Alberta Hansard — 27 February 2006, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 26, Session 2)

20060227

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 37 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:30 p.m. Date: 06/02/27 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Welcome back. Let us pray. We confidently ask for strength and encouragement in our service to others. We ask for wisdom to guide us in making good laws and good decisions for the present and the future of Alberta. Amen. Hon. members and ladies and gentlemen, I’m now going to invite Mr. Paul Lorieau to lead us in the singing of our national anthem, and I would invite all to participate in the language of your choice.

Hon. Members: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. The Speaker: Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my privilege today to be able to stand and introduce to you and to members of this Assembly 23 employees of Alberta Energy that are here touring through the public service orientation tour. I am delighted that they could be able to join us and see how we are preserving democracy and are hard at work here in the Legislature. They’re in the mem- bers’ gallery. If they’d stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly two exceptional staff members from Solicitor General and Public Security. Laurie Hryciuk and Sue McCoy work in the human resources division of the Department of Solicitor General and Public Security and have been a tremendous asset to our department. They are here today to tour the Legislature Building and the ministerial office. I invite both Laurie and Sue to please stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Mr.

Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly a number of my constituents: first of all, the Rimbey elementary school grade 6 class. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Jim Moore, and parent helpers Jody Woodliffe, Rodney Clark, Margaret Tanasiuk, Kathy Davies, Rick Pankiw, Emily Breton, and Grace Allemand. They are seated in the public gallery . I will ask them to rise in a minute. In addition, I have my constitu ency assistant, Mrs. Cheryl Christie, and her two daughters, Lorena and Kathy.

Cheryl worked for many years for Judy Gordon prior to working for me. She’s a very valued person to our constitu ency in this province. They’re also seated in the public gallery. In addition to that, I would like to introduce Mr. Klaas Klooster. Mr. Klooster is a former constituent and is executive director of the Champion’s Centre, an Alberta housing project for mentally ill, marginalized, homeless, or at-risk men and women in Alberta. The Champion’s Centre operates in Ponoka and is currently expanding to Medicine Hat. They also are looking to expand to the Edmonton area. With Mr. Klooster is Dr.

Austin Mardon, a noted Albertan working with people with schizophrenia. They are seated in the members’ gallery. I’d like to ask all these people to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise today and introduce to you and through you to all hon. Members of this Legislative Assembly a group that is visiting the Legislative Assembly today from the Native Counselling Services of Alberta. This group is led by an elder from the Cree- Sioux.

Her name is Taz Johnson-McGillis, and she is accompanied today by Sheena McCart, Kevin Chille, Irleen Omeasoo, Wesley Haineault, and Carlene Weber. The Native Counselling Services of Alberta provides personal development skills to many people across the province. Their good work does not go unnoticed nor unappreci- ated. This delegation is in the public gallery, and I would now ask them to rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of this House. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to introduce to you and through you my guest, Mr.

Rob Warden, sitting in the public gallery. Mr. Warden’s mother, Jean, died in unfortunate circumstances while in continuing care, and he is championing all of those that remain in continuing care. I would ask that he rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this House. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased today to introduce to you and members of the Assembly Lynda and Ron Jonson. Lynda and Ron are tireless advocates for seniors’ issues and improving conditions in Alberta’s long-term care facilities.

Lynda is a former registered nurse and Ron a former engineer living in Hinton. I would now ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements The Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Winter Olympics Mr. Klein: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Every four years all Canadians get to feel part of a bigger team when we come together as a nation to stand behind our Olympic athletes. At this year’s Olympic Winter

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200638 Games in Torino, Italy, the 196 members of Team Canada made all Canadians stand up and cheer. Our athletes competed with pride, talent, and guts, bringing home a record 24 medals. Many others achieved personal bests, and every effort was worthy of recognition. The theme for the Olympics in Torino was Passion Lives Here. Well, Mr. Speaker, passion also lives here in Alberta because many of Team Canada’s medalists are Alberta athletes, and I would like to recognize them today by name. The list of Alberta’s medalists is long, and I ask for everyone’s patience.

We start with, of course, Spruce Grove’s Jennifer Heil. She started Team Canada off on the right foot on day one, winning gold in moguls. Canmore’s Chandra Crawford powered her way to an unexpected gold in cross-country skiing sprints. Calgary firefighter Duff Gibson took home the gold in skeleton. He shared the podium with silver medalist and fellow Calgarian Jeff Pain. The pride and joy of Eckville, Mellisa Hollingsworth- Richards, cemented Canada’s strength in skeleton by winning a bronze. Can any victory be more dominating than what we saw in women’s hockey?

Calgary residents Carla MacLeod and Hayley Wickenheiser were big parts of the gold medal team. Vermilion’s Beckie Scott. Well, she shared a silver medal with Canmore teammate Sara Renner in the cross-country team sprint. Beckie was also voted by her peers around the world to represent athletes on the International Olympic Committee. She is the third Canadian ever to have this opportunity. 1:40 Arne Dankers of Calgary and Steven Elm of Red Deer collected silver in the speed skating pursuit event.

Now, Edmonton and Calgary came together for silver in the two- man bobsleigh thanks to Olympic veteran Pierre Lueders and our new Canadian, Lascelles Brown. What would Olympics be without curling su ccess? Okotoks’ Shannon Kleibrink skipped her Calgary teammates Amy Nixon, Glenys Bakker, and Christine Keshen to bronze. Of course, Newfoundland won the men’s curling. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that many Canadian athletes train out of Alberta at our world-class facilities at Canada Olympic Park, the Olympic Oval, and the Canmore Nordic Centre.

These are all legacies of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games in Calgary, and they continue to inspire the next generation and had much to do with our athletes’ success in 2006. Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all of Team Canada for their tremendous efforts at the 2006 Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy. [applause] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour for me to rise today to respond to the Premier’s sentiments on the r ecent Olympic Games in Turin, Italy.

These games were a great success for Canadian as well as Alberta athletes. I was especially pleased to see so many Canadian women athletes standing on the podiums. Each of these athletes just mentioned by the Premier deserves our thanks and our respect for their hard work and sacrifice, their commitment, their sense of fair play and service. Please give them a big round of applause. [applause] We should also pause to thank the families, friends, coaches, and trainers of those athletes for their sacrifice and dedication.

It was especially inspiring to see that so many family members made the trip to cheer on their loved ones. These values – hard work, sacrifice, commitment, fair play, and service – are also the values that so many Albertans share. They are the values that we see every day in our teachers, in our doctors, nurses, our health care workers, in social workers, in religious and other community leaders, in businesspeople, coaches, parents, and so many others. It is so often these individuals that help pass th ese values on to the next genera- tion.

With their help I expect that Canadian and Alberta athletes may win even more medals at the Vancouver games in the year 2010. However, 24 medals don’t tell us the whole story. The Olympic Games, while celebrating the victors, also celebrate the human spirit and the human family. The Olympics provide us with an opportu- nity to celebrate diversity amidst our common humanity, to highlight their play. There’s no better example of this than a coach from an opposing team providing a pole to a Canadian skier whose pole had broken during the race.

I sincerely hope that the performances by all of Canada’s athletes at these games will inspire the ne xt generation to participate more actively in sporting activities. Th is is an area where our province could play an even greater leadership role. There are wonderful opportunities to help families, especially needy families, with the resources required to enrol their children in sporting activities, to invest in the facilities needed, fr om rural ice rinks to world-class training centres, and to implement and fund a world-class Alberta sports plan.

With this kind of commitment, sir, Albertans and Canadians will continue to excel. Thank you. The Speaker: I suspect that the hon. Member for Edmonton- Beverly-Clareview is rising to seek unanimous consent so that his leader might be able to participate, so why don’t I just ask the question. [Unanimous consent granted] The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be brief. I would like to thank the House for this opportunity to add my congratulations to the Canadian team at this year’s Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy.

Our Canadian athletes competed with grit and determination and as a result came home with a record 24 medals, seven of them gold. Nowhere was the grit more evident than in Clara Hughes’ final three laps in the gruelling 5,000 metre long-track speed skating race. Clara had literally nothing left in the tank at the end of the race, collapsing to the ice in pure joy and sheer exhaustion. I wish to add the NDP opposition’s congratulations to each and every one of these outstanding athletes.

Whether it was the pure joy of Chandra Crawford’s unexpected win in the 1.1 kilometre cross- country pursuit or Pierre Lueders’ and Lascelles Brown’s sheer determination in winning the silver in the two-person bobsleigh, our Alberta athletes did us all proud. On Friday the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview and I attended the northeast Rotary club lunch, and we sat with Jennifer Heil’s extremely proud grandpa. It was really a nice opportunity to talk to him. He was on cloud nine, and I don’t think he’s come down yet. Hopefully, Mr.

Speaker, even greater success will be achieved at the Vancouver/Whistler Olympics in 2010. In closing, I want to once again on behalf of all Alberta New Democrats thank the athletes, coaches, families, and all of those on

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 39 the Canadian team that did us so proud in Torino over the last 16 days. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. 1:50 Long-term Care Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government continues to fail the people in our province’s long-term care system. Another tragic death of a senior at an Edmonton continuing care facility over the weekend is proof that the system is facing a crisis.

Last week’s announcement for seniors failed to address a range of problems, including the need for legislated standards of care. My questions are to the Premier. When will this government develop a solid plan that will ensure that all Albertans in continuing care can expect to live under province-wide standards? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we’ve put I think about $36 million – is that correct? – into operations for long-term care. That’s over and above the $140 million we have committed for capital. We feel that we are tackling the most urgent recommendations right now.

I can tell you that long-term standards are being developed and will be implemented this year. I’ll have the hon. minister elaborate further. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Fritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Premier has men- tioned, we did dedicate $150 million through to the continuing care system over the past year. Actually, it’s over the past 12 weeks. That’s $100 million for new spaces in the system, over 4,000 spaces that will be either built or enhanced in the rural areas, and also it’s $15 million to enhance lodges.

The $36 million are being used, as the Premier mentioned, to implement urgent needs immediately. I’d be pleased to comment on the standards that the member had mentioned in the next question. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-six million dollars aren’t even what this government gives to the racehorses. Again to the Premier. The money described in the announcement is less than half of what this government itself admitted is needed for seniors.

When are you going to come through with province-wide standards and sufficient funding to meet the needs of people in long- term care facilities? Mr. Klein: Just as a matter of clarification, we give absolutely nothing to horse racing. We give nothing to horse racing. This person is telling a big fib. He’s not a liar, Mr. Speaker, but he’s fibbing. That money is generated through slot machines at race- tracks, and it has nothing to do with the government or government funding or taxpayers’ dollars. Mr. Speaker, the government has accepted the MLA task force’s final report.

We are committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of Albertans in continuing care. As I pointed out, we have given $140 million plus $36 million in operating over the past three months. That’s just to cover the last three months and to look after emergency situations. I believe, notwithstanding what the opposi- tion says, that this is a significant step forward on behalf of seniors in continuing care. There’s more to be done and more will be done, as the hon. minister elaborated. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: will the government listen to calls from stakeholders across the province and institute an independent conti nuing care commissioner to monitor and enforce standards? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, we had a complete study by MLAs, including one from the oppos ition, and they came up with recom- mendations. The opposition does a credible job of monitoring the situation. I will give them credit. If we had a commissioner, then they would have even less reason for justifying their existence. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Budget Surplus Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By failing to properly plan for long-term care, this government is failing Alberta’s seniors. By failing to plan for Alberta’s future, this government is failing Alberta’s children. If history has taught us anything, we need to put money aside in times of boom to prepare for the inevitable decline of nonrenewable resource revenues. Again to the Premier: will this government table legislation immediately that will bring an end to nonemergency, unbudgeted spending? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the hon.

Minister of Finance and Provincial Treasurer respond in detail. But there are problems. You know, the opposition leader can talk about all the things that he wants to talk about, but he isn’t accountable, thank God. For every good idea or what is perceived to be a good idea, there is a down- side. For every action there is an equal and opposite and often negative reaction. Now, as we generate huge surplus dollars, an emergency might occur outside of a natural disaster which can be accounted for in the sustainability fund.

An emergency might occur, and all of a sudden people are saying to this Liberal opposition: “Well, my God, you proposed this. You ’re sitting on these billions of dollars, and you can’t spend any to alleviate this emergency.” Mr. Taylor: Are you just making this up? Mr. Klein: No, I’m not making it up. You know, yip, yip, yip. Why don’t you stick to radio? Lips don’t sweat. Mr. Speaker, you know, an emergency can evolve or develop, and the Liberals would be left there hanging out if they ever, God forbid, became the government. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier.

A math question: when this government puts a billion dollars into the heritage fund and then subtracts a billion dollars from the fund for spending, how much is this gove rnment investing in the heritage fund? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I’ve heard repeatedly from the opposition that we should be putting money away and saving it. Today it seems to be an issue. The fact is that we are saving and we

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200640 are investing, and the heritage fund is one way. Yes, while we draw the investment income from the heritage savings trust fund, we have not increased until this budget year the actual amount in the fund. We inflation-proofed it this year. We’ll be debating a billion dollars for the base of the fund, to grow the real value of that fund. Therefore, the investment income that is available for programs that are important to Albertans will grow. I think the opposition understands that. It’s very difficult to make bad news out of a good- news story, and this is an attempt.

The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question to the Premier: why doesn’t this government adopt our surplus policy that would put 35 per cent of surpluses into the heritage fund? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speaker, the policy that we have adopted is a good policy. We had this discussion today about, well, 30 per cent, not 35 per cent. It grows and grows. You know, I can recall that back in the early ’80s this province was in a depression, and 35 per cent of nothing is nothing. We weren’t able to grow the heritage savings trust fund for years and years.

When you commit 35 per cent, you commit it when you have surpluses. I would rather stick with the $1 billion. At least it’s growing. As I said, for every upside there’s a downside. You know, there are many, many people out there – and the Liberals hear from some of them; certainly the NDs do – who say: “Why are you sitting on this rainy day fund? Why not dissolve it? Why not spend it? You’re sitting on something like $14 billion. Why not do something with it?” So for every upside there’s a downside. A billion dollars seems to be reasonable. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Electricity Deregulation Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last November Mr. Kellan Fluckiger, this government’s hired hand from California on electricity matters, issued a policy paper proposing more refinements to electricity deregulation. This document is a clear indication of the failure of electricity deregulation after 10 years of trying to make it work to the benefit of the consumers. In fact, consumers have always been ignored in any consultations regarding electricity deregulation. Now we find out that the EUB has been cut out of the loop as well.

My first question is to the Minister of Energy. Why was the EUB not given an opportunity to provide input to the Department of Energy on the matters dealt with in this very paper before it was circulated to stakeholders across Alberta? 2:00 Mr. Melchin: Mr. Speaker, the document put out by the Department of Energy in December on roles and responsibilities, looking at the work of the various boards, the Energy and Utilities Board being one of those boards, was put out for consultation so that they could have it so that they could provide feedback. It was literally in that context that we’ve acted.

We’ve provided no recommendations yet on it. It’s been in discussion among all the boards, including the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that this discussion paper that has been responded to by the EUB expresses their deep disappointment that they have not been consulted, has the minister on behalf of the government instructed Mr. Fluckiger not to consult with the EUB in regard to these further deregulation refinements? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The whole process has been about consultation.

It has been about: how do we actively engage people about improving what is already a very good system? We want to make sure that among the various boards they’ve have the opportunity to reflect upon their roles and if there are ways that we can improve it to avoid overlap, duplication, those kinds of things. So it has been very strong and open, and it has engaged some very good public comment back, so I compliment our department very much on being quite open on that consultation. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: this government is not open. Now, will the Alberta government fire Mr.

Fluckiger for failing to consult with the EUB and other stakeholders in Alberta in this latest attemp t to try to convince Albertans that electricity deregulation will and can work? Mr. Melchin: Mr. Speaker, I will absolutely compliment and encourage our department and certainly the individuals that he has mentioned to continue the work that they’ve been doing in a very open, very transparent – that document has been circulated to all of the parties involved, and we’ve had quite a bit of comment from all of those parties, a good discussion ongoing. So it has been very much an open dialogue.

We will continue to ensure that we have the best system for all Albertans. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood, followed by the hon. Member for Vermilion- Lloydminster. Health Care Privatization Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Premier continues to hide his plans for private, two-tier health care from the Alberta people. Yesterday he falsely claimed that the NDP had not contributed any ideas to improve health care or control costs.

This is all the more outrageous given that just last fall the Tory caucus voted down an NDP bill that would have cut drug costs by a minimum of $75 million a year. My question is to the Premier. Why did the Premier tell the House that he was open to innovative ideas to save money in the public system when his government has already rejected a proposal based on a proven New Zealand plan that has dramatically cut the growth in prescription drug expenditures in their health system? Mr. Klein: I’m going to give the hon. member a lesson in, well, geography and political jurisdiction. Mr. Mason: We’re all ears. Mr.

Klein: Right. He’s all ears. First of all, New Zealand is a country. It’s a country, not a province. It’s a country. Now, the national government in New Zealand can do things. Here we have to seek the consensus of all the Premiers and the territorial leaders, and we’re trying to do that. It’s not to say that the NDs’ idea is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, we will pursue if we can do it provincially. But in order to do it nationally, you have to get the ND Premiers from Saskatchewan and Winnipeg onside. Or Manitoba.

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 41 Mr. Mason: Winnipeg is a city. Mr. Klein: I stand corrected. Although Winnipeg represents the largest part of Manitoba, it is a city. Mr. Speaker, if we could get all of the Premiers onside, including the ND Premiers, I would like to do that not only as it affects pharmaceuticals but as it affects uniforms. We’ve done a protocol on if there is something that Albe rta is doing well in the hospitals, then rather than building another centre of excellence in, say, Winnipeg or Toronto, all the patients would come here.

So we are trying to come to grips with these kinds of things, and I would ask the hon. member to put pressure on his ND cousins in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to move on this particular issue. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, why doesn’t the Premier just admit that he’s not so interested in controlling costs as he is in finding an excuse to privatize our public health care system? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I’m going to make it clear what the proposed legislation accommodates, and it’s only one part.

The hon. leader of the third party brought up another part; that is, a national consensus that we should have common purchasing. That is one way to achieve savings. Another way is to look at all the administrative costs connected with health authorities. That is another way. The high cost of drugs generally, an aging population: all of these things are problems and need to be addressed. We’re looking at one solution to one component of the problem, and that component is: first of all, no one, absolutely no one, not even this individual will have to suffer.

If he is sick or if he is in a car accident, he will be treated. He will be treated under the publicly funded system. Now, if he has a hernia, like Jack Layton had, then he might have the opportunity to move out of the line and pay for it like he would at the Shouldice clinic. But if the doctor says, “Lookit, it might be causing you some discomfort and pain, but I can’t do anything for another year,” if he wants to wait, he will get treated. So he will get treated under any circumstance. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, I do have a pain, but it’s sitting over there.

Why doesn’t the Premier admit that any solution that improves the public health care system is of no interest to him because he’s looking for excuses to privatize, privatize, privatize? The Speaker: I’m not so sure that that’s a question. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you what I’m trying to do: bring costs down in line with the rate of inflation – that’s one thing that I would seek the hon. leader of the third party’s co-operation on – and improve access. Now, that is one component of the whole situation relative to bringing those costs in line, one component.

Yes, it involves perhaps using the private system to move out of the line, but I repeat: anyone who needs treatment will get that treatment. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Vermilion-Lloydminster, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Assistance for the Grains and Oilseeds Sector Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think everyone in this Assembly would agree that our grains and oilseed producers have become among the best and most efficient in the world, yet they face a very, very bleak future.

Whether it is the trade distorting subsidies, whether it’s high input costs or low commodity prices, whether it’s the weather or a combination of everything, their industry is on the verge of collapse. Many producers feel that the CAIS program in its current form doesn’t address their particular circumstance. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Develop- ment. Given these circumstances, what is the government doing to assist our grains and oilseeds producers for the 2006 crop year? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Horner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A very good question because this is an area that is of grave concern. Our Premier and our caucus are all very aware of the crisis that we see in the grains and oilseeds sector today: the high input costs, the low commodity prices. What we’ve done is moved fairly quickly on production insurance changes that will help producers with their 2006 growing season. We reduced the cost of the premium on the spring price endorsement from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. We announced that just recently.

As well, we moved early on the commodity price front too by boosting the floor price under the revenue insurance coverages, effectively setting a floor price for many of these cereals. When you add up all of the programs – and it’s a package of programs that’s available to all of our producers today – there’s over half a billion dollars available to producers this spring between the federal government’s programs and our programs. We encourage the producers to visit one of the 52 AFSC offices around the province so that they can get the information they need. Can we do more, Mr. Speaker?

Yes, I believe we can do more, but this is a Canadian problem, and all of the provinces are talking to our new federal minister. We hope to get some more information out to producers very soon. 2:10 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: while every little bit helps, in the short term that addresses some of the problems. Can our grains and oilseed producers expect a future without the subsidies? What is our industry looking at in the future? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a good question.

Really, what we’re talking about is: is the grains and oilseed sector viable long term? Is it sustainable without government support? My answer to that is: yes, it is. But we need to deal with the WTO. We need to deal with new markets and new products for those cereals, which we are working on in co-operation with not only the other provinces but with our federal minister. We’re talking to the industry. We just announced a three-point plan. You know, when BSE hit this province, we came up with a BSE recovery strategy.

We are working on a grains and oilseeds recovery strategy, and we’ll be moving with that fairly quickly in March, Mr. Speaker, and hope to map out that future for the grains and oilseeds sector. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: does the minister know when the Alberta producers can expect payments from the federal government from the $755 million program announced last year? The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200642 Mr. Horner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that some of those payments are coming out right away. The federal government has tied these payments of the $755 million, actually, to the CAIS program, and for those producers who have submitted their 2004 CAIS claim, those cheques are moving fairly quickly. They’re based on 7 and a half per cent of a five-year average of net sales of eligible grains with the possibility of a top-up later this year although the federal minister assures me that the majority of funds are going to come out fairly quickly.

If the producers have not filed their ’04, I again encourage them to get to one of those 52 AFSC offices or get those applications in because it also enables them to apply for the 50 per cent advance on their ’05 year, which again will put dollars into producers’ hands this spring. Roughly $200 million out of that $750 million we believe will land in Alberta. Chronic Wasting Disease Mr. Bonko: Mr. Speaker, last year this spring this government continued to deny that chronic wasting disease posed a threat to human health or wild deer populations. While this government is in denial, the problem is spreading.

Fish and wildlife have no answers, yet the minister of agriculture has accused us of fearmongering, and this is the second cull in two years. To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development: is the government continuing to take the same stance as last year, that chronic wasting disease is not a problem? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I never said that chronic wasting disease was not a problem. What I said was that we have a surveil- lance system that works very well. What I said was that we support our elk industry and our deer industry because they, too, have a future.

We’ve never said that CWD wasn’t a problem. Mr. Bonko: To the same minister: is this minister willing to give guarantees that chronic wasting disease will not enter the human food chain? It’s a simple question: yes or no? The Speaker: Nobody can give guarantees, hon. member. The next question. Mr. Bonko: Thank you. Is the minister willing to apologize to Albertans for waiting so long to act on the threat of chronic wasting disease? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, that’s a ridiculous question. Really, the hon. member needs to do a little more research. This industry has been around for quite some time.

The CWD surveillance has been around for quite some time and, in fact, is viewed around the world as a model which some other jurisdictions should be following. To follow his logic, when we were hit with BSE in the beef industry, we should have shut it down. We didn’t do that. We’re supporting our producers. We’re doing what’s right based on science, and we’re doing what’s right for our consumers. The Speaker: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Environmental Initiatives Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta has long placed a priority on finding sustainable ways to develop its natural resources to benefit all Albertans. One of these resources is coal, and the province’s reserves are estimated to be twice the energy of Alberta’s oil sands resources. In the Premier’s address on Tuesday night he emphasized this government’s continued commitment to clean-coal research. He referred to the ingenuity it took to make oil sands resources a long-term prosperity and that Alberta’s best minds and industry leaders have the knowledge and innovation needed to unlock coal’s massive potential.

My question is to the Minister of Innovation and Science. Can the minister tell the House about the research taking place to develop clean-coal technology? Mr. Doerksen: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the tremendous fiscal success that we are having in this province from energy resources, it is now time to continue to focus on the long-term problems that we have, and clean-coal technology is one of those opportunities. The goal, quite simply, of our clean-coal research is to find technologies that use our coal – and I’ll call it Alberta coal – more efficiently, with a minimal impact on our environment.

I say Alberta coal because Alberta coal is primarily subbituminous, which means it has a lower sulphur content and a lower mercury content, which has characteristics that have to be used in a different variety than other coal sources. Not only electricity generation but the importance of this research into other areas that can offset the use of natural gas are important. Specifically to the member’s question, together with industry the Alberta Energy Research Institute is currently working on 10 projects that are assessing clean-coal technologies for Alberta’s needs.

These include coal gasification with reduced emissions and the capture, storage, and usage of carbon dioxide. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My first supple- mentary question is to the same minister. What is the government doing to encourage development of renewable energy resources? Mr. Doerksen: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the importance of clean-coal technologies, we also recognize that there has to be a mix of energy technologies.

The Alberta Energy Research Institute is really focused on six priority areas that we’re working on: one of those I’ve talked about, of course, with clean coal, clean carbon; a second area is CO 2 management; bitumen upgrading; improved recovery of oil and gas; alternative and renewable energy; and water management. Just one example that I will give to the members would be a project that we have on biomass through the Alberta Research Council at a feedlot in Vegreville. This project generates about 1 megawatt of power from agricultural waste.

That’s enough electric- ity to power their complete operation or a 2,000-person village. Mr. Speaker, we recognize that a mix is important and are working on a number of different fronts. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary question is to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister explain what actions are being taken to make sure Alberta continues to have clean air to breathe, free of emissions such as mercury and sulphur dioxide? Mr. Boutilier: Mr.

Speaker, if you can imagine this province as being the leader of environmental initiatives across North America, imagine this: this province sharing our technology with the rest of the world. Albertans can do it because we’re investing in technol- ogy such as clean-burning coal. What have we done in the last week, you ask? Well, let me tell

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 43 you what we’ve done. Our standing policy committee, our cabinet, our caucus all supported new regulations that, in fact, are reducing mercury by 2010 by 50 per cent. How much did you say? Fifty per cent. That’s 1,200 kilograms to 600 kilograms. That’s just the beginning of more to come. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Peace River. 2:20 Coal-bed Methane Drilling Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has actively encouraged coal-bed methane drilling, assuring Albertans that it’s safe.

Thousands of coal-bed methane wells have been drilled in the past few years. The farmers and municipalities in proximity to these wells are experiencing dramatic change in their drinking water. High levels of methane, caustic skin burns, loss of safe drinking water have been reported, and they’re serious health and safety issues with no consistent process for investigation and management. To the Minister of Energy: how is it that CBM drilling is full speed ahead when we’re still awaiting recommendations from the advisory committee and protective legislation is not in place? Mr. Melchin: Mr.

Speaker, last fall there was a draft report, as you may be aware, from the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Committee on coal-bed methane, and that went through public feedback at that stage. That final report has now been prepared. We have just been in receipt of it. We are hopeful to have that report out in the not-too- distant future. That said, I must re-emphasize, though, that the Energy and Utilities Board does still act on all of those issues that you’ve raised, very fact-, science-based information, to ensure that our water is protected.

One of the recommendations coming out will be to ensure that we continue to gather and have the research on the protection of those aquifers so that we can continue to let all Albertans be reassured that their water will be protected as the coal- bed methane drilling continues. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely the question. You’re continuing drilling before the regulations are in place. Why has there, for example, not been a regulation that all water in an area should be tested before the drilling? Mr. Melchin: Mr. Speaker, there are regulations in place.

This is another report, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Committee, to help improve the regulatory framework that we have, a very good and one of the best, reputable standards throughout the world. The Energy and Utilities Board does act upon ensuring that when these issues come forward in any application, those things such as that water quality are preserved on every application, not just those going forward but those that have happened in the past. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Environ- ment: do you support coal-bed methane development without adequate legislative protection of groundwater? Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, unequivocally I do not. In fact, as I was just sharing with the Minister of Energy, some industries have come forward, looking under the Water Act, legislation that was passed in this Assembly. The answer to them at this point, until the report is complete, has been n-o. That’s two letters. No. The Speaker: The hon. Member for P eace River, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Aboriginal Training and Employment Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. We’re hearing more and more about the growing need for skilled labour in Alberta, and we know that aboriginal Albertans aren’t nearly as represented in the labour force as other Albertans. Clearly, we need to provide more opportunities to aboriginal people so they can develop the skills they need for a career in the trades. This morning the Minister of Advanced Education announced that the province has now over 1,100 aboriginal apprentices, compared to just 238 in 2002. My first question to that minister: can he give us a reason for this increase? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr.

Speaker, our government has made it a priority to increase the number of aboriginal people in the workforce and the number of aboriginal people who have access to postsecondary educational opportunities. To achieve that goal, in the last few years there have been a number of initiatives that have been launched to encourage young aboriginal people to consider a career in the trades.

We’ve introduced promotional materials in all schools encouraging young aboriginal people to consider a career in the trades, we’ve sent youth ambassadors to speak to young aboriginal people around the province about career planning, we’ve worked to connect aboriginal apprentices with employers, and we’ve provided scholarships for aboriginal apprentices. Reaching the 1,100 number, which is what we have now regis- tered, is a significant milestone that all members of this Assembly and all Albertans should be pleased about.

As a province we need to ensure that all Albertans, including those of aboriginal descent, have the learning opportunities available to them so that they can be part of Alberta’s future. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental to the same minister: has the minister set a target for further increasing the number of aboriginal apprentices and a method to achieve it? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, we’d like to achieve 1,500 aboriginal apprentices by 2008-2009. I think that’s very achievable. In fact, it’s probably a low target.

My hope is that we’ll surpass it quickly and achieve even higher numbers of aboriginal apprentices than that. We plan to continue the efforts under way to facilitate aboriginal people becoming involved as apprentices. We want to expand efforts to promote the trades as a good career choice not just to aboriginal people but to all Albertans. We’re working closely with the postsecondary institutions to strengthen the programs and services to ensure that aboriginal people, particularly, can be successful in preapprenticeship programs and can have that type of success.

We’re planning to do more to link industry with aboriginal organizations and First Nation groups to discuss training and employment opportun ities not just in urban institutions, Mr. Speaker, but distributed learning opportunities in the community across the province. It’s very exciting that NAIT had their first graduating class of thei r mobile classroom in Conklin in September of last year. Programs like that are very important to provide access.

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200644 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Final supplemental to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: I’m wondering if the minister can inform us what her department is doing to increase the number of aboriginal Albertans participating in other sectors of the job market beyond trades. Ms Calahasen: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, because my depart- ment is not a service provider, we actually rely upon partnerships, and those partnerships are indicative of what happened this morning with Advanced Education. That’s just one example.

Within the various departments that we do have, we encourage them to ensure that there are training components and some employment opportunities as well as economic opportunities. As an example, under Human Resources and Employment we have the aboriginal labour strategy that’s going on. Mr. Speaker, in the health area we have bursaries that will help ensure that careers do occur for aboriginal people in the health sector.

With the federal government we have what we call the aboriginal workforce participation initiative, and that initiative is an agreement between us to be able to see how we can improve the employment opportunities for the First Nations and Métis people of this province. We’ve done some really good things with the municipalities. As an example, the city of Grande Prairie signed an agreement with us under the AWPI to ensure that their departments within the city work with the city’s industry to see what opportunities will be available beyond the trades. So, Mr.

Speaker, partnerships are what we live on, and industry is certainly part of that. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Postsecondary Education Policy Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This past weekend the Minister of Advanced Education and I both attended Public Interest Alberta’s At the Crossroads summit on postsecondary education, and I want to commend the minister for not only being there but rolling up his sleeves and getting involved.

Nevertheless, it seems that advanced education has gone from the penthouse to the doghouse on this government’s priority list in the past year. Not one piece of legislation is scheduled from Advanced Education yet this session. To the minister: does this mean that the starvation diet is over and that there’s money enough and space enough and professors enough and a fair tuition policy for all postsecondary students in Alberta? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, legislation is not the only way to create a priority. In fact, if you don’t need more laws, you ought not to make more laws.

Our Premier, in sponsoring Bill 1 last year, the A ccess to the Future Act, brought into this House, and this House passed, legisla- tion which is very broad in scope which allows us and compels us to make postsecondary education a priority in this province. It sets out the access to the future f und, a $3 billion fund which encourages investment not only from the government but from the community, from individuals, from good corporate c itizens to make postsecondary learning a priority.

It committed to putting a billion dollars into the heritage scholarship fund to make sure that finances are available for students to get an education. It highlighted some areas like a common application process so that students can have access to all the public postsecondary institutions, easy access through one-stop shopping, so to speak. I can report to the House that there’s a committee consisting of the colleges and universities in the province, which are actively engaged in designing that system as we speak.

It set out the procedure for a searchable inventory for scholarships and bursaries, and that process is well under way. No more legislation is needed for that. It talked about plans to increase participation in the advanced education of individuals who are disadvantaged due to socioeconomic, geographic, or cultural barriers. This morning we announced that there are now 1,100 aboriginal apprentices in the province. We’re being very successful on that. So it’s not a matter of more legislation, Mr. Speaker; it’s a matter of keeping doing the very successful things we’re doing. 2:30 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr.

Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that tuition fees are governed by the Post-secondary Learning Act,

section 61, does the absence of an amending bill in this session of the Legislature mean that students and their institutions will have to wait for a tuition policy until this time next year or beyond? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, it’s been clear since the beginning of February of 2005 that we were going to bring in a new tuition policy. In fact, I’ve been calling it a new affordab ility policy because it’s more than just tuition.

It’s not just the cost of paying tuition, but it’s also the cost for rural Albertans of getting to school and the cost of living when they get to school or for urban Albertans who have to move to another place to go to sc hool, so tuition and affordability. The Premier indicated last February in his speech to the province that we would have that policy in place by the fall of 2006. We’ve reiterated that.

We indicated this fall during the learning forum that we had that we would be bringing out a policy this spring so that people would be able to see it and that policy would be in place by the fall of 2006 so that students and institutions could plan on it. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure us that there will be the appropriate legislation that enables that new tuition policy in place in time for a new tuition policy to be in place for next fall so that students don’t have to wait yet another year and we don’t need another year of rebates?

The Learning Alberta review seems to be dealing with just about every issue but tuition policy. Mr. Hancock: Well, given that the hon. member and I both sat in the same session at the forum yesterday in talking about tuition policy and he heard some of the things that we were talking about, he knows that there’s an incredible interest in how tuition policy and affordability is crafted and that there are many options available. It’s prudent – and I’m sure he would agree that it’s prudent – to explore those opportunities and come to a consensus of the best way forward for Alberta students.

We’ve promised that that policy will be in place. It will come out this spring. It’ll be available for discussion. It’ll be in place in the fall, and if there’s need for legislation, we’ll be bringing forward the legislation, and I’m sure the hon. member will help us expedite any legislation that’s necessary to put that policy in place for students when they’ve had a thorough and complete opportunity. This is not a short-term fix, Mr . Speaker. This is a long-term issue. Advancing education is important for all Albertans, and it’s important for the future of Albertans in a knowledge economy.

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 45 Tuition is one element that’s extremely important, and it’s important that we do it right. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Coal-fired Power Production Mr. Eggen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Old King Cole was a merry old soul, and when he called for his fiddlers three here in Alberta, I’m sure he was surprised to see the Premier, the Environment minister, and the Energy minister tripping over themselves to sing his praises. Expanding coal plants in Alberta is a huge step back- wards.

It’s more about burning coal here in Alberta to sell electricity to the United States than it is to benefit Alberta consumers. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Given the huge untapped potential of cogeneration and renewables, why won’t the minister admit that this great coal burning scheme is about expanding energy exports and not providing Albertans with affordable energy and a sustainable future? Mr. Melchin: Mr. Speaker, we’d be delighted to bring him into the clean, environmental, economic solution of energy of the future, and that’s why we’re reintroducing him to that clean coal opportunity.

He talks about coal plants, but he forgets about the technologies of gasificationing coal to liquids, the capturing of emissions. A tremendous amount of opportunity can be under a more economic platform even for an environmental solution for coal of the future. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Eggen: Thank you. My supplemental is to the Minister of Environment. When jurisdictions like Ontario are phasing out coal generation due to its harmful health effects and significant environ- mental damage, why is this government promoting a large-scale expansion of coal-fired generation here in Alberta? Mr. Boutilier: Mr.

Speaker, there is such an insatiable appetite for energy around the world, and as the world continues to grow from 6 billion to more, they’re going to require more energy. What type of energy? Renewable energy, which is very important and which Alberta is leading the way on. I repeat: renewable energy is one. Fossil fuel energy is very important as well. Mr. Speaker, let me reassure all Albertans.

When Ontario will be in the dark because they will not have any electricity 10 or 15 years from now, they’ll be calling to Alberta to look for help, and Alberta will tell them that we’ll take your electricity and we’ll send it to them, based on your ideas. Mr. Eggen: Perhaps Alberta will look like Sudbury with the acid rain. To the same minister: will the government, then, please guarantee that any new coal-fired generating units in Alberta will meet zero emission standards and will not be built using the weak-kneed standards that were just announced for existing coal-fired plants? Mr. Boutilier: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member has just insulted all Albertans. How has he insulted them? This is how he’s insulted them. CASA, the Clean Air Strategic Alliance – an alliance made up of NGOs, made up of environmentalists, made up of industry, made up of the public at large in Alberta – has received national awards, and this hon. member just came up and said that their recommendations sucked. Well, I want to say that nothing could be further from the truth, in fact, with our technologies, with our initiatives to reduce the mercury emissions by half.

I can only tell you that Albertans will never settle for that type of attitude as we go forward. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Trade Certification Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, many Albertans are concerned about the labour shortage in this booming ec onomy. I have a constituent that tells me that there is an inequity in the way journeymen welders are treated if they want to come from another province to work in Alberta.

I’m told, for example, that a welder from B.C. or Saskatchewan with a journeyman ticket that isn’t red seal certified can’t come to Alberta without first paying money and writing tests to have their trades credits recognized. However, an Alberta welder with a ticket that is not red seal certified can still travel to B.C. or Saskatchewan and work without having to get their credentials certified. My questions are to the Minister of Advanced Education. Can you explain what the red seal program is and why this inequitable treatment of journeymen welders exists? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the challenges that we have in the trades is that there is a different set of processes and standards in place in every province. Attaining a welding certificate in one province might not involve the same level of training as we have here in Alberta. In fact, Alberta is acknowl- edged as being a leader of training in the country, and our appren- ticeship program is held up as a model in North America. In fact, even from outside of North America people come to look at our apprenticeship training model.

That differing set of standards is precisely why the red seal was created. That was an agreement across the country as to a set of standards so that people could apply in their own jurisdiction for a red seal, which would certify them for the ability to move, labour mobility, right across the country. By adhering to the red seal standard, Alberta isn’t doing something unique. In fact, we’re upholding the exact same standards that every province has agreed to. If an Albertan wants to hire a journeyperson from another province who doesn’t have red seal certification, they can do so.

That journeyperson can come here immediately, begin working, and then they can apply for the necessary certification once they’re here. The cost is exactly $60 for the necessary exam. In terms of Alberta welders being able to work in other provinces without having to obtain a red seal, I can’t speak to the standards for other provinces, but I can say that Alberta has led the way in making sure that there’s a national certification process so that the labour mobility can happen without diluting the standards of care. Mrs. Jablonski: My last question, Mr.

Speaker: rather than putting up barriers for workers coming here from other provinces in the interests of maintaining high standards, can we not relax the red seal testing requirement to allow those experienced welders who have their tickets from other provinces to come to Alberta to work? 2:40 Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, we’re not creating barriers. We’re making sure that there’s an appropriate standard so that credentials mean something and that employers know what they’re getting. It doesn’t pose a barrier to people moving across

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200646 jurisdictions. They can apply easily for a red seal in their own jurisdiction, or they can apply for a red seal here, or they can apply to take the test here. Relaxing standards is not the way for us to move forward in making sure we have appropriate labour in the province. We make it possible for experienced workers to challenge exams.

There’s an easy process in place to make sure that workers are credentialled, and in fact workers who got their credentials in other jurisdictions prior to the advent of the red seal program – and I think that in welding that probably was 1979 – can come and work without a red seal, but if they got their credentials post the red seal program coming in, it’s very easy for them to apply and to get the certifica- tion in this jurisdiction, and they can work while that process is under way.

The Speaker: Hon. members, in a moment I will call upon the first of six hon. members to participate, but first of all I would like to draw to the attention of the members the presence of a former Member of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Alberta in the members’ gallery. Broyce Jacobs served the constituency of Cardston-Taber-Warner in the 25th Legislature of Alberta. Vignettes from the Assembly’s History The Speaker: Hon. members may wish to know that in the 1909 provincial election 82 candidates were nominated in Alberta’s 41 constituencies.

For the one and only time in the history of the province of Alberta a representative of the Socialist Party was elected. The constituency was Rocky Mountain, and the new MLA was Charles M.W. O’Brien, who was elected with 555 votes. I give you this quote which was found in a journal called the Edmonton Capitol, a statement made in this Assembly on March 2, 1910, by Mr. O’Brien: “I am proud to be the first political representative in this House, the embodiment of a new order of things. I am here to voice the interests of the slaves of society.” Mr.

O’Brien was defeated in the 1913 election, moved to the United States, and became a founding member of the American Communist Party. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane. Alberta Olympians Mrs. Tarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to offer a few words in commemoration of the very special group of men and women who have once again shown Alberta to be at the forefront of athletic excellence.

In recent weeks, as the eyes of the world focused on Torino, Italy, we watched our team put in its best winter Olympic performance to date, with Albertans making a significant contribution to this incredible success. As a result of our world-class training facilities, whether the Olympic Oval, Calgary’s Olympic Park, our alpine skiing resorts, or Canmore’s Nordic Centre, Alberta has long been a destination of choice for athletes seeking a competitive edge. When combined with traditional Alberta dedication and drive, our athletes, both native and honorary, have a potential as great as any in the world.

As our Premier earlier mentioned, we are proud. We are all proud of their achievements, and I can tell you that the residents of Banff- Cochrane are especially proud of Chandra Crawford of Canmore, who won an astonishing gold medal in the women’s cross-country sprint, and Canmore’s Sara Renner and her teammate, Beckie Scott from Vermilion, who brought home silver medals in the women’s team sprint event. In addition to these incredible results, Albertans received, as we heard earlier, medals in men’s bobsled, women’s curling, women’s moguls, women’s hockey, and men’s and women’s skeleton.

Without a doubt we are developing and attracting some of the finest athletes the world has ever seen, athletes with unmatched determination and incredible sportsmanship. These extraordinary Albertans who ascended the medal podium and all those who honoured us by competing brought a great sense of pride to every citizen of this province. Please join me in once again extending congratulations to our Canadian athletes for representing this country so successfully and pay special tribute to those Albertans whose contributions were so vital in representing our nation to the rest of the world. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Leduc-Beaumont-Devon. Black History Month Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s with great pleasure and pride that I rise today to acknowledge the celebration of Black History Month. February is celebrated in Canada and many parts of the world as a time to honour the many contributions of members of the black community. Mr. Speaker, black Canadians can be found contributing at a very high level in many disciplines, including medicine; the arts; music; the trades; community, provincial, and national leadership; and have also served with great pride and ability in our m ilitary.

I think of Corporal Ainsworth Dyer, who lost his life in the famous friendly fire incident in Afghanistan. On a brighter note we can’t forget Lascelles Brown, our silver medallist bobsledder at Torino. Mr. Speaker, my role as the first black to sit in this Assembly is one that I’m very proud to carry out with the knowledge that the road for me was paved with the determination of blood, sweat, and tears of many people who travelled long and difficult roads literally and figuratively.

Black farmers came to Alberta at the turn of the last century from many parts of the U.S.A., including Oklahoma, and settled in places like Breton, Amber Valley, Wildwood, and Campsie. While these were very thriving communities in their day, now only a few isolated farms remain as the new generation has migrated to our cities. Another wave arrived between the 1950s and ’70s from the Carib- bean. This group included my parents, who heeded Alberta’s call for teachers. Worsley was nothing like they had ever experienced in Jamaica, but they persevered. Mr.

Speaker, Black History Month is not only a time to celebrate the contributions of black Canadians; it is an opportunity to remind us that we are all greater because of the sum of our parts. We are a multicultural nation, and we have so much to learn from each other and so much to share. I’m proud to be a member of Alberta’s black community, proud to live in a country where we celebrate our diversity with such exuberance, proud to be Albertan, and a proud Canadian. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Freedom to Read Week Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very happy to speak today in recognition of Freedom to Read Week. This important event takes place during the final week of February and is recog- nized by the Freedom of Expression Committee in Canada. Freedom to Read Week is intended to remind us all that freedom of

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 47 expression is an important liberty that we all enjoy in Canada. However, even in Alberta and across the country freedom of expression must not be taken for granted. Although we as a nation are regarded internationally as a leader in protecting civil liberties, books continue to be removed from Canadian libraries, schools, and bookstores every day. Censorship represents an attack on our intellectual freedom, which is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom To Read Week encourages us all to defend our rights to read what we choose.

It is an educational opportunity to t each others to respect and understand this right and to express ourselves openly. I would like to take this opportunity to urge all Albertans to take

part in Freedom to Read Week, ending March 4. There are numer- ous events taking place in the province during this period. Please visit the Freedom to Read website and show your support for this important event in any way that you can, and in doing so ensure that our freedom of expression continues to be defended with vigilance. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Stony Plain. Jennifer Heil Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure along with my colleague the hon. Member for Spruce Grove- Sturgeon-St.

Albert to acknowledge a very special Albertan and Canadian: Jennifer Heil from Spruce Grove, Alberta, the Winter Olympics’ winner of the gold medal for freestyle skiing, women’s moguls. On February 11, 2006, I am sure you could almost hear the cheering from Torino when 23-year-old Jennifer brought home the gold. 2:50 Skiing since age two with her sister Amie and father, Randy, Jennifer is no stranger to winning titles. At age 17 Jennifer Heil was named the World Cup rookie of the year for the 2000-2001 season.

In 2004 she became the first Canadian woman to win a World Cup mogul title in the Canadian Freestyle Ski Association event. You could say that her family is very proud of how far she has come. No stranger to achievement, Jennifer used to run cross country, where she set records in junior high school. She is currently pursuing her commerce degree at McGill University in Montreal. Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to recognize an outstanding Albertan, one we are all very proud of, Jennifer Heil, gold medal winner for women’s moguls at the 2006 Winter Olym- pics. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Aboriginal Apprenticeships Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the announcement by Advanced Education that more than 1,100 aboriginal apprentices are working in Alberta in 54 trades. This is truly a milestone achievement and one that is worth celebrat- ing because, as we all know, Alberta’s ec onomy is strong and the demand for skilled tradespeople is hi gh. This figure represents a home-grown solution. It’s a fantastic start, but more needs to be done.

We need to be aggressively promoting the trades and apprenticeship to all youth as a valuable and worthwhile career. As the chair of NADC and the Youth Secretariat I know only too well about the challenges facing young people, especially those who live in rural and remote parts of the country. The key to building on this apprenticeship su ccess is educating our talented yout h about opportunities and options available to them.

We need to do a much better job at getting good information into their hands and inspiring them about how promising their future is and that they can make certain career and employment choices. One way to address the labour challenges we f ace is to engage young people in discussion to find out what their challenges are, what they think is working, and how we can do a better job. The Youth Advisory Panel does just that, and apprenticeship has been a hot topic at meetings and has resulte d in some very forward-thinking ideas.

There have been many great suggestions like how employers can support youth and how guidance counsellors in high schools can be the students’ first step towards a career in the trades. So when students walk into a counsellor’s office and say that they want to be a welder or an electrician or, as a matter of fact, any trade, they will get the information and the support they need to pro ceed down the path. The whole idea is to be responsive to the students’ in itial inquiry.

I hope that this celebration of over 1,100 aboriginal apprentices will encourage even more young Albertans to see apprenticeship as a rewarding career pathway. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Labour Legislation Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last November I rose in this Assembly to congratulate the workers of UFCW 401 who had just won a first contract after years of struggle ending in a bitter strike. The Lakeside dispute should have made it clear even to this government and to the minister responsible that important changes were long overdue.

The strike proved that Alberta’s labour laws – frankly, the worst in the country – give employers every advantage in a dispute. This government failed hard-working Albertans. It forced workers to take strike action when it should have forced the employer into arbitration. It allowed replacement workers into the plant when it should have respected the integrity of the union’s picket line. But the real failure came earlier this month when the Minister of Human Resources and Employment revealed that he had no intention of pursuing first contract legislation.

The president of the Alberta Federation of Labour called the news perplexing and disappointing. I have other words that I would use, but they would be unparliamentary. Alberta is one of only three provinces that do not provide this basic protection for newly organized workers. First contract legislation could have prevented strikes at the Shaw Conference Centre in Edmonton and at the Calgary Herald. Alberta’s employ- ers face serious problems of worker shortages across this province.

Well, if you want to attract more workers to Alberta and promote healthy labour relations, the NDP would like to offer some sugges- tions: stop bringing in foreign temporary workers who take non- unionized jobs from unionized Albertans, stop supporting CLAC’s efforts to undermine real unions in Fort McMurray, take measures to end the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts, and legislate first contract arbitration. In short, Mr. Speaker, show respect for the hard work Albertans do.

Calendar of Special Events The Speaker: In today’s recognitions one hon. member referred to February as a certain designation month, and another hon. member referred to a week as a certain designation. Just so that the phones

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200648 in my office do not start ringing, I’m going to bring you up to date about all the other events that are celebrated in the month of February so that it can never be said that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta does not acknowledge all of them. First of all, this year, 2006, is the International Year of Deserts and Desertification, meaning the certification of deserts. February is Black History Month. It’s also Heart Month, Potato Month, Junior Achievement Month, Low Vision Month. February 2 was Ground Hog Day.

February 5 to 11 was Interna- tional Development Week as it was also White Cane Week. It was also Burn Awareness Week. It was also Eating Disorder Awareness Week. February 7 to 14 was Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Week. February 12 to 18 was National Children of Alcoholics Week. February 13 to 17 was National Antibiotic Awareness Week as it also was Random Acts of Kindness Week. February 14, as we all know, was Valentine’s Day. It also was Read to Your Child Day. February 14 to 21 was Take It To Heart Week. It also was the Heart Fund Campaign week. February 15 was National Flag of Canada Day.

February 19 to 25 was Brotherhood/Sisterhood Week as it also was Scout-Guide Week. February 20 was Family Day in Alberta. It was also Heritage Day in some parts of the country. February 20 to 26 was Heritage Week. February 21 was International Mother Language Day. February 22 was World Thinking Day. February 25 to March 5 is National Engineering Week. February 26 to March 4 is Freedom to Read Week, and February 27 to March 5 is Canadian Landmine Awareness Week. Tomorrow, February 28, is Shrove Tuesday.

Now, at the conclusion, before we begin Orders of the Day today, we’re also going to have two points of order, one from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre and the other from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Finance I wish to make a tabling. The Minister of Finance provided the government’s 2005- 2006 quarterly budget report for the third quarter to all MLAs this morning. At the same time, she also made this report public as required by

section 9 of the Government Accountability Act. On behalf of the minister I’m now tabling the quarterly budget report as the amended fiscal plan. I’m also tabling the third-quarter activity report describing the major achievements of our government during that period. Likewise, I am tabling the third-quarter update for the Alberta heritage savings trust fund. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Mr. Eggen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table two documents. One is from Greenpeace, and the other one is from the David Suzuki Foundation.

Both are outlining the health and environmental dangers of relying on coal for electricity and address some of the myths around so-called clean-coal technologies. Thanks. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the leader of the NDP opposition I’d like to table copies of a release he issued today. The release shows that the NDP has accepted the Premier’s challenge to propose solutions and improvements to our health care system.

As the release points out, we’ve been making proposals for some time, including legislation introduced last session to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Three tablings today. The first is page 189 from the supply estimates from the spring sitting for the lottery fund, which clearly shows under vote 3.0.7, racing industry renewal, that an amount of some $42 million is being allocated to the racing initiative, to the horses.

Secondly, a letter received by my office from a constituent, John Zyp, in which he outlines a number of recent experiences with the health system and comments on a rather chaotic runaround regarding trying to get some kind of assistance for a ministroke on the weekend. Finally, Mr. Speaker, an e-mail received, again by my office, from Dennis Loughlin in which he was referred to a physical therapy centre and was told they had a waiting list unless he wanted to pay extra and get help immediately. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 3:00 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first is a letter that was delivered to our constituency office in Edmonton-Gold Bar from Helen Vermeulen. This letter is addressed to myself and also to the hon. Premier, and it is regarding cuts to services and supports for adults with develop- mental disabilities. Both Helen and her husband, Henry Vermeulen, indicate that they would like to see an increase in PDD funding. The second tabling that I have, Mr. Speaker, is documents regarding my question earlier in question period today.

This is a letter dated November 28, 2005, to the Electric Utilities Act Advisory Committee members. It’s in regard to the paper Role and Mandate Refinements for Alberta Electric Industry Implementing Agencies, and it’s signed by the executive director of Alberta Energy, Kellan Fluckiger. I have the response to this nine-page document from Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the AEUB, and that letter is dated January 13, 2006, and it is signed by R.D. Heggie, executive manager, utilities branch.

Thank you. head: Tablings to the Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following document was deposited with the office of the Clerk: on behalf of the hon. Ms Evans, Minister of Health and Wellness, return to order of the Assembly MR 35, asked for by Mr. Martin on behalf of Dr. Pannu on May 2, 2005. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre on a point of order. Point of Order Parliamentary Language Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I raised a point of order in response to comments from the Premier in an exchange with the Leader of the Official Opposition in which he stated that the Leader of the Official Opposition was telling a fib. The citations that I’m quoting to support my point of order include 23(j), Beau- chesne’s 488 and 489, and Beauchesne’s 492, the question being: is

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 49 it appropriate to use either that te rminology of “fib” or to indicate that someone is fibbing? I thought: well, fibbing is a colloquialism. I checked in the dictionary to see what that is, and in fact in the Random House Dictionary, concise edition, it notes that a fib and the derivatives, fibbed and fibbing, are a “trivial lie”. So it’s a lie. Saying that someone has told a fib is the same thing as saying that they told a lie, even if it’s a trivial one.

I would argue that there is a significant amount of documentation, including that which has been circulated to all members through the Speaker’s notes, that indicates that falsehoods and lies and not telling the truth and deliberately misleading are all indications of unparliamentary language and have been ruled and deemed to be unparliamentary.

Under Standing Order 23(j), which talks about using “abusive or insulting language,” that is certainly what was, I believe, the tone of what the Premier was delivering and was his intent, that he meant to be insulting, that he meant to indicate and to disparage the character of the Leader of the Opposition. I have already referred to 488 and 489, which also includes a long list of prohibited language.

Although I do note that “fib” is not specifically included in the language that I was able to review in the edition of Beauchesne that I have, I also note that the language is deemed to be parliamentary or not parliamentary as the Speaker sees fit. In this case, I’m asking th e Speaker to rule that particular language as unacceptable in this House. I think it also conveys a tone that I’m seeing increasingly and particularly put forward by the Premier that brings all of the members of this Assembly into disrepute.

The second part of the issue here, the first being if it is appropriate to say that a member is telling a lie, is: is the information correct? In this case, I have already tabled page 189 of the supplementary supply estimates from the fall, which was the most recent update to our current budget. So when th e Leader of th e Oppositio n was saying that the government allocated or gave more money to horse racing than it did to seniors in its most recent announcement, that in fact is correct, and it’s backed up by the documentation here. If you note, on page 189 it says: reference/element, also called a vote, 3.0.7.

It’s clearly listed in the budget documents under the lottery- funded programs. Now, to try an argument that somehow the lottery-funded programs are not controlled by the government or not allocated by the program is purely specious. I mean, on this one page alone it’s allocating money to a number of different initiatives.

Now, whether that money is collected directly in and run through general revenue and then issued by way of a cheque or a grant or some other means back out to a group or whether the government says, “We would normally take that money in, and we’re going to account for all of it, but you, in fact, can keep it at the source,” it’s still running through the government books, and the government is still allocating that amount of money for the group to use.

So to try and pretend that somehow money is not being allocated to the racing renewal initiative by this government for the benefit of horse racing truly is a specious argument. The point of order, I believe, is well founded against the Premier in attempting to use language that’s unparliamentary and also under 23(

h) and (i), casting aspersions upon the character of the Leader of the Official Opposition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader on this point. Mr. Stevens: Yes. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. At the outset I think it’s important to recognize that the Premier was responding to a

preamble by the Leader of the Official Opposition. It was not necessarily a comment relative to the question that was being posed. What the hon. member said was that this government gives money to horse racing, and that was the point that the Premier was address- ing in his comments. I think it’s fair to say that in the context of that comment it was a mischaracterization. Given the fact that that statement has been made numerous times in this House and has been responded to numerous times in this House, I would say that it was probably an intentional mischaracterization.

There’s absolutely no doubt that there are monies that are distributed to horse racing, but they are not given to horse racing. There’s a contract between this government and Horse Racing Alberta pursuant to which those monies are earned. If Horse Racing Alberta did not do anything pursuant to that contract, no monies would flow.

No monies are given in the context of giving, and in the context of the statement, we are talking about monies that are provided by a particular department to the operations of that department in the true sense of the word “given.” So that is the context in which the Premier was making his statements. I would agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre that the definition of fibbing or fib as outlined in the Oxford Dictionary, 10th edition, does say that it’s “a trivial lie.” I would point out, however, that the Premier was very, very clear that he was not calling the hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition a liar. He made that clear on more than one occasion. So what we are left with, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where we have a trivial mischaracterization by the hon. member, the Leader of the Official Opposition, but the Premier made it very clear that he in no way was calling the hon. member a liar. 3:10 The Speaker: Others? Well, hon. members, we’ve just spent about 10 or 12 or 15 minutes talking about horse racing, and the subject of the question led off by the Leader of the Official Opposition today had to do with the subject of long-term care.

Now, the chair sends nice letters to hon. members, including one he sent to all Members of the Legislative Assembly on February 15, 2006. Actually, it’s very clearly written. Under

section 6, Question Period, it says, and I quote from Beauchesne 409(2): “The question must be brief. A

preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long

preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply.” Then it says, “A supplementary question should need no

preamble.” We’re on the business of long-term care today, the second question, the Leader of the Official Opposition. Where this came from the chair doesn’t know, but I quote: “The $36 million isn’t even what this government gives to the race horses.” Then “again to the Premier,” and then there’s a question. So then the Premier: “Just as a matter of clarification.” We’re not talking about the question here; we’re talking about the

preamble, which shouldn’t have been issued. Just as a matter of clarification, we give absolutely nothing to horse racing. We give nothing to horse racing. This person is telling a big fib. He’s not a liar, Mr. Speaker, but he’s fibbing. That money is generated through slot machines at racetracks, and it has nothing to do with the government or government f unding or taxpayers’ dollars. Then, “Mr. Speaker, the government has accepted the MLA task force’s final report,” and he goes on to answer the question. Look, it’s only day 2. There’s absolutely no doubt in the chair’s mind that the usage of the term “fibbing” – although the Premier did

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200650 say, “He’s not a liar . . . but he’s fibbing.” I don’t like that language. I don’t think that language is appropriate, and I think that even the use of the word “fibbing” in th e context it is – it can be used according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It says, “Often used as a jocular euphemism for ‘a lie’ . . . one who tells ‘fibs’; a fibber, a liar.” They’re interchangeable words. They’re not the kinds of words that we need in our Assembly.

If there’s going to be an interjection of the chair, the chair is going to start interjecting with the first violation so that we never get to the second violation. I’m going to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to withdraw the words on behalf of his leader, and then we’ll move on with this one, please. Mr. Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to follow your instruction. Thank you. The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, please proceed with your point of order. Point of Order Factual Accuracy Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This one shouldn’t take very long, but again it comes back to the Premier’s statements, to something he said in the House. I think that before he says things, he should be a little clearer that he’s correct, especially when we’re dealing with another parliamentarian. I’m talking about the Canadian Parliament, and I’m talking about Jack Layton. He was trying to justify – and again it had nothing to do with the questions. He insinuated that Jack Layton sort of jumped the queue and went to a private clinic to have a hernia operation. He did not.

I will get the record straight right here that this is definitely not true. There’s a grandfathered private hospital called the Shouldice Hospital. It does hernia surgeries as a contract to the public system in Ontario. An Hon. Member: Good idea. Mr. Martin: We’re not arguing whether that’s good or bad. It should be part of the public, but it was grandfathered, and Jack Layton had no choice but to go there [interjections] – Oh, aren’t they sensitive; aren’t they sensitive – for his publicly paid hernia operation as that is where he was referred by a physician. The point is that he did not jump the queue.

It was part of the public system. The Premier should not be standing in this House talking about other parliamentarians when he doesn’t know the facts, Mr. Speaker. It’s not good policy. Thank you. The Speaker: On the point of order the hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Sorry. Go ahead, please, hon. member. Mr. Martin: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that this was – I’m careful about how I say this – a mistruth about another parliamentar- ian, and it should not happen in this Assembly. Mr. Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say just a couple of things.

First of all, I missed the point of order completely, and I still miss it because I don’t see where in our rules it would fit in. It also seems to me that what the Premier said relative to this matter, while I haven’t followed it closely, pretty much accords with my under- standing of it; that is, the indivi dual that was the subject of the comment did in fact go to a private clinic which has been around for some time and which does wonderful work in the area of hernias as a result of the expertise that they have been developing over a number of years.

You know, I think it was a comment on simply the perhaps irony of the situation where a particular party rails against a particular public policy and at the same time takes advantage of it. I think that in our Legislature we have an opportunity for that type of fair comment. [interjection] The Speaker: Well, just once, hon. member, okay? So we can have a ruling on it. Mr. Martin: We might have a debate. The Speaker: But then what would I do? I wouldn’t be able to rule, would I? Mr. Martin: Well, go ahead. The Speaker: Well, thanks. I appreciate that.

One would have thought or at least the chair would have assumed that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview might have risen and given a citation from something. The conclusion of the chair would be that the member would have made the argument that it violated Beauchesne 493 for protected persons. Unfortunately, fellow parliamentarians in the current mode do not fall under that category of protected persons. I’ll quote what was said. This is the Premier of the province. If he is sick, or if he is in a car accident, he will be treated. He will be treated under the publicly funded system.

Now if he has a hernia, like Jack Layton had, then he might have the opportunity to move out of the line and pay for it like he would in the Shouldice clinic. But if he wants to wait, and if the doctor says, “Lookit, it might be causing you some discomfort and pain, but I can’t do anything for another year,” if he wants to wait, he will get treated. There was a fair amount of jocular activity, as the chair recalls, in this exchange, going back and forth, and it was not, you know, that civilization was going to come to an end as a result of the answer to the question. So one would take it in the spirit of it all.

One also has to recognize that sometimes in question period members get involved in debating instead of asking, dealing with government policy, and every time we move into that thing, we sort of tend to fall into other kinds of responses. As an example, during this particular series of questions the leader of the third party used these kinds of statements, which certainly could have promoted a response from somebody else.

The leader of the ND opposition basically referred to the Premier, and the reference was “hide,” you know, you’re hiding something, and used the phrase “falsely claimed” in the same sentence, and then said, “I do have a pain but it’s sitting over there,” at which point it didn’t really bring responses other than to get us to the hernia situation. At this point in time let’s all us e this and recognize this as only day 2. If we can smile and have a bit of humour, that might be helpful too. Now we’ll move on. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr.

Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Proper notice having been given on Thursday, February 23, it’s my pleasure to move that written questions appearing on t oday’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places. [Motion carried]

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 51 head: 3:20 Motions for Returns The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Proper notice having been given on Thursday, February 23, it’s my pleasure to move that motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 201 Human Tissue Gift (Notification Procedure) Amendment Act, 2006 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Mr. Liepert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to move second reading of Bill 201, the Human Tissue Gift (Notification Procedure) Amendment Act, 2006. As I said on introduction, the bill is designed to increase the number of Albertans who consent to tissue and organ donation, which will help save and improve the lives of others. This bill will improve the co-ordination of organ and tissue donation throughout the province. While some excellent work is taking place currently in various health regions, we can always do better to ensure that the maximum number of organs and tissue is available for potential recipients.

This bill will require the designat ed health facility to notify the gift agencies when a person dies, when death is imminent, or when a dead body is r eceived, and the gift agency will then use all reasonable efforts as outlined in th e legislation to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken. The human organ procurement and exchange program, which is more commonly known as HOPE, and the Comprehensive Tissue Centre operate in Edmonton and Calgary in co-operation, as I mentioned, with the local health regions.

These agencies have trained staff to handle the delicate and emotional discussions that take place with family members at the time of this distress. Hon. members should be comfortable in the fact that no organ or tissue decisions currently, nor is it contemplated in the future, will be made without the consent of the family. It goes without saying that the ability to r eceive a new organ or tissue can mean the difference between life or death. Over 400 Albertans are on waiting lists for various organ transplants, and 15 to 20 persons die every year in Alberta waiting for transplants.

That is a number that none of us should be satisfied with until it reaches zero. This bill incorporates a number of the provisions adopted several years ago in Manitoba. The difficulty that that province at the time was encountering is not unlike what is happening in Alberta today. While the number of deaths that were being reported in Winnipeg continued to increase, the same could not be said for outlying regions.

Since similar legislation to this bill was introduced in Manitoba, in Brandon, as an example, the number of deaths January to November last year was 143, of which 124 were reported and 28 donors were attained. This compares to only five donors in 2004, three in 2003, and none in 2002. The second part of the bill will compel the minister of health to table with this Assembly within one year of the legislation taking effect a report which will include recommendations for a more co- ordinated government response to encourage donations.

This review would examine how government forms and documents could be improved to include questions regarding a person’s willingness to be a donor. As an example, there might be a provision on all drivers’ licences or health care cards that are issued where a person is required to make a choice before receiving that new licence or card. The second example might be a simple question posed by a registry agent at the time of issuing a new driver’s licence, and if agreed to, the donor card is signed at the time and then carried by that person.

This bill will also ask the minister to investigate the feasibility of establishing an online registry. This could be co-ordinated either with the human tissue gift agencies’ websites or an enhanced Alberta Health website. Statistically it has been proven that when someone has signed a donor card, family consent follows almost 100 per cent of the time. On the other hand, when a person does not make his or her wishes known, the consent rate by family is significantly lower. Therefore, we must simply do a better job of raising the awareness on this issue and not leave it to chance.

I don’t have the statistics, but I would guess that especially among young Albertans the number of signed donor cards is not very high. We must do whatever is possible to encourage family members to have that discussion and, hopefully, to take the next step of signing a donor card. Now, our government could also do a much better job of leading that discussion. If one goes to the Alberta Health and Wellness website, there is no direct link to organ and tissue donation. Furthermore, when one types in the word “organ” and does a search under this website, the first thing that pops up is a survey form to fill out.

The information that is being asked for will be compiled “for the Honourable Gary Mar” and must be completed by “October 31, 2000.” Simply put, we as government must do a better job in this area. One of the things that is not being asked for in this bill is the cost saving involved. When a person, for example, receives a new kidney, what is the cost saving versus the cost of dialysis? While that wasn’t asked for, it would be valuable information to have because one can only assume that it would be significant.

There was a lot of good work done several years ago by the advisory committee on organ and tissue donation, that was chaired by the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. This report, A Framework for Action, was submitted in April 2000, and there are many good recommendations in this report. I’d strongly advise the minister and her department to re-review this document. My assessment is that little has changed or improved since that report was submitted more than five years ago.

Currently before the Ontario Legislature are two private members’ bills seeking that the law in that province be changed to one of presumed consent. Under this model an individual is deemed to have given consent simply by doing nothing. This is a model to which a lot of consideration was given. However, I have not been convinced that Albertans are there yet. This model could face legal challenges. There are moral implications, and in general Albertans are opposed to a so-called negative option. I want this bill to be successful.

In order to do so, I feel that it’s important to take several steps ou tlined in this legislation which could greatly increase the number of donors. It would be my hope that as a result of this legislation our donor rate continues to increase and a presumed consent model would not be required. I ask all members of the House for support on this legislation and look forward to the comments. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200652 Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to speak in second reading to Bill 201, the Human Tissue Gift (Notification Procedure) Amendment Act, 2006. This is a very interesting bill, and as the sponsoring member laid out, it does raise a number of issues that I hope we are able to spend some significant debate time on and, more to that, take back into our communities and try to get the debate happening there. I think the issue that we have is that we are now able to very successfully transplant organs.

With the development of antireject- ion drugs this has now become a viable procedure for us. It does enhance the lives of people and also saves their lives literally. Where we have an option between, for example, dialysis and an organ transplant, you actually can save a significant amount of money. P. Keown from Transplantation Proceedings in 1999 noted that one year after transplantation the annual cost of supporting a person with a kidney transplant is 40 per cent less than dialysis. So it is a good idea for us. The problem is that we can’t get enough people signed up to do it.

I think that there is a real willingness on behalf of Albertans and, beyond that, of Canadians to make a choice to assist people and to do that in a volunteer way. We have a different system in Canada than they do in the States. Here we volunteer. We make a choice to donate willingly to the organ transplant and also the blood systems. In the States you can get paid to donate your blood, and you would also get paid for donating various organs, and that leads you down a whole different road. I think my colleague from Edmonton- McClung is going to speak on that after me.

But in Canada we have a long and, I think, noble history of donating because we believe it’s a good thing to do. [Mr. Webber in the chair] 3:30 The problem is that there are really two tests before you can harvest an organ from someone. One, they need to have signed a donor card, and the last time I thought about this I couldn’t think of where it was I was supposed to sign. I kept looking at my driver’s licence because somehow it was in my head that it was on the driver’s licence. I finally located it on the back of my Alberta health care insurance card.

So if anybody who’s reading this Hansard wonders, please go to the back of your Alberta health care insurance card, and that’s where you can note that you would like to donate and sign the card. So there’s the active participation of signing the card. We also take the additional precaution here of the consent of the family. That’s where it starts to get a bit difficult because people can be reluctant in an initial time of grief.

Perhaps there’s a certain amount of – I’m searching for a word here, and this won’t be the right one – abhorrence or squeamishness about discussing an issue like that when you have a loved one who is about to die or has just recently died. The result of that is that we’re not able to harvest and to transplant as many organs as we need. So this bill is trying to find some ways to convince more people to donate. I have a couple of questions off the bat. This is the second time that I’ve debated an organ donation bill in this Assembly, and I note that the previous one was never proclaimed.

The 1998 Human Tissue Donation Procedures Statutes Amendment Act was in fact passed in this Assembly and is still awaiting proclamation, and my question is: why? We spent the time on it. What was so wrong, and is that being addressed in this bill and somehow being fixed? That’s happened before, that something was overlooked or mistaken or whatever, and the subsequent bill addresses it all or even in one case takes the whole pre-existing bill inside of it, and the whole thing gets passed. So I’m wondering why this 1998 bill is still not passed some eight years later.

Now, I note that the minister did follow up in 1999 and estab- lished the Alberta Advisory Committee on Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, and that committee developed a series of recommendations for a framework for a provincial system of organ and tissue donation. Then there’s another one. In 2003 Alberta Health and Wellness established the Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Interim Implementation Committee. You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think the only thing diffe rent here is that the titles are getting longer.

This one was to provide guidance on development, implementation, co-ordination, and evaluation of existing donation transplantation efforts, I guess. Again, the good recommendations that came out of this committee haven’t been implemented, and I don’t really see them in the legislation either. So maybe if this passes second, we can hear from the sponsoring member as to what happened to the 1998 bill, the 1999 recommen- dations, and the follow-up committee in 2003. It seems we’re getting an awful lot of attempts at this without a lot to show for it. So what is the real problem here?

Let’s get that out in the open and talk about it. We in the Liberal caucus do support organ harvesting and transplantation. We’re very interested in the debate around the idea of – how does it go? There are a couple of different ways of looking at it. One is the presumed consent, which is the sort of negative billing option that was referred to by the previous speaker, and then there’s a sort of mandatory declaration bill that’s also been brought forward by a backbencher in Ontario. Actually, I think they’re both from Ontario. They’re sort of competing Ontario MPPs with different ideas on this.

I would like to see a wider public debate on this because, in fact, we’re assuming that Albertans wouldn’t go for that presumed consent, but maybe they would. If that was the case, that would save us all a lot of time and grief because mostly what this bill is doing is tiptoeing around trying to get at people in time to bring up the subject and see if they can get their consent before the person actually dies or get to them fairly quickly within the reasonable window that’s open for them. So I’m interested in the rest of the debate around this bill.

I’m speaking in favour of the principle of what has been proposed here. I note that between 15 and 20 per cent of all people on waiting lists die before a suitable organ is found for them. Two years ago, in 2004, there were 313 transplants performed in Alberta and 534 people waiting for transplants, so almost 200 people more waiting for a transplant than actually got one, and 42 people who died while waiting. That’s in that 15 to 20 per cent range of people who die. They don’t need to. We’ve got the organs there if we can just make arrangements to harvest them appropriately and do the transplants.

We do have 93 per cent of Albertans who indicated that they are in favour of organ donations, so maybe we need to push the envelope on this and try for something like a presumed consent effort. That’s a bit more aggressive than what’s being contemplated in this bill, but certainly I’m willing to support what is essentially in the bill. A few questions that I might add on and ask if the sponsor can answer them. What are the goals and targets for increasing the number of organ and tissue donations?

Is the government pursuing any other initiatives to increase the amount of organs and tissues that are available for transplantation? I’ve already talked about the recommendations from the ’99-2000 report. I’m wondering when those would be implemented. I’m also wondering about the government taking direction from its own 2003

February 27, 2006 Alberta Hansard 53 consultation paper to implement a policy where the expressed wishes of a deceased individual take precedence over the wishes of the family, which is part of what we’re struggling with here. The deceased individual may well say, “Yeah, I’m up for it; I’ve signed my donor card,” but when they’re actually on life support, the family that’s on hand won’t allow it to go forward. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to this, and I look forward to the rest of the debate. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure to be speaking to this bill. When the Member for Calgary-West advised me that he would be drafting a bill on organ and tissue donation, I definitely took an interest in it. Let me tell you why. About two years ago a dear friend and also a constituent of mine called me late in the evening to advise me that his son was dying in hospital and to come and visit within hours. A portion of the liver that the father had donated to his son had been rejected, and the child was in a dire state in one of our hospitals.

After the family had the ability to say their goodbyes to the child, in the last minute, literally the last minute, a child’s liver was located in a different part of Canada, flown in, and the child’s life was saved. Recently that very same child, young Tyler, was recognized by our Lieutenant Gover- nor as an outstanding community member for his scouting and other achievements in the community. A life, a great life, has been saved. To any parent any child’s life is precious, to say the least. Mr. Speaker, I wish that this bill could go further.

I do agree with the Member for Calgary-West that perhaps the public would not be supportive if we instituted a presumed consent for donation of tissue and organs. That is too bad because perhaps sometimes we tend to dilute our legislation or our initiatives to satisfy a select few in our society who would perhaps become overly vocal on the issue of presumed consent with a clear outline allowing Albertans to opt out of this particular program if they chose to do so.

This idea wouldn’t be novel because there are jurisdictions throughout the world that are not only considering, like Ontario is, presumed consent on organ and tissue donation but actually have instituted it and have shown it to wo rk very well. One jurisdiction that I know of, Mr. Speaker, is Spain.

In Spain they have presumed consent on organ and tissue donation, which is working very well and is satisfying that country’s need for organs and tissues. 3:40 However, what makes me really happy about this bill is that this bill has adopted the best practices from other jurisdictions, including that of Spain, and it is proposing a central co-ordination of organs for our province and our country as a whole if it is adopted by other jurisdictions. That’s very important, Mr. Speaker, because as young Tyler was suffering in the hospital, the organ was actually found, I believe, in another province.

Now, this was a matter of co-ordina- tion between doctors, but overall in this country we don’t have a good network of sharing information on what organs are available, what organs are about to become available, and what lists of waiting patients there may be to draw from. It’s a bit of a disjointed process that we have right now. If we could have a well co-ordinated process, I guess a greater number of lives would be saved. The Member for Edmonton-Centre has indicated that a prior bill has not been instituted.

I’m not familiar with the prior bill, so I can’t speak to whether it should or shouldn’t have been instituted. However, the benefit of the fact that we’re discussing the issue here in the Legislature and the benefit of the fact that this debate, hopefully, will be covered by the media throughout the province is that Albertans will start thinking about the importance of donating organs. If this debate encourages one extra person to sign their card and, hopefully, donate their organs and allow another person to benefit and save a life, then I think a great mission has been accomplished already.

I believe that more than one Albertan will be encouraged to do so, having heard the debate. Nonetheless, if we as government can show leadership and promote among Albertans a donation of organs, I think it is incumbent upon us to do that. The bill also asks the minister to examine the feasibility of an online donor registry. I think that with our current technology, with the advent of high-speed Internet and its accessibility to every community in this province, again that would make organ donation even easier throughout the province. Mr.

Speaker, I must support Bill 201 put forward by the Calgary- West MLA, and I hope that every member in this Assembly will support Bill 201 as it will definitely save lives. Thank you. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you. I must apologize for the way my voice sounds. I have laryngitis, and you can imagine what kind of apprehension I have about the third way and privatization. Anyway, it’s good to see you in the chair, Mr. Speaker.

What we’re discussing today is Bill 201, the Human Tissue Gift (Notification Procedure) Amendment Act, and I am happy to be responding in second reading. I must say at the beginning that I’m generally in support of this bill as I realize the need to facilitate tissue and organ donations, and I can also appreciate the fact that 15 to 20 per cent of those people on wa iting lists die before a suitable tissue or organ is located for them. Now, I have some general comments and questions, and I’m really interested in hearing all the points of view being discussed from both sides of the floor.

I’m also under the impression that similar pieces of legislation are currently being discussed in the Ontario Legisla- ture, so I’ll be paying attention to that as well. I heard the comment that was made about presumed or implied consent, and I know that this is something that they’re, as I said, discussing in Ontario. I’m not sure where I stand on this issue because it really poses some questions for me. Thinking about it, I tried to maybe reach my own decision, and I started thinking about something else. How about a mandatory declaration of intent?

Instead of asking people to voluntarily tell us whether they agree with an organ or tissue donation, or if they leave it blank and then we have to ask later, I figure that maybe everyone over a certain age, let’s just say 18 years of age or so, would be required to declare what their wishes are with respect to organ and tissue donation. Are they for it? Do they support it? Do they support certain organs but not others? Or are they totally against it? Maybe if they’re undecided, then we can ask on-site basically, at the hospital. So presumed or implied consent is one issue. Mandatory declaration is another.

That’s something I can probably find easier to live with. Now, reading through the bill, I’m interested in receiving some assurance, especially when no family members or next of kin are identified. For this person that we’re approaching now and asking to agree to donating tissue or an organ, how can we guarantee that this person has full command of their faculties? How can we ascertain that this person has a sound mind and can make that decision? Further to this, maybe it doesn’t happen in Alberta, but you certainly hear stories about cases where that person who is on their

Alberta Hansard February 27, 200654 deathbed is or has been harassed. How can we ensure that utmost respect and consideration are afforded the dying patient or his or her family? We don’t want them to be harassed; we don’t want them to be pressured. They have to make that decision willingly. The family may be suffering or trying to come to terms with this tragic situation. The patient himself or herself might not be able to make that decision or might not actually like the pressure.

Also you hear some stories from other jurisdictions, certainly from south of the border or from other places in Europe, for example, that there sometimes are situations of deceit or misinformation, or the person is not told in accurate terms what his case is, or the extent of their illness or injury is exaggerated, or whether there exists a treatment or a cure for his case. This is definitely driven by certain situations where tissue and organ banks were sort of low on inventory, and then they figured that these are prime donors. It really alters the quality of care that these guys receive.

We don’t want to see cases where care is reduced or, you know, somebody is mistreated because he or she has a quality organ or two to donate. Now, my next point would be on the issue of organ or tissue banks. It’s a question of procedure. Are we going to scan every- body on their deathbeds, seeing who is available and who is willing to be identified as a donor, or are we going to do it just based on need? As an example, someone on a waiting list is in need of a compatible kidney.

Are we going to examine those who are terminally ill looking for a compatible donor for this case at this time, or will we have the required kidney available as part of a ready-to-go stock or inventory? Are the banks accumulating inventory, or are they doing it just on the spot so the supply is fresh? The banks, as I understand it – and I hope it continues to be like this – operate in Alberta as not-for-profit centres. Will there come a day when this government would allow for-profit tissue and organ banks to operate in this province? Again, you hear all these grumblings about the third way and privatization.

Will this be yet another thing that this government privatizes? Will people have to pay any fees at any stage? Will there be any charges for harvesting, storage, release, or disposal at any one point in the procedure? Furthermore, how do we ensure that harvested tissues and organs are used first and foremost for Albertans who need them, then possibly allowing other Canadians to access our banks?

I guess what I’m really trying to say here is that priority has to be given to Albertans and Canadians before we contemplate exporting to other jurisdictions. 3:50 Lastly, a technical question as to how the obtained consent will be recorded. As you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, I am the critic responsible for privacy and FOIP and all that stuff, and this raises a flag in my mind. Will there be a requirement, for example, to have witnesses present to ascertain that this consent was duly given?

I think that would be fair because sometimes in certain situations a family member might contest the validity of a consent, and we’re opening the floodgates to litigation and lawsuits. Maybe a witness or two would be a simple way to confirm that the person had command of their faculties and knew what they were doing and really did in fact intend to provide that consent. As well, will there be an allowance for a donor or his or her family member to allow one form of donation but not another?

As an example here, what if that person agrees to donate tissue or an organ to be used in medical research but doesn’t want it to be transferred to a recipient or vice versa? Will there be an allowance for one form of donation versus another, or is it all or none? With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your time, and I appreciate the chance to speak in second reading, and I will follow the discus- sion. Thank you very much. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wain- wright. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s an honour today to have the opportunity to join in the discussion of Bill 201, the Human Tissue Gift (Notification Procedure) Amendment Act, 2006. I sincerely thank the Member for Calgary-West for bringing this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, it’s an important bill because it’s an important issue. The reason why the issue is so important is that it is imperative that we increase the organ and tissue donation rates in Alberta. This can be most effectively accomplished through the creation of awareness, education, and a strong and efficient referral system.

I believe that this bill, Bill 201, is the best start. I believe that the meagre rates Alberta currently bodes in dona- tions, Mr. Speaker, is symptomatic of the lack of knowledge and understanding that Albertans have about the importance of tissue and organ donation and the ability to do it. Albertans are giving and compassionate, yet for some reason our rates of organ and tissue donation are very low. As I said, this is not symptomatic of the quality of Albertans but symptomatic of the amount of knowledge and understanding they have. Mr.

Speaker, according to the Kidney Foundation of Canada, suitable organ donors represent only 5 per cent of all hospital deaths. Now, to put this into perspective, this means that 5 per cent of all hospital deaths allow for suitable organ and tissue donation. If 50 per cent of those hospital deaths, the people who died, had registered to donate their tissues, it’s still plausible and possible

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20060227
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S2 20060227 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	092038c6dea5ccfb46dff01e30f2ed47caf7fafb

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (json).