[ Page 3319 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I see that Joyce Preston, the child, youth and family advocate officer of the Legislature, is present in the members' gallery. Would the House please make her welcome.

I. Waddell: Not to miss a beat here, Mr. Speaker, I see Ian Mass in the gallery. He is a constituent of mine and works with Joyce. I'd ask the House to welcome him, as well.

A. Sanders: Today in the House we have Mr. Tetrault, who is the teacher of 33 grade 7 children from St. James elementary school in Vernon. They're all sitting up there so that they can see what we do here. There are also six adults who have accompanied Mr. Tetrault for supervision responsibilities. I'd like to make them all welcome.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)

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

G. Abbott: I want to pick up again on the fascinating debate that we were enjoying yesterday when we were so rudely interrupted by the leaders' debate in Ottawa. Frankly, I thought the quality of debate that we enjoyed in this House was far, far superior to anything that they had to offer in Ottawa.

So I do want to welcome back those, I'm sure, tens or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who are tuned in today. Probably mistakenly, yesterday they were tricked, essentially, into watching the leaders' debate, not realizing the much higher quality of debate that was occurring in this House. I want to welcome them on board, and I do hope they enjoy the debate as much as I'm sure the minister and I both enjoyed the debate yesterday.

I want to pick up shortly the issue that I was on at the time we departed, and that is the issue of the composition of regional health boards and in particular the composition of the North Okanagan regional health board, because I think it is indicative of an underlying weakness in the new system of health care governance which this government is introducing.

Before I do that, though, I want to follow up on a couple of points that we looked at fairly closely yesterday, but which I think I should have explored at least to the extent of a couple more questions. I guess this goes to the issue of what a CHC is and what a RHB is -- or a community health council versus a regional health board. The question I have is, I think, a very straightforward and basic one. Will community health councils enjoy, or not enjoy, the same relationship with the province of British Columbia -- the government -- that a regional health board would? Or are there going to be some differences between those two corporate organizations in their legal frameworks?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The contractual and legal relationship will be the same; the breadth and range of services may differ.

G. Abbott: Would the same hold true for the relationship between CHCs and RHBs and regional hospital districts? We talked at some length yesterday about how the relationship between existing regional hospital districts and the new regional health boards and CHCs might work, in terms of them getting together through some format and talking about new capital facilities that might be required in those areas -- that kind of thing.

As I understand it, a CHC probably would compose just a very small part, geographically, of a regional district; on the other hand, an RHB might well encompass two or three regional districts. Does the minister anticipate the relationship being the same between CHCs and RHDs as between RHBs and RHDs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be essentially the same relationship, but communication lines have to be worked out properly with UBCM, which is what we're working on, as I said yesterday -- how to make sure that everybody is in the loop and that everybody is in the proper loop.

G. Abbott: The bottom line -- if we can use that overused cliché -- though, is that CHCs will enjoy the same level of autonomy and the same level of responsibility that a regional health board would. Am I correct in that summation?

[10:15]

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that clear response.

I just want to explore the CHSS concept here a little bit more before we move along. Again, I've forgotten what the initials stand for, but my understanding, from the minister's comments yesterday. . . . We could call it CHESS perhaps. It kind of sneaks an "E" into the middle of it, but it makes it into a more usable, memorable acronym. So if we can deal with it that way, as CHESS. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 3320 ]

G. Abbott: No. There's no disparaging reference to pawns or anything like that in this, nor any reference. . . .

The CHSS exists only for community health councils, if I understand the minister correctly. The CHSS will have no function in terms of regional health boards. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Abbott: Does the CHSS exist for the sole purpose of flow-through funding from the province to workers that are the responsibility of community health councils?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The deputy has a good way of describing it. It's almost the equivalent of a community health council co-op, where the community health councils share services that used to be done on a provincewide basis by the province and are now returned to the community. There are several communities involved in delivering the services from the same people, but they form a co-op in order to deliver those services and the funding for them in an equitable way.

G. Abbott: There are seven CHSSs in the province. For the number of CHCs there are -- there may be half a dozen or whatever per CHSS -- presumably it exists in a kind of co-op arrangement for those several CHCs. That body would take funds from the province, presumably to pay for those employees delivering services for the CHC, and the CHSS would distribute them, or would be the financing or the payment body. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They would be the employer.

G. Abbott: If the CHSS is the employer for several CHCs, will the CHSS also have the responsibility of negotiating collective agreements with those employees of the CHCs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me give a fairly full answer to this. It may not prohibit them, but it may answer some future questions you may have in terms of the employment relationship and how collective bargaining will take place.

Collective bargaining takes place through the HEABC -- the Health Employers Association of British Columbia -- which currently has its own interesting structure where representation is based on a pre-regionalization model. So our government is looking at that with the HEABC, about how to best get the representation on HEABC. Collective bargaining takes place through HEABC, not at the individual level of CHC, CHSS or a regional health board.

Two employment relationships exist at a CHC level. One is the employees that are directly employed in a distinct and -- I don't want to say isolated. . . . They are employed directly by the CHC, for instance in acute care, continuing care or home support services that may be delivered only in that community. Where services, whether mental health, public health or community support services -- home support services -- go beyond a distinct community health council basis, the employer will be a co-op of community health councils that share those services. But collective bargaining takes place at the HEABC level amongst all health employees.

G. Abbott: I think the minister hinted at this, but I just want to follow this up. As I understand the minister, the HEABC is currently a structure which is a pre-regionalization model; the structure of the HEABC will be, at some point in the foreseeable future, amended or changed in a way to provide for some representation or some -- again to use that tired phrase -- input into the negotiations between RHB-CHC employees and those bodies.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and we have already had some preliminary discussions with the HEABC on how the new regionalization model is properly represented and best represented at the HEABC table. They are preliminary, though. We do have some time, in terms of the collective bargaining schedule, but we're onto it already. Nothing has been decided yet. Just as an example, the B.C. Health Association has really reconstituted itself to properly reflect the new health care structure. They have been an excellent model. They have done it all voluntarily, and I expect that the HEABC will reach the same conclusion as well. But there really are different employer-employee relationships now that need to be represented at the bargaining table.

G. Abbott: Again, I thank the minister for a straightforward answer -- I think. The situation, then, that we are looking at for 1997 and perhaps 1998 is that effectively the RHBs and the CHCs will have collective agreements that they will be working with that have been previously negotiated, or at some point in the future will be negotiated again, by the HEABC; that the envelope of funding for RHB employees will presumably be part of the overall envelope of funds that comes from the province to the RHBs, and the RHBs will handle that. In the case of the CHCs, they will be cooperative parts of half a dozen CHSSs. In those cases, the funds will go from the province to the CHSS, and they will distribute those funds on behalf of the CHCs to the CHC employees. Is that a fair summation of what's been said here?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know I'm not supposed to use props, but I am going to send this across the House floor, because it is a good diagram. Let me go through it, but I will actually give you this diagram.

RHBs have their own employees that cover the full range of services: acute, continuing, rehab, mental health, public health, home support services. In the areas where there are community health councils and there are not distinct services per community health council, there will be two employer-employee relationships. Where a community health council delivers acute care services or continuing care services that no one else shares, the community health council will be the employer of those employees. In an area where there are services that are offered beyond one distinct community health council, the CHSS will employ those people who go beyond one community health council. It will have a co-op employer relationship with the employees. So an employee will be an employee either of the CHC or the CHSS. No one will have two employers.

G. Abbott: I'm sure some people find these questions about as fascinating as watching paint dry. I'm not one of them. In fact, I think these are very important kinds of basic functional questions.

In those instances where the employees, then, will be funded through the CHSS and where there is an overlap between the functions of different CHCs, how will it be determined whose functional responsibility those overlap employees are?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The CHSS comprises community health council representatives who share the services, so they're the same people. There are only one or two representa-

[ Page 3321 ]

tives of each CHC on the CHSS. But who will determine the functions -- who will assign them their duties? -- is perhaps the next question.

Just a bit of history here. All of the services that will now be delivered through a CHSS were previously delivered straight from Victoria. They were provincial employees whose responsibilities were determined by the province. I think we actually had an interesting debate last year -- I'll just refresh the member's memory on this -- about the Ministry of Health in British Columbia having disproportionately high numbers of employees compared to any other province. The reason for that was that we uniquely delivered a whole bunch of health care services directly. As a ministry we were actually in the business of delivering health care services directly to certain communities, whereas no other province was.

These employees are now being transferred closer to home. Both the responsibility for the employer-employee relationship and also how the services are delivered are being delivered closer to home now. By the same token, the number of employees will fall, and the number of direct employees in the Ministry of Health will fall, as well. So you will see in the FTE count that it's about a third of what the FTE count for the Ministry of Health was previously -- maybe a little bit more than a third.

[10:30]

S. Hawkins: I understand that there will be employees of the Ministry of Health that will be transferred over to the CHSSs. Will they still be public servants?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The employees were transferred from the public service to the regional entities as of April 1, so they are not public service employees -- public service meaning direct government employees.

S. Hawkins: How did the ministry ensure that they are not public service employees now? How were they transferred over?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I may need help with the question to make sure that I'm answering it properly, so let me give you an answer and see whether that's the information you need.

The employees' collective agreement provides for transfer of employment. The terms of the collective agreement were put into play, and there was a transfer agreement signed between the union representing the employees and the governments to make the employees -- basically, it would probably be successor status -- employees of the new regional and community entities. But part of the transfer agreement also allowed for individuals to opt to stay in the public service if they so chose, and the collective agreement terms would apply to those employees. About four decided to do that.

S. Hawkins: How many employees, then, were transferred over? Does the ministry have a number?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Approximately 3,000 employees have gone over, and we can get you the exact number. But that's employees, not FTEs.

S. Hawkins: What has been put into place to ensure that there is actually a separation from the public service? There are four employees that decided to stay with the public service, and I understand that the union that's bargaining on behalf of the employees that transferred over. . . . Sorry, what is the union that's going to deal with the CHSSs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The union that represented them before carries their bargaining rights with them. They're not all represented by the same unions.

What will ensure that there's a declaration of the separation? The way we report FTEs, an employment relationship, is part of the accounting principles of developing the budget, and those principles now apply in terms of who is a public service employee and is counted as an FTE and who is counted in another fashion. Those principles apply to the new relationship.

S. Hawkins: I'm just probing this area a little bit because it's still unclear in my mind how this has been set up. But I understand from what the minister has said that the terms and conditions of the collective agreement that these employees have carry on to the CHSSs, the relationship between. . . . But I understand as well that there were some things that had to be modified to make that relationship solid. Can the minister just outline what kinds of things they had to do to come to terms with making the CHSS the employer and keeping this new employer at arm's length from the Ministry of Health?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not clear on the question, but let me just say that all the terms and conditions of the collective agreement transfer, including the right to stay with your previous employer, which is the broad public service. Again, the way you get to stay with your previous employer is covered by the collective agreement, as well. But other than that, no. Then the renewal of the collective agreement may take place in a different fashion. I mean, that's a new bargaining relationship.

S. Hawkins: Certainly one of the benefits of public service employees is pensions. Where has that gone with the new employer? Is it still with the Ministry of Health or the public service pension? Or did that somehow separate and the CHSSs are now responsible for that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: People who are transferred carry their pension with them, the public service pension plan. If there were any change to the coverage of the pension terms with the transfer of public service employees, that too would have to be negotiated at a future date -- whether they come under any different pension plan. But they carry with them their public service pension coverage.

S. Hawkins: There are several unions that have transferred to the CHSSs; that's what I understand. Who bargains on behalf of the employer, then?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Health Employers Association of B.C.

S. Hawkins: The regional health boards, I understand, are functioning or will be functioning under bylaws, and I'm wondering what the standard is for the CHSSs. What are they functioning under? And if there are bylaws, have they been developed?

[ Page 3322 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: They will be societies under the Society Act, which specifies -- the legislation specifies -- the bylaws necessary to function.

S. Hawkins: For funding, I know we got into a little bit of that with the member for Shuswap. The CHCs function as an entity on their own; the CHSSs are a co-op of the CHCs. It's starting to come together a little bit. Will the CHSSs, then, get a separate funding envelope?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Then I guess I am a little confused. When services overlap between the CHCs and the CHSSs -- and I know we're all trying to move toward this seamless system -- how will the funding transfer from the CHSSs to the CHCs, or back and forth? Is there some mechanism for that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The overlapping isn't between a CHC and the CHSS. It's overlapping amongst the geographic entities captured by the CHCs. There are distinct services delivered by each CHC: acute care, continuing care. Where the services cover more than one -- services for rehab, mental health, public health, home support services. . . . Where the people delivering those services do so beyond the geographic configuration of one CHC, those CHCs come together to employ and deliver the services of those particular functions. So there will be no flowing back and forth between envelopes -- for instance, between mental health into continuing care, where there might be some regionally based service now delivered into one distinct community health council or whatever.

S. Hawkins: I'm trying to understand, again, the difference between the RHB and the CHSS. I understand that the role of the CHS is a little more limited than the role of the RHB. I'm trying to get a sense of the administration around the CHSSs. Will they have an office? Will they be run out of an area office? Obviously they cover a series of CHCs.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The CHSSs will be run without any additional administrative cost beyond the administrative costs of the CHCs. I know that we are giving new acronyms to everything, but where something is working well we're trying to incorporate the proper functioning of that system into the new system.

Basically the public health office has performed this function in the past. The only difference was that public health reported directly to Victoria. Now that function probably remains in terms of an administrative function in the public health office, but the future and the direction of the public health office will be determined by the members of the CHSS. But there will be no extra administration attached to that.

S. Hawkins: Who will do the administrative functions, then, for the CHSSs? Will there be somebody appointed? Obviously the CHCs have their own little administrative staff and bureaucracy. Who will look after the CHSSs?

[10:45]

There are already people in the public health office that can do those jobs that the various CHCs can decide to use with no increased expense. But if there are any shared services beyond what is needed, which currently exist in the public health office, then it would make sense for the CHSS to contract with a hospital or a continuing-care facility that has those administrative functions.

That's the administrative side, but in terms of the functional side of the employees and the assignment of duties, the system actually -- I think in most communities -- works very well now, in that the medical health officer directs the employees in the functions of their jobs. We'll probably just build on that system.

S. Hawkins: My concern, I guess, is around adding more administrators or administrative costs to these societies and in their operational functions. Prior to April 1 the Ministry of Health certainly did the operational functions for these societies. Am I to believe now that everything's been transferred over to the CHCs and the CHSSs and that they're doing all of the operational and administrative work right now?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The system that was in place prior to April 1 was us -- the Ministry of Health -- working with the medical health officers and the financial officers in that community. That same system will be in place, basically, but instead of the Ministry of Health doing it now, it will be that the medical health officer, and a financial officer will report to the CHSS. So there's a different reporting function but no increased administration.

S. Hawkins: So I'm to understand that the medical health officer for the region that the CHSS covers will be the administrative person that reports to the CHSS. Is that true?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, there's even better news; we anticipate there's going to be less administration. There were four distinct programs operating out of the public health office; each one had its own manager, and then there was one financial officer as well. So that would be four managers and one financial officer. There will be one manager, which in some cases may be the medical health officer, and one financial officer working with the CHSS.

That's the best possible structure, and there will be a downsizing of the administration. But the pace and the way that change in administration occurs will be determined by the CHSS.

S. Hawkins: Does the health officer for the CHSS not report to the provincial health officer? Isn't that the usual line of command? If he doesn't, and he or she now reports to the CHSS, can you clarify that relationship for us?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take this opportunity to clarify the remaining role of the ministry: to set provincial standards and policies and to enforce provincial legislation equitably across the province.

The medical health officer reports to the provincial health officer for clinical issues and environmental health issues, as required under the act. But administratively he or she reports to the CHSS. I would suspect that communities would not 

[ Page 3323 ]

notice a difference in terms of how their services are delivered. In fact, I would suspect they wouldn't at all -- except that maybe the CHSS can more efficiently use the services. But in terms of the reporting relationship for health and clinical issues, the member is quite right; legislatively the officer is required to report to the provincial health officer.

The Chair: Hon. members, I'm going to interrupt for two seconds to make an introduction of a group of close to 48 adult Russians who are here with us today. They are with Acacia Tours; their coordinator is Misha. They're interested in comparative government, local history and architecture. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: I'm having a hard time understanding the arm's-length relationship that the province wanted from these employees who are working for the CHSS now when the medical health officer is still a provincial employee. He or she is working for the CHSS, doing the payroll, doing the operational stuff. Can we get a handle, then, on what the arm's length from the ministry is if these employees are reporting to an officer that reports to the ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are numerous jobs in government that have a responsibility under legislation that requires provincial coordination, but their reporting relationship for administration purposes is to a different body. Previous to April 1 the metropolitan medical health officers -- there are five of them that function in the large urban areas -- actually already reported to a different board, a community board, prior to even New Directions or Better Teamwork, Better Care. But they still carried out their clinical functions under the Health Act through the provincial health officer, who is responsible for making sure that the Health Act is provided on a provincewide basis equitably and legally.

That model will now be replicated across the province, where the CHSSs become the employers of the employees, and the medical health officer will probably be what would be the equivalent of the CEO for those employees -- not a CEO where they get different pay, but for the administrative functions.

S. Hawkins: Just to get a clear understanding, then, of the arm's length, who is actually responsible for the payroll and for making operating disbursements to the CHSSs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The CHSSs will be responsible for it. There is a transition period where we're assisting them in setting up the proper. . . . We've got a transition bureau to assist them in setting up their own system.

S. Hawkins: So am I to understand that right now the Ministry of Health is responsible for that payroll in the transition period?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The CHSSs are responsible for it. We are, in this transition period, assisting them through what we're calling a service bureau, where they. . . . I don't want to use the word "contract," because we work together. I'm not sure whether it's a. . . . No, I shouldn't even. . . . Shut up, Joy.

We're providing the transitional service bureau, if they wish to use it, not to extend beyond this first year.

S. Hawkins: How many of the CHSSs are using it right now?

Hon. J. MacPhail: To date, everyone has agreed that they need the service bureau.

S. Hawkins: I see a little conflict there -- that the ministry is looking after the payroll and everything else. That is certainly something that we will be watching. I don't know if the minister foresees it, but there may be a danger of that relationship not being arm's-length enough, and maybe an argument that those employees are still public service employees. Again, that's something that will come out of collective bargaining negotiations -- and very clever arguments made on behalf of the employees by some good lawyer, I'm sure.

I have another line of questioning with respect to the existing support structures for mental health, public health and continuing care. Is that being set up? Is the existing structure enough to support the CHSSs? Or is something being put in place so they cover their area more completely with the new CHC-CHSS areas that are now designed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The CHSSs match the functioning of the current public health office. So the same program structure and the same administrative structure will be what works -- the proper support for the current system. The difference is that instead of that structure now being responsible to Victoria, it's responsible to the CHSS.

S. Hawkins: Who are the CHSSs accountable to?

Hon. J. MacPhail: To the minister.

S. Hawkins: I can see conflict between the CHCs and the CHSSs. If they have a problem with the way the CHSSs are not doling out service that they want in their areas, what is their recourse? In other parts of the province, we have RHBs with nothing under them. We seem to have set up an entity where we have a CHSS with another level under it. Who do the CHCs complain to? Who decides what course of action or appeal they have?

[11:00]

I think perhaps what the member is getting at, and it is an important question, is: if indeed there is a change in the way the public health services, the community health services or the home support services are delivered, how do we determine if those services are delivered in a different fashion? And if the CHSS somehow can't reach agreement on it, what appeal mechanism is there? The appeal mechanism would be to the ministry and to the minister, because it would mean that the community health councils themselves, who are the CHSSs, cannot agree on a change in the way the service is delivered. So the appeal mechanism would be to the ministry. The communities now, through the public medical health office, do cooperate on changes in service delivery. There's already a mechanism in place for how they do that, so I would expect that to continue.

The CHSS is not an overlap with CHCs in any way; they are distinct functions.

[ Page 3324 ]

S. Hawkins: How many people actually comprise a CHSS out of the CHCs, and who decides who sits on a CHSS?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Each CHSS board will have a minimum of six people. Where there are less than six CHCs, two people will be appointed from each CHC. Some community health council members will have extra duties -- i.e., sitting on the CHSS. The appointments to the CHSS are chosen by the minister from the community health council boards.

G. Abbott: Just a few questions to hopefully tie up this area, and then we can move back to the issue of composition and structure of boards.

The first question, just for clarification. As I understand from the minister's comments, the change to the governance model -- the newest direction -- involves the movement of approximately 3,000 provincial employees from their provincial public service to either CHCs or RHBs or CHSSs. Did I understand that correctly?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Abbott: So the provincial public service is approximately 3,000 people smaller at this point. I understand the minister's point that an employee is not necessarily an FTE; some of them may be part-time and so on. But in this transitional phase, were there a number of provincial employees who, rather than trying to stay on with the province or moving to employment with the RHBs or CHCs or CHSSs, decided instead to leave the public service for other reasons?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That wasn't an option, in terms of the regionalization of health care. At the same time -- well, not exactly at the same time, but over the course of months previous -- the early retirement incentive program was going on across government service. So there would have been a downsizing of the Ministry of Health FTE numbers, some of it as a result of the early retirement incentive program, unrelated to Better Teamwork, Better Care.

G. Abbott: The approximately 3,000 former provincial public employees that moved to the RHBs, CHCs and CHSSs are no longer provincial public servants; I think that's been made clear. They would, I guess, effectively have the same kind of relationship with the province as, for example, a municipal employee or a regional district employee might have. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: To give you an example, let me stay within the area that I know. It would be the same relationship that a hospital employee or a continuing care employee would have prior to regionalization.

G. Abbott: I guess I understand that. I guess, then, that the relationship, depending on how much autonomy and responsibility were deemed appropriate for the RHB or CHC. . . . They might well be just as closely tied to the provincial payroll, provincial bargaining, and so on, as they were previously. Would that be a fair summation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, the relationship changes substantially, just the same way as in many other areas of the government where we give them money and then -- like school boards or hospitals or. . . . I'm just trying to think of other examples where money flows through from government, but then the disbursement and employment relationship are with the other entity. So that's a much different relationship than what exists now as a provincial employee. But there is a transition period where support services are being offered by the ministry until the new entities are able to do all of the administrative functions necessary.

G. Abbott: Based on that response, would it be correct to say that given the level of responsibility and the level of autonomy which the province hopes that RHBs and CHCs develop over time, we might also expect that at some point in the future, if RHBs and CHCs individually or collectively concluded that their interests in terms of collective bargaining would be better served by having an industrial consulting firm execute their negotiations rather than the HEABC, the province would have no difficulty with that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If that scenario were to occur, it would require a change in legislation to the Public Sector Employers Act, which establishes the bargaining relationship and the bargaining agent as Health Employers Association of B.C.

G. Abbott: Okay, I think I understand that a statutory change would be required in order to permit that.

If RHBs and CHCs are to enjoy the level of autonomy and responsibility that is at least equivalent to that of school boards across the province of British Columbia. . . . As I recall, school boards at one point decided that they would adopt a different manner of collective bargaining with their unions. Does the minister anticipate, given the statutory change, that the province would anticipate the same for RHBs and CHCs in terms of collective bargaining?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, the change in bargaining relationship that took place earlier this decade between school boards and teachers was established under the same act that I referred to earlier, the Public Sector Employers Act. The bargaining relationship was changed for teachers there. That's where the establishment of the Health Employers Association of B.C. was and the bargaining relationship with health employees.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the response to the first part of my question. The second part of it was. . . . Again, I'm really struggling here to get a grip, really, on what level of autonomy and responsibility the province anticipates RHBs and CHCs taking on in the longer term. Would the province envision or anticipate making that option of independent bargaining available to RHBs and CHCs, should they choose to do so?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That would require a change in legislation from the current bargaining structure. Certainly I don't anticipate the current government agreeing to that legislative change.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the honesty of the minister's response -- fair enough. I understand what's being said here is that philosophically, this government is not prepared, at least in the area of labour negotiations, to extend that level of autonomy and responsibilities to RHBs and CHCs, should they choose to move in that direction.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The autonomy, which certainly is a factor in regionalization of health care, will be represented at the Health Employers Association of B.C., which is a cooperative of health employers determining, in an equitable way, the distribution of wages across the health care system. Just for 

[ Page 3325 ]

the hon. member's memory, he may recall that the Health Employers Association of B.C. demonstrated amongst themselves a fair amount of autonomy in previous sets of negotiations.

The new structure of the Health Employers Association of B.C., as I said earlier, will reflect the new structure of the regionalization of health care and who the employer is. For instance, it's no longer our hospitals that are employers; it's the regional health boards and the community health councils that are employers.

The government's commitment to equitable provincewide bargaining through the Public Sector Employers Council will remain, but equitable and fair representation on the Employers Association takes place through the HEABC.

G. Abbott: I do understand -- at least, I think I understand -- the structure under which provincewide bargaining occurs for the full range of health employees in British Columbia at the present time.

The point that I was attempting to make -- and again, it's probably based on some experience in municipal labour relations over the years -- is that there are kinds of cycles which occur with respect to labour relations in that area, at least. Over time we have more independent bargaining, then there's more group bargaining, then more independent and so on. Over time there tend to be different permutations of how it should be done.

Again, the point that I was trying to make, in terms of assessing what kind of independence or autonomy or responsibility was being envisioned by the government, was whether indeed, if the RHBs of British Columbia decided that it would be more appropriate to bargain independently of other health interests that they no longer felt aligned with, they would have the opportunity to do it.

I think that question has been answered. The minister has acknowledged that philosophically, this government would not be prepared to go that far -- at least, as far as she could see in the future.

That concludes, from my perspective, the questions I have on the CHCs and CHSSs and so on. I'd like to return, if I could, to the question that we were on when we departed yesterday, the issue of the composition of the North Okanagan regional health board and what, in my view, are the weaknesses of that and how that may -- I haven't concluded that yet -- reflect on the weakness of structure and composition of these boards elsewhere in the province.

The minister went through the numbers yesterday of the current composition of the North Okanagan regional health board. I was too slow to get all the numbers down, and I wonder if she would just repeat those for me, slowly.

[11:15]

G. Abbott: Just for clarification, did I understand the minister correctly yesterday that a first nations representative has been appointed or is anticipated for appointment in addition to those?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are in a process of nomination amongst the aboriginal community for appointments to the boards. That process is ongoing, so the answer is that an appointment has not yet been made to the North Okanagan board.

G. Abbott: Is it anticipated by the minister that there will be one first nations representative on each of the RHBs and CHCs, or is it going to vary? Is there a particular thought there?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Representation by aboriginal communities will be based on their approximate population in the geographic area.

G. Abbott: The composition of the North Okanagan regional health board is, in my view, problematic for a number or reasons. The first concern I have is with the level of representation from what I'll term the Shuswap subregion. The largest municipality in that subregion is Salmon Arm, and just over 15,000 people, I believe, are in that area. But in the electoral area surrounding the district of Salmon Arm, plus the district of Sicamous, there are approximately 33,000 people, and those 33,000 comprise about one-third of the total population of the North Okanagan regional health board, including Revelstoke and all the rest.

So the Shuswap subregion comprises about a third. I think, based on my crude understanding of mathematics, it would be nice if the Shuswap subregion had perhaps five representatives on the board. But appreciating that there has to be a front-line worker and a physician represented, four might be okay in this imperfect world of "newest directions" we're living with here. But in my view, two representatives -- and we only have one at this point -- are entirely inadequate and it's just not good enough.

I know the minister is likely to respond and say: "Well, we're trying to do things differently with this new board. We're trying to structure it in a way where geography isn't the first concern, where people take a broad regional view of health care issues and don't respond to issues in a parochial manner." I guess what I have to say to that -- again, after at least 17 years in dealing with these kinds of regional issues -- is that even though directors on a regional district board or indeed representatives on any kind of a regional board are constantly encouraged to take a regional view of things, as opposed to a parochial view. Nevertheless, in my experience -- and maybe the minister's experience is different and she can assure me of this -- at least 90 percent of the time 90 percent of the members of the board will, when push comes to shove -- when their local interests are threatened or affected -- respond by defending their home turf. As a consequence, I think the balance of representation on these boards is very important, and I think it's critical that there be at least some semblance of balance between population and representation.

Just to go back to the example of Lumby, it's a wonderful community; it's one I love, even though it's not in my riding. There are -- and I checked on it this morning -- just over 1,800 people in the village of Lumby, and they have two representatives on the North Okanagan regional health board. It seems to me that there is some disproportion, therefore, in the Shuswap subregion's representation on the North Okanagan regional health board, where they currently have one and may end up with only two representatives on that board. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on why she doesn't think the Shuswap subregion is grossly underrepresented in the composition and structure of this board.

[ Page 3326 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me begin by saying that I very much value your input. I would like to offer to work with you, if the member feels comfortable doing this, as we make the three appointments we as government need to make now. If the member's willing to work with my office on that, I'd appreciate your interesting input. And let me just say that your advice on this is important, therefore I hope you'll take me up on my offer.

But what I need to make sure of is that at the end of the day, we try as best as possible not to allow the system to become one where parochial interests -- and I say that in the most positive sense -- dominate because, unlike municipal services which are very distinct, health care services are delivered across municipal or district boundaries. So it's important that we not allow parochial interests to dominate. My only concern in the structuring of the regionalization of health care is that we have to share our health care services, and anything that gets in the way of that, we have to do our best to mitigate against.

Over the course of the coming weeks let's visit the appointments to the North Okanagan regional health board along the lines of the points you make, but also understanding my concern that we have to make sure that the prevailing interest is not parochial -- given that there is human nature in it, as well.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's response. The issue, though -- again, the heart of this thing -- is that regardless of how you charge people when you put them into a process, inevitably when it's their resources in their home community that are threatened in a situation of scarce resources where there's not enough to go around. . . . I fully anticipate that that's going to be the case at times with medical resources in the province. There won't be enough to go around, and very hard decisions are going to have to be made about whether, for example, Salmon Arm has a facility and Vernon does not, or Vernon has a facility and Salmon Arm does not. There are going to be extremely difficult decisions to be made by those boards. I don't like to use a negative word like naïve, but, frankly, when confronted with a very difficult situation like the allocation of scarce resources, I think people will inevitably -- at least 10 percent of the time -- act in a parochial way, because that's their hometown, that's the people they talk to, that's the pressure they get about the services that are available in their town or in their hospital. So I think the province is going to have to do better in terms of relating population to representation.

There is just enormous concern in the Shuswap subregion about what has been done with this latest model of governance in regionalization, as the minister knows. I believe she was in receipt of a petition containing over 4,000 names from people in the Salmon Arm area who are very concerned about what is going to happen to health facilities and resources in the Shuswap after regionalization. I hear from these people all the time. There is enormous concern about that, and I think those concerns are really magnified or highlighted when, structurally, the board does not reflect the population of the Shuswap in relation to Vernon.

As the minister has pointed out. . . . Again, I love Vernon too, but Vernon has six representatives at this point, at least on the North Okanagan regional health board, and they may end up with more in the end. I have a concern not with the number that Vernon has but with the number that the Shuswap has in relation to Vernon, and I think something better has to be done there.

In terms of my own concerns about this, I first advised the minister of my concerns in this regard on January 8, 1997. Although I've heard from the minister, and I appreciate that, the letter was largely along the lines that they're trying to do things differently here, in that they don't want to build a parochial model based on geographic areas and so on. I fundamentally think that in the very near term, it is not going to work. There will be alienation occurring within the subregions of the new regional health board because of that. There are going to be enormous jealousies and difficulties as a product of that.

So, again I think that there is going to have to be some considerable rethinking of this situation. Clearly, if a subregion has one-third of the population of a regional health board, they are paying -- directly or indirectly -- one-third of the cost of health facilities. Representation should reflect that, whether they're giving the money to the regional health board -- which they're not. . . . It's going to the province in the sundry range of taxes we face in British Columbia. There needs to be a closer approximation of representation to population on those boards. I guess I've made my point clear, and I'll move along to the next point.

I have concerns, as well, about Enderby and the electoral area that surrounds it. We're talking here of a population that I think is about 7,200. This is the city of Enderby plus electoral area F of North Okanagan regional district, which surrounds the city of Enderby. There are 7,200 people who have their own hospital and an extended care facility, yet they have absolutely no representation on the regional health board. To me, this is a big problem, and when that occurs, it reflects an underlying weakness in the structure of the new system. I would like the minister's comment on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Point taken. Let's work on it.

G. Abbott: Fine. We'll work on it. I'm glad to do that, because I do think it can be done better. I hope the minister takes my point to heart. I'm sure the situation is not unique to Shuswap. Maybe it's the most dramatic in the province, I don't know. It does happen to have occurred in my home constituency, and I guess that's why I'm raising it with some emotion here. I'm sure it is not the only situation in the province where there is a discrepancy between representation and population. I think the ministry, hopefully in the near term, may have to take a look at how those kinds of problems emerge.

[11:30]

I think that what we come up against, ultimately, is human nature. What we ultimately come up against is the fact that people get more pressure from their home community and from their neighbours about what facilities and services are being offered at their local hospitals. I will leave that point for now, and I'll ask another question.

[ Page 3327 ]

I have heard, and this may well be incorrect -- this is only through the channel of rumour -- that in five years or thereabouts this government may contemplate the kind of mix of appointed and elected people on regional health boards that was contemplated in the earlier version of New Directions governance. Is there any thought on the part of the minister or of this government to making some provision for direct or indirect election of representatives to RHBs and CHCs in the future?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are planning for our third term, but that isn't part of it.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry, the minister's response went by me too quickly. Could she repeat it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, you asked what our plans were five years from now. I said that we are planning for our third term, but those are not part of our plans for our third term.

G. Abbott: Okay. There was a subtlety in the minister's answer that escaped me briefly, but now I think I've captured it -- that this government, contrary to their actions and so on over the past year, are in fact going to seek a third term. I'm sure there will be, if not rejoicing, perhaps some considerable surprise across the province as the minister has now admitted that. I understand from the minister's response, as well, that there is no plan in the foreseeable future to draw in the kind of mix of elected and appointed people that once was envisioned in New Directions.

I should have raised this quote a bit earlier. This is a wonderful quote. Given that I've kept it for so long, I should probably use it here. This is from our news clips of March 20, 1997, under the "Health" category. It says: "MLA Quick to Act." This is an editorial from the Elk Valley Miner: "In its haste to put together the Elk Valley and South Country community health council, the provincial government forgot one thing: to make the number of council appointments reflect the size of the communities represented. . . . In fact, we understand from MLA Erda Walsh. . ." Oh, MLA for. . . . I shouldn't use her name. Could you tell me, hon. Chair?

The Chair: It's Kootenay.

G. Abbott: The MLA for Kootenay.

". . .that the situation will be remedied and perhaps as soon as this week. . . ." I'm curious. From the minister's perspective, is it. . . ? I know the MLA for Kootenay is very effective and very persuasive. Did she make some arguments with the minister to try to deal with the situation I've just been talking about?

Hon. J. MacPhail: All I can do is give you the composition of the Elk Valley and South Country CHC. Five are from Fernie, three are from Elkford, two are from Sparwood, one is from Jaffray, one is from the Elk Valley and the doctor is from Sparwood.

G. Abbott: I hope the member for Kootenay is satisfied with that and that somehow the ministry has come to grips with the issue of population and representation in the Elk Valley. Again, as I've made very clear, they have not come to grips with that problem here in the North Okanagan regional health board case. Could the minister advise, at this point, why it is the view of her ministry and/or her government that it is inappropriate to have elected -- or some portion elected -- members on RHBs and CHCs? Why is that deemed inappropriate?

Hon. J. MacPhail: With the greatest respect, I answered that question yesterday. Maybe the member could check the Blues.

G. Abbott: I guess the response was not as memorable as it should have been at that point.

Another question, then, on the term of appointment. And on this one I do recall, very vividly, the minister's response yesterday. The current length of term of appointment is going to be two years. Is that from the date of appointment, or will they all lapse at the same point in the year and a whole new batch will then be elected?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The intent is to have them lapse March 31, '99. If I just could expound on that a bit, we are now. . . . It was important that boards and councils get up and running as quickly as possible. People were tired of the indecision in the system, so we took that action.

But I am publicly committed -- and I am very privately committed -- to this, to a community process for appointment in the next round of appointments. I'm already receiving very interesting, creative, innovative and unique ideas for a community process for reappointment or new appointments to begin in the fiscal year of 1999-2000. I also don't expect that the community process for nomination will be the same across the province. I really do hope that I can get input from every area of the province on how that community nomination process should occur, beginning on April 1 of '99.

G. Abbott: Let me just explore that a little bit. Is the minister saying, then, for example. . . ? Neither the communities of Sicamous nor Enderby have any representation on the regional health board at this point, but if representation was deemed to be appropriate from one or both of those communities, somehow there would be a community process involving the council or the chamber of commerce. . . . Or who would the minister envision being a part of that community nomination process to arrive at suitable candidates for this position?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can only give you an example, because I wouldn't want to limit the input that communities have for giving me advice on how best to nominate. In my own regional health board, the largest urban population in the area of Vancouver, the former members of the board itself conducted a community process where they actually called for nominations publicly. They advertised in newspapers and had a wealth of nominations put forward. Then they had a community-based selection panel for ranking the nominations and made a recommendation to me, which I accepted.

That's one example. I don't know whether. . . . I'm sorry. I declare right now that I'm an urban person, an urban dweller, so I'm not familiar with the community input that would be available in smaller communities, whether it would make sense that there's some meeting of community organizations that would be a proper gathering point for nominations -- whatever.

G. Abbott: I think that while the kind of process that the minister has outlined may have its imperfections or limitations, it is certainly far superior to what appears to have happened in the North Okanagan regional health board instance in the past few months.

I won't play around with this too much. I am completely mystified as to how the process of nomination and appoint-

[ Page 3328 ]

ment. . . . I guess appointment is clear enough; the minister makes them. But I'm absolutely puzzled by the process of nomination that occurred in the North Okanagan regional health board in the present round. I'll be very candid. There appeared to be no consultation or input from the regional hospital districts with respect to the appointments. There appeared to be no consultation with the councils or the regional district boards on the nominations. There appeared to be no consultation with medical staff on these nominations.

Where the primary decisions regionally appeared to be made -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- was with the North Okanagan NDP association. As I understand it, there was one particular individual in that association who appeared to have a kind of veto over whose names came forward, whether from the Shuswap or from the North Okanagan. This probably does reflect my ignorance, because I really don't know. I have absolutely no idea why the appointments that were made on the North Okanagan regional health board were made. Perhaps the minister can clarify what happened there and if in fact some partisan vetting went on in terms of appointments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not aware of what the member alleges, but there was community consultation for the appointments. I hope the member is aware of the victory he snatched from the hands of the minister in saying that we have three appointments to make. I recognize the concerns that he has raised. Let's work on correcting the perceptions of inequity. But I am also asking the member, even with his vast experience in municipal politics, to understand that there is a difference in how we need to design our health care system where there are shared services across municipalities, and I look forward to working with him on balancing those interests.

G. Abbott: I look forward to that, as well, and I hope the minister doesn't interpret my remarks as being particularly provocative, partisan or controversial. It does, however, reflect my very real frustrations with what has happened over the past few months.

I will accept the minister's word that some community process occurred, and I won't dwell on that point. But I think there is a good deal to be learned by the experience there. For example, if the model of nomination that the minister suggested has occurred in Vancouver could be applied elsewhere, that would be an enormous step over what we have. And perhaps even that model could be improved on as well.

The next point I would like to ask the minister is: what factors might render an individual unsuitable for service on an RHB or a CHC? Is there anything that would limit the acceptability of an individual for service on one of those boards?

[11:45]

G. Abbott: This will be my last question before I invite other colleagues to do it. The issue of provisions for dismissal. . . . We have two-year terms for the individuals that comprise these boards. The minister may be well aware of this, given some developments in recent months with respect to terminations. Are there provisions for the dismissal of individuals who comprise boards, or indeed boards themselves, within the terms of appointment of members?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The regional health boards and community health councils are appointed the same way that other boards are appointed by government: through order-in-council. Orders-in-council are made and rescinded by the executive council of government. If there is a requirement to replace a board, it's through the legislation, and there is a provision for replacement with a public administrator.

G. Abbott: Does the minister wish to adjourn until after lunch at this point or to continue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we've got five minutes. It's up to you to decide whether you want to continue the line of questioning or whether you wish to break.

S. Hawkins: Noting the hour, I 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 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

On vote 9: minister's office, $332,000 (continued).

Hon. J. Cashore: Further to yesterday, I want to mention a few things. One has to do with the contract budget. The 

[ Page 3329 ]

budgeted amount for contracts in 1995-96 was $2,793,000. In 1996-97 the budgeted amount for contracts was $2,347,000, which is a reduction of $446,000 from the year before. In the current fiscal year, 1997-98, the budget for contracts is $1,748,000, which is a reduction of $599,000 from the year before, for a cumulative reduction over those two years of $1,045,000.

I just want to read into the record some of the criteria used when deciding whether to put out a contract:

1. It must be consistent with the voted appropriation.

2. It must provide greater value for money than doing it in-house.

3. It must provide specialized knowledge that is not available in government.

4. It must provide temporary resources to meet peak workloads.

5. It must provide for objectivity, which can best be obtained by utilizing an external source.

We also canvassed the issue of travel budgets, and I wanted to bring in some information to add to my answers of yesterday. First is that over the last four years, we've underspent our travel budgets by 11 percent. We were over budget in one of those years, 1995-96, by 10 percent. But overall, over those four years we underspent by 11 percent. Secondly, with regard to the use of the corporate travel card, we have ascertained since yesterday that approximately 50 percent of our travellers use the corporate travel cards. So it'll be interesting to see, if we get this question a year from now, if this trend is still improving in that direction.

[10:15]

At this time I would like to ask if I could send across to the opposition the "First Citizens Fund Business Loan Program Expenditures." It's a table dealing with the name of the borrower, the city, the sector, the structure, the amount disbursed and the percent -- the 50 percent forgivable, that amounts to. It's a three-page document. I would like to ask that the hon. opposition critic pass this on to the member for Vancouver-Langara.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair, and to the minister for clearing up most of the business remaining from yesterday. The only additional item that comes to my mind is that I think the minister was going to try and clarify with his staff the actual figure for reductions in FTEs. We had a figure of 36, I think, that didn't match with the numbers as they appeared in the blue books. I think the minister was going to clarify what that number was.

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll bring that back first thing this afternoon.

M. de Jong: I should say that with respect to the portion of the budget relating to contracting out, one of the documents I do have for the '94-95 year is a list of those contracts. I suppose my first questions are whether such a list is available and whether the minister is prepared to provide it to me for the year '96-97.

Hon. J. Cashore: I understand that we have already made that list available up until the end of February but not up until the end of March. The hon. member did mention that he had a list. Would it be correct that what is being requested is the additional information to complete the fiscal year?

M. de Jong: Yes, that's correct, hon. Chair.

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll bring that in tomorrow morning.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I could query the minister with respect to the process by which those contracts are submitted out to tender. I know that there is a policy with respect to monetary amounts but that there are other factors. When would a. . . ? Well, let me back up and suggest to the minister that I can appreciate that where he is seeking legal advice, he perhaps has a particular individual in mind and there would be a contract signed that's based on the expertise available.

In other instances, though, where there are consulting contracts for communications plans or varied technical work, I note on the documentation that has been provided to me that in a number of instances, those contracts haven't been tendered. I'm trying to understand how that process works.

Hon. J. Cashore: The threshold would generally be $50,000, which would be a contract that would need tendering. However, there are exceptions. One exception would be when there is a need on very short notice. Another area of exception would be where there's a cumulative store of knowledge, given that we have ongoing contracts with certain companies because of the specialized type of knowledge they have and the fact that we've ascertained that it's in our economic interest to continue with those contractors who already have that store of knowledge on the particular file they're working on.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate whether the criteria by which the decision to tender or not tender is made are committed to paper? If so, is that document available?

Hon. J. Cashore: As a general rule, you require justification for a direct contract. When I say a general rule, it's my understanding that this is a policy within government.

M. de Jong: Do I understand correctly, then, that there is no policy specific to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs that would guide employees of the ministry as to when a contract must be submitted to tender?

Hon. J. Cashore: I've just stated the policy, and it's now on the record. What I've just said -- that is our policy.

M. de Jong: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but I think I haven't understood. Perhaps he can indulge me by stating it again.

Hon. J. Cashore: Generally speaking, there would be tendering if the contract was over $50,000, but there are exceptions. Those exceptions, as they relate to our ministry, are where we have ongoing contracts in which the contractor has cumulative knowledge that is specialized knowledge needed for the work we are doing. Therefore that's where we have these ongoing contracts. In some instances, it's where there's a contract that is let on short notice due to the urgency of getting that information.

[ Page 3330 ]

M. de Jong: If I could take the minister to STOB 40 within his budget, which I think is the section dealing with advertising and publications, here we see, I think, a significant reduction in the amount being budgeted over last year. I'm curious as to whether that reflects purely a change in accounting practices. If that is so, could the minister explain what that change is? And if not, what is he not doing this year that he did do last year?

Hon. J. Cashore: It only reflects a reduction in the amount of money that we've made available for advertising.

M. de Jong: When, in past years, the information has been. . . . Well, let me ask this of the minister: what is the nature of the advertising that he contemplates purchasing for the coming year?

Hon. J. Cashore: The vast majority of these ads would be taken out in newspapers and sometimes on the electronic media in certain areas, I think, advertising the open negotiation sessions. The ads notify the public of when and where these sessions are taking place, so that they may attend.

M. de Jong: Is the minister able to indicate what portion of this item in the budget would relate purely to advertising? I note that in the past, the minister has spoken of the task of education and informing the public about treaty negotiation matters. What portion of this relates to the purchase of the kinds of ads that the minister has just spoken of?

Hon. J. Cashore: The funds that go to consultation and education are covered under a different line in the budget than the one we've just been referring to.

M. de Jong: Can I ask the minister whether the reduction in budgetary allocation for this section, which, I now take it, relates exclusively to advertising. . . ? Should I interpret that as a sign that the minister believes British Columbians are now better informed and that there is less of a need to provide them with the type of information contained in the ads? Or is it purely a result of the lack of funds available? I'm trying to get a sense from the minister whether he believes progress has been made to better informing British Columbians.

Hon. J. Cashore: There have been a few savings that have resulted, partly by combining advertising with the federal government. Some electronic systems have enabled us to save money in getting ads out. Also, there has been a combination of the consultation and communications parts of our ministry, and there have been some savings there.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate whether a portion of this budget is dedicated to the production of publications? Some of them -- the one I'm holding, in particular -- are particularly useful. But I'm just wondering to what extent the production of those documents would fall within the ambit of this budgetary item.

Hon. J. Cashore: We need to refer, in reference to that question, to STOB 42 of the annual report. I think it would be under that STOB that this kind of expenditure would be taking place.

[10:30]

So I wonder if the ministry has set in place any sort of mechanism by which it is in a position to gauge the effectiveness of the moneys that are spent in order to notify local people and British Columbians generally about what is taking place, particularly within the treaty-negotiating process. For example, it may sound good to us to hear an ad running on the radio, if that is a vehicle that the ministry has used, but it may have no impact. I'm just wondering -- although the amount is somewhat reduced, it is again a significant portion of this minister's budget -- what mechanism, if any, he has set in place to determine whether any of these ads are having any impact whatsoever.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to try to answer that. It may be, after I do, that staff will want to put a little more focus into some parts of that question. But given that we've established that, I guess, by far the major portion of that particular line -- I think we're referring here to line 40 -- goes to. . . . I guess it would generally come under the heading of openness, advertising those main table meetings taking place that are open to the public, which is the order of the day in hearings. It could also involve some advertising of some other kinds of open meetings, as well, that are not necessarily main table meetings.

Now, I understand that in some places more people attend those meetings than in other places. You could say, well, if only one or two show up, then it sounds like the ad is wasted. But I'm sure the hon. member recognizes the bind that I'm in, because we've gone through an extensive time in the Legislature over the last few years with what has been an important discussion about opening up the process. If you're going to open up the process, I think it's essential that you notify the public that the process is open and when the public can have it available to them. In some ways, there's some success in the public's knowing that it's available even though they don't show up. So it's awfully difficult to put a definition on what is successful in terms of this advertising.

I just mention that the chief negotiator for the Tsimshian tribal council has bemoaned the fact that the public isn't showing up very much, because he sees it as. . . . He comes across as though he's been a proponent of openness right from the very beginning, because he thinks it's essential that the general public use this to be educated about what treaties are leading to, on the basis of realizing that the success of any treaty will depend on the degree to which the neighbours are aware of it and on board with it. So in this particular category of advertising it's difficult to measure success.

