[ Page 10137 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, just before we begin introductions, I have the honour to present a different kind of message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, which I received today:

"This coming Saturday, July 18, at Government House, we will be hosting our third celebration of the anniversary of British Columbia joining Canada in 1871. Once more, hundreds of volunteers are donating their time and effort to make it fun for everyone. Open to the public and free of charge, there will be pipe bands, the military, an R.C.A.F. fly-past, musical performances, house and garden tours, an antique car show and a super food fair. The gates will be open at 10:30 a.m. Proceedings will be from 11 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., in conjunction with nearby Victoria Art Gallery's Moss Street Paint-In, plus functions at Craigdarroch Castle. It will be fun for young and old, and we most cordially invite all members of the Legislative Assembly and their families.

"Garde B. Gardom, QC
"Lieutenant-Governor"

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to introduce to the members of the House today a delegation from the select committee on native title rights in Western Australia. They are meeting with people in British Columbia to get some sense of how we do things in this part of the world. I would ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming the following people: the Hons. Tom Stephens, Barry House, Murray Criddle, Giz Watson, Murray Nixon and Helen Hodgson. They are joined by their staff, Mr. Marcus Priest and Mr. Jason Agar. Would the House please join me in extending these people a warm welcome.

While we are on the subject of down under, Madam Speaker, I note that we are also joined in the House today by Mr. Malcolm Kerr. He is a Member of Parliament for the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in Australia. Clearly, this is the day for down under. I would ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming this gentleman also.

T. Nebbeling: In the same section where the guests just introduced are sitting is Rick Wozney, the mayor of Kitimat, still in search of an aluminum smelter. I hope he is successful today. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For what I believe is her annual visit down here, I'd like to introduce a teacher from Quesnel who is a friend and neighbour of mine, Eileen Chan.

H. Giesbrecht: Visiting us in the gallery today are four constituents of Skeena. One of them has already been introduced: Rick Wozney, the mayor of Kitimat. I want to introduce the other three, who are also from the community of Kitimat, which probably puts more per capita into the economy of British Columbia than any other community.

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: And that's even in this particular time. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mayor Rick Wozney, Councillor Graham Anderson and Councillor Ray Brady, who is accompanied by his wife Ruth Brady.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Visiting today in the House we have a distinguished journalist from the Port Coquitlam tri-cities area, Lisa Morry. She's accompanied by her sons, Eli and Nial. Would the House please make them welcome,

Hon. D. Streifel: On behalf of one our Pages, Stephanie, I would like to introduce to the House her mother Sharon Priseman. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to introduce three visitors from Sutton Coldfield, England, who are here to visit their brother and uncle. Chris Haynes is an ADM in my ministry. Would the House please help me make very welcome Michael and Kathleen Haynes and their son Richard, who are with us today.

W. Hartley: It's my great pleasure to introduce some people who are in the gallery today with my spouse Alice and our daughter Wallis. Marlene Hancock, who has been my wife's teacher and good friend, is a professor of political science at Douglas College. Her niece Kate Hancock is visiting from Somerset, England. They're accompanied by Marie Ann Leblanc, who is the coordinator of ambulatory care at the Royal Columbian Hospital. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

S. Orcherton: I actually have three introductions to make today. Joining us in the gallery is Ms. Tarjanna Ball, a constituent of mine from Victoria-Hillside and a strong community activist in Victoria. Accompanying her is her granddaughter Charest Collet, who is visiting from Fort McMurray, Alberta. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

Also joining us in the gallery are Isabel Clark and May Ching, activists who work very hard on behalf of the Association of Consumer Empowerment in Victoria. They operate an activity centre for folks who are mental health consumers. I would ask the House to make them welcome to this assembly as well.

Finally, joining us in the gallery are Mr. Dwayne Martin, Ms. Sheila Knight and Ms. Sandi McLean, all of whom are from the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. I want to note to the members that Ms. McLean is also president of the Victoria Labour Council. They're joining us to listen to question period and the ongoing debate on Bill 26. I'd ask the House to make them welcome as well.

[2:15]

R. Kasper: Today in the gallery we have a young visitor, Angela Spooner. She is from sunny Sooke, and she is joined by her mother Patti. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery this afternoon are three people I want the House to acknowledge. They are my mom and two of her guests, Diane Schoub and Pauline Watkins. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

[ Page 10138 ]

Introduction of Bills

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm pleased to introduce the Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1998, made up of four housekeeping amendments to the Builders Lien Act. The Builders Lien Act was revised last year and became law on February 1, 1998. Revising the Builders Lien Act had been a major priority for the construction industry and other stakeholders for a number of years.

The proposed amendments are to address issues identified by stakeholders, including my colleague across the way. Acting to address these issues is part of an ongoing effort to reduce red tape in one of the province's most important economic industries. The Builders Lien Amendment Act has the support of both government and industry. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This act makes a number of amendments to the School Act and to the Municipal Act. The main purpose of the act is twofold. The first is to firmly establish free adult basic education as the norm in British Columbia, and the second is to help school boards acquire the sites necessary to build new schools.

Firstly, the act amends the School Act to ensure that it reflects the current practice of funding various groups of students. The amendments clarify which students are entitled to provincial funding, specify which categories of students are only funded through special grants, establish that adult high school graduation programs are now free, and set an upper limit on the number of funded adults in the K-to-12 system. These amendments, along with the recent changes to college adult basic education programs, ensure that all ABE programs in British Columbia will now be provided free of charge.

Secondly, the act provides school boards with the means to collect funds for the purchase of new school sites and help build needed schools faster. The act repeals the current section 942 of the Municipal Act, which authorized school boards and local governments to enter into voluntary agreements for school site acquisition, and replaces it with a mandatory requirement. The change requires all school boards that identify the need for a school site, based on projected future residential development in the school district, to adopt a bylaw to collect a small school site acquisition charge on residential development to help school boards pay for acquiring land for new school facilities.

The act includes a consultation process to encourage local governments and school boards to work together on school site planning and an inexpensive way to resolve disputes where necessary. It also amends section 101 of the School Act to ensure that school boards keep the funds collected under a school site acquisition bylaw in a separate land capital reserve fund which may only be used for school site purposes. I move that Bill 35 be placed on the orders of the day at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BC ONLINE ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to introduce the BC OnLine Act, which authorizes financial transactions that will permit the sale of B.C. OnLine to proceed. The BC OnLine Act is an enabling statute to facilitate any contemplated sale of B.C. OnLine. The act will permit terms of the sale to include allowing the purchaser to retain some or all of the revenue generated from the operation of the B.C. OnLine system. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COST OF NISGA'A TREATY AGREEMENT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, that depends on the market. What was negotiated was the same economic position -- and

[ Page 10139 ]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. According to the government's own document -- and it is a document dated February of 1996 -- lost forest revenue given up in terms of the Nisga'a deal will be at least $36 million.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Can the minister confirm for us that cash costs of the proposed Nisga'a deal will include the following: $36 million in lost forest revenues, $11.5 million to purchase fishing vessels and licences, $10 million for the Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust, $190 million in cash, $40 million to pave the highway and $30 million for the Nisga'as' legal costs?

Hon. D. Lovick: I could confirm some parts of the points made in the member's question. Alas, I am not in a position to confirm all of those things with any certainty. The reason is simply that I have not yet seen the final chapters, nor have I had an opportunity to be briefed. I think that members in this House will know why and will recognize that one can't, indeed, be in two places at the same time. I wasn't at the table; I wasn't part of that final agreement.

Moreover, I would point out that the protocol that exists between the parties to the agreement is that the details of the final agreement are not in fact going to be released until August 3 or August 4 -- somewhere in there -- at which time all members will have all the details. Then we can have a reasonable debate, based on information that all of us are aware of.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The numbers that I have come forward with are obviously not based on the final agreement, which was raised yesterday. In fact, what I heard from the Premier yesterday is that costs continued to increase as of yesterday. They are costed from the costings of the agreement-in-principle and have been publicly identified by the government in the past. The total cash cost is at least $317.5 million. That doesn't include the dollar value of the land, compensation for third parties, ongoing annual funding for the Nisga'a government, enrolment and implementation costs, or FRBC funding to Nisga'a, which won't be offset by any stumpage charges.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: how much does the government estimate the total cost will be for this Nisga'a agreement -- for this one Nisga'a settlement that's been brought forward?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think I've already made the point that I'm very reluctant to give definitive answers to those kinds of very specific questions, because I have not yet seen that final agreement. What I do know is that the $190 million that is being talked about is essentially the federal government's contribution. I also know that the $40 million that is being talked about for legal costs is coming, essentially, from the federal government.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, $30 million. Thank you, member.

I would emphasize that all of the calculations we have carried out thus far tell us that there is still roughly a ratio of a 3-to-1 net benefit accruing to the province. It is true that there is a significant cost up front. Nobody should have any illusions about that; indeed, I don't think anybody, since the AIP was published, has ever suggested anything otherwise. But for me to give the member what he's asking for now -- a specific costing on things like Forest Renewal. . . . I'm sorry, member. With all due deference, I have no wish to duck, but I simply can't answer. I will, however, undertake to get that information and make it available as soon as I possibly can.

M. de Jong: The Premier described this as a template for the future, and the people that are going to pay those future agreements are interested in knowing what the price tag is going to be. I think they understand that the more band members there are, the more land and cash the band will expect to receive. So the question to the minister with respect to this deal is: can he tell us how many Nisga'a members will be covered by the proposed treaty we heard about yesterday?

Hon. D. Lovick: The precise figures obviously can change from day to day. But the calculus is somewhere, I think, around 5,500. Those are the people who have an entitlement to vote. Significant numbers of those people are living outside Nisga'a traditional territory settlement lands at the moment, but the hope in the Nisga'a ratification process is that all of those people will be given an opportunity to participate in the ratification. But I will try and get those specific numbers for the member as soon as I possibly can.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: That's partially helpful. We've just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, and he set out how the known cash costs of the Nisga'a deal will be at least $317.5 million. The figure the minister has indicated about the number of people involved falls within the range identified in '95 by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and what the standing committee was told last year by the Nisga'a themselves -- about 5,600. Armed with that information, will the minister confirm that, based on the population range, the identified cash costs for this deal will be somewhere between $56,000 and $66,000 per Nisga'a member?

[2:30]

COST OF FEDERAL GUN CONTROL PROGRAM

[ Page 10140 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, let me clarify the province's position on Bill C-68. We said right from the beginning that we support the anti-smuggling provisions and higher penalties for offences committed with guns -- those provisions. We were very, very concerned about the cumbersome provisions that deal with registration.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we have been. We have been working with the federal government to make sure that the registration process is as convenient as it can be, and we continue to work on that.

On the issue of costs, it is news to me that we are negotiating a cost-sharing arrangement. It is my conviction and understanding that the federal government is absolutely and completely responsible for the costs of this scheme.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Well, British Columbia carried the cost of the 1992 gun registration program for three years and was never reimbursed for the municipal or the police costs associated with that piece of legislation. Now the Attorney General is hiring as many as 40 new staff members to implement Bill C-68. Can he tell us, if he's not negotiating with Ottawa, who's going to pay the cost of those 40 extra people?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am aware that this bill is going to be implemented effective October 1. I would be remiss as the Attorney General to not make preparations for the enforcement of federal legislation that's in the nature of criminal law. But it is important for us to recognize that all of the costs with respect to implementation -- from the moment the negotiations started -- are going to be borne by the federal government, including the ones for those that are going to be hired to implement this legislation.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: The federal government promised that gun owners were going to pay the full cost of implementing Bill C-68. They promised Canadians that it was going to cost about $10 a gun to register their weapons -- significantly less than the $83 it costs the province and the RCMP to register restricted weapons today. The federal Justice department has indeed indicated that this cost is going to be $10, but it costs us $83. Will the Attorney General advise gun owners in British Columbia whether or not they're going to be stuck with the full cost of this bureaucratic nightmare?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It has never been my understanding that this registration system was going to be self-supporting in terms of the costs to the consumers. My understanding has been that whatever the cost is, the federal government is going to pay that cost to implement this system. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

COST OF TREATY AGREEMENTS AFTER NISGA'A

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is no, the minister cannot do that -- or at least at this point I certainly can't. What I would remind the member of, though. . . . There is no guarantee that there is some easy formula whereby you say, "We have agreement X at this point in time, and we can extrapolate therefrom," to be able to say with any certainty what will happen at the end of the road in the negotiation process. What I want to emphasize to the member, however, is that with the formula, the cost-sharing agreement we have with the federal government, however the land and cash is adjudicated and divided, it is ultimately a 50-50 spread. It's a matter of evaluating how much the land component is, costing that and then having an offset of a comparable amount of cash from the federal government. That's the way the system works. So whether it's the Burrard, the Musqueam or the Nisga'a negotiating, frankly, it doesn't matter -- the same construct obtains.

The second point, very briefly, is to simply put on the table, if I might, the cost of not having a treaty. Think about it. Surely nobody in this province believes that the status quo is in any way desirable.

The Speaker: Minister, finish your remarks, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: I will finish my remarks by simply saying that I hope the member asks me another question, so I can elaborate on that point.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Well, the government may find it amusing that we ask these questions, but these are questions that are in people's minds in British Columbia -- and rightly so. But to stand up and nonchalantly say no is, I think, unacceptable to British Columbians. The cash. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please. The member has the floor.

R. Neufeld: The projected cost that we and other British Columbians have heard is about $10 billion. That is cash, and whether it's from the federal government or the province, it is the taxpayers of British Columbia that have to pay these costs.

[ Page 10141 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I thought I had made the point about how the formula works and what the cost-sharing agreement that we have with the federal government is. I simply want to remind the member that yes indeed, there is a cost. Nobody has any illusions, and anybody who tries to pretend that you can settle land claims without a cost is clearly defying all credibility. The point, however, is: consider the payback. For the first time in recent B.C. history, we're going to have a federal on-load instead of a federal off-load.

Seeing that the red light is on, Madam Speaker, I shall quit while I'm ahead.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)

On the amendment to section 2, section 55.14 (continued).

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to begin by dealing with those sections we stood down and for which there were particular amendments. The first of those, I believe, was section 55.14. I believe the member for Vancouver-Quilchena tabled an amendment. I want to be sure I have the right one. I'm sorry, I'm looking for that amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I appreciate that. After considerable weighing and considering, I am happy to say that we are persuaded by the case that was presented by the member, and therefore we are willing to accept that amendment. I would therefore suggest that the question on the amendment would be appropriate now.

Amendment approved.

Section 2, section 55.14 as amended approved.

On section 2, section 55.16.

Hon. D. Lovick: On this particular section, again after some discussion, we have heard the member's concerns. I would like to share with him a proposed amendment standing in my name that we think will address those concerns. If I may, there is the signed version and another version for the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Mr. Chairman, I simply need to look quickly and see where that particular amendment is.

The Chair: Minister, perhaps I should just read out the amendment:

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 55.16(6) and substituting the following:

(6) A trade union must not establish picket lines or engage in a strike because of the employer's or umpire's assignment of work or for jurisdictional purposes.]

Amendment approved.

Section 2, section 55.16 as amended approved.

On section 2, section 55.2 (continued).

C. Hansen: After all this jumping back and forth between sections, I've got to figure out exactly where we are here again. I didn't expect, hon. Chair, that we would wind up breezing through that quite as quickly as we did.

We are on section 55.2, which is the establishing of the CLRA as the bargaining agent. As the minister knows, there is some concern by other trade organizations and employer organizations which are going to be affected by this. One of the questions that have been raised is why government is basically running roughshod over those trade organizations -- and I don't think that's too harsh a word to use. What we are doing in essence is taking organizations that have been serving their members very ably in the area of collective bargaining over the years and saying to them that they're now totally out of the picture. You've got organizations that predate the CLRA; they go back to long before the CLRA was even established. I'd like to ask the minister if there was any consideration given to including those particular trade organizations that had taken on a collective bargaining responsibility -- including them in this process. What we set up here under this section is the forced membership of the individual companies in the CLRA. Certainly it strikes me that there is an opportunity for those associations to continue to have a role in this process, without completely bypassing them. I wonder if the minister could advise us if any consideration was given to that.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, for the record, I must say that I do not believe that it's a case of riding roughshod, as the member suggests. I just want to establish that we have a disagreement on that.

Second, I would emphasize that the legislation does not demand that people become members of the CLRA. That is not required. It does, however, require that they pay their share in terms of the contract administration process -- the cost of negotiating contracts. Essentially, that is simply to ensure that we get around the problem of what in economic terms is usually called the free-rider issue. The fact is that many independent union contractors currently pick up the

[ Page 10142 ]

The final point I would make is just that those independent contractors, of course, have every right in the world to join the CLRA and use their own strength and their own arguments with a view to changing and indeed perhaps at some point to becoming the leadership of the CLRA. It's a democratic organization, and they have every right to do that.

All the other arguments in terms of why the CLRA was chosen, I think, stand. I don't think I need to repeat them here. It seems to me we've probably canvassed this section at sufficient length -- but that's the member's call.

C. Hansen: I know the minister was in receipt of a letter from the Mechanical Industrial Relations Association -- just to use one organization as a case in point. They sent a letter to the minister on May 11, and I was copied with that letter. They note that their organization was actually incorporated in February of 1960, well before the CLRA was even established -- by about ten years, I gather. But I think the point they make is a valid one. If an argument can be made that all parties must "at least contribute financially," then the contribution ought to be made to the trade association, which in turn may elect to contribute to the umbrella bargaining unit -- namely, the likes of the CLRA. They go on to say that the ICI mechanical contractors are secure within the broadly based bargaining unit, but not captive.

This is an area that could become quite disruptive in an industry that has some very established collective bargaining routines, and the mechanical engineers being one of several of those organizations. Now what you're saying is that we are totally turning our back on the process that's been there and that we're bringing in this whole new element of instability, as a new bargaining relationship has to be determined under the CLRA, which is not a voluntary process but a forced process. I'm just wondering again where the minister sees these organizations fitting into this new process.

Hon. D. Lovick: Where the members will fit into the new process will obviously be determined largely by themselves. A point I would simply make is that we are. . . . When we talk about ICI construction, it's very much an integrated industry. In fact, that became the principal reason why Kelleher and Lanyon made the recommendation they did.

Let me also refer the member to appendix B in the report, which I think may provide some comfort or at least some information. Appendix B, as the member will recall, is the principles respecting the CLRA constitution and bylaws. Item 2 in that makes it very clear, as follows: "Trade divisions should be established within CLRA, and the decision-making authority within each trade division should reflect the shared responsibility of CLRA and the majority of contractors within that trade division." I think that will probably address the concern of the mechanical contractors in this instance.

C. Hansen: If I can pick up on that point, it does not say here that the trade divisions have the right of self-determination when it comes to the functioning. The way this reads is that it still gives enormous power to the CLRA to dictate from the top down the kinds of trade divisions there would be. If the minister is saying that it's his expectation that these trade divisions should be largely driven by the CLRA members within those trades, and if that's the intent, then I think that might give a little bit of added comfort.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the point, rather, is that surely the notion of shared responsibility means that both sides have some stake in making this thing work. It's not a question of one side or one body dictating to the other from the top down. Rather, it's saying: "How do we sort out this mechanism, this structure, so it works well to represent both our interests?" It's a democratic structure. Those individual contractors can obviously make common cause with other contractors who have similar apprehensions and misgivings of their own and then produce a policy and a constitution which will work for all of them. I don't think it's too huge a stretch to suggest that responsible men and women will do that in terms of making their industry function somewhat better.

Section 2, section 55.2 approved on division.

On section 2, section 55.21.

C. Hansen: This is a fairly short section that says: "All employers whose bargaining rights are affected by the operation of section 55.2" -- which we just talked about -- "have the right to join and participate in CLRA." My question to the minister is: what does that mean? Does it mean, for example, the right to be part of the newly redesigned constitution that is required as a result of the previous section?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member's specific question, I understand, concerns subsection (2), effectively asking for an explanation of that -- perfectly legitimate. On the one hand, the first section says that the section ensures that any employer whose rights are affected by the provision has the right to join and participate in decision-making within the CLRA -- a point I have made on a number of occasions now. But -- and here is what sub (2) is about -- it also ensures that those employers are not required to delegate other rights to the CLRA, rights for negotiating collective agreements for, let's say, residential work. Let's suppose a contractor also has some work in that sector. We're not saying that because you are a signatory to this, you therefore have to delegate those rights to another.

C. Hansen: As I went through this bill the first time I saw it, writing little notes in the margins as I went, the note that I had written to myself beside this section was: "Yeah, but in the real world. . . ." In the real world, hon. Chair, it's not practical or realistic that you're going to have employers that are going to be dealing with a multitude of collective agreements and a multitude of bargaining processes. Needless to say, I think it's difficult enough for an organization to have to cope with one collective bargaining process and one collective agreement, never mind two.

I would like to ask the minister if any consideration has been given to the difficulty that would be involved with a construction company trying to operate under two different collective agreements, with the same workforce, doing both ICI and non-ICI projects on the same day.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that there are indeed examples of this provision operating out there. The section, as we know, deals with the issue -- conceivably or potentially -- of a residential contractor who might become organized and might become involved in ICI work. Fair enough. For the ICI work, that contractor would obviously have to operate under the terms of the CLRA-bargaining council standard agreements. It needs to be emphasized, however, that the contractor could retain his or her right to negotiate a separate and dis-

[ Page 10143 ]

The member says it isn't the real world. Well, I think we'd have to tell that to those who are actually working in the real world and doing that. Again, I'm not suggesting that that becomes the pattern or the template, but it certainly is doable. That's what the legislation is designed to address.

[3:00]

Hon. D. Lovick: I was just confirming that three of us all heard the same question. Now that we have established that, I am happy to provide the member with an answer, and the answer is yes.

Section 2, section 55.21 approved on division.

On section 55.22.

C. Hansen: In this section, the establishment of employer bargaining agency. . . . It states: "All of the collective bargaining rights, duties and obligations of building trades employers with respect to ICI construction vest in CLRA." If you come down to subsection (3), I think we have much the same difficulty as we had in the other section that we amended just at the start of this section. It says: "(3) Subject to section 55.15," -- which I believe is just the major project collective agreements -- "on or after the date on which this section comes into force, a collective agreement that is entered into by a trade union representing craft bargaining units respecting a building trades employer is void if it is made with any person or organization other than CLRA."

Again, I think we have the same problem. What would in fact happen is that as soon as this section is proclaimed, you're going to wind up with a whole bunch of workers being unprotected from the existing collective agreements they now have. I'm going to move an amendment that is very much similar to the one we discussed before with one exception, and that's to address the issue we raised earlier about the problem that the CLRA may have in establishing its collective bargaining rights until such time as they have amended their constitution in accordance with the previous provisions.

What I would like to move is:

[To delete the words "on or after the date on which this section comes into force," and to substitute: "as of the date on which the constitution and bylaws of CLRA are approved by the board."]

C. Hansen: I think this would, in much the same way as the previous one, address the problem that we'd have of collective agreements becoming void. I think the ramifications for this one are actually even broader than for the earlier one we talked about. I'll give the minister a chance to respond to that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to begin by asking the member to clarify for me what other amendment he is referring to. Which section was he talking about? It wasn't one of the two amendments we accepted, as I recall -- or was it?

This is a very substantive amendment that, quite frankly, goes beyond the amendments we normally consider as acceptable. The entire point of our existing legislation as written is to talk about when this section comes into force -- in other words, by the proclamation process and the legislation process. The member's amendment is effectively connecting it much more directly to an internal process of approving a constitution and bylaws. In that respect, it seems to me to be a substantive amendment, and I don't think it is technically in order. As well, as I read it, we don't need it, and I don't think it is acceptable. It's not acceptable.

The Chair: The Chair would agree with the minister's interpretation.

C. Hansen: It's just that the process of amending the constitution is in the legislation, of course. It's in section 55.2, which actually sets out the requirement for. . . . Sorry, it's section 55.2(2), which says that the constitution and bylaws of the CLRA are to be approved by the board. Then it sets out the provisions for the time lines for amending it, so I think it is very much a part of the act. I'll tell you the concern I've got. It's in the same spirit as the one we talked about in section 55.14. In that regard, the way section 55.22(3) currently reads is: ". . .on or after the date on which this section comes into force" -- which, of course, is proclamation -- "a collective agreement that is entered into by a trade union representing craft bargaining units respecting a building trades employer is void if it is made with any person or organization other than CLRA."

The problem I think we have harkens back to section. . . . It basically says that the bargaining rights. . . . Sorry, it's section 55.2, setting out the bargaining rights -- the CLRA's right to bargain. . . . It basically says that the constitution of the CLRA must first of all be approved by the board. I believe that what would happen, given the wording as it currently exists, is that any collective agreement that is currently out there respecting building trades employers and their craft bargaining units is going to be void. So there are the examples I already gave -- of the mechanical engineers, for example -- or the sheet metal workers. There's a slew of collective agreements in place for those various organizations, but they were not negotiated by the CLRA. They were negotiated by those other organizations.

What's going to happen is that the minute you proclaim this section, you're going to be declaring those collective agreements void. You're going to be leaving those workers unprotected -- and, for that matter, the employers unprotected. You're going to leave that whole workplace without an effective collective agreement -- certainly not one that could. . . . I think the minister mentioned earlier that what it means when it says "void" is that it would have no effect at the LRB. But if you have no effect at the LRB, then what's the mechanism by which you enforce a collective agreement? I believe you're leaving these workers unprotected.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't believe we need an amendment to solve the problem that the member refers to or outlines for us. I appreciate the point he's making. I think it's well thought out. I would just remind him that in this legislation, as in most other pieces of legislation, there is a transitional provision. The transitional provision here, which essentially enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to deal

[ Page 10144 ]

I hope the member will appreciate that it is not for a moment to minimize his concerns. I think they're legitimate ones, but we have a mechanism in place to do that. We don't require anything further, frankly. Therefore I am reluctant to accept the amendment he proposes.

The Chair: The Chair has already ruled the amendment out of order, so if we could go to the motion on section 2, section 55.22. . . .

C. Hansen: Perhaps I should ask the minister if he feels there would be merit in including language here that would be consistent with the language we used in section 55.14. Actually, when I started to look at this particular section and the problems I have outlined, what I initially looked at was amending it in exactly the same way we had amended section 55.14. It would say: "Subject to section 55.15, a collective agreement that is entered into on or after the date on which this section comes into force, etc., is void."

If the concern about my amendment and its validity was with regard to including this requirement that, first of all, the CLRA have its constitution finalized by the board, I just thought that would solve a problem that we had talked about before. But in essence, the main focus of my amendment was not that; rather, it was to provide for particular agreements not to be declared void, which is the intent of where I was coming from. So if it was the reference I included in it to the constitution and bylaws of the CLRA, then I wonder if the minister would entertain an amendment that would be consistent with what we implemented in section 55.14, which had identical wording prior to our amending it.

Hon. D. Lovick: I realize that the discussion is indeed out of order, but I will simply say to the member -- and I think I owe him this -- that we share his concerns, certainly, that the agreement not become null and void because of some kind of inadvertent error on our part. But as I say, I think we have solved the problem. The solution is already in the legislation, it seems to me.

C. Hansen: I know the minister talked about the transition section, which we haven't come to yet. The transition section basically says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations considered necessary or advisable for the purpose of more effectively bringing into the operation Part 4.1 of the Labour Relations Code and to remedy any transitional difficulties encountered in so doing." It's my understanding that this particular power, which we have not yet got to, can come down to the interpretation of legislation. But I don't see how that particular power is going to allow the minister or government to override the provisions as they're set out in this section. This section, I think, reads quite clearly that once this section comes into place, we're going to have a whole bunch that. . . . These collective agreements will be void. I don't know how you can use transitional regulations to reword a section of the legislation.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that drafting a regulation to address this problem is not hugely difficult. It's not something that we need to worry about. It's done frequently and it's a relatively straightforward matter.

C. Hansen: I learned many years ago that when somebody says, "Don't worry," it's usually the time when you start to worry. Hon. Chair, perhaps the minister could explain the kind of regulation that would be used to address this, because I am looking for some comfort level here, and I don't have it.

[3:15]

C. Hansen: I guess I would be interested in knowing if the minister has any thoughts as to which route. . . . Those are two very different routes that could be pursued. I don't know if the minister could share with us his sentiments as to which of those two routes might be preferable.

Hon. D. Lovick: The first point is that we need to talk to the parties and determine if there is indeed a problem here, and as I have said, I think that point is moot at the moment. Based on those discussions, based on the conclusion that there is indeed a problem, then obviously one is going to look to the speediest and, dare I say, easiest way. Beyond that, no, I have no idea which of those two routes might be the preferred one. I think there are too many other variables for me to give that answer.

C. Hansen: Subsection (1), if I can just read it, says: "All of the collective bargaining rights, duties and obligations of building trades employers with respect to ICI construction vest in CLRA." I'm assuming that the intent of this is to capture only the craft unions, and yet that's not what it says. I was wondering if the minister could enlighten me on this. If you go back to the definition section as to what the definition of a building trades employer is, it's very broad. It says: " 'building trades employer' means a unionized construction employer that has a bargaining relationship with a trade union representing employers in craft bargaining units in ICI construction." So what it's saying is that a building trades employer could have a variety of employees, of which some may be employees in a craft bargaining unit in ICI. It's certainly not exclusive, because it is quite broad, and it includes companies that may have only a small minority of their employees in craft bargaining units in ICI construction. Yet that definition of building trades employers basically encompasses the entire organization, not just the section that's in ICI craft construction. I wonder if the minister could explain the intent of that first section in that regard, when it says that all of the collective bargaining rights of building trades employers with respect to ICI construction are vested with the CLRA. It seems to be very broad in the way it's worded.

Hon. D. Lovick: I disagree. It seems to me that the definition of building trades employer is very narrowly tied to craft bargaining units in ICI construction. That's what it's

[ Page 10145 ]

C. Hansen: I think the minister is missing something. If you had an organization that had 100 workers that were working in aspects of ICI construction and only, say, ten of them were actually in a craft bargaining unit, that would be a building trades employer. It doesn't say that you have to have all of your workers in a craft bargaining unit. What it says is that you simply have an employer that has a bargaining relationship with a trade union. It certainly presents the possibility of companies that have a craft bargaining unit, yes, but the majority of their employees could be outside. Yet if you read this section that we have before us, what it says is that that company has to turn over all of its collective bargaining rights for ICI construction to the CLRA. It doesn't say that it's just for craft bargaining units; it says for everything. Maybe the minister could explain.

Hon. D. Lovick: I must leap out of my chair to correct that, simply because I noticed that the reference in section 55.22(1) is "with respect to ICI construction," and ICI construction by definition, in this part, refers to craft units. So I think that solves the problem, or it's certainly our reading that that solves the problem. There isn't an ambiguity there.

C. Hansen: But that's not what it says. Maybe if we can get beyond this, what I would ask the minister is to give me some assurance that subsection (1), when it says "all of the collective bargaining rights" is intended to refer to the bargaining rights as they pertain to craft bargaining units.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

Section 2, section 55.22 approved on division.

On section 2, section 55.23.

C. Hansen: This is the section that I think causes a lot of concern for a lot of people who are looking at this. Basically, what it does is provide for newly unionized employees to be subject to the master collective agreement. It then allows the parties to the collective agreement to make special arrangements as transitional arrangements. I guess the concern, in terms of the way it is worded, is that it really doesn't give much protection at all for the company that has bid on a project, is in the process of building a project, and then in the middle of that process, becomes unionized under a craft bargaining unit, and they are then subject to the master collective agreement. What it says is that the parties can agree to arrangements that they consider reasonable for newly unionized employees, for the purposes of accommodating existing projects of those employers.

Probably the best way to start with this is if we can deal with some of the definitions as to what certain terms mean here -- first of all, what a "newly unionized employer" means in this context. If the minister could assist us with that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I'm working on the assumption that the member's question, when he talks about "newly unionized," has to do with who those people typically are. Is that. . . ?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, okay. I think what we anticipate here, what is envisaged here, is a group of workers who do not have a union contract -- they are non-union workers. . . . Obviously somebody goes in and persuades the majority of those people to join a union. They sign the appropriate cards or whatever the process may be. The majority decides, indeed, to join, and they get their certification. They go through the normal legal process of certification, which I know the member knows about. They would be newly unionized employees. I think that sounds suspiciously self-evident, so I'm wondering if there's actually something more that the member was asking me.

C. Hansen: I've got a bunch of questions. There's no particular hidden motive behind any one of them. They're all part and parcel of trying to get a better sense of what this section means.

Under subsection (1) it says: "Section 55.2" -- which establishes the CLRA as the bargaining organization -- "applies to (a) an employer who subsequently becomes a building trades employer." That could include a newly unionized employer, and it could also include an employer who is unionized to another union. For example, we could wind up, as a result of a raid, with an employer who would subsequently become a building trades employer, but they would not be a newly unionized employer.

Secondly, it says: ". . .(b) to the extent necessary to give effect to this Part" -- which I want to come back to, because I'm not sure what that means -- "a unionized construction employer whose employees are represented by a trade union representing craft bargaining units who subsequently becomes engaged in ICI construction." In both cases we have either newly unionized employers or unionized employers who change bargaining agents, who either become subject to a craft certification or come into ICI construction -- either way. If you read this section, those existing unionized employers, whether they are raided or they become engaged in ICI work, are not entitled to any form of accommodation here. If you look at subsection (2), it only applies to newly unionized employers.

The problem we've got with subsection (1) is that you've got an organization that has an existing collective agreement and that has projects underway, and they are raided by a building trades union. What this says here is that there is no provision for accommodation in that case. It's the same with an employer who subsequently becomes engaged in ICI. If they are already a unionized employer and they become engaged in ICI work, there's no provision in here for accommodation. I just wonder why the minister would be dealing with those existing unionized employers in such an unbending way. Why don't we have this provision in subsection (2) apply to all employers who become subject to this master collective agreement? Why is it only the newly unionized employers?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think the circumstance is quite as dramatic as one might conclude at first blush, simply because what we're talking about here is people who are already unionized, and somebody else comes in and gets that certification, another certification. It isn't as if we're going from nothing -- no transportation at all -- to the Cadillac. It is, rather, a much more incremental kind of shift.

[ Page 10146 ]

[3:30]

If you had a project that the project manager or developer, or whoever was behind it, felt was not an ICI project, that this was totally separate. . . . To go back to some things we were talking about before, let's say it's the construction of building, but he contracts separately for the services of a landscaper. The landscaper comes in. Perhaps that particular landscaper is unionized under the labourers' union or one of the other craft unions, and the union decides that the master collective agreement should apply to this work, because the landscaping is connected to a hospital, and that it should have been part and parcel of one tendered contract as opposed to two separate contracts.

My question is: what if that goes to the LRB, and the LRB agrees with the union that brought it forward and says: "Yes, in retrospect this should have been ICI work." You suddenly have a small landscaping company that, in the words that are here in this section, finds itself subsequently engaged in ICI construction -- almost in a retroactive case in that sense. Would that mean that they are now brought into that whole CLRA circle, and even if they don't want to become members of the CLRA, they're de facto members and are going to have to pay dues and all that kind of thing? Where do we draw the line on this? Where's the threshold for what constitutes an employer in ICI work? Just to complete that thought, I think that once this is passed, there are many employers who are going to be very carefully avoiding ICI work in any way, shape or form. For them to find out retroactively that they've been engaged in ICI work could have very major consequences to their ability to manage their own companies.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm afraid that the member's case is too hypothetical for me to deal with in an elaborate way. Suffice it to say that the case he presented, the hypothesis he presented, when he was working to set something up effectively denied the argument he was presenting about ambiguity, because the example he finally gave us was a hospital, which by definition would be ICI.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the better example, I am advised, would be something like roadbuilding contractors, who frequently will have a whole number of things but then will get one small ICI project or something like that. The reality is that they tend to do that project, but they are still roadbuilders and therefore don't take part in the standard master agreement. Those kinds of aberrations or unique circumstances probably happen all the time.

I think the cautionary note we got from Lanyon and Kelleher in terms of their report -- what the intention of the legislation was, you know, to make sure. . . . I'm referring, of course, to page 18 and the recommendation following from the text -- namely, that special arrangements must be made to accommodate existing projects. When something new comes along to change the circumstance, you don't stick the existing contractor, with the better contract that he's negotiated, and expect that person who has bid on the contract with one set of information to suddenly have to fulfil the obligations of another contract that came in the middle of the operation. I think the guidelines suggested by the Lanyon and Kelleher report will probably be sufficient to guide the board and protect against the kind of circumstance the member is fearful of.

C. Hansen: We'll leave that one there. I think that is an area where some work may need to be done by the LRB in the future. I can certainly see it surfacing.

I would like to turn to the next clause where they talk about "the parties to the collective agreement must make special collective agreement arrangements. . . ." It's not "may" -- they're compelled to. What I'd like to ask the minister is: when we say that they must make arrangements to accommodate an existing project, the meaning of some of these individual words could be quite important. If I can expand on that, the parties to the collective agreement are going to be the two bargaining agents. The parties to the agreement are going to be the CLRA on one hand and the Building Trades Council on the other hand. When the word "must" is in here, it compels them to come up with special arrangements. It says: these special arrangements are "for the purposes of accommodating. . . ." It would be my reading of that language to say that accommodating a project means you've got to ensure the financial viability of the project. If they come up with special arrangements which basically destroy the viability of the project, then they are not fulfilling the intent of this section. I would just like to get the minister's confirmation.

Hon. D. Lovick: I was about to answer the member by saying yes, absolutely -- no question. But I am advised that I have to be cautious, because I understand that in the construction biz there are a number of contractors who have been known to build things on such a narrow margin that it is debatable whether they're in fact viable. So clearly one has to approach it with some caution. But I think I can give the member the assurance, assuming that we're dealing with the anonymous presentation of a bid, that what he concludes is absolutely legitimate and right.

C. Hansen: I think that when you talk about construction firms that are operating on a very narrow margin, you're describing the entire construction industry today. There are probably very few companies that are making any kind of significant margin on any of their work. My understanding is that in the construction industry generally, they're working on margins of about 2 or 3 percent, which is pretty narrow. Anyway, I appreciate the minister's assurance that the interpretation of that was right.

I would like to focus in on existing projects and again get a sense of what that means. A project can have all kinds of different components to it. Basically, I guess my concern would be that if you have a project that is halfway built -- you know, 12 of the 24 floors are completed on a building -- clearly that's an existing project. You could also have a situation where a project has been bid but has not yet started construction. But the bid is a binding bid, and I think the same things would apply. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us how we would define an existing project in that context.

[ Page 10147 ]

I note, however, that it strikes me as perhaps a little counterintuitive that if the work hasn't begun on a project, if it's merely a bid. . . . I'm struggling a bit to find out how, then, it would become unionized. It would seem to me that the process of unionizing it would only happen once there is a worksite and there are workers there. I may be wrong on that, but as I say, it feels counterintuitive to me -- unless this is all about paper campaigns.

C. Hansen: I think it would only be counterintuitive for someone who was living in a closed-shop world. If you're looking at a union-shop world, or if you're looking at construction firms that have long-term employees who are attached to the employer and the employer basically takes on the responsibility of finding construction work to keep his workforce busy, then it certainly does make sense. But if you're looking at the concept of construction being done out of hiring halls, then, yes, it may be counterintuitive.

With regard to these bridging provisions, what we are doing is giving the power for these bridging agreements to the parties to the collective agreement. I'd like to ask the minister: why would we not, in a situation like this, give the power to develop bridging agreements to the workers who are affected? I would suggest that in many cases workers who may agree to take out membership in the building trades unions or sign evidence of fresh membership support for the purpose of joining a craft union are going to do so based on the master collective agreement that they're going to see. Then, after they have that certification in place, they're suddenly going to realize: "Wait a second. There's got to be this accommodation to make sure that the project is viable." I just question why the workers directly affected by this would not have the right to determine those bridging provisions through a collective bargaining process.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that I do indeed understand the question. Is the member saying he's concerned that the hierarchy of the union or the bargaining council, or whatever, is making the decisions rather than the workers themselves on a particular site?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Okay, I thought that was indeed the basis of the question. I think that simply takes us into the nature of a structure and bargaining system or, for that matter, definitions of democracy and involvement. When people join a union -- whether they sign cards, vote or whatever they do to indicate it -- the moment they say, "I, Joe Blotts or Jane Blotts, want to join a union," they're effectively saying: "I am empowering an executive or bargaining council of some kind or other to make decisions on my behalf to represent my interests."

In the same way, our constituents send us here to the Legislature and say: "Your job is to spend hours and hours learning the finer points of legislation, so we don't have to worry about that. Your job is essentially to give us a nice, simplified and straightforward version of what the issues are, so we can make our choices." It's called representative or delegated democracy. The trade union, in that sense, is not much different from any legislature, frankly. It's a tried-and-true model, it seems to me, within our society. I don't think the fact that it isn't so-defined or so-called direct democracy necessarily makes it any less effective or useful.

[3:45]

The other day the minister gave me the reassurance that in fact this recommendation of Kelleher and Lanyon would be followed through on; it would be required that there be fresh evidence of support. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us how he sees this being implemented. For example, will there be a time period which this evidence of fresh support would be valid for? Secondly, would this be in respect of a particular workplace?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm struggling, Mr. Chairman, because, as the member well knows, it isn't clearly enunciated in this part of the legislation. However, the member is quite right that it isn't in a section you can point to anywhere, so I think it's quite legitimate for him to raise the question. I'll just make the point that I think I made earlier on this matter -- namely, that the recommendation is very clear in Kelleher and Lanyon. I have said we are committed to doing that.

To answer the specifics in terms of what constitutes fresh support, again, that's a pretty subjective judgment. I think that what the Labour Relations Board would in all probability be guided by is a simple calculus -- namely: "If we get X number of cards out of X number of workers claiming they want to be represented by union Y, do we have comfort that these are current, present desires rather than people who perhaps have signed a card or something a month, six months or two years before?" That's the determination for the board to make. I think a rational calculus would be to recognize the difficulty of contacting the workers who are going to be directly affected and asking: "Is it a reasonable amount of time before you assembled the necessary numbers that you did to show evidence of that fresh support for certification?"

The whole purpose of this -- and I again commend the authors of the report for doing it -- is that if we want to claim that trade unions are indeed an accurate reflection of the wishes of the majority of workers at any given point, we have an obligation thereby to demonstrate that the support is fresh. That's a step forward, it seems to me, and it's one that I welcome. I don't think there are grounds for suggesting that it would be anything other than the most rigorously defined definition of fresh support.

C. Hansen: The other aspect of my question is whether or not this evidence of fresh support would be vis-à-vis a particular employer.

[ Page 10148 ]

Section 2, section 55.23 approved on division.

On section 2, section 55.24.

C. Hansen: This is the section pertaining to fees. Subsection (1) says: "Every building trades employer referred to. . .must pay to CLRA contract administration fees that may be set out by the CLRA." I would like to ask the minister why we use the term "contract administration fee." I know that when we were dealing with the definitions section, I asked why we didn't have a definition for it. He indicated that it was a commonly acceptable term, at which point I didn't pursue it but suggested that I'd pursue it when the time came. The time is now.

I wonder if the minister could explain to us why we use the term "contract administration fees," as opposed to "collective bargaining fees." Contract administration strikes me as a term that is much broader than the service that the CLRA is being mandated to deliver. I'm wondering if the minister could give us some parameters.

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the reason for that particular nomenclature is just that the CLRA is mandated here not just to negotiate a contract but also to administer the contract. In some cases, that means making appearances before the board. It may in fact occasion making presentations -- well, any number of things we normally put under the heading of administration of a particular contract or a particular operation. That's the reason for the terminology, as near as I can make out.

C. Hansen: Under subsection (3), it states: "To facilitate collection of contract administration fees, every building trades employer must provide CLRA with any information that is necessary, in the opinion of CLRA, for the calculation of" this fee. I find the wording of this one particularly overbearing. It seems to go much further than necessary. I'm wondering if the minister could give us some interpretation that would allow those employers to appreciate that they're not going to have the CLRA poring through their books in areas that aren't relevant to the contract administration fee.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, let me just say that intuitively I have some sympathy for the point the member makes. When I read those words I think: yeah, that does sound a little draconian, as it were. But I don't think it is. The reason I say that is that it's the nature of the construction industry and ICI. The reality is that certain contractors may only work part-time in that -- short-term projects, all kinds of different projects. Therefore to assess those individuals -- you know, what they ought to pay for their fair share of the total cost -- will be a difficult and complex proposition.

What will inevitably be required, then, will be some kind of formula. I think we know by all experience that formulae tend to generate considerable debate. There will be some who say: "I am being penalized; I'm not being treated fairly" -- you know, the old arguments -- "Why me? Why am I getting stuck for so much, and you, you lazy devil, are getting nothing?" You know the lines. In any event, I think the assumption here is that given that rather difficult structure to manage, at some point one has to rely on the judgment of the CLRA organization and give them the power to impose those kinds of agreements. I think that's the basis for it.

Again, I would offer the comfort to the member that it is a democratic organization and that those people who feel the formula or other decisions are perhaps unfair and not being applied equitably, then obviously they will be in some. . . . I'm sorry, I lost my sentence, so I'll start over. I was going to make the point that as a democratic organization, obviously if the CLRA is perceived to be not doing a fair and equitable job of administering contracts, then what will happen inevitably is that the people who are the members of the organization will say: "We demand something better, thank you very much." In a word, if they carry on doing what they do without proper consultation and consideration of the legitimate interests of their members, they will do so at their peril and probably won't be around very long -- or at least the existing leadership wouldn't be around very long. So I think that's the answer to that question.

C. Hansen: As is the case with most other sections of the Labour Relations Code that do not specify that there is an appeal to the board, I believe there are a lot of the other sections that de facto have an appeal to the board, in terms of interpretation in this. If there was an ultimate dispute in this area, could these fees be appealed to the Labour Relations Board, given the wording that we have here?

Hon. D. Lovick: It must be getting late, Mr. Chairman. I was a little slow to pick up subsection (2) in this section. That makes it very clear that "CLRA must not charge a fee under subsection (1) that is in the board's opinion unreasonable or discriminating." I think that's one protection, and that's pretty specific.

The other one, it seems to me, is this: remember that the CLRA has to submit a constitution that needs to be approved by the board. I think it is pretty likely, if not inevitable, that the board's constitution will say something about contract administration fees. Again, given that the approval rests with the board, I would therefore think that if there is some perceived injustice, the appeal mechanism would of necessity be available to the board, given that they are the guardians of the constitution.

C. Hansen: In other words, in terms of subsection (3), where we're talking about access to information, if the CLRA was to make demands for access to information that the company felt was inappropriate, they would ultimately have that recourse to the Labour Relations Board. Is that a fair assessment?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the short answer to the question is yes. The only caveat, the only cautionary note, I think, is that the board would likely evaluate that largely on the basis of whether one employer was being singled out for special treatment or was unfairly treated as opposed to other employers, rather than an absolute notion that the fees were unfair. Rather, I think that in all likelihood the concern would be:

[ Page 10149 ]

[4:00]

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the member's question is that this is a significant and important enough issue -- indeed, perhaps a make-or-break issue -- that it probably requires a legal or statutory support rather than simply an agreement in terms of their constitution. That is the logic that stands behind having this in the bill. I understand, moreover, that this is essentially the standard practice in most jurisdictions, so it isn't as if there's something new here.

C. Hansen: Given that logic, why is that we do not have a similar provision with respect to the building trades unions, requiring them to pay into their bargaining council?

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe that section 10 of the existing code addresses that problem. I think the member is as familiar as I am with the basic rule for trade unions, membership and payment of dues and all of that. That's Justice Ivan Rand's formula from the 1960s or something, as I recall. My labour history background deserts me at this point, but as I recall, it's been around that long.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: It is imaginable. I want to tell the member for Peace River North that I have not got it all at my fingertips. I'm embarrassed indeed to report that. But in any event, I believe it is covered in the code. Yes, I see that it is apparently in section 15 of the code.

Section 2, section 55.24 approved on division.

On section 2, section 55.25.

C. Hansen: This is a section entitled "Strikes and lockouts." It reads: "Unless a lawful lockout has occurred that has not been discontinued for a period of 72 hours, the bargaining council must not declare or authorize a strike without the support of the majority of affected employees and a majority of affected trade unions."

First of all, I think there's some difficulty with the drafting here. If you read it in the context of what happens if you have an unlawful lockout. . . . In other words, you could have a. . . . It says that if it is a lawful lockout that has not been discontinued for a period of 72 hours. . . . I guess it begs the question about what happens in the case of an unlawful lockout, which I don't believe was the intention. I wonder if the minister, for the benefit of Hansard, could give us some clarification in terms of what the true intent is.

Hon. D. Lovick: We don't talk about unlawful lockouts and unlawful strikes, simply because we have a whole Labour Code that addresses those kinds of concerns. Rather, we're only addressing here those parts that we think are absolutely requisite to deal with this particular -- may I use my old language? -- subset of a subset of a subset in terms of the code.

C. Hansen: I want to get a clarification as to whether this requires a double majority to action. It talks about a strike requiring "the support of the majority of affected employees and a majority of affected trade unions." From that language, I assume that it requires a double majority, and I would just like to get clarification.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite right. There is indeed in effect here something that most of us would refer to as a double majority -- a majority of the trades and also a majority of the people employed. This is to prevent, of course, one small union or a number of small unions, which may perhaps represent the majority of the trades, from forcing everybody else out on strike, including the two largest unions, which are outvoted on the trade basis but in terms of numbers would clearly represent the majority. Thus it is the double majority system, which I think is fair and appropriate.

Section 2, section 55.25 approved on division.

On section 2, section 55.26.

C. Hansen: In this section we talk about the requirement that collective agreements negotiated between the bargaining council and the CLRA must be for a term of three years, calculated from May 1 of each year. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us why it is deemed that a three-year contract is appropriate in the craft construction side, yet in the non-craft construction side we have a provision for agreements of up to three years. Also, while he's explaining that, he could explain to us why May 1 would be chosen for the start date of these contracts.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think we canvassed this at some length last night, so I will endeavour to be reasonably succinct. A little background, though, if I might. As the member knows, we looked at a number of different models here, and one of them was Ontario. Let me just give that experience, because I think it is instructive for us.

The Ontario legislation on ICI bargaining had mandated a two-year-agreement time frame. A review of that legislation by an academic, I think it was, in 1991 suggested that stability might be enhanced with a move toward a longer-term agreement. As a result, the Ontario provision was subsequently changed to three years. At the time that was done, the consultant commented that a term of longer than three years might lead to the construction agreements becoming too far removed from the economic realities of the marketplace. That was the point I think I was making last night in terms of the danger of trying to impose something; to fix in time, if you will, what is after all a fluid and dynamic set of circumstances. That's the Ontario experience worth noting.

The three-year term was intended by the construction panel, as they tell us, to achieve some symmetry between the

[ Page 10150 ]

Three years, as I said last night, is ultimately a compromise, a judgment call. We think it's probably the best of the possible options.

C. Hansen: The question I have is with regard to the term. It could be greater than three years, or it could be less than three years, basically, depending on where May 1 falls. I just want to get this clarified. If you have an agreement that is concluded and signed in January of 1999, I gather that that would wind up being an agreement for a period of three years and three months. It would be three years starting the following May 1, but the term of the contract would actually be for more than three years. Is that a fair interpretation?

Hon. D. Lovick: I have always been calendar-challenged, Mr. Chairman. If something starts in May and goes to April, when does it really begin and end and all that? The short answer and, I think, the answer the member is seeking is simply yes, the paramount issue is a three-year term, and that will obtain across the board. It's a three-year term, regardless of when it starts, essentially.

C. Hansen: I'm sorry, I must confess that I'm now more confused. It is a three-year term, regardless as to where it starts, but if it. . . . The effect of that is not that an agreement signed in January does not take effect until May 1. I would hope that's not the case -- that an agreement that's concluded in January, being the first year of the contract. . . . The date at which the three years starts to be counted is May 1. Is that. . . ? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the minister's comments, but I thought they were a little bit ambiguous.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am still calendar-challenged, after listening to some advice here. Just as I answered another question earlier, I think the issue is that there could very well be a difficulty getting the first one in place, in terms of how it kicks in. Once that first one is in place, then the renewal on three-year terms would just kick in. It's an upfront problem. Again, an answer I've already given is that if indeed this is problematic, this too can be addressed by the transitional provision within the legislation, which I think will effectively accommodate it. I don't think this would be terribly difficult in terms of clarifying the point the member makes about just when it does start or end.

Section 2, section 55.26 approved.

Section 2 as amended approved on division.

On section 3.

C. Hansen: This is in terms of transition to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to make regulations necessary to bring this section into power. We talked earlier about one possible use for this transitional section. I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us on any other areas where this transitional power may be required.

Hon. D. Lovick: It seems to me that thanks to the good questioning by the opposition members, we have indeed identified the two areas where I think it's most likely that a transitional provision might be invoked. Beyond that, I don't see any others.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

C. Hansen: There are a lot of issues that we've discussed during the course of committee stage regarding proclamation. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us as to when he anticipates sections of this act being proclaimed. Will the whole act be proclaimed at the same time, or are various sections likely to be proclaimed at different times? If he could just share with us what his intentions may be at this point.

[4:15]

Section 4 approved.

Title approved on division.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Walsh in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

Hon. P. Priddy: I am very pleased, hon. Chair, to introduce the 1998-99 budget estimates for the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. I'd like to take a minute to introduce the ministry staff members who are here today to help respond to questions -- and there will be different ones, of course, and I'll try and introduce them as we move through. To my right is David Kelly, the deputy minister; to my left, Leah Hollins, the assistant deputy minister for hospital pro-

[ Page 10151 ]

In introducing this debate, I want to start by acknowledging the outstanding work that's being done across this province by health service providers. Nurses, physicians, other health professionals, workers in health facilities, volunteers, family members and other unpaid care providers have much to be proud of, and we have much to thank them for. Our health care system is widely considered to be among the best in the world, and most of the credit for this has to go to the people who provide that care. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the staff of the Ministry of Health. In addition to providing me with great support during my early months in the ministry, these women and men have been working hard through challenging times and through a great deal of change to provide consistent leadership and support to the broader health system. I also want to acknowledge the people our health system is here to serve: British Columbians.

In the months I've been minister, I've become even more convinced than before that the key to success in our health system is to stay focused on the needs of patients and other health consumers. If we never lose sight of the real needs of real people, then we're going to make the right choices, and we're going to have a responsive health system that puts its resources where they're going to make the biggest differences to people.

There is a lot of change going on, and making the right choices is especially important during a time of profound change. Today our health care system is experiencing that kind of change, due to rapid advances in technology and treatment; due to the diverse needs of an aging population; due to the health challenges we've experienced, such as AIDS and other conditions that were unknown to us 20 or 30 years ago; and due to increasing health care costs and decreasing federal funding support for medicare. These are major changes, but at its most basic level, the human side of health care is the same as it's always been. We still need to know that health services will be there when we need them. We still need to be treated as individuals, each as unique as our own personality. Each of us counts on receiving care that's accessible, respectful, responsive and appropriate to our needs.

During a time of change, meeting these expectations can be a challenge. One way we will meet that challenge is with innovation. The sooner we recognize and utilize more fully the resources in our health system -- technology, using the extended skills of nurses and other health professionals -- I think the richer our health care system will be. We will move forward on employing the skills of nurses and initiatives like RN First Call, which is already an important service in Ashcroft, where nurses are on the front line with patients' urgent health concerns. Nurses are on the front lines everywhere with patients' health concerns, but this is a unique project.

I've watched our health care system over the last 25 or 30 years, partly as a nurse in at least two provinces in this country, partly as a patient who relied on the system as a health care consumer and as a parent and a grandparent -- all of you knew I couldn't get through even the first five pages without mentioning my grandchild -- who has the same stake in the future of health care for my family as all other British Columbians.

Now, as Health minister, I'm drawing on all of those experiences. Health care is a very personal issue for me and for most people I meet. When illness or trauma touches our lives, we're vulnerable; we're very, very vulnerable. We need to be assured that when we need help it will be there, and that it will be the kind of help we really need. We need to know that our health system will look at us as whole people, not just as a collection of symptoms or complaints. We need to know that the system is flexible and integrated so we aren't starting from scratch each time we're required to see a new caregiver. We need to know the system is efficient, with every possible resource devoted directly to the services British Columbians depend upon. This is the kind of health system that people in our province have quite rightly come to expect.

While we still have challenges and we're in the midst of change, there are also accomplishments to celebrate. I'm proud to say that this government has worked hard with people in every part of the province, in every area of our health system, to make that vision a reality. We have made progress. We've established a coordinated network of community and regional health authorities. When I look at the difference between now and a year ago, I see tremendous change in how they're working together. They're focused on matching health care resources with the needs and priorities of people in their own local communities.

We've built an unmatched record of health care funding support, with nearly $2 billion in new provincial funding over the last six or seven years to expand services and keep up with growing and changing needs. We've made improved access to care and reduced waiting times, a top priority. We carried out 11,000 more surgical procedures last year than we did three or four years ago. We've proudly supported and funded Canada's most comprehensive range of health benefits, from core medical services to the Pharmacare drug plan and ambulance services. We've moved forward with innovative health promotion and prevention initiatives, many focused, as they should be, on the health of our children, such as our internationally recognized -- and it truly is that -- tobacco reduction strategy. These initiatives are long-term investments, designed to help British Columbians, including our children, make the best choices for their own future health.

We've accomplished a great deal. There's a recent Maclean's magazine article on health care across Canada which placed our province squarely at the top of the list. We're number one in the country in per-capita health funding -- and this was done independently by Maclean's; it was independently validated. We have the largest number of general practitioners and family physicians per capita of all of the provinces, and we rank well in almost every other measure that I could talk about that was used by Maclean's.

We're coming through this time of dramatic health care change successfully. Yes, there are still lots of challenges, some real concerns. But they are concerns that we can and will address. The reality is that every day in British Columbia, thousands of people enter emergency rooms, hospice facilities, rehab clinics and hospital wards across this province and get the high-quality care they need. They are well served by the health system, and they go home healthier. These are the stories we don't ever get to hear. These are the success stories.

We do hear about the exceptions, and there are exceptions; there's no question about that. We do hear the stories of people who've had less positive experiences, and those are the stories and that's the information we need to work on. But we do need to celebrate the tens of thousands of healthy, successful experiences people have with the health care system.

[4:30]

[ Page 10152 ]

If we went down that road, I think that would be a one-way ticket to what is very much two-tier, American-style health care. That's a trip we simply can't afford to take. There are 40 million American women, men and children who go without health care because they don't have the money to buy health insurance -- 40 million. There are thousands more: people with AIDS, diabetes and many other conditions are rejected by insurance companies because they aren't healthy enough to have medical coverage. In an American-style health system, the care you get is the care you can afford, and those who can't afford it do without. That's not a vision of health care I want my grandchild to inherit -- or any other child, for that matter.

There is a more positive vision we can work towards. We can protect the principles of medicare and find better and more innovative ways to meet patients' needs now and in the future. We can build on our long record of health care excellence. But to do this, we need to maintain the high-quality health care services we have today, to address the needs of people who could be better served by our health system and to make sure that every dollar possible goes directly to the services people depend on. This government's vision of health care is based on meeting those challenges. It's a vision of health services that are there when each of us and our families need them, provided by the best-qualified people in the right way, in the right setting and in a reasonable amount of time.

We have work to do on that, hon. Chair. There are concerns and there are challenges, but that is the vision we have to work towards. It's also a vision of society that gives each of us the tools to make healthier choices for ourselves. We all have a responsibility to do that. It's what our public health system can and should provide. If we're going to do this, if we're going to fulfil this more positive vision, then we need to start with the core of the system, the front line of health care in our hospitals and our community health services. We need to make sure that we have a strong team of talented people on the front line, providing skilled and compassionate care when we need it most. We need to create new and innovative ways of delivering health care in British Columbia to improve patients' access to health services, such as the new community health centre that will be built to serve the Renfrew-Collingwood neighbourhood in East Vancouver -- an announcement I had the pleasure of attending with the Premier and the Vancouver-Richmond health board earlier this week.

We need to carefully allocate our limited resources both to supporting the system and to compensating the people who work in it. When there are limited tax dollars to go around, we need to find a careful balance between the needs of all of those people who work in our health care system and, most importantly, a balance with the needs of B.C. patients.

We've also got to make sure we're meeting the needs of those people who could be better served by our existing health care system. This includes seniors, who need a range of care options as they -- or we -- age. I'm pleased to serve as Minister Responsible for Seniors, especially since next year, 1999, has been designated as the International Year of Older Persons. We'll be designating people here who will be eligible to apply to be a part of such a year, to be acknowledged. I look forward to the completion of this government's continuing care review, which will make recommendations that I expect will lead to a more flexible, responsive and client-focused approach to caring for elderly British Columbians -- our respected elders.

We also need to improve care for people who require mental health services. In the past, too many people with mental health illnesses have had to turn to acute-care hospitals rather than to more appropriate care. We've made major progress in the last few months by developing a seven-year mental health plan to make sure that every person disabled by a serious mental illness will be connected with the services they need. The key to that principle is flexibility and appropriate care to meet individual needs, particularly through increased housing and improved access to care at the right place and at the right time. The first 200 units of new housing will be in place by the end of this summer. Another 2,600 supported-housing units will be added over the next seven years. The mental health plan will provide more outreach programs, more caseworkers and more emergency and 24-hour care. It will better serve people with mental illnesses, and it will relieve pressures on our hospital and emergency services.

In terms of the 1998-99 budget, I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Health's budget will help us make progress with the mental health plan and the other key areas I've mentioned. The ministry's budget for 1998-99 is increased by $228.5 million over last year, marking the seventh straight year that the budget has increased and making us the only province in the country that has increased its health budget every year for the last seven years. It will ensure that B.C. will continue to have the best-funded health care system in Canada.

This 3.3 percent increase allows our health system to keep up with growing and changing health care needs. B.C. health authorities will receive $63 million more in operating funds for hospitals. We have taken extra steps beyond that to make sure that waiting times for surgery and treatment in the hospitals are kept at reasonable levels. We know that they are not always so at this time, but there are additional steps I've talked about and more I will talk about, which show that work is underway.

That's why we've added $141 million to our annual health budget over the last seven years, targeted specifically at reducing wait times for key procedures. That's why earlier this year I introduced a new provincial advisory committee on health care access to look at ways of reducing waiting times and improving the management of waiting lists. That's why I announced $8.5 million in new funding specifically to provide additional cardiac care procedures. Our commitment to keeping waiting times reasonable is absolute. If problems emerge in the future, we will respond to them.

Of course, our health system includes more than B.C.'s hospitals, and the budget recognizes that. The budget provides major increases in other areas that help take pressure off of our hospitals, allowing them to focus their resources on the acute care services they're designed to provide. The budget provides $37 million in new funding, which is a 12.5 percent increase for adult mental health, including $10 million to begin implementing the new seven-year mental health plan that will create a better safety net of affordable housing and access to care for people with mental illness. It provides an increase of more than $9 million, or 7 percent, for emergency health services to improve the ability of our provincial ambulance fleet to respond effectively to urgent health needs.

[ Page 10153 ]

Total spending for the year will be $7.4 billion, an increase of nearly $2 billion or one-third in the entire health budget since 1992. All of this adds up to a continued strong commitment to health care in British Columbia. We invest more per person in health care than any other province. Doctors' fee schedules are higher in British Columbia than in any other province. We've increased health funding substantially for seven straight years, and we've come a very long way. This budget is another step forward. It's a step toward fulfilling our vision for British Columbia's health system.

We've recognized for a long time that by itself, increasing the budget isn't going to meet the challenges that are out there. We also need to make better use of the resources that are already in the system. That's why health care decision-making and delivery are now largely in the hands of community and regional health authorities. We're working closely with them to make sure that existing resources are well used and that new resources are devoted directly to patient care in the areas where they are needed most.

Since the Better Teamwork, Better Care approach was introduced in 1996, the ministry and the health regions have jointly eliminated from our health system a total of more than 500 administrative positions. This has freed up approximately $40 million, which has been redirected to the patient services that British Columbians depend on. So we're not just spending more -- although we are spending more -- we're also spending it smarter.

Just before I conclude my remarks, I do want to say just a bit more about the regionalization of health care decision-making and service delivery. Moving local health care delivery and decision-making to British Columbia's regions and communities has been a large and important. . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .and yes, sometimes bumpy task. We knew it wouldn't be easy, and that's why we promised to listen to people in the regions and make adjustments along the way to make sure that the change was going to be a change for the better. We've done just that. I'm pleased to report that this transition is almost complete. Together we've created a coordinated network of community and regional health authorities, and they are doing a superb job. These people know their communities, and they are in a strong position to make sure that local and regional health services fit with local needs and priorities. The Better Teamwork, Better Care approach is working, and it's going to make it easier to respond to the needs of groups which could be better served by our health system.

This year marks a significant change in the way we approach the health care budgeting process. Local health authorities now have an opportunity to match allocation decisions to the health care priorities of the communities they serve. We in government still have a responsibility to ensure that our health dollars are being spent in a way that ensures the best possible care.

The health authorities have been asked to submit detailed budgets to the ministry, outlining how this year's funding allocations will be utilized. Once those budgets are received -- and there are still some to be received -- they'll be analyzed by ministry staff to ensure that appropriate services are in place to meet health care needs. We'll work closely with the health authorities throughout this year to help them address areas of pressure within their budgets -- and we know that those are there -- and to ensure that existing funding is being put to best use. People in the regions are driving the effort to be innovative and to find cost-effective solutions that minimize administrative costs and put resources where they're needed most, which is in patient care.

Introducing this new way of health decision-making and service delivery has been a big job and, as I said earlier, sometimes a bumpy one for everyone. But the benefits will be long-lasting and will be felt by people in each of our communities, who will encounter a more responsible local health system in the future. When I look just at my own health authority, the ownership that people in my community are beginning to feel for the health services in our community is quite extraordinary. So the progress even over a year has made a huge difference in the community's investment in that health care.

In conclusion, hon. Chair, the budget allows us to move forward toward that future, while maintaining the quality health system that we have today. It allows us to make progress in meeting the needs of those people who could be better served by our health system and those whose unique needs require special attention, including seniors, people with mental illnesses, members of minority cultural groups, people living in remote and rural areas, aboriginal people and children. This budget will help us to spend smarter to make sure that precious health dollars are going directly to patient services. There is no doubt that our health system faces challenges and is experiencing great change.

Our responsibility isn't to resist the change or to give up on our public health system. Our responsibility is to adapt and change, so that we can protect the system and maintain the principles of medicare which we embraced as a country in 1965. Our government accepts this responsibility, and we've been making what are sometimes difficult choices that are necessary to make sure we succeed.

As I look to the future, I'm confident that our vision will be fulfilled, that we will meet the diverse health needs of British Columbians and that we will maintain and improve our health system for our children and our grandchildren. This budget will help us to fulfil that vision.

S. Hawkins: I want to say that we are fortunate indeed that the front-line health care workers in this province are as committed as they are to our public health care system and to patients. That includes nurses, doctors, community health workers, hospital workers, volunteers and administrators. I thank them, too, for their commitment to patients in the province.

But as I travel across the province, the message has been clear to me. In the last couple of years and this year -- because I've been travelling the last few months -- front-line workers are telling me that they're having to do more and more with less and less. That message seems to be clear to patients across the province too.

[ Page 10154 ]

I can listen to the minister's wonderful words, but I think we also have to be cognizant of perceptions out there, of what patients and people across the province think the health care system is doing for them and what they think about the quality of health care in the province. I can honestly tell you that in the last couple of years that I've been the Health critic and have been following health care in the province, I'm finding that the Minister of Health's response to health care issues, frankly, has been based on a crisis management style. I think that's wrong. I think that the only time the ministry responds to an issue is when it's slapped on the front page of the paper. We've seen that over and over again. It's been evident in various services across the province.

[4:45]

The minister talked about waiting lists. I can tell you that that is one of the biggest issues I deal with as a critic. I get letters and calls from family members, from patients, from providers and from front-line workers across the province. Waiting lists are a huge issue. I don't care how much money this minister or this ministry says they've put into waiting lists. If you don't have a plan, you're never going to be able to manage those waiting lists -- never -- and there is no plan. The money keeps going in, and they can stand up every year and tell me they're putting more money into waiting lists, but this year I hope they stand up and tell me what their plan is for those waiting lists. You can appoint as many commissions, as many committees and as many consultants as you want, but unless you actually put that plan into place, you are not going to manage waiting lists.

In the last few years, they've been telling us how much money they've been adding into cardiac wait-lists and orthopedic wait-lists, but no one tells us how many patients are actually benefiting from that and how much we've reduced it because they've put in the money. Now we find that the lists are growing every year. How come they're growing every year? Is the need that great, or is it because there's no provincial registry or plan that's actually looking at it in a global way and trying to attack it that way? The waiting lists for all kinds of tests, surgery treatment and cardiac surgery are going to be issues that we'll raise in these estimates.

Mental health has to be one of the saddest legacies of this ministry. For the last seven years, this ministry was involved in downsizing Riverview and saying they were going to put those resources back into the community. We never saw any evidence of that, and this minister -- this is the second minister I've dealt with -- stands up and says that this ministry listens. They certainly didn't listen to the patients, advocates and families who spoke about the horrendous trials they went through with family members and loved ones with respect to mental health services and resources.

Now we're told that there's a mental health plan. It was announced with big fanfare, as the ministry often tends to do. We've heard of all kinds of plans in the last seven years. We've heard of three-year plans, seven-year plans, 20-year plans -- whatever. Anyway, now there's another plan, and we'll get into that in these estimates as well. Frankly, we heard that there was a plan, and it was way back in February or March, I believe, that it was unveiled. But do you know what? We still don't have an implementation framework. We hope that by the time these estimates are done, there will be something in writing, on the record, about where this money -- there's supposed to be $10 million -- is supposed to be spent this year. We are now in the second quarter of this year, and we still don't have any idea of where that $10 million is going to be spent.

HIV/AIDS is an appalling, appalling issue in downtown east side Vancouver. We are known as the AIDS capital of the world, if you can imagine that, in downtown east side Vancouver. We have asked this ministry for an AIDS strategy. We have asked them for some kind of provincial plan, but we still don't have that in place. We know, again, that there was a committee struck. . . . This has got to be the ministry of committees and reviews. All of that is done, but we still don't have a strategy. A few weeks ago, or maybe it was a month or so ago, I did see an ad for a provincial AIDS strategist in the ministry. We'll have to find out if that person was hired. There are huge funding issues involved in that.

This minister can stand up and say how much they're helping patients, but I can tell you that patients weren't very happy when their Pharmacare fees went up. Working families got hit with that raise on their Pharmacare deductibles, and there are all kinds of fees that went up this year. The budget was brought in with fanfare, and they were saying how they were helping everybody. Then we started hearing how patients and families were going to get hit with other fees, and we'll talk about those.

Regionalization, again, is still an issue. We saw the auditor general do a report on regionalization, and certainly we're going to discuss that. It's interesting, because Children and Families just went through a contract and program restructuring process. The review that came out from that ministry was that it was not viable. It was not good for that ministry, and they abandoned it. I can tell you that a lot of the issues that that reviewer used on Children and Families, I'm sure, can be applied to the regionalization process as well -- certainly with respect to severance pay-outs, funding, targets and savings realized. I'm sure that we can draw parallels between the two programs.

We still see this ministry fighting with non-profits. They are our volunteer sector; they are the people that provide all those good hours of service to patients in need, to families in need, to people in need. We still see this ministry fighting with non-profits such as Glacier View, Arrowsmith and other places.

Technology is, again, a huge issue across the province. As I travel, I know that different facilities are looking for upgrades. I understand that the capital funding for technol-

[ Page 10155 ]

The minister mentioned seniors. She knows as well as I do that there is a huge backup in housing for seniors. There's a huge lineup for alternative levels of care for seniors. I'm sure we'll be touching on some of those issues too. There is a ton of stuff that we are going to be talking about in these estimates.

I have to say that for many -- and I have to disagree with the minister -- health care is not and has not been there for people when they need it. It hasn't. The minister might want to say that there are exceptional cases, that those are the ones that we hear and that they're blown out of proportion. But I think she's wrong, because she knows as well as I do that patients are waiting a heck of a long time. Sometimes they're just too tired and too sick to write to us and tell us. The ones we do hear from are the ones that have waited so long and are so anxious and, frankly, are afraid they're going to die or not get what they need before they die. So they write to express their concerns. But there's a huge, solid majority of patients and people waiting out there that feel. . . . I'm sure that's reflected in this Angus Reid poll, which says that people perceive that the quality of health care has declined in the last five years and that the people feel the provincial government is to blame for that. That is reflected in there; they are not getting the treatment they need when they need it. They are not getting health care when they need it.

I've said to the minister -- she being a nurse and I being a nurse -- that I hold her to a higher standard. We've both worked in the public health care system, and we both know what the consumer expectations are out there. We both know what kind of service we can provide, given the resources we have. We know that. That's why I'm very thankful for the people that are working on the front line. Given the resources that they have, I think they are doing an exceptional service. I really do. I think we have pared them right back to the bone as far as we can, and I think we have to start thinking about what we're giving them to work with.

Now, the system has undergone massive restructuring, and I think the province has to be held accountable for that as well. This is now the third session that I've been in Health estimates. I find it very frustrating, because -- I've mentioned this before, and I know I've mentioned it to the minister's staff -- I have looked for annual reports of the Ministry of Health. The last one I can find is 1994-95. How the heck do you expect the Legislature to hold the ministry accountable when there are no annual reports, when there are absolutely no reports filed since 1994-95? We are in the '98-99 fiscal year, and I can tell you that that is very frustrating to say the least.

As well, I know I have written to the ministry and asked for information a few months ago, and I haven't received that. To make estimates go smoother, I requested this information so that we could be prepared, so that we did have the information, so we could have estimates that would follow in a reasonable order. I didn't get that information either. The commitments from last year -- have I received any? The minister stands up for two years in a row and commits to get the information on health. I've received none. Last year, I have to say, I received the commitments from the year before five minutes before estimates started. Do you know what? At least the ministry is consistent. About an hour before these estimates started, I got a box full of stuff, and I was offered a briefing. We've been here almost four months, and I was offered a briefing today before estimates started. Frankly, there were reasons why. . . . The briefings were set up, and the briefings were cancelled. But over the last month I have been available, and I haven't heard from the ministry at all. I find that a bit appalling as well.

We will try to carry on the estimates as we can. I'll sit down and perhaps ask the minister for her comments about the annual reports and when we can expect one from the Ministry of Health. I think they're long overdue, and I think the auditor general has some serious concerns about that as well, and about commitments from the ministry on information that was committed to last year and not brought forward this year for my review.

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of the ministry's annual reports, I agree with you: they should have been tabled. They will be either tomorrow or Monday. Should they have been done before this? I absolutely agree that they should have been.

In terms of being offered a briefing an hour ahead, though, I do want to just make sure that the record is clear on this, because I heard someone say "Shameful." On Tuesday, June 16, via e-mail, my staff contacted the staff that work with the hon. member. There was an estimates briefing set for June 18. We got an e-mail back on the 18th that the hon. member and whoever was going to come had asked that the briefing be postponed. The e-mail said that they would contact our office to reschedule the briefing. My staff were so concerned that on June 22 they sent another e-mail to the hon. member's staff, saying that we were very concerned that the briefing had been cancelled and not rescheduled, and my staff was told that that would be forwarded to the hon. member.

So indeed a briefing has been offered. One was scheduled; it was cancelled. I was given information via e-mail that they would contact us when the next briefing was convenient for them. I did not get that back. I contacted them again and still did not get a response. Naturally, we have the e-mail that documents that. I just want to be clear that while we may or may not have been expecting estimates today, the offer for the briefing was indeed there.

In terms of the information that was asked for last year -- I gather from the questions that the minister made a commitment to get information back -- I don't have that information. We are going to try very hard not to take questions on notice. I think it's much more useful to be able to try and get the information for you while we're in estimates, even if we have to do that and get it back to you the next day.

[5:00]

[ Page 10156 ]

Anyway, I would like to start on the auditor general's report on regionalization. We did take up some of this in Public Accounts. I was quite interested in the auditor general's report -- that he did a review of governance and accountability in the regionalization of health services. He tabled this report in the Legislature this spring. Frankly, he has some concerns, and I think a lot of those concerns have been raised previously in the last couple of years, with respect to implementation of regionalization.

I think that one of the most salient concerns is whether the ministry has a vision and a strategic direction for the health care system and whether indeed they have passed this on to the regional health boards. We know that in the last year, when we talked to people in the regions -- and certainly as the auditor general did their interviews and talked to people in the regions -- they weren't clear on the ministry's vision and strategic direction.

So I think the first question is: has the Ministry of Health got a vision? I don't want to hear that it's just Better Teamwork, Better Care, because I don't know what that means. Certainly Better Teamwork, Better Care hasn't been followed through with on something like Glacier View Lodge, where the ministry is fighting with a non-profit. If the ministry has the vision now, has it been articulated to the regional health boards and community health councils?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member's question is -- oh, I've just got my handout for her -- a useful and important question. Yes, we do have a strategic vision, which we've actually just finished developing. That will be in the hands of the regional health authorities probably within the next week or so -- I don't know. I'll just highlight for you some of the components of that, if you like, in terms of both the ministry's vision and therefore at least. . . . I mean, health authorities will do their work in various ways, because they need to meet local needs, but there does need to be an overall vision for that.

So what that is, just in brief, if you will, hon. member. . . . It includes the mission, which is -- as mission statements are -- quite short: "To ensure that residents of B.C. have reasonable access to necessary health care services of a high quality, at a cost which is affordable and sustainable. . . ." Then it gets into the principles: reasonable access, high quality, affordable and sustainable.

It then gets, as all plans do, more specific and gets into strategic directions about protecting medicare and core health services, and then it lists some priorities, priority actions under that strategic direction. Second is around promoting and protecting good health, and then a number of strategic priority actions under that. Third is improving access to health care for populations who are at risk of poor health, and then a number of actions under that, which will guide the health authorities. Fourth is to establish strong and effective regional governance and delivery systems, and again there are priority actions under that. The fifth one is to rejuvenate the health care system to ensure its long-term sustainability, and there are some priority actions under that, which talk about evidence-based approaches to decision-making, recognizing and accommodating new professional designations, and information infrastructure things.

So that has been completed. I think it is almost in the hands of the printer, if I'm not mistaken, and will be in the hands of the health authorities. We've certainly talked with them about it, but they have not actually seen this one yet.

S. Hawkins: I've just found it really strange in the last year. I wonder how the boards have been operating without a document such as this one. What has the ministry been doing to ensure that the boards knew what they were doing? What the heck were they doing if they didn't have a strategic plan provided by the ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: While it may have been ideal to have had this particular document a year ago -- perhaps it would have been -- it has taken some time to consult with people and to put that together. But I think that if you were to ask the health authorities how they've been operating over the last year, they would talk to you about many of the features that are already in here. I mean, they've been operating by coordinating the services in their regions as they're expected to do, and they've done that very well.

Aside from simply keeping the existing services running, a large part of this last year, as we know, has been spent integrating those services, integrating the administrations, moving from five human resources departments to one, doing all of that administrative infrastructure you have to do in order to have well-integrated, well-organized services to provide care. So they have continued to deliver high-quality health care. They have focused on the administrative and structural changes, and we will now be working with them on the strategic programmatic areas.

S. Hawkins: The health care system has been in turmoil in the last few years, and this ministry has chosen to go ahead and ram through all kinds of reform and restructuring without even coming up with a vision. Now they tell us they've got a vision or a strategic plan. In the last few years, under New Directions, the big criticism was that there was no direction. Now we get an auditor general's report that was tabled this spring, and he says the same thing: basically, the ministry focused on administration and restructuring and, frankly, didn't articulate a vision, didn't have a strategic plan and certainly didn't share that with the people they had put in place to implement such a plan. So I would argue and I would submit to the House that in the last year those boards have been sort of fumbling along, trying to figure out what they were supposed to do. I think it's putting the cart before the horse, and it seems to me that that's the way this ministry and certainly many ministries in the government tend to run their shows. I just think it's a horrible way to operate a $7.4 billion business. That's what the Health ministry is operating on this year.

Frankly, in the last year, when the auditor general's team went out to talk to the health authorities, they were confused. They didn't know what the priorities were. They didn't know what the strategic plan was. They didn't know what the vision for health care was supposed to be. To say you've written one out now, which is -- what? -- July of 1998, and it's going to go to them very shortly. . . .

Apparently, many of them have prepared their budgets already. They didn't even know what they were getting. I don't even know if half of them know what they're getting. Many of them, I understand, are in deficit positions, and they're asking for more, because they know that the needs in their communities are great. They're going to take this vision statement or whatever the ministry says it's planned now. . . .

[ Page 10157 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I think that if you recall even just the headings that I read out a minute ago, these are not things that are going to cause regional health authorities to have to change the way they do things or change a kind of program or anything like that. It is a vision, and it has some action attached to it. But I don't think any of those actions are going to cause a board to say: "Oh, gosh. That's something we've never thought of or done before." That won't happen.

Each year -- in previous years and including this year -- when local health authorities or the hospitals or whatever -- in this case, local health authorities -- received their health authority expenditure planned submission and review, if you will, the expectations of the ministry have been laid out in that -- not just the expectations about how to fill out the budget sheet but the expectations of the ministry in terms of quality of care and those kinds of things. This year, as a point of fact, they received for the first time a huge amount of information never available or accessible to them before, which looked at the issues of effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness, consumer services, accessibility, equity and safety -- the sort of principles, if you will, for quality health service -- region by region.

While I'll be pleased when this document is out, it would be less than fair to suggest that there has been no direction previously, because every year, when they receive their budget information, there are expectations from the ministry. I think the regions have actually been managing extremely well.

S. Hawkins: I'm going to read from an auditor general document that I received at the Public Accounts Committee. It says:

"To provide clear direction to the health authorities, the ministry needs to communicate a clear vision of where it sees the health care system going in the future. It must then develop a strategic plan based on its vision. The health authorities can then use the ministry's plan as a guide to develop or realign their own strategic plans and operations and can ensure that their direction is compatible with that of the ministry."

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.

S. Hawkins: What is that plan?

Hon. P. Priddy: Perhaps I'm not understanding the question. I did refer to and read from the vision and strategic plan just a moment ago.

S. Hawkins: I thought that what the minister was reading was a vision. I didn't hear a plan for that vision. I didn't hear what the strategic plan was that she was going to share with the health authorities, so that they could develop their own plans for their region, according to the one that the ministry was articulating. I thought the minister read from a vision document.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: Welcome, hon. Chair.

You're quite right. I did talk about the vision and the principles, but then I also talked about strategic directions for the next five years -- 1998 to 2003. Nobody's trying to play this off a year at a time, which isn't in any way helpful for planning at a regional level. Maybe just let me give you, then, some examples of priority actions.

In terms of strategic directions, one of the priority actions is around ensuring that every region implements the provincial health goals, which have been widely circulated -- and I think people know that. Another action, if you will, is to. . . . This one is for us, actually: it's a commitment to the regions around the fact that we will provide for them an understandable accountability framework document, which we have finished. I'm just picking out some. . . . One of the priority actions under "Access" is that the regions are to support health policies and programs that are responses to women's health needs. Another is to develop a strategy to improve the health status of aboriginal people. Every region is expected to have a strategy for aboriginal people in their area that will improve the quality of health services, which we know are, in many places, far, far, far less than what we would consider to be acceptable.

[5:15]

S. Hawkins: Will the minister commit to tabling that document in the House?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, as soon as it's printed and ready for release.

S. Hawkins: As well as the document she just referred to, I'm wondering what steps, then, the ministry will take to ensure that the health authorities do indeed follow that strategic plan. I know she mentioned a range of dates from now until 2001. But what targets, time frames and checks and balances is the ministry putting in place to ensure that the regions actually try and meet the targets?

Hon. P. Priddy: We do have an accountability framework document for the regions -- and that's the other report I mentioned -- that has just been finished. That will aid them in being able to report out on action or on outcomes. I think we all know that it's not just about the money that goes into the system but also about whether there are actually outcomes for it. Interestingly enough, it is one of the things the Maclean's article on health care in British Columbia said. It said that aside from whether we spent more money than other provinces -- which we did -- we also had better health care outcomes.

So the accountability document, as well as the budget and business plan that is submitted to the ministry each year will have to. . . . It's not only on 12 months, but that's one of the places there is a check and balance. We will have to see what people have done around an aboriginal strategy, how they have been able to deliver that and how they have ensured that the views of women and the issues of women's health are included in their plan. They'll have to have that plan; they'll have to submit it to us. We'll have to see that when they submit their budgets. All of those will have to be submitted when their budgets are submitted, and this is part of what will be used to monitor their performance in those areas, as well as the work that our regional staff do with them

[ Page 10158 ]

S. Hawkins: Is it fair to say, then, that we will expect those first plans in the next budget year, in the 1999-2000 year? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that's correct.

S. Hawkins: The auditor general's report also made it clear that not all the parties involved in the implementation of regionalization understood clearly what their roles and responsibilities were. I think the auditor general was quite concerned about that. The question is: what has the ministry done to ensure that the people that serve on those boards know their roles and responsibilities? Has the ministry clearly defined them so that they can understand what they are?

Hon. P. Priddy: That is a comment we heard very clearly from the auditor general. We recognized that we had to do that, then, in a way that communicated better than what had perhaps been done previously. The roles and responsibilities of both the ministry and health authorities have been published in a variety of forms and places since the 1996 announcement of Better Teamwork, Better Care, but most recently, in the Ministry of Health's accountability framework, those roles and responsibilities are laid out, as well as the expectations of health authorities -- activity and performance both. The principles that are the basis of the ministry's expectations for the performance of the health authority are in there, as well as a summary of the tools of accountability and a timetable for health authority planning, in the context of our planning.

There has been substantial consultation with stakeholders about this accountability framework. That work is now completed, and people should have that very soon as well.

S. Hawkins: If the minister has that information, can she just outline what the salient roles and responsibilities of the health authorities are?

Hon. P. Priddy: We actually have a really good page on this, but people are turning pages, and it doesn't seem to immediately appear. So let me begin.

One of the roles that's outlined for local health authorities is the management of staff and resources in the region, wherever that health authority is, to develop a business plan that reflects the needs and priorities of that particular region. We do expect those to look different, because regions have different needs. We don't expect some sort of template. Oh well, maybe the template's okay, but not some word-processing business plans that all look the same. We expect those to reflect the very real needs of those regions.

One of the roles and responsibilities is to provide the health services in that region to the public and to make sure those services are provided, including core services. I think there's a bit more. When we catch up with that one, we'll do it; but that's a beginning on those. That's four.

S. Hawkins: Will the minister make that document available as well, where we know what the roles and responsibilities of the health authorities and the ministry are, and they're clearly defined and understood?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes. As soon as we pull it out of one of the binders, you will have it.

S. Hawkins: The boards didn't always know what types of decisions that they made required ministry approval prior to implementation. Perhaps the minister can outline her understanding of where the boards have autonomy and where they need to get approval from the ministry before they implement something.

Hon. P. Priddy: If I'm understanding the question correctly, the kinds of. . . . You know, I can understand that when you start into a change like this, there are a lot of questions about what you can do and what you can't do. But really, all of the day-to-day decision-making does lie within the health authorities' mandate and purview.

The kinds of things that we would expect the health authorities to have approval from Victoria for are around capital planning, because they need the resources that come from that; approval for their business or budget plan that is submitted with some of the criteria we just spoke of a moment ago; or any policy change that they might be contemplating that would affect a service that's been designated a core service by the provincial ministry. They would have to have some discussion with Victoria about that. Unless there's other ones I'm not thinking about, those occur to me as the major ones that would have to have approval, if you will, from Victoria.

S. Hawkins: Am I understanding that this document hasn't gone out to the health authorities yet, that they still aren't clear on their roles and responsibilities? Is this something the Health ministry has just developed and is still waiting to publish and send out to the authorities?

Hon. P. Priddy: Some of this has. For instance, some of this is contained in this large regional binder -- this happens to be the Okanagan-Similkameen health region -- which every region got. Some of that information is already in there. The accountability framework, which was finished after significant consultation with stakeholders, is ready to go out. More specifically around the role of the health authorities. . . . By the way, the health authorities already have some of these. They don't have the entire accountability framework, because we've included much more work in that than simply: "What are the roles and responsibilities?"

I only gave you three fairly broad ones a moment ago, so let me just give you some more examples around, for instance, an RHB. It differs a bit for regional health boards and community health councils. For a regional health board, to begin with -- and I've probably already said this: a plan for health services and facilities in the region, based on identified needs; Health human resource planning, including participation in physician-resource planning; allocating funds to particular health programs; to be an employer of staff for all amalgamated agencies; to govern the delivery of administrative support in health services, according to provincial standards, specified services, etc., through working agreements or contracts with funded agencies. That list goes on. So that's a bit more specific than the three umbrella ones that I gave you earlier.

The health authorities have had discussions with the previous minister, and I've seen individual health authorities. As well, the HABC organization -- the Health Association of British Columbia, which is a collective, if you will, of all the

[ Page 10159 ]

S. Hawkins: I hope this will help clear up some of their anxiety on what their roles and responsibilities are. Some of that work should have been done before they were ever set up. I think that was, again, lack of planning on behalf of the Ministry of Health, in trying to push through reform without actually planning for it.

Another concern of the auditor general was with areas of the province which have both community health councils and community health services societies. The team found that no one body was designated to ensure that planning for health services across and between communities was coordinated to achieve efficiencies. I'm wondering what the ministry has done to address that concern.

Hon. P. Priddy: I certainly think this is an area where there is still work to be done, given that there was no multi-community or across-community planning going on at all in the province before regionalization. In terms of preparing our planning requirements for health authorities, we have been working extremely closely -- and there are some examples around the Terrace and Kitimat area, in particular -- with the regions to ensure that planning is indeed going on across communities, so that we don't have the same health services being offered in every community if there's a way that some can be more centralized than others. There are some very nice examples in the province where communities are working very hard to do that.

We're supporting them in that planning work. We're providing staff to do that with them, and I think that that's coming along quite nicely.

[5:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: I think a couple of things are important. One of them is that the auditor general's report was done during the first three months -- between April and July of 1997. That's a year ago, and there has been significant progress over this last year. I still, from time to time, will hear that CHCs and CHSSs -- because there is a variety of opinion about whether we should have both. . . . There's a little bit of that going on, but I think they are much clearer on what their roles are, and when I see the kind of multi-community planning going on, I do think there is progress. So yes, the ministry has taken strides forward. We certainly heard the auditor general's comment, and when we heard it, it was this March, so we still had six or seven months since he did his report to be able to take those strides, and those are still happening.

S. Hawkins: I guess what I'm asking, then, is: what strides has the ministry taken? I'm hearing all kinds of generalizations here. How has the ministry then ensured that there's been coordination, integration and efficiencies across the CHCs and with the community health services societies?

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I'm not sure I can give all of the specific examples, but let me talk about one in the West Kootenays, where we have put a regional team in place and regional staff in place. We've also put some dollars into that to allow that kind of planning to happen. So there is a supported process, there are regional staff from the Ministry of Health who are working with the people in the West Kootenays to do exactly that. Some places don't seem to need that kind of assistance. In this case, it was an excellent opportunity to provide that support, and those are the kinds of actions we will continue to take, as long as it's necessary.

S. Hawkins: Thank you. If the minister doesn't have specific examples now, will she commit to looking at that question and getting back to us with some specifics on how that has been working, and whether the gaps are being filled and the auditor general's concern here is being addressed?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we will do that, but I do want to sort of caution that. . . . I actually gave you one specific example where you support, with staff and financial resources, the ability of CHCs and CHSSs to come together to look at those gaps in services -- how they fill them, whose responsibility they are and who has whatever input into that. I don't think you can find a way that you do it exactly the same in every part of the province. This is a specific example of how that's happening in the West Kootenays. But I'm happy to get back to you with other examples.

S. Hawkins: I think the reason that I am asking is because of the question of accountability. The auditor general has done a report. That was one of the concerns that he raised. It was important enough that he wrote it in his report and said that there was a gap between the two functioning boards and that he expected the ministry to address it. All I'm asking, on behalf of patients across the province and taxpayers that pay for these services, is that we make sure the ministry is addressing those kinds of concerns that the auditor general is raising. So yes, I would appreciate more specific examples, if there are any, across the province. I'm sure we will be raising them again next year to make sure that the ministry is addressing the concerns.

Even though the review was done last year, what I'm finding in the short time that I've been in the House, right now in estimates, is that a lot of these concerns are just beginning to be addressed. The minister has just told me a short while ago that they just got the roles and responsibilities and accountability framework developed. That hasn't even gone out to the regional health boards. Even though the review was done a year ago, I know the ministry is just working now on some of that stuff. So yes, I would appreciate some other examples to see how the ministry is addressing those kinds of concerns.

Now, one of the concerns -- and I know I've heard it around the province and certainly when I travelled -- was the process for recruiting, selecting and appointing people to the boards. Certainly the auditor general, again, had a concern about that. One of the major concerns -- and I know we raised that, the opposition has raised that, and other people have raised that around the province -- is making sure we had the best people for those positions on the health authority boards

[ Page 10160 ]

I understand that the ministry has now done some work towards preparing a list of competencies. I'm wondering if that is done and if that is public, so that people can see. . . . It's this minister's and this government's choice to appoint people to the boards. The auditor general was very concerned because the people appointed to these boards manage in excess of $4 billion of taxpayer money in the health care system, and we want to make sure that they do have the skills, knowledge and experience to handle that kind of responsibility. Does the minister have those competencies prepared now?

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, in point of fact, we do, although I'm not sure I have staff in the House at the moment who have it with them. But I will ensure that we have staff who do, and I would be happy to share that with you. It has gone out to all the health authorities for their comment, and we still have yet to receive comment from the BCMA. I think there's one other organization that has not yet responded, but all the health authorities have responded to the draft document. So yes, we have developed those.

S. Hawkins: Could the minister please tell us what those competencies are?

Hon. P. Priddy: I believe that what I said a moment ago is that I don't have staff in the House who have the document with them; I can bring staff in after dinner and answer that question then. It's quite a long list.

S. Hawkins: Yes, we would appreciate that. It's been quite a few years now that the ministry has been in the process of appointing people to the boards -- certainly under New Directions and then under the change to Better Teamwork, Better Care -- and I think that we are finally going to have something, hopefully in black and white, so that people can actually see that this is the necessary criteria before you can be appointed.

The ministry must also have read the auditor general's report. Has the ministry developed or established some objective criteria for evaluating the nominees and the applicants for the health boards?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we have.

S. Hawkins: Does the minister have that information available so that she can share with us how they will evaluate the nominees and applicants?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm wondering if we could leave this discussion until after the dinner recess because, as I say, the staff who has the document is not in the House. We can certainly get that, and perhaps if you wanted to move on to something else, I would make sure that all of that information was here after the dinner break.

S. Hawkins: That's fine. One of the last concerns that the auditor general had was that the Ministry of Health has to understand the need to measure performance. I understand they were working on the accountability framework. How did the ministry know in the last year or two, when these boards were in place without a strategic plan, without a vision, that things were actually happening the way they were supposed to? How was it measuring performance?

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to say, as I said earlier, that I don't think people have been working totally without vision, totally without framework, totally without any sense of roles and responsibilities while they have not had the documents they will have in a week or so. That work has been done by a variety of people in a variety of ways. I think what the auditor general said is that it has to be clear and that we have to make sure people understand that better. Since we're only a year in, that's fair enough; we will do that.

In terms of the appointments, I want to first say that I think, when you look at the quality of people on health authorities and health councils around this province, that there are extraordinarily capable people out there. As well -- and this came out in Public Accounts; I think it was Peter Gregory, but I'm not sure -- I think that the auditor general's office did say that there was some concern that the report was being misrepresented in some ways, that it was being used to say that we -- we being the auditor general -- believe that people on the boards were incompetent. That's not at all what we're saying. We were looking at the process for putting people on boards and at the way boards operated.

I always have to put that out, because after the auditor general's report and some comments by a variety of people, some boards felt that their competence was being questioned. I think that boards and health authorities throughout this province have done a superb job, and probably the one in the member's region has done a superb job with an extremely good board chair.

Let me, then, read you a little bit, if you will, around selection criteria for general membership on health authorities. It doesn't mean that every person has to have every one of these pieces, but these are the pieces that people would look for: values; support for concepts of health reform; public involvement in decision-making and publicly accountable systems; demonstrated interest and commitment, so that there is some history, if you will, of volunteer involvement and community participation. That sort of looks at it from a values perspective. From the general categories of knowledge, skills and abilities, there are: legal, financial and business background; labour relations; political relations; public and media relations; knowledge and skills around governance processes and board development, community development and public participation; and information and information systems. Leadership is another in the general category that people would be looking at under knowledge, skills and abilities.

Under knowledge, skills and abilities that are more specific kinds of criteria, there are: experience with planning processes, particularly for long-range and strategic planning; developing corporate goals, objectives and strategies; evaluations, particularly outcome evaluation and performance indicators; collaborative decision-making; public participation principles; and health impact analysis. I won't read them all to you, but those are some of the more specific criteria that people would collectively look at for a health authority. Obviously everybody doesn't come with all of those kinds of things.

Under capacity, some criteria are: understands and can meet the eligibility criteria or conflict-of-interest standards; understands the government's role; willing and able to participate actively as a governor and as part of a team; has time available, including freedom to travel if needed; and able to be objective. Those are the capacity issues, if you will. Then there are some other considerations around background, previous experience, health, employment, social services, education,

[ Page 10161 ]

[5:45]

I don't think I said that anyone on the boards was incompetent. I think I asked if the minister had had competency, skill, experience and other attribute requirements set up. That is a valid concern I am raising out of the auditor general's report. I don't think that I've ever said that the auditor general said those people were incompetent. What I've said, and I've reflected from the report, is that the auditor general had concerns that the people that are entrusted with almost $4 billion of health care spending. . . . There didn't seem to be a process for picking those people with the kinds of skills needed to be responsible for that kind of money. That was the concern I was reflecting from the report.

Now, what I asked the minister -- and perhaps I'll just repeat the question -- is: the auditor general says, and the report says, that the ministry does collect financial and statistical information. But the ministry has not -- and had not at that time, from what I understand from the discussion we're having so far -- established the level of performance it expects the health authorities to achieve, nor has it developed mechanisms for evaluating performances in relation to regionalization of health services. The ministry has not yet provided the health authorities with indicators or targets against which their performance will be measured. The minister says she is just in the process of getting that documentation to the health board. What I asked was: given that they don't have this, and haven't had it in the last year and possibly won't have it for the next year, how is their performance being measured? How has it been measured in the last year, and how is it going to be measured in this budget year? The accountability framework that the minister says she is in the process of developing hasn't been and isn't in place yet.

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is indeed correct, because somebody had provided me with the information that we didn't find in the binder around criteria. I wanted to be able to do that before the dinner break, and I did not move on to the rest of the question. I thank the member for her reminder.

People will have it very soon, so they will not be operating in the next year without having that accountability framework. In terms of what people have done without having the accountability framework, they've done what they have probably done for however many years. I mean, they've done this in relation to the Ministry of Health as well. They've had criteria and evaluation around hospitals, long-term care programs, continuing care programs, multilevel, hospice -- all of the kinds of programs that are offered in a community -- for the last however many years. People have met a number of performance indicators around particular facilities. They've continued to do that, and since that's always happened, I don't think that people have suffered from that.

What we are trying to do, though, is an accountability framework that not only looks at the indicators for individual services but looks at how those have been brought together on an integrated regional basis. That's what this accountability framework will help bring to people.

S. Hawkins: The minister talks about all the information that's needed for accountability so that the ministry can indeed measure to see that the regional health boards are meeting targets. We know now that the ministry has worked out an accountability framework; they are apparently in the process of vetting it through their boards and different organizations to get it into place. Has the ministry, then, also clearly defined its information needs for the information that they're trying to collect so that they can adequately report on the results of their regionalization initiative? What kinds of information has the ministry identified that it needs, so that it can adequately report on regionalization?

Hon. P. Priddy: Just to be clear, certainly we have always gathered information. There has always been information gathered from hospitals and health facilities and services. I think that the information we're looking at gathering, though, and have indicated to people around regionalization will be whether the outcomes of how those services are integrated are working. We'd be looking for such indicators as: is this really a seamless system for people? Have people had to go through three different services in order to get to the service that they really need?

We expect regions to be able to track that kind of information to show that the regionalization part, the coordination part and the integration part are working. They'll give all of the information to the ministry that they always have, which is around numbers of patients and outcomes of patients -- although I don't think that we've always done as good a job at that. But we will also be looking at. . . .

Well, a lot of that will be around: is it seamless? For instance, we expect the regions to be able to provide us with information that when a patient leaves hospital, there is a seamless transition and we can measure the outcome for people -- whether it's back home with home support or into a transition bed in a multilevel-care facility for a short period of time because that's what they need. So we're looking at gathering information on outcomes for patients which shows that integrated coordinated services are really working for people.

S. Hawkins: I know that in order to collect that information, you need the hardware to deal with it, and some of the regions are working at integrating their information systems and getting them up and going. Can the minister tell us what they've done to ensure that the health regions and health authorities have the necessary hardware and software to gather the information to support reporting requirements?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things, really: in the first year of regionalization -- for some people it was the second year, but for many it was the first year -- there was a dollar amount allocated for infrastructure, for the health authorities to be able to set up systems that they previously had not needed and currently were going to need under the system of Better Teamwork, Better Care. Also, we've worked with every region to make sure that they've developed -- with our support and in concert with us -- an information management plan, so that we know how that data is going to be collected and managed in the regions, and how they're going to be able to pull it out of the system in a way that's useful. There's no point in collecting data that doesn't matter; you have to collect

[ Page 10162 ]

Hon. Chair, you're helping me to note the time, and noting the time, I would move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House recess until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:56 p.m. to 6:39 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

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

S. Hawkins: Before the break we were talking about the collection of information and the ministry having health information to assess how it's doing. We were talking about whether the regions had the support they needed to collect the kind of information they needed, as well, to assess how they were doing. I think what I had asked -- and if I didn't, what I'm asking now -- is: do the health authorities have the necessary hardware and the software to gather the appropriate information to support reporting requirements that the ministry is engaging in now through its accountability framework?

Hon. P. Priddy: We believe the regions have at least adequate mechanisms or infrastructure to be able to collect the data that we've currently asked them for. Some will be better than others, given their size or given how recently they've been able to update. I'm sure that a number would tell us that they would like more and, I'm sure, could use updates. But they do have enough to collect what we're currently asking for.

S. Hawkins: What is the plan, then, for computerization throughout the regions and then connecting them to the ministry, so the ministry has the information they need?

Hon. P. Priddy: The computerization will be done through HealthNet. Through HealthNet, the regions will be able to link up, but all those regions will be able to link together and to the Ministry of Health in Victoria.

S. Hawkins: The minister was saying that some of the regions have computerized to some extent; some haven't. So where are we at in the regions as far as getting them up and ready? Which ones have computerized and what is the baseline that we're using to make sure that they are set up and ready to share information within the communities and their regions? Or are some absolutely nowhere right now and others way ahead?

Hon. P. Priddy: I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there were some regions that were not computerized; they all are. Depending on the size and when they started, some are simply more sophisticated than others, particularly depending on size and the amount of information they manage. But they are all computerized, and we, through our infrastructure money, are continuing to support those regions that need to do upgrades. Often it's with software -- the kind of software where we need to collect particular kinds of data. So we are continuing throughout this year to support any regions that need to come up a bit higher to be able to do that. But they are all computerized.

S. Hawkins: What system does the ministry have in place in the different regions? Or are the regions putting in their own systems and linking up to the ministry's? Are there problems that we're going to see as a result of the regions doing different things on their own?

Hon. P. Priddy: A couple of things. One of them is that the regions may pick individual systems that they see will meet their particular needs. But we have established the B.C. Health Information Standards Council, which is made up of hospital administrators, people from the Health ministry and people with a background and skills, if you will, in computer networks. People have to meet a particular standard -- for instance, all the regions have to be able to interface with each other. They may pick their own system, but the standards would say: "Your system has to be able to interface with other regions and with Victoria, and meet the standards around it."

[6:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: Maybe I can just read into the record something that might be helpful. If there are problems. . . . I've actually just checked. If you've heard of some, I'd be happy to hear them. I have not, but that doesn't mean that they're not out there. What we've said to all of the regions is that the major components of how people keep future health information in their system must include the necessary means to ensure personal health information privacy and confidentiality. So they have to prove how their system does that. They have to understand commonly defined data that satisfies the majority of the needs of the service providers, managers, governors, researchers, etc. It has to be able to provide an integrated record of health services received by an individual

[ Page 10163 ]

This "Information Resource Management Plan, 1998-2003" is on our web site. Also, people in the regions have had the "Information Resource Management Plan" since the end of January. Again, they can select the system that they choose. I mean, we don't say everybody has to have X, but these are the kinds of standards that they have to meet.

S. Hawkins: Have any of the regions applied for capital to purchase a computer system, and hardware and software? Which regions are those, and what is the ministry doing to help them upgrade or get their equipment?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think I mentioned that earlier. The dollars for the management of infrastructure such as computer systems were devolved out to the regions, some last year and some this year. If I recall correctly, most of the large ones were last year and probably the remaining ones are this year. So the budget that the ministry held was given to the regions to manage, in terms of their infrastructure and computer needs. Also, in their capital budgets is the time that the regions or the health authorities would have to make known to us what their computer needs would be.

S. Hawkins: Then I guess the question is: in their capital budgets, did they make that known to the ministry? How many regions are asking for capital for computer equipment?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not able to tell the member the number that may request it, because all of the budgets from the regions are not in yet. We have a number outstanding. I don't doubt that there will be regions indicating a need for either additional computer hardware or software in their budgets, but without the budgets all being in, I am unable to give you that information.

S. Hawkins: Will the minister commit, then, to getting that information to this member when she receives it?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.

S. Hawkins: In the Better Teamwork, Better Care announcement, there was a provision for an annual report card on the performance of the health authorities. We haven't received one yet, and I'm wondering when we can expect that minister's report card.

Hon. P. Priddy: I believe the commitment given to Public Accounts was that there would be a report card by the end of this calendar year.

S. Hawkins: I look forward to that. We'll go back to appointing candidates to boards. The minister had indicated that staff weren't here before; hopefully, they are here now.

I believe the minister read out a list of competencies. I believe I have some eligibility criteria from October of 1997 -- some other information that was given to me recently -- but I'm wondering if the minister can tell us if the criteria that she read out are being used at this time to appoint members to the current positions that are vacant on the boards.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes. To the best of our ability, we are doing that, but pending the feedback and the final approval. . . . Then I think those will be used in a more complete way. I could not say to you that for every single appointment, every single one of those has been looked at. But yes, those are the ones that are being used for general guidelines.

S. Hawkins: I had asked if the ministry had established objective criteria, then, for evaluating nominees and applicants that wanted positions on the boards, and what those criteria were.

Hon. P. Priddy: The evaluation will be done by staff in the societies section of the ministry. They will review all the submissions for membership and ensure that for that individual. . . . Matching the résumé or the CV -- however you would describe it -- to the list of criteria: capacity, knowledge and skills. . . . They can also seek advice from agencies, boards and commissions.

S. Hawkins: Is there a committee? Or how does the ministry evaluate the nominees? Does it come to a committee of the ministry? Does it come to an independent committee? How does the ministry actually look at these nominees? How do people apply for these positions?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think there are two parts to the question. The first one -- and I think I stated it, perhaps not clearly enough, a moment ago. . . . The submissions, if you will, or applications -- however you wish to describe them -- will go to staff in what we call the societies section, which is the part of our ministry that reviews all appointments within the ministry to make sure we are getting appropriate individuals. They will review all those submissions for membership and actually match what is in a person's letter of application and curriculum vitae or résumé to what we have set out as the criteria.

In terms of how you get to apply, if you will -- how you say you want to do that -- we will be sending a letter out from the minister's office to the health authorities letting them know the vacancies, probably vacancies that occur late in the year. I'm just reading through sort of where we go from here, because we're fairly far into the year now. The vacancies that occur in August, September, October will probably have to wait to be filled through the appointment process, as opposed to appointing somebody for three months, unless there were some extraordinary circumstances. As I think the member knows, these are all up at the end of December. The letter confirms pending membership expiry dates, outlines changes being made to expiry dates, describes time lines for that health authority. . . . Sorry -- if the member will give me a minute.

I probably need to narrow down the answer to that, hon. member. There is a guidebook for the health authorities around the process for appointments and nominations. The health authorities will be asked to place advertisements in the newspaper indicating what the role is and what people are looking for. People will also be able to self-nominate.

S. Hawkins: When will those ads be going in the paper?

Hon. P. Priddy: Probably around the beginning of October, maybe a bit earlier.

[ Page 10164 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I didn't hear the last part of the member's question.

S. Hawkins: I asked how many of the existing boards and councils have vacancies. And for each of those boards that have vacancies, how many vacancies are there on each board at the current time?

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't have that information with me. I don't think it's hard to find out for the member, but it's not the people here who would be able to do that. I certainly know -- at Public Accounts we knew -- that we have at least one vacancy on each board. I certainly know of a couple of boards where there are two. I can find that information for the member; we just don't have folks here who can do it.

[7:00]

It's kind of interesting. Maybe this is the time to ask the question with respect to having appointments, as opposed to finding people for the boards in other ways, such as electing boards. Does this minister feel that this is the best way to set up these boards: having them appointed unilaterally by the ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: I take the member's point about Campbell River. I'm not aware of that, but I will certainly check. I have signed a number of appointments recently, so there are people being appointed to boards. I will check out the one that you've raised with me. On the other hand, once you're into July and August, if the appointments expire at the end of December, it is almost impossible. . . . By the time someone is up to speed, their appointment is over. I think that that is a difficulty.

What we expect will come from this process is not. . . . It's through the people who self-nominate and through the applications that are sent in. I would expect and hope that there would be many more people whose applications are sent in than we would probably have spaces for, and that there would then exist a pool of individuals that will make appointing in future a bit easier than having to go out each time. That will be a resource base or a sublist -- or however you would describe that -- which we can draw from.

While the boards are appointed. . . . I'm not quite so sure that it's unilaterally. It's unilateral in terms of the fact that the government makes the appointment. But we make that appointment in many cases -- and we have examples -- based on information from the opposition or names that the opposition has put forward. We make those decisions based on information that the health authorities have put forward. So while they are government appointments, I'm not quite sure that unilateral is the word that I would use to describe that.

S. Hawkins: There are concerns with appointed boards. I think one of those concerns is the attrition rate. I myself have witnessed, over the past couple of years, people dropping off of the boards. I wonder if you'd have that kind of attrition, and if the ministry has tracked it, with boards that are elected. The minister, I believe, has sat on elected school boards and now sits as an MLA, as I do. I think that you have a certain sense of attachment and accountability to the people whom you represent. I would argue that when you're appointed to a board, you don't have that kind of attachment. The minister can correct me if she thinks I'm wrong, but I think that if you are appointed to a board. . . .

I know that these boards are volunteer boards. They put in endless volunteer hours, and I commend them for that; I honestly do. But I know that at the end of the day, we're finding it harder and harder to find those kinds of people who will commit to the kind of time and the kind of abuse -- if I can call it that -- that they've taken from this Health ministry in the last couple of years. A lot of these people had been appointed and then fired by this ministry; some of them were reappointed. The directions of reform blew with the wind; they changed with the minister or the deputy minister that took over at the time.

The volunteers have actually taken quite a beating under this ministry. I find it interesting that we are seeing the high attrition rate that we are. I would argue, with the amount of people that are being appointed to these boards and dropping off, that perhaps it's because they don't feel the kind of commitment that an elected official might feel serving on these boards.

I'm wondering if the ministry has taken the time to talk to the people that have resigned from the boards, or dropped off, to find out why they have dropped off the boards. Has the ministry taken the time to do that?

Hon. P. Priddy: I would not suggest that the ministry has asked everybody who has resigned from a board why they have done so, but there has been, I think, a fair bit of discussion with individuals who have chosen to resign or needed to resign -- whichever -- in the middle of a term.

I guess there are two pieces for me. One is that we could have the discussion about elected versus appointed boards. But you asked if I could agree or disagree with you, or whether I would agree or do agree -- whatever -- about the commitment or the attachment. I have to look at the health boards and health authorities that I'm familiar with, which is some number. The attachment that those people feel to what's going on in their community is every bit as strong as the attachment that I see school trustees feel to what's going on in their communities. I'm not sure that it's about an attachment to the people that they're trying to make a difference for.

I think there are a couple of things at play. One of them is the issue of remuneration, which the health authorities are quite divided upon -- whether there should be some kind of remuneration for serving on a health authority the way you do when you serve, for instance, on a college board. That may have something to do with it.

Secondly, we -- whoever -- may not have properly explained to people the role and the time commitment. We all often do that with committees: "Oh, come along. You just have

[ Page 10165 ]

Thirdly, I have seen a bit of attrition in my own council and school board, which is quite small. But people do leave both elected positions and appointed positions for reasons of work, health, family. Those affect everybody. I think there are a variety of reasons that people have talked to me about when I've asked people why they have resigned from boards.

S. Hawkins: I don't remember what the minister said before about how many people had resigned and how many vacancies there were on boards across the province. Did I hear the minister say she was going to bring that information back to the House?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I did say I would do that. But we have checked on one point you've raised around Campbell River, and that board currently has no vacancies. They've all been filled.

S. Hawkins: I'm sure they've all been filled since January, when I was there; there were five vacancies on the board when I met with the council chair at that time. In fact, it was interesting, because the council chair at the time -- a very motivated person -- was working on a list of competencies that were needed for her board, because she felt that they didn't have expertise. She felt that a lot of the things that the auditor general was pointing out in his report, insofar as whether the people that were sitting on the boards had the knowledge and the expertise and the skills. . . . She felt that they needed somebody with accounting experience, financial experience, legal experience -- all those kinds of things. It's interesting that some of these people had the foresight before the ministry actually set about putting it together.

The other thing that I hear as I'm travelling around the province, meeting with people that sit on the boards, is the issue of the chair. I understand that the minister has the discretion to appoint the chair. But when these people are put together, many of them feel that they should have the right to appoint the chair of their board. I am wondering what the minister has to say about that.

Hon. P. Priddy: The process of the selection. . . . By the way, there are criteria for the selection of health authority chairs as well, and in any consideration I would make, I would take those criteria into consideration. But the health authorities are indeed accountable, not only to the people they serve but also to the ministry, or to the minister, and one part of that accountability is the minister being able to appoint the chair.

S. Hawkins: I think that if the minister thought about it for a minute, perhaps the people sitting around the table. . . . I know we all go to meetings, and I know we all, as we connect, find the person that perhaps best delivers our message, or is able to take charge. Sometimes is it best left to the group, if you're looking at group dynamics, to decide who their chair should be. It's interesting that the ministry has taken not only complete, unfettered discretion about who they are going to appoint to boards but also that they appoint the chairs. It's a very autocratic structure set up for volunteer positions in the community.

We talked before, just briefly, on the process for recruitment for appointments to the boards. The minister talked about an ad being placed in the paper. I think I heard the minister say that when the applications come in, they go to some societies section or something like that in the ministry. Can the minister give us exactly the formal process for recruiting, and tell us where those appointments come in and how they are then selected for the boards they are going to?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I'm clear on the question. . . . Maybe I've only answered in pieces.

The health authorities will put an ad in the appropriate papers and in other places -- but certainly, at a minimum, in the newspaper -- but in other areas, as well, that would get people's attention, because not everybody reads their local newspaper, even though we in this House might think that's the case. So the original submissions. . . . Everybody who wants to do this will nominate themselves or somebody else, and send all of those in to the health authority. The health authority, using the criteria that have been set out, looks at those submissions, makes some determination of ability and skill and so on, and sends over to the societies section of the ministry some significant number of those résumés or applications. In some ways, the societies section does a piece of work that's similar to the health authority's: they review all those submissions for membership, make sure that there is an appropriate mix of skills, knowledge and values -- because, as you mentioned earlier, you do want to make sure that there are certain skills on a board -- then go to agencies, boards and commissions, and then to me.

S. Hawkins: Who on the health authority then looks at the submissions? Who are the people on the health authority in this. . . ?

Hon. P. Priddy: The health authority appoints a nominating committee.

[7:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: Our guidance to the health authorities is. . . . The nominating committee can be made up of anyone on that board, but there are some criteria around that -- that the nominating committee be made up of members who are not impacted by, or who don't have a vested interest in, the results of the appointment process. There would not be, to the best of my information, staff who would be sitting on that nominating committee.

S. Hawkins: From what I understand, the minister said that there wouldn't be any administrative staff on the committee, and she also said that it would be made up of members who don't have a vested interest in the nominees. What is the minister saying? What does she mean by "members who don't have a vested interest"?

Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry, I'm trying to go back to the question.

Under normal circumstances -- and I would suggest that this year is not a normal circumstance, because most of the appointments will be up -- there will be people on the boards who choose not to. . . . They've been there for quite a while. I

[ Page 10166 ]

S. Hawkins: I believe that at Public Accounts we were led to understand that the CEO of the region would play a limited role. Is that still true? What role would the CEO play?

Hon. P. Priddy: The information I have is that there has been discussion with health authorities about how they might involve the CEOs in a nominating process. They may ask them to do the advertisements; they may ask them to do some of the initial review, I suppose, of the CVs. The CEO will not be part of the nominating committee, will not be submitting nominations -- not that kind of active role.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the ministry has thought out the role that the CEO would play, given the fact that the CEO is hired by the board. The CEO would be vetting nominations of people that might actually end up being his boss. I don't know if the minister has given thought to that and whether there is a conflict of interest in the CEO playing any part of the nominee process. The minister said before -- again, I want to get it clear in my mind -- that the members who would be vetting the nominations or the submissions shouldn't have a bias or a personal interest. What does the minister consider a bias or a personal interest?

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, for instance, I would suggest -- and, as I say, because all the appointments are up this year, this is somewhat more of a dilemma -- that if someone is standing for nomination, then being on the nominating committee would be a conflict of interest.

S. Hawkins: Has the minister thought of any other further bias or personal interest, other than that, for. . . . This being an unusual year, and another being a usual year. . . . In a usual year, what would the minister consider to be a bias or a personal interest for someone vetting the submissions?

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, some examples that come to mind are a family member or a business partner -- someone with whom you have an obvious and very close affiliation. In a community -- particularly in a smaller community -- lots of people know others whose applications come in. . . . You can't suggest that knowing folks or being part of some other circle is going to be a conflict, but I would certainly suggest that family members, significant others, business partners and so on might represent that.

S. Hawkins: That helps a bit.

Going back just a little bit, I understand that the minister made mention of remuneration for the members on the RHBs or the CHCs. I'm interested in what that remuneration is, if they're receiving any right now.

Hon. P. Priddy: Around remuneration, I don't know about any particular figure that's been recommended. I only know that the subject of remuneration has been discussed by members of the health authorities, and they seemed to me to be clearly divided in the last discussions they had about whether members feel that they would or would not wish to be. It's a discussion you often hear in the volunteer community about whether people do or don't wish to be remunerated for that activity.

S. Hawkins: What's the minister's position on remuneration for board members?

Hon. P. Priddy: Other than as a fiscal issue, if I can put the budget requirements aside for the moment. . . . At this stage I don't have that kind of budget, so my saying that if people supported remuneration, so would I, doesn't mean that I automatically have the dollars to be able to do that. I think that people have put in huge amounts of time, and I don't think that that would be inappropriate at all. I will say that the members do get expenses: travel costs, child care, etc.

S. Hawkins: It is interesting that if there were a budget, the minister might consider remunerating them. In the past, none of them were; it was all volunteer work. As it is, perhaps it should continue that way. The minister did mention that they get compensated for expenses. I'm wondering: have we figured out how much we are compensating for, say, travelling, dependent care and wage reimbursement in the last year or two that we've had these boards set up? Do we have a figure that the ministry has compiled that we have remunerated board members for those kinds of expenses?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things: first, we don't pay wage reimbursement; second -- and I'm not unwilling to do this -- we would have to get from the health authorities what they're spending on board expenses, because that's paid at the health authority level. But it's not impossible to do. We'd have to ask the health authorities to submit it for you.

S. Hawkins: I think that would be a reasonable request, given that that does come out of budget.

Now, the minister did say that there wasn't wage reimbursement. Am I led to believe, then, that. . . ? We know that there are union workers that are on health care boards. Are they not reimbursed for their time for serving on those boards?

Hon. P. Priddy: There may be people, not just union members, who are reimbursed for their time because the company they work for wants to do that, because they think it's an important community commitment, or their union wants to do that, because they think it's an important community commitment. But they are not reimbursed by the Ministry of Health or the health authority.

S. Hawkins: That just led me to another interesting scenario. I believe that the union member on the South Okanagan-Similkameen board is also on the bargaining committee for the nurses' union. Does the minister not see that as a conflict of interest? She sits on the regional health board as an employer and also sits on the bargaining committee for the nurses' union.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: It might be HEU -- one of the bargaining units. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. P. Priddy: Whether it's a conflict that she -- I think you said she -- has those two positions is one thing; I'm not sure that it is. But I think it would be a conflict -- and I don't know what the current practice is -- if she did not exempt herself from discussions on wage issues.

[ Page 10167 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: There are conflict-of-interest guidelines that we have and that the health authorities have. My experience with school boards, for instance, is that when there have been people who are in that position, or whose partners are, they exempt themselves from that part of the discussion.

S. Hawkins: Perhaps the minister can make available the conflict-of-interest guidelines for the boards, as well, so that we can have a look at those. Would the minister commit to that?

Hon. P. Priddy: We'd be pleased to do that.

S. Hawkins: Thank you.

At this time, I want to talk about. . . . In the last few years we've been hearing about all the savings that we are supposedly achieving through regionalization. We've heard various figures that have come from the ministry. What I want to know is: what is the number that the ministry is using this year for the savings that are being achieved through regionalization? Perhaps I'll get the number first. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: The number that we have estimated from the beginning is $24 million. We believe that has been achieved. Any additional savings that we will see will come through the efficiency of providing integrated services. But I don't think -- and I'll be perfectly frank -- that we are going to see huge savings through integrated and coordinated services. That's not the prime driver of that, but there will certainly be some continued savings.

S. Hawkins: So $24 million is the figure that the ministry is using this year. From when to when -- when did the ministry start realizing those savings, and at what date was the $24 million achieved? If the minister can break that down and tell us where that $24 million figure comes from. . . . To tell you the truth, we haven't seen it. I've only got the annual report from 1994-95 and no report since, so where that savings might have been realized is not documented anywhere. If the minister can break that $24 million down for us, that would be appreciated.

[7:30]

S. Hawkins: Is the $24 million an estimate, then, or is there a some kind of breakdown that tells us how much is actually achieved in each of the areas the minister just quoted?

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me give some examples. The number of administrative positions and associated dollars we would be looking at is over 200 positions and probably $13-14 million on an annualized basis. Some of the other examples -- and I can't give you specific breakdowns for these, but it's a better list than I gave you earlier -- around the $24 million and the administrative savings are the centralization of regional functions, such as human resources, payroll, financial services, purchasing, materials management, information services, housekeeping, food services, laundry services, quality control, utilization management, shared clinics, laboratory radiology and biomedical engineering. As well, there is a fair bit of space consolidation occurring, and there will be some savings as we do that interregionally.

S. Hawkins: It's interesting that the $24 million in savings, which was being bragged about over the last few years, now seems to be stretching from April 1997 to the year 2000. We kept hearing how much it was saving us right now and that it was being plowed back into health care. If the ministry is saying that there is a $24 million saving over three years, surely to goodness they would know how much they had saved between April 1997 and April 1, 1998, and in what, and what the projected savings for the next two years would be. It seems to me that to just throw out a number and say, "That's what you're going to get," isn't good enough. People want to know that there are savings being achieved for the restructuring happening out there -- if indeed there are. We know that the board in our region has undertaken to try and assess if there are indeed savings happening because of restructuring and reform.

Can the minister tell us in actual amounts how much was achieved in the last fiscal year and what the projected amounts will be for the next two years to get to that $24 million that they say will be achieved through regionalization?

Hon. P. Priddy: My understanding from people is that we were clear that that $24 million talked about last year will be over three years. Because this is the first year, I can give you some sense of how much it is, but I can't tell you -- and I'm not sure that the regions could yet, because they're in the middle of some of this -- how much they've saved by integrating human resources or by sharing space with somebody else. Some of those figures probably won't be available to us. We may have some in their budgets, but I think we won't have some for a bit of time, because they are in progress.

But I will say a couple of things: one is that the $13-14 million that we estimate on an annualized basis for the elimination of staff positions. . . . Most, although not all, of that work is done. Some of those positions may have been eliminated mid-year, so we don't have an annualized savings at this stage. But out of that $13-14 million, on an annualized basis, a significant amount has been achieved already, so you could count that as a savings for this year. It is important to note that those savings are also being reinvested; so while they are savings, they are going back into the health care system. If the member wants, we have some examples of how they are being reinvested.

R. Thorpe: The $24 million that you're targeting to save: do you have a measuring mechanism in place so that you're able to quantify those savings each year?

Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly we have measurements around the staff savings, because that's easy to quantify -- so yes, we certainly have that measurement. Around the administrative savings that I referred to earlier, like integrating laundry services and food services, we have estimates for those, but we don't have specific amounts for those at this stage. Many of those will be in transition.

R. Thorpe: To me, if you're going to put a target up there -- a number of $24 million -- you would identify the total.

[ Page 10168 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I'll have to start back at the beginning of the question. The amount for staffing is an easy indicator. People said $24 million; I know it's the other pieces that you're looking at. For the other ones, the list is quite long. We're quite certain that those savings are in those other pieces. We could actually do a study and bring that information back to you. We believe -- and I think this will be quite well proved out -- that there actually may be more savings than that in those other areas of radiology, biomedical engineering, etc. But at this stage, I can't attach a number for you that says we'll save this much for laundry, this much for food services, this much for biomedical engineering and this much for that.

We do know, out of that large quantity of services, that there are significant savings to be made. We've already seen those savings in areas that have undertaken that. It's not as if nobody's done this before and we don't have some indication of how the savings can be made. I have every assurance that we will save the $24 million, but I can't attach a particular figure to each and every one of those for you at this stage.

R. Thorpe: I'm kind of flipping back in my mind to Public Accounts. We talked about whether there was a strategic plan, and we found out that there wasn't a strategic plan but that there were annual implementation plans.

I'm troubled by the fact that we made a statement that we're going to save $24 million, but yet we can't provide a list of how we're going to save the $24 million. If we can't provide that, it raises a huge question as to the credibility of the whole process we're involved in here -- $24 million is a lot of money. I just wonder: does the minister think it's an acceptable management tool to say that we're going to save $24 million but that we don't know how we're going to save it? We don't have a list. If you go back to the accountability matrix, how are we going to measure ourselves? I want you to be successful. But how are we going to measure our success in one area or our shortcoming in another area if we don't have the benchmarks at the very beginning? I find this absolutely mind-boggling, and I would like the minister's comments on that.

Hon. P. Priddy: I was trying to think if I had another way of answering this, but I don't; so I'll just try and provide as much information as I have. First, certainly $10 million is a lot of money too, but let's make sure that we're talking about $10 million and not $24 million, because we've already quantified the $14 million, which is staffing positions. Not that $10 million is not a lot of money too; it is.

I guess the benchmark. . . . Two things: one of them is that we've looked at experiences that other. . . . We've had a little bit in our own province, but other provinces have had experiences where they've been able to centralize these kinds of services: laundry, housekeeping, meals, bio-med labs, etc. And we know that there are savings available. We've talked to the health authorities and asked them to look within those structures and make some estimates of what their savings might be, which is how we got to the $24 million amount. So firstly, by looking at places that have already done it, and secondly, by looking and asking for advice from our own local health authorities. . . .

I'm quite confident that out of all those services, once you integrate them, $10 million will be available. The only benchmark there, though, is how much you're spending now -- which we have -- on all of those if you do them piece. . . . If every hospital does its own lab, its own laundry, its own food service, etc. . . . You're right: that's not the benchmark; that's the baseline where you start. So you've got a baseline, and then you move on from there. I can't provide those numbers attached to each. . . . And in fairness, I don't think anybody would be able to say, in advance, $4,627 from -- I don't know -- quality control combination. But I'm quite confident that the $10 million will come from those services.

[7:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: I appreciate the reference to the private sector. I guess there's a little difference, although I still appreciate your point that we've got. . . . You take $10 million and divide it by 52 health authorities, you're not really. . . . I mean, $10 million is large, but we've got 52 health authorities, and 113 hospitals -- never mind counting the other facilities -- and to be able to go into each facility and say it will be X in every one of 113 hospitals or into every one of the 200, or whatever it is, long term care facilities. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Oh, is it 123 hospitals? The assistant deputy, who is a female, had the right answer. No offence, though -- right? Okay, it's 123 hospitals.

To figure out in every long term care facility how much you can save in laundry, and how much you can save in every hospital -- I just don't think that's even possible to try and do, but you can look at the amount you have in the system and know that cost savings are able. . . . If you reduce five laundry services to one, you know that you're going to be able to save resources. If you can reduce five human resource managements. . . . Well, in the experiences I've seen, you can. You can do it around bulk purchasing; you can do it around human resource management. But I think that to be able to go into every single facility and do that was not doable. You asked who was monitoring it. The health authorities are.

R. Thorpe: So what we've been able to confirm here today. . . . Just for the minister's information, I've had some good answers in Public Accounts from both of your staff members who were there, so I'm sure they can both give very credible and solid professional answers.

[ Page 10169 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: To the hon. member, my deputy appreciates your support. They are indeed both credible.

I guess there are three pieces here. One of them is around tracking. We are tracking it through the health authorities, but to have been able to go into all of the. . . . Because they will know. . . . Now that it's regionalized, if they combine five laundries, they will know how much those five spent and how much is saved when you combine them. That tracking can be done. It's just that going into all of those in the first place to project each and every one of those was something that, I understand, was not particularly doable. But it is being tracked. The health authorities are tracking it, and they will report that to us.

R. Thorpe: I don't want to beat this much longer, but I guess one of the reasons that I'm concerned about it is because. . . . I do spend a fair amount of time in touch with the regional hospital in Penticton, and I actually spend time in the hospital watching and attending around. I have to say that it doesn't seem to matter which group I spend time with these days -- whether it's the HEU, the administration, the clerks, the X-ray technicians. . . . It doesn't seem to matter who I talk to. Even on the long weekend about a month or so ago, I had a call: "Please come to the hospital and see what's going on, because it's unbelievable." It seems that everyone is being crunched to death on the financial side. That's why I was wondering what we're doing, how we're tracking that side.

If each health authority is doing it, I would think, then, that we just have to ask the health authorities and assemble the figures. That's why I'm concerned, because I really think that in some of these areas the focus has gone off the patient. I'm concerned about that in my regional hospital. Often, when you talk with people, you'll get one group that's happy and another group that's not. But when I can't find one group that's happy at the regional hospital, I say there's a serious problem.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, I didn't answer the last part of your previous question. We did not reduce the budgets to health authorities. Those savings are reinvested in health care services, and there are some examples here. I didn't answer that the last time.

I think that. . . . I promised myself I wouldn't do this in estimates. "Keep the answers short," I said to myself. "Do not wax philosophical." But I just want to respond to the point you made about whether we've become systems-focused and not patient-focused. I think it's actually a fair question or maybe even a fair observation, given the fact that. . . . I hope that's not true, but I don't doubt that there may be some part of that, given that over the last year, the changes that have been going on in the regions. . . . I support the changes, by the way, but they are systems changes. They are about how people do their business. They are about systems change. They're about the infrastructure. They're about how you combine programs, etc. That's where the focus has been, and that work has to happen. I think that most of that work has actually now happened. It may be, in the carrying out of that work, that it feels like everybody's concerned about how you change the system or fix the system or do whatever to the system, and the patient's face gets lost a bit in that. Any time you have large systems change, I think there is a risk to that. Most of the system change is done, and people will be able to focus on the reason they're doing this job -- which is patients.

R. Thorpe: I just want to follow up on something the minister said. It's about change; it's about installing and instituting change. I think we agree on that. My question, then, to the minister is: what has the ministry done or provided, or how are they working with the regions to install change? Because it's difficult for everyone. . . . What kind of leadership is taking place, and what resources are being provided to help with those changes?

Hon. P. Priddy: I said I wouldn't try and wax philosophical, but I did. My staff sent me a note saying: "Short is good." So I won't do it again.

An Hon. Member: It confuses them.

Hon. P. Priddy: Apparently.

There are a couple of ways, actually. I think that what you're asking about are the principles of change management and how you support people through that. Pick your expert; in doing change management, we all have someone whose style, technique and theory we probably like. We've done a couple of things. One is that we've put in place a regional team in each region, specifically to support the regions through this change. They will have a different role later on. Each of those team members has experience in a variety of different areas -- some in hospitals, some in change in long-term care, etc. So the regional teams are there. The other thing we've done is fund HABC, the Health Association of British Columbia. We don't fund their entire budget, but we have funded them for education purposes. We have funded them to bring in experts to work with the boards around areas that the boards have identified, including managing change.

R. Thorpe: I believe that we all have a responsibility to try to make health care as responsible and as efficient as we possibly can, to make sure that the patient is the number one priority. I just want to make a statement to the minister, and the minister and her staff can do whatever they want with the information. One of the things that I have found in my private business life. . . . My life was introducing change to facilities and turning facilities around, whatever the business was. That means that you have to get to the people on the floor, the front-line workers. One of the things I have seen and experienced firsthand in a cross-section of health care workers in my riding is that somehow we haven't got down to those front-line workers. If there's anything we can do, or the ministry can do, to get down to those folks and to get them involved, I think you would stand a much better chance of having the system work better for the patients. I just want to share that with you.

S. Hawkins: Back to the $24 million. I listened with interest to the discussion that my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton had with the minister. The minister mentioned that she can account for $14 million. That's realized in

[ Page 10170 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, the positions are all eliminated. The entire $13-14 million is not necessarily achieved, because some of those may have been midyear, but that will be the annualized amount. The positions have been eliminated, but some may have been eliminated after the year began.

S. Hawkins: I'm having trouble with this $24 million. This is something the ministry has been bragging about for the last couple of years -- that they're going to see $24 million in savings over regionalization. Last year it sounded like it had already been realized, that there was $24 million in savings. We find out this year from the minister that it's going to be savings from 1997 to the year 2000. I'm trying to break it down in my mind. I don't have it quite clear in my mind how the $24 million is being achieved, yet the ministry tosses that number around like it's nothing and uses it. . . . Well, $24 million to me is a huge amount. It's a big whack of money, a huge whack of money. Frankly, I'm getting a little upset here trying to break down this money. The $14 million in salaries -- is it in positions? When will it be realized? I understand that some of it was realized last year, and some is still being. . . . If you're going to use the number $24 million, for goodness sake, have it broken down so you can say to people: "Here's how it's broken down, and here's how we're going to get the savings." We're asking the minister where she's expecting to get the savings over the next few years, and she's telling us: "It could be here, could be there, could be little chunks through one hospital or another. We don't really think we're going to add it up. We're estimating it." Then don't use a number like $24 million, because you give people. . . .

[8:00]

S. Hawkins: Through the Chair, you give people the idea that you are expecting people to believe. . .

The Chair: Hon. member, if you would direct. . . .

S. Hawkins: . . .that you're actually saving $24 million.

The Chair: Hon. member, through the Chair.

S. Hawkins: Through the Chair, that is an incredible amount of money to be playing with, with people, when we have a scarcity -- you tell us, through the Chair -- of health care dollars. To start playing with people's minds with that kind of number, that we're actually saving money through this process. . . . When I look at things like severance pay-outs in the last year or so, there's a real savings. My goodness, what do we have here? Almost $5 million in severance payments in the last year. . . . Is that included in the savings in regionalization that the minister is talking about, which the ministry has been bragging about for the last few years? Was that budgeted for and included in the savings? Can the minister comment on the $5 million in severance that we've seen?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One is that yes, we have paid out severance. The savings we are talking about are net of severance. My understanding of what the debate was last year in the House around the figure $24 million is that this saving would be achieved over three years.

What I'm saying is that the majority of the $13-14 million -- and I suppose somebody could find out the exact amount -- has been achieved now, because the 200 positions have already been eliminated. We are not throwing around a figure without investigation, and we are not doing so lightly. The remainder of that -- a little bit here and a little bit there, as the hon. member describes it -- is the $10 million, or the remaining percentage, coming from a very wide range of support services, which I have now listed on a number of occasions and which we have estimated to be achievable.

S. Hawkins: Perhaps the minister could bring back to this House the list of the places and the estimated amount of savings, because we don't have that. We're hearing: "In this area, maybe this much and altogether maybe $10 million." Perhaps the minister can commit to getting us an accounting of that $24 million. Perhaps that will put her mind at ease too. We've asked this question about savings in regionalization for a couple of years, and perhaps the minister can commit to putting down the numbers, so that she can actually say where we're going to be realizing those savings, where we've realized them so far and where we estimate they're going to come from -- actually break them down so they're not in chunks of $14 million here and $10 million there.

I'm afraid that people don't really believe the talk about savings from the Health minister or the previous Health minister, when they see numbers like $5 million in severance pay-outs. Perhaps the minister can actually commit to putting it down in numbers -- breaking it down for us and bringing it to this House. The Health ministry needs to be accountable to this Legislature. When they talk about $24 million in savings, I think they need to account to this House for that.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm happy to make the commitment to come back to the House with that information. I would suggest, though, that since we've said that 200 positions are eliminated, which will make an annualized saving of $13-14 million, I'm not sure what additional information the member would want. I don't think she would want to know who they are. We've said 200 positions and $13-14 million. I think that's as specific as we are able or need to get.

In the other pieces of that, some of the regions are just now in the process of transition, with amalgamating laundries and all of those services that we've spoken of. When those figures are available, Ill be more than happy to provide them.

S. Hawkins: It would be interesting to know which 200 positions were eliminated. I don't have to know who filled those positions, but what positions were eliminated and what money was tied to those positions? I don't want to have to stand here next year asking the same question. Hopefully, that information will be forthcoming before estimates next year. I hope the minister can commit to that.

The minister said that these savings -- $24 million -- were net of severance. I want to know how much was budgeted for severance last year.

Hon. P. Priddy: Most of the severance costs would have been paid out in the first year of Better Teamwork, Better Care, which was last year, and we estimate the potential one-time severance costs to be $6 million.

S. Hawkins: I didn't hear that. Was that $6 million?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

[ Page 10171 ]

When I just go through the list here, my goodness: Bob Smith of Lions Gate, $330,000; Ron Mulchey, CEO of St. Paul's, $500,000; Etta Richmond, who was the CEO of Chilliwack General Hospital -- and I remember that one was quite high-profile -- $173,000; Lynette Best of Lions Gate, another $50,000 or more in severance; Paul Chapin, $450,000. It just goes on and on, my goodness.

There is a whole bunch that we don't have severance for. The ones that I've got the list for add up to almost $5 million, and the minister is saying that they budgeted $6 million for severance last year. Can the minister tell us if all that $6 million was used up and on how many positions that $6 million was used up?

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't have here the information about how many the $6 million applies to, but I can get it for the member, and we will do so. I think that after several cases of severance that were indeed very high profile -- which I think many people were quite appalled by, and which were there because those were the contracts that those CEOs or administrators had signed -- there were new guidelines put in place around severance. We do not see the same kinds of contracts, which were in many cases quite outrageous, being signed by local health authorities. So the government has taken moves to limit the amount of severance that is being paid out.

S. Hawkins: Is that the normal course the ministry takes? Is budgeting for severance per year in the ministry's budget?

Hon. P. Priddy: While I did talk about the $6 million being severance dollars, we do not budget for a line item called severance. The health authorities have their own budgets. If they choose to sever someone from their employ, then they need to find those severance dollars in their health budget.

S. Hawkins: What advice does the ministry give to the health authorities when they want to sever somebody?

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of the guidelines or advice we provide to health authorities around severing someone, we certainly recommend that they fulfil the terms of their contract. But we've also provided, as you know, both in regulation and in legislation, a limit on the severance packages, and so on, that are included in contracts. As well, the health authorities of British Columbia work with the local health authorities to provide advice on individual circumstances.

S. Hawkins: The one particular severance that was most recent was the Schamborzki contract. Can the minister just update us as to whether that is being paid out in whole and what the total amount of that contract is in severance?

[8:15]

S. Hawkins: Is this person being considered for other work, or has this person applied for other work in the ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not aware that the individual involved has. . . . I don't know if she's applied for work with the ministry. At the time of the severance, she was offered another position in the ministry, which she turned down. Our new regulations would not allow that to happen. If someone were to turn down a position, that would actually effectively end their severance.

S. Hawkins: What is the severance cost to date, then, since regionalization was implemented? We heard $6 million from last year, and I know that the $5 million that I quote, which I have the numbers for, is at least over the last couple of years, so the minister has a number that's over and above mine. Has the ministry kept track of how much severance has been paid out to date since regionalization was implemented? That could be New Directions and Better Teamwork, Better Care.

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One of them is that the figure I've given, which is the total estimated severance from April 1, 1997, to the end of this fiscal year, March '98, is an estimate based on the 200 positions that are eliminated. So that, if you will, is a piece of work that is finished.

In terms of what severances were paid out two years ago or three years ago, I don't have that information with me. We're debating this year's estimates, and I don't have the information available to me currently about how much severance would have been paid out during New Directions in '92, '93 or '94. I'm sure that it is available through past financial records; it's not something we would have brought today.

S. Hawkins: I just find it interesting that the ministry can tell us that they think $24 million is what they're saving, and they're pretty comfortable with that number; and when I ask how much has been spent in severance in the last few years, that's a number the ministry finds difficult to recall. That's very interesting that we forget, or don't deal with, a number as significant as severance, which I would submit has added to the cost of regionalization.

If I look at what happened to the Ministry for Children and Families and the contract and program restructuring there, a very similar situation happened in health care over the last few years. I would submit that many of the recommendations and observations that the reviewer made in Children and Families, with respect to the program restructuring there, can be paralleled, as I said before, with the regionalization process insofar as concerns with severance and regionalization of programs.

You know, the minister just came from that ministry, and she knows it was absolutely wracked with problems. Frankly, she's stepping into another hot potato in this ministry, because it's dealing with a lot of the same. But I'm going to let my colleague from Shuswap ask a few questions related to region-

[ Page 10172 ]

G. Abbott: Perhaps we can get started on a few of the governance issues tonight. I suspect that there will be other questions, as well, as the estimates go on, but I just want to ask a few questions tonight.

We had a very thorough discussion last year with the then Minister of Health about the new shape of governance in the province of British Columbia. In conjunction with the critic and other members, the issues were very thoroughly canvassed, and I don't necessarily want to repeat that with the same thoroughness. I think it would be interesting to hear an update from the new minister on where some of the important governance issues lie with respect to regionalization.

The first questions I have are not on regional health boards, but rather on regional hospital districts and their continuing role in the regional health structures we have. Just to refresh the minister on this, regional hospital districts are adjuncts to regional district boards, which, of course, have existed in the province for some 30 years or more. The role of regional hospital districts has been largely confined to providing the local share of minor or major capital projects that were put in place with, in the old days, hospital boards and are put in place with, in the more modern day, regional health boards.

The previous minister put in place, through a couple of bills last year, provisions for the removal of regional health boards, which are appointed of course. We could have an argument around that, but we haven't argued that point. Where I have some real continuing concerns is in the provisions that were contained in Bill 42 from our last session, which provided the Minister of Health with the authority to replace regional hospital district boards with an appointed administrator. Just to refresh the minister on this point as well, regional hospital district boards are comprised of mayors, regional district chairs, electoral area directors and that kind of thing. These are all people who have been through local elections -- elected to regional districts generally, but not always -- and who are subsequently appointed to the regional hospital district boards, which act as an adjunct to the regional districts.

Typically, as I was pointing out, the role of these boards is. . . . In the case of major capital, I believe that the funding split is 80-20 or whatever; with minor capital, it's 70-30, and so on. The boards sit to talk about the funding of major and minor capital projects. At any rate, Bill 42 last year put in place a provision for the Minister of Health to dismiss those boards, should they for some reason not, in her view, fulfil their mandate. This is of some concern to me and to my colleagues, and we opposed that section of the bill very vigorously last year. As your staff will, I'm sure, advise you, this was also an issue of some discussion with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which also have some concern with respect to a provision in a provincial statute which, when proclaimed, will provide the Minister of Health with the authority to dismiss them.

There has been some go-around on this issue. I think that the most recent correspondence I have in my possession around this issue is that the province, according to this letter, which is from Mr. Herbert who, at least at the time, was the senior financial officer with the ministry. . . . He advises: "As a result of your concerns" -- and this is to UBCM and to the chair of a regional hospital district -- "we will not be seeking to bring this section into force and will continue to review it through the consultation process established with the Union of B.C. Municipalities."

My first question here. . . . Perhaps the minister can save me the effort of bringing a private member's bill to this effect into the House tomorrow or some other day. I have a bill on the order paper to this effect, which would reverse the provision that was contained in Bill 42. We can have a little discussion of this subsequently, but I haven't seen a good reason yet why the Minister of Health needs to have the power to dismiss a duly elected regional hospital district board. I would be interested in the minister thoroughly outlining where the province proposes to go with respect to that power contained in Bill 42.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: I said that one learns as one goes. Obviously you looked at this one even more.

A couple of pieces on this one. My understanding of the reason -- and I'm sorry, I actually don't remember all of the debate around this last year. . . . When there was a realignment of the regional hospital districts, it is my understanding that there was a hospital district board that indicated it would be unprepared to act on the responsibilities of a hospital district. I don't know all the details of what the dispute was around, and I think that to have a regional district that won't carry out its responsibilities is problematic. So this is much like the public administrators act.

You're quite right. This has not been proclaimed. We are just beginning to carry out a consultation with UBCM around this. I think that those concerns were heard loudly and clearly. I don't think that at this stage I'd be prepared to say -- and certainly not for this session -- that I would table legislation to reverse it. We intend to quite seriously carry out that consultation with UBCM. I think the concerns were heard quite clearly.

G. Abbott: Actually, I've been looking forward to having this discussion, because I had been following the issue with the assistance of UBCM. I think it is, at least, not only in practice but symbolically an important issue for us to be talking about and thinking about in this House. I understand how things work pretty much, I think. I served on a regional hospital district board for 16 years and was the chair of one for about 12 or 14 years.

[8:30]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Through the years that I was on one of these boards, we assisted in the building of extended care facilities, health units and all manner of major capital projects, as well as in the minor capital for X-ray machines and all that kind of thing. The issue here, though, is this: if a regional hospital district resolved, in its wisdom, that the taxpayers of the region could not afford, in 1998, to assist in the funding of a new extended-care facility, then I would presume that the province would honour that determination by the board and that the project would not proceed. Perhaps it would proceed in 1999 or 2000

[ Page 10173 ]

I may even have been involved; I'm not sure. I'm not sure exactly which case it is. I know that when the Columbia-Shuswap regional hospital district and the North Okanagan regional hospital district were amalgamated back in '95 or whenever it was, there was some reluctance on the part of the North Okanagan regional hospital district to do some project. But again, I do see why, as a result of that reluctance, the province would want to take on the authority to dismiss a duly elected board. This is local government in operation. We may not agree with the decision the board made, but unless they had resolved to undertake the project, had made the legal commitments and then tried to renege on those commitments, I don't see where the issue is in terms of local authority and provincial authority. Obviously both are useful in their realm. I'm still not understanding the logic behind the necessity for a provincial government, through a provincial statute, to have the authority to dismiss one of those boards -- or any of those boards.

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess I've giving you my understanding as given to me, because you've clearly investigated this even more. There was never the intention to force a regional hospital district to fund a project that they thought their local taxpayers could not afford. The intention of the legislation, as I understand it, was that if you had a regional hospital district that was simply refusing to carry out any of its activities or responsibilities. . . . However, I think that given the fact that so much concern was raised last year. . . . For instance, given the example that you've just used: could you use the legislation to make a district fund something that they thought they didn't want to fund for two years' time. . . ? Those are fair enough questions, and that is the reason it hasn't been enacted and the reason we're doing the consultation with UBCM. Your points are well taken.

G. Abbott: I won't pursue that particular one further. It does get detailed and laborious, but let me part with this: I will put my private member's bill forward, and hopefully. . . . It's very simple: it just reverses the sections that provided the minister with that power, because I don't think it's necessary. I think the ministry would be stumbling into a power that I don't think they want or need. Certainly it would send all kinds of messages with respect to local autonomy that the ministry would probably just as soon not send. So we'll leave that one there.

In terms of some of the other aspects of regionalization, when we discussed the issue of provincial bargaining and the new regionalization structure last year, the minister pointed out that the Health Employers Association of British Columbia was probably going to see some changes in response to the new regionalization model. Because the province was moving to the new model of regionalization with theoretically more regional authority, HEABC as well had to be evolving as a model in order to reflect the fact that a new regionalization model was in place. And I think, just to paraphrase the minister last year, she said something to the effect that the new structure of HEABC will reflect the new structure of regionalization -- that's the direction we're going to be going in. So my first question is: has the HEABC model been evolving in the past year to reflect the new regional model?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, the HEABC structure has changed. In the past, their board -- it still remains but in a different way -- was simply a collective of employers. I shouldn't say "simply" perhaps, but. . . . What HEABC has done is restructure its board so that while it is still employers that are represented, they are represented from the various health authorities around the province.

G. Abbott: That is encouraging to hear. One of the fundamentals that came out of our discussion last year was that some 3,000 former provincial health employees were no longer provincial employees -- that they had become employees of the regional health boards. Obviously, as a consequence. . . . To take the example of the North Okanagan regional health board -- just because it's the one that I'm a part of -- if, for example, the North Okanagan regional health board had particular concerns about the collective agreement as it functioned in the North Okanagan or Shuswap. . . . They have one seat on a board of what size in order to make their views known? Or does that regional health board function through some other body before they get to HEABC?

Hon. P. Priddy: The way that the board of HEABC works is that it's a 20-member board; 15 of those members are from the health authorities.

I'm sorry, are you having trouble hearing, hon. member?

The Chair: The member for Shuswap rises on a point?

G. Abbott: No, it's not an important point. The members aren't being unduly loud, but the minister has a fairly soft voice and I have difficulty hearing.

The Chair: Perhaps members could take their conversations out of the chamber or lighten them a little.

Hon. P. Priddy: The board of HEABC is made up of 20 members. There are 15 who represent the health authorities, and there are also, I think, two members from Pricare. Actually, just last Friday night I had the opportunity to have dinner with the HEABC people who were part of the negotiating team. There are two from Pricare, as I say, and there are some government members as well, so that makes up the 20.

In terms of the North Okanagan, because that's the example you've used, I believe that the North and South Okanagan have one seat. They would simply go to the person who represents their voice, because, as I say, it's divided into regions.

G. Abbott: The two Pricare members are on there, presumably, because the collective agreements that are reached will impact private care, where it is unionized under the bargaining agent that is common with the regional health boards. Is that right?

Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct.

G. Abbott: The three government members are on there for what purpose?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are three people from government: two people from the Ministry of Health and one person from PSEC. Their responsibility is to ensure that there is liaison between the HEABC employers and the Ministry of Health.

G. Abbott: I caught that there were two from the Ministry of Health. I didn't catch the third government appointment.

[ Page 10174 ]

G. Abbott: I presume that the new structure is very new. I don't believe it was in place when we had estimates last year; I gather it was evolving at that time. Could the minister advise how long the new structure has been in place and whether they have participated in the bargaining process to date?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure of the last part of your question, but let me answer the first part, and then you can help me. The annual general meeting was last November, and I think the process went in place fairly quickly after that. The first meeting may have been in January; it might have been earlier, but certainly by January.

I think there may have been a second part to your question, but I didn't catch it.

G. Abbott: The second part was whether the newly formed board had been participating in the collective bargaining process to date.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, indeed, they have. I say with some pleasure that HEABC and the union members deserve a tremendous amount of congratulations. Actually, that's part of why we dined together last Friday night. This is the first time in history that an agreement has been reached without intervention. Not only were they involved, they were very actively involved -- and in a very positive way.

[8:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: The ratification process is that the agreement would go back to the health authorities, who would have to ratify it -- and indeed they did, with close to something like 100 percent ratification. It also has to go back to the unions, and it did. It's primarily HEU in the largest part, and it has been ratified. I don't know if it matters to you, but there are a couple of. . . . There were actually ten unions, but HEU is by far the largest. But the other ones were. . . . Well, there are ten -- BCGEU has a few members, and CUPE, and the operating engineers. . . . There are a few others that have a smaller piece of that, but for the most part the HEU and all those have been ratified.

G. Abbott: The Pricare members of the board presumably took it back to. . . . Do they take it back to an association or to their members? How does that work, given that we have a mix of public and private with respect to that?

Hon. P. Priddy: The agreement goes back to the individual Pricare operators, and they have ratified it as well.

G. Abbott: The Pricare operators have ratified this agreement as well.

Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry, I may not have been clear on this. They were part of the overall employer ratification, and given that it was almost 100 percent, then they were in that almost 100 percent. They were counted as employers in the same way that a non-profit employer would have been. They were simply HEABC employers, so when it went back to employers to be ratified, they were part of that group.

G. Abbott: I think I understand that. Not being a Labour critic, I'm largely ignorant here, and I don't know whether there will be interest in pursuing this further. But just to conclude on the labour end of it, I presume it's the zero-zero-and-2 agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

G. Abbott: I'm curious about the role of the community health services societies in this structure as well. Again, I learned a great many things about health care governance last year, among them that the community health councils continue to exist in some locations and that across the province there are some six community health services societies which provide services to the various CHCs around the province. How do they fit into this bargaining structure as well?

Hon. P. Priddy: For the most part, those are organizations that would be at the community bargaining table. That group is still at the bargaining table. The first group to finish the successful bargaining was the facilities table -- the hospitals, long term care facilities and so on. It's the communities table that most of those people would be at, and they're still at the bargaining table. There are seven, by the way -- just so you know.

G. Abbott: Again, I'm sure this is all very straightforward, but just so I understand: are the CHSSs also bargaining through the HEABC, or are they bargaining independently but bargaining for different facilities?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it is a straightforward answer; it just never sounds that way with CHCs and CHSSs and whichever other initials we can find. The employees of the CHSSs are then. . . . Many will be BCGEU; some will be CUPE. All those people are currently bargaining at the community bargaining table. When there is an agreement reached, then that agreement will go back to all of the employers for ratification. That's when it will go back to the CHSSs, which will have to ratify it.

G. Abbott: I think I understand that part of it. What I'm curious about is: who is the bargaining agent for the CHSSs? Is it done through HEABC?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

G. Abbott: Given that there is not likely -- at least, I wouldn't guess it's very likely -- to be a whole lot of bargaining around the zero-zero-and-2 agreement, am I to presume that the remaining impediments to the resolution of a collective agreement on the community facilities side resolves around perhaps a host of local issues? What would they be dealing with separately in this, which would not be resolved in the broader round of negotiations?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not trying to duck this question. . .but I'm trying to duck this question. They are at the table, and I would feel uncomfortable commenting on what those might be, given that those are issues that currently might be on the table. I feel that I can't actually answer that one.

[ Page 10175 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: There wasn't a broad table, so there was no former table. There actually are five tables in negotiation: the facilities table, which is already settled; the communities table, which we are currently speaking of; the nurses; the Health Sciences Association; and, although it's pretty small, the residents and interns. So there are actually five different tables. There was no previous broader table. This is their first table.

G. Abbott: That's a useful response. The HEABC is, I guess, simultaneously conducting negotiation at five different venues with different groups, three of which would be the responsibility of the provincial government -- those being the nurses, the HSA and the residents and interns. The first two. . . . We've talked about the facilities table, which is resolved. The communities table continues to do its discussions over the range of issues, presumably, of which they are seized. So I won't push that any further; that's fine.

There are some other regionalization issues which I would like to pursue. I know we have an agreement to adjourn at 9 p.m. I can continue on with these questions for another five minutes, if the minister wishes. Or it may be an appropriate time, if the minister is agreeable, to adjourn for the evening.

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, member, for the options available. In that case, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. P. Priddy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:56 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada