councils or the regional health boards are in place.

G. Abbott: That does help a certain amount. I'm still a little unclear as to what the lines of communication will be between the regional hospital districts, when they are being asked for -- or are offering, as the case may be -- their 40 percent toward a new capital project. Presumably, there has to be some line on which the concerns and interests of the regional health boards become acquainted with those of the regional hospital districts.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Several things will happen. One is that the planning committees for the regional health board's building committees should involve the regional hospital district as well; if not, we'll make sure that does occur. The moment we receive a proposal from a regional health board or a CHC for capital development, we will immediately ensure that the regional hospital district is notified of that and that the talks begin in that area.

I would expect this to be a transition phase; I would expect that eventually it will become clear what regional hospital districts have to work with what community health councils. Certainly it's much clearer in the area of regional health boards.

[4:30]

My question is prompted by my own participation on a regional hospital district board for a long time -- 17 years, for ten of which I was the chair. Frequently there were sensitivities and concerns surrounding the requests from the province, as the case was then, for the 40 percent contribution from local government. Sometimes the local government felt as if they hadn't adequately been consulted prior to assumptions being made about a new physical facility being needed. I'm wondering what safeguards are going to be put in place in the new model to ensure that that kind of problem doesn't emerge. Has the ministry thought this particular one through?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've certainly thought about it a great deal. I agree with you that this friction -- sometimes created, sometimes not -- has been around for a long time. I met with some UBCM representatives just a week or two ago -- they happened to be from my own regional area -- where again there were hurt feelings because they thought we were spending money without consulting them. It turned out we weren't, but nevertheless they were upset about it. It has to improve. The way we fund health capital projects has to improve. There are several suggestions on how that can improve. That's why we're working with UBCM in this time of transition: to put in place a better working relationship in determining how we reach agreement on the priority of projects, basically.

[ Page 3296 ]

I think most of the area of friction comes from us having different priorities -- not necessarily the value of the project or the worthiness of the project but how soon it comes on stream. That is an area that needs improvement. Yes, we have put our minds to it, and that's exactly what we're working on in consultation with the UBCM. Frankly, any expert advice you could offer in that area would be much appreciated.

G. Abbott: Again, to make sure I've got it right here. . . . In the old days -- not too long ago, I suppose, but in the day of the hospital board -- the hospital board would conclude that, for example, a new extended care facility was needed for the community. They would so advise the Ministry of Health in Victoria, I guess hoping to get their 60 percent of the required capital. They would presumably also advise the regional hospital district that they thought the new facility was needed in hopes of winning their support for their 40 percent contribution. That is sort of a crude summary of the old way things used to be done. Can the minister tell me what is going to be the new pattern for these things? Are the projects going to be identified by the regional health board, then the support sought of the regional hospital district? Or what kind of a pattern would the minister see evolving there?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just try to run through it in the same way that you did, then. The regional health board will initiate requests according to their plan for the health plan. I expect that the regional hospital district will as well, because they exist and have authority. There will be a third party now, the Ministry of Health, to ensure the equitable distribution of capital. I would expect that the process could flow both ways: regional hospital district to regional health board, and vice versa, and then probably both of them ganging up to lobby the Ministry of Health.

G. Abbott: I do want to explore in a bit the question of how capital funds will be flowing from the province to the regional health boards. I still want to tie up some loose ends here in terms of the relationship between the RHBs and the RHDs. Again, the RHB believe they need, according to their plan, a new facility; the regional hospital district will presumably be invited at some point to endorse their 40 percent funding of that project. Do you see the lines of communication being developed locally through building committees or some other committees, rather than sort of indirectly through the Ministry of Health in Victoria? Is that a correct summary of what you said?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That would be the mature relationship that we hope everybody would shoot for, and we'll assist in reaching that point.

G. Abbott: Again, just going back to my crude understanding of the actors in the current government's model, that leaves the CHCs and RHBs on the one side, regional hospital districts on the other. The one other formal element that I think the minister has mentioned, which is going to have to be a part of the health governance model, is a medical advisory committee. I believe the minister said that medical advisory committees would be the one consistent element, in addition, that would be found in each regional hospital board or CHC across the province. Is that correct?

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Abbott: Again, for certainty here, I understand that the union boards of health have now disappeared -- or will shortly be disappearing -- from the face of health care governance in British Columbia.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Abbott: They have disappeared now, or they are still in the process of being wound down?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They actually report to a different area of the ministry. I believe that they have disappeared, but if not. . . . I'll make sure I get the answer on that for you tomorrow.

G. Abbott: Again, it's my understanding that health care societies across the province are winding down their operations as well. Or is that incorrect? Do they continue in a purely advisory capacity after the present changes?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are several kinds of health care societies, so let me outline for you my understanding of. . . . Maybe you're talking about a different thing.

The health care societies dealing with hospitals are what we've already gone through in terms of dissolving them and forcing amalgamation in some areas, or there's been consensus amalgamation. Other health care societies, such as. . . . There may be some for extended care facilities or home support facilities that are non-profit societies.

How they amalgamate or work with regional health boards will be up to the regional health board. Does a model of affiliation work best -- perhaps for religious concerns -- or should they amalgamate? For cost efficiencies does it make sense for the societies to turn over their administration to the larger regional health board? That will be decided on a community-by-community basis. But the large institutional amalgamations have occurred, and the way that the other non-profit societies relate to the boards in the future will be decided on a community basis.

G. Abbott: I'm understanding from the minister's response that in some instances there may be a continuing role for health care societies across the province, depending upon circumstances, upon how they're structured, and so on. They may in fact continue to have a formal or informal advisory role in relation to the regional health boards in the future. And again, if my summary of this is off, the minister can advise after.

I want to use the example from my own community. There is a Shuswap health care society that was the product of an amalgamation between the old Shuswap hospital board, the acute care society for one of the lodges, the extended care society for another lodge. . . . They all combined their resources into one health care society. In that instance -- and I hope it's not a difficult one for the minister to respond to -- where it's a kind of hybrid of a number of things, would that be one of the health care societies that in the minister's view might have a continuing role in the new health care governance model?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't want to give you a definitive answer. If you want us to give you a definitive answer, I'd be more than willing to on that as an example, but we'll have to check into the exact details of it. It sounds to me like the parts. . . . You say that they have an amalgamated hospital 

[ Page 3297 ]

and an extended care facility, etc. For instance, the hospital part would be transferred to the regional health board, but the other responsibilities of the health care society could continue. Let me look into that as a specific example.

G. Abbott: That's fine, I appreciate the minister's offer, and I think that that will be useful.

I think it's an important question about what the continuing role, if any, of these health care societies will be. As the minister knows, there is -- rightly or wrongly from my perspective or her perspective -- a good deal of concern surrounding the evolution of health care governance in British Columbia. I think it may well be that in the year or two ahead, communities will look more and more to a continuing role of what was the local health care society in providing a mechanism for people to have a voice in the regional health boards.

Again, the minister may not have finely tuned her plans with respect to this, but it is certainly my suspicion, my view, that communities will want to see the continued existence of those health care societies -- even if it is in a purely advisory capacity -- because it will offer, potentially, a voice and a way in which to involve people in health care governance. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that before I leave this particular area.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a wealth of experience across the health care system from a volunteer base, just as the hon. member describes. And it would make sense for any regional health board or community health council to rely on that experience and to incorporate it in a way that makes perfect sense. So advisory at a minimum, yes.

But what I see as the difference -- and seeing it as responsible for the system in Victoria -- is that what is truly going to happen at the community and the regional level now is real responsibility for the allocation of resources and for designing the health plan for that area. It makes sense for the individual areas of expertise to be relied upon, but we also need a body that oversees the integration of those resources across the community. And I see that as the real step forward. In the process of integrating those resources, it makes sense for the boards, though, to rely on the individual expertise built up by those smaller health care societies.

G. Abbott: Just to conclude on the actors in the new health governance model, we've talked about CHCs, RHBs and RHDs. We've concluded that union boards of health are gone and that health care societies, apart from a purely advisory capacity, will be gone. Are there any other formal structures in the current health care governance plan? Are there any other pieces that we failed to identify at this point?

[4:45]

The Shuswap Community Health Care Society in total, the whole society, voluntarily amalgamated with the North Okanagan regional health board on April 1, 1997; they have joined with the regional health board. The CHSSs -- community health care services societies -- are another structure that will be the employing agency for public health workers who were directly employed by the Ministry of Health and have duties that go across community health council boundaries. For instance, in certain areas of the province, the new employer for the public health workers and the mental health workers -- not alcohol and drug workers, because that's been transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families -- will be the CHSSs, which are made up of community health council board members.

G. Abbott: I think that more or less completes the picture. I obviously may want to explore -- if I've got the acronym right -- the CHCSS.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, CHSS.

G. Abbott: CHSS, okay. I've always found acronyms absolutely puzzling, unless you can work them into something very distinguished -- like, say, a RAT team, or something that's very catchy. It makes it so much easier to remember.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Or cupcakes, yes. Anything that allows the acronym to become more memorable does make it a lot easier. I'm sure the minister will give her full consideration to that as she considers acronyms in the years ahead -- or perhaps that's why we have this one, given the success of the RAT team and the memorability of it.

Even prior to New Directions in, I guess, 1991-92, regional hospital districts, it seemed to me, were going . . . not in two different directions, but the model of health care governance was changing a little even under the Social Credit administrations in the 1980s. As I recall, the capital regional hospital district undertook to take on some functions, like public health inspection, that regional hospital districts elsewhere in the province were not embracing as quickly. Is there going to be any difference in what different parts of the province are doing in terms of things like public health inspectors, and that kind of thing? Is it all going to be under the direction of the regional health boards? Or will there still be some of that being done by regional hospital districts?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Public health inspectors are part of the group of employees that were working directly for the Ministry of Health and are now transferred to the other entities. Where there's a regional health board, the public health inspectors will be employed directly by them. Where there is not, they will be employed by the CHSS. But, of course, their work is guided by the legislation that affects them.

G. Abbott: I'd like, if I could, to explore with the minister a little more about the evolution of the model of health care governance we have in British Columbia. As a currently retired political scientist, I am quite fascinated by the evolution of health care governance in British Columbia. We saw, of course, between 1992 and, I guess, 1996-97, an initiative called New Directions, largely based, it seems, on the recommendations of the Seaton commission: community-based, democratically elected representation, and so on. We saw in 1996 the appointment of the regional assessment team, also known as the RAT team, to have a second look at where New Directions was going. Then we had, in late November 1996, what seemed to me and what most people saw as a rather stark and sudden reversal in the direction the province was going with respect to health care governance.

[ Page 3298 ]

The first question I have with respect to this is: could the minister, in her own words and with as much detail as possible, provide an assessment of why, effectively, the province moved from the New Directions model of '92 to '96 into the new model of health care governance that we see today?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure, as a currently retired political scientist, that you want me to be brief about this and not do a dissertation on it. I actually am pleased to be able to answer this question, and I will do it in brief.

But it's also important that we be good historians. Justice Seaton recommended regional health care managers with community advisory committees. Mr. Justice Seaton spent about half a page on governance issues and didn't address the issue of elections. It has become kind of a truism to say that we're going against Mr. Justice Seaton's recommendations, and that's simply not the case.

When I announced, in mid-July last year, the review of New Directions and how we'd proceed in putting in place the final steps of regionalization, I indicated that there were areas of success and areas of concern in the province, and much of that had been heightened during the provincial election that was occurring a year ago today. It was important, as we moved forward in transferring the responsibility of a multibillion-dollar health care system to a regional model, that we make sure the model was the correct one and that we build on the successes of New Directions and fix the problems.

Some of the problems that were enunciated were the fact that people were very concerned about the duplication of two levels of bureaucracy. People were concerned about keeping entrenched in our system the volunteer aspect of the health care system. People were concerned that integration was not going to take place in a way that met the changing needs of our population. People were very pleased, though, that Victoria would no longer be responsible for our health care system.

It's ironic. I guess it's always that the grass is greener. . . . The absolutely universal complaint we heard about the old system -- with these 700 health care societies in place, perhaps elected by some numbers of the community -- was how dissatisfied everyone was with the fact that Victoria made all the decisions, so there was not real delegation of authority, allocation of resources, or delegation of community planning. We heard that from every single community: Victoria needed to get out of the business of planning for individual needs of the community.

We also heard the very serious concerns about aboriginal health issues in the province.

We also heard that a cookie-cutter approach simply would not work; a cookie-cutter approach could not possibly meet the health care needs of an urban population versus the health care needs of a non-urban population. So that was why we did the review. We took our time, consulted widely and changed a little bit of direction. It was not a 180-degree turn or even a 90-degree turn, but a turn for Better Teamwork, Better Care.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the non-partisan political comment at the end. It was very skilfully integrated into the response of. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Oh, really? I'm surprised. You don't miss much, and I'm surprised you missed that one.

As I understand from the minister's comments, the problems and concerns which prompted the review and the change of direction -- the minister says not a 90-degree change in direction -- were: duplication of two levels of bureaucracy; loss of the volunteer aspect; the large array of health care societies, etc.; too much domination in Victoria; and that a cookie-cutter approach would not work. Those, the minister has indicated, are the problems which prompted the shift in models.

To follow up on the minister's comment, what were the successes of the New Directions era which the province has built on?

Hon. J. MacPhail: For the first time, there's a recognition that we have to plan for the patient on the basis that he or she is actually a human being and not just an admission to a particular institution. The regionalization of health care now allows a community to plan for your mom's needs or your child's needs based on her health care needs and not on whether she needs to be admitted to an acute care or a continuing care hospital.

Public health initiatives -- health and wellness -- have to be integrated into the health plan of the community. Services that are in desperate need of integration, from an administrative point of view -- and are being integrated -- were some of the successes. There were already models of integration well on the way amongst regional entities when we announced the renewed Better Teamwork, Better Care. A better accounting of our health care dollars for health outcomes was the success that needed to be built on for New Directions.

I know I've said this before, and I hope people don't take it in a trite way, but the experience that I've built upon -- moving from the minister responsible for social services to the minister responsible for health -- is that the accountability of outcome is much greater on a welfare recipient than it was in our health care system, in terms of reporting back to the public. That was certainly a beginning success of New Directions that we built upon with Better Teamwork, Better Care.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's response. I don't want to be quarrelsome, particularly given that the minister's mother is here observing. Is she still here? Okay, I won't be quarrelsome, then. I'll play it safe and not be quarrelsome.

It would seem to me that the elements which the minister regards as being the successes of New Directions, or that health care governance model that we had between '92 and '96 -- more personalized treatment of patients, accountability and that kind of thing. . . . It would seem to me that in order to make the new model of health care governance work according to those elements, there need to be significant changes or additions to the system to provide people with an opportunity to have a voice in the system and to ensure that there is some personalization.

It's my sense that those elements have been lost in the new model. Perhaps the minister can in some way assure me that they haven't been lost. But I don't see how those things are as much a part of the new model as they were of the previous one.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Under the previous model, decisions were made in Victoria by politicians and bureaucrats. At the end of the day, communities were told what to do. Within the context of the directions received from Victoria, health care 

[ Page 3299 ]

societies perhaps managed. In some ways, they were a very small group of people who managed that, and in other areas people decided by the thousands to get involved in perhaps a single issue facing a health care society. But the direction for the allocation of resources and how best to utilize those resources for patient care came from Victoria. That was the old system.

[5:00]

The new system holds a community health council or a regional health board accountable across all of the demands of the health care system in a way that I think really needs to be given a chance to work. Not only are they representative across communities but they have real responsibility and real authority transferred to them as well.

But I also make this commitment: the appointments will be appointments, but we are very much interested in establishing a system of nomination. That system will differ by community, I would expect, and I used only one example: where there is a large representation of first nations population, it would perhaps make sense -- and I suspect the argument will be made -- that the first nations people be able to put forward their own nominations and not just be part of the larger community nomination. We'll have to monitor having a physician and a front-line health care worker on each board to see how it works and whether enhancements or changes need to be made in that area.

I would also expect that communities will tell us how it's working for them to join with the other communities where there are shared health care services. I'll give you one last example on that. We amalgamated two regional health boards, Richmond and Vancouver. That caused a great deal of concern initially, and we're working very hard with the Richmond municipality -- both the health care providers and the city councillors -- and the regional hospital district to make that work effectively. We've got to make sure that works effectively. There are certainly shared services between the communities of Burnaby and Vancouver, but Burnaby is part of the Simon Fraser regional health board.

So we want to make sure that patient services are best met by the design that we've got of regional health boards, and we'll certainly be monitoring that very carefully over the next two years. The reason why I say two years is because appointments are for two years.

G. Abbott: I hope that there is a real local control, a real local responsibility, in terms of health care governance in the future in British Columbia. Let me just test that proposition by asking this. It's not really hypothetical; this is a probable situation which, if it hasn't already occurred, is likely to occur in the very near future.

A regional health board and/or a regional hospital district decide that a new capital facility is needed -- an extended-care facility, for example. It is my understanding that the decision about whether such a facility would be built will in fact be determined by those two boards in conjunction. Or is Victoria still planning to have a role with respect to that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It would make perfect sense for. . . . Did you say two regional health boards or two community health councils?

G. Abbott: Actually I said a regional health board and a hospital district.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, okay. I see; we're back to. . . . Right.

Yes, they would make their joint application, but that's for their 40 percent. The criteria will still apply for whether the province commits its 60 percent or not. I think perhaps what you may be moving toward is: will the capital budget be distributed amongst regional health boards and community health councils? Certainly that is something that we have to take into consideration. But the allocation of capital funding is a very complex area. It harks back to the previous question. There are areas of the province where institutions are built and deliver services beyond that particular area, and therefore have a different priority given to them in terms of funding that goes beyond just that particular region. So on the basis of those priorities we will still decide about the provincial contribution.

At the end of the day, will there be a way that we can allocate capital amongst regional health boards and community health councils? I say this without wanting to be firmly held to it, because the issue requires closer examination. But there will be ways where regions will have control over some capital dollars in the future, I think. Again, I urge the caution that there are many health care services that are delivered to service beyond a particular region.

G. Abbott: I appreciate at least a portion of the minister's response to the question. There are going to be a couple of real tests as to whether a body -- a regional health board or a regional hospital district -- has real local autonomy, real local control, real local responsibility. One test will be if they have the ability to spend, presumably, the envelope of money that they will be receiving from the province annually for the administration of the system. Will they have that control? I understand from the minister's response that there will continue to be, at least of the province's 60 percent share of new capital costs, complete control by Victoria over that 60 percent. What will be the measure of autonomy of these regional hospital boards and CHCs over the ongoing operational funds for these facilities?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The regional health boards and community health councils will have control over their operational funds, but it will be with certain caveats around patient care. For instance, we have said that this year -- and again, this is a transitional year -- it would make sense to move money from acute care into community care. But we have said that it doesn't make sense to move it the other way. Any money from an acute care hospital that goes into community care has to be taken from administrative savings, not clinical programs. So that's where the cost-efficiencies can take place. Everything is about patient care. So you can move money from acute care into community care and not affect programs on the acute care side.

In the future, community health councils and regional health boards will allocate amongst institutions according to 

[ Page 3300 ]

delivery of health outcomes and health programs. They may be able to decide that it makes sense to have a type of adult day care program that avoids having to have people institutionalized, for instance. But those are future allocations that they would make. Right now, the allocation would be from acute care into community care, if there are any shifts.

G. Abbott: I'm glad we launched this exploration of the degree of local autonomy, local control and local responsibility, because it does raise interesting questions. The minister has suggested that there will in fact -- in the coming year, at least -- be a number of caveats associated with the envelope of money which the regional health board will receive.

Would it be fair to say. . . ? Again, perhaps this is too hypothetical, but I think it's a very important point: would we anticipate that in the years to come, if the province is truly pursuing local autonomy in this issue, we will in fact see fewer and fewer caveats associated with the envelope of funds which would be received annually by the health boards to deal with their ongoing operations? Again, this proposition is based on the words the minister used -- that we should not have a cookie-cutter approach to the operation of hospitals or health facilities in British Columbia. We may in fact have to have sufficient diversity built into the system so that regions may take somewhat different directions with respect to these issues.

I'm wondering about the degree to which the minister contemplates the elimination of these caveats over time and regional health boards in fact having the opportunity to stake their own future and to set their own path.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's difficult engaging in a hypothetical situation, but let me try. I do assume that the member is putting this forward as a hypothetical situation, because I'd be more than happy to address a particular example.

There will always be provincial standards for health care delivery -- always. There will be provincial guiding principles, there will be provincial auditing mechanisms, and there will be provincial accounting mechanisms. Within the context of that we may move toward fewer and fewer caveats, but the overriding standards shall always apply. Does that mean that different regions may meet those standards in different ways? I would hope so; I would absolutely hope so.

G. Abbott: Good. I think I've expressed the view from here of where the province might go, and I appreciate the minister's response -- that there have to be provincial standards in place and there do have to be provincial audits. That appears to be reasonable.

Again, it's a question of how intrusive those provincial standards may be. The provinces have at times grated against standards imposed on them from above, and we may find a situation at some point in the future in British Columbia where regional authorities grate at the standards that are imposed on them from Victoria. So I hope that the province is genuine in its claim that they are aiming here for a very substantial enhancement of local autonomy on these issues.

Again, just before we leave the question of capital allocation. . . . I haven't thought this through, but it would seem to me that in some respects one of the reasonable ways in which the province might deal with the capital funding perspective is to allocate dollars on a per capita basis and let the local authority make the decision with respect to whether a new capital facility is needed or not, rather than retaining control over that in Victoria.

[5:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope we're not applying a different standard here to the health care system in terms of losing sight of the need for a system perspective entirely in exchange for local autonomy. I suspect that's why we're just dealing with hypotheticals here.

The way we allocate funds in our school system, there are provincial standards that have to be met. And the capital allocation for our universities, our colleges and our schools and our highways, etc., are met from a systems perspective, because there's no ground zero in allocation of funds. Ground zero would mean that right now there's equitable distribution of capital, and therefore any incremental addition of capital funding would be on an equitable basis. But the fact of the matter is that there are capital inequities in the system right now, and that's why we need to have a provincial perspective on this.

Let me just give you an example -- well, no, I won't use the example of Chase. But there are areas of the province where there is a burgeoning population and that burgeoning population is an aging population, as well. They may require greater capital infusion than an area where there's the same population growth but it's a younger population. So we need a systems view of it. There may also be an area where previous irresponsible governments have tried to buy an election with an infusion of capital. That would just be horrendous, and we as this current government would now be paying the price for that. We would not want to enhance those inequities in the system, but we need to correct them by having a provincewide perspective.

G. Abbott: That having been said, does the minister anticipate putting into place in the new health care governance system a greater measure of autonomy for health boards and hospital districts with respect to the capital funding issue than was available under, say, New Directions or the old hospital board system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually don't see that in the next couple of years. Of course, the feedback is that getting integration from an operational side is a big task to take on. Certainly the feedback has been: "Could you try to make the relationship between the province and the regional hospital districts work better in the meantime and let capital distribution occur on that basis?"

G. Abbott: Personally, I'm glad to leave the discussion of that with this summary. As I understand it from the minister, for the next couple of years at least the health boards should be preoccupied with getting control of the operational side, and when the ministry feels that has been successfully completed, it may contemplate some greater measure of autonomy with respect to the capital side. Again, I think that summarizes what the minister just said, but I may be wrong.

[ Page 3301 ]

Turning to a slightly different issue, with respect to regionalization, did the province in moving to the new model of health care governance look at the experience elsewhere in the country? I'm sure the answer is yes. So could the minister advise which models they found to be, I guess, most appropriate to the conditions we have here in British Columbia and what provinces we might find those models in?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Consultation occurred on several fronts. One, I spoke with my colleagues from across Canada -- the other ministers of health -- about their experience with regionalization and received some good, frank advice from them. The regional assessment team also met with other jurisdictions, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta, for their experience. We did not replicate another model, because other models of regionalization in Canada occurred at the same time that there was massive cost-cutting and dealing with a downsizing in the transfer. . . . Well, no, that's not true. Some of the regionalization processes took place even before the cuts to the transfer payments. We were in a situation where we could fully fund the system but at the same time wanted to bring in regional authority. So we learned from the failures of other provinces and benefited from their experience in the positive aspects, at the same time being able to fully fund the system as well.

G. Abbott: Again, so I'm sure I understood the minister's response, she has indicated that the regionalization models found in Alberta and Saskatchewan would most closely resemble what has been developed in British Columbia, although the cost-cutting measures in both of those provinces may have gotten them off to a little different start than what we saw in British Columbia. Is that a correct summary of what the minister said?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the member's attempt to summarize my comments, but maybe they could stand on their own and we could just go through the Blues together tomorrow.

We did meet with members from Saskatchewan and Alberta to learn from their experience, but our model is unique.

G. Abbott: I'll try not to summarize the minister again too extensively. One of the failings I have is that I tend to try to summarize and build on what the ministers have said.

There is one question the Health critic explored which I want to look at in just a little bit more detail. This is a question that has been brought to my attention when I've been in different parts of the province. In some instances, why was a regional health board deemed to be most appropriate, whereas in others -- and I think we're talking about the Kootenays, some areas of the north and I'm not sure where else in the province -- CHCs were found to be the more appropriate mechanism? Could the minister advise what the determining criteria were with respect to whether an area became represented by a CHC or by a regional health board?

Hon. J. MacPhail: All of the regional health boards are large, urban areas with large population bases, and the community health councils have smaller population bases. But the criteria for establishing the two, other than population base, was: is there an entity, an amalgamation of communities, that makes sense to drive administrative cost savings -- i.e., are there shared patient services and institutional services amongst the population that would allow integration for administrative savings? What are the shared patient care services, and on what geographic basis are those shared? Where a community didn't have shared services with another community, they were basically established as a community health council.

G. Abbott: In my own personal experience, I am only familiar with areas that have fallen into the regional hospital board side of the model. I'm not as familiar with those that have maintained, if that's the right word, the community health council model. Could the minister provide me with a few examples of where CHCs have been determined as the more appropriate model and why, in those cases, they were?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll describe the community health care services societies. There are seven of them, and they're made up of the areas that have community health councils and no regional health board. These are not the community health councils, but they are the areas of the province that have the community health councils: East Kootenay, West Kootenay-Boundary, Coast-Garibaldi, Upper Island-Central Coast, the Cariboo, the North West and Peace-Liard.

G. Abbott: Was there any particular consideration that went into determining that regional health boards should be comprised of 15 members? How was that number arrived at?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, there are models to which we looked for how one successfully decides issues on a board model. We had models such as the hospital societies that were in existence. What is the amount of bodies needed in order to establish a proper committee system? We've talked about a committee system that's required in the delivery of these services. What maximum would be needed in order to ensure fair community representation as well? There is the ability of the minister to add members to hospital boards and community health councils, as well. I don't anticipate having to exercise that ability, but it is there as a safety valve. Then, of course, there is the additional safety valve of the Vancouver-Richmond regional health board, where we can appoint up to 18 members.

G. Abbott: My understanding, then, is that the Vancouver-Richmond regional health board is not necessarily 18; it could be 15 like the others. Or is it set out in regulation or statute or whatever as a larger body than the rest? And if so, why?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm just trying to run it through my mind. Vancouver-Richmond regional health board will be distinguished as having up to 18 members, and it will be through regulation attached to the statute. That is my recollection, but I'll confirm that with you tomorrow.

G. Abbott: Is the reason for the larger board -- by regulation, statute or whatever -- based on population or on function, or both?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Function. The Vancouver area has many of the tertiary-care hospitals. We have a cluster board model in place in the Vancouver-Richmond area as well. Four clusters of hospitals have joined together -- institutions -- and they're in place as a result of their function. They are unique, actually, in the province.

[ Page 3302 ]

G. Abbott: Again, on the question of the size of regional health boards, could the minister advise what is the smallest-population regional health board with 15 members and what is the largest regional health board, by population, with 15 members?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get that information for you.

G. Abbott: I understand, then, and I am impressed. I guess it goes to the sort of line that I'm on right now in terms of questioning. The population is not really, as I understand it, the deciding factor in the numbers on the regional health boards. Fifteen is just deemed to be a reasonable size for a board to deal with these kinds of issues. Population growth, up or down, is not something that is going to be a concern in the size of these boards.

[5:30]

G. Abbott: Again in the long term, I'm wondering whether this is really going to be tenable. I'd have to know what the differential is between, say, the largest-by-population regional health board in relation to the largest . . . to assess the difficulty of this. But I do wonder, given that representation by population is such a deeply ingrained kind of proposition in our political system, whether there are going to be difficulties or concerns surrounding that, if not in the short term, certainly in the long term.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry -- there is no concept of representation by population in the establishment of boards. I don't know of any board in government where it is rep by pop. What is important -- your point is still well taken in this context as well -- is us demonstrating as a government that within the context of the size of the board, there is adequate representation of each community and that the community is best served, in the context of the overall board, by the number of appointees they have to that board. Certainly I would be happy to provide you with that information in the context of that predeterminate as well.

G. Abbott: Perhaps it just reflects a misspent youth in local government or whatever, but the model that I always look at in terms of representation by population is the regional district. Communities or areas under 2,500 have one vote at the regional district table; when they get over 2,500 to 5,000, they have two; after 5,000 they gain additional votes and additional representation as the population grows. It has always struck me that that is a pretty fair and reasonable way to deal with it. But, as the minister has said, that's not what's being aimed at in this particular situation.

The next question I have for the minister is: how were the boundaries. . . ? She may have alluded to this briefly, and I apologize if I have missed the full scope of her previous answer. How were boundaries for regional health boards and community health councils developed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to clarify one point on the issue of rep by pop. Certainly the regional district is a good example of where rep by pop is necessary -- and that's when they had the taxing authority. I want to make sure my vote counts proportionately when the entity has the ability to tax. That is the concept of representation by population. There is no understanding or ability or plan to have these regional health boards and community health councils tax. I would assume that that would be your view as well.

On the issue of the boundaries -- how the boundaries for the regional health boards came about originally. . . . There were 20 regional health boards, and in the context of the 20 regional health boards there were community health councils within those. The 20 regional health boards were based on the historical 20 health units that existed in the province. The new regional health boards and community health councils are based on the shared services and the population base, to support efficiencies and better patient care.

G. Abbott: One of the suggestions or propositions that has been made to me in relation to boundaries and appropriate bodies and so on. . . . I think the minister has said that the new health boards really build on the old boundaries of the union boards of health -- or whatever they were called back then; I think that's right. The proposition that was put to me was: why would the province not build on the existing regional hospital districts instead -- that is, those 26 regional districts that we have in the province that are well established in terms of their accountability to the people who make up those regional districts, and that kind of thing? Was that option explored at all by the RAT team or, indeed, anyone else in this process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The new system is not a system that is dominated or driven by hospitals or hospital funding, which is the raison d'�tre for regional hospital districts. The regional hospital districts were taken into account in the original 20 regional health boards, and in fact the regional hospital districts were reorganized to match the 20 regional health boards. The system is not driven by hospitals or hospital funding or hospital capital. I know the member appreciates that. But if there's another problem that needs to be resolved here, if the member is feeling that somehow the regional hospital districts are not being taken into account in our new system, we can certainly deal with that problem. There is a whole new way of looking at health care delivery that's much beyond just hospitals.

G. Abbott: Again, the question in all this to me is how existing or old structures evolve or change in ways that take account of new problems, new concerns, new ways of doing things. It seems to me that what happened in 1992 was that a lot of the past was sort of summarily rejected and something brand-new was created in its place. Maybe there were advantages and disadvantages to doing that. I don't know; I haven't thought it through thoroughly. But my question was premised on the notion of whether the regional hospital districts were something that could have been changed, expanded, revised in a way so that they could have undertaken this function, as opposed to a new entity coming in and taking its place -- or not taking its place, but doing what hospital boards and others used to do.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the brevity of that response. I guess it's time to move along.

An Hon. Member: We'll canvass that later.

G. Abbott: Yeah, we'll canvass that later.

[ Page 3303 ]

Before we leave the issue of the composition of boards, I want to address some concerns that have come to me specifically with respect to the new North Okanagan regional health board; but I'm sure some of these concerns apply across other areas of British Columbia as well.

Could the minister advise what the current composition is -- geographic, if possible -- of the North Okanagan regional health board?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are nine positions. . . . Oh, sorry, we have the administrative structure, not the. . . . You want the board members, not the administrative structure, is that right?

G. Abbott: Yes.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll get that information for you. You want the health board members by community. Sure.

G. Abbott: The reason why I'm concerned about it, and the minister knows about this concern, is that again -- and perhaps this goes to the philosophy underlying the structure and composition of these boards -- there is not necessarily any relationship between the population of a subregion within the overall region and its representation on the board.

Again, to give you an example -- and hopefully this has been recently remedied, but not to my knowledge. . . . In the case of the North Okanagan regional health board, there was, I think, as of the latest count, either one in 11 or one in nine or one in whatever it happens to be, depending on who's resigned or whatever recently -- I think it's one in nine or one in 11 -- board members from the Shuswap subregion. The Shuswap subregion comprises about one-third of the population of the North Okanagan regional health board. I would think that if a subregion of the overall region comprises a third or a half or whatever of the population of that region, it should be accorded something close to that measure of representation.

My question, then, is: how can we be assured, within the present structure of regional health boards, that there will be some adequate reflection of population in representation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I understand the member's point; he's still on rep by pop, and we've had a discussion how representation by population is not the premise on which we appointed members of the board. Adequate representation, yes; we're monitoring that and making sure that that is the case. For instance, I've got the information for the North Okanagan board now. There's one from Armstrong, two from Lumby, four from Vernon, two from Revelstoke and one from Salmon Arm -- and we'll be appointing one more member from Salmon Arm.

I think that there may be the issue of. . . . The reason there's not a match between population base and health care delivery base is because the institutions aren't distributed on a population basis, a community basis. The health care institutions are not distributed in that fashion.

[5:45]

Hon. Chair, noting the hour and the particular. . . . I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

B. Barisoff: I had the opportunity this weekend to meet with Chief Clarence Louie about the Haynes claim, and with the acting mayor, Mr. Bill Ross, and the new mayor, Linda Larsen, in Oliver. Because they have tied the irrigation canal and the Haynes land claim together according to Chief Clarence Louie, I would like to ask the minister whether it would be possible to set up a meeting this week with both the town of Oliver and representatives from the Osoyoos Indian band.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, and perhaps either during the debate or later, the hon. member and I can discuss the advisability of inviting officials from other ministries, as well, to the meeting.

B. Barisoff: I think that it would probably be excellent if we had maybe some people from Municipal Affairs. It's just 

[ Page 3304 ]

that the window is closing so quickly for the town of Oliver and that irrigation canal. It's so imperative that we get this done. We're probably into the last week, according to the acting mayor, who used to be the SOLID manager that ran the irrigation district years ago. It's closing up so tight that it's just almost imperative that we get it done in the next two or three days -- probably before Thursday.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I could begin by inquiring of the minister. . . . It has become a practice now, over the past number of years, for the opposition to request of all the ministries certain documentation. We have increasingly become dependent, it seems, on the freedom-of-information legislation, and that now seems to be the channel which most of these requests are obliged to follow. We have in the past requested things like the ministerial briefing book and transition documents, and they tend to be blanket requests made across the board.

We have heard lately of the amount of time and energy that is devoted complying with those requests and sifting through the material and deleting material from those documents that the government believes it is entitled to delete. I suppose my point around this is: it seems it has become somewhat counterproductive. If, for example, the opposition is entitled to receive a good portion of the ministerial briefing book that the minister will be relying upon this year through these estimates -- and that request will go in -- perhaps that whole process can be short-circuited and expedited. Can the minister indicate now whether he is prepared to provide that particular document, subject to the deletions that one would logically expect insofar as cabinet security and privileges are concerned? And if not, perhaps he can indicate why, from an executive branch perspective, that poses a difficulty.

Hon. J. Cashore: It depends on what the document is. If the hon. member wants particular documents, I would suggest that he make a request, and then we will respond as we are able and take all the information within that document into consideration in responding.

M. de Jong: I think that therein lies part of the difficulty. Government -- and I don't think this minister is an exception in that respect -- appears to be taking the view now that it will use the FOI legislation as a form of shield. It was, in my humble opinion -- and certainly if you believe what the ministers and the Premier of the day said -- supposed to be enabling legislation. Unfortunately, any request -- it's not just opposition and it's not just media, though the statistics suggest that those are amongst the largest utilizers of the process. . . . Anyone in British Columbia seeking information out of government is now almost automatically told on the phone or in a letter that if they wish to gain access to a particular file or particular documentation, the avenue available to them is to make a formal request. That triggers a whole bunch of things: 30-day waits, which inevitably become 90-day waits as the particular ministry or government branch requests an extension. . . .

I guess the point is this. If the material is destined to be released in any event -- and today is a good example -- and I ask the minister whether he is prepared to make the deletions to his ministerial briefing book that he believes are appropriate. . . . Surely he is in a position to say today: "Yes, I will release that material to you." The need to invoke all that the freedom-of-information apparatus implies wouldn't be necessary.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is right. FOI does have a shield built into it, and that is a very valid reason for protecting certain types of information: protecting negotiating positions, that sort of thing.

A good example was the other day when we had our discussion with regard to the Osoyoos situation. I did not feel I could reveal at that time what the Osoyoos negotiating position was. But over the weekend, I undertook to check that out and have a response on that. I'm able to give a very quick response without ever going through any FOI process. But I did say that if there are particular documents the member wishes to have, I think I can leave it with my deputy to ascertain whether it requires the checks and balances of FOI or whether it's a document that he is able to make available on a more timely basis.

M. de Jong: I'm not certain I understand where that has taken us. If today I were, for example, to request that the minister undertake to provide his briefing book along the lines of those that have been requested in past years, is he prepared to do so?

Hon. J. Cashore: The usual process with a briefing book is that it would go through the FOI process. But I would remind the hon. member that I made the deputy minister available for a direct person-to-person briefing. I think he was very forthcoming at that time, in terms of immediacy with regard to answering questions and providing information.

[2:45]

Mine is a question that relates more to the process by which the opposition, and ultimately the public, obtain the information that is used by government to make various decisions. Quite frankly, my desire to see that expedited beyond the schedule that presently exists, where delays are part and parcel of the FOI exercise. . . . I think there are things we can do to expedite that process.

Hon. J. Cashore: Where we can expedite making information available, we will. I think we have the kind of open door by which it is possible for my office to hear about those requests. Where we are able to expedite them, we will.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I could ask the Attorney General. . .the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. . .

Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you.

M. de Jong: Yes. I'm not sure he would consider that a promotion or not.

. . .to go to page 51 of the blue book. I think I warned him last day that I would engage in something of an examination of some of the numbers. One of the things that the deputy minister did alert me to when we met was the change in numbers. I'm dealing now with the FTEs that appeared in last year's blue book and with what appears now. I think if you go to the appropriate schedule, there is a tertiary explanation given for why it went up from, I believe, 175 to 188, and that it involves the transfer of students -- I think the word "co-op" is used. Maybe the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs could explain to me again what that is, how that came about and why it came about.

[ Page 3305 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: To the best of my knowledge, last year co-op students were assigned to a global figure in the Ministry of Finance, whereas the following year they were assigned to each ministry -- hence the discrepancy.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate how many co-op students we're dealing with here? Quite frankly, what is a co-op student?

Hon. J. Cashore: We believe the number of co-op students was 13, as close as we can ascertain right now. Co-op students are students that come to work for government, in this case through a secondary institution. Their length of employment is three to four months. It is a temporary hiring. It's with the purpose of enhancing their skills in an area in which they are receiving education.

M. de Jong: Do I understand, then, that there would have been perhaps in the neighbourhood of 40 or 50 different individuals involved? If the appointments are three to four months, and we're talking about 13 FTEs, the number of individuals would have been greater.

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be a greater number, but not as many as 50. I believe that some of these students will have done two terms.

M. de Jong: What do they do?

Hon. J. Cashore: They provide support in virtually all branches of our ministry, whether it's administration, treaty negotiations, the work that's being done out in the field; sometimes it's research. It's working closely with the permanent employees on job assignments. I think sometimes they will, over the course of a co-op term, receive quite a variety of experience.

M. de Jong: Can you indicate where these employees are recruited from? I, for some reason, have the impression that we're talking about a student-like employment situation. Can you indicate where these students are recruited from and what sort of typical assignment they might have?

Hon. J. Cashore: They're recruited from places like the University of Victoria and Camosun College. They do qualify as employment.

M. de Jong: We're talking about 13 FTEs, which, if that is the correct figure, took the total from 175 to 188. The figure this year is 152. Can the minister indicate how many of those 152 FTEs represent co-op students?

Hon. J. Cashore: For the current fiscal year, the answer is seven.

M. de Jong: I wonder if the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs can indicate what precipitated the change in accounting mechanisms. I say it with this in mind: there's a great suspicion, I think, on the part of the public that governments -- and I don't just single out this government -- generally tend to manipulate figures around things like spending and employment numbers in a way that presents them in the most favourable light or sends the message that government wishes to send at that particular time. For this minister now to be able to say, "I have cut the FTEs within my department from 188 to 152," shows a significant reduction in the number of FTEs, except for the fact that the reduction isn't nearly as dramatic when one considers the change in accounting, if I can call it that, that took place just last year -- actually, during the course of the year.

Hon. J. Cashore: I see the point that the hon. member is making. The fact is that we can tell from figures of the actual full-time FTEs -- non-co-op students that were cut -- that it was quite significant. Also, if you take the budget reduction and compare that, I think that tends to confirm that there was quite a significant cut in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. There may be some mitigation, though, given the issue around co-op students; I'm not saying that's not a factor. But when you look at the actual numbers of positions cut from the ministry, I think that it is significant.

M. de Jong: Can the minister help me here? If I have followed this through, there were 175 FTEs last year, not counting the 13 co-op students. We know that there are 152 FTEs listed this year, including seven co-op students. How many non-co-op student FTEs have been cut from the establishment for this year?

Hon. J. Cashore: The question, as I understand it, is: how many non-co-op student FTEs have been cut? We have somebody just doing some work on that, so I'll answer that in a few minutes.

The answer is that there were 36 positions eliminated. As I understand it, those are non-co-op positions that were eliminated. Out of those 36, 12 were vacant.

[3:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I want to suggest that we give staff about an hour to sort out some figures and come back. Hopefully, I can satisfy the hon. member's question when I have all that before me.

M. de Jong: In terms of processes within the ministry, can the minister indicate. . . ? When a decision is made -- as was done midstream last year to add in this case 13 FTEs to his establishment -- what sort of budgeting processes within the ministry kick in? How do you pay for those additional FTEs?

Hon. J. Cashore: Could I have clarification? Is this question in reference to co-op students?

M. de Jong: I did cloak it around the co-op student issue, because that's what happened last year, apparently. But it's equally applicable to when the minister himself defined the additional FTEs that weren't co-op students.

Hon. J. Cashore: It basically comes through the budgeting process that involves Treasury Board, both in terms of FTEs and dollars. We assign FTE positions in relation to the availability of funds that we have.

M. de Jong: Do I understand, then, in the case of the 13 co-op students, that when that assignment of FTEs took place, there was an additional allocation of funds that went to the ministry to pay for them?

[ Page 3306 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, the salary dollars were included. So while it might have resulted in hiring more than one or two co-op students in each case, those salary dollars are included. I think I explained before that they are usually about a three-month appointment.

M. de Jong: Where would that appear in the reconciliations that exist in schedule A? I note that the initial amount for '96-97 was $31.985 million. That amount appears again beside the figure of 175 FTEs, and the only additional amount referred to is $1 million for claims and negotiations. So where would that additional funding appear in the reconciliations?

Hon. J. Cashore: Could the hon. member refer me to the page in the blue book where he's referring to the reconciliation?

M. de Jong: I'm in the blue book for the year ending 1998, at page 265.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the comparison is being made between one year's blue book and the next year's blue book. But there's no reconciling item in this case, because there is a change in the FTEs but not in the dollars.

M. de Jong: In fact, there was a change in the dollars. But it doesn't appear to relate to that area of the ministerial budget that involves the allocation of FTEs.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: From that, I take it there was no increase in the ministry's global budget beyond the $1 million referred to there. Am I incorrect to assume therefore that funds to pay the additional FTEs were found elsewhere in the minister's global budget, as opposed to his receiving additional funding beyond the amount that was discussed in last year's estimates?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is no additional funding given to us for the co-op students.

M. de Jong: At the risk of parroting the minister's remarks, then where did the money come from?

Hon. J. Cashore: It was included in the base budget.

M. de Jong: Is there a process when the ministry discovers that it has assumed responsibility for funding 13 additional full-time-equivalent employees? Is there an internal budgetary process that is undertaken to find money to do that? There are, as the minister correctly points out, different branches within his ministry. The co-op students in this case were assigned different responsibilities; they undoubtedly. . . . I haven't asked, and perhaps I should at this point: how much money are we talking about, with 13 additional FTEs?

Hon. J. Cashore: The amount is $450,000. We have had co-op students for several years, and the process has been the same. We have included them in the budgeting process.

M. de Jong: Do I understand, then, that formerly the ministry budgeted for FTEs that were not allocated to it? Am I correct to say that in former years, when I looked at these same documents, the ministry budget was. . . ? It would have been impossible for me to know how many employees the ministry was actually paying.

Hon. J. Cashore: Formerly the actual dollars were budgeted.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry. The minister said: "Formerly the actual dollars were budgeted." My question is. . . .

Hon. J. Cashore: It was the dollars but not the FTEs, because as the member has established, there was a change from the time when those FTEs were globally stated.

M. de Jong: Since I have drawn the minister to page 265, schedule A, and I have referred to the $1 million, which appears to be the only alteration besides the FTE issue that we are dealing with, I wonder if. . . . Well, two things actually derive from it.

One last point on the issue I've belaboured somewhat here: what is the difference, insofar as the FTEs are concerned, between the 11 in the "Transfer from Across Government" line and FTEs not previously counted? What is the distinction there? We have been talking about 13 co-op students, but there appears to be a difference between some of them.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is right about the figure of 11 and not 13. He'll notice that on the next line there's a reference to "two." We think that that may be, again, coming out of another component, but we don't have that with us right now. It might have to do with some global funding for information technology. That's possibly the answer.

M. de Jong: Again, not to belabour this: do we believe that there were 13 co-op students, or 11 and two other FTEs?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct. It would be 11 co-op and two that were not defined as co-op.

M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister -- I think he's already done this -- could ascertain just who those two FTEs are.

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll bring that back.

M. de Jong: I guess my last submission on that point is. . . . I had the misfortune to spend an evening or two with the opposition Finance critic, who introduced me to the blue books and has begun to try to teach me the significance of what some of the lines are. They are very difficult documents. Well, actually, I can say now that the documents themselves aren't that difficult. Understanding the processes behind them and fundamental sorts of questions like how much money is being spent and how many employees government has are issues that are very difficult, as we're discovering here today.

[3:15]

[ Page 3307 ]

ourselves to a point where we can establish with some certainty how many people are working for government for a particular ministry, what they are doing, what they are being paid -- and if that changes, account for it properly.

The other figure that I wanted to query the minister about that appears on page 265, schedule A, is the $1 million dealing with claims and negotiations. As best as I can determine, when I look at the. . . . I am relying upon the description that appears on page 54 of what that money might be for, but maybe the minister can help me. What was the additional million dollars required for and ultimately spent on?

Hon. J. Cashore: In the previous fiscal year, it was in the Ministry of Finance under contingencies. That line ministry fund is now within this ministry, and that money is in support of treaty negotiations in such categories as studies -- the kind of work that needs to be done in order to be able to support the negotiating process.

M. de Jong: If I tell the minister that I am relying on the treaty negotiations section found on page 54, which indicates that this vote "provides for the coordination and management of the province's participation in negotiating treaties with first nations," and that "provision is made for grants and contributions to the B.C. Treaty Commission to fund operations. . . ." He can read it as well as I can. Am I looking at the right portion of the budget to determine where this additional $1 million is going and out of which it will be spent?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is the right page.

M. de Jong: And I take it the right portion of the budget.

I am proceeding on the basis that a request was made by the minister for the additional funding. He may tell me differently and simply indicate that it was offered to him. But it was presumably requested for a specific purpose, and I'm wondering if the minister can offer a little more particularity on what the request for those moneys hinges around. Is it money that the Treaty Commission requires? Is it funding for grants to first nations? I think it is fair that we press the minister a little bit on what those additional moneys are earmarked for.

Hon. J. Cashore: That money goes through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to line ministries, to enable them in the support work they do in the area of treaty negotiations only. None of that $1 million goes to grants; none of it goes to the Treaty Commission. It is in support of additional work that line ministries have to do in order to support the need for information and data that are necessary to proceed in the treaty negotiations arena.

M. de Jong: I thought I heard the minister indicate previously that he was under the impression that a portion of that funding might be for the conduct of studies. If those are studies being undertaken by line ministries, he may not be aware of that. However, I presume he can provide information with respect to any Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs - related studies that those funds might be earmarked for.

