Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering, in the few minutes that I have left here, the Carver model will probably mean nothing to anybody outside of this House, or from a very select circle.

Mr. Chairman, the concern, as far as I can see, is that the Carver model removed the board from part of the critical role that they should have been playing, in terms of the broad decision making of the facilities.

I see the running of, at least, the Fort Smith Health Centre should be very similar to the running of the municipal council, where you have the mayor and council, who deal with the broad issues, the broad budgets and the political side of the operation and the staff once the council has made their decision and carries that out.

My sense, with the Carver model is that, in fact, the board is removed from part of that key process and that there is often communication problems between boards and CEOs and possibly between the department and the boards as a result.

If the Minister could speak to some of the concerns they have observed about the Carver model and why they, in fact, see it as problematic and needing review. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the implementation, the interpretation, I guess, that has been put on the Carver model that has been chosen to be implemented with some of our boards has created problems.

We have competent people sitting on our health boards in the regions and in the communities, and their ability to get into the details of supervising or overseeing how the system is being managed is actually limited by the interpretation of the Carver model in some instances.

If I could give the members one example of a certain directive, which we were able to identify with one of the boards was that something to the effect, and I paraphrase, that as a result of the interpretation of the Carver model, it was indicated that the CEO should not burden board members unduly with complicated or detailed information.

I would suggest that some might even consider issues of things like budgets to be that kind of complicated and detailed information.

So when you have a model of governance that separates the management of a facility from the board members, who are ultimately responsible for the delivery of the programs and services, that is troublesome to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate, she said that some boards, so could she just clarify, is this model currently in place in all boards or, if it is not, what other model, for lack of a better word, would they be using? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Ballantyne indicates that it is not in place in all boards and I am not sure where their models are in place and which ones have Carver and which ones do not.

So I am going to refer that question to Mrs. Ballantyne. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mrs. Ballantyne.

Thank you, Mrs. Ballantyne. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just another question in this regards, as I indicated earlier, Mr. St. Germaine had confirmed that there are standardized reporting formats and accounting systems and structures that are in place.

Is the intent of the department, then, once the dust settles on the Cuff report and decisions are made based on those recommendations, to have a standard model or process in place so there is a management model there that the boards and the department both support and are understanding and that their reporting relationships are clear and the roles of the board are clear in terms of their responsibilities in relation to the CEO, as well as in relation to the department? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there's a distinction between the issue of governance models versus accountability frameworks, but certainly there needs to be a linkage between those two things and that is part of having a cohesive and effective system. I am not sure if that answers all of the Member's questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that there is a difference between accounting functions and the issue we are talking about in terms of the type of governance model that boards are functioning under. The question is, you have this standard accounting process, are you also envisioning a standard board management model that all boards will be operating under that the department will be clear on, that the boards will be clear on, so that there is no confusion over, for example, the situation the Minister made reference to about boards not being burdened with detailed complex issues like budgets because they aren't capable of handling it? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It might be premature to speculate in too much detail about that because if you look at the existing boards, we have some certainly very diverse situations but certainly we think initially there would be merit in having a standardized orientation because that would clarify for everyone who is responsible for what roles and responsibilities at the various levels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Madam Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say yes, but it is a Public Works and Services briefing note. I will ask Mr. Steen if he agrees. I am agreeable to you receiving a copy of it, yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just getting back to the report that was filed in this House almost a year ago with regard to the Minister's Forum on Health and Social Services, in which we had a board established to go to the different communities to receive input in which they went to 12 communities and heard from over 800 people and organizations. Also with regard to the different government structures that are out there and looking at trying to find unique ways to deal with our problems.

Yet, to date, there seems to be an option that either the report wasn't done specifically to the likings of some people or to the likings of the department. I, for one, clearly state there were two things that were clearly identified in the letter to the Minister back on January 20th. The first thing was there should be no more reviews, studies and reports needed. Yet, what do we do? We have another report that is going to be coming forth to this House shortly. The second was that action is wanted today, not tomorrow, and that people may want a better system at the grass roots level and they want a better system of government, of health and social services, and accountability for carrying out those wishes.

Just on that statement to the letter that was sent to the Minister, I would like to ask the Minister what exactly has been done with the recommendations that were put forth to this House and tabling that report in this House. Has the department implemented any of those recommendations to date?