If this was about, say, half-page ads or fairly expensive video ads -- that we're trying to win the minds and hearts of people -- that might be another line of questioning. But I'm advised that's not the kind of advertising that we're referring to here.

M. de Jong: I should say there is, I think, some value in terms of providing notice to people to ensure that they are aware they have the right to attend. So I don't quarrel with the logic to that extent. It seems to me, though, that there are probably other factors. We'll ultimately get into this more when we focus on the negotiating process itself.

[ Page 3331 ]

But I think the timing around which negotiations take place and the fact that they often are held at times and places that are difficult for local people -- who are, quite frankly, more concerned with earning a living for their families and don't have the means of attending from eight to five in the afternoon. . . . Those are probably factors that contribute to the lack of attendance that many of us would hope to see at some of these important negotiating sessions.

The minister did raise an interesting point in his response relating to a different type of advertising. That is, I think, the kind of advertising we have seen in other ministries most recently; I can think of the Health ministry. I call them "feel good" ads -- "feel good about your government, if nothing else." They don't tend to impart a great deal in the way of information, except to advise, as the commentator says, that "the government is moving in a direction the people should find favourable."

Can the minister indicate whether ads of that sort have been produced in the past for radio, television or the print media, and whether there are plans to do so in the future? If I haven't been sufficiently clear about the distinction in the type of ad, I'm happy to offer further elaboration.

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe the answer is yes, although I don't think it comes under that same line in the budget. But that's sort of beside the point.

Now, if we were to go back about two, two and a half years, I think there was quite a difference in terms of public awareness with regard to this entire issue. I think any tracking that's been done of opinion polls on that would say the public is cautious, but much more supportive of the treaty-making process now than was the case two or three years ago.

There was a very important program we had underway at that time, where we produced quite a bit of information, documentation. We still produce some of that. We update some of our information sheets on, for instance, the legal basis for treaty-making and that sort of thing. We have quite a display of information that's purely information. But we did have some videotapes made and distributed about the treaty process, what it was about and how it was working. I can remember a meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities where we played that tape to the assembly and then had two or three sessions on it. I think there have also been some display ads and some television ads. But I would say that we're doing much less of that now.

In the area of public consultation and communications, I have some items here that are ongoing. There have been a number of public consultation meetings across the province during the past year, including 120 on the Nisga'a alone. But there are virtually hundreds of such meetings. The Internet site of the ministry contains information and policy documents on a wide variety of issues relating to the treaty process. I think that's quite a change from a couple of years before, when that site wasn't available.

There's a pilot outreach program that was established in Prince George for dissemination of information on treaty negotiations. The province's openness policy has been supported through community interaction, published material, displays and informational meetings. During this year we will be continuing public consultation at every stage of treaty negotiations. Each treaty table will be serviced through advisory committees and public information working groups. There'll be a focus on provincewide public information initiatives, and on improving coordination with the federal government to eliminate overlaps.

I can also tell the hon. member that I attended a principals meeting last week with the federal government, the First Nations Summit, ourselves and the B.C. Treaty Commission. There's an allocation of funds that come from the two governments to operate the Treaty Commission which is also being used by the Treaty Commission in the area of disseminating information. So that's another front on which that's happening.

M. de Jong: I'm generally much less troubled by the type of dissemination of information -- in fact, in many cases applaud it -- that the minister has just described than I am by what I see as those more high-profile attempts at political propaganda. Again, I suppose my question relates to these types of ads that one sees on television, that one hears on the radio. They generally involve high production costs. They say things like: "Your government is committed to obtaining fair and equitable settlements." That's about all they say. It is difficult, from where I stand, to understand what the value of that type of production is, except to acknowledge that -- by design, I think -- it hopes to present the government in a very positive light. But as a mechanism for improving one's knowledge of the treaty negotiation process or furthering one's understanding of what is taking place, it is of dubious value. And yet we have seen it in the past in this ministry and certainly see it on a daily basis in other ministries. If the minister believes there is some value to that type of advertising, I'd like to hear his argument for it -- and some assurance that if he can't convince me of that value, this ministry won't engage in it in the future.

[10:45]

The tripartite public education committee. . . . We have examples of that, I think. That's the one I was referring to that's done through the B.C. Treaty Commission. And I think there's actually a total budget there of a quarter of a million dollars. I've got some examples here that are particular to actual treaty tables in different parts of the province. They really are information-based, and they're put out by an entity that doesn't have a political axe to grind other than the small-p politics of trying to move the process forward. There's one here with regard to the In-SHUCK-ch; I'd be glad to send a copy of that across to the member. It's a pamphlet that says "Treaty Progress"; it has some explanation material and articles outlining the views of the various participants. So in that 

[ Page 3332 ]

way it's quite balanced. There's another one here -- on the Lheit-Lit'en, I think, is the one. So perhaps that could be taken across. Thank you.

There's also some work that we've done jointly with the B.C. Teachers Federation -- the BCTF -- where we've jointly produced a teachers' handbook on the B.C. treaty process. It sort of outlines the context, what we're doing to try to build a new relationship, and it recognizes that one component of the success of this process is that it be available within the schools. So I think that those are the kinds of things that are more representative of what happens in that work.

We do have communications staff, and that's part of a budget item as well. I would say again that our communications staff are, in my view, very much oriented towards information and clarifying sometimes when the information out there needs to be clarified.

M. de Jong: I don't want to belabour the point. I guess I would say -- and the minister won't be shocked to discover -- that we'll be watching to see what form and manner any advertising out of his ministry takes.

He might be able to assist me in this respect, however. Has it been in the past, and does he believe it possible in the future, that advertising or public affairs-type activity relative to treaty negotiations would emanate from other areas in government? I'm thinking of the government communications office. Has that occurred in the past, where some of these ads of the variety I may have been speaking about earlier have come from somewhere other than his ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, government communications have been involved in aspects of information around the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. So I can't say that that is the case; but I'm not saying that's not the case, either. I think it's quite possible that there have been ads. Whether it's been within the immediately past fiscal year, I'm not certain. I think the Nisga'a AIP was actually just at the tail end of the previous fiscal year, but I think it's entirely possible that the government communications office has had some output in this area. If that is the case, though, in the absence of concrete examples I would say that my sense of government advertising on this topic, wherever it has emanated from since I've been the minister, is that it has been information-based.

Now, there might be some disagreement over the veracity of who is saying that that is the right information. I mean, that's something we debate in this forum. But I think we'd be hard-pressed to find advertising on this topic coming out of this government that goes beyond that standard of information, although there may be times when I think it's entirely justified that there's a celebratory aspect to it -- such as the fact that I think the general community would think it appropriate that there be some celebration at the time of the conclusion of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle.

But again, the focus on that would be that it's tripartite; that, yes, our government is involved, but it's our government with the support of all the parties in the House. Even though there may be some details that they are concerned about, all parties in the House have voted in support of the treaty process. I think it's something that we share.

M. de Jong: The minister seized on the word I was going to use, and that is the celebratory component of some of the advertising. I can certainly understand how government would want to take advantage of an opportunity to tout what it sees and what many people would see as a significant achievement. It is difficult for me to understand in this day of shrinking governmental resources how that could be justified. When things like the minister's aboriginal initiatives fund have been cut to purchase advertising time in the electronic or print media, which simply celebrates the fact that we have an agreement-in-principle, it strikes me as really catering to the political interest that we as politicians may have to present ourselves in a good light. But, really, at the end of the day it doesn't accomplish a great deal in terms of moving the process forward.

Hon. J. Cashore: If we were to take the point the hon. member is making and apply it in some other context, I think he might very well be right. But if you apply it in the context of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and the events around that time, I would just categorically disagree with him. Even as outstanding an accomplishment as that was for all of us -- and I'm not saying just for government, but for all of us in British Columbia. . . . I think that it was frugal. But being the first in modern history, I think this is one on which we may have to agree to disagree. The hon. member might want to focus on advertising or information that went out around that time; he might also want to focus on travel costs and that sort of thing around that time. We would just agree to disagree on that.

The standard since I've been the minister is that we manage this in a frugal way -- witness the reductions in the costs for this kind of activity -- but when there is something accomplished, I think it's right and appropriate to put some resources into that. I don't buy the comparison with the part of the budget that's been cut, because I do place a value on the public face at times, when there's an opportunity to enable the public to be fully aware of what is happening. That doesn't happen very often, but it does happen sometimes, and I think we just disagree on that point. And I think it's a matter of degree. I don't think it's whether it should happen or not; I think it's the degree to which it should happen. I would say, reflecting back on the Nisga'a, that I think it was handled in a very appropriate manner.

M. de Jong: The last point on this, hon. Chair. The minister is suggesting that there may be other areas of government for which my comments and argument are more. . .

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, not this government; other governments perhaps.

M. de Jong: . . .appropriate, and I certainly invite him to share with us which parts of the government he might have been referring to.

Lastly, he has made reference to a document that apparently has been produced jointly with the BCTF. If he or his staff could simply make a note, it would be helpful for us to obtain a copy of that.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll send that over right now.

And of course I wasn't referring to the B.C. government, which is always frugal in all ministries. I was referring to some of those governments which have been. . .elsewhere, at times in history. Actually, I was referring to the government of Amor De Cosmos, if the hon. member really wants to know.

M. de Jong: I'll resist the temptation, hon. Chair, and press on. [Laughter.]

Many of the items we've talked about have involved a reduction in expenditure. STOB 50, dealing with the materials, 

[ Page 3333 ]

supplies, vehicles and what not, has shown a fairly significant increase -- in excess of 60 percent I think. Can the minister indicate what those funds are used for and why the increase?

Hon. J. Cashore: Most of that is for mapping for the treaty tables. Again, as we get more tables up and running, activities shift, so it was during that year that we did see quite an increase there. Sixty percent of that mapping amount is recoverable -- and is recovered -- from the federal government.

M. de Jong: In terms of the mapping, it's a process. Is that undertaken within the ministry or by the line ministries? How does that accounting take place?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a matter of taking bits and pieces of information from a number of line ministries and then putting it into a contextual database that is meaningful for the task at hand, with regard to the treaty-making context. There are pieces of information available through existing -- often electronic -- methods in other ministries, but it's a matter of pulling that together and then putting it into a context where it addresses the issue at hand. That's where much of that cost is involved.

M. de Jong: Is this, though, an intragovernment cost? Is this a transfer of funds from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to the Ministry of Forests, for example, in exchange for providing the information?

Hon. J. Cashore: To the best of my understanding and knowledge, it's the cost of our ministry integrating information that has been gleaned from other ministries. It's my understanding that those other ministries who have that data, have that data covered within their own budgets.

[11:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: Without getting too complex on this, we provide this data mainly to the treaty table; therefore that data is available to the first nations. That's cost-shared with the federal government. There may be some instances -- which I can't bring to mind right now -- where there would be some cost to the first nation, but that is not the case in the vast majority of this activity.

M. de Jong: Did I understand the minister correctly to be saying that if a digital map is produced that provides for overlays of timber resources or mineral resources -- I'm trying to imagine what one of these documents would look like -- and if it is to be utilized by the governmental negotiating parties, both federal and provincial, on the basis that the cost of producing it has been shared by those two levels of government, it is provided to the aboriginal negotiating team as a matter of course?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is generally the case. We also produce information for strategic purposes that is internal to government. It's not as though it's all an open book, but the example that the hon. member gave was a good one -- to say there's an overlay. There is no charge for that information. The cost is covered by the federal and provincial governments.

M. de Jong: I'll pursue this a little more only because, as my colleague reminds me, this really was an issue that came up time and time again. We, as individuals who weren't directly involved in the negotiating process, were told that these negotiations would take place with two of the parties in possession of information that the third party deemed essential -- the third party being the aboriginal negotiating team. Maybe the minister can defend -- or maybe explain is a better word -- in a little more detail what distinguishes a document or a mapping or an inventory as being available to all the parties and what qualifies it as being internal to government. That is very much a suspicion, as the minister might imagine, that is created around the unwillingness of government to share the information with both aboriginal groups and third-party interests -- who might quarrel, by the way, with the accuracy of the information contained in that documentation.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think one of the reasons for the complaint that the hon. member has heard is that often we will make information available -- such as forest development plans, operable timber data, overlays, that sort of thing -- but in many instances the first nation will want to be able to hire their own consultant to do their own mapping. In our view, there are some complaints. . . . We believe some are not cost-effective and are unnecessary because it means redoing that which is already done. But we've heard that complaint as well.

M. de Jong: I guess my immediate reaction to that is if a first nation group wishes to incur the added cost of verifying the information that has been provided to it by government, then that is a cost that will be borne by them, and they will have defend that decision to their constituents. They can only do that if they've been provided with the information in the first place. I will endeavour to provide the minister with specific examples of aboriginal groups -- and third parties, for that matter -- who have said that this information hasn't been forthcoming to them where they think it would have been appropriate.

Hon. J. Cashore: That would be very helpful. If we could be given two or three examples, then we could be very focused in terms of our response. I would just say that in some instances it's our experience that the desire to be able to do their own mapping has been part of a process of them not wanting to take that money out of moneys they already have. So it's not a question of whether they want to put their money into that; it's more a question of them also wanting us to provide, so that they can cover the cost of that. We don't believe that's necessary when we already have the information.

M. de Jong: Just to retreat for the moment to an issue we dealt with earlier. . . . My colleague from Okanagan-Boundary tells me that this is not the actual handbook but a summary. I'm referring to the teachers' handbook on the B.C. treaty process. Is the actual document available, the actual handbook?

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't know. We'll find out. If it is available, I'm sure we can get you copies. I don't know at this point if it's completed, but I believe it is.

[ Page 3334 ]

M. de Jong: At STOB 68 within the budget, we deal with the whole question of information systems and software. As I look back over the history of this particular budgetary item -- the descriptions and the cost allocations -- I understand this to include both hardware, software and consulting fees. That is the manner in which it's broken down within the ministry. Can the minister indicate what the relevant amounts for hardware, software and consulting are for the year dealt with in these estimates?

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll get that very soon, I believe.

M. de Jong: While we're retrieving the actual figures. . . . I suppose I bring it up on this basis: with respect to the development of software, when one goes back three or four years the amounts seem to be fairly constant. They are reduced slightly this year -- we'll know more about that in a moment when we get the actual figures -- but we're into this negotiating process now. In terms of software that is of assistance to negotiating teams, I would have thought that at this point some of those costs would have been more significantly reduced, that our systems would have been up and running. It appears that is not the case, and I'd like to hear more about that.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think it's similar to a point that I made a few minutes ago. If you look at the number of tables that have got into the actual AIP stage and when they came, in a sense, on line, the degree of work that was needed to be done on GIS and mapping and that sort of thing has been on an upward curve. While we've been able to reduce costs in some of the areas that we referred to with the items I reported at the beginning of our session today, this is an area where there's a rising need. I think it's right on that it's happening when it is happening, because that is coming just behind the incidence of those tables coming into existence which have signed framework agreements and are now at the agreement-in-principle stage.

M. de Jong: I should correct one thing I said. In fact, this year the budget in this area has increased, I think, by about 25 percent. And if the minister has the relevant numbers for those three areas, that might be helpful.

I wonder if he can tell us more about the type of technology that has been developed or purchased to assist with the negotiating process. I imagine that some of the software that's been developed -- and for one who is as computer-illiterate as I am, it's a bit of stretch for me to conceptualize what might exist. . . . But I have seen programs that allow for the management of vast amounts of evidence for judicial trials. Is that the kind of software that we are now in possession of? If that is the case, I'd like to explore with the minister some of the applications that that may have in a different negotiating forum. What are we developing? We spend $300,000 or $400,000 a year on software development. What is it we're developing?

Hon. J. Cashore: The reason that this complex software is needed is mainly in the area that we have been discussing around mapping and collecting data. For instance, when you consider having to go to a variety of line ministries to get data on water licences, guide-outfitting territories, forest tenures and all that that entails, fee simple parcels and the locations of mineral claims, and then bring that into a system that integrates all of that, you are talking about a process here that does have a significant cost factor in terms of the sophisticated equipment that's needed to do that.

Now, if the hon. member wants a little more detail about what that equipment is -- for instance, the actual names of. . . .

M. de Jong: No.

Hon. J. Cashore: No, okay.

M. de Jong: It wouldn't mean anything to me.

[11:15]

M. de Jong: I guess I'm interested not so much in the actual computer hardware as in the software development. All of the things that the minister has explained strike me as being very relevant to the negotiating process and strike me as being very complicated, but they also strike me as having been needed now for a number of years. Do we have a program that requires ongoing upgrading or improvement? That whole process of integration has been going on now for some time, and presumably that software has existed. Yet each year we spend $300,000 or $400,000. It strikes me that the explanation the minister has offered -- that there are more tables -- might account for the need for more computers, but the software, based on what he has told me, already exists.

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, the fact is, as I said before, that this increase in cost is happening in very clear relation to the volume of main tables that are opening up at the AIP stage. I think that the member's point is right: we should be seeing this beginning to taper off soon -- possibly some time during this fiscal year.

Bear in mind that with the Nisga'a we didn't have access to this kind of technology, so you had people dealing with maybe ten or 12 different maps dealing with 10 or 12 different topics. This information is able to be integrated within this one software system. But I think there is a very clear relationship between this cost and the sequence of events in terms of the number of steps in the six-stage process of treaty-making. The fact is that we have some problems over the volume of the number of tables that we have, over the whole issue of being able to manage, hopefully, on the basis of economies of scale. I expect that we are going to see this levelling off and diminishing as we move further on into the process.

Another thing I would like to mention is that I would be glad to arrange for the hon. member and anybody he wants to bring along to have an on-site demonstration of how some of this technology works -- what it is and more of that sort of thing -- so that he can become a more skilled software expert.

M. de Jong: Well, I appreciate the offer. Would it be. . . ? I wonder if the minister is in a position to provide the numbers relative to this STOB.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hardware is $239,000; the software, $173,000; consulting, $115,000. That adds up to $527,000.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate, with respect to the consulting, whether that would generally involve contracting out for software development?

[ Page 3335 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: That's correct.

M. de Jong: Quickly onto STOB 69 -- and I don't intend to spend any great amount of time on this -- I think this deals with office equipment and furnishings. My only observation. . . . Although it goes down slightly, is that driven by some sort of formula? I've noted, as I went through past years, that at times there were entries for furnishings for new employees when we were told the number of employees was actually decreasing.

Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if the hon. member would restate the question, please.

M. de Jong: There is an amount in this line, STOB 69, of $85,000. Is that figure driven by some sort of governmental formula that requires an allocation of X number of dollars per FTE? The reason I ask is that in the past I have seen entries on ministerial documents -- this minister's documents, in fact -- showing an increase in the amount budgeted for office-related expenditures. The entry is for furnishings for additional employees. At the same time, we're being told that the number of FTEs is actually decreasing. I can't equate the two. The dollar figure is going up, but the number of employees is supposed to be going down.

Hon. J. Cashore: No, I don't think there is any relation to that. On this particular STOB we are under constraints to avoid costs that are not absolutely necessary, and I think that explains why that number has gone down. The hon. member might want to look at building occupancy. That's another place where it's gone down -- and for obvious reasons.

M. de Jong: Again, I don't want to spend a great deal of time on these items. We can go to STOB 75, asset acquisition. I don't know what that is.

Hon. J. Cashore: If we look at STOB 75 -- the way I read it -- it says "asset," then there's a short abbreviation for "equipment." Underneath that it says "asset acquisitions," which is simply the total of those three STOBs. So I'm not sure if the question relates to all three of those STOBs or just what.

M. de Jong: In the notes that I have in my blue book, line 75 refers to machinery, equipment and vehicles. The expenditure in that line would relate to one of those three items.

Hon. J. Cashore: That is a description of the STOB, but the fact is that it is almost entirely, if not entirely, vehicle leases.

M. de Jong: I should tell the minister that I do have a document from three or four years ago that speaks of vehicle rentals. The notation is: "Two vehicles -- minister and pool car." Can the minister explain what that is?

Hon. J. Cashore: At that time there was a car that was used by a variety of drivers for ministry business. I would assume that's an economy of scale, rather than purchasing multiple cars. It's my understanding that it's in that STOB where the vehicle that the minister has, as the minister, is listed. So I would assume that wherever there's a minister's car, that would show up in other budgets in a similar fashion.

M. de Jong: Am I correct, then, that there is no minister's car; there are two vehicles rented which are available for use by anyone within the ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, I'm saying that I assume this is the way in which those ministers who have exercised the option to have access to a leased vehicle would be listed. So those ministers' cars are not pool cars; they are the car that the minister has entire access to on a leased basis under that program. And the pool car would be a car that was made available at that time -- I don't think that is the case now, but it was made available at that time -- to various employees within the ministry.

M. de Jong: This minister does not have a leased vehicle?

Hon. J. Cashore: What I've been trying to say is that this minister does. Up until now I didn't know exactly where that would show up in the blue book, but I am assuming that as with other ministers who have leased vehicles, it shows up on a similar line in their estimates.

M. de Jong: There's an additional pool car within the ministry, so there are two vehicles.

Hon. J. Cashore: There was at the time the hon. member cited; it's not the case now. But there is a minister's vehicle now.

M. de Jong: Well, I think I'm obligated to ask, hon. Chair: what is the vehicle and what is the lease?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm going to answer a question you haven't asked yet before I answer that one -- just to keep you in suspense.

There's a budget line there for a second vehicle, which is the deputy's vehicle, and that's in the budget. However, to date, the deputy has not exercised the option to have access to a leased vehicle.

With regard to the minister's vehicle -- and we're quite confident that is the vehicle it refers to -- it's a Grand Caravan, green. I don't know what else I can say about it. I thought I might get a Rolls-Royce insignia and put it on it somewhere, but anyway, that's what it is.

M. de Jong: If I can go to. . . . Oh, I did want to ask the minister -- this was covered yesterday, and I won't spend a great deal of time -- about the disappearance of STOB 80. The minister -- fairly, I think -- pointed out that that referred almost entirely to the minister's aboriginal initiatives fund. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's correct. It was the aboriginal initiatives fund.

[11:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we will provide it for the two fiscal years requested. I will try to have that available by Thursday morning.

M. de Jong: Can the minister confirm that the amount for the minister's aboriginal initiatives fund for 1997-1998 is zero and that the fund has, in effect, been wound up?

[ Page 3336 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, it's not a fund being wound up in the sense that an account would be closed or anything like that. I can't say at this point whether that fund will be available next year or not, but it's not available during this fiscal year.

M. de Jong: Can I ask the minister, then, what. . . ? And I understand that the objective here was to provide one-time-only funding -- seed money, if you want to describe it that way. There were a number of groups that availed themselves. There was a ceiling of, I think, $5,000 attached to the applications. I have seen a document setting forth the criteria with which applications had to comply.

What follow-up work, if any, has been taken by the ministry to determine whether these programs that were funded in their formative days have survived or whether the funding actually achieved some positive results?

Hon. J. Cashore: These were one-time grants. They were not followed up. If something was brought to our attention, we would have followed up on it if there was some need to follow up. But they weren't programs; they were one-time grants, and they were not followed up.

M. de Jong: Well, I appreciate the minister's candour in replying, but it strikes me that any time upwards of $5,000 is being provided to a group as seed money, there may be some obligation for the agency of government that is providing those funds to determine, even in a superficial way, whether the funds were spent and what result was derived or whether the agency continues to exist.

Do I understand the minister correctly, though, that the funds were simply paid out, and that was the end of the matter?

Hon. J. Cashore: We did very diligent work in making the arrangements to provide these funds. These were legitimate requests. This was not done in a way that was not connected; it was very carefully connected. We had a double system working on it, where it involved both the ministry and the ministerial assistant in the minister's office. I am very confident about the effectiveness of how these funds were used. These moneys were not given out lightly. They were given to projects that we had knowledge were good projects, had validity. So it was not a question of somebody pocketing the money.

M. de Jong: Well, I don't think we're in a position where we can. . . . First of all, I don't know who got the money most recently, but for those projects that I am aware of. . . . For example, I know that the Fort Ware Indian band received funding for clearing and upgrading a heritage trail; that makes sense to me. I presume the trail is operational and is serving a purpose, and that strikes me as being -- on the face of it, at least -- a good community project.

I note that there was funding given to the Haisla nation, and the description is "to assist to meet with the Premier." That strikes me as being a little more dubious; I don't know what that could have been about or for, unless perhaps. . . . It occurred to me that it might be to attend a fundraising dinner, but that, of course, wouldn't be the case. The former Premier never had $5,000-a-plate fundraising dinners.

But I think that there is, on some of these groups. . . . The Dawson Creek Aboriginal Family Resources Society received funding to establish a mandate. I think I could be persuaded that that was an appropriate use of the funds as I know them to have been targeted.

Another individual, according to the description I got, received funding for "business expense during prince visit." I don't know if that's the prince, a prince, or a visit to Prince George or Prince Rupert, but that's the description I have. Again, it raises some questions.

Hon. J. Cashore: As the hon. member went through those, I would say that I have personal knowledge of almost all of them -- that they were done and were followed through. I think that would be the case with the vast majority on that list, actually.

Fort Ware. . . . Certainly I've received several reports on that trail-building work.

I believe that "the prince" meant Prince Philip. This was when Prince Philip and I and the Gitsiis people went into the Khutzeymateen to dedicate the grizzly bear sanctuary there. It related to that.

I think that when the Haisla visited the Premier, it was to assist with travel costs. They were dealing with an item that was important to the Haisla and to our government.

I believe that this fund is managed appropriately, given the type of fund that it is. If the hon. member wants it for the record, I wish I still had availability of that fund. I don't, because we were having to deal with the fact that we had to cut costs throughout government. This was one that we realized we would have to cut in order to recognize higher priorities.

But I want to assure the hon. member that the work that went into making these grants was extensive. It was hands-on work; there was personal knowledge, with both personnel in the ministry and personnel in the minister's office, of these projects -- and these projects were carried through.

M. de Jong: I think I heard the minister say that he would provide me with listings for the last two years, and that is satisfactory as far as I'm concerned.

One of the remaining items I want to deal with sort of on a line-by-line basis relates to STOB 99 and the fact that recoveries are up 300 percent, I think -- or are budgeted to be up 300 percent. Can the minister provide some justification for his optimism on that particular line?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those would primarily be the recoveries that I've already mentioned from the federal government: the 60 percent that they would pay on the pre-treaty information. So those would primarily be recoveries from the federal government.

With regard to the topic we have been canvassing, I just want to mention that I expect that on that list, when we make it available, there will be three or four projects that are over $5,000. I just want that to be on the record, too.

M. de Jong: Insofar as the recoveries are concerned, I recall the minister's reference to the reduction in the budget from the mapping and technology. It doesn't really equate, though, with a $400,000 increase that is budgeted for recoveries here. I assume therefore that there are other sources of income that are addressed in this STOB.

[ Page 3337 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: For the previous fiscal year, the recoveries were greater than the amount of $150,000 that's listed there. For this current fiscal year, the larger number does reflect both the fact that in the previous year the recoveries were greater than $150,000 and the fact that we expect greater recoveries as the federal government pays the funds they owe, on that 60 percent cost recovery. That's the major part of it. If the hon. member is trying to find more details as to what would go under that budget, I think any other detail would be very insignificant compared to the federal recoveries.

M. de Jong: The minister is telling me that the bulk of that $550,000 will come from the federal government. That's his understanding.

Hon. J. Cashore: I've just been advised that 100 percent of it will come from the federal government.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate whether this is a. . . ? If I showed that figure to his federal counterpart, is he likely to agree with it? Or are there. . . ? I guess the question, in fairness, is: are there disputed funds from past years or for this year?

Hon. J. Cashore: There's no dispute. That's reconciled every year, and it works out where there's real agreement on both sides. As far as my federal counterpart is concerned, I don't think he has his head into it right now.

M. de Jong: I have a couple of quick questions about the minister's office, and that might get them out of the way here. My understanding is that any ministerial travel isn't accounted for within the minister's office budget or indeed anywhere within the votes we are concerned with here. Is that the case?

Hon. J. Cashore: Inside Canada, it's the Ministry of Finance that would pay. Outside Canada, it's the Ministry of Employment and Investment that would pay. As I said yesterday, I don't believe that in either of the two fiscal years, this one or the one before, I travelled outside the province.

M. de Jong: Can the minister offer anything in the way of explanation for why that would be the method for accounting for minister travel? It's not unique to his ministry, but it strikes me that the obvious place would be within the minister's office. He has not travelled as widely as some of his colleagues, but it becomes very difficult to trace the comings and goings of a minister.

Hon. J. Cashore: I hesitate to answer the question, because I'm sure it's going to be put to the ministers of those two ministries when they're in estimates. I really don't know, so I will hedge what I say by speculating. My hunch is that it's there so that those ministries can exercise governmentwide standards or control with regard to those activities and also to coordinate them, because whenever a minister of the Crown travels internationally, for instance, for obvious reasons it doesn't only have ramifications for the ministry for which that individual has a mandate. I think the same thing can be said for travel outside British Columbia. It needs that sort of global overview.

[11:45]

M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I only note that -- and I recognize that the minister has offered that explanation off the top of his head -- some of those same responses, though, those same arguments, might be applied to arguing in favour of more centralized travel on the broad scope, along the lines of what we were talking about yesterday.

I think, hon. Chair, I want to get into another area that we might begin after lunch. So I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

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