Hon. J. Cashore: The control of this fund is within the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. These issues are discussed in the deputy ministers committee on aboriginal affairs, which is chaired by Mr. Ebbels. This money is available to all line ministries that have been requested to provide support information -- and it could be in the form of studies. That includes the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, as well; in other words, not the entire amount of that $1 million necessarily goes out to other line ministries. It could be that some of this work is done within the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

M. de Jong: By the time a figure like $1 million appears in the blue book, some discussion has taken place around its anticipated use, and a proposed budget for its expenditure would exist within the ministry. Is that a correct assumption on my part?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a very rough estimate. There are a variety of possibilities, a variety of needs that could be requests on that fund. It's the very nature of the treaty-making process that you can't have the specificity in those budget projections that would really say, "Okay, X number of dollars are going for this particular project," because the most important projects, to some extent, emerge as the treaty negotiation process unfolds. So it is. . . . I don't know if "admittedly" is the right word, but we certainly do recognize up front that that is a very rough estimate. It had been $2 million up until a couple of years ago, and the requests for the use of this fund are greater than the fund is able to support.

M. de Jong: I was interested in the minister's comments regarding the use of that fund in past years. I do not recall seeing that line ministry fund appear as such in past documents, but I may not have been reading the documents correctly.

Hon. J. Cashore: I thought that we had agreed on that a little earlier in the discussion, in that we recognized that that had been under contingencies in the Ministry of Finance budget prior to it becoming an item in the actual Aboriginal Affairs budget. So the hon. member is correct. That line was not there up until two years ago; I think two years ago is right. As I said, out of that contingency fund $2 million had been available to us; now it's $1 million.

M. de Jong: I think I understand, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong. Formerly there was $2 million that appeared in a fund which didn't show up in his budgetary documentation but which was under his administrative charge. It now appears for the first time in his budgetary documents. It has been reduced to $1 million, and his ministry is charged with the task of dispensing it to other line ministries.

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.

M. de Jong: If I can return to this point. . . . I understand the minister and his staff might have some difficulty in establishing fixed amounts that would serve as a destination for some of these moneys -- and I'm talking again about the million-dollar line ministry fund -- but we have now had some years of experience, and presumably the ministry has some appreciation, in a general way, of where the source of demand for these moneys is going to be. I'm only guessing, but in all likelihood the draw on those moneys is going to be greater from a ministry of energy, mines and resources, or from Lands and Parks, than perhaps from Women's Equality. But I might be wrong. Surely the minister or his staff are in a position, based on past experience, to offer some information about where they anticipate those moneys will end up.

[ Page 3308 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I will undertake to get to the hon. member the actual written criteria. Subject to the FOI screen, we will also get to him within the next two days, possibly one day, the actual listings of the ministries and the projects.

I just want to say, though, that the hon. member is right that the vast majority of these projects are in the resource ministries.

M. de Jong: I take it from that answer -- and I appreciate the minister's offer -- that a set of guidelines does exist by which line ministries can guide themselves insofar as determining whether an application will be made for funding. If that is the case, is that the material that the minister is referring to?

[3:30]

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate what generally triggers an application on these moneys? I'm trying to think this through. Is it generally something that arises at the table? Is it something that the Treaty Commission would precipitate by contacting a line ministry in their role of facilitator? Is it something that a ministry itself would undertake in anticipation of an issue cropping up? I'm trying to get a better handle on what precipitates an application.

Hon. J. Cashore: I can tell you that the Treaty Commission would not be involved. But an example could be that if data is needed with regard to wildlife resources where the issue of wildlife availability is being discussed. . . . Therefore there is a need for data to be able to support the information base that's required in order to be able to carry out those negotiations.

M. de Jong: In those circumstances, is it always a case of the request coming from the line ministry?

Just so the minister knows where I'm going, during the course of our deliberations on the standing committee, one of the things was -- and the minister has heard it more than I -- that we were confronted by the frustration expressed by many of the parties to negotiations, both aboriginal groups and third parties, with the difficulty they indicate they are having in accessing information via the line ministries. It's something we'll return to later in these deliberations, I'm sure. But if there is a mechanism available, or funding, that would speed and expedite the availability of that information or the collection of that data, I think any one of those groups will be interested, and the minister and the line ministries may receive submissions from them on that point.

Hon. J. Cashore: A typical way in which a request would come in is one where you have the province's negotiating team, the line ministries are represented, and information is needed with regard to an area that comes under the mandate of that line ministry. Therefore, because they are represented there and are privy to what is taking place in the negotiations, that request will come in. But that is a request that also comes from the negotiating team, in a way, because that line ministry representative is also part of the negotiating team in those discussions that he or she participates in. Therefore that request would then go to this ministry so that they may get some of those funds to get that data and that information.

With regard to the very valid point the member made about some of the frustrations that are out there on the part of third parties and on the part of some first nations about trying to get data and information, it is true that there are real concerns around the capacity to be able to deal with a lot of these new requests and requirements that people are dealing with. There may be some information coming through from these studies that would be useful in that way, but I don't really think that this is a source of a great deal of help for those who are trying to deal with some specific issue that has come up that is of particular concern to them.

M. de Jong: Just before I leave this point, the last comment the minister made leads me to believe, then, that the kind of studies that are contemplated, the kind of work, would be something other than a wildlife count, for example, or a. . . . Well, I'll let the minister. . . . I'm trying to get a better handle on what it is -- what kind of information-gathering is taking place.

Hon. J. Cashore: It certainly could be a wildlife count if it was in that area, and it certainly could come up with information that was valuable information to all parties. But I think that there's another context in which third parties and first nations also desire to be able to get information. So it's not necessarily that this would be the primary way in which they would seek to do that.

M. de Jong: When I leaf through the blue books, as I do on any given evening, and the government guides and what not, I note that in just about every ministry there is at least a department, if not an entire branch, dedicated to the task of aboriginal liaison. Now, I don't have the opportunity to question each and every minister in the kind of detail we're going into here about the activities of that branch, but presumably those budgets for those other line ministries include amounts of money dedicated to precisely the kind of work that we are talking about here. Certainly they have added personnel dedicated to the task of facilitating treaty negotiations and relations with first nations peoples.

I'm concerned about what appears to be a level of duplication. Or perhaps this is the minister's opportunity to indicate his frustration that a portion of his budget is being allocated to work that is more properly done by those other line ministries and therefore applicable to their budgets.

Hon. J. Cashore: Various line ministries have an allocation for the aboriginal component of their budgets, which is part of those ministries and not part of this ministry. Those are there to assist them in a variety of activities which have to do with our relationship with first nations. A significant number of those activities have to do with the province's obligation to consult -- under Delgamuukw, for instance -- and those are not necessarily treaty-related. There is also some activity that is treaty-related. . . . Just to point out that you could have a band that's not in the treaty process, but we still have an obligation to consult; or you could have a band that is in the treaty process but is not at a stage where it would preclude our need to consult. Those are fulfilments of activities that are required by law.

Also, there are some budgeted activities within those line ministries that do relate to the treaty process, so the line ministry fund is an amount that is over and above that. It enables certain work to be done that otherwise would not be done. I just want to say that, no, I don't want to declare any disappointment about these funds not being in my ministry. My goal is to eliminate the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs at the earliest possible time through the successful resolution of a number of issues. I'm sure the hon. member agrees with that.

[ Page 3309 ]

M. de Jong: Well, the minister's expression of his hope could take us down an entirely different path, but I'm resolved to stick to the numbers for the next little while at least.

Am I correct in assuming that, for example, within the. . . ? Within the Forests ministry, a tremendous amount of work has been undertaken providing data and material information relevant to Treaty Commission negotiations. The main tables, the side tables, the TNACs and the RACs obtain a great deal of their information on the forestry sector from the Ministry of Forests. Under what circumstances would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs foresee an application being made by the Ministry of Forests to access this additional money?

Hon. J. Cashore: For instance, the treaty table might require that a timber cruise be done in an area that would not necessarily be done under the budgeted plans of the ministry for that particular year.

M. de Jong: So in those circumstances, would it be a specific request received by the ministry from a treaty negotiating table?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, they're all specific requests. They would, as such, be requests for items that haven't already been anticipated in those ministries' budgets.

M. de Jong: So when we receive the documentation that the minister alluded to earlier, any other requests for funding from line ministries, except possibly for requests relating to McLeod Lake or the Nisga'a round, would relate to Treaty Commission negotiations. Is that a correct statement for me to make?

[3:45]

M. de Jong: On page 54 of the blue book for this year, under group account classification. . . . I'll ask this quickly; I'm not sure anything turns on it. I notice that the designation for that group account, "Support to Treaty Negotiations and Other Initiatives," has changed from past years, where it was simply "Aboriginal Affairs Programs." Does anything turn on that new designation?

Hon. J. Cashore: No, it's just an improved description. It would have been better if that had been the description before that.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can now take the minister to Supplement to the Estimates. If I had the page reference. . . . I don't have it for this year. I don't know if the minister has that material available to him. I think it's pages 30 and 31 of the supplement. As I went through and compared the information that's here with past years, my observation is that there's perhaps good news and bad news, depending on one's perspective, but there is a significant amount of change within the minister's budget. I'd like to explore some of those changes within the various numbered categories that appear there. I will preface my questions with what I believe is the change that has occurred in the past year, anyway.

I start with No. 7, which is the section, I believe, dedicated to grants to boards and commissions and courts -- I think is the designation in the document -- where it has gone up about 45 percent to $540,000. I'm wondering if the minister can provide a description of the increase related to that particular budget item.

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to clarify if we're on the right line. I thought the hon. member referred to a 40 percent increase, but I believe the line says a 4 percent increase, so I just want to clarify that.

M. de Jong: Well, here's where I will be tested to know whether I have read the document first. I'm looking at line No. 7, "Support to Treaty Negotiations and Other Initiatives," and the amount there is $540,000. My reading of last year's material indicates that the comparable amount was $371,000.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, the reason for that is that there's a bit of apples and oranges in the way in which those two blue books reported under that category. So the hon. member's arithmetic is right. What we will endeavour to do is get the bits and pieces out of the earlier blue book in order to point out how that is indeed a 4 percent difference.

M. de Jong: Maybe I can be of some assistance insofar as confirming the information that I have. As I understand it, in the past that figure would have related to contributions to TNAC and to something called a central region board. Is that the minister's understanding?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that's correct.

M. de Jong: Has something been added to that? Just so the minister knows where I'm going, presumably he is in a position -- or his staff is, at least -- to indicate what the grant to TNAC would be out of that budget line.

Hon. J. Cashore: I've just been advised that the money for the regional advisory committees, which was originally in STOB 20, has now been included within this STOB. I think that accounts for most of the discrepancy.

With regard to the money for TNAC, it's not a grant. This would primarily be the cost of operating TNAC through the per diems of the members and, I think, the cost of holding meetings.

I think the hon. member knows what the central region board is, but we can clarify that if we need to.

M. de Jong: What is the anticipated pay-out amount this year for TNAC specifically?

Hon. J. Cashore: For TNAC and the regional advisory committees, the total amount is $280,000.

M. de Jong: In addition, is the minister aware of anything beyond the transfer of the RACs from STOB 20 to STOB 7 that would account for the increase?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that there is no other factor there.

M. de Jong: Then I take it that the cost of operating the RACs accounts for the difference, the 45 percent increase?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

[ Page 3310 ]

M. de Jong: Going to STOB 10, the public servant travel section, I think the minister will happily point out that the figure for support to treaty negotiations and other initiatives has dropped -- based on my math. My figures tell me that it has dropped from $480,000 to $326,000, and on the face of it, that is good news. I have some questions around that, and part of my job, I suppose, is to recognize where there have been some improvements but also to urge the minister and the ministry to find further savings where it is practicable to do so. One of the questions I want to ask the minister is: to what extent did the government's freeze on non-essential travel impact on his ministry operations? I understand that it was a freeze on non-essential travel, and I wonder whether or not his ministry was able to settle on a definition of what was essential and what was non-essential.

Hon. J. Cashore: The deputy had to approve every travel request. There were a few that were turned down, but most were accepted because the very nature of the treaty negotiations required travel to various parts of the province.

M. de Jong: Has the practice within the ministry always been that for any travel by any one of the 150 or 175 employees or FTEs, they would seek deputy-ministerial approval before they go anywhere?

Hon. J. Cashore: No, that's not the case.

M. de Jong: So did that change following the edict -- I think it was the Finance ministry's or even the Premier's Office's -- with respect to non-essential travel?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

M. de Jong: When did that change take place? At what point was approval for travel restricted to deputy ministerial-approved travel?

Hon. J. Cashore: We can get that date more precisely. I believe it was some time in October, but I can't say with absolute certainty.

M. de Jong: The document that I'm going to refer to now is one I think the minister is familiar with. The auditor general conducted and recently released a report dealing with management of travel. I thought it was appropriate for us to discuss its contents here -- again, not because this minister's budget includes the largest allocation in all of government for travel.

But there is a sense, particularly in the northern and outlying areas of the province, that there is an exceptional amount of travel around the treaty negotiating process. Sometimes that has led to questions both in those communities and elsewhere that the process itself is hampered by the fact that we have these teams, be it aboriginal or governmental, traipsing off across the province, landing in a community, spending three days and going somewhere else. There's a whole host of questions that have arisen and that are presented, particularly to the standing committee, about that exercise. So if the minister will indulge me, I will try to go through some of the summaries and just ascertain to what extent the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is in sync with some of the recommendations and where perhaps some improvements can be made in that respect.

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll get the answer to that question.

M. de Jong: The auditor general points to a Treasury Board review that was done in March '96, and I think the minister was in charge of this ministry at that point -- in fact, I know he was. A number of recommendations were made out of that process. It is his finding that across the government there could be savings in the range of $5 million if those recommendations had been implemented. He goes on to chronicle where they were, where they weren't and his frustrations on that issue. Now, surely $5 million isn't going to be found in this minister's budget. But I'm interested to know to what extent those Treasury Board review recommendations have been considered and which, if any, have been implemented in the Aboriginal Affairs ministry.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs I would not expect that there was a significant reduction in the amount of travel, because it was my view that the amount of travel that was available to us had been. . . . We had been in a -- the word "difficult" isn't quite right. . . . But we'd been in a challenging position with regard to the allocations that we have available to us, given the burgeoning need for consultation dealing with a variety of issues, both under the treaty negotiation umbrella and under other umbrellas that we were responsible for. So I would not expect that there had been a major change in Aboriginal Affairs at that time, because I think the volume was very significant.

I also point out that in the context of treaty negotiations, one of the dilemmas that I always have as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, when we are dealing with other treaty teams, is that my observation is that the federal government has a lot more available to put into this process. In the meetings that I have attended, I would say that our officials attending negotiating meetings are going up against much larger components. There is the fact that when you go up against other negotiators to try to get the best for your own mandate and the people you represent, you need the people there that at least can be making sure that every issue is being addressed in the most diligent, thorough way.

M. de Jong: Well, I couldn't agree more. I think British Columbians do expect that the team representing their interests in these negotiations with other levels of government and with aboriginal peoples be the best people available, be the best briefed and have the best background in the issues that are important so that they can advocate actively and effectively on behalf of British Columbians.

In my last question, I stated it in a rather clumsy way. The auditor general referred to a Treasury Board series of recommendations that followed a review in March of last year. It indicates that each ministry was charged with the task of implementing those recommendations. Apparently he has now found that it took place with varying degrees of success. I'm just curious which of those recommendations were implemented in this ministry and what effect the ministry found.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we have undertaken some measures, such as videoconferencing, conference telephone 

[ Page 3311 ]

meetings, regional workshops -- these kinds of things. Indeed, we have a major thrust on trying to achieve economies of scale by encouraging first nations, where possible, to negotiate issues on a regional basis rather than on a first nations basis. I haven't got anything in front of me where we have any direct feedback from the auditor general with regard to the stewardship in this ministry, but I do believe that he would find these kinds of measures consistent with what he is proposing.

M. de Jong: Well, not to mislead the minister, but as he might expect, I pored through the document in an attempt to determine whether his ministry might have been singled out either for accolade or for criticism; that doesn't exist. There is, I suggest, an overall expression of disappointment about where government has gone, but I didn't find any indication that he was particularly upset with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, beyond his general expressions.

He says in this report: "The responsibility for developing and implementing government travel policies and procedures is shared by several central agencies as well as individual ministries." He leads into this question that without assigned central responsibility for monitoring how travel dollars are spent in government and without reviewing the extent to which policies are effective, it will remain difficult for government to know whether its purchasing power is being maximized and whether its policies are accomplishing what they intended.

I suppose what he's getting at is a more centralized purchasing exercise. He goes on at length about the potential savings that will result from a consolidation of the per-travel purchasing exercise. I wonder: can the minister explain how that exercise takes place within his ministry when negotiating teams are sent about? How are travel arrangements made?

Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that there hasn't been any fundamental change in the way in which this ministry does its travel purchases. I think that anybody analyzing the task of this ministry would agree that it's being handled in a way of effective stewardship. But we're dealing with situations where we do have to be able to respond to circumstances all over the province. As I've said before, we are trying to mitigate those costs by video-conferencing and telephone conferencing where we can, regional workshops. . . .

I can also say that in the treaty process. . . . I don't know if the Treaty Commission would jump up and down and recognize this, but ever since I became the minister, it really has been the province leading the fight to try to gain the recognition that the dollars available for that process are finite. And if we are going to be able to manage the number of tables necessitated by the number of first nations coming into the process -- originally there was an anticipation of about 32, and we ended up with either 47 or 49 statements of claim coming through -- we must say: "Look, the only way we can do this is by achieving economies of scale."

I'm very confident that if the auditor general were to take a little time and review the stewardship within this ministry, there would be some places he could point out that we could improve. I think he would also recognize that there have been some good economies achieved there.

M. de Jong: In fairness to the auditor general, I think he did take time to examine this issue right across government. It may be that what is taking place in this ministry should become the model for what occurs elsewhere. But we won't know, unless we explore in a little bit more detail what actually occurs, whether that is consistent with the vision set out by the auditor general.

I suppose the issue is that when. . . . Quite frankly, insofar as treaty negotiations are concerned, I can't think of an aspect of government that might lend itself better to some of the cost-saving measures that the auditor general refers to in terms of centralized purchasing. We do have a negotiating schedule. The minister is right: occasionally there will be incidents that occur that require instant reaction and are difficult to plan for. But by and large, negotiating schedules themselves are set; the people who are involved are known. I wonder if the minister can explain to what extent there is centralized purchasing within his ministry. The auditor general is suggesting that we go further and I think is suggesting centralized purchasing within government. If, as a member of a negotiating team, it's determined that I have to be in New Aiyansh on July 4, how does that happen? Do I make the arrangements, or is there some central agency that does it?

Hon. J. Cashore: The team administrators on the various treaty teams make the travel arrangements. But I can tell you that, for instance, if you were to take a look at the Nisga'a team, when they go to New Aiyansh they stay three or four to a room in trailers that are available there. They don't make other more expensive arrangements or spend valuable hours driving back and forth to Terrace, where they can be in comfortable accommodations.

One of the factors I also have to weigh with all of our teams is the stress that this brings about on their families because of the amount of time that they're on the road, when they're trying to maximize the value of the cost of getting them up into a particular area, when perhaps the more prudent thing -- from a family point of view -- would be to travel home and have some time with them that way. I can say without a doubt that there are very real and genuine efforts to function in a way of good stewardship.

[4:15]

M. de Jong: I understand the practice in this committee has been to take a short break. I don't know if the appropriate motion is to move a short. . . .

The Chair: No. We'll just take a recess. Thank you, member, for the suggestion. If all members agree, we'll take a recess until 4:30.

The committee recessed from 4:16 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

M. de Jong: Just before we move on to something else, if I could continue and finish up on this whole issue of travel. . . . The auditor general makes this observation -- I underlined it because I can certainly see the potential for it coming into play in any ministry: "Travel decisions and claims currently are based on reimbursement entitlements rather than on making choices that provide the best value for money."

I think what the auditor general is saying there is that. . . . In fact, he goes on to cite an example, and the one he gives is 

[ Page 3312 ]

that a round-trip ticket from Ottawa to Victoria costs about $1,800. But if there had been an earlier booking that included a Saturday night layover, the airfare could be reduced to $550 -- a substantial savings, he rightly points out, even when the cost of the additional accommodation is taken into account. What is happening within the Aboriginal Affairs ministry to protect against that kind of thing taking place?

Hon. J. Cashore: Generally, that is the way it works in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. If any screen was done over the period for which I've been the minister, I'm quite certain that the cost of out-of-province travel, year over year, would decrease in each of those years. I don't have those numbers in front of me, but I can tell the hon. member that as the minister, I don't think I have been out of province for two years. And when the minister goes out of province, usually the deputy goes.

It is true that there have been meetings that the deputy has attended on my behalf. It's also true that in the case of the deputy minister, given that in many ways time is money, if you never make an exception to the kind of consideration which gets you the cheaper airline costs, then sometimes you're depriving the work area that the deputy is supposed to do. He's tied up waiting overnight. But the standard is that wherever possible, we do go for the most cost-effective ticketing with regard to airline travel.

M. de Jong: The auditor general said: "One initiative to reduce the cost of providing travel advances and obtain information on government travel has been the voluntary use of a corporate travel card. However, it has not gained wide acceptance among travellers. . . ." He goes on -- and I'll talk about this in a moment -- describing what he sees as the benefits of a corporate travel card. Is that a method of booking travel that has been adopted by the Aboriginal Affairs ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's not a method of booking travel; it's a method of paying for travel, and it is used within the ministry. I couldn't answer a question right now on, for instance, what percentage, but I'm advised that it is used within the ministry.

M. de Jong: The auditor general points out that as of July '96, only 24 percent of all government travellers -- and again, he is applying this across the board -- have availed themselves of the travel card. He points out, as well, that for that small percentage who are using it, it results in savings of almost $600,000 annually in interest and processing costs and that a further $350,000 in savings could result if another 30 percent of temporary travel advances were eliminated. So the potential for savings that he identifies is, I would suggest, significant. Can the minister indicate whether his staff have formulated a plan that would see the expanded use of the travel-card option? I think it's an Amex card that the government has made arrangements for.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's our policy to promote the use of that credit card. We can't require it, but we can and do promote it. I believe, from what I'm advised, that it is receiving increasing use.

I just want to point out that often the question is in the context of: what is the plan within the ministry? But I think what's even more important than a particular plan is: what is the result? I guess you don't need a really comprehensive plan to say we're going to cut costs and mitigate travel costs to the greatest extent possible. I think that ethic does operate within this ministry.

I'll try to see if I can come up with some breakdowns that might assist me in making that point, but I'd just point out that a few weeks ago there was a meeting of interprovincial ministers of aboriginal affairs -- including the Territories and right across the provinces. This minister did not attend that conference; the deputy minister and one other senior member of our staff did. Each of them got their tickets on a seat sale for $300 return. It was in Regina. There was one of our staff who couldn't get the seat sale, whose travel was refused because that ticket would have cost somewhere close to $700. So that kind of approach is operating within this ministry.

M. de Jong: I think that's laudable, and the minister could justifiably point to the bottom line which, again, has seen a reduction in travel costs.

One of the last points I'll raise with respect to this issue relates to the government's travel review. It points out that only the Ministry of Health has a policy in place that requires the use of a single contracted travel agency to arrange airfares and make arrangements. The point is made that that ministry increased its discounts and was provided with rebates in the range of $1 million -- $900,000, actually -- over the period studied. Can the minister indicate whether. . . ? He's told me and the committee that a team of administrators make travel arrangements. Is there a requirement that team administrators make use of one particular agency to capitalize on all of the advantages that the auditor general refers to in his report?

Hon. J. Cashore: Generally, each team uses the same travel agency. There could be an exception to that. There is not the requirement right across all the teams that they use the same travel agency. We have been in touch with the Ministry of Health to see if we could work out a way of piggybacking onto their system. We are considering taking that advice.

M. de Jong: That would then require all travel to be booked through a centrally contracted travel agent. If we can just cut to the chase, is there a reason the minister can offer to the committee why it wouldn't make sense to utilize an agency? I am relying on what the auditor general has said. I prefer to use my own travel agent because I know the person, and that's what I like to do. The auditor general is saying there are significant savings available when you apply this model not just to this ministry but across government and that the overall potential for savings would run in the millions of dollars if government travel were coordinated in that fashion. If the minister has some reasoning that suggests that the auditor general is incorrect in trying to apply that to his ministry, then I think now is the time for him to say it.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I said, we are very seriously considering that, along the lines that have been referenced in the Ministry of Health. I would point out that I think there should be other companies in the travel industry -- other than perhaps the one that would end up having all this business -- who would be concerned about the government using only the one and them not having an opportunity. But I think that in the best of a free enterprise sense, we might want to think, at least from a philosophical point of view, about precluding the opportunity for competition, because competition itself can have a mitigating effect on cost. While I respect the advice of the auditor general, I think that is also perhaps a legitimate point of discussion to have with him around that recommendation.

[4:45]

[ Page 3313 ]

that what the auditor general is critical of in his report is the fact that on many occasions when individuals are off making their own travel arrangements, the benefits that might otherwise accrue, based on volume purchases and discount purchases, are being lost. As I said, in the case of one ministry he identifies close to $1 million in savings. I think what he is considering is the potential for duplicating that right across the government.

I have just two more items on this point. The auditor general examines the reimbursement rates for meals, incidentals and personal vehicle mileage, and he chronicles a group differentiation -- group one versus two, three and four -- and the different benefits that apply. The reimbursement for deputy ministers, for example, is somewhat larger than for others. Is that the same designation that applies within his ministry? Is the minister comfortable with the fact that he and his deputy can spend $20 more on food than, for example, the clerk who is travelling with them?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those designations are governmentwide. They are set by Treasury Board. I guess the question is whether I am comfortable with it. I think that we always need to be recognizing our responsibility to be frugal and not costing more than we should to carry out our work.

M. de Jong: Lest I may have left the wrong impression, I wasn't suggesting any lack of frugality on the part of the minister or his deputy. I was focusing more on the fact that I've always been curious. . . . When employees of any agency, government or otherwise, are sent on a trip, it has struck me as odd that one of them would be entitled to $40 for a meal and the other would only be entitled to $25 for a meal.

Hon. J. Cashore: The point the hon. member is making is a reasonable point, and one that I think is worthy of consideration. I would have to say from personal experience that by virtue of the designation of the minister or the deputy, there are times -- not every time, but there are times -- when you go into a setting for a meal for which, because of the fact that you're perhaps meeting with senior executives or people who are in that location, you have no other way of avoiding the cost. That's not that regular a requirement for people who aren't in those two designations. I'm not saying that as an aggressive counter, but I'm saying there is that consideration too. Sometimes there are expenses that by virtue of the position are greater expenses.

M. de Jong: The last point I'd like to explore arising out of the auditor general's report is one that the minister mentioned earlier, and that is the availability of videoconferencing facilities. The auditor general was not particularly kind, I would suggest, in his criticism of government generally not taking advantage of this as a service. I want to ask the minister to provide the committee with an indication of the uses -- a summary, if he can -- that his ministry has put videoconferencing to and whether those experiments, those exercises, have been successful.

Hon. J. Cashore: We don't have a breakdown on that. Notwithstanding the fact -- though the hon. member isn't suggesting this -- that we do need face-to-face meetings and negotiations as part of what we do, there have been a couple of conferences cited where it saved northern employees from having to travel down to the lower mainland. It saved them the cost of coming to the lower mainland, and it saved time. One instance involved the regional advisory committee members of the north central area, and there was another similar event. I'm also cognizant of other experiences that come to mind, where from time to time we were perhaps dealing with a situation in some part of the province where there was an action taking place that needed to be addressed on a wide number of fronts. There would be regular conference calls involving people in Victoria, people in Vancouver and people in the region where the incident was taking place.

M. de Jong: Is it fair for me to say that those uses of videoconferencing that have taken place have tended to be restricted to internal ministry matters? I guess the point I'm getting to, and the minister kind of alluded to it. . . . I'm wondering about -- without discounting the value of face-to-face negotiations -- the potential for employing this technology in actual negotiations. There are, I am told, 75 videoconferencing sites right across the province.

Again, when I think back on our experience travelling around the province, the amount of frustration displayed by all parties -- but, I have to say, most particularly aboriginal groups -- with the pace of negotiations and the fact that they will see a negotiating team for a couple of days and it will be two months before they're back face to face -- the logistical difficulties associated with transporting a group like that from one site to another. . . . Has the minister turned his mind to the potential for having intensive negotiations conducted by this relatively new videoconferencing technology?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think there's some really good ground to explore in that concept. I do know that in the federal-provincial cost-sharing negotiations, extensive use was made both of videoconferencing and of telephone conferencing. With regard to the concept of. . . . I can tell the hon. member I've had several meetings with, for instance, Joe Gosnell, in various forms of telephone conferencing. In terms of main table sessions, obviously that does go to the tripartite nature of what's happening there.

I think there are some things with regard to the aboriginal people where they see this as history in the making. It's a kind of event where they have an expectation that they're able to be present for that. But that shouldn't preclude that being discussed in that context, you know. I think that's a worthwhile suggestion.

M. de Jong: That's encouraging. I would say that amongst the first nations people I have spoken with. . . . I don't dispute what the minister is saying about the celebratory or ceremonial nature of many of the gatherings that take place around negotiations; I think that at times serves a very useful purpose.

But there is another argument that I have heard from many, including first nations people, about getting on with the job. There's nothing glamorous about hammering out a treaty, as the minister and deputy know full well. To consider that it might happen on a more regular, intensive basis via the new technology. . . . I can think of our caucus, the opposition caucus, having a tour a year ago of a facility at BCIT where all of the technology is available: the cameras, the computer linkup -- it's all there. I think we're missing an opportunity to expedite the process if we don't avail ourselves of this new technology.

On that point, the last thing I'll draw out of this auditor general's report is that funding -- I think $1.7 million -- was made available to individual ministries to develop this videoconferencing capability. The auditor general was not par-

[ Page 3314 ]

ticularly kind, again, in his comments based on the fact that a majority of ministries didn't bother to access the funds. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate to what extent his ministry took advantage of that freed-up funding.

Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that our ministry did not access those funds.

M. de Jong: The minister has access to the same report I have. He or his deputy will know that the auditor general found it unusual that many of the ministries would not have taken advantage of that. I'll just ask him if there was any reason why he would not have sought his share of that pie.

[5:00]

M. de Jong: I guess this kind of begs a question. The cost associated with that came from somewhere. Is the minister saying that they didn't need the money? If he didn't, I guess I'll go to other ministers and ask if they needed the money. It was $1.7 million.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. J. Cashore: I would mention that the $1.7 million goes right across government. There are some ministries that are, in terms of dollars, many, many times the size of this ministry. So on the whole, I don't think. . . . I suppose we could work out, on a prorated basis right across government, what might have been available to this ministry out of that $1.7 million. I doubt that it would have been a very significant amount. As I said, I think we have been diligent about using those kinds of approaches.

M. de Jong: My last two points on the issue. I note only that although the program was announced early in '96, by November of '96 some 70 percent of that total, or $1.2 million, was still there. No ministry had availed itself of its use. I guess the one thing I would ask, in this age of quantification and management by objective, is: if the minister is confident, as I think I've heard him say, that there are real cost savings to be effected by use of this technology, is he in a position where he can provide to the opposition his assessment, some numbers, that stipulate the savings he believes will occur over the next year by use of this technology?

Hon. J. Cashore: No, I don't think I can quantify that.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, it'll probably be a theme we return to time and time again. Understanding, and with the greatest respect, that the minister's intentions are clear and honourable, these blanket assurances that, "We'll do what we can; it'll happen, and good things will happen," are of little comfort to opposition members trying to pin the minister down on actual dollars and cents. But I think my friend from Vancouver-Langara has some questions.

V. Anderson: Let me follow up on the dollars and cents for a few minutes first. I notice this is the first year that STOB 80 has been erased from the report: 80 is no longer there, and there's just 82. Could the minister comment on why that has happened?

Hon. J. Cashore: Generally in the area of belt-tightening, we were dealing with significant cuts within this ministry. I made the decision that to be able to support other programs, we would have to cut that resource.

V. Anderson: Could the minister then explain what was cut as a result of the line that was 80, which. . . ? Last year, for instance, there was $100,000 there. What were the programs that were cut with that $100,000?

Hon. J. Cashore: The aboriginal initiatives fund was used for a wide variety of requested needs that were presented to us by first nations. Generally -- not 100 percent, but generally -- we required that it be an aboriginal organization that was making the request. So it could be all the way from a group holding a conference, a group of aboriginal women holding a conference on aboriginal women's issues and support funding for that; it could be a project; it could be a travel grant, where a group of aboriginal people were participating in an event that required travel; it could be, in some cases, support to a group that had an athletic base; it could be support to a group that was dealing with studies on issues that had to do with heritage or language; it could be support to the veterans of aboriginal ancestry. I think there were one or two grants that went to Métis organizations. Quite a variety. And generally, I believe the grants were under $5,000.

V. Anderson: I recognize, and that's helpful to hear. . . . Could the minister give his reason. . . ? I know those grants were greatly appreciated by those community groups. They enabled them to undertake some travel and developmental programs and community programs that just wouldn't have happened otherwise. So I wonder what the minister's rationale was for cutting back on those community-based programs, which were so fundamental to a lot of the community-based development initiatives and opportunities. I know that some of the travel grants for young people in sports and that kind of thing have been very significant.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I think the hon. member should bear in mind that the relationship with aboriginal people is one in which. . . . The province has entered that relationship in a wide variety of ways, but the historical responsibility in this area is with the federal government. The hon. member will be thoroughly aware of the Secretary of State and the support for friendship centres and the way that was unilaterally cut -- with very little concern being expressed, to my knowledge, by just about anybody. There's certainly not a lot of concern being expressed in a highly public way. Quietly those funds were withdrawn. We picked up the slack, and we still pick up slack on that. We still make annual grants to every friendship centre. So it's not as though we have abandoned the field of supporting aboriginal organizations, which constitutionally and traditionally is the responsibility of the federal government. We have done everything we possibly could. The reason for this is that there is a shortage of money. I had to make decisions, based on that shortage of money, as to where the money should most appropriately be spent. It should most appropriately be spent in those initiatives that build a new relationship and lead to the day when we get rid of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. When we get rid of that, of course, there wouldn't be such a fund at that time within that ministry.

[ Page 3315 ]

V. Anderson: I can't quite quote the minister's words, but he followed the pattern of the federal government in quietly withdrawing from certain kinds of services and programs that had been developed over a number of years and, like the federal government, just said: "Well, that's because we don't have money, and we're going to set up a new focus of arrangements." What I hear the minister saying in this particular phase is that they had accepted the model of the federal government and are doing exactly the same thing for these particular grant funds.

Hon. J. Cashore: That's an absolutely wrong misrepresentation of my words. These were not developed over a period of years; these are one-off grants. There's no comparison whatsoever between these grants and the historical responsibility the Department of Indian Affairs has.

V. Anderson: I don't want to get into an argument about that with the minister at this particular point.

In the overall budget of the grants and contributions, the first line is support to treaty negotiations and other initiatives; then the second line is treaty negotiations. We presume the second line is all treaty negotiations, and that will be dealt with later. But in the first line, which is treaty negotiations and other initiatives, what's the percentage that's spent in initiatives other than treaty negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's in the area of developing mandates, consultation and communication. In many instances, there's no clear line that divides whether it's treaty negotiations or more general activities. There are a number of things we do that have a kind of primary relationship to treaty negotiations, but not exclusively.

V. Anderson: Over the last three years, the contributions have changed significantly in the area of that line. At the present time, they're $5 million. I mean, under No. 82, the contributions have gone down from $5 million-plus to $2 million-plus over the last few years. It's actually from $6 million-plus to $2 million-plus. Could the minister indicate why the area of contributions has dropped from over $6 million to just over $2 million? That's a cutback of over 50 percent.

Hon. J. Cashore: We have reduced the amount of money for First Nations Summit policy forums, for the policy forum with the UBCIC and for the policy work we've been doing with the urban table and with the Métis. We have made reductions in all those areas. Another very significant reduction is the money that was going into the first peoples heritage, language and culture program, which was a five-year commitment six and a half years ago. It was supposed to come to an end a year and a half ago. It was continued for a year, and now it's being continued for yet another year even though that wasn't the original intent. That's an amount, I think, of $700,000.

V. Anderson: So if I followed the minister's comments from his previous statements, what he's saying is that the ministry is weaning, if you want to use that term, aboriginal people from any income from supported programs in their communities that they might be involved in -- either independently or in negotiation with government -- other than what goes through the treaty process.

Hon. J. Cashore: No, hon. Chair. As I pointed out, we still have quite extensive relationships with aboriginal people through other processes. I did refer to the aboriginal friendship centres and the grants that go to those. But I think it's important for the hon. member to acknowledge that the heritage and language fund, for instance, had a five-year intent when it was first done. It was meant to kick-start some activity that would hopefully lead to some improvements, which it has. Of course, if the funds were available, it would be wonderful to be able to continue that, but they're not.

Again, I would certainly encourage the hon. member to make use of his connections with the Liberal government -- if it is returned, and things seem to be moving in that direction right now -- and to use all the moral suasion he can possibly muster to get the federal government back on track to fulfilling its historic responsibility. The province is also enduring cuts in transfer payments of over $2 billion over five years and is struggling to maintain the priorities that have been identified: health care and education, which are also priorities that benefit aboriginal people.

[5:15]

The goal that was put forward when the Aboriginal ministry was started, at least in the public mind, was to increase the supportive relationships with government and to have a focal point through which aboriginal people could work with government. That goal is no longer in effect. The goal now is to move away from that single focal point, not only financially but also administratively, and move into a new undertaking altogether, which would come out of treaty negotiations.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the original goal of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Perhaps it was when it was the Ministry of Native Affairs under the Socred government. I can't speak for the goal at that time. We have clearly stated, over and over again, that this is about building a new relationship. Building that new relationship is not based upon being able to continue processes that continue dependency; this is about building a new relationship through the development of processes that lead to interdependency and independence. Therefore the fact is that there are continuing responsibilities in various line ministries -- Health, Education, Human Resources -- that in some cases have indeed negotiated relationships with aboriginal people. So we are putting our primary effort into building that new relationship.

And yes, hon. member, in seeing that day, some day in the future, when there's no longer a need for a Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. . . . I think the fact is that sometimes it's difficult to be in a climate where you have to make cuts. But I think that at the same time we are carrying out our responsibilities in a way that is very much aboveboard, very appropriate and consistent with building that new relationship.

[ Page 3316 ]

V. Anderson: As part of that relationship, you mentioned earlier the deputy ministers committee on aboriginal affairs. I know, when I had took part as the critic for Aboriginal Affairs in previous times, that one of the things we discovered is that there was little awareness between the different departments of government about what each was doing in the area of aboriginal affairs. Could the minister comment on whether that has changed? Is there an understanding and a common thread through the deputy ministers committee on aboriginal affairs? Is there a leading role of the aboriginal committee in the sharing of information and coordinating of themes and responses?

Hon. J. Cashore: Government can always do better in that area. You know, I continue to approach it from the point of view that in our ministry we have an interest in the way in which every ministry in government is carrying out its obligation. We monitor that, we comment on that, we sometimes criticize, we cajole. We remain connected. Yes, that instrument that the hon. member has referred to, the deputy ministers committee, is one instrument through which we seek to do that.

V. Anderson: Touching just briefly for a moment on the new Children and Families ministry, where many efforts with regard to children have been coordinated in one area, what is the participation of the Aboriginal Affairs ministry in sharing that new development and that new process, which would affect aboriginal children as well as others in the province?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm very proud to say there's no direct involvement. Again, we're interested in that, but our observations are that that ministry is carrying out its mandate with a very strong sensitivity with regard to issues that relate to aboriginal people, be they fostering, adoption -- those issues around children that are so important.

When it comes to children and families, we do have an interest in that issue in the sense that it is part of the whole sphere of concern that we are dealing with in trying to build a new relationship through treaty-making.

V. Anderson: Moving into the multicultural area, as the minister is aware, there is a response in which every ministry is required to develop a multicultural plan and report. Looking at the plan a year ago, there were studies underway to redevelop that plan in the ministry. I'm wondering if you could update us on the current state of the aboriginal plan and perhaps comment. My experience is that the aboriginal people have not thought of themselves as part of the "multicultural community." They have their own understanding of who they are, and that's different from what is usually considered as being part of the multicultural. . . . So I presume that this ministry might be looking at that differently than many others are.

Hon. J. Cashore: By and large, my experience with aboriginal people is that it's not that they reject multiculturalism; they don't. In my observations, there are some very good and positive interrelationships on a multicultural basis. But because of the historical nature of their relationship with Canada, describing themselves as first nations, they themselves prefer that, out of respect, we would look upon them not within that multicultural agenda. I think it's important to be sensitive to where their thinking is coming from on that issue, because it really isn't a rejection. But at the same time, they don't see it falling under that umbrella.

V. Anderson: I agree with the minister wholeheartedly. That's partly why I raised the question, assuming that there would be some kind of a different plan or approach in the multicultural area from the Aboriginal Affairs ministry, which would reflect that recognition of which the minister has just spoken. I'm wondering if the ministry has in their plan. . . . Is there a plan that's being presented, and are there programs being reported that we could be aware of?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, it is not our mandate. It would be presumptuous of us to do that. Far better that it be done through the First Nations Summit or through the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. We are not parallel in that sense, for instance, to the Ministry of Women's Equality. Out of respect for first nations and the basis on which they want to build a new relationship, it would not be the responsibility of this government to take on a responsibility that, out of respect, we recognize as their responsibility. We also know of their capability to manage those kinds of issues.

I have said before that we are involved in joint policy development tables with the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the urban aboriginal people and the Métis. In those contexts, they are able to identify the agendas that they want us to be discussing on a policy basis. So far, that is not a policy topic that they have placed on the table, but there are other policy topics that I can talk about if you want me to.

V. Anderson: I'll leave the other policy topics for the moment, to be brought up by our Aboriginal Affairs critic. But I was trying to follow up. . . . I agree with the minister that you don't set the agenda for the aboriginal people; they set their own agenda. I was just trying to discover what this ministry is doing in its own area of multicultural planning and reporting -- which, under the act, they are requested to do and have done last year -- and wondering where they are in that at this particular point.

Hon. J. Cashore: In our planning within the ministry, we are developing our hiring plan, which is a multicultural approach. I don't know if that's the area the hon. member was trying to get at, but that is possibly what he was looking for.

V. Anderson: I presume that the minister is also putting some emphasis on the multicultural calendar, which is also mentioned in the report. I wonder if that is followed up or not, and I don't ask you to respond on that particularly.

I want to ask about the First Citizens Fund. The First Citizens Fund is not something that this government, as an NDP government, invented or brought into being. It was brought into being before they became government. It's an endowment fund in effect, but it's a fund that was dedicated to this purpose. My understanding is that the interest on that fund is to be used each year for some of the programs the minister has referred to, so it's a trust fund in effect. Could the minister clarify that for us?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.

V. Anderson: Could the minister indicate what interest was earned on that fund during the past year and whether that interest is added each year to the capital of the fund? How does it grow, and how is the interest expended out of that fund?

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be somewhere between 5 and 8 percent. We don't have that precisely, because we don't manage the fund. We don't manage the investment.

[ Page 3317 ]

V. Anderson: Is the minister saying, though, that the interest from the investment is added to the fund each year? He's just saying he doesn't know what that amount is at the moment.

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.

V. Anderson: Of the money which is proposed to be expended on the fund this year, could the minister indicate to us how that is broken down in the expenditures? I understand there were four basic areas in the fund to begin with. There was the student scholarship fund; there's the friendship centres fund, about which the minister has spoken; there are community development funds; and there was the fourth area, social activities within the community. These were all recommended by a study that was done a few years ago. Has the ministry followed up with that study and fulfilled those recommendations?

Hon. J. Cashore: Of the $2.9 million, friendship centres is $740,000; student bursaries, $125,000; elders transportation, $25,000; business loans, $1,770,000; business loan administration, $130,000; advisory support, $70,000; and the advisory board, $40,000.

[5:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: Business loans, $1,770,000; business loan administration, $130,000; advisory support, $70,000; Native Economic Development Advisory Board -- that's NEDAB -- $40,000. It adds up to $2.9 million.

V. Anderson: On the student fund, has there been a great deal of advertising or publicity given to that fund? I know that a few years ago, when we travelled, there were very few people or very few bands aware of that fund, and therefore applications were not coming from them. There were many students who could have benefited from it, but they had no knowledge of it at all. At that point there was a recommendation that there be a great deal more publicity and awareness. My feeling, from my experience, is that if you went out today, there's no more awareness now than there was then. But I could be wrong, so I'd like to be corrected.

Hon. J. Cashore: It depends on how you measure that. I suppose we could always do a better job of advertising, as in so many other areas. But the fact is that it's always been fully utilized, and it's always been oversubscribed.

V. Anderson: Oversubscribed when it's set at a particular level, but is there any reconsideration of what the level of the student fund should be as against the other programs?

Hon. J. Cashore: The breakdown is based on the advice that we received from the Native Economic Development Advisory Board, which is a board consisting of, I believe, seven or eight individuals -- aboriginal people -- from each economic region of the province. We make these allocations based on their advice.

V. Anderson: That's interesting, because I have met with the board in the past. As I remember, at that particular time they were more or less given that figure. Their advice had to do mainly with the economic development allocation of the part that was given to them. I'd be interested to know if they're really aware that they had the ability to recommend changes in that percentage.

Hon. J. Cashore: It might be that the hon. member would like to call Frank Parnell and get his sense of how he feels about the way I, as the minister, am working on this with them. But it's my understanding that we did have their advice in allocating that amount.

V. Anderson: On the business development fund itself, could you explain to us how it's currently working and what bodies or groups are using in undertaking that fund?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's run through All Nations Trust Co., which subcontracts through different aboriginal development groups in the particular regions. As with the case that I believe the hon. member is familiar with, the business development loans are on a 50 percent payback and have the highest success rate of any loan program. The Native Economic Development Advisory Board is discussing the possibility of increasing that payback from 50 percent to 60 percent as a means of enabling the fund to be spread further for purposes of economic development. I think that's an indication. . . . Well, first of all, it's an indication that it would be wonderful if we had a lot more money available, but it's also an indication that the program was so successful that they have the confidence to see it continue to be successful while spreading it further.

V. Anderson: I know that when we did the study of that and travelled throughout the province, we found that was certainly the concern -- that it had that kind of success and could be extended. Is there a financial report of that available, and do we get a copy of the report from the last to the current year?

Hon. J. Cashore: We can bring in a list of the loans that has quite a bit of breakdown of information on it. I'm not sure if that would satisfy the member, but we'll bring that in tomorrow and make that available.

V. Anderson: Thank you. One final question. You indicated that the committee was suggesting a change in the 60 percent. Are there any other policy recommendations that they are recommending or thinking about at the present time?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. The board is taking a look at different approaches to trying to achieve complete autonomy over the fund eventually. I think they're going about it wisely and in a way that is looking at different aspects of it that they might be able to have more autonomy over, such as the student bursary fund to start with. But I think the advisory committee's goal would be to move incrementally toward taking it over. We've heard that from them for some time now.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

V. Anderson: Would one of the possibilities, if they moved in that direction, be making a kind of trust fund into which they could also draw other donations and gifts to increase the amount of the fund? At the moment it's limited; there's no other source of funds other than the fund itself.

Hon. J. Cashore: To the best of my knowledge, there are circumstances in the foundation of the fund that keep that 

[ Page 3318 ]

fund whole and as a separate entity, but it's not a bad concept that there might be some way in which. . . . Just as people contribute towards purchasing habitat land, say, that's in private hands to increase the bank of protected lands, this could also be an area that a lot of people would be interested in contributing towards. And whether it's through the First Citizens Fund or through some other entity, I think it's a good idea.

V. Anderson: Knowing the hour, I would comment that I think this fund has enabled the aboriginal community to use it as a leverage fund for many other funds, working with the federal government as well as private organizations, in groups and independent community groups throughout the community. One of the areas that was discussed was small lending circles. Could the minister indicate if there are small lending circles, as against larger economic programs, that are being considered and developed through that fund?

Hon. J. Cashore: NEDAB is reviewing those kinds of concepts with a view to advising on that.

V. Anderson: I thank the minister for his response to those questions on the First Citizens Fund.

M. de Jong: Returning to the supplement to the estimates, I wonder if I could direct the minister to STOB 20, which I believe is "Professional Services" -- again, an item within his budget that shows a decrease over past years. Firstly, could the minister advise what is captured within that broad headline of professional services?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's contracts.

M. de Jong: Would that be purely for legal advice or accounting advice, or would there be other types of contracts included within that broad definition?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure that I can give a really comprehensive answer to that right now, but it includes, for instance, contract work with someone by the name of George Macauley, who has expertise in computer work. I think it also refers to some contract work that is done through Arvay Finlay and Hugh Gordon. I think those are the kinds of work that are done through that.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour.

M. de Jong: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair. This might be a good time to wrap up for the day, and I'll tell the minister where I'm going with this line of questioning.

It seems to me that as we embark further along this path of negotiations, our body of in-house knowledge should be increasing; I suspect it probably is. So I do have some interest in ascertaining to what extent we are saving on contract-out charges for legal experts, for tax advice -- the kinds of things that I think the ministry found itself in dire need of obtaining earlier on. We may still be in need of occasionally accessing those kinds of experts, particularly in light of the volume of negotiations taking place.

But it's useful and, I think, legitimate for us to explore the extent to which the industry that has become treaty negotiations. . . . There is a body of knowledge growing in government, in that the dependence we have on outside resources is decreasing. If in fact that's the case, the way I can do that is by exploring what portions of this particular budget STOB relate to that versus communications, for example. So that's where I'm going.

But this might be the appropriate moment to move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada