Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 19 -- Tuesday, March 5, 2002

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Committee of Supply		1481
	Estimates: Office of the Premier
	On vote 9: office of the Premier Hon. G. Campbell J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell: This is the commencement of the estimates discussions that we will have for this year. I want to say that over the past number of years there have been consistent calls from professional public service staff, as well from Members of the Legislative Assembly, that we try and change the way that estimates be carried out. There has been an effort this year to lay out a detailed set of service plans for all of the ministries, a strategic plan for the government, as well as a service plan for my office.

As we go through this discussion, I am hopeful that we will be able to focus some of our comments on the plans put together for government and that we will have an opportunity to discuss performance measures that will be used, as we go through the next year, to look at how we can deliver results to British Columbians that meet their needs — whether it's their needs as patients in health care or students in education or the needs of small business. There's a whole array of ministries which will, in fact, be presenting to the House their service plans for the next three years.

As we move through this process this year, next year and the year after, it's hoped that not only will our plans become more specific, but the measurements that we use will become more understandable to members of the House as well as to the public, and the performance of the government will be enhanced as we move forward. I think we have an opportunity to engage in some significant discussion about the directions that the government intends to follow, and I look forward to those discussions today with regard to the Premier's office.

J. MacPhail: My first question to the Premier is: what does he hope to achieve personally out of these estimates?

Hon. G. Campbell: What I hope that we can do as a Legislature is review the plans that the government has put in place, look at the performance measures that we're going to use to measure our results over the next year and do it in a way that's understandable to the public and to the House, so British Columbians can understand that British Columbia's government is going to be performance-oriented. We're going to deliver results to our taxpayers for the dollars that we take out of our pockets so that the service plans of the various ministries of government are perused and understood, and we can carry out those plans in a thoughtful and constructive way over the year ahead.

J. MacPhail: I actually truly appreciate that because, if the Premier is committing to reviewing all of the service plans of all of the ministries himself during these estimates, that truly is exceptional. We'll welcome the opportunity to do that.

It is an interesting time that we find ourselves in here today, Mr. Chair. I, of course, have only been elected for not quite 11 years — ten and a half years — and I've never experienced this before, where the CEO of the government, the Premier, comes into estimates first and puts himself on the line first and begins to answer all of the questions for the matters that happen across his government. As a member of this Legislature, what I'm used to — and, who knows, it's a new era, and I welcome the change — is for the various ministers to present their views of the government and answer their questions for estimates. What is left unanswered then trickles up to the Premier's office. It's an interesting approach that we find ourselves first with the Premier. I take it that the Premier is welcoming the opportunity to discuss the service plans in detail across the government.

Hon. G. Campbell: No, ministers will be dealing with their plans in detail across government, as they should. I will be dealing with the estimates of the office of the Premier. I will also be glad to answer general questions on the direction of the government. Detailed service plan questions will be directed to ministers, as they should be under estimates.

The change, I think, that is being proposed here, and that we are going to try and carry out, is that all the ministers of government will welcome questions from all members of the Legislature with regard to their service plans as we move to create a system that's more accountable and more measurable so that, outside of the Legislature, the public understands the plans and the measurements we're going to use.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure how that will work, then, because what it will mean is that as ministers fail to answer adequately for the members of the Legislature — and I expect there will be many members of the Legislature engaging in the discussion around the service plans…. As the ministers fail to answer or inade-

quately answer — or are unable to, due to lack of information — then usually the questions go to the Premier's office. That's why traditionally, custom and practice….

I was actually checking. This will be the first time ever in the estimates that the Premier's estimates are done first as opposed to last, because of that theme — that the Premier is the CEO of the government and that he ultimately is responsible for matters that happen across government. Of course, if indeed the Premier is ill-prepared to answer for the service plans across government, then there is no opportunity to hold the Premier himself accountable in his role as CEO, because, of course, he will have done his time in the Legislature before any of the tough slogging actually starts or has been done.

It's a curious method where we find ourselves here debating the Premier's estimates, but nevertheless we'll work our way through it. I do note that in the service plan of the office of the Premier, in the introduction it says: "The Premier, with the support of the office, is responsible for ensuring the new-era platform is implemented in a timely, open and accountable fashion." That probably means — just given that we are at least debating the Premier's own service plan — it pretty much covers the full range of all of the new-era platform, which covers, of course, every ministry.

That's why I asked what the Premier's personal objectives were during this unusual but welcome circumstance we find ourselves in here. I wondered what exactly he hoped to achieve personally, because, of course, he's really putting himself on the line for all of the — at least, according to his own service plan — new-era platform.

We'll work our way through, my colleague and I, and I'm sure we'll be joined by other members of the Legislature as well.

I have a list of the general responsibilities of the Premier. I'll just list them in case I'm missing something. We're doing our best to research here, of course. We found out at 5:30 last night that we would be dealing with the Premier's estimates today, so we have done our best. We worked late into last night and this morning as well. If the Premier will just assist us, given the fact that we had fairly short notice of this new way of doing estimates…. It may be a little bit plodding at the beginning.

I have as the general responsibilities: the executive council operations, legislative program, government policy, intergovernmental relations secretariat, core services review, Crown agencies secretariat, the chief information office, public affairs bureau, board resourcing and development office, and responsibility for ensuring that the new-era platform is implemented.

Hon. G. Campbell: The other two items, which the member may have included in one of her overarching ones, are the Progress Board reports to the Premier's office and the Premier's Technology Council reports to the Premier's office.

Perhaps the Premier could start. What we'll do is start with the organization of his office. I do know that the Premier is responsible for several hundred staff. Oh, and of course, the next time the Premier is up, we can just ask him to introduce his staff who are accompanying him.

I know the Premier has several hundred staff, but just to the inner workings of the Premier's office, political staff and then, I guess, at the deputy minister level who reports to you…. If the Premier could ensure that his political staff on both sides of the water, as I like to say — or located throughout the province…. Who are they, and where are they located?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am joined today by the deputy minister for the executive council, Mr. Ken Dobell, and the deputy minister for corporate planning and restructuring, Ms. Brenda Eaton. They are the primary public servants who are accountable to me, who I deal with. I also have a chief of staff. Under the chief of staff there are two deputy chiefs of staff. One is the deputy chief of staff for issues management. The other is the deputy chief of staff and executive assistant to the Premier.

In the office here in Victoria I have a press secretary. I have a number of others. There is a senior coordinator for issues management, a director of communications who reports to me and one deputy communications director who reports through to me here in Victoria.

There is a director of internal liaison and a director of outreach and special projects. There is also correspondence, scheduling and administration that report to me here in Victoria. In Vancouver we have two staff people at the Premier's office.

J. MacPhail: Just as we're getting into this, as I said, and because of the very short notice of dealing with these estimates and the unusual circumstances, I'm wondering if the Premier could just slow down a tiny bit so that we can …. We are trying to cope here.

In terms of the chief of staff. I thought I heard chief of staff, then deputy chief of staff — two deputy chiefs of staff, one responsible for issues management and one called the EA to the Premier. Then there's a senior coordinator for issues management. I don't know the gender of these individuals, so I'm sorry if I get them wrong.

What I was interpreting below the lines…. Those would be the political staff, and the next ones seem to me to be public servants. Could he specify which ones are political staff and which ones are part of the public service? I know that maybe the Premier interprets it differently. I'm going by past history of the difference between political staff and public service staff. Could the Premier clarify that?

Hon. G. Campbell: The positions which I identified earlier are all what I would call political staff. When I'm

not here, they're not here. They won't be here. At least, it would be up to the next government or the next Premier to decide whether they were here or not.

There are a number of people that are in the Premier's office in the purview of what the Premier is doing, who have been involved in the public service of British Columbia for some time. All of the people I have mentioned are order-in-council appointments.

J. MacPhail: What is the cost of that group of people, then — the annual salary and benefits bill for that group of people?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you the precise amount, but I'm glad to get that for you in terms of the costs for those people that I just mentioned to you. I'm glad to get that information for the member.

J. MacPhail: Since your last time in the Legislature in terms of estimates debate — which would have been last August, I guess — have there been changes in the political staff complement or any additions or deletions or change in responsibility?

Hon. G. Campbell: It's not my recollection that there have been any changes since August.

J. MacPhail: In terms of the Vancouver staff, I think you said that there were two people who worked on the Vancouver side of the operation. I know people move back and forth. I understand that. The political staff that reports to you — do they report through your constituency office, or do they report through the…? Where is their headquarters? Is it the Vancouver cabinet office or the constituency office?

Hon. G. Campbell: The political staff who report to me, which I have mentioned today, report through the deputy chief of staff in Victoria. There are two staff members in the cabinet offices in Vancouver. One is an administrative coordinator, and the other is a receptionist. They report through a deputy chief of staff up to the chief of staff.

J. MacPhail: The chief of staff, the deputy chief of staff of issues management and the deputy chief of staff EA to the Premier work here in Victoria on a permanent basis. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Campbell: No. The deputy chief of staff of issues management works in Victoria. The deputy chief of staff executive assistant to the Premier works both in Vancouver and in Victoria. The chief of staff here is primarily in Victoria but travels with me on a regular basis and goes back and forth. The press secretary whose primary location is here in Victoria goes back and forth. Occasionally, the director of communications is back and forth.

We have tried to minimize the number of staff that travel with the Premier, but as you know, the Premier travels a significant amount between Vancouver and Victoria and between Victoria and other communities in the province.

J. MacPhail: If I asked for a chart of the organization of the Premier's office, which I will, would that chart indicate the headquarters location of the operation of the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: The short answer, I suppose, is no. The majority of activity in the Premier's office is here in Victoria, not in Vancouver.

The director of internal liaison — what are the responsibilities of that person? What does that person do?

Hon. G. Campbell: The director of internal liaison works with the Premier's office and with caucus.

Hon. G. Campbell: Making sure issues that are of concern to caucus are brought to the Premier's attention. Making sure the Premier has information that's necessary as I work with the caucus.

As the member knows, we have tried to change the way government members are actually participating in government, so there is a regular amount of communication that takes place between caucus and the Premier's office.

J. MacPhail: This is an aside, Mr. Chair. You could say it's irrelevant, and I'm fine with that. I was just curious. If there's a director of internal liaison that deals between the Premier's office and the caucus, is the Premier aware whether there's an executive director of caucus as well?

J. MacPhail: I gather those two people would work fairly closely in terms of issues. Is that the case?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure that from time to time they are discussing various issues. The director of internal liaison is really a link between me and the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

As I'm sure the member opposite is aware, there are many demands on a Premier's time — not just the committee demands, the policy development demands — and I believe that one of my primary responsibilities is to the caucus that I lead. The director of internal liaison makes sure that communication is open and flowing and is working in a positive and constructive way.

J. MacPhail: So we have a deputy chief of staff of issues management, and we have a senior coordinator of issues management.

Sorry, I don't know whether I made this clear or not; I would like to know the salary levels of these people. I'd like to know before we finish estimates as well, if I could, please.

What is the distinction, then…? I'm just trying to figure out how the Premier's office works in terms of its relationship with the chamber, with MLAs and with the public. There have been some substantial changes in the relationship between the Premier and how this institution operates. I'm just trying to figure out how the Premier's office works internally.

We have a deputy chief of staff of issues management, and we have a senior coordinator of issues management. Then we also have a director of internal liaison, and I now understand who they liaise with. Perhaps the Premier could distinguish between the level of deputy chief of staff of issues management and senior coordinator of issues management. What would they do on a day-to-day basis or on a weekly basis?

Hon. G. Campbell: On a day-to-day and weekly basis, the deputy chief of staff of issues management follows what's taking place with regard to the government, provides advice to the Premier on issues that are either available each day or may be coming up in the weeks ahead. The senior coordinator of issues management helps gather that information. I'm sure the member opposite understands that the government is a very large institution. It is important for me to have information at my fingertips and to be able to discuss issues on a regular basis with the public and with the Legislature.

J. MacPhail: My staff — gosh, I don't know how they do this — just sent in the organizational chart. Thank you, wherever you are.

There's also an executive assistant to the chief of staff that's listed as coordinator of issues management, the deputy chief of staff of issues management and the senior coordinator of issues management. They seem to report up to the chief of staff. The Premier has one, two, three, four people doing issues management out of his office. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd have to see the organization chart that the member has. I'm glad to get the information for the member. I have a deputy chief of staff of issues management and a senior coordinator of issues management who report through to the chief of staff and through to me.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm fine to share this. It's the most recent one that we were able to get from the public documents. I'm reading from that. But if the Premier says that that's.… Anyway, he can look at that.

In the office of the Premier, on the other side we have reporting again, as I see it, through up to the chief of staff through issues management, I think, the communications side of the operation: the communications director, the deputy communications director, the press secretary. On this side, also, is the director of internal liaison. There's also a person called director of outreach and special projects. Could the Premier describe that person's duties, please?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by saying that the communications director reports through to the chief of staff. The director of internal liaison reports through to the chief of staff as well. They do not report through the deputy chief of staff for issues management. The director of outreach and special projects has outreach responsibilities across the province to non-governmental agencies to make sure that they are included in the discussions and have open access to the Premier's office. He reports to the chief of staff on regional issues that may come up, and he has various special project duties that are assigned by the chief of staff.

J. MacPhail: Could the Premier name some of those special projects that the person has worked on just in the last nine months?

Hon. G. Campbell: There have been a number of special projects that we've undertaken. As the member will know, we've had dialogue on health care, we've had the provincial congress, and we've had regional cabinet meetings both in the Peace River country and in the Okanagan. That staff person works with local communities to inform them that we're coming. They set up meetings when I'm visiting those towns or communities, or if I'm on a tour of various parts of the province he may well be involved in that as well.

J. MacPhail: I noticed that on the other side of the chart there's a person called an events administrator. Would that person work closely with the director of outreach and special projects — like setting up the provincial congress, for instance?

Hon. G. Campbell: The staff work together. The organization chart is one way of looking at how the staff work. The deputy chief of staff, who is the executive assistant to the Premier, would work with advance people. They may be from the public affairs bureau. They may be from the Premier's office itself if it's not a major event that's taking place. We want to be sure that details are covered off properly as we tour the province.

J. MacPhail: Just to use an example of a special project that I'm familiar with…. I think it's really the only one I've participated in since the Premier has taken office: the provincial congress last week. I wasn't sure, but I thought it was labelled as being sponsored by intergovernmental relations — that department. Did it come out of the Premier's office, the special projects office?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, it doesn't come out of the special projects office. In fact, it was organized, in general, by the intergovernmental relations component of

the Premier's office. As I think I identified earlier, these are political staff people who are there to make sure that these things go properly. We have a team of people that work on these projects. That was a major initiative to bring people together. There was discussion about what the agenda should be, how it should it operate. All of those sorts of things were part of what we did as a Premier's office. There wasn't one person who was responsible for that; there was a team of people. The thrust for that was managed out of intergovernmental relations.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I ask that is because this organizational chart that we have, the most recent one, is different than the organizational chart of August 2001. That was why I asked the question….

That's why I asked the question whether there were differences that had occurred. On the August 2001…office of the Premier executive branch, the support staff for the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations is in your Premier's office organization. It actually sat just below the executive receptionist, Victoria. Then there was another line for the support staff.

I'm wondering: has the Premier changed the way the intergovernmental relations part of his responsibilities is organized? I'm not trying to get into intergovernmental relations now. We'll be exploring that in quite a bit of detail. I'm just trying to figure out, in terms of the staff, how it relates to the Premier's office. On our chart from August of 2001 it reported just on the same track as the deputy chief of staff executive assistant to the Premier. Now it's gone.

Hon. G. Campbell: On our February 2002 chart we have a support staff for the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. Support staff for the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations is there to provide services to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. That person reports up through the deputy chief of staff executive assistant to the Premier, who is responsible for correspondence, for scheduling, for administrative coordination, etc.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So the most recent chart does, in your books, have that support staff for the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations reporting up through the deputy chief of staff executive assistant to the Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: And through the deputy chief of staff to the chief of staff.

J. MacPhail: Okay, good. This is the most recent one that we're working with. That helps a lot.

Moving on to the other staff — this is the political staff, as we agreed upon at the beginning — there have been changes to the way government is organized, I think, even subsequent to the last time the Premier was in estimates in August of 2001. There have been changes to the broader Premier's staff in terms of what comes under the Premier's office from the public service point of view. I wonder if the Premier could go through those changes with us. Again, could the Premier just give these to us slowly so that we can absorb them?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to do this so the member has a sense of what actually took place in the last nine months. This has all taken place in the last nine months, so I understand where there may be some confusion.

Early in the year, after we were sworn in as government, we brought into the Premier's office for purposes of transparency not just cabinet operations, which added considerably — that was prior to August…. The government policy and communications office was prior to August. The additional activities that we had undertaken in the Premier's office, which was the chief information officer, we brought in prior to August. Intergovernmental relations, which was in another ministry, was brought into the Premier's office prior to August — and the Crown agencies secretariat, which had been part of previous governments. In fact, there was a chargeback that had been outside of the Premier's office and under other ministries. We said that actually it was not an appropriate thing to do. So, again in the interests of transparency, we included that in the Premier's budget.

Since August we have transferred ministry communications into the public affairs bureau. That's the only change I can think of that's taken place since August. That's the only major change I can talk about. There may be some minor variations, but that's the only major change I am aware of.

J. MacPhail: What number of staff, then, was in that public affairs bureau? What was the number of staff that was transferred into the Premier's office in the period following August of '01?

Hon. G. Campbell: It was 322 staff brought from ministry communications offices into the public affairs bureau.

J. MacPhail: I assume, just logistically, these communications staff rest in offices spread throughout the government operations.

J. MacPhail: Are there any communications staff in the government that don't report directly through this new…? I'll just try to figure it out. The public affairs bureau is a conglomeration of all of the communications staff across government service, and the public affairs bureau is within the Premier's responsibility.

You can correct me. I assume — I'll just keep going, but if I'm wrong in those areas, correct me — that the public affairs bureau reports through whom to the Premier…. Is there a deputy minister responsible? Is it one of the deputies present here?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes. There is a deputy minister responsible for the public affairs bureau, and that deputy minister reports through the deputy minister for executive council.

J. MacPhail: You said that change occurred since August of '01. When did that change occur?

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe it was imminent when we were actually going through the estimates in August — the change that was going to take place — so it would have been late August or early September. I don't know the specific date, but that is the time frame that it took place in.

J. MacPhail: I was just curious. I read the conflict-of-interest report on the Minister of Health Planning yesterday, and I was curious. I thought this is what had occurred: the public affairs bureau was a conglomeration of all the communications officers, and that had been centralized in the Premier's office. I'm wondering whether the Premier could describe for me what role the public affairs bureau had in assisting the Minister of Health Planning through her dilemma about inadequate communication support in preparation for the open cabinet meeting in December.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to discover for the member the actual role the bureau had. The bureau has people throughout ministries of government. This is a transition that is taking place. There are communications officers or people in various ministries. In fact, we are looking at how we can improve on that communication and the skills development in those ministries. I'm sure the Health ministries communications officers were trying to assist in the presentation of the material. It was not found to be satisfactory. Therefore, there was an effort to go out and get additional skills to make sure that presentation took place.

J. MacPhail: I'd appreciate it if we could have this discussion not in the passive tense but actually the active tense — about who did what, where and when. It is a good example of trying to understand the changes this government has brought about in terms of the public affairs bureau. It's like a case in point, actually.

Of course, there was some discussion. This isn't something I'm making up. It was actually the detail in the conflict-of-interest commissioner's report about what sounds to me like the failure of the reorganization of the public affairs bureau. The detail we had been provided…. We, of course, received the detail much after the minister herself received the detail, even though we brought the complaint. It was a situation where there was almost a state of panic, it seemed, about making a presentation to cabinet. The minister herself clearly identified the failure with her communications officers.

I'm trying to understand how the reorganization into the creating of a public affairs bureau with their own deputy minister now would have failed to accommodate a communications necessity of a minister, to the extent where the minister had to go outside to a person in her own riding. What role, if any, does the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau perform in assisting in those very troubling communications dilemmas, as it was described?

Hon. G. Campbell: Well, the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau is responsible overall for the operations of the branch. I can tell the member opposite that the structural changes that were taking place really didn't have a bearing on the activities that were undertaken by the minister or the ministry. I have no intention of reviewing the conflict-of-interest commissioner's report.

I am pleased to tell the member that what we are doing is developing a comprehensive communications plan for the government, a skills bank for the government, that shares those services across ministries in a way that's effective. I think, indeed, the situation that arose with regard to the presentation of the health authorities' restructuring really highlights the need for some of those changes and that skills development is there for all of government, not just for one ministry or the next. That's a critical component of what we're trying to do in the public affairs bureau.

J. MacPhail: I fully accept the conflict-of-interest commissioner's decision as well. I'm merely trying to highlight it as a case in point to understand the changes that have occurred in the public affairs bureau since we last discussed the Premier's estimates. This would be a prime example. Of course, the public affairs bureau has come with a substantial reorganization that the Premier is directly responsible for.

Then let's ask this question: what lessons were learned? What changes have been made in the public affairs bureau since that situation arose where the Minister of Health Planning had to go to someone in her own riding on a weekend?

Hon. G. Campbell: To the member opposite, I apologize if I've left the wrong impression. We transferred, I believe I said it was, 322 people — a structural transfer — into the public affairs bureau. We have not, in fact, made any changes in that public affairs bureau since August. One of the things that I believe the episode the member refers to has raised is the whole issue of how you provide communication services in a way that's not lineal but recognizes that all members of government may at one time or another require special communications tools.

It is not, I don't believe, necessary that every ministry has its own set of technologists, its own set of speechwriters, its own set of whatever. I believe we can share those services across government. I believe we can do it in a more cost-effective way. That is what we are striving to do in the public affairs bureau. Although the changes have not been made yet, we are in the midst of discussions with the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau and with the general public service to be sure that we get cost-effective delivery of communication services on a shared-services basis, which we believe will actually provide better-quality service at a lower price for the taxpayer. That's the initiative we've undertaken.

There have been no changes — just so we're clear — in terms of how those services have been delivered since August. We are still working on the changes that will be made so that there is an adequate communication skills bank in the public service, so there's adequate research for ministers to deal with the information that they need, so there's adequate information for the public.

I heard a story a while ago where someone said they weren't sure whether they were able to tell people when municipal election dates are. Well, municipal election dates are legislated in British Columbia. We want to make sure there is a flow of information, that there is the skills bank available so communications can be taking place between government and the public and between government and the public service. All of those things are part of the initiatives that we're going to undertake with regard to the public affairs bureau. There have been no changes since August in how those services have been delivered that I'm aware of.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting to know, but I hear that the Premier has got quite ambitious plans to change, in the future, the way those services are delivered. I would expect that what happened prior to that open cabinet meeting in December would be an issue the Premier would want to examine to make sure that it never happens again, where a minister is left helpless on the weekend with inadequate support from the public service — which is what she said, by her own words.

In the plan that the Premier outlines, in terms of shared services — the public affairs bureau — perhaps the Premier could point to a service plan where we could understand how that change will occur in the service plan, in its description of achievables or goals.

Hon. G. Campbell: In the service plan you'll see on page 8, under "Public affairs bureau": "The public affairs bureau ensures that information about government programs and services is accessible to British Columbians. The department leads and coordinates communications with internal and external stakeholders to meet the new-era commitment of the most open, transparent and accountable government in Canada."

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I thought maybe there was something the Premier wanted to add there.

Okay, so that's pretty general. The Premier himself has given far greater specifics just in terms of what he hopes to achieve in terms of shared speechwriting services. Would there be a communications department that would be responsible for events coordination? I'm going from memory; this may have all changed, which I perfectly understand if it has. And there would be public information documents. A lot of communications departments just do public information documents.

Would there be that kind of shared service, and how would those shared services occur? What is the Premier's plan? The service plan doesn't indicate the sharing of those services.

Hon. G. Campbell: The service plans don't actually prescribe organizational frameworks. They suggest things we should be trying to do. If I can refer the member to the service plan again, on page 15 you will see that we have said there will be a finalization of the new service delivery framework for the public affairs bureau in 2002-03. What we expect is to implement a new model. We expect to develop a client feedback mechanism, which is required. Clients in this case are the public, the ministers and the members of the public service. We have to have a feedback mechanism for that. We will establish some performance targets.

If I can come back for a second to what I think the member's earlier question was…. As we look at how we deliver services, what we are trying to do is make sure we build the capability within government to communicate using the newest technologies that are available to both internal and external clients — people in the public service — so that they understand what ministries are doing within their ministry and so they understand what government is trying to do overall.

I think one of the things that we have been informed of, at least, is as we go through these plans — and we look forward to the comments from both the public and the public service with regard to how the plans have been put together — we think we will be able to develop not just a better quality of service but a more effective quality of service that is shared across the ministries.

If I could use the example of speechwriting, I know the previous government did a considerable amount of contracting-out of speechwriting. One of the things that we would like to try to do is see if we can develop the speechwriting, if you want — not just the technologies, but the expertise and talent within the public service so that's available to all ministers when they require a speech to be written. Those are transition issues that will take place, I'm sure, over the months and years ahead, but that is the goal.

I look at the public affairs bureau as being really an agency of communication for government, where they can put information into the public realm in a way that's usable. They can put information internally so

that we are all, in fact, going down the same path. When we bring people together, we think the synergy of that action will deliver far more effective results over the long term.

J. MacPhail: I have a copy of the performance agreement of the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau. This performance agreement is dated September 5, 2001. Is the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau the same now as the person who was hired…? I'll name her. It's Irene Chanin. Is she still the public affairs bureau deputy minister?

J. MacPhail: I have her performance agreement here. It's interesting to go through some of the core criteria. It's a letter dated September 5, 2001, from the deputy minister to the Premier and the cabinet secretary. I was examining this in the context of what happened to the Minister of Health Planning and then the Premier's comments right now.

The Premier is saying that this will be a transition exercise. I'm just wondering how long the transition goes on. This agreement is only in place until June 15, 2002. I hate to say this, because it makes me feel terribly old, but we're almost there — June 15, 2002.

It says that phase 1 of the core review for the public affairs bureau must be completed for report by October 2001. Has that occurred?

Hon. G. Campbell: Phase 1 has in fact been completed. Phase 1 asks the question: is this service required? The answer is yes, the service is required. The second part of phase 1 is: how do you best deliver the service? I think I mentioned earlier that we're looking at a shared-service delivery model for communications within government, because we think it will be more cost-effective.

Phase 2 has not been implemented as yet. There are discussions taking place with the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau as well as the deputy minister to the Premier.

J. MacPhail: Phase 1 is just: do we carry on with this service? Is it worth carrying on? The answer to that was yes. Okay.

The next core criteria, then, is: "The service plan for the public affairs bureau for 2002-03 to 2004-05, which includes quantifiable performance measures, must have been completed as part of the regular budget cycle." The service plan doesn't have those performance measures in it. Or are they different? I mean, were those what the Premier read out — those small items? Maybe you can just refer me to the performance measures, then, in the service plan.

The service plan that I read out earlier with the measures for the three years — those measures will be established. There will be more detailed service plans behind that, available in the next three weeks, which will include the public affairs bureau service plan. It will include the intergovernmental relations service plan as well.

These are broad general plans. The specific plans will come out, I would think, by the end of the month.

J. MacPhail: All right. That's fair enough. In the next three weeks we'll be expecting the detail with the performance measures in it, I would assume.

What's the Premier's view on us conducting discussion around estimates without those service plans? What's the Premier's personal view on that?

Hon. G. Campbell: For 2002-03 the member can see that the targets that have been set for the public affairs bureau are the implementation of a new model, development of a client feedback mechanism — that will be required for 2002-03 — and the establishment of performance targets. All of those things will be part of what we put in place at the end of this year. They will be there.

I want to be very forthright with the member opposite that we are developing those. That's one of the things I've tried to say about the service plans generally. These are more specific than we've had in the past. In fact, the task we have is to look at how we're going to measure our communications activities, the public affairs bureau's activities, and that is not a small task. I think sometimes governments in the past have said: "Well, it's how many press releases you put out." That is not the kind of measure we're looking at. That will be something that is developed over the next year.

J. MacPhail: Okay. We'll await that service plan in about three weeks with the detailed performance measures.

The Premier keeps referring to past governments, and I fully accept that this Premier is doing things in a very different way in terms of how he communicates with the public, the opposition and the media. That's why I'm just trying to get insight into what changes we can expect.

If you go on to this core criteria of the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau, there are three points. These three points actually then lead to whether this deputy minister is performing acceptably. I'll just read them into the record.

Point No. 5 is part of the core criteria: "The deputy minister, public affairs bureau, must have performed acceptably in identifying and managing cross-ministry issues and in responding to ministry requests for assistance." I think the Premier has ably answered the first point. He has listed what he has identified as managing cross-ministry issues, so I fully accept his point on that.

I am curious to know about responding to ministry requests for assistance. That's why I was using the Min-

ister of Health Planning's cry for help as an example about what role, if any, the deputy minister had played in trying to solve that problem. I would appreciate knowing what role she did play in that.

The next one is: "The deputy minister, public affairs bureau, must have performed acceptably in supporting and developing employees in the public affairs bureau." I think the Premier has said that will come in the service plan — those performance measures. Then: "The deputy minister, public affairs bureau, must have performed acceptably in providing overall leadership to the public affairs bureau." Again, being a leader there, I would have thought that we have been able to know her role in the crisis that existed in that particular situation. One area that we need to look at is her role in responding to ministry requests for assistance — how that occurs.

The reason why I focus on these three is because there's a next sort of performance measure that I don't understand. It's not something that I'm familiar with. It says that acceptable performance on those three points will be determined through a 360-degree rating system to be implemented by PSERC prior to June 2002. It's clear that those three targets are very important, and I can understand why. So how's it going, basically, I'm asking. What is that 360-degree rating system, please?

Hon. G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you to the member opposite. The 360-degree evaluation system is a formal evaluation system that includes comments from people that are above, that you report to, from people below, who you supervise, and people at the side of you, who work with you. That's the 360 degrees.

One of the things that we are trying to establish…. I don't expect to do this with any of our employees in government. That's the task of the deputy minister to the Premier, but we will be holding our deputy ministers to account for their performance. I want to be clear with the member opposite that although she may feel that the general service plan that we have is very broad-based — I accept that it's broad-based; we are moving through this — the plan that we will have available in the next three weeks, by the end of this month, is really a plan that's a working plan. That leads us to deliver those targets in 2002-03 and beyond.

The member will notice that we are going to be establishing performance targets as we go through this exercise. Again, this whole process of estimates will not just be easier from her perspective in the House, but it will be easier for all ministries, as well as the Premier's office.

J. MacPhail: No, I very much look forward to that, and I now understand the concept of 360 degrees. That means, basically, that the deputy minister, public affairs bureau, would be judged — not judged; that's not fair…. There would be a process of evaluation of people that surround her — up, down and inside. That will be very interesting in the coming days.

I'm sure the Premier hasn't had a chance to see this letter yet, but there is a letter coming to him — well, in fact, I think it's there — about exactly a comment from the staff, and the union representing the staff, on the communications expertise in the provincial government. It was specific to this issue that we were talking about, so I'm sure this will be evaluated as part of the 360-degree assessment that the deputy minister of public affairs bureau performance measures are targeted upon. I'll just quote this letter, and I appreciate that the Premier probably hasn't seen this yet because he's been here. It's to the Premier, and it's entitled "Re Communications Expertise in the Provincial Government." It's signed by the president of B.C. Government and Service Employees Union:

I assume that's the kind of input in a 360-degree evaluation that would go into evaluating the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau.

There is a bonus criterion. I see in this letter dated September 5 that there's a bonus criterion for the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau. It's intriguing. It says that a re-earnable bonus of up to 10 percent of salary will be paid based on an assessment of success on the following three projects. It's 3.33 percent each. The deputy minister to the Premier and cabinet secretary is nothing if not fair, I must say, and very equitable. Here are the three projects. One is the completion of restructuring of the public affairs bureau, including the development of a new organizational and operational model. This is one: recruitment and deployment of competent staff. The other….

Oh, there are four projects here. Sorry. Maybe I'm misreading it. The development of operating protocols which provide effective service to ministers and ministries and the Premier's office, and establishment of a formal client feedback mechanism.

This is to be completed by June 15, 2002, in order for the person to get her 10 percent bonus. We have the recruitment and deployment of competent staff, and we have this issue of what happened in the Ministry of Health Planning. Is it the Premier's intent, through his deputy minister, that by June 15 there will be a reporting-out of the performance achievements in order…whether this person gets her performance bonus or not?

Hon. G. Campbell: We are indeed trying to establish some accountability in the public service. June 15 is the date upon which these tasks are supposed to be completed. The deputy minister for the public affairs

bureau would have a review with the deputy minister for the executive council to the Premier. The decisions will be made by the deputy minister for the executive council to the Premier. That will be reported out.

Hon. G. Campbell: This is a personnel matter, and it will not be made public.

J. MacPhail: That's fair enough. Can the employees who report to the deputy minister — the communications personnel across government — expect to be contacted for an evaluation as part of that process?

Hon. G. Campbell: The evaluation process is a formal process. It is a limited process. It is not a process that says: "Write in how you feel about things." It's been developed by PSERC. It will be part of the evaluation process for all deputy ministers. It will be an evaluation process that, hopefully, we can move through the public service. It will start with the deputy ministers. PSERC is working on that right now.

It's not simply a question of saying to employees: "Write in and say how you feel about your deputy minister." It is a formalized, limited process that provides advice to both the deputy minister of the executive council and the deputy minister who is being, if you want, reviewed. They then will have a meeting following the period of time that's up for review, for performance evaluation, and decisions will be made by the deputy minister at the executive council.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that. I didn't actually mean that they would just write in with their broad thoughts.

I'm just trying to understand the 360-degree evaluation process. One of the issues that I heard as part of the select standing committee on prebudget consultations with the Finance Committee as we travelled around the province was that there was a concern by public employees about the lack of their input into the core review process. I know the members of the government heard that loud and clear as well.

I was just wondering how a public employee, a public servant in British Columbia, is having input into these changes that are occurring in government, and I wondered whether the 360-degree evaluation was a way of finally allowing them some input.

Where is this model used? Is it something of our creation, or is it being used elsewhere?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm hearing whispers around me saying: "It's very common." I'm trying to find out how common it is. I'm just saying that it's not particularly common to me.

It is a technique that is used to try and create accountability within the system and make sure that accountability is with your peers and with those you are supervising as well as those that you are accountable to. It is used in the private sector very regularly. Actually, they're looking at applying exactly the same principles in Ontario, as far as I know. You can read a significant amount about it in the literature, if you are interested in it.

It is a means of creating accountability for those who are responsible, and in terms of establishing the process, key areas of accountability are established — again 360 up, down and at your sides — to say: "How is that taking place?"

I think the critical thing with all of these accountability techniques is that they are a way of improving not just the results a public servant is receiving, but they are actually a way for public servants to learn: what are my strengths? What are my weaknesses? How can we accomplish the goals that we've set out for ourselves? I think it is comprehensive. It is widely used, and there is a fair amount of information in the literature about it, if the member cares to follow through.

J. MacPhail: I absolutely will. My background is in industrial relations, as some of you may know, and I had never heard of it before, so I'll certainly be looking into that.

We as a standing committee on budget consultations wanted to ensure that public servants were not shut out of the process, particularly of the core review. This might be a way of allowing them into the process, because the follow-up to the core review is the performance measures and the performance targets, as I understand it, that will be established. So that would be a way for public employees to have input.

What is the budget of the public affairs bureau that was transferred to the Premier's office, and did the Premier say that 322 staff were transferred as a result of the transfer of the public affairs bureau? If that's accurate, what is the budget of the public affairs bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll just refer the member to the budget booklet where we talk about the office of the Premier operating budget. Let me deal with the staff first. I did say 322. There were 55 members in what we designate as the public affairs bureau in August. We've added 272 members, transferred from ministries and communications. There were five positions eliminated, coming to a total of 322 positions.

The budget for the public affairs bureau was, I believe, $39.283 million for 2001-02. We have transferred over, adjusted for this year, $34.522 million. In other words, we reduced it by $5 million for the transfer.

J. MacPhail: I assume that was a reduction that resulted out of the January 2002 downsizing.

J. MacPhail: The public affairs bureau downsizing was $5 million. What other downsizing took place within the Premier's office?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I refer the member to the budget handout. There is a 7.9 percent reduction in FTEs in the Premier's office. Does the member want staff, full-time-equivalent positions, or dollars? That's minus three in terms of that; it's minus one FTE in terms of executive operations. There are four in the chief information office, 11 in intergovernmental relations, 13 in the Crown agencies secretariat and 81 in the public affairs bureau.

J. MacPhail: The 7.9 percent reduction was a figure for FTEs, not dollars — right?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes. To use equivalent categories, the minus three in the executive offices is minus 7.9 percent, executive operations is minus 3.7 percent, the chief information officer is minus 18.2 percent, intergovernmental relations is minus 31.4 percent, the Crown agencies secretariat is minus 50 percent, and the public affairs bureau is minus 25 percent. I believe that takes you out to 2004-05.

J. MacPhail: So that's the three-year plan of reductions. We've gone through the public affairs bureau reductions.

We have all of our documents here, but you have to bear with us, if you don't mind. I make no apologies for the amount of research we have to do.

The reduction of the 81 FTEs in the public affairs bureau, then, gets us down to 322? Or what is the remaining…?

J. MacPhail: The 81 FTEs must be the equivalent of the $5 million reduction in budget.

Hon. G. Campbell: I just wanted to make sure that I gave you the right numbers. Just to refer the member so that she has it if she wants to follow through with me, the restated estimate for 2001-02 was $39.283 million. There will be a $5.5 million reduction this year, which is $34.5 million. These are rough numbers. I'm not reading all the numbers off. There's another $5 million reduction estimated for 2002-03, which is $29.5 million. There is a further $5.6 million reduction in 2003-04, which gets you down to $23 million. It's on page 16 of the service plan.

J. MacPhail: There were three in the executive offices, and I assume that means the group of political people that we were talking about — the west annex and the Vancouver cabinet offices. Is that the executive offices? Is that where the minus three is — in that physical location?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are three support staff in the Premier's office, yes.

J. MacPhail: I don't need to go through them one by one. Maybe you could specify for me: where did the layoffs occur amongst the 32 staff? I've moved on from public affairs bureau, and I'm just in the other. What was the range of ML levels in terms of the layoffs that occurred?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll have to get back to the member with the list of specifics. I want the member to understand that these were not all necessarily layoffs. Some were secondments that were sent back; some were positions that were vacant that have not been filled, etc. I'm glad to get the information back to the member.

J. MacPhail: That's fair enough. One of the themes that my colleague and I are interested in — and we have no established view on it yet — is the impact on particular sectors of the public service, particularly the equity sectors, in terms of the effects of downsizing. The equity sectors are women, aboriginal, people with disabilities and visible minorities. We'll be asking that question throughout the estimates, in terms of the effect of downsizing.

I was actually doing a review of the literature around the cuts, and no one has addressed that issue before. Frankly, it hasn't been raised. We take responsibility for not having raised that issue. Certainly, it's not been on top of the mind of the media. We are trying to catch up for our responsibility here, in examining the four equity categories that did exist before. I don't even know whether they exist now or not. That's kind of putting the ministers on notice that we'll be examining that throughout our estimates. I would appreciate that information, along with the salaries and also the downsizing by ML and equity category, if any. Maybe there's not….

I wanted to ask about the changes, particularly in the area of the Premier's office, in terms of any information system. Maybe I should call it the executive office. Has there been any change in software or hardware that's used in the Premier's responsibility?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I just want to flag this for the member. I am not aware that we actually follow, in terms of the layoff provisions or changes that are taking place in government, whether people are visible minorities, etc. Our goal as a government is to make sure that we have a public service that, in fact, reflects the makeup of the population they serve. That's people with disabilities, aboriginal people, visible minorities, women, etc. That's a goal that I think most governments have shared over the last number of years.

The challenge always, when you deal with a change in structure, is that a number of the provisions we deal with, with regard to working with our union friends, are seniority provisions. Activities that may have actually taken place over the last three years, which may have increased the number of visible minorities or people with disabilities or those equity categories the member was referring to, may indeed by impacted by that. Having said that, our goal is to ensure that we do have a public service that reflects the people of the province of British Columbia. We will continue to work to do that.

With regard to upgrades, we have had normal upgrading in the Premier's office. It's certainly nothing compared to what is being contemplated in other parts of the public service where upgrading is essential to provide the quality of service that people expect. Since I've been in the Premier's office, it's just been regular upgrading — nothing significant.

J. MacPhail: On the issue of the four equity categories, one of the successes of working cooperatively with one's workforce is that there can be provisions made to ensure that equity provisions prevail even when there are substantial changes in the workforce. Those certainly have occurred in the past. The goal, both of the unions in the public service as well as employers, was to maintain, as much as possible, success in the area of the employing more visible minorities, more women, more people with disabilities and more aboriginals.

I note that the government, across the service, has removed the footer that says they're a government that represents equity hiring and equal employment opportunities. That's been removed from all government letterhead, government advertising, etc. I'm not quite sure why. It was a statement in its absence.

It's the responsibility of a progressive employer — with the Premier being the employer, directly and indirectly, of over 100,000 employees. He has the ability to make great strides in terms of equity hiring. I know that's always difficult when downsizing is occurring. Once again, it takes a very courageous employer to ensure that downsizing doesn't unduly harm one part of society over another. That's what we'll be working on monitoring.

The reason why I wondered about…. I was asking about the technology, whether there's been any upgrading in the technology. The Premier may remember a silly little issue that we as government got into in terms of e-mail alias controversy. Do you remember that? I see the deputy minister wondering what it was all about. It was silly; there's no question about it. I don't blame anyone for missing it. It was e-mail addresses, for some security reasons, I think — I'm trying to look here for help — where an address was taken as an alias as opposed to just an e-mail address. It got quite out of hand.

Are all the Premier's staff on e-mail now, and is there a way that we can reach them? I'm thinking particularly of the chief of staff in the Premier's office and the inability to contact him by e-mail. Can the Premier help us with how we can get the e-mail addresses of his staff? That may be clearer.

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, it is my understanding that the Premier's staff all have e-mails, and they're all in the book.

J. MacPhail: We can't find it. We can't find it in the government-listed account.

J. MacPhail: Well, okay — fair enough. We tried to find it, and we were told it was removed. This is a good opportunity for a sharing of information. Perhaps the Premier's office could provide us with that. We certainly know that e-mail access was very important to the then opposition in the past, and we want to make sure that we have a fully up-to-date list of e-mail accounts.

We're on the topic of what the face of the public service and this government…. I'm going to ask a few questions, then, about what I think is…. Well, I'm not quite sure. The board resourcing and development office — is that the boards, agencies and commissions office? Where do the boards, agencies and commissions come under — the responsibilities? What category, for the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not sure what the member means by category, but yes, the boards resourcing is what formerly was called the agencies, boards and commissions. The task we have set out for that is to create a new culture for our agencies, boards and commissions of both competence and openness in terms of the people that come forward. In fact, I think they've done an excellent job so far in terms of what we have tried to set out.

J. MacPhail: I wonder if there are any running statistics that the Premier's office publishes and where he could refer us to for the range of new appointments. Are there statistics kept on appointments made on a geographic, gender, visible minority, ethnic background or disabilities basis? Is there any tracking of that? That system was in place. There was a computer system in place for that. I wonder if that still exists and where you could point to find out the new appointments under that tracking.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me say that the system we have tried to put in place with regard to the office is not one of quotas. In terms of board resourcing and management, we have put up on the Web, for the member and for the public to see, a broad array of information on the process that we go through. It's very comprehensive, in fact.

It invites people to submit themselves, if they're interested in pursuing an appointment. There are a number of criteria in terms of skill sets that are needed for different boards and identification of those. Appointments that are upcoming and appointments that have been made are included in that website. I believe we do not keep a sort of quota overview of what's taking place with those appointments, but all of the appointments have been made by OIC. All of them are available to the public. The public can do their own review of whether they think those are competent boards, what the balance is, etc.

J. MacPhail: I'm familiar with that website. One of the things, though, that I hear as I'm travelling around the province is concern. It's not hair-pulling-out concern yet by any stretch of the imagination, which is

good news, but it is concern about geographic representation in terms of the board resourcing and development system the Premier has put in place.

We can have a long discussion on quotas, and it probably won't prove to be useful this early in the estimates situation, but my concern was about the appointments reflecting the geographic range of this province. I heard this loudly and clearly when I was in Prince George. I heard it on Vancouver Island. Concerns were also raised by people in Prince Rupert, just to name three in the last little while.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the member raises a very important issue, and it's one that we are aware of and that we have actually been trying to deal with. For example, I believe the new chair of B.C. Transit is from Prince Rupert, not because Prince Rupert was concerned, but MLAs are encouraging the public to notify us of the people that would be interested in performing these public responsibilities. The B.C. Progress Board has a reflection of people from across the province. The Premier's council on technology has people from other parts of the province. Indeed, one of the things to respond to those very concerns that I'm aware of as well is, for example, the Premier's Technology Council. They have gone around the province. I just came back from Prince George on the weekend. During my meetings with members of the public there, I had three or four people come up and say how pleased they were that the province had come to Prince George and that they recognized the goals there.

Again, I think that one of the things we've tried to lay out with regard to these appointments is to show people how they work, to actually open the door for applications, to try to make sure that we're getting quality people who are in a position to serve. We will continue to improve on that. I think, indeed, as we've made appointments…. The boards are there for a period of time. I think that you build if you want relationships and collaborations with people in different parts of the province. We have certainly been aware of that in Crown corporations boards. We've certainly been aware of that with regard to our university boards. We will continue to reflect on, to be candid, geographic representation as we move forward, as well as the skills representation that you need on the boards.

I think it is important to highlight for the member opposite one of the tasks that I have given people who have decided to assume responsibility as board chairs. One of the things I said to them is that I'm not going to go and start having constituency appointments — my third cousin once removed and someone else's best friend or whatever. I've said to the board chairs, "We need you to work with us to talk about the talent pool you need at the board," so the board can actually create the direction for the agency or whatever in a way that's responsive to our public needs.

It is important to have geographic representation. I do encourage British Columbians to participate, whether they're from the Peace River country, the Kootenays, Vancouver Island or the Cariboo. We need all British Columbians represented, and we're working to build that database. I understand that the database is currently in the thousands. Obviously, as you move toward appointments, there are some real challenges in making sure you have boards that have the skill set and the geographic set that are required.

J. MacPhail: I am curious to know, if there's no tracking of this in terms of geographic representation, how one does actually keep a count of the geographically representative appointments. I, as a person who is not a member of the government, perhaps would not know where a certain person resides or whatever, just by not being familiar with the circle in which people are selected. I'm curious to know how one keeps a tally. How does the public keeps tally of geographic representation, a proper geographic flavour? Perhaps the Premier could answer that.

In that same context he raises the issue of the appointment of chairs and the responsibility that chairs have been given to properly reflect the depth and breadth of this province. Let's take the six chairs of the regional health authorities. There are no boards yet. We have merely six people representing what used to be hundreds of community people. They're all of a certain gender. They're all of a certain background. How's it going? That was in December, I think — the beginning of December, three months ago. What is the progress being made in terms of appointing community representatives to the regional health authorities? What are those six chairs doing?

Hon. G. Campbell: I would ask the member opposite to ask for details of that from the minister, because they'll be far more informed of that. I can tell you that what happened was that in December, when the presentation was made, we announced the chairs. We invited public interest; we invited people who were interested. I understand today there are literally hundreds of people that have been part of the review. I would expect, over the next couple of weeks, you will see appointments being made to boards for the different authorities.

J. MacPhail: Does the Premier anticipate, before there's a major change made to the responsibilities assigned to regional health authorities that we've had some inkling of, that there will be full boards in place — regional health boards that reflect the broad communities? Will those boards be in place before the changes are made in the responsibilities of the regional health authorities?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm just trying to understand. I'll rephrase what I think you're asking so I can be sure and give you the answer. I assume what you mean is: prior to the service plans being developed by those authorities and approved, will there be boards in place? If that's what you mean, I can't guarantee that. I can tell you that we are working very actively. The board resourcing and development office is working

very actively to come forward with recommendations. As I said, there's literally dozens and dozens of people who put their names forward.

The service plans are being developed by board chairs and CEOs at this time. It would be ideal if the boards were in place prior to the finalization of the service plan for the coming fiscal year, but they will certainly be in place for the ongoing service plan development that will take place. The reason I'm using the words "service plan" here is that we've already given the authorities responsibility. The authorities will have that responsibility to carry those tasks out. We are asking the CEOs to work with the boards and the board chairs to develop service plans that they will be executing over the next three years. That will be an ongoing responsibility of authorities in the future.

J. MacPhail: I think, in the area of health care, that timing is of the essence here. Speed is of the essence. Again, this is the issue about the Premier going first in his estimates. He is responsible for the board resourcing and development office. We haven't had a chance to explore these issues with the Minister of Health Services. So my apologies, but because the Premier has ultimate responsibility for this, I guess it's up to him to answer the questions first.

The Minister of Health Services said yesterday that no, any changes in the areas of how health care delivery is done won't be decided by the executive council of government; it'll be decided by the health authorities. I think that's what he said. They will be making a decision on a region-by-region basis. Well, what I want to know is: who's going to be making those decisions on a region-by-region basis? So far we have six people running a $9 billion system. Well, actually, it's about a $6 billion system in terms of the regional health authorities.

Is it going to be those six individuals? Who are they accountable to? Are they accountable to the government backbenchers? Are they accountable to this Legislature? Are they accountable to the cabinet? Are they accountable to the Premier? It was quite evident that the Minister of Health Services was saying: "No, no, don't blame us. It's going to be the regional health authorities if any change is made." The Minister of Health Services also put a time frame on this. He said these changes are going to be made in the coming weeks. What happens in the community of Williams Lake, which is now part of a regional health board, I think, that goes from Prince Rupert over to Fort St. John? What input will Williams Lake have in that situation?

I think the Vancouver Island health board goes from Victoria to Port Hardy. The community had a meeting on the weekend in Saanich where there were 700 people out. The CEO said: "Well, we've got some more money, so don't worry. It won't be your whole hospital closed down. It'll just be certain parts of the hospital closed down." What representation does Saanich have in terms of the community of Saanich and in terms of the health authority that goes from one end of the Island to the other?

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the Premier: that's why timing is of the essence in terms of establishing these boards. I would appreciate it if the Premier can give some firm time lines to this extent: can he reassure the public that changes won't be made to the delivery of health care within a region before the community board representatives are appointed?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me say that I agree with the member that timing and speed are important, but I also believe that quality is important. I also believe it's important to note that we've changed how regional health authorities are working. They are not community boards. They are to look at what's taking place in the region. Certainly, the CEOs — as the CEO for Vancouver Island did — are going to be out talking with communities and hearing from communities. I'm sure they're going to hear from people from all over the province. Their task is to deliver better care to patients. It's to be sure that the standards put in place will be put in place by government. The authorities will be asked to respond in a constructive way.

The member mentioned Williams Lake. I'm very pleased to say, actually, that the other day I was in Williams Lake. I met a doctor, believe it or not, from Nanaimo. He said how pleased he is with the change in the system, because they're actually getting responses now. They're actually able to get on with making decisions which are critical to providing patients with care.

I cannot give the member a commitment today on the time that will be ready. I can give the member the commitment that we will be moving as expeditiously as possible. I can give the commitment that we will be trying to appoint top-quality people to each of these health authorities. And I can give the commitment that obviously our goal and objective remains the same: to provide care to patients in a quality way, in fact, so that we can watch improvements to health services in the province of British Columbia. Those are all critical components.

Can I guarantee that there will be no changes whatsoever until the boards are in place? No, I can't. In fact, changes have been made already, and those changes have generally been, I would suggest, for the better. Consultations are taking place across the province, and they will continue to take place across the province.

J. MacPhail: I'm a tiny bit dismayed to hear the Premier say that the regional health authorities will not be community-based. I am substantially dismayed to hear this, and I cannot understand why my colleague and I are the only two that are dismayed by that. When one changes the delivery of the health care system so that there are six — really five, if you take out the provincial health authority — geographic locations in a province that is larger than dozens of countries in this world, it's dismaying to know that there will not be a community reflection in the health authorities. It's dismaying. I must say that.

I'm sure communities will be surprised by that. I'm sure Williams Lake will be surprised by that. I'm sure Princeton will be surprised by that, and I'm sure Nel-

son will be surprised by that. I can only hope that Vancouver is reflected in the coastal health authority, given that its budget for the Vancouver area, separate and apart from the other parts of the coastal health authority, is larger than a dozen of the ministries in this government.

Let me just go, then, a step further. I received correspondence that was cc'd to me. It was correspondence, I think, to the Premier's office. I'm doing this from memory. It was from a doctor who was representing, I think, the medical society. It was a doctor representing a doctors organization. It wasn't the BCMA.

They were dismayed, because they had just heard that physicians were going to be ineligible for appointment to the health authority. This was in 2002. They managed to take a dig at the past government. The past government had actually made a seat available for health care professionals. One seat was available specifically for a physician — this was for every board, a minimum — one seat for health care professionals or health care workers and one seat for physicians. They managed to take a dig at saying that past practice wasn't good enough, because the physicians themselves didn't get to select autonomously who the physician was.

They were dismayed to learn that now, under the new system, they were being barred completely from representation on the health authority and that the bar was against any health care worker — whether that be a physician, a nurse, a lab tech, a health care aide, a housekeeper, a laundry worker or an ambulance paramedic.

We're not having community representation. We're not having health care worker representation. What is the representation going to be?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the member raises a good point. These boards are not going to be constituency boards. The reason, frankly, is because there's no end of constituencies that count on health care. Across the province — regardless of what your background is, what you do or where you live — you're concerned about health care, and we should be. That's why this is a government that actually sent a health committee around the province for the first time since I was elected — so we could hear from people.

The Health Committee is going to be a standing committee of the Legislature, so we can hear from people, so they can participate.

There is not a designated position on each of the health authorities for physicians, nor is there a designated position on each of the health authorities for union leaders, nor is there a designated position for other constituencies. There will be a variety of opportunities, through medical advisory boards and through working with the CEOs, for people to be able to participate in the development of service plans over the period of time. Indeed, I would think a chief executive officer for one of the health authorities would see that as one of the critical goals and objectives that he or she sets for the task.

I also want to comment briefly with regard to the member's comments on six boards. For the first time, we have a provincial authority which includes geographic representation, which assures that geographic representation and the needs of patients in every region of this province are included in the decisions, discussions and delivery of services from that provincial authority.

That is a critical change. I might add that it's a critical change that has been recognized across the country as a step in the right direction and as a framework that others in other provinces in this country believe that they would like to see their governments put in place.

I believe that the decisions we've made with regard to the authorities have been correct. I think they will allow us to improve the quality of service. I think they will reflect and they do reflect the fact that our province is larger than England, France and Germany combined. There are different regions. There are different population distributions. There are different demands that are put on the health care system in different parts of the province. That's what's reflected in the five geographic authorities.

The task that we now face as citizens of our province, regardless of our background, our political party or our designation — whatever someone decides to label us…. All of us as citizens have got to work to try to make sure we are delivering those services to patients in a cost-effective and thoughtful way. That is the import of the restructuring.

When the member says there are no community-based representatives, I want to assure the member that every member that sits on a health authority will be from a community. They'll actually be people from the province of British Columbia who care about the delivery of health service and want to try to provide a public service. That's why these hundreds of people have actually submitted their names as potential members of the health authorities — both the geographic health authorities and the provincial health authority which is in place.

In view of the time, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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