Opposition needs clear access to hospitals to hold government accountable

You can’t hold a government accountable for what it won’t let you see.

That is the uncomfortable lesson from the dispute between Progressive Conservative health critic Kathleen Cook and Prairie Mountain Health over her recent attempt to visit the Dauphin Regional Health Centre.

Cook wanted to see the temporary emergency department that reopened Sept. 7 after flooding forced the hospital to close in July. She wanted to speak with officials about the reopening, the challenges they were facing and the work still required.

Prairie Mountain Health said no.

Its explanation — officials were too busy getting the ER back online — may be perfectly understandable in the immediate circumstances. But it also exposes a bigger problem: Manitoba has no clear right for opposition MLAs to get inside publicly funded health facilities and independently examine how they operate.

It should.

Cook wasn’t asking for access as a private citizen. She is the legislature’s health critic. Her job is to scrutinize the government’s health-care policies, question its decisions and advocate for Manitobans.

She can’t do that job effectively if her only view of the health system comes through government announcements and statements from health authorities.

The Dauphin hospital is a perfect example.

The hospital was forced to close July 1 after heavy rain flooded its basement and damaged the mechanical and electrical systems. Prairie Mountain Health initially said extensive repairs would take nine to 12 months.

Premier Wab Kinew called that timeline “unacceptable” and promised a temporary emergency department by Labour Day.

It opened Sept. 7, as promised, on the main floor of the health centre, operating with temporary power and water while restoration work continues elsewhere. Ventilation was required and bathrooms had to be relocated.

The reopening was an important accomplishment. It was also an important public undertaking that deserves scrutiny.

How is the temporary ER working? What problems have emerged? Are there staffing or equipment challenges? Is the restoration proceeding as expected? What are patients and health-care workers experiencing?

These aren’t partisan questions. They are public questions.

Opposition members should be allowed to gather information on the ground and speak with people who actually work in the areas they are responsible for scrutinizing.

There is, of course, a difference between reasonable access and unrestricted access.

Nobody is suggesting politicians should be allowed to barge into an emergency department in the middle of a crisis, interfere with patient care or demand access to confidential patient information.

Hospitals have legitimate operational, security and privacy concerns.

But those concerns can be addressed with rules and guidelines, including giving health authorities reasonable notice, protecting patient privacy, requiring visitors to follow infection-control and security procedures and keeping them out of restricted clinical areas when necessary.

What shouldn’t be allowed is an open-ended bureaucratic veto.

If the health authority cannot accommodate a visit on a particular day, reschedule it. If officials are too busy to meet, arrange another time.

The answer shouldn’t simply be no.

There is a precedent for giving elected representatives access to publicly funded institutions.

Under Manitoba’s Correctional Services Act, MLAs and judges have a legislated right to visit provincial jails “at any time.”

The principle is straightforward: legislators have a legitimate interest in seeing how public institutions operate.

Hospitals deserve no less.

There’s an even stronger argument for access to the health-care system, which consumes by far the largest share of the provincial budget. It provides services that Manitobans depend upon at some of the most vulnerable moments of their lives.

The public has a right to independent oversight of how that system is working.

Government ministers have access to health officials and facilities. They can receive internal briefings, visit hospitals and ask administrators for operational data.

The Opposition should at least have access to hospitals and other health facilities so they can independently verify what government is communicating to the public.

Otherwise, accountability becomes little more than political theatre: the government makes an announcement, the Opposition criticizes it and both sides argue over competing versions of events without anyone being able to see for themselves.

That isn’t good enough.

The legislature should establish clear rules giving Opposition MLAs reasonable access to publicly funded hospitals and other health facilities.

The Dauphin dispute isn’t really about whether Prairie Mountain Health had time to meet with Kathleen Cook on a particular day.

It’s about whether an elected Opposition member should have to depend on the goodwill of a government agency to examine a health-care system that taxpayers pay for.

If we expect Opposition MLAs to hold the government accountable, we have to give them the means to do it.

Let them ask questions, let them see for themselves and let the public judge what they find.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca